Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

Since the last Health questions, we have announced 20 hospital upgrades; 40 new hospitals; £200 million for cancer diagnosis kit; £250 million for the NHSX artificial intelligence lab; a social prescribing academy, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey); the launch of the “Every Mind Matters” public mental health campaign; a landmark agreement so that cystic fibrosis drugs, including Orkambi, can be available on the NHS; and the firm commitment from the Prime Minister that in any trade talks after Brexit, the NHS is—and always will be—off the table.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There were 1.2 million hospital admissions related to alcohol consumption in England in 2017-18—3% up on the previous year. Hospital admissions due to alcohol-related liver disease have increased by 43% in the last 10 years, and alcohol problems now cost the NHS an estimated £3.5 billion every year in England alone. Why have the Government not properly recognised the enormous and growing scale of the country’s alcohol-related health problems, and why have they failed to bring forward serious and effective measures to address them?

[Matt Hancock]

The prevention Green Paper that we published in the summer specifically addresses what is needed. The effort that we put into supporting those who are hospitalised through their abuse of alcohol needs to be enhanced, and there is an enormous amount of effort under way to make that happen.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have already covered that point, but surely asking the other BBC licence fee payers, staff and programmers inside the BBC to pay for what is a welfare benefit is nonsense.

[Matt Hancock]

The point is that it is not a welfare benefit; it is about funding policy, and the BBC asked for this policy to be determined by the BBC. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State said that

“the charter provides the BBC with the funding and security it needs”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 699.]

As part of that “security it needs”, we kept, in this Parliament, the free TV licence. The BBC itself has asked for this and only this morning the BBC said that

“the overall funding settlement reached with the government provides the financial stability for a strong creative BBC. The BBC is concerned that”—

this amendment—

could reopen the whole deal and make the BBC worse off.”

So we have here an 11-year charter renewal, a strong and stable financial settlement praised by the Labour party and a clause that has been requested by the BBC, whereas the new clause could, in the BBC’s words, make the BBC worse off. Supporting new clause 8 would undermine the BBC and undermine its finances. This measure is expressly against the wishes of the BBC, and I urge anyone still considering supporting it to ask themselves how they will explain this attempt to undermine the BBC—Government Members will not do that.

New clause 17 deals with the issue of public sector broadcaster prominence, an important matter on which we consulted in the spring. In Committee, the point we reached was that a detailed, over-prescriptive regulation of the detail of the PSB prominence rules would be a mistake, and having not seen compelling evidence of harm to PSBs to date, we have decided not to extend the electronic programme guide—EPG—prominence regime for PSBs to on-demand. When PSBs make excellent content, audiences generally follow.

Finally on broadcasting, new clause 18, on listed events, was also discussed in Committee, and I have seen no evidence to change our view that the current listed events regime is not under threat—we will not let it be under threat. The range of our most loved and important sporting events will remain on free-to-air channels. Even if there were a problem, it would be undesirable to fix it in the way the new clause suggests, as it would lock in the incumbents’ positions, as the requirement to be watched by 90% of the population would narrow considerably the number of channels that could qualify. So I suggest that the problem does not arise; that were it to arise, we would legislate; and that if we were to legislate, this would not be the way we would do it.

In this Bill, we have shown that we are open to being persuaded by good argument, and we have tabled amendments 20, 21 and 22 to ensure that Ofcom is able effectively to enforce requests for information from third parties in relation to its new functions as regulator of the BBC. I hope that these provisions have broad support.

I now turn to the much discussed issue of ticketing. New clause 31 seeks to deal with bots that harvest tickets for resale in the secondary market. We have heard very powerful explanations of the scale of the problem and its breadth, and I can confirm that I had great difficulty in buying Paul Simon tickets. Initially, I failed to buy them despite having my finger hovering on my mouse the moment they went on sale, and so I had to buy them at a much greater price in the secondary market. They were worth every penny, but that in a way makes the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) makes: the gap exploited is between the level at which the artists wants to sell their tickets and the amount that they represent in true value to the customer. I was still happy to pay hundreds of pounds for my Paul Simon tickets, but the point is that they were meant to be on sale for £75 so that everybody could get them. I am persuaded by the arguments and we shall be holding a roundtables meeting on Wednesday to discuss the best way to tackle the problem.

The Government will give full consideration to what is said at these roundtables, in Parliament and in the Waterson report on the issue of ticketing bots and the harvesting market. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who has made a huge amount of the running on this issue. He has made the argument powerfully and, as has been said, the Olympics showed that this can be done.

Funding for the Arts

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

The former Minister—my predecessor and friend—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) described his contribution as a swansong and as his resignation speech. He was the longest-serving culture Minister in the history of this great country, and he has made two such speeches today because earlier he spoke eloquently in the debate on the Digital Economy Bill, to which we will be returning.

I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend on the record. Having served in five different Government Departments in four years, I am becoming something of an expert in ministerial predecessors—I have an awful lot of them—and he is my finest ministerial predecessor. He has been brilliant to me by being supportive both in public and in private. He has been quiet where appropriate, and he has been helpful, while still speaking his mind. If I may say so, he is also looking extremely healthy.

My right hon. Friend talked about the outpouring of joy at the arts funding settlement in the spending review, and it is true that the arts were well supported. I remember well the previous Chancellor saying that “deep cuts” to the arts are a “false economy”, and I know that the new Chancellor shares his predecessor’s enthusiasm for the sector.

There was also an outpouring of thanks and warmth to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage on his resignation, and it was an extraordinary, generous and genuine outpouring of support from arts and cultural organisations and from supporters of the arts right across the piece in recognition of his dedication and support over many years, which culminated in the publication of the first culture White Paper on the 50th anniversary of Jennie Lee’s White Paper.

The economic and social impact of the arts and culture is well recognised by me and by the Government. DCMS sectors make a vital contribution. In 2015 the creative industries contributed £221 billion to the UK economy, which is more than 13% of gross value added. That is the economics but, more than that, the arts are central to how we are seen and how we see ourselves as a nation, which will only become more important as we negotiate our exit from the European Union and ensure that Britain is an open, optimistic, progressive and positively engaged country.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In a recent private meeting—I was impressed by this—the Minister said that so much value could not be measured in financial terms and that the arts, in particular, were an area in which it was difficult to measure value in financial terms, even though they made a financial return.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I know that there have been extensive discussions with the BBC at all levels about the draft charter and the framework agreement. I am afraid that he will just have to wait a short while longer for more detail about that.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I take the opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment and welcome her team to the Front Bench? May I also add my congratulations to our brilliant Olympians on their stunning success in Rio and wish our Paralympians similar success?

Local television services face the threat of serious cuts if the Government press ahead with their plan to make the BBC pay the cost of free licence fees for the over-75s. As a social benefit, that has hitherto been paid for by the Exchequer, and rightly so. Transferring the cost to the BBC could mean a loss to the corporation, and effectively to other licence fee payers, of up to £608 million a year, threatening programme cuts across the board. Will the Government think again about this utterly misguided decision?

[Matt Hancock]

I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. There was a very good licence fee settlement, which the BBC welcomed. If he is coming out against providing free TV licences to the over-75s, he ought to say that that is the Labour party position.

Channel 4

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Matt Hancock]

It is also day two for my Secretary of State. The issue needs to be considered realistically in the face of the facts. Channel 4 acknowledged the risks facing its business model in its 2015 submission to Ofcom’s PSB review when it said:

“Channel 4 believes the potential downside risks associated with…factors, such as a faster shift to on-demand viewing, the emergence of new disruptive entrants, faster fragmentation of audiences, production cost inflation outpacing funding, and structural changes to the licence fee of TV, outweigh the potential opportunities. Moreover, Channel 4 is arguably the PSB most likely to face the future first, given its focus on risk-taking and trying new things, and also its targeting of young audiences, who are the most avid users of new technologies and platforms.”

That must be true. Some 94% of its total revenue comes from TV advertising, and with so much of its revenue coming from advertising, an open question remains about how Channel 4 is affected by shocks to the economy, such as Brexit. It is our duty to make Channel 4 sustainable.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Will he, at the very least, take back to his colleague in the Government and to the Secretary of State the strength of feeling that has been conveyed from both sides of Westminster Hall this morning?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course. I think we are about to hear a bit more.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My right hon. Friend has made an important point. On European Union issues that do not relate to the single question of in or out, there will be full access to all papers, as normal. That is what is said in the letter from the Cabinet Secretary, and that is how the Government are operating.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

During the referendum on Scottish independence, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), there was significant controversy over senior civil servants making public and clearly political, and politicised, statements. It is vital for the civil service to retain its private advisory role, and for civil servants not to make blatantly political public comments during the campaign before the EU referendum. Will the Minister confirm that that will be the case?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is the normal course of events. It is for Ministers to make the argument, and for civil servants to support the Government’s position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I very much look forward to meeting the working group on procurement for steel later this week. It is absolutely critical that we make use of the new EU rules, which are only in place because this Government brought them in, to ensure that we consider not only the financial cost, but the wider economic benefit of buying British steel for British projects, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T10. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to safeguard the right of elected Governments to run the national health service democratically as a public service in the light of the threat of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?

[Matthew Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has long asked questions about this—there is no threat to the national health service from making sure that Britain has trade deals with the whole world which make us more prosperous, more secure and more economically forward-looking, and that is what we are going to make sure happens.

Vocational Qualifications

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work. I would say to all Members of the House that having an apprentice not only gives somebody a chance but is very motivating for oneself, as I have found out. I not only recommend all Members to take on an apprentice but commend the House of Commons for having started an apprenticeship scheme. I have met some of those apprentices, and very impressive they are too.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am a member of the Deregulation Bill Committee, where I voted for and spoke strongly in favour of Labour’s excellent amendments and was disappointed when they were not successful. One concern I expressed was about the fear that the switch in funding for vocational training from further education colleges to employers will weaken provision, as cash-strapped companies with cash-flow problems will not necessarily spend the money on vocational training. What does the Minister say to that?

[Matthew Hancock]

In the reforms, the money will have to be spent on apprenticeship training. It is vital that we ensure that the training delivered is that which employers need, so it needs to be not only rigorous, but responsive. This country has had not just a skills shortage, but the wrong training, as demonstrated by some of the qualifications we have today announced we will be no longer funding. We have to support the training that employers need and bring together education and employment, so that young people learn skills that will help them get a job and get on in that job.

Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. We are third from the bottom in the developed world, as surveyed by the OECD. We are 22nd out of 24 in numeracy and 21st out of 24 in literacy and however we want to cut those figures, they are bad.

I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard in this area, especially the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and its chief executive, David Hughes, whose lifelong work has been spent trying to drive up adult literacy and numeracy. So much of the solution is about high expectations and standards and, as a country, we have tried over the last decade and more to find one merely by throwing money at the problem. It is clear that while money is part of the answer, it is only part of the answer, and a lot of it is to do with making sure we get the right teaching to the right expectations with the right level of rigour.

This problem must be solved first in our primary and secondary schools. We can then try to solve it, for those who do not succeed at school, in colleges and further education, and then, of course, for those for whom that still does not work, throughout life. This problem must be tackled at all levels, therefore.

Let me set out some of the actions the Government have taken. The focus on numeracy and literacy in primary schools is crucial, but, as well as time spent on these issues, we have to make sure we have high expectations of children at a young age. We need to make sure that grammar is taught properly and that mental arithmetic matters—that we do not rely only on calculators, and instead the understanding of basic maths is inculcated deep in pupils. Then we must reform GCSEs and have a more stretching curriculum for teenagers, and then, for those who do not get the crucial C or above in GCSE, make sure they continue to learn English and maths. The introduction of the tech level and the tech bac will drive that among those who do not go down the A-level route. As announced this week, we are introducing a core maths paper that is somewhere between a GCSE and an A-level so that for the 40% who get a C at GCSE but do not continue to study maths there is a qualification that is not as big as a full A-level but allows them to continue studying maths.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I wonder whether the Minister is going to touch on teaching methods in primary schools and some of the points I made. Some of his ministerial colleagues and former ministerial colleagues were keen on examining teaching methods, particularly in primary schools, to make sure that we have got that right. If we do not get that right, we will not make much progress.

[Matthew Hancock]

I could not agree more with almost everything the hon. Gentleman has said in this debate. He made a remarkable contribution and I was coming on to respond in more detail to it. I entirely agree that getting teaching methods that work matters, but what also matters is that the teachers believe in the methods they are using—that is what the evidence shows—and move away from what he called an “utterly misguided” philosophy of learning. I like him more the more I listen; thank goodness there are people on both sides of this House who think that it is utterly misguided not to stretch pupils and not to have rigorous and evidence-based methods of teaching.

We are also tackling levels of illiteracy among benefit claimants, introducing new conditionality to require the learning of English and looking towards introducing a concept for younger benefit claimants of “earn or learn”, so that we incentivise people into training rather than pay them so long as they do not train for more than 16 hours a week.

Apprenticeships and traineeships are, of course, close to my heart, and they increasingly require English and maths. Some people say, “If you go into an apprenticeship, you should not have to do English and maths because apprenticeships are for people who are going into jobs that do not require those things.” But there is almost no job that does not require a basic standard of English and maths. In this modern workplace—by that I mean around the country, not necessarily in this building, as it is not the most modern of workplaces—the level of English and maths required is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely; I believe somebody once called them the forgotten 50% and they were indeed forgotten. That is no longer the case. Educational reform has to be about making sure that everybody can reach their potential. I was going to say that an intellectual error has been made in the past and we have to put it right. I am talking about the argument that because someone has a low level of education or they are undertaking a low-level qualification—level 1 or level 2—what they are doing does not have to be rigorous, stretching and high-quality. At every level of education we have to make sure that we get as much improvement in pupils as possible. We are trying to put right that mistaking of a low level with the “need” for low-quality and sloppiness.

It is fantastic and an honour to be answering the first speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) has made from the Back Benches for several years. He rightly argued that this is about the fulfilment of lives as well as about jobs and the economy. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), mentioned the importance of tackling the issues faced by those who have dyslexia, and I could not agree more. It comes back to the previous point: just because someone has dyslexia does not mean they cannot have decent English and maths. It makes those things harder to teach and we need different techniques for teaching them, but we should not have low expectations just because people find something difficult. He also mentioned the importance of the context for learning and, as the Minister responsible for apprenticeships, I often find that people who failed in English and maths in a formal setting thrive in them as soon as they encounter them in a job. That is because suddenly it matters whether or not they can do their maths. If they can, they can do their job.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) mentioned Unionlearn, and I am grateful to her for highlighting it. The Government support it and fund it—it would be great to get some acknowledgement for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked, as he often does, about financial literacy, and it was great to be able to put that into the curriculum. I hope that it works and that we do not think that the job is done just because we have put it in the curriculum. We have to keep an eye on it and make sure that it really works. He also talked a lot about school reform, which is the heart of the long-term solution to the problem.

My admiration grows for the hon. Member for Luton North. I did not know that he was an economic historian until now.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

An economist, not an economic historian. I am sorry.

[Matthew Hancock]

It was going so well. Never mind, I will forgive the hon. Gentleman. I am a former economist, but I have repented my sins.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) talked about employer concern and the problems highlighted by the CBI, the FSB, the BCC and the EEF. I want to put the Government’s position on the record on one point. He said that there is sometimes an impression that people are not mathematically minded and went on to say that they should still be able to learn maths. The concept of people who are not mathematically minded does not exist anywhere else in the world. It is a peculiarly British cultural concept and we must eradicate it, because everybody can do maths. It is just a matter of how they are taught. I absolutely hope we can turn that around, although changing cultural perceptions takes time.

Many Members talked about probation and prisons and we are working hard to drive up English and maths in prisons. We are paying by results and outcomes rather than simply the number of classes taught to try to improve that.

The challenge is historic and is set next to an historic publication. The shock from the OECD’s report has brought up an objective fact, which needs to be answered. I hope that it has finally settled the debate between those who say that a constant increase in qualifications passed represents a constant increase in quality of education. Increasing numbers of qualifications matters only when those qualifications are of constant value and we know that they have not been. The evidence shows that we have a serious problem that has got worse in the past 10 years.

We have learned that, above all else, alone in the developed world, our 16 to 24-year olds are not better educated in English and maths than those aged 55 to 65. Yes, money is important in solving the problem, but money alone is not the answer. Expectations, rigour and challenge matter too. The solution will not happen quickly. It takes years to turn around schools, but then it takes years for those turned around schools to educate the next generation. It is a vital task and I hope that all parties and Members of this House can get behind it so that everybody in this country can reach their potential.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The changes will be brought in by 2015. We have put in place transitional arrangements to ensure that institutions have time to adjust. Especially in sixth-form colleges such as Farnborough, which has an excellent track record—it is truly inspirational—it is important that we move to per-pupil funding in a considered way.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Sixteen to 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds studying at further education sixth-form colleges do not receive free meals at lunchtime, whereas their counterparts in school sixth forms do. Is not that another injustice that needs to be addressed?

[Matthew Hancock]

Schools do not receive any extra funding for provision of that duty, so when looking at that question we need to be extremely careful not to add new duties without extra funding to go with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

There was rather a lot in that question. I certainly agree with Lord Sainsbury. The Gatsby Foundation does excellent work in producing more occupational qualifications that have the standing of the industries they support. More occupational qualifications in this country would be a very good thing, because we have serious skills shortages, not least, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—particularly engineering. We are doing everything we can, including working with Lord Sainsbury, to turn that situation around.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the latest construction output figures; and if he will make a statement.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Debates in this House are often described by those who speak in them as important, but there is something important about today’s debate: on this subject, cross-party unity matters. There has been clear unity across all three parties that have been represented in this debate. Almost everybody stuck to that tone, until a brief period at the end. I will not push the point about who got us into this mess and I will not ask under which Government the number of private sector jobs in the west midlands fell, because it is important, for substantive reasons, that there is a cross-party approach to industrial strategy. This debate has shown the passion of Members and of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with the Minister that there should be cross-party consensus, provided that that consensus is on the right side. If everybody is wrong, we will drive ourselves further into difficulty.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is a profound point about the need to avoid groupthink, with which I profoundly agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) argued that we need to identify the best. He was passionate about enterprise and I heard his message. He will know that I am a huge supporter of enterprise zones.

I enjoyed listening to the historical debate between the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who are continuing their debate as I speak.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) asked a series of questions and brought his huge experience to bear, especially in relation to defence. The defence growth partnership is a BIS-led cross-Government partnership, which the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), leads. On the specific point about R and D tax credits moving to above the line, the Treasury has consulted on that and is deciding on the detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me with the answer on the joint strike fighter, which I will come to in a moment.

Everybody in the House was struck by the fluent and impressive speech by the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). He described passionately his membership of the Co-operative party as well as the Labour party. My grandfather was part of the co-operative movement. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who takes a lead on such issues among Government Members.

The hon. Member for Corby advanced the argument for the living wage powerfully. He spoke of the need to ensure that domestic British people have the skills to take the jobs that are available. Although more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created under this Government, we still have a huge amount of work to do. As Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my prime motivation is to ensure that British people have the skills and ability to do whatever it takes to get the growing number of jobs available. The hon. Member for Corby spoke with great passion, and all those present in the debate will have clocked that—well, let me put it like this: the attitude he showed to the Chief Whip on the Opposition Front Bench, and his ability to ingratiate himself with her, shows that he may not be on the Back Benches for long.

An industrial policy is central to achieving the goal of growth and enterprise, and there is broad consensus on that from the CBI to the TUC, as well as across the House. The reason for that is simple. Any Government in a mature economy has an industrial policy—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) argued, a Government cannot choose not to have one. We have an industrial strategy but the question is whether we have it by default or design.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford praised the Dutch system, from which we have much to learn. In my few weeks in this job I have recognised and warmly welcomed the constructive approach taken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West to chairing the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. He argued for a cross-departmental approach, and the growth committee on which I sit is an important part of that. He also argued for a cross-party approach, and not only do I agree with that, but I think hon. Members have demonstrated such an approach today. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s realism and ability to accept failures on the part of all past Governments. As he said, manufacturing halved as a percentage of GDP, and the passionate argument about that and the history around it was also put forward by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

Crucially, an industrial strategy looks both at and across sectors, and we must ensure that we allow for the challenge of sectors that are yet to be dreamed of. Let me touch on four cross-cutting themes, as well as on sectors such as the automotive industry, life sciences and aerospace, in which we are pushing rapidly ahead with the publication of individual papers.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between Matt Hancock and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

That is one mystery that will no doubt be revealed when the 30-year rule is applied. We found out some interesting things about what happened in the 1970s under the Jim Callaghan Government recently, so perhaps we will know what is happening now in 30 years’ time. I know no more than my hon. Friend about why the Government do not take a more sensible line, as is proposed in the motion.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he share my frustration that a Labour Chancellor signed us up to a mechanism over which we now have no veto?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Throughout the period of the Labour Government, I put the views that I have put in this debate. I hope that I had some influence, but in the end the Government decide what they must. They will not necessarily do what Back Benchers such as me suggest. Nevertheless, I am on record as writing and speaking on such things many times in the past.

We must bring this crisis to a head. The way to do that is to say, “No more bail-outs. Let’s start recreating national currencies.” I have said that directly to some of our friends in Ireland, when members of the European Scrutiny have met Irish politicians.