Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, GB Energy ceased trading, affecting 160,000 customers. Credit must go to Ofgem for ensuring that those customers were promptly transferred to another supplier, but does the Secretary of State believe that the regulator’s approach to risk management needs to change? Instead of carrying out little or no assessment of the viability of new entrants and then picking up the pieces if they fall, more rigorous financial health checks need to be undertaken to minimise the risk of failure, disruption to customers and a loss of confidence in switching to new energy providers.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can now breathe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Chair of the Select Committee, no less: Mr Iain Wright.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The UK has slipped to 14th place in Ernst and Young’s renewable energy country attractiveness index. It is our lowest ever placing, behind the likes of Chile and Morocco. EY states that various Government actions, as well as Brexit,

“have dealt a blow to the country’s already floundering renewable energy sector and its attractiveness in the eyes of investors.”

I know that the Minister, who is committed to this issue, will be concerned about that. What steps are the Government actively taking and what steps will be taken soon to secure energy confidence and investment to ensure that this promising and vital sector can flourish?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, splendid: the robust Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Mr Iain Wright.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I think that is the kindest thing that anybody has ever said to me.

The Secretary of State fully appreciates that uncertainty lasting for months and years will drain business investment away from Britain. In our Select Committee this morning, Funding Circle told us that an £100 million investment deal with a European consortium will now not go ahead—it has been pulled, and it will not be the only one. Today’s round table is a welcome gesture, but in the face of the current unprecedented uncertainty, what tangible actions is the Secretary of State putting in place to maintain and stimulate inward investment, maintain that funding gap, and steady business nerves?

Points of Order

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I confess that I have received no such indication. Once again, the hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record. They will have been heard and doubtless he will return to the matter if he does not receive the satisfaction he seeks.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your advice and guidance on a matter of principle for this House? Select Committees have the power through this House to send for persons, papers and records, to enable them to obtain oral and written evidence to allow them to undertake their work. In keeping with this long-established power, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which I chair, has sought to take evidence from the owner of Sports Direct, Mr Mike Ashley, on the treatment of workers at his company. That was in response to reports that workers at Mr Ashley’s warehouse in Shirebrook were not being paid the minimum wage. I have received correspondence from workers at Sports Direct, who have told me of practices such as employees being made to clock out but having to continue to work so that wages were not over budget; of staff kept for an hour after their scheduled finish time without pay to tidy shops; and of workers finishing work at 5 am and being required back at work two hours later.

We on the Select Committee naturally and not unreasonably wish to question Mr Ashley on the review of working conditions at his company that he announced he would undertake personally. After his refusal to accept our initial invitation to attend on a mutually convenient date, last week the Committee formally ordered Mr Ashley to attend on 7 June. Yesterday he indicated to the press, although not to the Committee, that he has no current intention of attending the Committee. He referred to the order to attend as

“an abuse of the parliamentary process”

and described the Committee as “a joke”. I do not think that scrutinising reports of Victorian-type employment conditions in modern-day Britain is a joke.

Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Committee has acted in accordance with the procedures of this House? Can you advise me what steps can now be taken to ensure that Mr Ashley complies with the very reasonable request, and then the formal order, of the BIS Committee?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee for notice of his point of order. The House delegates to nearly all its Select Committees the power to send for persons, papers and records. Each Committee is free to decide whom to invite to give oral evidence, and if the invitation is refused, the Committee may decide to make an order for the attendance of a witness.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question, therefore, it appears to me that so far the proper procedures have been followed. As long as the Committee is acting within its terms of reference, the House expects witnesses to obey the Committee’s order to attend. If, after due consideration, the hon. Gentleman’s Committee wishes to take the matter further, the next step would be to make a special report to the House, setting out the facts. The hon. Gentleman may then wish to apply to me to consider the issue as a matter of privilege, and to ask me to give it priority in the House. Under procedures agreed to by the House in 1978 and set out on page 273 of “Erskine May”, this application should be made to me in writing, rather than as a point of order. I would then be happy to advise him on the options open to him.

National Security and Defence

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for his chunter from a sedentary position.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said, there is a close link between our defence and security capability and our research, innovation and manufacturing capability. Yet the Prime Minister will know of the problems in the UK steel industry which show how vulnerable we are to losing for ever large chunks of our manufacturing supply chains—chains that could be used for defence and security purposes. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how he expects the defence growth partnership to evolve with the SDSR, and what steps he is taking to ensure we can maintain the skills, capability and competitiveness in our industrial supply chain so that we can meet our future security and defence requirements with British industry and British innovation?

Intellectual Property Bill [Lords]

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 13, page 11, leave out lines 40 to 41.

Amendment 3, page 12, leave out lines 6 to 7.

Amendment 4, page 12, leave out line 19.

Amendment 5, page 12, line 41, at end insert—

‘(9) In this section “design right” includes an unregistered community design and a reference to the owner of the design right is also to be read as a reference to the owner of a community design right in a design.’.

Amendment 1, in clause 17, page 17, line 31, at end insert—

‘(3A) In making an order under this section which confers jurisdiction on a court, removes jurisdiction from a court or varies the jurisdiction of a court, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) ensure he takes into account the views of—

(i) HM Courts and Tribunals Service;

(ii) the Scottish Courts Services;

(iii) the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; and

(iv) any other appropriate body;

and

(b) where the number of patent cases is such as to meet the requirements as set out in Article 7 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to confer local divisional court jurisdiction on—

(i) in England and Wales, the High Court;

(ii) in Scotland, the Court of Session; and

(iii) in Northern Ireland, the High Court.’.

Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 18, line 32, leave out ‘obtained in the’ and insert

‘created or obtained in the planning of, or’.

[Mr Wright]

It is good to be back discussing the Intellectual Property Bill.

We discussed the new clause in Committee and are returning to it on Report because, in the intervening period, there has been no progress. I will remind the House about this long-running saga.

The Government made proposals on copyright exceptions in 2012, during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. In December 2012, the Government published “Modernising Copyright”. One could be forgiven for thinking that that was a simple and straightforward means of implementing the recommendations of the Hargreaves review, as the Government try to maintain. I will come on to the crucial matter of implementation in a moment. However, the level of opposition from stakeholders and the delay in implementing the Government’s proposals suggest otherwise.

In “Modernising Copyright”, Ministers stated:

“The Government will publish draft legislation for technical review in 2013. It intends to introduce the measures in the smallest possible number of statutory instruments to minimise disruption to stakeholders, make best use of Parliamentary time and ensure that the revised system is implemented in a clear and consistent manner. The intention is that measures will come into force in October 2013.”

None of those plans has proved successful.

Major changes to copyright have usually been made through primary legislation. The Copyright Act 1911 placed provisions into one piece of legislation for the first time, and the Copyright Act 1956 put into statute the UK’s accession to the universal copyright convention, and protected for the first time media such as films and broadcasts by copyright. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provided a major reform of the copyright process, and currently remains the main legislative framework.

When modernising copyright, however, the Government do not intend to make changes via primary legislation but rather through statutory instrument. As is clear from the document I have already cited, the Government always intended to bundle up the proposals on copyright exception into

“the smallest possible number of statutory instruments.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 54W.]

On Report of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in October 2012, the Minister stated that

“any proposed exceptions will be the subject of secondary legislation and will therefore be debated. Each separate element of a statutory instrument can be debated—that is the function of the secondary legislation procedure.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 406.]

That is certainly true; each element can be debated separately, but the key point that will concern the House is that it will not necessarily be possible to vote on each element separately, and that still seems to be the Government’s position.

On Second Reading the Minister stated that

“the regulations will not be completely bundled up.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 83.]

That is a curious phrase that I referred to in Committee, which gives rise to the strong possibility—even probability—that bundling will occur. In Committee, he said that he was not in a position to say how many different instruments there will be, and that the Government were still consulting on the matter with parliamentary counsel. It is six weeks or so since we discussed the issue in Committee on 30 January, but I do not think he is in a position to provide much of an update. In Committee the Minister said:

“The problem with IP and copyright is not insufficient reviews, but insufficient implementation. We are implementing. That is what the Bill is about,”.––[Official Report, Intellectual Property Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2014; c. 91.]

However, evidence shows that that is far from the case.

Let us be clear and put on the record the dither and uncertainty that the Government have provided to those stakeholders involved with copyright. As I said, the Government’s response to “Modernising Copyright” was published in December 2012. In early June 2013, documents were published in relation to new exceptions for private copying, parody, quotation and amendments to exception for public administration. Later that month a new exception for data analysis for non-commercial research was published, as were amendments to exceptions for education and research, libraries and archives.

In July 2013, further amendments to copyright exceptions for people with disabilities were published. All documents were subject to consultation periods that ended in the summer or early autumn of 2013. Since then, no tangible progress has been announced. On Second Reading the Minister pledged that regulations would be laid before the House in February, and in Committee I asked whether the Government still intended February to be the target date. The Minister responded:

“That remains our intention; I cannot put it more strongly than that, can I?”––[Official Report, Intellectual Property Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2014; c. 93.]

Well, he could. We are now into mid-March, and we have still not seen any white smoke from Victoria street. That delay is causing uncertainty among the creative industries, and undermining our competitiveness and attraction as a nation for this crucial sector in the new economy.

The hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) is knowledgeable and diligent about these matters. He is the Prime Minister’s adviser on IP and served on the Committee, and I am pleased to see him in his place this afternoon. Last week, he received a response to a parliamentary question that he asked about progress made by the Department on drafting changes to copyright exceptions. I hope he will not mind my quoting the Minister’s response, because it is important and helped shape my view on whether we needed an amendment on Report. In his reply to the hon. Member for Hove, the Minister said:

“The Government are grateful for the contributions of all those who responded to the various consultations and have continued to engage with stakeholders since the review closed. We have made a number of technical changes following the helpful input of stakeholders, and we consider the regulations have been improved as a result. So, the regulations will be different in light of the valuable consultation process.

The draft regulations are subject to final checking and in accordance with routine practice the Department is currently consulting the legal advisers to the Joint Committee on statutory instruments. This process can help to avoid difficulties about powers, drafting, etc. arising at a later stage, and assists both the Department and the Committee in minimising any delay in the passage of an instrument. Unless otherwise agreed with the legal adviser, Departments should normally allow a period of not less than two sitting weeks for this advance scrutiny. The regulations will be laid before Parliament and published as soon as this process is complete. The regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution and will be debated in both Houses of Parliament.

The Government will publish a response to the technical review, explanatory notes, guidance and other supporting documents alongside the regulations. This will explain the changes we have made to the drafts on which we consulted and why. Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the IPO website.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 944W.]

North-East Independent Economic Review

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

Businesses do not have confidence that the Government’s business bank is having any impact whatsoever. It is slow off the mark—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would stop chuntering and allow me to speak, I will respond to his question. The business bank is not working. It has had no impact in the regions. It is merely a desk in the Minister’s Department in Whitehall. A proper British investment bank would help fast-growing, innovative businesses, working together on proposals for a network of regional banks, to spark activity and economic growth in the north-east as well as other regions.

A number of hon. Members have discussed Government spending and infrastructure. The north-east has been singled out for particularly savage cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned the more than £200 million-worth of cuts in the local enterprise partnership area over the next two years. Hartlepool and Middlesbrough have been particularly badly hit.

The Institute for Public Policy Research has set out clearly:

“The North…suffers from weak public investment: government spending per capita on science and technology and transport in the North is almost half that spent in London and the south east.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, that has a long-term cumulative effect: lower spend and investment lead to weaker demand, competitiveness and economic growth, which in turn undermines a justification for additional spending and investment.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, for South Shields and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) have all said, the north-east did not do well in the Government’s announcement in June on infrastructure. That has been exacerbated by the capital spend cuts of northern local authorities. The North East chamber of commerce said at the time:

“One disappointing element of today’s announcement is the lack of investment in projects in the Tees Valley, which requires significant infrastructure upgrades.”

Will the Minister explain why that was the case?

In the three months since the announcement, there has been precious little evidence of work commencing. When will the construction of the A19 Testos flyover start? When will the A19-A1058 coast road improve access to the Port of Tyne? When I used the A19 last week to visit Ford Aerospace in the Port of Tyne in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I saw precious little evidence of work on the ground. There seems to be a big lag between Government announcements and actual work starting. Will the Minister display a sense of boldness, priority and urgency and deal with those matters now?

Will the Minister comment on yesterday’s announcement in the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that he may chunter from a sedentary position on a continuing basis to no evident purpose, but he must bear his burden with stoicism and fortitude, in the best parliamentary tradition.

[Mr Wright]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am conscious of the time, but will the Minister comment on the global competitiveness index, which shows that our infrastructure ranking has moved from fourth in the world to 28th? That will not help productivity and innovation.

It is clear from the remarks of all north-east MPs that the region does not face inevitable and terminal decline. We are not asking for handouts or sympathy as we somehow slide towards obsolescence. The north-east has always been characterised by grit, ingenuity, invention and imagination. It led the world through the industrial revolution and has the potential in the 21st century to be the biggest global player in fields such as low-emission vehicles, renewable technology and high-value engineering.

To achieve that potential, the north-east needs a Government who are on the side of its businesses and its people, supporting it through a long-term industrial policy and giving it the freedoms and flexibilities needed to chart our own destiny, not a Government who prioritise austerity and neglect, as this Government have done over the past three years, and turn a blind eye to high unemployment and low pay.

The Minister has heard today of the potential and ambition of the north-east. We need boldness and action now. Will he and the Government deliver?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It says on page 93 of the Red Book:

“The Government will…publish the Business Bank’s first business strategy”

this coming Friday, on 22 March. Given that you, Mr Speaker, have been very clear that important announcements should be made first to this House, and given that it is my understanding that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will open tomorrow’s Budget debate, can you give me any guidance about the powers you have either for the publication to be brought forward to tomorrow to allow hon. Members to question the Secretary of State when he is at the Dispatch Box during the debate or to provide for an oral statement to be made to the House on Friday morning? Mr Speaker, how can we question the Government on this important topic?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I do not have formal powers in this regard and have only just had notice of what the hon. Gentleman sought to raise. What I would say to him is as follows: first, the Secretary of State will have heard—or will soon hear—of the point of order, and it is perfectly open to him to adjust his plans accordingly if he judges it appropriate to do so. Secondly, my sense is that this is a matter that can reasonably be expected to be raised in the debate, and the versatility, not to mention the indefatigability, of the hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian, suggests to me that he himself is likely to do so. As to whether a statement or a publication intended for Friday will be brought forward, I cannot say, but Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will keep an eye on the matter.

Points of Order

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have seen reports last week that while on a conference in India an official from the Office for Nuclear Regulation lost a memory stick containing information and plans relating to Hartlepool nuclear power station. I have yet to be informed of this by the Government. Going back many years, Ministers faced with data loss have come to this House to answer questions and explain their actions. Given that precedent and the paramount importance of securing and safeguarding our civil nuclear industry, is it in order that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has chosen not to inform me or to come to this House? What powers do you have, Sir, to ensure that I can receive notification and provide reassurance to my constituents on this important breach of data?

[Mr Speaker]

It is a matter for Ministers to make statements as and when they judge appropriate, if policy options or announcements are due. From what the hon. Gentleman has said so far, it is not immediately obvious to me that there is any matter of order on which the Chair need rule, but his words are on the record, and I shall take particular pleasure in observing them for a second time when I read the Official Report. If I have any further thoughts on the matter at that point, he will be the first to hear; meanwhile his constituents will know of what he has said.

Points of Order

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In business questions last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—whom I am pleased to see in his place today—asked about the 563 parliamentary questions to the Department for Education that are currently unanswered. In written responses to me, the Department has stated that only 10% of named day questions and 20% of letters from hon. Members have been answered on time, with some going as far back as November. On top of Building Schools for the Future and school sport partnerships, that shows a Department in a shambolic and chaotic state, whether through incompetence or laziness. It is not good enough. A schoolchild who had done only 10% of their homework would get detention. What can you do, Mr Speaker, to keep Ministers back after school for failing to do their homework, which—on a serious note—is preventing hon. Members from holding the Government to account for their education policy and acting on behalf of their constituents?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. I sympathise with the concern that he has expressed. I understand that other hon. Members have been affected in the same way. I deprecate late replies, but Ministers are responsible for their answers. Oral questions to the Department for Education will be taken next Monday. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and others with similar experiences and views seek advice from the Table Office on how to pursue this matter. The Deputy Leader of the House is in his place and will have heard the concern expressed. This is a serious matter, and I hope that something will indeed be done to address the concern that the hon. Gentleman and others regularly raise.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Iain Wright and John Bercow

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been in the Chair since the business of the House started this morning so you may not be aware that the High Court has just ruled in favour of the six local authorities who took the Secretary of State for Education to court over his Building Schools for the Future announcement. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, of the extent of the feeling on both sides of the House about this decision, and you will also appreciate the grave implications it will have for the policy of the Department for Education. It also calls into question the competence of the Secretary of State. Mr Speaker, have you received any notification that the Secretary of State will come to the House and explain the botched decision he made and say how he will move forward to make sure capital programmes for schools, including in my own constituency, will now be reinstated?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no indication from any Minister at the Department for Education of an intention or desire to make a statement in the House today. It would, of course, be open to a Minister to do so however, and the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. It will have been heard by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, including the Leader of the House, and I am sure there will be other opportunities fully to explore these matters in the days and weeks ahead.