Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
2. What recent steps he has taken to increase the number of apprenticeships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
More than a million apprenticeships have been started under this Government, 500,000 of them in the last year. As well as this welcome increase in quantity, we are improving the quality of apprenticeships so they are rigorous and provide value for money while being more rewarding to employer and apprentice alike.
Robert Halfon
Since 2011 the Department for Work and Pensions has encouraged its private suppliers through procurement to hire nearly 2,000 apprentices. If this were rolled out across Whitehall, it would create nearly 100,000 new apprenticeships. Will the new Minister with responsibility for apprentices study this pilot scheme to see whether we can make that happen?
Matthew Hancock
As my hon. Friend knows, I am hugely supportive of the DWP pilot and will study its outcomes carefully, in particular the value for money that it generates. I pay tribute to his parliamentary apprentice academy. Getting an apprentice through the academy that he supports is extremely easy and I recommend it to all Members of the House.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that our schools and colleges play a key role in helping to encourage young people who are potential apprentices, and that they need to provide the courses that are relevant to industry today?
Matthew Hancock
I certainly do agree. It is important to include English and maths in apprenticeships for all those who do not have level 2, and we must do more to make sure we inspire young people to look not only at the academic route, but at apprenticeships which combine work and training at the same time.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and his predecessor for their work on the apprenticeship programme. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee published its report on apprenticeships. Can he say a little more about the drive for quality, as opposed just to quantity, of apprenticeships?
Matthew Hancock
I welcome the Select Committee’s report. The focus on quality in apprenticeships is important. We have already said that almost all apprenticeships must be longer than a year, and we have taken action to close down some low-quality provision, so this is a direction that I very much want to go in. I will be studying the recommendations of the report extremely carefully.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
After the rhetoric, has the Minister read what the all-party Select Committee said in its report last week about his Department’s handling of apprenticeships? It said that the apprenticeship scheme
“continues to lack clarity and purpose”
and an “overarching strategy” to succeed. Those are the latest in a series of warnings to the Department. There was Jason Holt’s report on small and medium-sized enterprises. Apprenticeship starts over the past year are down for under-19-year-olds in seven out of the nine English regions, down in engineering by 30%, and down in construction by 18%. The Minister’s own officials say that one in five apprenticeships get no training, and, as we heard, the Select Committee has issued strong warnings about quality. When will his Department take practical steps such as those that we have urged for almost a year, requiring big companies that want Government contracts to take on apprentices? If the Minister does not get a grip on this, it is not Pitt or Disraeli that he will have to compare himself to, but being in the bunker in charge of phantom armies.
Matthew Hancock
I am glad the shadow Minister has mined the report for all the negatives. I want to start with the opening sentence of the Select Committee report, which says, “We welcome the commitment of this Government to apprenticeships.” This Government commissioned Jason Holt’s report so of course I welcome it. We have already taken action to improve quality and we will take more action. Not least am I looking forward to the Doug Richard report later this month. The vital thing to do is not only to increase the quantity of apprenticeships, as we have done, but to make sure that they provide excellent value for money, so that all those apprentices throughout the country get a brilliant education as well as training in work, and that is what we will deliver.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect of the business Olympics on exports and inward investment.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
12. What steps his Department is taking to encourage young people to take up careers in engineering; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
This Government celebrate engineering. World-class engineering is vital for Britain’s future, and world-class engineering needs world-class engineers, so we are supporting engineering in schools, apprenticeships and universities to inspire the engineers of the future.
Peter Luff
That is a pretty positive answer. However, as defence equipment Minister, I saw time and again that the single greatest problem facing British engineering businesses is a shortage of skills. I therefore commend to my hon. Friend a report from the Engineering Employers Federation, “Skills for Growth”, which makes recommendations to ensure that young people have a better understanding of the opportunities in engineering through careers advice and stronger links between businesses and schools.
Matthew Hancock
Yes, I have seen that report, and the Government have taken action. Some 25,000 science, technology, engineering and maths ambassadors are going into schools to inspire pupils, and there are some signs of success. Over the past three years, twice as many pupils have taken triple science, and the proportion of STEM courses in university is no longer falling as it was under Labour, but rising.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the number of women entering the engineering professions is still appallingly low. What actions will he be taking not only to encourage women into those professions, but also, just as importantly, to retain them there as there is a high drop-out rate?
Matthew Hancock
I agree very strongly with the hon. Lady, and in my first week in this job I announced support for a pilot scheme by Rolls-Royce and other engineering companies to expand the number of women in engineering. After all, we cannot possibly believe that we are getting the best people in engineering if almost half the population are excluded.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
13. What assessment he has made of the latest construction output figures; and if he will make a statement.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
19. What recent steps he has taken to encourage business start-ups; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
There were almost 500,000 start-ups last year—the highest number since records began in 1997, up from 360,000 in 2010. We are helping to encourage business start-ups by providing advice and financial support, and confidence that the Government will pay their way.
Mark Pawsey
I recently visited Warwickshire college’s Rugby site to talk to students at the Peter Jones enterprise academy, and I joined them on the “StartUp Britain” bus. Thirty years ago I started a business without any formal training, and it would have been of great value to me if those resources had been available then; I might have made fewer mistakes in the early days of running my business. Does the Minister agree that these schemes are a great way to ensure that our young people get the vital skills they need to help get new businesses started effectively?
Matthew Hancock
Absolutely. I too have visited a Peter Jones academy, and they are a brilliant new innovation. The new start-up loans provide finance and support for young entrepreneurs to help them get a start, and we need to do all that we can to support people who want to start up businesses.
Graham Evans
In addition to making it easier for people to start up their own business, what steps are the Government taking through the tax system to encourage investment in small business?
Matthew Hancock
We have sharply increased the enterprise investment scheme limit and we will do all that we can to support people who work hard and want to get on in life and start their own business. As well as making investment in small companies easier, we also stopped the planned increase in the small business rate and we are cutting business taxes. We are doing everything we can to get Britain working.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
17. What progress has been made on the EU Commission proposal to impose quotas for women on boards.
Jane Ellison
Schools routinely measure the number of youngsters going on to higher education, but not necessarily those who go on to apprenticeships—something that was picked up on in the report published this week by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. Does the Minister think that more can be done in this area?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
Yes. As I said earlier, we welcome the thorough and interesting report from the Select Committee. Recommendation 16 said that alongside university admissions, schools should publish apprenticeship starts from their former pupils, and I agree. Through the new destinations measures, which were introduced this summer, we will ensure that that happens.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
There are more than 1,200 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in the Secretary of State’s constituency. Under his proposed “shares for rights” scheme, employers in his constituency will be allowed to make the acceptance of job offers conditional on people agreeing to give up their basic rights at work for shares. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that JSA claimants in Twickenham will not lose their benefits for refusing the offer of a job because it is conditional on them giving up their rights for shares?
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
1. What steps he is taking to increase the quality and availability of apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
There is growing consensus that, alongside the overall increase in apprenticeships under this Government, we must enhance their quality and make them more employer-focused. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who ensured that an apprenticeship normally lasts longer than a year, and is a real job. To enhance availability, we are simplifying apprenticeships, and the National Apprenticeship Service will in future focus more of its resources on engaging with employers.
Mr Hepburn
Is it not a fact that a lot of those apprenticeships are nothing but a scam? They allow employers to change the name on a job, call them apprenticeships and dodge paying the minimum wage. What is the value of an apprenticeship making sandwiches or packing shelves in a card shop?
Matthew Hancock
I am a great supporter of apprenticeships across the economy. As the economy has changed over the past few decades, apprenticeships are in the service sector and insurance as well as in engineering and high-value areas. I am sure the hon. Gentleman, like me, is looking forward to the review by Doug Richard into the future of apprenticeships, because we must ensure that quality is at the heart of the apprenticeship offer.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of apprenticeships has gone up by 76% in the past year in Harlow? Far from making sandwiches, many of the apprentices have gone on to full-time jobs.
Matthew Hancock
I am in favour of sandwiches and in favour of people who learn skills in apprenticeships in all sorts of different sectors. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who held a jobs fair last week. I will be copying what he did in my constituency. I hope he, like me, will go to the meeting on Wednesday to discuss what Members on both sides of the House can do to promote apprenticeships in their area.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post. He has large shoes to fill because his predecessor was a passionate advocate for the brief, but I am sure he will do splendidly. Unfortunately, however, recent figures show a 2% drop in the number of apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds for 2011-12. Given the concerns that we share about long-term youth unemployment and the number of young people not in employment, education or training, does that figure show that the Government are failing in their own terms?
Matthew Hancock
On the contrary, not only is youth unemployment on the latest figures falling—thankfully—but in the last year, we have moved to make apprenticeships higher quality. For instance, 11,000 apprenticeships had no job attached. Is it not far better to have high-quality apprenticeships and sell them to employers to ensure that as many as possible engage, so that we can get the numbers and the quality going up at the same time?
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his position and wish him well in taking over the work his predecessor carried out so admirably. In tightening up the rules on quality, the Government have borne down on some questionable practices. However, they have also tightened up on sub-contracting and sub-sub-contracting to providers. In some areas, particularly rural and peripheral ones, some of those providers are the only providers of such courses. Will he ensure that, where that quality can be guaranteed, those arrangements can continue?
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effects of the pupil premium on pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
4. How many 16 to 18 year-olds started an apprenticeship in the last year for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
Early provisional data show that 126,000 apprenticeships were started by those under the age of 19 in the last academic year.
Mark Pawsey
Eight hundred and seventy people took up an apprenticeship in Rugby last year, which is an increase of more than 50% since the general election. These are young people who are starting on a process that is vital to them and to the country. Does the Minister agree that, in the same way as for those completing a degree, graduation-style ceremonies should be encouraged as an important way of recognising their achievements?
Matthew Hancock
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. The first graduation ceremony was held at Buckingham palace a fortnight ago, and the next will be at York minster on 12 November. I hope that around the country we will have ceremonies of graduation from apprenticeships to show the value that has been added to young people’s lives by this fantastic programme.
Sir Tony Baldry
It is fantastic that there are so many apprenticeships available, but we are not going to get youth unemployment down if youngsters do not avail themselves of the apprenticeships that are available. Does my hon. Friend find it disturbing—indeed, disquieting —that Barchester Healthcare, which is probably one of the best health care providers, has not been able to fill 500 of the 600 apprenticeships that it has offered? Indeed, it took six months to fill one single paid administrative apprenticeship in its Chelsea office.
Matthew Hancock
The average value of an apprenticeship to the apprentice over their lifetime is more than £100,000, and is often more than a university degree. There has been a sharp rise in apprenticeships in health and social care, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specifics of the case that he raises.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I started an apprenticeship in a factory, along with 50 others, in the days when it took six or seven years to complete—an experience that the Minister could not possibly be expected to understand. Over the years, the decline in genuine apprenticeships has been catastrophic to Britain’s ability to produce for itself, so what will he do to rebuild the real, quality skills that used to be—not any more—the envy of the world?
Matthew Hancock
I would have thought that as a former apprentice the hon. Gentleman would welcome the 500,000 apprenticeship starts over the last year. I entirely agree, however, that we must do more to support quality in apprenticeships, for instance by ensuring that they last for a minimum of one year, and I hope that he will work with me to deliver that.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the recent national apprenticeship scheme pilots achieved a small increase in the take-up of apprenticeships by black and ethnic minority young people, but those pilots have now come to an end. Will he consider using the employer apprenticeship grant to continue to promote diversity and further increase participation by BME young people?
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
5. What steps he is taking to ensure sufficient funding for early intervention for children aged five or under.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
9. What steps he is taking to raise the status and quality of vocational education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
As Minister for Skills, it is my mission to raise the status and quality of vocational education. Following the Wolf review, we have reformed school performance tables to encourage the take-up of high-value vocational qualifications before the age of 16. From this September, all those in apprenticeships were required to study English and maths, but there is more to do.
Mr Slaughter
That is utter waffle. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State has downgraded the engineering diploma, excluded practical subjects from the English baccalaureate and has no plans to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) in offering a technical baccalaureate? What do the Government have against vocational education? Is it spreading the privilege a little bit too far?
Matthew Hancock
I do not think that requiring all those in apprenticeships to study English and maths if they do not have level 2 is “waffle”; I think it is extremely important for improving the rigour and quality of vocational education. Vocational education is vital to this country’s future, and that is why I will put all my effort into championing it.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Although more girls start apprenticeships than boys, they are very under-represented in some areas. Only 5% of engineering apprenticeships and 13% of IT apprenticeships were taken up by girls. Will my hon. Friend take action to encourage more girls to consider apprenticeships in IT and engineering?
Matthew Hancock
Yes. I am delighted to say that I have already taken some action, but there is more to do. The first round of the employer ownership pilots included funding for a bid by engineering companies across the country specifically to support engineering apprenticeships and engineering training. I entirely accept the size of the challenge in engineering and ICT. If we say that engineering is not for half of our population, we are never going to have enough high-quality engineers. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has been chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose—[Interruption.] Order. He was making his point sitting down. Would he like to make it standing up?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
20. Indeed. Would the Minister accept that the withdrawal of funding for the Women into Science and Engineering campaign is not a good idea if we are to be serious about getting more women into engineering and science?
Matthew Hancock
No, I do not recognise that point at all. The employer ownership pilots are doing precisely the opposite in the first round. We are looking for more innovative, thoughtful and new ways of ensuring that funding gets to the right places, including to women, where their representation in a particular sector is low.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
A number of organisations have expressed concern that the increased focus on the EBacc will lead to fewer students studying the practical or vocational subjects that are so important for encouraging the next generation of engineers. What can my hon. Friend say to those organisations to allay their fears?
Matthew Hancock
In the first instance, ensuring that high quality science is taught before the age of 16 is vital to the future of engineering at a later age. More importantly, ensuring that English and maths are there is crucial for vocational and occupational skills for everybody. There is much more to do in that area, but the EBacc is a step forward. It is part of the future provision right across the academic and vocational areas.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking to raise levels of attainment in literacy and numeracy for children from deprived backgrounds; and if he will make a statement.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of university technical colleges in delivering high-quality technical education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
It is early days, but 98% of pupils at the JCB academy, which was our first university technical college, got an A* to C in engineering in their first exams this summer. [Interruption.] I am sure that Labour Members will be delighted by this great success. Many of the sixth formers have gone on to university and higher level apprenticeships. Five UTCs are open, and we are committed to having at least 24 across the country by 2015.
Henry Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In the last year of the Labour Government, only 17% of young people in my constituency went on to higher education. This December, I am pleased to be officially opening a new university presence in Crawley, which links local employers with local young people through technical education. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Central Sussex college on setting that up?
Matthew Hancock
I certainly join my hon. Friend in warmly welcoming what has happened at Central Sussex further education college, which is now offering higher education. It is crucial to have more engagement between our employers, our colleges and our young learners in order to ensure that when people leave college, they are ready for work, can participate in the work force and make sure that Britain has the prosperity it needs in the years ahead.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The EBacc means students are less likely to study technical subjects purely on the basis that schools are less likely to provide them because they will be measured on the narrow academic approach of this new qualification. Surely the way forward should be for all schools to offer vocational qualifications, knowing full well that people do better in their academic subjects when they do vocational routes, which should not be provided only in specialised technical colleges.
Matthew Hancock
If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to back up his assertion, I will happily look at it, but having a core of English, maths and the sciences within the EBacc before pupils reach 16 is vital to ensuring that people can go on to a vocational or an academic pathway in the future. It is absolutely central to this Government’s future vision of where our prosperity comes from that our occupational and vocational skills are at the heart of it.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
13. What recent progress he has made on ensuring young people leave school or college with a good understanding of English and mathematics.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T5. I think I detect a bid for the regrading of football scores from the Secretary of State. Will Ministers confirm that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that the Southwark and Lewisham college campus site in Bermondsey gets not only a continuing further education college but a university technical college and, if space permits, a secondary school, too?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
Yes, I can. I know that my right hon. Friend has met colleagues in the other place, and my colleagues in this place and I are happy to meet him too to ensure that we can sort this problem out.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
T4. Does the Secretary of State share my concern at a recent Ofsted report that showed serious and ongoing issues in Birmingham social services? There is good news, however, in that under new leadership Birmingham is now showing greater vigour and strategy in addressing those issues. How can Birmingham be assured that it will have the resources it needs to address those issues, particularly given the doubt over matters such as the early intervention grant, which was discussed earlier?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I, like many others in South Essex, believe that one way to improve educational outcomes in Basildon would be through the provision of a UTC specialising in both engineering and logistics. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he would welcome and support an application for such a college in Basildon?
Matthew Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. There is a commitment to have 24 UTCs by the end of this Parliament. The deadline for applications is next month and we hope to be able to announce which UTCs will go ahead by Easter.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that children learn properly when they eat properly, so does he share my concern that already more than 1 million children who live in poverty are not eligible to claim free school meals—a figure that is likely to increase next year with the introduction of universal credit? Has he made it clear to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that he should be seeking to extend eligibility rather than restricting it?
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
David Mowat
I believe the Minister said that the European permission excludes nuclear power, which forms by far the largest part of low-carbon electricity in this country and is likely to continue to do so. Given that, will he amend the purpose stated in clause 1(1)(a), as it is no longer accurate?
Matthew Hancock
The application, which has just succeeded, did not include nuclear. We do not plan to amend that purpose, not least because the Bill provides that the bank can, in time and if appropriate, be moved from the public sector into the private sector using secondary legislation, without changes having to be made to primary legislation.
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD)
Will the Minister assure the House that when he talks about a powerful institution to support the transition to a green economy, he is talking about a bank that will be able to borrow? I regret that the Bill contains no commitment to that borrowing. If the bank were able to use the public spending allocated as a capital base, it would be able to borrow, and if it were in line with, for example, the Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten in the Netherlands, it would be able to make approximately £150 billion of extensive loans. That would give far greater and more powerful support to the green economy than the funding currently allocated to it.
Matthew Hancock
The Government have already made a clear commitment that the bank will be able to borrow from April 2015, subject to public sector net debt falling as a percentage of GDP, and the borrowing could take several forms, including from the capital markets. I reiterate that commitment today. Nothing in the Bill prevents that from taking place.
As the Bill stands, the bank is allowed to invest only in activities it considers likely to contribute to the achievement of one or more of the green purposes in the UK. Government amendments 1 and 3 would allow the bank to invest in activities it considers likely to contribute to one or more of the green purposes, whether in the UK or elsewhere. The point about global supply chains has already been made powerfully. The amendments will provide important flexibility in the bank’s future activities. We believe that, for the foreseeable future, the bank’s activities should continue to be in the UK, and the Government and the Secretary of State, as shareholders in the bank, will be able to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
As I understand it, under the Bill in its current form, the bank would not be able to invest in a project that crossed borders—for example, a cable from the Republic of Ireland to the UK or a North sea supergrid. Am I correct, or will the amendment allow investment in such projects?
Matthew Hancock
The amendment will allow the bank in future to invest in the UK or elsewhere, but we have amended the bank’s statement of objects in its articles of association so that the bank’s activities are limited to those the board considers will, or are reasonably likely to, contribute in the UK to one of the green purposes. I hope that that answers both questions and addresses the reasonable point made by the Opposition that UK public spending should have a UK focus. We think this is the way to deliver the best of both worlds. The bank’s directors will be required to act in accordance with the company’s constitution to ensure that the bank contributes to the United Kingdom, and there will be flexibility for the future without the need for future primary legislation.
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.
David Mowat
For clarity on the point that was made from the Opposition Benches, there is a proposal for a very large wind farm in the Republic of Ireland, whose output would come over to the UK through an interconnector and would therefore hit our green purposes. Could we invest in that scheme in the Republic of Ireland under the Bill?
Matthew Hancock
I would want to look at the details of the scheme. However, the amendments that we have made to the articles of association refer to the bank contributing in the UK. I would expect, though I cannot formally confirm, that an interconnector would have an impact in the UK as well as on the other side of the Irish sea. I will write to my hon. Friend with more details.
Amendment 2 was tabled in response to a suggestion from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that the designation of the bank should be subject to an affirmative resolution of Parliament. We made it clear in Committee that we are looking towards that. We want to ensure that Parliament has the full ability to scrutinise these issues and I hope the Opposition will support that change in arrangements.
Amendments 4 and 5 deal with directors’ pay. The Government have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that UK companies apply the highest standards of corporate governance. We have already introduced measures under the Bill to require quoted companies to seek shareholder approval for the directors’ remuneration policy. This change ensures that the bank will abide by these new commitments so that it is treated as a quoted company for the purposes of chapters 4 and 4A of part 10 of the Companies Act 2006, and so that the company is required to seek shareholder approval for the directors’ remuneration policy. This requirement would continue if the bank were one day moved into the private sector. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Government’s commitment to the very highest standards of corporate governance.
Opposition amendments 76 and 89 deal with the bank’s ability to borrow. As I said, the Government committed in Budget 2011 to fund the green investment bank with £3 billion to 2015. This is a serious demonstration of the Government’s green credentials and it is an appropriate level of funding for a new financial institution so that it can build market confidence and show a positive commercial return, while mobilising additional capital for green infrastructure projects in accordance with its green purposes. It is a major injection of capital which underlines our strong commitment to the bank.
We have also already given a clear commitment that the bank will be able to borrow, including from the capital markets. It may help if I explain the legal position in respect of borrowing by the bank. As a company formed under the Companies Act, the bank already has the power to borrow. The bank’s constitution provides, understandably, that the company will not incur borrowing without Government consent. This restriction is imposed by the Secretary of State as shareholder and does not affect the underlying position under company law that the company, as a legal person, has the ability to borrow.
I want to be clear that we are considering carefully the case for the bank borrowing from the capital markets from 2015-16, subject to the caveats I have mentioned. It is too early to make commitments about the level or type of funding. The views of the bank’s board will be an important factor, so we will have to discuss with it the appropriate level and source of future borrowing. We made a firm commitment in Committee to seek state aid approval from the Commission in respect of borrowing before the end of this Parliament. However, we cannot move to seek that approval before we know the mechanism for and quantum of borrowing. The bank’s borrowing will clearly be scored against national debt totals, so it is entirely reasonable for the Government to take that into account as part of our future spending and fiscal plans.
In summary, the Government agree with hon. Members about the importance of the issues relating to the bank’s funding, and their role in highlighting those here is welcome, as the Government want no one to be in any doubt about our serious ambitions for the bank and the green economy. These considerations will clearly be critical to the bank’s future and we will consider carefully how to provide clarity, either through the company’s constitution or by other means, about the legal position with regard to the bank’s borrowing.
Chris Huhne
On the other means, will the Minister commit to looking carefully at introducing an amendment in the other place to put that on the face of the Bill?
Matthew Hancock
We have been very clear about our commitment to allow borrowing and will look at how best to bring that clarity, which I am sure will include discussions with my right hon. Friend and others.
On the amendment relating to small and medium-sized enterprises, we are strongly committed to supporting SMEs and, indeed, are already providing major help to them through, for example, the business growth fund and the regional growth fund. I must declare an interest: a family business with which I am not directly connected is involved in energy efficiency matters. I expect the green investment bank already to benefit SMEs in a number of ways. For instance, some of the smaller funds that have already been set up are likely to generate investments for SMEs, provided that their targeted project size is under £30 million. However, I do not think that introducing a statutory basis would help, not least because it would increase the complexity of decision making in the bank, increase uncertainly and could increase the likelihood of judicial review. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.
With regard to amendment 78, on the question of independent review, we think that parliamentary scrutiny and the normal corporate law requirements will be important. First, Parliament has a vital role in ensuring that the bank remains green. Secondly, Parliament will oversee the Secretary of State. Thirdly, I have no doubt that the Select Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee will look at the bank, and its accounts and reports will be placed before Parliament. However, it is important to be clear that the bank is a Companies Act company and, as such, directors owe duties to the company rather than directly to Parliament. We dealt with new clause 25 earlier in the debate on nuclear power.
Finally, the green purposes are clearly important as they relate to the essence of the green investment bank and to the company’s green objectives. Our goal is to have a broad definition of what is green. We agree that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a vital objective, which is why four of the five priority sectors relate directly to it. The bank will be required to report on greenhouse gas emissions associated with its own activities and the board has agreed that the bank will also report on the greenhouse gas impacts of its own investments.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because although we have nearly run out of time—we knew we would when the Government voted for the programme motion—I want to put clearly on the record the fact that unless the bank’s ability to borrow is included in the Bill it risks being nothing more than a fund, which would be a tragedy. I say again that if the Liberal Democrats want to vote in line with their own manifesto and their party policy, agreed scarcely a few weeks ago in Brighton, they should support amendment 89, which I would have loved to push to a vote.
Matthew Hancock
The Liberal Democrats and, indeed, the Conservatives are supporting this with £3 billion of Government and taxpayers’ money, and that demonstrates their commitment. However, we need a balance. The new clause would increase again the chance of judicial review. Nevertheless, while we are clear that the overall goal must be carbon emissions, we do not want to rule out other investments, some of which were mentioned by the shadow Minister, and support for wider green measures. We will therefore consider tabling a further Government amendment in the other place to clarify the point that is raised in the new clause.
Matthew Hancock
I beg to move amendment 23, page 47, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) But regulations under this section may make only such provision as may be made under subsection (2) of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 or such provision as could be made under that subsection if paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to that Act did not apply.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 24.
Amendment 75, in clause 59, page 49, line 19, at end insert—
‘(7) The Secretary of State must have regard to any feasibility study commissioned on the licensing of orphan works in advance of the regulations being laid before Parliament.’.
Matthew Hancock
In Committee, a number of questions were asked about the scope of what was then clause 56—now clause 57—on copyright. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was a Minister in the Department at the time,agreed to reflect on the clause and we have also had further discussions with interested parties.
The Government have considered this point carefully and think that amendments to clause 57 are the best way to address the concerns expressed by Committee members and industry stakeholders. I reassure hon. Members that the policy intent behind the clause remains unchanged. The clause was never intended to give the Government the ability to change copyright exceptions in ways that we cannot already change them and I hope that the amendments now make that abundantly clear.
Changes to copyright exceptions are subject to a tightly prescribed list set out in the EU information society directive. The European Communities Act 1972 provide the mechanism by which EU law is applied at a national level—in this case on copyright exceptions. The clause will permit the Secretary of State to make any changes that remove or narrow an exception without affecting the maximum criminal penalties that Parliament has set. Without the amendment, the criminal penalties might have had to be reduced and I do not think that is the aim of the Bill.
The stakeholders who had raised concerns about the clause, including the British Copyright Council, UK Music, the Publishers Association, the Creators’ Rights Alliance and the Premier League, have written to the Secretary of State confirming their support for the Government’s amendments.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the enormous concern across the creative sector about the clause and, more particularly, its purpose when it was first introduced. His reference to the fact that all it does is endorse existing law will have confused many people, as they will have wondered why, if that was so, the clause was needed at all. If it is needed, and if the amendments we are discussing go some way to addressing the problem, can he give us an assurance that any exception arising from Hargreaves, the Intellectual Property Office or any other source will be treated as primary legislation? If he cannot do that, will he undertake that every piece of secondary legislation will be introduced individually and will include a comprehensive impact assessment before it is brought to this House?
Matthew Hancock
I can assure the hon. Gentleman 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.
Amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to take into account any feasibility study undertaken of which organisation is best placed to issue licences authorising the use of orphan works.
Kevin Brennan
It is usual to give way during this stage. What does the Minister think is the maximum number of exceptions that ought to be included within one statutory instrument, given that he has been unable to give the assurance sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) that each exception will be treated separately if secondary legislation is used? Also, will he confirm that in all cases the affirmative procedure will be used?
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?
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I defer entirely to the Members who have engaged in the debate hitherto, but I have been alerted this week to outstanding concerns among those involved in intellectual property that the Government have not fully taken account of their concerns and reservations. I heard what the Minister had to say, including his assurance that the Government amendments are designed to achieve that. I have also spoken to the Secretary of State and passed him the detailed reservations that have been communicated to me.
Nevertheless, I have been advised that the uncertainty that the creative industry or intellectual property sector feels may be having a negative effect on commercial decisions. It has been reported to me that some business interests are actively considering relocating out of the UK because of their concerns about the uncertainty. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government’s wish or intention. I accept that that is said in good faith. However, I ask him to consider the representations that are being made and to reflect on whether the Government amendments will allay the practical concerns. I appreciate that our consideration is at a late stage, but, as has been mentioned, the legislation will go to another place. Those who are in that place will no doubt want to bring forward more detailed proposals if they are required.
The concern, which has been articulated much more eloquently by others, is that we could lose intellectual property rights in a bundle of legislation that goes through in a Committee Room, without adequate debate or amendment. That could have far-reaching and negative commercial consequences. In recognition of the Government’s dilemma, I would say that we need to strike a balance. It is understood that excessive protection of intellectual property rights can be contrary to free trade. Of course, it is important that we get the balance right. Equally, those who are creative in any sector have the right to know that they will not suddenly find their intellectual property taken away from them at short notice. Protection against that must not be weaker in the UK than elsewhere in the EU or in the rest of the world.
The importance of this matter has been communicated to me by people who know better than I do. They are still concerned that what the Government are doing will threaten the commercial viability of UK investments, and I am sure that is not the Government’s intention.
Matthew Hancock
I welcome the Opposition Front Benchers’ support for the two Government amendments in this group. I want to reiterate the value of intellectual property, which is underpinned by our copyright regime, to the UK economy not only in the past but, I imagine, increasingly in the future. A strong IP regime is vital to the creative industries, in which we thrive and are hugely successfully. Ensuring that that regime is right and strong is a crucial part of having a strong economic future. The Digital Economy Act 2010, which strengthened many areas of law, and the extension of the length of copyright in music indicate the Government’s commitment to a strong and supportive intellectual property regime.
I will go through the points that Members have made. It is simply not correct to suggest that these proposals have not been widely consulted on. Indeed, they are based on recommendations in the Hargreaves review, which itself drew on extensive evidence. The response to that review was followed by a formal consultation, which received almost 500 written responses. There has been extensive work with interested parties following that. I reiterate the Government’s willingness to engage with stakeholders including Members, many of whom have a long-standing interest in the subject. Members throughout the House share not just birthdays but interests, and their engagement must and will continue.
The Government will announce their policy intent with regard to the exceptions recommended in Hargreaves this autumn. Exceptions can be introduced, extended and updated using the existing provisions of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The proposed way forward represents no change to how exceptions can be introduced and updated under the existing provisions. The problem is that the criminal penalties available in statute brought in under that Act carry a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. In the case of many of the offences that we are discussing, penalties are longer than two years and can be up to 10 years. It is in the interest of those who want to ensure that their copyrights are protected to make sure that criminal penalties are that high. We do not want to have to bring them down to two years, in order to use the 1972 Act. Clause 57 is not needed to implement Hargreaves, but it allows us to do so in a way consistent with the existing, stronger criminal penalties, which I know the industry and many stakeholders support. Having received that reassurance, the British Copyright Council, UK Music, the Publishers Association and the Premier League are happy to support the Government amendments.
Jim Dowd
On that point, why does the Minister not do what was suggested by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and simply put in a tightened disciplinary regime and nothing else? Why is that so difficult for the Government to accept, if that is the sole purpose of the clause?
Matthew Hancock
Because we want to ensure, as and when technical amendments are considered, that we do not have to water down criminal penalties because of the way that the measures are introduced.
We are not in a position to announce a precise timetable for work on orphan works, but we expect it to be concluded during 2013 and certainly before any regulations are made. I commit the Government to discussing the details with Opposition Front-Bench Members, and others, during that process.
The Government amendments have been tabled with strong support for the IP regime on which much of our industry is based, and although the Government recognise the probing nature of the Opposition amendments, and commit to continued analysis of and engagement on those issues, we do not think that they should be included in the Bill.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Clause 57
Power to change exceptions: copyright and rights in performances
Amendment made: 24, page 47, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) But regulations under this section may make only such provision as may be made under subsection (2) of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 or such provision as could be made under that subsection if paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to that Act did not apply.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Clause 68
Extent
Amendments made: 31, page 59, line 34, leave out ‘17(1)(c)’ and insert ‘17(2A)’.
Amendment 32, page 60, line 14, after ‘50,’ insert ‘[Osborne estate],’.
Amendment 33, page 60, line 14, after ‘54’ insert ‘and [Estate agency work]’.
Amendment 34, page 60, line 15, at end insert—
‘() section [Civil liability for breach of health and safety duties] extends only to England and Wales and Scotland except that it also extends to Northern Ireland so far as Parts 1 and 4 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 extend there,’.
Amendment 35, page 60, line 16, leave out ‘section’ and insert ‘sections’.
Amendment 36, page 60, line 16, after ‘52’ insert
‘, [Equality Act 2010: third party harassment of employees and applicants] and [Equality Act 2010: obtaining information for proceedings]’.
Amendment 37, page 60, line 16, leave out ‘extends’ and insert
‘and paragraphs 1, 52 to 54, 56 and 61 of Schedule [Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments] extend’.
Amendment 38, page 60, line 17, leave out ‘section’ and insert ‘sections’.
Amendment 39, page 60, line 17, before ‘51’ insert
‘[Listed buildings in England: agreements and orders granting listed building consent],’.
Amendment 40, page 60, line 17, before ‘51’ insert
‘[Listed buildings in England: certificates of lawfulness],’.
Amendment 41, page 60, line 17, after ‘51’ insert ‘ and [Adjudicators]’.
Amendment 42, page 60, line 17, leave out first ‘Schedule’ and insert ‘Schedules’.
Amendment 43, page 60, line 17, before ‘16’ insert
‘and [Local listed building consent orders: procedure]’.
Amendment 44, page 60, line 17, after ‘17’ insert
‘, Schedule [Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders] and paragraphs 2 to 51, 55, 57 to 60 and 62 of Schedule [Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments]’.
Amendment 45, page 60, line 22, at end insert
‘except that section [Power to provide for equal pay audits] extends only to England and Wales and Scotland’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Clause 69
Commencement
Amendments made: 46, page 60, line 26, at end insert—
‘() section [Osborne estate];’.
Amendment 47, page 60, line 26, at end insert—
‘() section [Power to provide for equal pay audits];’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 69, page 60, line 30, at end insert—
‘(d) Sections [Local authorities: powers relating to deemed consent] and [Restriction of advertisements relating to property letting].’.
Matthew Hancock
I commend the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for his assiduous and long-standing opposition to “To let” signs. I wonder what has driven him to this position, but I recognise and celebrate his tenacity in finding occasions on which to make such proposals in the House—[Interruption.] I might have a little bit of good news for him, if Opposition Members would care to listen.
I appreciate that the proliferation of “To let” signs can be a serious problem, but new clause 21 is slightly disproportionate. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out deficiencies in the current remedy for the local planning authority—seeking a direction under regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007—but his solution is to ban “To let” boards unless a local authority makes byelaws to allow them.
Matthew Hancock
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on allowing local authorities to have the power to change the situation on the ground with regard to “To let” signs. The powers exist, but there are very few applications for them—there have been only 10 in the past six years—which indicates that the problem is not hugely widespread, although it is a serious issue in some areas.
The directions tend to fall into two groups. The first is where there are large houses in sensitive architectural areas, such as Kensington and Chelsea in London, or Brighton and Hove. The second group is where there is a large concentration of student houses, such as in Leeds, Loughborough, Nottingham or Newcastle. Authorities in such areas have already successfully obtained directions and are exercising the necessary control. Therefore, the ability to take control is in law.
The right hon. Gentleman’s solution is to ensure that, instead of being able to apply, more often the power would need to be put in place, but that would be an extra burden. I understand the concern, however, and agree that the Secretary of State has more important things to do. New clause 20 proposes to take the Secretary of State out of the decision-making process. I shall take that point away and discuss it with ministerial colleagues, including in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and with him. I hope that he can take that assurance and that we can take things forward from there.
Mr Nicholas Brown
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance. I wrote to the Department at the time of my ten-minute rule Bill on this subject offering to co-operate with the Government by putting it into Committee and accepting their amendments and any tidying up they wanted, if they agreed to facilitate the Bill’s progress through the House, which, as he will know, is in their gift—without it, I would have had to overcome many more hurdles. I am grateful for his assurance, then, and I hope that he stays in office long enough to implement it, because the previous Ministers did not even have time to answer my letter before being dispatched elsewhere—or, in the case of one of them, just dispatched! I look forward to working with him, and, given his assurance, I will not press my amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50
Sunset and review provisions
Matthew Hancock
I beg to move amendment 21, page 42, line 38, leave out ‘, other than the Scottish Ministers,’.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 22.
Amendment 63, page 43, line 1, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 64, page 43, line 4, after ‘specified period’, insert ‘, or’.
Amendment 65, page 43, line 6, after ‘specified period’, insert ‘, or’.
Amendment 66, page 43, line 10, leave out line 10 and insert ‘If the provision is made by virtue of subsection (2)(a), it includes’.
Amendment 67, page 43, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must if necessary’.
New clause 26—Review of legislation relating to health and safety at work and application of sunset and review provisions to this legislation—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) carry out a review of the effectiveness of all existing legislation relating to health and safety at work, and
(b) prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.
(2) The review and report must quantify, in particular—
(a) the effectiveness of the legislation in terms of reducing deaths, injuries and sickness in the workplace,
(b) the human cost, and full societal costs of work-related injuries, deaths and ill-health in terms of pain and suffering, injuries, sickness and years of life lost, and
(c) the full societal costs of the impact of the legislation including those costs resulting from welfare and healthcare spending, and resulting from the number of days lost in the workplace due to ill-health.
(3) Subordinate legislation under section 14A of the Interpretation Act 1978 in respect of any provision relating to health and safety at work may not be made until after the report has been published.’.
Matthew Hancock
Amendments 21 and 22 are technical amendments, the effect of which I hope will be straightforward and non-controversial. The changes proposed in Clause 50 will support the implementation of the Government’s policy on reducing the burden of regulation by allowing a sunset and review provision to be included in any future secondary legislation. They will enable the Government to put in place a robust and enduring system for tackling obsolete, burdensome or ineffective regulation, in line with the principles set out in the sunsetting guidance first published in March 2011.
I am pleased to say that those principles and the proposed change in the clause are widely supported and received detailed scrutiny in Committee before the summer. The changes proposed in clause 50 are permissive, broad in scope—intentionally so—and apply to powers to make subordinate legislation falling within the scope of the Interpretation Act 1978. Without qualification, this would include powers in a UK Act of Parliament exercisable by Scottish Ministers, whether in relation to matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament or in relation to matters reserved to Westminster.
Following earlier consultation with Scottish Ministers, however, agreement was reached to exclude powers exercised by Scottish Ministers from the effect of the changes. Among other things, that is consistent with the convention, under the present devolution settlement, which has cross-party support, that the Westminster Parliament will not normally legislate on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That seems reasonable to me.
Following further consultation with interested parties, it has become apparent that a further change is required to address the related issue of the powers of non-ministerial Scottish bodies and other persons under UK legislation. For example, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 provides the registrar with various powers to make subordinate legislation in areas of devolved competence. Equally, the Court of Session has powers under successive UK Acts, most recently the Court of Session Act 1988. Because these are powers to make subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, they would also be in the scope of the changes proposed in clause 50. The effect of the Government’s amendments is to ensure that the powers exercised by non-ministerial Scottish bodies and other persons that fall within areas of devolved competence are excluded.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. I am enthralled to learn about births, deaths and marriages in Scotland—all things Scottish are important at the moment—but for businesses in my constituency of Bedford, the key question on the sunset provisions is why the Government have proposed only a “may” rather than a “must”. What business leaders in my constituency want to see is a clear indication from the Government that they intend to seek a requirement to sunset all new legislation, rather than this “maybe, maybe not.” In the remaining time, will the Minister please address the question of why he has chosen “may” rather than “must”?
Matthew Hancock
One reason is that it would be unreasonable to include a requirement to sunset all legislation, including primary legislation, when some of it is intended to set a long-term framework. For instance, when we set the structures in which our energy market operates, it is important to show clarity and long-term decision making, and we can deliver that, especially where there is cross-party consent. Therefore, although we want to ensure that sunsetting is the norm, especially in secondary legislation, there is a purpose in not doing so for primary legislation where businesses want the certainty of a long-term legislative proposal, rather than having a requirement that all legislation of this House—including, for instance, constitutional legislation—be sunsetted after a period of time. Notwithstanding the fact that income tax remains sunsetted every year, requiring a Finance Bill, it would not be appropriate to have a sunset on every single piece of legislation.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate the Minister’s giving way again. I know that in his solid free-market hands businesses should have no fears about the way in which legislation will be imposed further upon them, but he will know, just as I do, that eventually, in the long-distant future, there may be a change of Government—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—although maybe not in my lifetime. Does he not agree that, just as night follows day, so sunsets should be applied to all clauses?
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.)
Matthew Hancock
We have had a wide-ranging debate over two days on Report and now on Third Reading. We have heard speeches by the hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) that have railed against enterprise and against the Bill.
By contrast, my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) have argued passionately for enterprise, business and jobs. I cannot quite match their eloquence or the power of their arguments about the ability of the free market system to create jobs and build prosperity not only in this country but around the world. I am disappointed to find out that President Obama has said something that it will now be impossible for us to say without reference being made to his saying it—that the free enterprise system is the greatest force for progress that the world has ever seen.
Matthew Hancock
No, I will not. I have only a few minutes. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) spoke passionately about his constituency and the need to remove from primary legislation restrictions on Osborne house. It is interesting that in this single Bill we are amending the Osborne Estate Act 1902, the Interpretation Act 1978, the Estate Agents Act 1979 and many more Acts, to promote enterprise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) talked about the green investment bank and listed the Government’s various measures to support credit. We are adding a business bank, which may well sweep up some of those other measures. He asked about policy overlap, and I point out that thus far, the funds put into the green investment bank have been for projects with a maximum size of £20 million. That shows the scope of the bank so far.
The Secretary of State is at the John Cass lecture on social mobility. Government Members are in favour of social mobility, but Opposition Members argue that the Secretary of State should not be giving a lecture on it.
Matthew Hancock
Making it easier for people to have settlement agreements, ensuring that health and safety legislation is implemented reasonably, helping the operation of listed buildings policy and improving the operation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission will all help the free market system, which is the engine of prosperity.
The Government’s record is clear. We now know that when we arrived in office, the structural deficit was £73 billion a year. Since then, however, 1 million new jobs have been created in the private sector. I did not notice any Opposition Members welcoming that fact. There are 170,000 fewer people on benefits, and the deficit is down by a quarter.
We have introduced measures on competition, on making it easier to employ people, on a green investment bank, on improvements to the Estate Agents Act and on health and safety. Members of the House are inspired and motivated to enter politics for many different reasons, and one of the best of those is to work at creating jobs and help employers to create jobs. It looks as if the Opposition will oppose this measure, and in doing so they will show that they are anti-business, anti-enterprise and anti-jobs. They have only one option—more borrowing—whereas the coalition Government are pro-enterprise, pro-business and pro-jobs. We need jobs for people who want to make their lives better, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 34.
Matthew Hancock
Government new clause 14 relates to civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties. It fulfils our commitment in the Budget to introduce measures to reduce the burden of health and safety, following the recommendations made in the independent Löfstedt report. Professor Löfstedt considered the impact that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving over-compliance with health and safety at work regulations. The fear of being sued drives businesses to exceed what is required by the criminal law, diverting them from focusing on sensible preventive health and safety management and resulting in unnecessary costs and burdens.
Professor Löfstedt identified the unfairness that can arise when health and safety at work regulations impose a strict duty on employers that makes them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work, despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm. Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.
We all have different reasons for coming into politics. When I was growing up, I had one of the experiences that brought me to this place, concerning the over-burdensome intervention of health and safety officers. I worked in a family computer software company when an over-long health and safety investigation took place, which took up huge amounts time for the officers and senior management. The only result at the end of it was the recommendation that some bleach in a cupboard must be labelled correctly. After a sign was put up saying, “There is bleach in the cupboard. Please do not drink it,” the company was passed under the health and safety regulations.
These changes will ensure that there is a reasonableness defence in the consideration of some health and safety cases.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I am enjoying the march back through time to the Minister’s computer existence. I speak as a former health and safety barrister—on behalf of the prosecution, I should say. I welcome the changes recommended in the independent report. Is not what we are trying to do to bring flexibility and fairness to a system that is too old and defunct?
Matthew Hancock
We are ensuring that due health and safety measures are protected, but that there is a test of reasonableness for the actions of employers, so that those who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be prosecuted for a technical breach. That will reduce the impression among many businesses, especially small businesses, that they are liable to health and safety legislation in many cases when they are not. It will reduce that impression while ensuring that taking reasonable steps to abate health and safety difficulties remains a vital part of everybody’s responsibilities. Indeed, the new clause does not change the criminal procedures in relation to health and safety.
How do we propose to do this? Civil claims for personal injury can be brought by two routes: a breach of the common-law duty of care, in which case negligence has to be proved, or a breach of statutory duty, in which case the failure to meet the particular legal standard alleged to have been breached has to be proved. The new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to remove the right to bring civil claims for breach of a statutory duty contained in certain health and safety legislation.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
As I am sure the Minister knows, the 1974 Act is riddled with the phrase
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
Does that not give the protection against flimsy claims that he has been talking about?
Matthew Hancock
The 1974 Act does not give that protection, because a test of negligence is not required to proceed with a prosecution. In future, proof of negligence will be required to bring a case. It will be possible to bring a civil action for a breach of common law duty of care only on the basis that the employer has been negligent.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am enjoying the Minister’s attention to detail on this important matter. Will he reassure us that this provision will not add to the burden for small businesses because of the process of providing proof? Has he done any number crunching to show what it will mean for the businesses that matter so much to Britain?
Matthew Hancock
My hon. Friend anticipates my speech, because this provision will reduce the burdens on business. It is difficult to know precisely by how much because businesses react not only to the letter of the law, but to the perception of the law. There are perceived health and safety requirements that go beyond technical breaches of the law, and we want to remove them. One can go to the new Government website and ask whether something is required by health and safety legislation. Many of the cases that are brought to the Government’s attention are not required by health and safety legislation. The problem is the perception of health and safety legislation. By including a reasonableness defence, we will help to remove the implied, expected and perceived burdens on business.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
When my hon. Friend became a Minister, what assessment did he make of the previous Labour Government’s attempts to lift the burdens on business and the perception of those burdens over the 13 years that they were in office?
Matthew Hancock
I have found no evidence of that. If my hon. Friend can point any out to me, I would be extremely grateful.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the direction in which the Minister is taking the debate and the policy. I will never forget a conversation that I had in Macclesfield marketplace, a place with which I know he is familiar. A lady told me how disturbed she was that the perception of health and safety was giving it a bad name. I asked who she worked for and she said the Health and Safety Executive. The situation is going too far. Does the Minister agree that it is important to move to a common-sense approach, which I think is the direction in which he is taking Government policy?
Matthew Hancock
It is important to have a health and safety framework in which responsible businesses act in a way that supports and enhances the safety of the people who work for them. Indeed, it is vital that we all have a duty to behave reasonably on questions of health and safety.
I hope that making negligence a requirement before a health and safety case can be brought will mean that those who behave reasonably have no reason to fear health and safety legislation and that those who think carefully and responsibly about the businesses that they run will know that they are behaving not only reasonably, but lawfully.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his speech. Does he agree that the managers of companies who are acting reasonably will be freed up to go out and win more export business, including those in the manufacturing and engineering companies in my constituency of Dudley South?
Matthew Hancock
Indeed, this action will reduce the burdens on business and help Britain to compete. It also provides important reassurance to employers that they will be liable to pay compensation only when it can be proved that they have been negligent.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I well recall when I worked in the shipyards watching the white particles of dust and asking whether they had any health and safety implications, only for the employer to tell me, “Don’t be stupid. Get on with your lot, young man. It won’t do you any harm.” Hundreds of thousands of people are now suffering from mesothelioma. Is that the kind of employer that the Minister wants to support?
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman gives a good explanation of why there is cross-party support for health and safety measures that are reasonable. After all, it was a Conservative Government who brought in the Factory Acts. On the specific point that he raises, the provision is forward looking and is not retrospective. It will not have an impact on acts that were committed in the past, but is about actions that take place in the future. He raises an important question and I hope that I have reassured him.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very helpful. Will he clarify whether there is currently—or will be in the legislation—a legal definition of what “reasonable” actually means?
Matthew Hancock
The definition of reasonableness will come from the common law interpretation, and the concept is already well regarded and specified in law.
The new clause makes a significant contribution to the Government’s reform of civil litigation to redress the balance between claimants and defendants. It is good for Britain’s competitiveness, reduces burdens on businesses, and strengthens and underpins our health and safety system, thereby ensuring that people think it is fit for purpose.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I am concerned by the Minister’s remarks because far too many people are already killed at work each year, and people are also injured through faulty or wrong seating and other things that happen. The office is not a safe working space, and when the Minister says that we worry too much about health and safety, I am worried that we will make things far worse for people not only in heavy industry but in other working situations. Health and safety legislation exists to protect those people from back injury, repetitive strain injury and all the other things that occur. This legislation will completely reduce that issue in people’s minds.
Matthew Hancock
On the contrary, although I share the hon. Lady’s concerns to ensure that health and safety legislation is regarded and reasonably interpreted throughout work forces, whether in industry, agriculture or offices, and although such legislation is an important part of the modern workplace, it is unhelpful when health and safety becomes a byword for regulations that get in the way and stop businesses competing or, for instance, children from being taken on school trips once reasonable precautions have been put in place, and instead bring the whole system into disrepute. That is what the Government are trying to stop. The key defence of negligence ensures that if people breach health and safety rules or have not acted reasonably, that will—of course—be taken into account under the system, and the new clause will not change criminal health and safety procedures. We must, however, ensure that unreasonable claims, and the existing perception of health and safety legislation, do not get in the way of Britain’s ability to compete.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister is pushing the point about perception. He is right: businesses do respond to perception, and sometimes go further than is legally required. However, if they respond to perception in one direction, they may well respond to a new perception in another direction and do less than is required. If that is the case, how many injuries or deaths will it take for the Minister to be back at the Dispatch Box rewinding some of the changes?
Matthew Hancock
If businesses behave unreasonably and are negligent, they will be caught by the system. That proves the point about why we have to strike a good balance between a health and safety system that everybody supports and under which employers—and others—have to behave reasonably and take reasonable precautions, and a system in which the test of having acted reasonably is not a defence in civil law. That is the change being made; it will help to free up business, and I commend the new clause to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Minister [Interruption.] I meant the shadow Minister.
Matthew Hancock
We have had impassioned contributions to the debate, not least from the hon. Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). Several Opposition Members have made the point about a lack of consultation with the Opposition Front Benchers. However, the Löfstedt review involved a consultation, to which there were something like 400 submissions. That review published some of the evidence on which our proposal is based, not least evidence showing that most employers do not make a distinction between health and safety measures on a civil and a criminal basis. They are therefore more likely to waste time over-complying—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned the problem of time being wasted—than to focus on the need to ensure rigorous health and safety so that they can reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries in the workplace. That is what is valuable, and Opposition Members have spoken powerfully about it. That is where the focus should be, rather than on over-compliance with the details and technicalities that are often put in place, which are not required and not helpful for safety purposes. Instead, they give health and safety a bad name.
Mr Anderson
Is not the danger, though, that we will end up with under-compliance, which will lead to more people dying? I would rather waste time, as the Minister puts it, than waste lives.
Matthew Hancock
I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is under-compliance, people will have been negligent and the full force of both the criminal and civil law will be available.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned the Federation of Small Businesses, but it has stated:
“A wider problem for small businesses is that many do not feel confident that they are compliant owing to confusion about what is absolutely necessary, and so feel the need to gold-plate the law to protect them.”
Indeed, an FSB survey showed that 87% of its members supported the Löfstedt approach. Given that figure, and given that the FSB is clear about the lack of confidence caused by the current confusion in the law, I hope he will accept that it is very much behind the Government’s approach.
Likewise, EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, has stated:
“The current compensation system is serving the needs of neither employees nor employers and is the source of many of the media stories and public concern about excessive health and safety.”
That concern has been part of our debate. Of course, the substance of when technical breaches occur is a crucial part of the change that we are making, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there is also the problem of perception, which leads to over-complication. Both those problems need to be addressed, and they will be by our changes.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I was moved, as I am sure everyone else in the House was, by the earnest statements that Opposition Members made about how members of their families and other people they knew had been killed by industrial diseases. However, difficulties such as those that we find in the current legislation do not help to prevent such cases.
Matthew Hancock
Indeed, and over-compliance and the fear of technical breach bring the wider health and safety law into disrepute. All parties support that law. As has been acknowledged, it was introduced by a Conservative Government, and it has been vigorously supported by Labour Governments over the past century or so. However, it is undermined when the impression is given that the system is over-complicated, confusing and aimed at technical, rather than substantive, breaches.
Andrew Bridgen
I, too, was impressed with the genuine passion of Opposition Members who talked about health and safety, but I honestly believe that they missed one fundamental point. They seem to believe that there is no cost to over-compliance with regulations, but there is not only a cost to our economy and the Exchequer, which is important at the moment, but a cost borne by the long-term unemployed and the workless. They pay for over-compliance by not having access to the workplace, which vastly decreases their life expectancy. They are the people paying the price.
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—
Ian Lavery
If the proposals are passed by Parliament, does the Minister envisage a great reduction in the number of fatalities in the workplace next year?
Matthew Hancock
I would expect the focus to be on the substantive breaches and negligence that, sadly, bring about the injuries and deaths in the workplace that we all want to minimise.
The hon. Member for Paisley and elsewhere mentioned the problems with asbestos in educational institutions, and especially in further education colleges. I want to give him the reassurance that past actions will not be affected by the changes in the law, should it be passed according to the will of Parliament. Now that the problems with asbestos are widely known and documented, I anticipate that people who ignore those problems will be ruled negligent by the courts, rather than such instances merely being considered technical breaches. I therefore do not see that question applying in such circumstances.
Jim Sheridan
For the benefit of Hansard, I should like to point out that my constituency is Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Concern has been expressed that this whole debate has been driven by B-list celebrities and B-list journalists on The Daily Mail who have probably never worked in such a workplace in their lives. Can the Minister name one company that has clearly told him that it will employ more people if the Bill goes through?
Matthew Hancock
As I have said, 87% of FSB members support the Löfstedt approach—[Hon. Members: “Name them!”] I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman asks the FSB, it will give him the names of some of those supporters. I prefer to be driven by evidence such as that survey, rather than by unnecessary concerns, given that precautions are being put in place through these amendments. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sunshine in Glasgow, and I hope that the new jobs and benefits to business that will result from the ability to remove the perception of a fear of health and safety will bring that sunshine not only to Glasgow but to the rest of the country. I hope that the new clause will reduce the effects of the perception of a need for over-compliance with health and safety measures, and that instead the focus can be placed on substantive breaches of health and safety regulations. I commend the new clause to the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jo Swinson
The companies covered by this deregulation would not be involved in the transaction of money, because if they were they would remain caught by the Estate Agents Act. We therefore do not need to worry about this in relation to making it easier to undertake money laundering. Of course the Government maintain their provisions to try to make sure that they enforce the existing rules against money laundering in an appropriate fashion.
I hope that in the absence of any other questions from Members we will be able to proceed with a fair degree of consensus on this useful, though limited, deregulatory measure.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 15 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Listed buildings in England: agreements and orders granting listed building consent
‘(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In Chapter 2 of Part 1, after section 26 insert—
“Buildings in England: heritage partnership agreements
26A Heritage partnership agreements
‘(1) A relevant local planning authority may make an agreement under this section (a “heritage partnership agreement”) with any owner of a listed building, or a part of such a building, situated in England.
(2) Any of the following may also be a party to a heritage partnership agreement in addition to an owner and the relevant local planning authority—
(a) any other relevant local planning authority;
(b) the Secretary of State;
(c) the Commission;
(d) any person who has an interest in the listed building;
(e) any occupier of the listed building;
(f) any person involved in the management of the listed building;
(g) any other person who appears to the relevant local planning authority appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in, the listed building, or in buildings of architectural or historic interest more generally.
(3) A heritage partnership agreement may contain provision—
(a) granting listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of specified works for the alteration or extension of the listed building to which the agreement relates, and
(b) specifying any conditions to which the consent is subject.
(4) The conditions to which listed building consent may be subject under subsection (3)(b) in respect of specified works are those that could be attached to listed building consent in respect of the works if consent were to be granted under section 16.
(5) If a heritage partnership agreement contains provision under subsection (3), nothing in sections 10 to 26 and 28 applies in relation to listed building consent for the specified works, subject to any regulations under section 26B(2)(f).
(6) A heritage partnership agreement may also—
(a) specify or describe works that would or would not, in the view of the parties to the agreement, affect the character of the listed building as a building of special architectural or historic interest;
(b) make provision about the maintenance and preservation of the listed building;
(c) make provision about the carrying out of specified work, or the doing of any specified thing, in relation to the listed building;
(d) provide for public access to the listed building and the provision to the public of associated facilities, information or services;
(e) restrict access to, or use of, the listed building;
(f) prohibit the doing of any specified thing in relation to the listed building;
(g) provide for a relevant public authority to make payments of specified amounts and on specified terms—
(i) for, or towards, the costs of any works provided for under the agreement; or
(ii) in consideration of any restriction, prohibition or obligation accepted by any other party to the agreement.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g), each of the following, if a party to the agreement, is a relevant public authority—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Commission;
(c) a relevant local planning authority.
(8) In this section “specified” means specified or described in the heritage partnership agreement.
(9) In this section and section 26B—
“owner”, in relation to a listed building or a part of such a building, means a person who is for the time being —
(a) the estate owner in respect of the fee simple in the building or part; or
(b) entitled to a tenancy of the building or part granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired;
“relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a listed building, means a local planning authority in whose area the building or any part of the building is situated.
26B Heritage partnership agreements: supplemental
‘(1) A heritage partnership agreement—
(a) must be in writing;
(b) must make provision for the parties to review its terms at intervals specified in the agreement;
(c) must make provision for its termination and variation;
(d) may relate to more than one listed building or part, provided that in each case a relevant local planning authority and an owner are parties to the agreement; and
(e) may contain incidental and consequential provisions.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) about any consultation that must take place before heritage partnership agreements are made or varied;
(b) about the publicity that must be given to heritage partnership agreements before or after they are made or varied;
(c) specifying terms that must be included in heritage partnership agreements;
(d) enabling the Secretary of State or any other person specified in the regulations to terminate by order a heritage partnership agreement or any provision of such an agreement;
(e) about the provision that may be included in an order made under regulations under paragraph (d), including provision enabling such orders to contain supplementary, incidental, transitory, transitional or saving provision;
(f) applying or reproducing, with or without modifications, any provision of sections 10 to 26 and 28 for the purposes of heritage partnership agreements;
(g) modifying any other provision of this Act as it applies in relation to heritage partnership agreements.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (2)(a) may, in particular, include provision as to—
(a) the circumstances in which consultation must take place;
(b) the types of listed building in respect of which consultation must take place;
(c) who must carry out the consultation;
(d) who must be consulted (including provision enabling the Commission to direct who is to be consulted in particular cases); and
(e) how the consultation must be carried out.
(4) Listed building consent granted by a heritage partnership agreement (except so far as the agreement or regulations under subsection (2) otherwise provide) enures for the benefit of the building and of all persons for the time being interested in it.
(5) Subject to subsection (4), a heritage partnership agreement cannot impose any obligation or liability, or confer any right, on a person who is not party to the agreement.
(6) Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (power to discharge or modify restrictive covenant) does not apply to a heritage partnership agreement.”
(3) After section 26B insert—
“Buildings in England: orders granting listed building consent
26C Listed building consent orders
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order (a “listed building consent order”) grant listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of works of any description for the alteration or extension of listed buildings of any description in England.
(2) The consent may be granted subject to conditions specified in the order.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), the conditions that may be specified include any conditions subject to which listed building consent may be granted under section 16.
(4) A listed building consent order may (without prejudice to section 17(2)) give the local planning authority power to require details of works to be approved by them, and may grant consent subject to conditions with respect to—
(a) the making of an application to the authority for a determination as to whether such approval is required, and
(b) the outcome of such an application or the way it is dealt with.
(5) A listed building consent order may enable the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to direct that consent granted by the order does not apply—
(a) to a listed building specified in the direction;
(b) to listed buildings of a description specified in the direction;
(c) to listed buildings in an area specified in the direction.
(6) An order may in particular make provision about the making, coming into force, variation and revocation of such a direction, including provision conferring powers on the Secretary of State in relation to directions by a local planning authority.
(7) Nothing in sections 10 to 26 applies in relation to listed building consent granted by a listed building consent order; but that does not affect the application of sections 20, 21 and 22 in relation to an application for approval required by a condition to which consent is subject.
26D Local listed building consent orders
‘(1) A local planning authority for any area in England may by order (a “local listed building consent order”) grant listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of works of any description for the alteration or extension of listed buildings.
(2) Regulations under this Act may provide that subsection (1) does not apply to listed buildings of any description or in any area.
(3) The consent granted by a local listed building consent order may relate—
(a) to all listed buildings in the area of the authority or any part of that area;
(b) to listed buildings of any description in that area or any part of that area.
(4) The consent may be granted subject to conditions specified in the order.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the conditions that may be specified include any subject to which listed building consent may be granted under section 16.
(6) A local listed building consent order may enable the local planning authority to direct that the consent granted by the order in respect of works of any description does not apply—
(a) to a listed building specified in the direction;
(b) to listed buildings of a description specified in the direction;
(c) to listed buildings in an area specified in the direction.
(7) An order may in particular make provision about the making, coming into force, variation and revocation of such a direction, including provision conferring powers on the Secretary of State.
(8) Nothing in sections 10 to 26 applies in relation to listed building consent granted by a local listed building consent order; but that does not affect the application of sections 20, 21 and 22 in relation to an application for approval required by a condition to which consent is subject.
(9) Schedule 2A makes provision in connection with local listed building consent orders.
26E Powers of Secretary of State in relation to local orders
‘(1) At any time before a local listed building consent order is adopted by a local planning authority the Secretary of State may direct that the order (or any part of it) is not to be adopted without the Secretary of State’s approval.
(2) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (1)—
(a) the authority must not take any step in connection with the adoption of the order until they have submitted the order or the part to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State has decided whether to approve it;
(b) the order has no effect unless it (or the part) has been approved by the Secretary of State.
(3) In considering an order or part submitted under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter the Secretary of State thinks relevant.
(4) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the local planning authority.
(5) The Secretary of State—
(a) may approve or reject an order or part of an order submitted under subsection (2)(a);
(b) must give reasons for that decision.
(6) The Secretary of State—
(a) may at any time before a local listed building consent order is adopted by the local planning authority, direct them to modify it in accordance with the direction;
(b) must give reasons for any such direction.
(7) The local planning authority—
(a) must comply with a direction under subsection (6);
(b) must not adopt the order unless the Secretary of State gives notice of being satisfied that they have complied with the direction.
(8) The Secretary of State—
(a) may at any time by order revoke a local listed building consent order if of the opinion that it is expedient to do so;
(b) must give reasons for doing so.
(9) The Secretary of State—
(a) must not make an order under subsection (8) without consulting the local planning authority;
(b) if proposing to make such an order, must serve notice on the local planning authority.
(10) A notice under subsection (9)(b) must specify the period (which must not be less than 28 days from the date of its service) within which the authority may require an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(11) The Secretary of State must give the authority such an opportunity if they require it within the period specified in the notice.
26F Considerations in making orders
‘(1) In considering whether to make a listed building consent order or local listed building consent order the Secretary of State or local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving—
(a) listed buildings of a description to which the order applies,
(b) their setting, or
(c) any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.
(2) Before making a listed building consent order the Secretary of State must consult the Commission.
26G Effect of revision or revocation of order on incomplete works
‘(1) A listed building consent order or local listed building consent order may include provision permitting the completion of works if—
(a) listed building consent is granted by the order in respect of the works, and
(b) the listed building consent is withdrawn after the works are started but before they are completed.
(2) Listed building consent granted by an order is withdrawn—
(a) if the order is revoked;
(b) if the order is varied or (in the case of a local listed building consent order) revised so that it ceases to grant listed building consent in respect of the works or materially changes any condition or limitation to which the grant of listed building consent is subject;
(c) if a direction applying to the listed building is issued under powers conferred under section 26C(5) or 26D(6).”
(4) After section 28 insert—
“28A Compensation where consent formerly granted by order is granted conditionally or refused
(1) Section 28 also has effect (subject to subsections (2) and (3)) where—
(a) listed building consent granted by a listed building consent order or a local listed building consent order is withdrawn (whether by the revocation or amendment of the order or by the issue of a direction), and
(b) on an application for listed building consent made within the prescribed period after the withdrawal, consent for works formerly authorised by the order is refused or is granted subject to conditions other than those imposed by the order.
(2) Section 28 does not have effect by virtue of subsection (1) if—
(a) the works authorised by the order were started before the withdrawal, and
(b) the order included provision in pursuance of section 26G permitting the works to be completed after the withdrawal.
(3) Section 28 does not have effect by virtue of subsection (1) if—
(a) notice of the withdrawal was published in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period before the withdrawal, and
(b) the works authorised by the order were not started before the notice was published.
(4) Where section 28 has effect by virtue of subsection (1), references in section 28(2) and (3) to the revocation or modification of listed building consent are references to the withdrawal of the listed building consent by revocation or amendment of the order or by issue of the direction.”
(5) Schedule [Local listed building consent orders: procedure] (which inserts Schedule 2A to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) has effect.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 10—Listed buildings in England: certificates of lawfulness.
Government new schedule 1—‘Local listed Building consent orders: procedure.
Government amendments 38 to 40, 42, 43, and 48 to 50.
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?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I am Mr Self-Discipline, but someone needs to break this ridiculous, cosy consensus over the tax grab that is being proposed, and I suggest that the House should get into the real world. I live in a listed building and deal with local authorities, and week by week, across the country, pre-planning advice from those local authorities is being charged for.
At the moment, if I want to splice one little piece of wood in one window in my house, I require planning permission costing £400. The Government’s new clause means that, if I want to splice one little bit of rotten wood, I will be charged £400 for pre-planning advice by my authority. That is happening with authorities all over the country. It is total nonsense.
Authorities are finding new ways of making money and new taxes. It might not be the Government’s intention, but that is what happening. Authorities are finding new ways that they never bothered about before to say, “You’d better seek some advice before doing things.” My neighbour has been told that a slight change in the colour of his paint requires planning consent. My house is 400 years old and I have a brick wall that is 30-years-old. I was told this week that if I want to add a brick to it, I will need planning consent. Where is the heritage in a 30-year-old 1970s brick wall in a 400-year-old house? There is none.
This is a tax grab by local authorities. Added to the affordable housing tax grab and the community infrastructure levy tax grab, it means that those who live in listed properties will not be able to afford to do anything with them. It is about time someone spoke up against the additional taxes that this evil coalition is bringing in.
Mr Speaker
Order. I fear I must now call the Minister—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
Matthew Hancock
In the very short time available, I shall first deal with the previous two speeches. I agree with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and am grateful for his intervention, but I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, not least because the Government’s measures will make his situation easier, and because changes other than where there is a special interest will no longer require consent in the same way. That will make his life easier.
Paul Maynard
The Twentieth Century Society has asked me to point out one of its concerns. There is no obligation to any planning authority to consult it, as an amenities society, rather than English Heritage. As the Minister may know, they have very different views on modern buildings. Will he reflect on that?
Matthew Hancock
I shall respond to that and to the questions from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in the same way, if I may.
Enforcement, local consultation—this deals with my hon. Friend’s concern—and the system for calling in are unchanged by the new clauses. There will be no addition of formality. That is unlikely—[Interruption.] That is not the intention. The new system will be less cumbersome than the current one.
On the question of what “conclusively presumed” until there is a “material change” means, “material change” means exactly what it says.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and add that there were 400 responses to the consultation, not least because of the amount of face-to-face discussions with Ministers at the time and the amount preparatory work.
On capacity, we will work with local planning authorities, but overall, the measures will reduce the burden on them. Currently, local planning authorities do not put a named individual in charge. In most cases, there is an IT system to ensure that proposals go through to somebody in good time.
Let me give the House an example of how the measures will help. British Waterways carried out 353 works to designated heritage assets in 2010-11. Some 164 required full applications, and 189 were performed after clearance to proceed without consent through correspondence with the local planning authority. We certainly do not want to water down the communication with local planning authorities that makes things easier.
I shall give some examples of the sorts of things that the provision will help. Technically, grouting within a listed property requires consent. I am sure that we can all agree that grouting is good and is the sort of thing that could be covered by a national agreement. Lock replacements—
Higher and Further Education
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
I rise to propose that the House oppose the motion. We have had contributions of great passion, not least from the right hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), both of whom supported fees in principle but wished that they were lower. They both generously set out where they agree with what the Government have done, not least on improved contact hours and the focus on employment outcomes, which surely must be crucial. I listened carefully to their points and welcome their constructive approach, particularly because each argued that, in this competitive world, having a first-rate university and further education sector is critical for our ability to compete in the world. I welcome many of their comments, but would go further. The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East even said how he would pay to reduce fees. I will come to that in a moment.
That constructive approach was in sharp contrast to the contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who is not in his place. He talked about application numbers, but did not point out that the number of 18-year-olds in the country is falling. We therefore have to look at the proportion of 18-year-olds applying. According to UCAS, the proportion applying this year was higher than in any year of the previous Labour Government. Every Opposition Member should remember that fact when listening to the anecdotal numbers. If there are fewer 18-year-olds, surely we should look at the proportion of them applying to university.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made a powerful speech and, in particular, celebrated studentfinance2012.com, which busts many of the myths sadly propagated by Opposition Members and instead points out what happens to students when they go to university, and when and how much they pay back. I commend the work of studentfinance2012.com. Indeed, I am sure that the fact that the proportion of applications is higher than in any year under the Labour Government is partly because students look at facilities and think very hard about how they are going to go to university.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) argued strongly about social mobility. By contrast, I had a lot of respect for, but disagreed with, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). She made an impassioned argument against fees, as did the hon. Gentleman. She also focused on the need to reform the GCSE system. She made an effective speech, and I agree that the GCSE exam system needs to be reformed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Reading East (Mr Wilson) focused on access, saying that universities should be free to make decisions about access. The Minister of State set out the duty to protect the rights of universities to select students. Les Ebdon’s comment that one poor student should be able to go to university for everyone in the top 20% is indeed a laudable aim. I agree with him about that, and I think broad education reforms will be needed, not least free schools, academies, the pupil premium and the focus on improving education throughout our system, including in schools, all of which will be important.
Matthew Hancock
I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of the wind-ups, I might have given way to him.
Matthew Hancock
No, I am not giving way. If the hon. Gentleman will not come back for the wind-ups, he is not going to have another say.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) raised concerns about applications from low-income students and asked about FE loans. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden)—with whom I look forward very much to working—also made the argument about FE loans. Rather like with part-time students in HE, the FE loans policy will remove up-front costs. Following the package that was set out by my predecessor in July—which was welcomed by the Association of Colleges, as well as the hon. Gentleman and others—I very much look forward to working with him and the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on the design of the package, and to talking to him about it soon.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) argued against profit-making universities.
Matthew Hancock
I will give way to people who were here for the start of the winding-up speeches, but not those who make a speech and then do not come back.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. I think that much we have established.
Matthew Hancock
It was very clear.
My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) effectively made the case that we all have a responsibility to let everybody know that no one will pay a penny in their fees until they are earning over £21,000. Let that message go out from here. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was typically passionate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire showed strong support for Derby university and for apprenticeships.
Matthew Hancock
No.
Finally, in the short amount of time available to me, let me say that Government Members faced up to the difficult challenges of funding higher education. However, we do not know what the Opposition stand for. It is like a multiple-choice question. Which is the answer? Is it the graduate tax? We know that the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of a graduate tax because he said:
“I want to have a graduate tax.”
Or is the answer lower fees, paid for by axing bursaries and access schemes and by cutting courses—
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to ensure that young people leave further and higher education with the skills that employers need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Matthew Hancock)
I am very pleased to answer this as my first question because it highlights a vital problem that Britain must address in order to compete in the world. The number of apprenticeships has increased by two thirds, and by 97% in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I join the tribute paid to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who brought passion and drive to this programme. He would say that we must do more and we will do more, and that is exactly what I hope to do.
Mary Macleod
I welcome my hon. Friend to his new role. Even though he has been in it for only a few days, what discussions is he planning to hold with businesses to understand where the current recruitment skills gaps are? Will incentives be given to students to study the subjects that we believe are critical to the future growth industries in the UK?
Matthew Hancock
My hon. Friend is exactly right; I have already been in contact with the Institute of Directors and various employers. Britain must have a skilled work force that meets the needs of employers if we are to compete against the hungry and driven rising nations of the east, and I will do all I can to deliver that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Minister and the new ministerial team. May I say that some of us will miss not only the old Skills Minister, but the old manufacturing Minister? May I also push the new Minister on work-readiness, which is vital to young people seeking jobs? At a time when 1 million young people are unemployed, we have to look at best practice. There is good practice out there in further education and in higher education. We need to identify it and spread it, and to do so quickly.
Matthew Hancock
One of the things that my predecessor brought to this job was a cross-party focus. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of FE colleges and the excellent work that they do in ensuring that people are ready for work when they join the work force and in continuing to improve people’s skills once they are in the work force, so that we can compete with the best in the world.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
4. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to employment law on low-paid and vulnerable workers.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to protect and promote access to community learning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Matthew Hancock)
This Government are committed to community learning. We have protected the budget, and I want to see funding increasingly targeted at the most disadvantaged people. Community learning trust pilots across England are testing new ways of better involving local communities in how that money is delivered.
Sarah Newton
I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that it is vitally important that there are opportunities to learn throughout life, and that having protected the community learning budget, it should be focused on those with ambitions to gain new skills throughout their life but not a great deal in the way of formal qualifications?
Matthew Hancock
I do agree. I have already heard of the work that my hon. Friend has been doing in supporting Truro and Penwith college and Cornwall college. Improving our nation’s skills is vital for our economic prospects, but learning has intrinsic value in its own right. Henry Ford said:
“Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at 20 or 80. Anyone who keeps learning stays young”,
so I hope that I have discovered the secret of eternal youth.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Community learning flourished under the previous Government and is at risk under this one. In warmly welcoming the new Minister to his role and congratulating him, may I ask him to look at my recent letter to his predecessor about LymeNet community learning centre in Lyme Regis, which was set up in 1999? I saw its great work on visiting the Axminster Methodist church job club over the summer. Rural areas cannot afford the loss of community learning that is now on the cards.
Matthew Hancock
I look forward to reading that letter, but I would say this: the budget for community learning has been protected in difficult fiscal times, and that shows the Government’s intentions in this area.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
13. What recent progress he has made in supporting small and medium-sized businesses.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I welcome the new Minister responsible for further education and skills to one of the most important economic posts in the Government? Will he confirm his backing for the successful union learning fund that helps 100,000 people a year get on to courses? It is strongly backed by employers who claim that staff with little history of learning are helped to take up training because of the unions’ work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Matthew Hancock)
I am grateful for that question. It is clear that we have not only supported the union learning fund, but we will be driven by the evidence of what works to ensure that we increase the skill levels of the British population, both for its own sake and so that we can drive our competitiveness in the years ahead.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
T5. I know the Front-Bench team are totally committed to promoting growth in our economy. Will the Minister set out how he will boost employment and growth in rural areas while balancing the need to protect the environment from unrestricted development?
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I am sure the regulator will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s case, but it is vital that we maintain its independence. If we were to subject it to ministerial inference, that would undermine the point of having an independent regulator in the first place.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the start this month of IES Breckland in Brandon, a free school? It means that there will be secondary education in Brandon thanks to the free school programme, which there would not have been without it. It provides a local future for the schooling of people in Brandon.
Michael Gove
There have been three reasons to celebrate in Suffolk over the past four weeks: first, a new free school in Brandon; secondly, a new free school in Beccles; and, thirdly, my hon. Friend coming first in a handicap race at Newmarket in his constituency and, in so doing, raising money for some of the most deserving cases in the military and equestrian worlds.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
A stimulus to demand is coming from two sources. One is rapidly growing export markets in emerging markets, where our export growth is very substantial. Manufacturers, including small and medium-sized enterprises, are taking a substantial part of that. In addition our monetary policy, which is supported by the Bank of England, with low short and long interest rates, quantitative easing and credit easing, is supporting demand.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
In his efforts to support manufacturing, will the Secretary of State agree that high executive pay that rewards not success but failure can inhibit growth, and that dealing with it is an important part of supporting manufacturing, financial services and other parts of the economy?
Vince Cable
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the point is very well made. There is now a remarkable consensus. We have had evidence to the inquiry that I initiated into executive pay from, among others, the CBI, showing a high level of social responsibility and an acknowledgment that much executive pay has been disproportionate and unrelated to performance in the past. We intend to reform that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton
Let me have another go. Just a few weeks ago, I met the former chairman of Greggs who set up the breakfast club. That company did so not on the basis of how much money the Government were or were not putting into it or because of Government policy, but because it thought that it was the right thing to do, it was in a position to do it and it was good corporate social responsibility. The company did it and it did not take Government money to ensure that companies could step up to the mark and do their bit.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, support in the community of Brandon for the Breckland free school is extremely strong. Will he assure me that all expressions of interest from parents, both on official forms and on the forms from the free school, will be taken into account when he makes a decision on whether that free school should go ahead?
Michael Gove
I had the great pleasure of meeting the parents behind that free school application. They were a fantastic model of citizen action. The Department will do everything possible to ensure that their bravery, courage and energy in ensuring that their children get the best possible education are supported to the full.
New Schools
Matt Hancock Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
Not just free schools and UTCs, but all academies have the freedom to depart from national terms and conditions, and, as a result, teachers in academies, even though they are younger on average than teachers in other maintained schools, are paid on average £1,000 a year more. I personally think that, notwithstanding the real problems we have in dealing with the poisoned economic legacy of the previous Government, we should do everything we can to reward great professionals. Paying teachers more at every level is something that we, across the House, should aspire to do as resources allow.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that in West Suffolk we have two proposed free schools at different stages of development to replace closing middle schools. Will he join me in urging parents not only in Brandon, at the Breckland middle school, but in Ixworth and in Stanton to put forward expressions of interest in joining the free schools—whether or not they come through, and I hope that they do—in order to ensure that the project gets off the ground?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. One of the great things about Suffolk as a local authority is that its leader and its lead member for education recognise that, at a time of change, embracing academies and free schools can complement the already great state schools for which they are responsible. As for visionary leadership in local government, you have to go a long way to beat Suffolk.