Public Health

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course we are considering who, once we have vaccinated those who are clinically vulnerable, should be the next priority for vaccination. Teachers, of course, have a very strong case, as have those who work in nurseries. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have made that point, and we will consider it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Just to pick up one point, the Secretary of State cites the certain knowledge that there is a way out. The whole point of the intervention by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) is that there is uncertainty. What contingency plans are there if a mutation proves resistant to either of the vaccines and we have to be in these measures for longer? In particular, will the Secretary of State consider the fact that we have barely drawn on the numerous people in the armed forces to create extra NHS capacity? We could do so much more of that if necessary. Is that part of the plan?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, it is very much part of the plan; it is happening right now. On mutations and the link to the vaccine, as with flu, where mutations mean we have to change the vaccine each year, any vaccine might have to be updated in the future, but that is not our understanding of the situation now. Of course that is being double-checked and tested, both with the scientists at Porton Down and, as we roll out the vaccine in areas where there is a high degree of the new variant, and by the pharmacological surveillance of those who have been vaccinated, which will allow us to see for real the impact of the vaccine on the new variant. The goal, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, is that by the middle of next month we plan to have offered the first dose to everyone in the top four priority groups, and they currently account for four out of five covid fatalities. I am not sure that this point has fully been addressed, but the strong correlation between age and fatality from covid means we will be able to vaccinate those who account for four out of every five fatalities within the top four cohorts. It does then take two to three weeks from the first dose to reach immunity, but the vaccine is therefore the way out of this pandemic and the way to a better year ahead.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am not sure that the hon. Lady was listening when I said in my statement that the NHS is under very significant pressure. Of course we are working hard to ensure that that pressure is alleviated as much as possible. Over the summer, we built significant extra capacity into the critical care facilities of the NHS, including across London. The Nightingale hospitals are there, as she puts it, as an insurance policy—as back-up. The London Nightingale hospital is there on standby as back-up. I have seen some stories circulating saying that it has been decommissioned. Those stories are wrong. It is better for people if they are treated inside a hospital, but the Nightingales are there for extra support should it be needed. It will require changes to the working patterns of staff if we do need to have patients in the Nightingales once more, but it is crucial, in my view, that we have those Nightingales there ready in case we need them.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that Essex has declared a major incident. It is also, at this very moment, submitting a MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—request to assist with the construction of community hospitals for additional hospital capacity, supported and partly staffed by the armed forces. It would also like armed forces help with the roll-out of the vaccine to accelerate that in Essex and to assist with testing in schools. Will he look into the German BioNTech test as an alternative to the lateral flow test, as it is as reliable as the PCR—polymerase chain reaction test—and turns around in one hour?

[Matt Hancock]

I will absolutely look into, and get back to my hon. Friend about, the BioNTech test. Of course, BioNTech is an absolutely fabulous pharmaceutical company, as the whole House knows. What he says about the pressures in Essex is very significant, and it is important. Of course, I will look favourably on any request for military assistance, working closely with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, who has been incredibly supportive, as have the whole armed forces, during this whole year. They have done so much. They are already involved in the roll-out of testing, as my hon. Friend knows, and we draw on the ingenuity, reserve and sheer manpower of the armed forces when we need them. I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the work that we all need to do in Essex to support the NHS there and to try to get the number of cases down.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

This has been an incredibly difficult year for so many people and so many families. The fixed numerical limits place a particular burden on very large families. We have taken, I think, a balanced and right approach, but while I understand the urge for caution—of course I understand that, from my NHS colleagues and others—I also understand that people want to see their children and their loved ones. Christmas is an important time of year, and we have to find a balance.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in wishing NHS staff and everyone in this crisis a happy Christmas. Will he join me in wishing Essex County Council and local authorities in Essex a happy Christmas for what they have contributed to the test, track and trace operation since NHS Test and Trace started to share data much more quickly with local authorities? I can report to him that most districts have started door-knocking to follow up the contacts of cases, and the complete case contact rates are now around 87% and 90% respectively. Will he join me in congratulating the local authorities of Essex on this tremendous effort?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grinning because I think this is the first time in the dozens and dozens of statements I have made this year when the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has not mentioned track and trace. I will tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker: the latest statistics show that where communications were available, 96.6% of people were reached and told to self-isolate. That is because of the huge improvements in contact tracing and testing that have been delivered this year—[Hon. Members: “By local authorities.”] Including, of course, by local authority partners, but also by the brilliant national NHS Test and Trace system, which we should all congratulate. Getting those contact rates—[Interruption.]

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are trying to support the economy as much as possible throughout all these difficult decisions. The extraordinary levels of financial support are a part of that, including the furlough scheme, which has now been extended to the end of March. I, of course, talk to my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary regularly to make sure we take the action that is necessary in a way that supports people as much as possible.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, albeit that it contains a lot of very grim news about the virus itself and its effect on many areas. It will be greeted with considerable relief in Harwich, Clacton, Colchester and Uttlesford, where the virus rates are much lower and we will stay in tier 2. Is the message now not that we stay in tier 2 or go down a tier much more by our own efforts—by the efforts of local authorities, with the support of NHS Test and Trace—to make sure we support those who have to isolate and track down and trace those who are spreading the virus? By doing that, and by compliance and forbearance, we can reduce the spread of the virus and help to defeat it so we can get down the tiers.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trying to keep the virus under control is in the hands of local authorities and local communities. I would say to everybody in Harwich, and people across the south-east and east of England who have not gone into tier 3 today, that we all still need to work together, be vigilant and effectively do everything we can to stop the spread of the disease, because so many people are asymptomatic—about a third—and never have any symptoms but can nevertheless spread the disease. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in giving me ideas to support colleagues to help in that effort. The links between the national system and local authorities are getting stronger all the time, and I want colleagues to be able to play our part—especially as, through our campaigning, we know our communities well—by getting into communities to spread the message that if we all stick by the rules and we get the testing and contact tracing in, we will be able to keep this under control.

Coronavirus Vaccine

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman has worked supportively and constructively with the Government throughout this pandemic. I pay tribute to the approach that he has taken, and that he took again today.

I stand with the hon. Gentleman in saying that vaccinations save lives. If we can encourage anybody who might be hesitant to take a vaccine by appearing together to be vaccinated together, of course I would be happy to do that. I recommend that we have a professional vaccinate us, of course—I do not think that he would trust me to do it.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a public information campaign, and there will of course be one. He asked about health inequalities, which are a very important consideration. The best thing to support tackling health inequalities is the fact that we have a vaccine, but we absolutely need to reach all parts and all communities across the whole country.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many will be vaccinated by January. While today brings more certainty, it does not end all uncertainties. We have 800,000 doses that have now passed the batch testing, but the total number to be manufactured over this timeframe is not yet known, because it is all dependent on the manufacturing process, which is itself complicated. After all, this is not a chemical but a biological product, so I cannot answer that question—that is as yet unknowable.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the PCNs and the centres will open. The answer is very soon. We have 50 hospital hubs ready to go from next week. The PCNs are also being stood up, and the centres outside hospitals. They are all coming very soon.

The hon. Gentleman then asked when we will get to lift restrictions. Of course, I understand why not only he but almost everybody in the country wants to know the answer to this question: how many people do we have to vaccinate before we can start lifting the restrictions? The answer to that is that, while we know that the vaccine protects an individual with a 95% efficacy, we do not know the impact of the vaccine on reducing transmission, because of the problem of asymptomatic transmission, which has so bedevilled our response to this virus and made it so hard to tackle.

We do not know the answer to that question, but what we will do is to follow the same five indicators that we were discussing at length yesterday, which are the indicators of the spread of the disease. We will look at the cases, the hospitalisations and of course the number of people who die with covid, and we will hope very much that, as we vaccinate more and more vulnerable people, we will see those rates come down and therefore be able to lift the restrictions. We will have to see how the vaccination programme impacts directly on the epidemic, and then move as swiftly as we safely can to lift the restrictions, which we all want to see gone.

The hon. Gentleman asked about community testing being licensed from door to door. I have not heard about that problem—I will ensure that I get back not only to him, but to those who raised it with him, if he will work with me. I am a bit surprised to hear that. Administering the lateral flow test currently requires a professional, although we hope to move on from that, but as far as I know it can take place in any setting, hence my surprise. However, as the comment was made by a public health professional, I shall dig into it further.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the testing prospectus we launched on Monday. We hope to be able to use testing to do more things that we would not be able to do without testing. In a way, visits to care homes are an example of that, as something we can now safely recommend that we could not recommend before; so too is testing to release from quarantine people coming into this country. If there are further examples of that sort of enablement of normal life through the use of testing that can be safely done and can be approved by a director of public health and by the chief medical officer and his team, we are enthusiastic about working with local areas to deliver it on the ground.

There are lots of ideas out there, and I urge people to be creative about how we can we can use testing to enable some of the things we love to get going again in a way that keeps people safe. That is what that part of the testing prospectus was about. I am very enthusiastic about it and look forward to working with directors of public health and with colleagues in this House. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that with the roll-out of mass testing and the availability of these tests, we all, as leaders in our local communities, have a role in promoting mass testing. I am sure that there are communities across the country represented in this House that can benefit from the roll-out.

Looking around the Chamber right now, I see many people who have already approached me—not just from Lancashire. I look forward to working with colleagues in all parts of the House to promote this public health message, along with all the other important public health messages we have to promote, not least that if the NHS phones you up or sends you a letter saying that there is a vaccination slot open to you, just say yes.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this moment and the Government on the news about the Pfizer vaccine, but please can we continue to have increased honesty about what we still do not know? We do not know how long the immunity will last, we do not even know whether people who have been vaccinated can still transmit the disease, and of course we do not know whether tier 2 restrictions will succeed in bringing the R rate down. Until we can answer those questions, we will continue to need maximum effort behind contact tracing and isolation of virus spreaders.

Councils including Essex County Council need daily access to all the positive cases recorded by NHS Test and Trace immediately and without delay, so that they can make their own operations effective, so why are they having to wait 48 to 72 hours before they get the data? Also, what are the Government going to do to engage districts and their community volunteer hubs to help to persuade people to support those who must still isolate even if they have been vaccinated?

[Matt Hancock]

Dealing with the pandemic has been a case of dealing with uncertainty in large degree. Today we have more certainty because we know this vaccine is safe and effective, but just as I said to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that we do not know the effect of the vaccine on transmission, so, as my hon. Friend says, we do not know the longevity of its effectiveness.

My hon. Friend is right about another part of public health advice that all of us as local representatives can play a part in promoting: that is, engagement with contact tracing. I will write to him about access to daily data in Essex. Of course we have to wait until the test result comes in, which can sometimes lead to delay, even though the results of the majority of tests done in person now come back within 24 hours, but I agree with him in principle, so let us make it a reality in practice.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s strategy is, as he keeps reporting to the House, to “suppress the virus” until a vaccine can be deployed, but this is still beset by so many uncertainties. Who would have thought that mink in Denmark could throw a spanner into this situation? Is the tracing capability and the ability to get people to isolate not absolutely crucial? Who should we hold accountable for whether that is operationally effective as we come out of lockdown? I say that because this is the only time we have got to make this work, otherwise we will be in another lockdown.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course it is important that we continue to build and strengthen the contact tracing system, as we are doing. My hon. Friend mentions the uncertainties, and the issue of the virus that has spread back from mink to humans is one example of that. Of course managing a pandemic is beset by uncertainty. We still have uncertainty, for instance, over whether even the Pfizer vaccine will pass the safety hurdles that we very much hope it will in the coming weeks, but managing through that uncertainty is a critical part of getting this right.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Programme motion
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Most of the MPs in Essex have reluctantly felt the need to support the tier 2 measures that are now being applied, but we are very concerned about the effect of this on the hospitality sector, in particular. Is it not very important that we align the economic interests of our constituents with the public health interests instead of polarising the debate such that one is either in favour of the economy or in favour of controlling the virus? May I also emphasise that one of the reasons why public confidence in the Government’s strategy is somewhat in decline is that we have yet to see the transformation of the leadership of test and trace, which I have discussed with the Secretary of State many times?

[Matt Hancock]

Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that there is no trade-off between health and economic measures, because if the virus gets out of hand, then we will end up with a worse economic hit as well. I know he agrees with that because we have discussed it many times. He, like other Essex MPs, may not like the fact that we have to collectively put in place these measures in Essex, but it is the right course of action.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. The hon. Member makes a really important point. This is why I resist the temptation to set a simplistic threshold above which a certain level of action is taken. That is because there might be an incident—I mentioned that there might be such an incident in a workplace, for instance; there might also be one in a halls of residence—where we get a very high number of cases, but if it is confined and not in the wider community we would not want to take action to restrict the social activity of the wider community. That has to be taken into account, along with the data on the number of cases and the positivity, because the number of tests that you put in affects that as well. We take all these things into account in asking both when an area needs to have more restrictions applied and when we can take an area out of restrictions, which of course is so important for everybody living there.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Nobody can possibly doubt my right hon. Friend’s utter commitment to doing his very best in these circumstances, or indeed the good will and hard work of his officials, but this is another incident that further undermines public confidence in the delivery of the Government’s covid response, and it is another example of where logistics and planning have let us down. Why cannot the Government learn from previous successes with the Nightingale hospitals and personal protective equipment? The military were brought in much more overtly to deal with the logistics, planning and delivery of those programmes, and they should be on test and trace as well.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course they are involved, but this specific issue was in a PHE legacy computer system that we had already identified needed replacing; I had already commissioned the replacement of it and that replacement is currently being built. We knew that this was a system that needed replacing. That work is under way, at the same time as the remedial action to sort the problem more immediately.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to make sure people get the fair treatment they deserve.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

At a time when we do not yet have the world-beating track and trace system or enough tests because of logistical problems, why are the Government excluding senior military commanders from key decision making and preventing them from bringing to bear their logistical capabilities?

[Matt Hancock]

On the contrary, the military’s support has been absolutely brilliant in expanding the testing system—test and trace—and it is engaged in the development of our vaccine roll-out plans. The work that senior military personnel have done is absolutely first rate.

Covid-19

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the written ministerial statement he published after my last question to him in July. May I ask a bit more about the National Institute for Health Protection? Who was consulted before the decision was made? What is the legal basis for its present operation? Does it require legislation? What kind of public body is it intended to be: a non-ministerial department, an executive agency or a part of the Department of Health and Social Care? How will it be funded? When will there be a proper White Paper or Green Paper on the subject? Will the political appointee put in as interim head be replaced by a properly appointed public appointments-approved person? I could go on—there are plenty of unanswered questions.

[Matt Hancock]

I counted eight questions. Let me try to answer them. The National Institute for Health Protection does not require a legal basis; these PHE duties were not done on a legal basis. It will take on some UK-wide responsibilities, but also have responsibilities for England only. It is funded from the Department of Health and Social Care. It will be an executive agency of the Department. There is a global search under way for long-term, permanent leadership. As I said in response to the previous question, it will bring together the leadership of several different parts of the response. It was imperative, as far as I could see, to try to make sure we have that single unified leadership for the next stage of our response to the crisis. I pay tribute to the work of Public Health England. It has done an enormous amount, especially through its scientific work, which has truly been among the best in the world and has helped us to respond as well as we possibly could. I think that the new National Institute for Health Protection, established on the basis that I have set out, will make sure that we are constantly learning to have the best response, in terms of both the science and the scale, and to deliver for this country.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely. Our approach is that the vaccines developed in the UK—supported by UK Government and, ultimately, UK taxpayers’ money—are of course there, should they come off, to provide protection to the UK population, but so too to the population around the world. We are using our official development assistance money to help ensure that there is broad global access, should they work. On the question about cyber-security and potential hacking, the hon. Member will understand why I cannot go into the full details, but I can reassure him that the National Cyber Security Centre is taking this very seriously.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I return to the question of public confidence? I thank my right hon. Friend for the tireless way that he submits himself to scrutiny by parliamentarians and the press, but will he accept that the public do want to understand more clearly what mistakes were made and what lessons have been learned? Can I perhaps invite him at least to table a written ministerial statement, before the rising of the House next week, that sets out the key lessons learned and how they are being implemented as we go into the autumn, which could be another very testing time for our country?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very happy to do that—I would not deny the Chair of the Liaison Committee his wishes on that—and I am very much looking forward to appearing before the Science and Technology Committee next week to answer any questions it might have.

Covid-19

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury tells me that undoubtedly the devolved nations will very rapidly get the information they need. After all, this is a UK-wide effort.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the thousands of local community groups that are already mobilising in order to deal with what may be a very serious situation in their communities, involving looking after vulnerable people and even nursing the sick? Will he, with the Prime Minister and others, make sure that we mobilise these people and empower them to take decisions without having to wait for instructions?

NHS Funding Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We absolutely will be looking at doing that where we can. Unfortunately, that is difficult to do, because, over time, and especially during the time that the hon. Member for Leicester South was in the Treasury, the legals on these PFI deals got tighter and tighter. There are 106 PFI deals in hospitals and we are going through them. We will work towards making them work better for patients, and if that means coming out of them completely, I will be thrilled.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend might know that I am a vice-president of Combat Stress, the charity for the mental welfare of our armed servicemen and veterans. Until recently it had a very tiny contract compared to the vast sums he has just announced—£3.1 million a year—and was treating some 250 patients a year with PTSD and other mental illnesses related to combat stress. Combat Stress is now having to discontinue taking referrals because the contract has come to an end. What prospect is there that there will be a new contract as soon as possible so Combat Stress can carry on its brilliant work?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because I was concerned to read the reports in the newspapers and have had a briefing this morning. There is work on a new contract to replace the old one, and I very much hope that that is settled and agreed as soon as possible.

The National Health Service

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is saying yes, which I am grateful for. I am open-minded to changes and improvements, and to listening to the experts and those with constituency cases that they can bring to bear, to make sure that the Bill is the best it possibly can be.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I hope very much to address the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill in my remarks later, but my right hon. Friend did not include one important element among the characteristics of the investigations, which is that they are to find the causes of clinical incidents without blame. It is not about satisfying a complaint; it is about finding without blame so that we can talk about things that have gone wrong without blaming people. It is about understanding the clinical, human factors that lead people to make perfectly understandable mistakes.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I was trying to shorten my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I missed out a paragraph. I should have said that the purpose of the Bill is to enable staff to speak openly and honestly about errors without fear of blame or liability. That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend made and to which he paid an awful lot of attention in the drafting and prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Finally, let me turn to the proposals on mental health. This country has been on a journey, over a generation, towards recognising that mental health is as important as physical health. There have been contributions to this change in mindset from all sides of the political debate—from Labour Members; especially from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), to whom I pay tribute; and very much from Government Members, too.

I would like to take a moment to say how much I value the enormous contribution that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made to changing attitudes towards mental health on this journey. The Mental Health Act 1983 is nearly 40 years old and some of our law is still shaped by 19th century Acts and, indeed, their views of mental illness, and that is completely out of place in the 21st century.

NHS Long-Term Plan: Implementation

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The whole plan—the whole NHS long-term plan—is about prevention as well as cure. The focus of the NHS needs to switch more towards prevention as well as, of course, helping people get better when they get ill. Taking the example of stroke, there is a lot on the prevention of stroke in the draft prevention Green Paper—just to give him a bit of a teaser for that. At the core of improving prevention of stroke is both behaviour change but also better use of data, because being able to spot people who have symptoms that are likely to lead to stroke can then help much more targeted interventions. I find it striking that with the big stroke charities, as with the big heart charities, their big ask is for better and more access to data.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his commitment to this implementation plan, alongside the commitment to increase clinical standards? That is not a criticism of the medical professions; it is just a determination to make sure that the NHS is an infinite learning organisation and can learn from its mistakes. In that respect, will he recommit to HSIB—the healthcare safety investigation branch of his Department—which is devoted to doing clinical investigations without finding blame, so that these problems can be surfaced and the learning can be implemented across the NHS? In particular, will he recommit to the legislation, which has been through prelegislative scrutiny and is still waiting to be introduced?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am looking forward to that legislation being introduced. The work that my hon. Friend’s Select Committee—the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill—did in the prelegislative scrutiny was incredibly important. The HSIB Bill promises to improve patient safety, which is an important part of the agenda, and I look forward to its being brought forward to the House.

Russian Interference in UK Politics

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

As several Members pointed out in the debate, there is already evidence of activity in the public domain. The question is about the scale of that activity and whether it is significant or not significant. As I say, there is not yet evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes.

[Mr Jenkin]

I, too, question the criteria for success, because there is evidence of success in that it is provoking consternation at and the questioning of democratic results and policies in our country. Those are the criteria for success. We want to hear that GCHQ will aggressively target the generation of such material, do its best to block it and be much more proactive, but perhaps the Minister is coming to that point.

[Matt Hancock]

I will come on to that important point in relation to the cyber-attacks.

As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech at the Guildhall in November, we want to build a more productive relationship with Russia, but we also want to see Russia play its full and proper role in the rules-based international order. We will therefore not hesitate in calling out behaviour that undermines that order or threatens our interests at home and overseas.

Voter Registration

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for Labour’s clear and unambiguous support for action—if necessary, legislative action—to put this right. The support of the Labour party in both Houses will be important if we need to get through emergency legislation. We are looking at legislative options, including secondary legislation, and I look forward to taking up such an option. We need to make sure that we get the details of any emergency legislation exactly right, since we will have to pass it at pace.

On the deadline that the hon. Lady mentioned, people should register to vote now. Those registrations will be captured by the system. We then have the legal question of whether captured applications can be eligible for 23 June, and that is the issue that we might have to deal with in legislation. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying from a sedentary position, “What is the deadline?” I am absolutely clear: people should register now—today—and we will bring out further information as and when we can.

We did of course undertake stress tests, which the hon. Lady raised. We tested a significantly higher level of interest and of applications than at the general election last year, which is the best comparator, but, as I have said, the level of interest was significantly higher than the peak then and, because of the exceptional demand, the website crashed. Ultimately, the problem was born out of the fact that thousands and thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people want to vote, and the interest that that shows in expressing their democratic wishes is to be recommended.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I first commend the Government and my right hon. Friend for so successfully engaging millions of people that they want to register and vote in this referendum? That is definitely a good thing. I am afraid the problems he has encountered are born out of the fact that the Government and the Electoral Commission were ill prepared for the surge of registrations. The Government spent millions of pounds on promoting registration, so they should have been prepared.

This issue now arises: there is a cut-off in our legislation because the register has to be finalised and published six days before the date of the poll for the referendum—there have to be five days remaining so that any name on the register can be challenged during the first five days it is on the register—which leaves very little time for anything like legislation.

May I advise the Minister that it is probably legal to keep the site open for a short period—a few hours, to capture those who did not have the opportunity to register yesterday—but any idea of rewriting the rules in any substantial way would be complete madness and make this country look like an absolute shambles in the run-up to the referendum, which is such an important decision? Will he bear those things in mind, or risk judicial review of the result?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no entitlement in these matters for the Chair of a Select Committee to deliver an oration, and a short question is required. I have been mildly indulgent of the hon. Gentleman, because these are exceptional circumstances, but if people could be pithy from now on that would help.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We are introducing regional hubs for the civil service. Of course, many UK civil servants work in Scotland, supporting the people in Scotland. Inevitably there are a large number of civil servants in London because this is the capital of the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that they represent the country that they serve.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

We know that special advisers are required to submit their emails and telephone texts to public view under freedom of information legislation. What is the Government’s policy on the use of WhatsApp, which special advisers are using to conceal Government business from public view?

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am reminded by the hon. Gentleman’s stentorian warnings of the cries of St John the Baptist from the dungeon until his head was presented on a platter. Such warnings are important, and we have to have a system that we can defend against them. People are always going to be suspicious that there has been something of a fix about a public appointment. That is perfectly legitimate. Ultimately, the authority for such appointments rests with Ministers. We want a balanced and transparent approach, with safeguards. I repeat that if Ministers get a grip on the job specifications at the outset of such appointment processes, and have confidence in the independence of the interview panels, there should be no problem with the people of quality they want getting through the interviews. If that is not the case, we need to address that.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

I am grateful for the Select Committee’s support for the appointment of Peter Riddell to the post. He is a heavyweight and distinguished public servant. The Grimstone report, which the Chairman of the Committee mentioned, follows the Nolan principles, adding to them the principle of diversity in public appointments. Although the proportion of appointees to such posts who declare a political allegiance is the lowest on record, down from more than 20% in the early 2000s to less than 5% now, transparency is important in this area. On those grounds, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee a question, rather than the other way around. As a sturdy defender of the principle of parliamentary democracy, does he accept that voters would expect Ministers to make appointments to these vital public roles?

[Mr Jenkin]

Yes, of course they do. In the end, no public appointment of the general nature that we are talking about is made without a Minister signing off that decision. The question is twofold. First, are Ministers being presented with a choice of candidates that they consider appropriate? If they are, can we be certain that the process has not been fixed to get friends and cronies through the appointment process? We need a balance that the public will respect and have faith in. On job specifications, if we get the process right at the outset, there should be no need for the Minister to complain. If we take away too many safeguards, it is Ministers who will be criticised for the appointments they make, not civil servants who have been sitting on panels and been ignored.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the instructions issued by the Cabinet Secretary to permanent secretaries in respect of EU referendum guidance for the civil service and special advisers.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The referendum on 23 June on the European Union represents the biggest constitutional decision for the nation in a generation. The Government’s position is clear: Britain will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed European Union. Today’s Government document setting out the process of leaving underlines that case, showing that a vote to leave could lead to up to a decade or more of damaging uncertainty, with real consequences putting jobs and investment at risk. I concur with that assessment.

Because of the significance of the referendum, as the House knows the Prime Minister took the decision to allow collective responsibility to be suspended on the referendum question. This approach was discussed and agreed by the Cabinet on 20 February. The process is clear: Ministers may depart from the Government position in a personal capacity on the specific question of the referendum. On all other matters, including on other EU business, the Government will operate as normal, and in all things the civil servants support the Government position.

Guidance on how this will work in practice was set out and published by the Cabinet Secretary last week. The guidance is clear. Other than on the specific question of the referendum, all Ministers can commission and see all documents, as normal. On the question of the referendum—and on this question alone—Ministers who disagree with the Government position naturally cannot commission policy work on the in/out question or see documents setting out details of the case to remain. All Ministers can ask for factual briefing, and for facts to be checked in any matter. All Ministers can see documents on EU issues not related to the referendum question, as normal.

The guidance is clear and has been published. The process was agreed at Cabinet as the best way to manage the unusual situation of Ministers who disagree with the Government remaining in post. I hope that this clarity will allow Members on both sides of the House to focus on the main debate about whether Britain will be better served by leaving or remaining in a reformed European Union and then let the people decide.

[Mr Jenkin]

Clarity on this issue is one thing that we do not have. Nobody objects to the Government making their case in the referendum, but most people expect the civil service to be impartial in carrying out its support for Ministers. It is established in law that Ministers are accountable for their Departments. Voters expect Government facts and figures to be impartial and accurate, whether they are used by Ministers who support remain or leave.

Why does the Cabinet Secretary’s letter go far beyond the limits that were placed on dissenting Ministers in the 1975 referendum? Sir Peter Thornton, the permanent secretary of the then Secretary of State for Trade, Peter Shore, was quoted as saying:

“It was jolly difficult putting forward anti-Common Market briefs to Mr. Shore, but I hope we did what he asked”.

What a different atmosphere from today!

Worse than that, a Q and A briefing that has been circulated following the letter states that Ministers may not see any papers that

“have a bearing on the referendum question or are intended to be used in support of their position on the referendum”.

That has been described by one Minister, the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as “unconstitutional”. How can such a wide ban be justified?

How does my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office reconcile this with his comment on Radio 4 this morning that

“the Government is functioning on all questions, other than specifically the in/out question, in an entirely normal way”?

He also said:

“There are no rules other than those set out last Monday in the letter from Jeremy Heywood.”

What about the Q and A briefing?

Does the Minister deny that permanent secretaries have been instructed to conceal information requested by Downing Street or the Cabinet Office from a dissenting Minister? The Cabinet Secretary’s letter states that “Departments may check facts”, but civil servants have also been told that they cannot

“provide arguments or new facts”.

How is that consistent with the duty of honesty in the civil service code, which requires a civil servant to

“set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully”?

Does the Minister agree that where any guidance or instruction conflicts with the code, the code must prevail?

How does this situation best serve the democratic process if Ministers on opposing sides of the debate finish up disagreeing about information from the same Department which is meant to be impartial and accurate information provided by professional civil servants?

[Matthew Hancock]

Let me answer those points in turn. First, the Government are functioning perfectly well—in fact, I came to this House from a meeting with the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on childcare policy, and it was carried out in an entirely normal way. On Friday I visited a prison with the Justice Secretary, and those two points demonstrate that things are functioning as normal.

The civil service code, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, makes it clear that it is the duty of civil servants to support the position of the Government of the day, and it is only because the Prime Minister is allowing Ministers to remain in government while disagreeing with a single policy—the in/out position—that this situation arises at all. The letter from the Cabinet Secretary makes it clear that factual briefing is allowed.

Finally, the 1975 guidance made it clear that no briefing or draft speeches contrary to Government consideration were allowed to be drafted by civil servants. In fact, it went further because it said that if someone wanted to oppose the Government position, they had to inform No. 10 of any invitations to appear on the radio or TV. We have not put that provision in place. On all these things, the clarity in the guidance from the Cabinet Secretary that was published on Monday last week shows the rules, and those rules are consistent with the civil service code and, indeed, the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I shall wait until the commission reports. We will respond in due course.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I inform my right hon. Friend that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will be scrutinising those proposals very carefully indeed? We want to make sure that the judges are interpreting the Freedom of Information Act as Parliament truly intended, but I can tell him that there is no going back on freedom of information.

[Matthew Hancock]

Indeed. The Freedom of Information Act has brought to light many things that it is in the public interest to have in the public domain. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend’s Committee will scrutinise the proposals very carefully, not least to ensure that the will of Parliament is the law of the land. I look forward to working with him on that.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I can give some assurance to my hon. Friend—

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

And learned.

[Matthew Hancock]

Sorry, my hon. and learned Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I very am grateful for that unexpected invitation. I am dearly tempted. I hope that Unlock and the Prison Reform Trust will work with us to ensure that the Bill passes in a form that supports the important work that they do.

On the broader question of supporting the reputation of charities, by one measure trust in the sector is at a seven-year low. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, confident and thriving charitable sector.

The purpose of the Bill is twofold: first to tackle the challenges and then to unlock new opportunities. The main provisions of the Bill fall into three main areas: first, strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers, including over trustee disqualification; secondly, the regulation of charity fundraising; and, thirdly, the new social investment power for charities.

Let me turn to the Charity Commission’s powers. The purpose of the Charity Commission is to ensure that each of the 164,000 charities in England and Wales pursues its charitable objectives. Set up in 1853, it has done a century and a half of good work, but two years ago the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee found that it was failing in its core duty. In particular, they found that it was not doing enough to tackle the abuse of charitable status. The NAO made a series of recommendations to improve the commission’s effectiveness.

The coalition Government published proposals for new powers based on those recommendations. Following a public consultation, the draft Protection of Charities Bill was published. Pre-legislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords have resulted in further refinement. I thank all the Members, peers and others who have improved the Bill that is before the House today. These measures are just one part of a wider programme of reform, aimed at turning the Charity Commission into a tough, clear and proactive regulator.

[Mr Jenkin]

It pains me to point out that my right hon. Friend has left out the significant post-legislative scrutiny of the Charities Act 2006 that was conducted by my Committee, the Public Administration Committee, in the last Parliament, which was the prime precursor of this Bill. I also sat on the Joint Committee that performed the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Will he say something about recent controversies, for example those around charitable fundraising? The Select Committee is very frustrated that we are conducting significant inquiries that the regulator, the Charity Commission, should be conducting, but it does not necessarily have the power to hold its hearings in public in a way that would demonstrate its regulatory role.

[Matthew Hancock]

I was going to come on to the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee in making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. I am very grateful for the work that he did at the end of the last Parliament, after the National Audit Office report, to make sure that when we had a Bill, it gave the commission the necessary powers.

We believe that the Charity Commission has the power to convene meetings in public. However, I recognise that there is a question over whether it does so. During the passage of the Bill, we will look at that point in more detail. We are prepared to accept amendments, if they are necessary to bring clarity on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

[Matthew Hancock]

I hope that this Bill can unite both sides of the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to her place. My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and it will appear on the record, but I do not want to get into an unnecessary dispute with the Opposition, given that I hope we will have all-party support for this important Bill which will strengthen the role of the Charity Commission and, ultimately, be in the best interests of charities throughout the land.

As I said, we want to provide a tough, clear and proactive regulator. Under the strong and capable leadership of William Shawcross and Paula Sussex, there has been a direct focus on tackling abuse and mismanagement. However, an effective regulator needs to have teeth. As the NAO reported, the commission needs our help to address the “gaps and deficiencies” in its legal powers. The Bill will close those gaps in the commission’s capabilities, as well as tackling a number of damaging loopholes in charity law.

Let me briefly outline the five new powers that the Bill confers. These powers will help to protect the public, the staff and the people our charities serve from those who would seek to exploit them. First, the Bill will extend the automatic disqualification criteria. Currently, the focus of the law is on barring people who have misappropriated charitable assets, but the criteria are far too narrow. We will extend them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, to include people with unspent convictions for money laundering, bribery, perjury or misconduct in public office, those on the sex offenders register, and those convicted for terrorism offences, including individuals subject to an asset-freezing designation.

Secondly, the Charity Commission will be given new powers to disqualify in instances where an individual has behaved in a way that makes them unfit to be a charity trustee, acting on a case-by-case basis and using its judgment and discretion. That new power is essential to empower the Charity Commission to tackle those who would bring charities into disrepute, and I hope that it will be used with care and decisiveness.

Thirdly, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new official warning power in response to low-level misconduct. That will allow a more proportionate approach for less serious cases. Fourthly, the Bill grants a new power that allows the Charity Commission to direct the winding up of a charity following a statutory inquiry. That would apply if the commission proves that a charity is not operating, or that its purposes could be promoted more effectively by ceasing to operate, and that to do so would be in the public interest. We expect that power to be used in limited circumstances, and it is subject to several safeguards.

Fifthly, the Bill closes a loophole that allows offending trustees to resign before they are removed by the commission, and then act as a trustee for a different charity without fear of repercussion. That will ensure that trustees are no longer able to escape accountability if they abuse their position of trust. As with all the commission’s existing powers, all five of those proposals would be subject to the general duty to have regard to best practice. With the exception of the official warnings power, all the commission’s new powers are subject to a right of appeal to the charity tribunal.

All five measures that I have outlined are essential to protecting the interests and reputation of the vast majority of charities that are run by people of great integrity. The Charity Commission was closely involved in developing the powers, and it fully supports them. In addition, independent research for the Charity Commission found that 92% of charities supported new, tougher powers for the regulator.

We also intend to remove clause 9, which was added on Report in the Lords. We have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of that clause, as it attempts to encompass complex case law into a single statutory provision. It would also impose a major new regulatory responsibility on the commission. Clause 9 was not proposed because of concerns about charities in general, but in a narrow attempt by the other place to undermine the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. It is regrettable that a Bill with widespread support was used in that way, and we cannot allow that to stand. I urge the House to reject that anomalous clause and consider the matter elsewhere.

The challenge of regulating charity fundraising has already been mentioned. We can be incredibly proud that we are one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to charitable giving, but although people are happy to give, they do not want to be bullied or harassed into doing so. A voluntary donation must be voluntary. Earlier this year we heard about the tragic case of Olive Cooke, Britain’s longest-serving poppy seller. For years, she was targeted with hundreds of cold calls and requests for money. More than 70 charities bought her details or swapped them with other charities, and in one month alone she apparently received 267 charity letters. Sadly, since then more cases of unscrupulous fundraising practices have come to light, and we must act.

We began by asking Sir Stuart Etherington to review the regulation of fundraising over the summer, backed by a cross-party panel of peers, and I thank them for their work. Sir Stuart recommended a new, tougher framework of self-regulation, and we are working with charities to deliver that. Lord Grade of Yarmouth will chair the new independent body at the heart of that framework. It will be paid for by large fundraising charities, and it will be able to adjudicate against any organisation that is undertaking charity fundraising. The body will be accompanied by a fundraising preference service—similar to the telephone preference service—which will give the public greater control over their consent to receive charity fundraising requests.

Next, we will prohibit contractors from raising funds for a charity unless the fundraising agreement between them explains how the contractor will protect people from undue pressure, and sets out how compliance will be monitored by the charity. It will require large charities to include a section in their trustees’ annual report on the fundraising undertaken by them or on their behalf. That will include an explanation of how they protect the public in general, and vulnerable people in particular, from undue pressures and other poor practices.

[Mr Jenkin]

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—or PACAC, as we call ourselves—is concluding an inquiry into charitable fundraising, alongside our other inquiry into Kids Company. I will not pre-empt the outcome of those two inquiries, but we are concentrating our inquiries on the conduct of trustees in these matters, and their responsibility to oversee and support charitable organisations so that they reflect their values in their operations as much as in their objectives. We are making recommendations on that because it might be insufficient to rely on processes and structures to ensure that things are ethically and properly run.

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome that review, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can consider—and where appropriate take on board—any recommendations to improve it. I am glad that the work of that Committee is taking place concurrently, and I hope that recommendations will come forward in time for them to be considered for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

We took action towards the end of the previous Parliament to ensure that the legal framework for charities and other organisations means that they do not cross over into direct partisan political work. A review is under way into how the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 has worked. There are questions about whether that needs to go further, but the best place to deal with such issues is in the review and during scrutiny of the Bill. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and it is important that our review fully considers the impact of the 2014 Act.

We regard the Etherington package, including the fundraising preference service and a move to opt-in for further contact, as the minimum necessary to rebuild public trust. We propose that regulation of fundraising happens on a self-regulatory basis, but that self-regulation must implement the review’s recommendations in full. Some people have rightly asked what will happen if self-regulation fails. We want it to work, but we are also clear that practices must change. In Committee, we intend to bring forward amendments that will strengthen the Government’s reserve powers to intervene if the self-regulation recommended by Sir Stuart fails. Predatory fundraising targeted at vulnerable people is wrong. It has shaken public confidence in charities and we are determined to stamp it out.

Alongside tackling those challenges, the Bill aims to open up new opportunities.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am terribly sorry for intervening again, and most grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I regret that I cannot stay to take part in the debate. The House will need to know that my Committee will produce its reports in January, in good time for the conclusion of the passage of the Bill. Before he leaves the matter of fundraising, will he bear in mind the concern of many people about some charities that raise a substantial part of their income from foreign sources? Security services are concerned that organisations posing as charities might be receiving funds from abroad for nefarious purposes. Will he consider introducing measures to the Bill at a later stage to deal with that matter? I know that that is something that also concerns the Charity Commission.

[Matthew Hancock]

The Chairman of the Select Committee need not apologise. He can intervene on me as many times as he likes and I will always seek to take his interventions. I know that that must happen, otherwise he will seek to get me in front of him in some other way. On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, that concern has been raised with us. We want to consider the matter in more detail as the Bill passes through the House.

The Bill seeks to open up opportunities for charities to do more to fulfil their mission by providing a new power of social investment. Social investment seeks a positive social impact and a financial return, trying to make money go further. It is a huge and growing chance for UK charities to make more of their assets in a field where the UK is already the world leader. In 2014, the Law Commission conducted a review of charities’ social investment powers. It found a lack of clarity around charities’ social investment powers and duties, and concluded that that could be deterring some charities from getting involved in this exciting new field.

UK charities currently hold assets of over £80 billion, but they have made social investments of about only £100 million. We think that with the right support that market could double in the next few years. The Bill will ensure that more charities have a chance to take full advantage of social investment should they so wish. It removes the existing uncertainty by providing a specific new power to make social investments. It also sets out trustees’ duties to ensure that all social investments are made in the best interests of the charity. That will allow charities to make investments with the dual aim of fulfilling their mission and achieving a financial return. It is the way of the future and it is happening here in Britain. We want to support it to go further.

The work charities do transcends politics and unites hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want all charities to enjoy the very highest levels of public trust and esteem, and the generosity that brings. By delivering a more effective regulator, by tackling unscrupulous fundraising and by unleashing the power of social investment, the Bill will strengthen that trust and allow charities to do more with that generosity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

No, the commission that is looking into how the Act has operated over the past 10 years is, rightly, independent, so it deals with the question of how it operates. Private organisations have not been subject to the Act, because it is about government information, so it is entirely appropriate for them to make the decisions.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

How will transparency in government be improved by the alteration of the code of conduct for special advisers, which now says that they shall be entitled to give instructions to communications staff in Departments?

[Matthew Hancock]

The transparency of Government information is absolutely aided by a combination of our open data and the use of press officers and communication teams to explain to the public what is going on. Making sure that that happens in an orderly and organised way, subject to Ministers’ wishes, is a very important part of it running effectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I certainly strongly agree that it is important that as well as considering gender, ethnicity and other characteristics we ensure that people from all backgrounds—whichever school they went to and whichever part of the country they come from—can get to senior levels in the civil service. We have a programme under way to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Minister for the civil service and assure him that the now Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will look forward to working with him on civil service reform, as we did with his predecessor, who did so much during his term of office. May I also give my fullest support to his objective of achieving diversity? That is a vital part of having an agile civil service and requires the challenging of attitudes and habits of behaviour as much as setting targets.

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his re-election—unopposed—to the Chair of the Select Committee. I very much look forward to working with him, although I say that with some trepidation, knowing his depth of understanding of these issues. I entirely agree that this is about culture and agility in the civil service as much as it is about tick-box targets.

EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The source of the statement was President Obama. He said during a press conference with the Prime Minister—I do not have the precise quote, but I have the substance of it—that he thought it was right to try to renegotiate a relationship before deciding to leave. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise quote. I think that it is better to listen to a politician, rather than officials representing a politician.

Crucially, the free trade deal must genuinely support free trade, which I think it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy commented on that, channelling Bright. Negotiating an ambitious programme is vital. Many numbers have been quoted in the debate. We are already negotiating trade deals with Canada, India and Japan, each of which represents 2% of our exports. The United States represents 15% of our exports. I think that sums up the scale and importance of the proposition.

The relationship is already exceptionally close and deep. The US is the top export destination after the rest of the EU, and the US and the UK are each other’s largest foreign investors, supporting over 1 million jobs in this country, and US investment stock in the UK is worth around £200 billion, which is eight times the size of US investment stock in China. The scale is important, the Government’s ambition is high, and all areas are in scope. Of course, as has been mentioned, the audio-visual sector has been set to one side, but there is the potential to include it if negotiations go in that direction.

With regard to whether regional jobs data can be made available, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne argued strongly that we need to ensure that we make the argument for the deal. We will look at publishing regional jobs data in as robust a way as possible. Arguments were made, not least by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), giving specific examples of how the deal would help British businesses and jobs and be a positive force for the economy and prosperity. It is some of the specific examples that were given that make the case most eloquently and strongly.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the Minister address the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that there are already vast disparities of economic potential in different parts of the EU, which has caused massive trade imbalances between member states? The danger is that a genuine free trade deal would exacerbate those tensions? Will the incentive in the EU not be for a more protectionist deal than we would want? How will he address that?

[Matthew Hancock]

The incentive in the EU is for liberalisation, because overall the analysis of the European Commission and the analysis that we commissioned on the impact on the UK indicated a positive impact on every member state. Of course there are winners and losers, but the overall impact on each part of the EU will be positive. That is what the Commission’s analysis showed.

Economic Regeneration (Harwich)

Debate between Matt Hancock and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing the debate. The hour is late and we are deep into apprenticeships week, so it is right that we debate the importance of skills in his constituency. As he started with Samuel Pepys, so I shall start with Chaucer, who first mentioned apprenticeships more than 650 years ago. Although this is a novel and innovative project, it has a rich history.

I was in Lowestoft earlier this month looking at the links between the skills system and the offshore industry developing all along the East Anglian coast. It is critical that, as new industries develop, we provide the necessary skills, but in the past our skills system has perhaps not been good at responding to the needs of new industries as they emerge. I am delighted that, like other parts of the country, my hon. Friend’s constituency is benefiting from the reinvigoration of apprenticeships. There was an 18% rise in the number of apprenticeships in his constituency last year and 740 starts.

We must do more to make the system more rigorous and responsive to the needs of employers, however, and the employer ownership pilot is a critical part of that. It is about a shift towards delivering skills through the needs of employers and seeing employers as customers of vocational skills. That is the big picture for the employer ownership pilot, for which my hon. Friend has set out a crucial and innovative bid.

In total, in round 1, which I announced within the first week of being in this position, the bid comprised £80 million of training activity over two years. The AJ Woods proposal, “Energising Harwich”, is an important part of that, bringing together local employers, working together, and the Colchester Institute, as my hon. Friend said. Bringing together different players in the consortium also ensures that the whole supply chain gets the chance to participate in the skills enhancements that are supported.

Regional employers in the project will contribute some £3 million over two years, which will be supported by more than £850,000 in public sector funding. The first thing he asked about was the need for flexibility in the paper trail and the audit. This is a pilot scheme, the purpose of which is to investigate new ways of delivering skills that employers need, in exactly the way he described, in order to support wider regeneration efforts. It is therefore crucial that we keep under constant review the audit needs and the bureaucracy surrounding the bids. With public sector money it is critical to have appropriate audit. However, we have to ensure that that does not get in the way of delivering the project. I will therefore take that point away and very much keep my eye on it, as the project develops, and try to ensure that the burden is minimal, considering the necessity for good audit, given that we are putting public sector money into the project.

My hon. Friend’s second point was about match funding of 50%. Co-funding of skills provision is an important principle. The beneficiaries are the wider economy and the employer, as well as the individuals who do the training. In this case the 50% match funding was agreed locally as part of the bidding process. It was not a ratio set by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, although we require some co-funding. Of course I recognise the challenge for some companies, especially smaller ones, in contributing their own cash and time, and it is appropriate that the model was developed locally.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. The first two concerns might be related, because the permanent secretary in his Department, as the chief accounting officer, will need to be satisfied that match funding has been delivered. However, given the way in which time and benefits in kind are costed in a small business, we all know that it is rather unlikely that some hard and fast, actuarially justifiable figure for match funding will be available. I therefore suggest that a little flexibility or generosity of understanding of what has been committed to meet the match funding will be required, and it is the accounting officer in my hon. Friend’s Department who will have to be satisfied.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is an important point. In a way, it answers the question about the need for flexibility in the audit requirements and the need for the accounting officer in the Department to be content that this is an efficient and effective use of public money, as well as being confident about surviving the ferocity of the Public Accounts Committee, should any hearing take place—not that there needs to be one on this subject.

[Mr Jenkin]

Forgive me, but my other point was that the businesses that are providing the 50% matched funding will account for it from their own resources. Some of these small businesses have their accounts audited, but they probably do not have the sort of comprehensive audit that one would expect of a bank or a major manufacturing business. There will have to be some leeway on that and, not so much a flexibility, but a recognition that everything is being done in good faith, rather than as a means of defrauding the taxpayer and getting away with committing less than 50%.

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I recognise that that is a strong argument. We are running this pilot precisely to work out those kinds of issues, especially with respect to small businesses, with which the Government are, frankly, not particularly well equipped to deal. We do not have a good history of engaging with them, and skills is an area in which the Government as a whole need to improve.

That links to my hon. Friend’s third point, which was funding for legislative accreditations, or accreditations that are near-legislative. The skills system has a general rule that legislative accreditations should be paid for by the employer, so as not to crowd out private sector funding with public sector funding, except in the case of unemployed people who need accreditations in order to get a job and who have no employer to take on the burden.

There is a link to co-funding. We recognise that funding for accreditations can in some cases be expensive. In many cases it is necessary, and it also forms part of the co-funding of the project. The two can therefore be linked. A limited amount of resources go into skills funding, and we try to focus it on skills that are transferable and that would not otherwise be paid for by an employer. After all, there is a £40 billion to £50 billion economy in skills provision across the whole economy, and the Government budget for adult skills is £4 billion, so it is important that we do not end up trying to pay for the entirety of training across the whole economy. We simply would not be able to afford that.

Those are my responses to my hon. Friend’s specific points, but I want to give him a broader, more generic, response as well. We are going into round 2 of the employer ownership pilot. The bids for round 1 of the pilot are important, in that we can learn from them how the system can work better and in different and innovative ways. This is an innovative example of companies large and small coming together to provide for a specific need, so it is important for the Government to learn from what works and what does not, and to change what needs to be changed to make the pilot deliver.

This is called the employer ownership pilot for a reason. Each of the projects is, in itself, a pilot, and I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I shall take a personal interest in his project. I shall ensure that the necessary understanding of the context of running a small business and the costs relating to time that he mentioned are taken into account. I will ensure that I watch his project very closely, because it has the potential to unlock a new industry in an area that, for too long, has not had the vibrancy of a new industry. It has the potential to do a lot, not only for the town but all the way up the East Anglian coast. I will take away the points that he has raised and look into them in more detail.

I congratulate AJ Woods on the work that it has done, but I also urge the company to work closely with others to bring the project to fruition. As my hon. Friend said, the area has higher unemployment than elsewhere in the region, as well as skills shortages. That tells me that, for too long, the skills system has not been working properly. Where we have unemployment alongside skills shortages, there has been a problem. It is my job to try to fix that, and the employer ownership pilot is an important element of finding the solution. I want to work hard to make it happen and to learn what the Government need to do to deliver better and innovative skills, and I shall be happy to work with my hon. Friend on that.

Question put and agreed to.