Rolls-Royce (Aerospace Group)

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course they do. The UK Government’s annual expenditure on defence equipment is about £16 billion. Of course, we have a long-term equipment programme, which is financed and in balance. Rolls-Royce plays a vital part in the supply chain, contributing a huge amount to the defence of this country. On the defence side, those orders will undoubtedly continue to be effectively competed for by Rolls-Royce. Across the piece, our determination in the coming days and weeks is to ensure that anyone who is affected by Rolls-Royce’s final decision, once it is made, obtains the support they need to get the jobs that are increasingly available in engineering.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I think the whole House will share my concern about the fate of workers at Rolls-Royce sites and across its supply chain, who today face uncertainty, anxiety and the risk of losing their jobs. The UK aerospace industry is the largest in Europe and is second only to that of the United States. We need to maintain and support the sector, which provides high-skilled, well-paid manufacturing jobs as well as world-leading innovation and product development.

May I ask the Minister what the implications of this decision are for the Government’s industrial strategy? Does he share my concern that a key part of our long-term manufacturing capability is being sacrificed in the interests of a short-term boost for share price and shareholders? Is he concerned that the proposed job losses are concentrated in engine development, exactly the part of the business and aerospace strategy in which we need to maintain and extend our competitive edge in the next few decades? We cannot lose that capability, so what is he actively doing to maintain it? Can the Minister reassure the House that this does not represent the fact that the Government’s aerospace strategy has been grounded at the slightest hint of turbulence?

This week’s announcement on Rolls-Royce has raised concerns and questions, but it has broader implications for British manufacturing through its supply chain. For every engine sold by Rolls-Royce, 3,000 jobs are supported in the supply chain. Following this decision, what active steps are the Government taking to ensure stability in the aerospace supply chain?

The irony has not been lost that the engineers for tomorrow’s engines face redundancy in Tomorrow’s Engineers week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said, the jobs at risk at Rolls-Royce are exactly the type of high-skilled, well-paid jobs that we need to see more of; we must not see them leaving these shores or being lost to the industry. Therefore, what active steps are the Government taking to ensure that those vital skills are protected and not lost for good? Have Ministers sought assurances that the firm’s work force and employee representatives will be properly involved and consulted?

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is just a commercial consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his foreword to the Aerospace Growth Partnership strategy, said:

“Aerospace is a national economic asset to be supported.”

It is time that the Minister acted.

[Matthew Hancock]

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman wrote that before he heard my statement. Of course the consultations that he requested are taking place. I have received assurances from Rolls-Royce that it will consult widely. On the industrial strategy, first, having an industrial strategy is a big step forward. The Aerospace Growth Partnership is laying the foundations for long-term support of the UK aerospace sector to ensure that it is competitive in the long term. As part of ensuring that the sector is competitive, it should be allowed to change the formulation of the businesses if it feels that it needs to do that. The assurances I have sought and received are not only that consultation with staff will be widespread but that Rolls-Royce will participate with us in actively seeking other opportunities for those who are made redundant. The talent retention solution, our mechanism to ensure that, if people with a high skill set are made redundant in one company, other companies that have a shortage of that skill set are made aware of that, has worked with BAe, in Portsmouth and other places. We are working to ensure that everyone gets the best possible future.

Unemployment under this Government has fallen by 40% in Derby in the last four years. There is not an ounce of complacency on the Government Benches. We will do everything we can to ensure that everyone gets the opportunity that they need. We will work with the company, the unions and others to ensure that the impact of this is mitigated as much as it can be.

Tata Steel

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will make a statement on the proposal for Tata Steel to sell its long products division, and the resulting effect on the economy, manufacturing capability and employment in the United Kingdom.

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

Tata Steel yesterday announced that it is in negotiations to sell its long products division based in Scunthorpe. At the same time, it has committed to invest further in its Port Talbot strip products business as it focuses its European business on strip products. I can understand that any announcement of this sort brings uncertainty, and we will do all we reasonably can to support the companies in ensuring a competitive future for the business.

Hon. Members will know that, over the past four years, we have seen steel production restart in Redcar, we have introduced support for energy-intensive industries and steel production in the UK is higher now than it was in 2010. The steel industry has an important role to play in generating future economic growth. It underpins a number of key advanced manufacturing sectors, and sustains the livelihoods of many local communities.

Decisions on company ownership are of course commercial matters for the companies involved. Nevertheless, we are working with the metals sector to develop further our metals industrial strategy. The Government believe that there is a sustainable long-term future for the steel industry in the UK.

We have already taken the following actions. We are in contact with both companies to work to secure the future of the business. In India this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills met the global head of Tata, who re-affirmed his commitment to the British steel industry. The national infrastructure plan identifies a pipeline of more than 500 projects—costing about £250 billion to 2015—almost all of which need steel. That includes £1.4 billion in railway infrastructure, and 95% of the steel for the UK’s rail network will come from Tata Steel for the next five to 10 years. We have of course reduced energy costs, including through a £7 billion package for energy-intensive industries.

After decades of decline, steel production in the UK is rising, and we will not rest in our determination to ensure that manufacturing, including steel, has a strong future in our country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Wright]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The House will appreciate the uncertainty and anxiety, as the Minister said, that yesterday’s announcement by Tata Steel will have caused for thousands of steelworkers, their families, affected communities and firms throughout the manufacturing supply chain.

I want the Minister to respond on four issues. First, steel is a vital foundation for much of the UK’s manufacturing supply chain. The UK is the leading global player in industrial sectors such as aerospace, automotives, construction and energy. The production of steel in the UK underpins—the Minister himself used that word—much of that competitiveness. Britain’s largest steel manufacturer is preparing to sell half its capacity, so what contingencies have been put in place to maintain and enhance the skills and manufacturing capability in this industry, and to ensure that they are not permanently lost to the UK?

Linked to that first point, what commitments have the Government obtained from the potential new owner on the maintenance of existing sites and industrial capability, the safeguarding of jobs, and additional investment? How binding are any of those commitments? Is the Minister concerned by the unions’ criticism of the absence of any consultation or communication with the work force so far, and what will the Government do about that?

Thirdly, the sale affects sites not just in Scunthorpe, but throughout England and Scotland. What discussions have the Government had with their counterparts in Scotland to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and united response for the good of the steel industry in the United Kingdom?

Finally, what will happen if the negotiations on the sale break down? It is clear that Tata wishes to divest itself of its long products division. What active role are the Government taking in the maintenance of the UK’s long products capability for the long term? What are the implications for the Government’s so-called “march of the makers”, which places high-value manufacturing at the heart of the economy? Should not an effective industrial strategy consider, identify and mitigate such risks? It is not good enough for the Government to say, “Let’s wait and see. This is a purely commercial consideration.” They need to show that they are prepared to act for the long-term good of the steel industry and UK manufacturing.

[Matthew Hancock]

First, may I say that there is a remarkable amount on which the three main parties agree? I will go through the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn.

The hon. Gentleman is right that steel underpins, quite literally, a huge amount of manufacturing and construction activity in the UK. We have taken strides to strengthen the skills provision for manufacturing, not least by strengthening and expanding the apprenticeships programme, but also more broadly. Should there be changes in employment, we will be there to ensure, as we do everywhere in the country, that people have the opportunity to reskill. However, that is not the situation at the moment because this is a sale.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the sale, we are consulting on strengthening the takeover code, as he knows, to ensure that the assurances that are given are binding. He talked about consultation and communication with the work force. Of course, the sale was announced yesterday, hence that is when the consultation and communication started. Although we are at an early stage, with the memorandum of understanding having just been announced, I would point out that the proposed purchaser brought a long products plant in Italy back into operation last year. We will, of course, be in constant communication with the proposed purchaser and Tata, as well as with the Scottish Government when devolved issues are concerned.

Finally, on the big picture of the long-term future of the steel industry, the Government have overseen an increase not just in the amount of steel that is produced, but in employment in the steel industry. Far from the fall of 8 million tonnes of steel that we saw between 1997 and 2010, there has been an increase under this Government. Clear action is being taken and we will not rest. While we will support all those who may be affected by this decision, that is by no means the path down which we are going. We will keep working to expand manufacturing, as we have done over the past four years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to encourage girls aged 16 to 18 to consider taking up engineering apprenticeships.

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

Since 2010, the number of women starting engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships has increased threefold.

[Mr Wright]

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers says that 92% of girls choose not to take triple science as a subject beyond the age of 14, which effectively disbars them from a career in engineering. EngineeringUK says that 83% of all young people do not have access to STEM-related work experience. How on earth do the Government’s policies of ending face-to-face careers advice and downgrading work experience help to encourage girls into engineering?

[Matthew Hancock]

I recognise the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes as the situation of a few years ago. Fortunately, a record number of girls are studying triple science at GCSE and a record number of girls are studying physics. That does not mean that there is not more to do for the Government in sorting out the problems that were left behind. We must ensure that people are given inspiration and mentoring through careers guidance, which was not available in the past. We must promote the highest-quality careers to boys and girls, and ensure that everybody knows how to fulfil their potential.

UK Trade & Investment

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Thursday 12th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright]

I thank the Minister for citing those figures, but am I right in thinking that UKTI’s annual report sets a target for satisfaction levels of 80%, yet it has consistently failed to achieve that? What active steps will the Minister take to ensure that it hits its targets on customer satisfaction?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is indeed important to have a target for satisfaction, and if three quarters are satisfied or very satisfied, that shows we are heading in the right direction, but more can always be done. For instance, since 2011, a realignment of UKTI has taken place to ensure that it can better serve the needs of UK plc. The process has included: the introduction of stronger senior management with private sector experience; new private sector delivery of trade services in England, with incentivised contracts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked for; improving performance overseas and strengthening teams in key growth areas, such as China and India; and reviewing targets to ensure that they incentivise the behaviour of individuals on the ground. The right balance is having strong direct accountability to Ministers, which is appropriate, alongside the right incentives to give individuals on the ground the autonomy to be able to promote trade.

Several hon. Members mentioned—favourably or otherwise—the fact that UKTI reports to two Departments. I am a Minister in two Departments, and it is true that it is necessary to have co-ordination between the two. It would not be right to remove accountability for UKTI from either the Foreign Office or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, because UKTI is precisely about the link between business and our international relations. This is about, on the one hand, strengthening links between UKTI and domestic business, for which the Business Department is responsible, and, on the other hand, strengthening links between UKTI and our diplomatic service, which has happened a great deal over the past two or three years. Both those are valuable and necessary if the service is to perform, so it is therefore right that UKTI reports to a Minister who sits in both Departments but, of course, it is accountable to one Minister—my noble Friend in the other place—so there is a clear line of sight for ministerial accountability.

Several hon. Members talked about the links between UKTI and the Department for International Development. UKTI has an aid-funded business service that works with DFID to try to ensure that opportunities for procurement through DFID, not least from SMEs, are valuable. UKTI holds seminars with businesses, including SMEs, and it will hold another seminar in November to ensure that SMEs and domestic British companies have the opportunity to make the most of procurement through DFID, which these days, of course, bears the Union Jack.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about the importance of inward investment and the business bank. It is vital to ensure that finance is available for exports, and funding for lending and strengthening the domestic private banking system are important parts of that. We are also seeing the growth of challenger banks, which are increasingly providing business finance. We will, of course, have the first ever British business bank, which is being set up precisely to look at the sorts of investments that he talked about. It is right that the British business bank does not take direct instruction from Ministers for each loan because, quite properly, they have to be made on a commercial basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Well, there you are. It sounds as though it works in practice in Shrewsbury as well as in Haverhill, and I am sure that there are other parts of the country to which it can also reach.

There was a brief discussion about trade figures. I gently point out to the hon. Member for Hartlepool that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot blame the fact that growth has been slower than was forecast in 2010 on the Government’s domestic policies and then complain that growth in exports has not been as strong as we would have liked. In the past three years, there has been a massive crisis in the eurozone; I do not know whether he has been watching TV. One of the Government’s arguments has been that that has had a negative impact on the British economy. That argument is supported by a huge range of independent and international experts.

It is great to hear a Labour Front Bencher come to his senses and make the argument that, partly owing to the eurozone, export performance has unfortunately not been as impressive as we had hoped and that that has had a dampening impact on the UK economy. I will report back that the Labour party seems to be getting the message that that has been one of the main problems, as was set out in reports by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the OECD and other organisations. That is absolutely terrific.

Exports to India have risen 13% on the year and exports to non-EU countries rose by just over one fifth between 2010 and 2012. The move has been gradual, but for the first time in my adult life, exports to non-EU countries have become bigger than exports to EU countries. It shows the importance of rebalancing trade institutions such as UKTI around the world, in the EU as well as outside it.

[Mr Iain Wright]

The Minister selectively quoted the growth in non-EU exports between 2010 and 2012, but he will recall that I mentioned the £2.2 billion drop in non-EU exports last month. Given sterling’s performance and declining value, how does he explain that and what is he going to do about it?

[Matthew Hancock]

We will pursue the strategy on which we have set out, which is ensuring that the UK economy is strong at home by dealing with our debts, making it more competitive, doing everything that we can to win what we have called the global race and ensuring that UKTI plays its part, not least by delivering a UKTI budget increase over the past couple of years, so that it can reach the target of doubling exports to £1 trillion, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The Government’s ambition of doubling exports to £1 trillion by 2020 also involves getting 100,000 more UK companies exporting. The hon. Gentleman asked how we are doing on that. As he said I would say, the monthly figures fluctuate, but UKTI is on track to achieve its target of supporting 32,000 businesses for the 2012-13 financial year. Some 90% of those 32,000 businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. That support has helped generate additional sales of more than £33 billion. I would say that that is money well spent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is no longer in his place, discussed the importance of encouraging small businesses to export. He particularly mentioned chambers of commerce and other business groups. We are piloting the use of chambers of commerce; as non-governmental organisations, they can play a different role and fill a niche. There are 20 pilots, including in Brazil, India, Hong Kong, Russia and Singapore, using chambers of commerce as well as UKTI. He also mentioned one of my personal passions: Education UK—a specific unit within UKTI to help our education exports.

I will also come to the point about the link with the British Council. My hon. Friend mentioned the West Kowloon cultural district project, which has been supported by both UKTI and the British Council working together. That is an example of those two organisations working collaboratively to very good effect.

The good news on languages is that, although entries to A-level were down, entries to GCSE rose sharply. I hope that after a long period of decline, the increase in GCSE entries this year shows that people in English schools who take languages are coming through the pipeline. Let us hope that that is an early indicator of better things to come.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked about defence exports. Of course, as he said, the end user certificate system has been in place for a long time—more than 20 years—and the Government have confidence in the export licensing system, which we think is thorough and robust enough to address human rights issues that might arise from individual sales to individual countries. Any application for an export licence is considered against consolidated criteria in the light of circumstances in that country.

That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool about exports to Syria specifically. He mentioned two licences issued in 2012. I can confirm that those licences were never used to export chemicals and were revoked under the new EU sanctions. I hope that that addresses his question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

2. What plans he has for vocational education; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

World-class vocational education is vital for a world-class economy, so we are bringing rigour to vocational education by recognising the best qualifications, strengthening apprenticeships and introducing a Tech Bac to reward and celebrate stretching occupational education.

[Mr Wright]

EngineeringUK has today published a report showing that this country needs to double the number of engineering recruits and triple the number of engineering apprenticeships. It calls for face-to-face careers advice in schools and additional assistance to help schools appreciate 21st century engineering. The Government have had to U-turn over their engineering diploma, so will the Minister U-turn again and implement EngineeringUK’s recommendations in full?

[Matthew Hancock]

I met EngineeringUK last week at the launch of its report, so I am well versed on its recommendations and very supportive of the need to increase the number of engineers in our country, something that has been sadly lacking for far too long. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing, along with the Royal Academy, new qualifications that fit the accountability system. We will do what it takes to ensure that this country has enough engineers.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

Before I give way, I should declare an interest in that I have a nuclear power station in my constituency. I would quite like another one, and I think that part of that supply chain could be considered by the green investment bank. I would certainly like more clarity on this from the Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) first, and then to the Minister.

[Mr Wright]

I shall come on to this in a few moments. Because of a huge lack of clarity in the Government’s energy policy—anywhere, but particularly in respect of the renewable energy component—many foreign investors will not view the UK as the destination of choice for investment in any case. We have huge potential to be the market leader for renewable and low-carbon technologies, but I think we are missing a trick when it comes to the scale of ambition and the time scale of the green investment bank. The purpose of the new clause is to probe and challenge the Government to ensure that we make this part of a growth strategy rather than to allow it to happen somewhere in the future in a way that makes it virtually meaningless.

[Matthew Hancock]

Given the shortage of time, it may be helpful if I deal with two points now. I can confirm first that the European Commission has granted state aid approval to the green investment bank, and secondly that the Commission strongly discouraged the inclusion of nuclear in our application for state aid. Its inclusion would have delayed approval, and nuclear projects are therefore not in scope in respect of the current application.

[Mr Wright]

I thank the Minister for his clarification. It is somewhat at odds with what was said in Committee by the then Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), but we are where we are—and I am very grateful to the Minister for his announcement about the state aid application, because it gets rid of at least a paragraph of my speech.

Let me now deal with amendment 76, which makes an important point about what the green investment bank should be doing in the light of its potential, the huge opportunities that it provides, and the equally huge scale of the challenge presented by the need for us to decarbonise our economy. If we are to achieve what we want to achieve, we need active government. Working with business, the Government must assess our present comparative advantage in this sector, and work out how we can maintain or enhance that advantage in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I know that the Liberal Democrats have such power and significance in the coalition that they will be able to advance that proposal. If it is one of their manifesto or conference commitments, it will certainly happen. That might not look as sarcastic as it should do in Hansard, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The serious and important point at the heart of amendment 76 and amendment 89, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, is the question of the extent to which we can have the green investment bank operating at scale as quickly as possible, ensuring that it can borrow from the capital markets as quickly as possible and be a major ingredient in the stimulus for growth while at the same time being mindful of the deterioration in the public finances that has largely been caused by the Government’s economic policies. The emphasis on austerity means that tax receipts are going down and benefit payments are going up, so borrowing figures have had to rise by more than a fifth in the past year alone.

Let me go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I mentioned Government amendments 1 and 3 and I find it baffling that the amendments state that investments can be considered

“whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”.

I fully appreciate and support the need to tackle climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy on an international and multilateral level. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that supply chains are somewhat more complex than they would be if they were solely domesticated. How on earth, however, do these Government amendments to an enterprise Bill that was supposedly designed to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy help to stimulate enterprise and economic activity in this sector in Britain? Is there not a huge risk that Britain’s potential as a world leader in this field will be lost as a direct result of the Government’s amendments? I ask the Minister to think again and to reflect on the amendments we have tabled and on the new clause.

As we have only 17 minutes left to debate this subject, which is incredibly important for the future of this country, I shall now take my seat.

[Matthew Hancock]

I shall try to answer all the questions that have been asked and then leave some time for further comments from other Members who have tabled amendments and new clauses or who wish to speak.

The green investment bank will play a powerful role in promoting the green economy. What we heard from the Opposition suggested that they had introduced such a measure themselves, but this is a coalition measure that is testament to the coalition. It is widely and strongly supported by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives alike and will, I think, help the UK to make a successful transition to a low-carbon economy. I am pleased to have been able to confirm that the European Commission has allowed the bank to make commercial investments in a wide range of sectors. We are therefore fully on track for the bank to be operational within a matter of weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the Minister talk us through a scenario in which an investment decision might be made, say, for offshore wind capability, where prices may be cheaper in, say, Germany than in the United Kingdom? Will cost or the achievement of the bank’s purposes be the key consideration? What conflict and tension exist between cost, value for money and the supply chain capability here in the UK?

[Matthew Hancock]

Clearly, one reason for establishing a green investment bank is to ensure that it delivers against the green purposes. Of course cost is vital. That is why we are setting up the bank so that it will act on a commercial basis. The crucial point is that it must act in accordance with one or more of the green purposes; otherwise there would be no point in it being a green investment bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I give the assurance on the second point: the normal procedures will be used. The normal procedures will govern what goes into one statutory instrument and then, as we all know, debate on a statutory instrument covers all elements of the instrument. That is the procedure for a statutory instrument that is debated.

Amendment 75 proposes that account be taken of any feasibility study before the Government lay regulations on the orphan works scheme—that is, I think, the essence of the amendment. In principle, we understand the need for studies and consideration of such important questions, but we do not think that such a requirement is appropriate in primary legislation. If the proposal is that the conclusions of a feasibility study should automatically and immediately have legislative effect, we have to ask what would happen if the recommendations of a commissioned study could not, for good and legitimate reasons, be accepted. However, I can assure the House that the Government will carefully consider which bodies or body should be responsible for licensing orphan works, including whether they have the necessary independence, expertise, resources and processes.

Although there is some work still to do on deciding which organisation should be responsible, it is unlikely to be a new body. We looked at the arrangements in other jurisdictions: in Canada, the copyright board has that responsibility; in Hungary, the intellectual property office has it. Jurisdictions overseas locate the role in different parts of Government, according to where the appropriate expertise is found. There could be a role for collecting societies to license orphan works of a type where a collecting society already operates in that sector, but many of the orphan works held by museums and archives, for example, are not of types that are currently collectively licensed; such works include unpublished diaries, old photographs and oral history recordings.

In the light of those reassurances and given that the regulations cannot be laid until the work is completed, I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) not to press amendment 75 and the House to support Government amendments 23 and 24.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I was broadly reassured until the Minister made his comments, but now I am as uncertain as ever. The Public Bill Committee spent significant time debating copyright, and rightly so, as the legislative framework—not regulation, but a legislative framework—governing copyright has been a crucial ingredient in allowing Britain to be at the heart of the global creative and cultural industry.

We lead the world in many parts of that cultural and creative sector, from publishing—as we heard, in Committee the then Minister was keen to talk in vivid and animated terms about “Fifty Shades of Grey”—to the video gaming industry, where we lead the world, to music, and I was particularly keen to talk about the Stone Roses, which was fantastic. The Minister does not strike me as being a Stone Roses man; he strikes me more as a JLS-One Direction man. I imagine that he would be keen on that. One Direction seems appropriate, given his closeness to the Chancellor.

We lead the world in different parts of the sector. With a rise in the global middle class, which wants to be entertained, it is important that we continue to lead the world. There are many reasons for our pre-eminence in the industry, not least the solid legislative framework governing copyright and intellectual property. We lose that at our peril.

As I mentioned in previous debates throughout the passage of the Bill, a partnership approach is needed, with Government identifying the competitive sectors in which Britain can lead the world and working closely with business and with those sectors to ensure growth and potential opportunities. We have not yet seen such a partnership approach. It did not seem to exist in the Government’s original drafting of the clause on copyright. The unilateral approach taken by Ministers, without consultation with the industry and—surprise, surprise—without empirical evidence or an impact assessment—where have we heard that before?—caused alarm and uncertainty among stakeholders in the industry and threatened significant and long-term investment decisions for this country.

I quoted in Committee, and it is worth repeating to the House, the submission from UK Music, which said:

“The inclusion of copyright clauses in this Bill came as a surprise to many copyright stakeholders. We widely anticipated copyright legislation, but we did not anticipate that the copyright legislation would be attached to this particular Bill. This ‘surprise’ generated a degree of confusion and alarm amongst our community. This was needless. Better communication between the Government and its key stakeholders would have prevented this.”

Opposition Members entirely agree with those sentiments.

The clause as originally drafted would have given the Secretary of State order-making powers to allow amendment of any exceptions via secondary legislation. This power was considered necessary to deal with the situation where, under the EuropeanCommunities Act 1972, the Government are able to amend exceptions to copyright and performance rights which may, so the Government stated, restrict the maximum statutory penalties. We argued in Committee and tabled amendments to the effect that the wording of the clause was too loose, lacked clarity and provided the Secretary of State with too wide a power to deal with this issue.

In Committee the Government stated that this was not so and that there was no case for our amendment. I therefore welcome the fact, although I am surprised, that the Government tabled amendments 23 and 24, which specify that regulations under this section may make only such provision as may be made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. I do not want to be churlish on this point and I am pleased that the Government have listened, albeit somewhat late in the process, to us and, more importantly, to stakeholders.

However, as we have hinted in interventions, there is not complete unanimity throughout the industry when it comes to Government amendments 23 and 24. Some stakeholders, who are looking to invest in the UK, such as British Pathé, are still concerned that the Government have misinterpreted section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. They argue that if that part of the 1972 Act gives the Government powers to change copyright exceptions by statutory instrument, the Government have that right. Nothing in the Bill would change that. There is therefore no need to clarify the point in the Bill, because the power already exists. The only reason for writing the power into the Bill in clause 57 would be if it did not exist. The managing director of British Pathé said to me in an e-mail last night that “the statement is redundant” unless that is the case.

There remains a concern among some stakeholders that clause 57 merely allows extensions to criminal penalties relating to exceptions. However, it has been noted that nearly all copyright infringements relate not to exceptions, but to matters such as piracy and theft, which are neither covered in clause 57, nor addressed by the Government’s amendments. Therefore, given the Minister’s move in this regard, which has been welcomed by much of the industry, will he respond to the specific concerns of companies, such as British Pathé and ITN, that remain despite the Government’s amendments? Will he reassure me on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I think that businesses would hope that legislation put in place for the long term will remain for the long term. The sunsetting in this Bill—as amended by the technical amendments that we are debating—is a major step forward, and the way in which it will be implemented is the right way forward. We are taking an ambitious and strong approach to secondary legislation that will ensure that Ministers and the Government have to check that legislation is working in the way it ought to. Therefore, I would resist the Opposition and non-Government amendments in the group, and I hope we have cross-party support for amendments 21 and 22.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I rise briefly to support the Government in this debate. As far as I am aware we have not tabled any Opposition Front-Bench amendments in this group. As I said in Committee repeatedly, we agree with the approach taken to sunset and review provisions, which are an important part of clause 50. We also set in train the primary authority schemes, which will be extended by clause 53. As for what the Minister said about permissive legislation—I think we are back to “Fifty Shades of Grey” again—and a deregulatory approach to free up business from unduly disproportionate and unnecessary regulation, that is something that we on this side of the House certainly agree with too.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendment made: 22, page 42, line 39, at end insert—

‘except to the extent that—

(a) the power or duty is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers, or

(b) the power or duty is exercisable by any other person within devolved competence (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998).’.—(Matthew Hancock.)

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Iain Wright and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes the point with great power that those who are out of work pay for an uncompetitive economy. They are the people whom we need to support.

[Mr Iain Wright]

If this is about costs and benefits, why is there not an impact assessment for the new clause?

[Matthew Hancock]

The benefits are set out clearly in Löfstedt. Most importantly, because it is necessarily difficult to ascertain the amount of over-compliance, Britain’s health and safety system will benefit from being able to compete and focus its resources on avoiding substantive breaches of health and safety law rather than on technicalities and over-compliance. All parties should focus on problems such as death in the workplace due to negligence. The hon. Member for Paisley and North Renewfreshire—[Laughter.] North Renewfershire—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I shall speak to new clause 9 and new schedule 1 in the first instance. Those provisions are intended to improve the effectiveness of the listed building consent regime and they follow the Penfold review of non-planning consents. They introduce a new system of national and local class consents, and received broad support during consultation. The new system is designed to reduce the number of listed building consent applications for works that have neither a harmful nor significant impact on a building’s special interest. It will be possible to grant consent automatically for certain categories of work or buildings—where the extent of the special interest is well understood—without the need to make an additional application. Thus, the new provisions will protect listed buildings. I, like many others in this House, have a special adoration for the heritage of our listed buildings in this country, not least the one in which we are standing. Our approach will also improve the operation of the regime. [Interruption.] I suppose that I should declare an interest, although it is not the one that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) thinks; I work in a wonderful listed building and I want to ensure that it is protected.

The changes will also reduce burdens on applicants and free up local planning authority resources to focus on the listed building consent applications that really matter. The Secretary of State will be required to consult English Heritage before making a national order and will be able to apply conditions to consent granted by an order, as with listed building consent at the moment. Both the Secretary of State and any local planning authority will be able to direct that an order does not apply to a specified building, or to buildings of a specified type or in a specified area. The Secretary of State will have the power, at any time, to revoke a listed building consent order, having first served notice on the local planning authority and given it an opportunity to make representations.

The Secretary of State or the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings to which the order applies, as well as their setting and any features of special architectural or historic merit that might be affected. We envisage that the processes leading to a class consent will involve the same level of public notice, engagement and consultation as applies to listed building consent currently. These provisions will reduce regulatory burdens without diminishing protection for important heritage sites and buildings. New clause 9 also restates, with minor technical changes in some of the consequential Government amendments, provisions on heritage partnership agreements which were already in the Bill.

New clause 10 introduces a new certificate of lawfulness of proposed works to listed buildings, which will provide certainty to owners and developers of listed buildings—this proposal also received support during consultation. Works to a listed building that do not affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest do not require listed building consent. However, interpretations of whether or not consent is needed can vary, and local planning authorities are often reluctant to give a view because it is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine. That means that those seeking to make changes to listed buildings are sometimes required to submit a formal application for listed building consent in order to gain certainty as to whether or not proposed works would affect the special interest. We hope that certificates of lawfulness of proposed works will provide a simple, straightforward mechanism for owners and developers of listed buildings to gain the certainty they require, while reducing the number of unnecessary consent applications. I therefore trust, not least given the widespread support we had in the consultation, that hon. Members will support these new provisions, and I commend them to the House.

[Mr Iain Wright]

As I mentioned during the Committee stage, we have no issue with some of the Government’s provisions for heritage planning. Indeed, when we were in government we prepared something similar, in the guise of the Heritage Protection Bill. I am on the record as saying that the merging of conservation area consent and planning permission is sensible and helps us to streamline the process so that it is efficient for the benefit of all concerned. I reiterate the point that I made in Committee that Opposition Members recognise the merits of heritage planning agreements. They have the potential to provide greater efficiency and time savings in the planning process while ensuring, as the Minister has rightly said, that our listed buildings are safeguarded for future generations.

The new clauses, however, raise a number of questions about the Government’s approach. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport document “Improving Listed Building Consent” had a consultation period of only four weeks—from 26 July to 23 August. The Heritage Alliance rightly raised significant concerns that that was insufficient and I agree with its written submission to the consultation:

“One month is an extremely short period of time in which to co-ordinate the responses of third sector and voluntary organisations, many of whom meet monthly or quarterly, and may not have an August meeting because of the holiday break. A consultation period over the summer break, which includes the Olympic Games, should be longer not shorter, because potential respondents are on holiday and/or their decision-making bodies do not meet in August.”

Will the Minister directly address that point? Why was the consultation period curtailed, especially when it involved a Department that had geared itself up for the Olympics, which were taking place at that time?