Future of Horseracing

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of horseracing.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to open this debate on the future of horseracing. As we can see by the sheer number of colleagues who have made the time to come today, it is an issue that affects the whole country, and there is a great deal that we need to do to secure the future of horseracing. That is why I was motivated to call this debate.

We all know that British horseracing is essential to this country’s culture, to our language and many of the idioms that we use, to our heritage, and of course to our economy. It means a huge amount to many, many people. Horseracing is the UK’s second-largest sport, in terms of those who watch it and those who go. It provides great joy and excitement. There are 5 million race-goers annually, with almost 100,000 jobs and more than £4 billion-worth of economic activity in the industry. That ultimately means jobs and pay for those who are employed in horseracing. For those on the Treasury Bench, there is more than £300 million in taxation, which I am sure would not go amiss.

There is also a global significance. British horseracing is the pre-eminent horseracing industry in the world, but it is also under significant challenge. Modern technology has improved British horseracing enormously, but ultimately it is the most ancient of sports. As with many other successful things, many places claim to be the first in the world to have horseracing: some in the Gulf, some in the downs of southern England, and also near Chester, where I grew up—there is a case for saying that the first known horserace, or at least the first on which there was betting, was held near Eaton. Of course, betting is integral to the sport of horseracing—I will come to that in a moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentions history, but we believe we have had racing since 1800 in Market Rasen, in my constituency. It depends crucially on betting. Lincolnshire people are sound, sensible and prudent people. The whole future of smaller racecourses such as Rasen is now being put in jeopardy by these affordability tests on betting. I hope my right hon. Friend will give a really powerful speech defending the industry.

[Matt Hancock]

I certainly intend to. My right hon. Friend will be the judge of whether I manage to give a powerful speech, but there is certainly a very powerful case for saying that there is a really serious policy error going on that we need to fix. It is having a really serious impact, especially on the mid-size and smaller racecourses.

I am lucky enough to represent Newmarket, in my West Suffolk constituency, which is home to two of the finest—in fact, the two finest—racecourses in the country. It is the global headquarters of flat racing, and it has grown over the 12 years that I have represented it. It is an incredibly important sport for the whole town, with more than 7,000 people in and around Newmarket employed directly and indirectly in horseracing. It generates over £250 million in my constituency, and obviously attracts thousands of others, positively impacting and supporting local businesses, the hospitality trade and the like. It is also integral to the town. The horses walk through town every morning on the way from the stables to the gallops. As my right hon. Friend suggests, I will speak about the problems that affordability checks have brought.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister, has just announced that he has no plans to open up his borders. Of course, he is absolutely right. I am speaking—I apologise—completely with the benefit of hindsight, but I am sure everybody would agree that if we had done what Australia had done, we could have opened up our economy months ago. It has had only 910 deaths and only 29,000 infections. What I want to hear from the Secretary of State is that he will resist the very powerful lobbyists from the travel and airline industries and from airports, and that he will be absolutely determined to follow the evidence, not allow unnecessary travel—we do not know what variants are out there in the world—and be really tough with the red list.

[Matt Hancock]

That is the approach we have taken so far since the introduction of the red list and the hotel quarantine. Through the testing of every single passenger who comes here, we essentially now have a survey of the world. We can see where the new variants are from the people coming through the testing regime. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s wise counsel.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes; this is one of the hon. Lady’s campaigns that we can all get behind. She is quite right to raise the work that is being done in Walthamstow, which is very impressive. I will arrange a meeting between her and the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), to see what we can learn and what we can replicate.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This morning I received an email from a lady who is extremely clinically vulnerable. For perfectly good medical reasons, she cannot receive a flu jab or a covid jab, so she is very concerned that she will not be able to leave her front door if we bring in covid passports. For reasons of civil liberties, will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that we are not interested in bringing in covid passports internally, but that they are useful for foreign travel? I say to the shadow Secretary of State that, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps we should have introduced a hotel quarantine system much sooner. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he will resist the travel lobby? Will he be absolutely up-front and honest with people, and say that it is unwise to book summer holidays now because there may be these mutants and it is better to hold off? I think that people accept the Government being tough, as long as they are consistent, particularly on foreign travel.

[Matt Hancock]

I will address each of my right hon. Friend’s questions in turn. The point about certification is important. While decisions on certification are being reviewed in a review led by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is clear that we will need to provide people with the ability to certify whether they have had the jab, and we will absolutely need to consider those who have a certified clinical reason why they cannot have the jab. That applies to a relatively small number of people, but it is an important consideration that will be taken forward as part of that work.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for expressing his views on the approach to international travel. Quarantine is required for everybody who arrives as a passenger to this country, as well as testing on day 2 and day 8. That means we have a robust procedure to ensure that cases cannot be brought into this country and then spread in the community.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am not aware of the closure of any vaccination centres. Of course, it is a matter for the Welsh Government if they are going to close vaccination centres, but I speak to the Welsh Health Minister regularly and this has not been raised as an issue of concern. Supply is of course the rate-limiting factor, as it has been throughout the roll-out. Supply continues, but we have to start ensuring that we have those second jabs ready for people. I am not aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is certainly not a problem across England, where I am directly responsible for the roll-out. So far, this programme has been going so well across the whole United Kingdom, and we have all been working so hard together to make it happen.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In warmly welcoming what the Secretary of State has said today, the question that I have to ask, like many people, is why we did not do this over a year ago. After all, we are an island. If we had done what the Australians and New Zealanders have done, perhaps we would not have had to close our schools for all this time. I am saying this to support the Secretary of State when he is locked in Cabinet discussions with people who say that we have to protect the travel industry or the aircraft industry. I would say: let us have tough quarantine regimes, like Australia and New Zealand, and tough, enforced local lockdowns like China. Let us get a grip on this rather than just saying that it is more important to keep the travel industry open than our schools.

[Matt Hancock]

I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support in the way that he puts it. I have been talking to my Australian counterparts about the approach that they take, not least because their hotel quarantine has now been in place for some time. The central point that he makes is that once we get cases down through both the measures now, and then the vaccine to keep them down, a tough borders policy can help to keep us free domestically. That is a very important part of this consideration.

Public Health

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is right, and we want to see that happen in empirical evidence on the ground. This hope for the weeks ahead does not, however, take away from the serious and immediate threat posed now, and I wish to turn to what is in the regulations and the actions we need to take.

The Office for National Statistics has reported that one in 50 of the population has the disease, some with symptoms and some without. The latest figures show that we have 30,074 covid patients in UK hospitals and that the NHS is under significant pressure. Admissions are now higher than at any point in the pandemic, and so on Monday all four UK chief medical officers recommended that we move the country to covid-19 alert level 5. In practice, that means that they believe that without action there is a material risk of healthcare services being overwhelmed. It is for that reason that we have placed England into a national lockdown, alongside action taken in each of the devolved nations. Every single citizen needs to take steps to control this new variant, and this personal responsibility is important. To give the NHS a fighting chance to do its vital work of saving lives, it is on all of us to support it.

The regulations set out that everyone must stay at home save for a limited number of reasons permitted in law, including: essential shopping; work, if it cannot reasonably be done from home; education or childcare if eligible to attend; medical needs, including getting a covid test or getting vaccinated; exercise; escaping domestic abuse; and for support bubbles where people are eligible. These regulations are based on the existing tier 4 regulations, with some additional measures that reinforce the stay-at-home imperative.

These include: stopping the sale of alcohol through takeaway or click and collect services; and closing sport and leisure facilities, although allowing playgrounds and allotments to remain open. I know that these further restrictions are difficult, but, unfortunately, they are necessary, because we must minimise social interaction to get this virus back under control. These measures came into force first thing this morning under the emergency procedure and will remain in force subject to the approval of this House today.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have just been talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) who is a doctor. He showed me the ridiculous form that he has had to fill in to be able to give this simple jab—all this diversity and equality training. When he is inoculating an old lady, he is not going to ask her whether she has come into contact with jihadis or whatever. The Secretary of State must cut through all this bureaucratic rubbish.

[Matt Hancock]

I am a man after my hon. Friend’s heart. I can tell the House that we have removed a series of unnecessary training modules that had been put in place, including fire safety, terrorism and others. I will write to him with the full panoply of training that is not required and that we have been able to remove. We made this change as of this morning, and I am glad to say that it is now in force. I am a fan of busting bureaucracy, and in this case I agree that it is not necessary to undertake anti-terrorism training in order to inject a vaccine.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

No.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), may I thank the Secretary of State for meeting us and for promising that he will adopt a more granular approach? We can assure him that we will work hard in Lincolnshire to try to get our tier, and that of the neighbouring cities, down. May I also thank him and the Prime Minister for resisting pressure from the Opposition and from Wales and Scotland to change the rules on Christmas? That is an entirely right approach. I also thank him for the tone that he has adopted today that, if we are to defeat this, it is a matter of self-responsibility and personal ownership of our health.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The first duty of any Government is to keep the citizens of the country we serve safe. That is the reason we take the actions we do.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I hope the Secretary of State will not think me too eccentric if I say that on a winter’s morning I like to start my day by swimming the Serpentine and then going to mass. Of course, he abolished both of those things in the past four weeks. More important, he abolished them for hundreds of thousands of people. My question to him is this: under any tier or future lockdown, can we never return to the abolition of healthy outdoor sports or going to religious services? There has never been a shred of evidence that they cause any problem. By the way, this is the first time in 800 years that people have been prevented from going to church in this country, since it was put under an interdict by a medieval pope. We want reassurance on that. As well as having that conversation, could he give us some more reassurance about Christmas carols? We do not want it to be just a holy night; we do not want it to be a silent night either.

[Matt Hancock]

I very much hope that we will not have another national lockdown at all. One of the reasons that we have toughened up tier 3 is to ensure that, if areas are in tier 3, we can get the virus coming down as opposed to just flattening at a high rate, as we were seeing earlier. In that way, I hope that we can prevent the whole country from ever having to see the sorts of restrictions that we have had to introduce in order to keep people safe.

Coronavirus Regulations: Assisted Deaths Abroad

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I do think it important that we consider the question of end-of-life care, and support for palliative care is important. The coronavirus epidemic has shone a light on palliative and end-of-life care in the wider public debate, and that is right and good. That is a matter for the Government, but the specific question of assisted dying is, of course, a question for this House, and we need, together, to find a way to ensure that we all serve our constituents as best we can, taking into account the best possible evidence and all the sincerely held views on this sensitive subject.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing me in, Mr Speaker.

On the piano in my home in Lincolnshire, I have a lovely photograph of Pope Francis embracing a very old and very sick woman. At the bottom it says, “Cherish life, but accept death.” I was struck by what the Secretary of State said earlier—that we do not need to extend death or suffering; we can help people through this extraordinarily difficult time. I think we do need a review. Many people are helped into death. I remember my best friend, Piers Merchant, a former colleague here. I was at his side, and as he died, morphine was being pumped into him. No doubt, he was killed by the morphine, but that was a humane and right thing to do. We need to have a review on the basis of cherishing life but accepting death, and not necessarily pounding very old and sick people with more and more operations and pain.

[Matt Hancock]

As a highly respected and very significant voice among Catholics in this country, my right hon. Friend speaks powerfully, from both a position of his faith and a compassionate position of respect for what the current rules mean in practice. The whole House, and indeed the country, will have heard his contribution and it leaves us all to ponder this question.

Covid-19

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered covid-19.

Today’s debate comes at a critical moment, as coronavirus continues its deadly march across the globe. Too many lives have been cut short and there has been too much hardship and suffering. Here at home we have seen a sharp rise in the number of cases, and this must concern us all. We know from bitter experience in so many countries that the nature of exponential growth is that, once the virus is spreading, it accelerates, with all the consequences that brings.

It is the first duty of Government—of any Government —to keep people safe. Our duty—that of each of us here in this House—is to seek to represent our constituents to the best of our ability in their interests and in the interests of the nation. In tackling this unprecedented pandemic, we must each of us seek to balance the cherished freedoms on which people thrive with that duty to keep people safe, balancing in each judgment the economic, social, educational and, of course, health needs on which our nation’s future depends.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, will the Secretary of State remember that the first duty of Parliament is to hold Government to account? I know that he wants to take public opinion with him, but will he therefore reassure us that he is also determined to take Parliament with him? In that respect, may I urge him to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and come to a compromise to ensure that, if there are further national lockdowns, Parliament will be fully involved in the process?

[Matt Hancock]

I thought this might come up. I was going to develop the argument further before coming to the nub of that particular point, but, since my right hon. Friend gives me the opportunity, I strongly agree with the need for us in this House to have the appropriate level of scrutiny. As the Prime Minister set out last week, we have already put in place further measures. The aim is to provide the House with the opportunity to scrutinise in advance through regular statements and debates, questioning the Government’s scientific advisers more regularly—that has already started—gaining access to local data and having the daily calls with Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

We are looking at further ways to ensure that the House can be properly involved in the process—in advance, where possible. I hope to provide the House with further details soon. I will take up the invitation to a further meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), whom I have already met to discuss this matter, to see what further progress can be made. I hope that that, for the time being, satisfies my right hon. Friend.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I would be very happy to work with the hon. Lady on this question. We do have to make sure that our hospitals are covid-secure. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the specifics at the Royal Free.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The trouble with authoritarianism is that it is profoundly inimical to civil liberties. It is also increasingly incompetent. It relies on acquiescence, and acquiescence for lockdowns, particularly national ones, is draining away. For instance, if students are told not to go to pubs, they will simply congregate in rooms, which is even worse. If the Secretary of State does not listen to me, will he at least listen to Professor Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases? He wrote in The Sunday Telegraph:

“It is profoundly disappointing that six months into this pandemic, having rejected every alternative proposed, we keep coming back to lockdown”.

He suggests—[Interruption.] I am trying to be constructive. He suggests that we rely on encouraging people to look after themselves, to protect the vulnerable and to take responsibility for their own lives. That is the Conservative way.

[Matt Hancock]

As a Conservative, I believe in as much freedom as possible consistent with not harming others. One of the sad things about this virus is that because of asymptomatic transmission, if people put themselves at risk of catching coronavirus and get ill, they are not only putting themselves at risk but putting others at risk as well. That is the Conservative principle behind protecting the health of the nation in the face of this pandemic.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The answer to that last question is, absolutely, yes. The hon. Lady is quite right that expanding the NHS capacity, as well as expanding the so-called pillar 2 capacity, is right. The SNP spokesperson and I sometimes have robust exchanges but on this, she is completely right. It is an “and/and together” strategy of having the pillar 2 mass testing across the board and the expansion of NHS capacity. I am working as closely as I possibly can with Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the SNP Government in Edinburgh, to deliver that as effectively as possible right across the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Please do not take this as unduly critical, because none of us could have done any better, but the problem for the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It is easy to be wise after the event. The problem for the Secretary of State is that given the contradictory nature of advice given to people—maybe necessitated by events—fewer and fewer people are listening to him, particularly young people. I think we need a different approach. The approach of the nanny state, of ordering people about, particularly in this country, is not going to work. We have to appeal to the good sense of young people—“Stay away from grandpa and grandma. It is your responsibility.” These lockdowns and things are not going to work—it is their responsibility. And for us grandads—“Stay away from your grandchildren”. The problem is that if we order people about more and more, they stop listening. They realise the Secretary of State cannot enforce anything. He will become the emperor without clothes, and we will go backwards. We need an approach based on traditional self-reliance and to trust the people.

[Matt Hancock]

I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend is making. Unfortunately, we have seen this play out in other countries around the world. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of cases—in the first instance, among younger people—and we have seen people make this argument, entirely understandably, because younger people are much less likely to die of this disease. Notwithstanding the point about long covid and the fact that young people can have debilitating long-term consequences from this disease, the problem is that the isolation of older people who are more likely, because of their age, to have very serious consequences has simply not been effective anywhere in the world. The challenge is that younger people may pass it on, for instance, to their parents, who, in turn, can pass it on to theirs. This disease is absolutely insidious in getting from person to person. In its natural state, it spreads on average from one person to between two and three others, and it doubles in the community every three to four days.

The challenge is that without widespread social distancing, as opposed to the segregation that my right hon. Friend proposed, all the evidence is that we will end up with more hospitalisations and more deaths. I would rather get ahead of this here, learning the lessons from what we have seen first in America, and then in Spain, and now, sadly, it is starting to happen in France. I absolutely take the point about the need to communicate more but I believe, with my whole heart, that we need to communicate that we all have a responsibility, including young people, and we cannot let this rip through any part of the population, because it will inevitably then get into all.

Covid-19

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We do enter into those sorts of discussions. Of course local councils have a statutory obligation as well, but what matters most is that the response is as effective as it can be. Thus far we have been able to ensure that councils have the support and the capability to be able to respond, but, with their statutory duties, it is absolutely at the top of their priority list to prevent a local outbreak as well.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The truth is that young people of working age who are fit know that there is very little chance of their becoming seriously ill from this thing. I know that the Secretary of State will say, yes, but they can pass it on to older people, but may I speak on behalf of older people? I am one. I think that, at 70, I am the oldest person here and I am still kicking—just. What I can say to him is that older people do not want to be patronised. They are very well aware of their own health needs. They can be trusted to isolate if they have to. We do not want to have this thing whereby the man from Whitehall knows best. The man from Whitehall does not know best, especially as he changes his mind every two minutes. Can we get back to being a proper Conservative Government who trust the people and who let the people decide how to look after their own health?

[Matt Hancock]

The challenge is that this disease passes on without people knowing. I have seen the challenge of older people trying to stay away from and stay safe from the continuing spread. In the United States of America, we saw that, at first, the increase in rates was among younger people and then it spread and the hospitalisation rate went up and then the number of deaths went up. Unfortunately, we are seeing a similar pattern on parts of the continent. I understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. The goal is to have as little intervention, as targeted intervention, as possible, subject to keeping the virus under control. That is what we are trying to do. Essentially, we want to protect the ability of schools to go back and to make sure that we get the economy going as much as possible. These localised interventions, whether through test and trace to the individuals who have tested positive or to a local area where there is an outbreak, is the approach that we propose.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Tests for both have recently been developed. The test for whether someone has coronavirus, which we call the case test, was first developed here by Public Health England, and that is being expanded. The antibody test, which tests whether someone has the antibodies that make them immune to coronavirus, has now been developed, and we are buying it in large quantities.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nobody denies that the Bill is necessary, but given that it gives the state, for the first time in our history, unprecedented powers to enforce isolation on people who have committed no crime, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that it will be fully involved in renewing this once this crisis is over, and that there will be no drift in this matter?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. I will turn to this point shortly, but let me just correct my right hon. Friend. The measures we are taking to be able to hold people in quarantine build on those in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which we have been using hitherto. In that element, the Bill is not unprecedented. The Bill makes these powers UK-wide and strengthens the basis on which they can be exercised, but the powers are not unprecedented. Nevertheless, the point he makes about the House’s ability to scrutinise these measures and to ensure that we are, as a House, content with their continuation is important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When it comes to broadband in rural Lincolnshire, there is not much of a season of good will. The fact is that even 150 years ago, the Post Office could roll out a universal service—it did not matter where people lived—but in many rural villages in Lincolnshire, including mine, the broadband is appalling. People are trying to do business in these villages, so will the Minister get his skates on and get BT to roll out broadband to them?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I have some Christmas cheer for people in Lincolnshire who want better broadband, because yesterday we announced that we are taking forward the legal guarantee for decent high-speed broadband under the universal service obligation. All I can say on this, Mr Speaker, is that all I want for Christmas is USO.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course he will. On issues that are not about the in/out referendum question, Ministers will be fully informed. That is the position. As to the question of whether this will change people’s minds, the Government have made their position clear, which is that, obviously, we are in favour of remain.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Say for a moment that I am the fisheries Minister, young, ambitious, good looking and anxious to do the Prime Minister’s bidding, and the Prime Minister tells me that I have to set out my vision of what life outside the EU means for fishing—indeed that is a huge question for our fishing fleets—what do I do? The EU determines everything in my Department. I have no national policy on fishing, but I happen to be in favour of the out campaign. Do I go home for four months? Do I get no advice from Ministers? Is it not so much “Yes, Minister” as just “Go home for four months and we will see you in June”?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that the rules set out last week make it clear that on all issues, including EU issues other than the in/out question, government continues as normal. I am afraid that he cannot have four months off, even in the circumstances he describes. I am sure that he would not miss the next four months for the world.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I can reassure the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at what is happening with this procedure and will report back to the House. It shall be noted that these are matters of great interest, but recently when I have sat in on consent motions for these sorts of debates under English votes for English laws, I have noted that nothing is said at all. It is incumbent on us to draw up procedures that actually make a difference and have a purpose. The problem with EVEL is that, because the Conservative Government have an overall majority, no Bill will be changed one iota in this Parliament as a result of EVEL. Because all the other parties are opposed to EVEL, if the Conservative party does not have a majority after the next general election, the procedure could be abolished in an afternoon. The Committee will be looking at these procedures very carefully and—of course, I cannot speak for its other members—will want to be reassured that the procedures under EVEL are actually changing something.

[Matthew Hancock]

I will respond briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). She asked why the Bill has been designated as an England and Wales Bill, and that is because it relates in its entirety to England and Wales. On her point about a charity that covers the whole United Kingdom—it hardly behoves me to reiterate, passionately and fulsomely, the Government’s support for the United Kingdom, which we share—regulation of the activities of charities in Northern Ireland is devolved. I cannot speak to, and I do not have responsibility for, the activities of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, which regulates the activities of charities in Northern Ireland. Likewise, this section of the debate ensures that there is consent for this legislation among the MPs whose constituencies will be covered by it. The reason I did not speak at the start of this procedure is that, given that the Bill is so clearly restricted to activities that take place in England and Wales, it is plain and obvious that it is therefore an English and Welsh Bill for these purposes.

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Debate between Matt Hancock and Edward Leigh

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We are discussing it because the EU has put forward a proposal. Whether we think it is right that it should do so is exactly what we are debating. I have an awful lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. In fact, I think I agree with all of it, although I am always cautious about saying that I agree with all of anything in case I missed something or misunderstood.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

May I make a little progress? I shall come to some of these points in detail.

The Government are committed to increasing the number of women on boards. In the coalition agreement we pledged to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies, and we did so for a good reason. Historically, the proportion of women on boards has been too low. In 1999 women made up just 6.2% of the boards of FTSE 100 companies. By 2004, that was 9.4% and in 2010 it was 12.5%. In 2010 there were only five female chief executive officers of FTSE 100 companies.

As the House will know, we published the review by Lord Davies of Abersoch in 2011 and have been working to implement the recommendations. The Davies review identified several barriers preventing women from reaching senior roles in business. The research shows that people have an unconscious bias to reward and promote people who are like themselves. Davies found that informal networks are highly influential in determining board selections and that a lack of transparency over selection criteria continues to be an obstacle to progress. Davies also suggests that differences in the way men and women are mentored could be giving men the edge over their female peers, for the clear reason that there are fewer women in senior roles to act as mentors and role models for female colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I do agree, but these things have to be done on merit. As it happens, later this month I am leading a trade delegation to India, and the business side of that trade delegation will be led by a woman. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Leigh]

We all agree that this should be business led, but can the Government block this or will it go through on qualified majority voting?

[Matthew Hancock]

I will come to the point that, under the principles of subsidiarity in the Lisbon treaty, should there be enough motions in national Parliaments across the Union, that is enough to ensure that the Commission cannot introduce the current draft proposals.

We want a business environment in which woman can and do take their seats at the boardroom table on merit and in which businesses can respond to the varying needs of their sector, size and type of business. We need to tackle those problems without unduly burdening business. That is the substance of the challenge of getting more women on boards. It is clear that the Government have taken a lead on that and things are moving in the right direction, and the current strategy is leading us towards the target that the EU has proposed.

I will now move on to the argument about whether this should be an EU competence at all. The Government’s position is clear: we believe that member states must retain the flexibility to respond to their own individual circumstances. Today’s debate is about allowing Parliament, as distinct from the Government, to express its view on whether this should be an EU competence. The Government are strongly of the view that the principle of subsidiarity should be respected and adhered to. The principle of subsidiarity rests on two tests that a Commission proposal must pass: the necessity test, which is that the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states acting alone; and the EU added value test, which is that the objectives can be better achieved by action at EU level. Under protocol 2 of the Lisbon treaty, national Parliaments may raise an objection, referred to as a “reasoned opinion”, if they do not believe that a draft proposal is compliant with the principle of subsidiarity.

The Government’s explanatory memorandum, which was sent to the European Scrutiny Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, sets out the Government’s assessment of whether the Commission’s proposals meet the principle of subsidiarity. We find that they do not. There is no reason why member states cannot achieve the objectives by acting alone and there is no evidence that value would be added through EU involvement. Indeed, the Commission’s own impact assessment found that the evidence base for demonstrating the need for, and proportionality of, binding EU action was “very weak”, stating that members states had a

“proven ability to act in this area”

and that

“a number of Member States had taken measures which appeared to have achieved significant progress”.

I hope that list includes us.