Valedictory Debate

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was not expecting to speak today, as I did not know there was a slot today for valedictory speeches. During yesterday’s statement, I spoke about the importance of the NHS, and said that that would be the end of my contributions, but I saw Mr Speaker last night, and he explained that some time would be given over to valedictory speeches today. Having had the Conservative Whip restored this week, I am delighted to say that many, many colleagues have said, “You should say something and reflect.”

I start by saying what an honour it is to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who taught me an enormous amount when I was a new Member of Parliament and I served on her Public Accounts Committee. It was our Public Accounts Committee in theory, but as she was Chair, it was very much her PAC. I undertook to read every word of every draft report, because she was brilliant at occasionally —[Interruption.] She is laughing, which I take as an admission of guilt; she knows what I am going to say. She would occasionally stick in a sentence that put the boot into the Government, but she would put it on about page 29, hoping that nobody else in the Committee would notice. I took it upon myself to read the detail, and I learned that from her.

I have, of course, found serving in this House to be the privilege of my life—I am sure we all feel that. I agree strongly with the words of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), about the importance and value of public service. Politics, no matter how difficult it can be, is public service, because in a democracy it is the only way to translate the will of the people into the governance of the nation. We are the channels through which that should happen, and I want to thank some people who have helped make it happen for me.

I want to thank the people who got me into politics in the first place, particularly Dr Michael Hart, who is also the man who spotted my dyslexia, and Nick St Aubyn, the man who suffered most from my dyslexia. I was his agent in the 2001 general election, when he was the Member for Guildford. Let me retell a terrible story. He had written his election address and I had put it into a very early version of PowerPoint. He had written this lovely phrase, “I want to unite the community”. I thought it was great, so I put it into the headline. It was only when 42,000 copies of the election address had been delivered that he picked a copy up from his doormat and said, “Matt, why have your written, ‘I want to untie the community’?” He took it very well, but unfortunately he lost the seat, and I did not speak about my dyslexia for 20 years after that because of the shame it brought me. He also forgave me, which was a truly heroic act.

I thank my staff here, particularly Helen Dudley, who retired a few years ago, and Elizabeth Hitchcock. I thank the countless others who have supported me in my office here in Parliament, but those two have always held the thing together. Especially in times in government, when it is hard to give as much time as one would want to one’s constituency duties, they really have taken action. Both of them were preferred to me in West Suffolk and did a much better job than I could have done. I thank all the civil servants with whom I served and worked so closely, but I also want to put in a word for special advisers. Let me give one short story about why special advisers are such a valuable and important part of our political system. In the pandemic, Members might remember that during the vaccination programme there was an interval—a gap—between two doses of the vaccine being given. I cannot remember how long it was—it might have been 12 weeks. One of my political special advisers spotted a tweet from an American statistician saying that, because the first vaccine had a much greater impact than the second, if we reduced the number of weeks between the first and the second being given, we would save many lives. He spotted the tweet and brought it to me. I took it to the clinical leads, Professor Whitty and Professor Van-Tam, who ran the maths and verified it. We spoke to the regulators and, despite this being novel, within nine days the information spotted in a tweet by an American statistician became Government policy, announced here, and that was followed throughout the world. That alone is calculated to have saved 10,000 lives in the UK.

There are many more staff I would like to thank, including my three agents in West Suffolk over the years: Dorothy Whittaker, Lance Stanbury and Bobby Bennett. And, like the former Defence Secretary, I also thank my family, in particular my children, because the impact of the scrutiny of politics, especially when people make mistakes, has a huge impact on them, and they have put up with a lot.

It is in the nature of politics that people do not see what a team effort it is. Many people have said that today. What will I miss most? The single unambiguous answer to that question is that I will miss colleagues the most. In difficult times, the support of colleagues, both on this and the other side of the House, has been incredibly powerful. I will also miss the opportunity to contribute to national debates. The single vote that I regret not having taken part in is that on assisted dying, which surely will come and which I have come to support very passionately.

Politics is also noisier and harder than it was 14 years ago, when I first came to Parliament. The nature of social media has made it more difficult, and the nature of the world has, sadly, made it more dangerous. Even through this, one of the things that I have tried to promote is the power of technology as a force for good. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and I have campaigned on that together over the years. Yes, we must ensure that technology is harnessed for the benefit of humanity, but by God, we must make sure that harness it we do. We cannot stand in the way, and the UK is at its best when we are at the forefront and when we harness the power of modern technology. My prediction is that, over the next 14 years, the impact will be far greater not just on the economy but on society and politics than it has been even over the past 14 years. We are living through the slowest rate of change of our lives. It is only going to get faster, and I hope that this place is ready for that.

I cannot finish without a word on the NHS and the role it plays in our national life. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead asked me to be Health Secretary she said, “We need to improve the tech in the health service. Could you do that?” For 18 months, I thoroughly enjoyed myself trying to improve the tech in the health service. Then, of course, the pandemic struck. For one last time I want to say thank you to all of those who rose to the occasion and did so much to get us through, delivering the necessary safety measures, including the shielding programme, which is not mentioned as much as it should be, protecting those who were most vulnerable. And, of course, the vaccine programme was without doubt one of the country’s finest achievements in peacetime. I want to thank the colleagues with whom I worked incredibly closely and who helped make that happen; some of them were heroes of the pandemic too. 

I leave by saying this. I think it is impossible for a political party—those aspiring to govern—to win without some of those lodestars. It is impossible and wrong to win without being on the side of the future and trying to represent the youth of our country who are coming through. They may see things differently from how we do; I say that even as a 45-year-old. It is impossible to win or to deserve to win without a true love of the NHS. I am proud to serve a Prime Minister who is from an NHS family. That true love is important because the people believe it and it is true.

Finally, it is impossible to win unless we truly want to serve our country. I believe that everybody comes into this place wanting to make their country a better place. I have tried my hardest to do that for 14 years—to reach out, to try to do things differently and to try to embrace the future. It has been a honour and a privilege, and I thank you.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Matt, and thank you NHS.

SEND Provision

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am absolutely certain that this approach to data is more widely applicable. My focus is on this specific area, but there is now a richness of data on individual children that simply was not available 10 years ago or even five years ago, and I think that such passporting of data would be invaluable.

I agree with everything the Chair of the Select Committee said on the question of funding, so I will not repeat it. He has been the leader of the f40 campaign for many years. Suffolk is underfunded, as is Worcestershire, so I put in my plug, but I do not need to add any more details. The Minister knows them for sure.

I will close by saying that I appreciate the engagement the Minister has shown on this subject, and I look forward to meeting him in private in the next couple of weeks to continue this discussion. However, I would urge him to support early identification not just as a matter of social justice, not just as a matter of progress for each individual child and not just to ensure that each child can reach their potential, but, since this is an estimates day debate, because we will then spend taxpayers’ money on education more wisely and we will get better educational outcomes as a result.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to publicly congratulate Gen Kitchen on her fine maiden speech. Well done.

Use of Patient Data

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I have come to the House today to answer this debate because of the importance of the subject matter and the importance of getting this right. I recognise and acknowledge the chequered history that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described, and I see that chequered history as one of the reasons that the NHS does not yet have the modern data architecture that it needs. Previous attempts—both the national programme for IT and care.data—have failed, so people have shied away from tackling this problem in a modern, secure and agile way.

I have come to demonstrate and to argue that there is no contradiction between high-quality security and privacy of the data held in a health system and the use of that data to save lives, because in a well-structured, well thought through system, both are enhanced. I profoundly believe that. I think that my right hon. Friend does too, and I agree with him when he says that we agree on aims; the key is the path. I agree with him, too, that the proper use of data has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives if we use it as safely as possible but also allow for the insights in the data to be discovered in order to promote better healthcare, better discoveries and the better operation of the NHS.

If someone did not believe that before, they could not have failed to be persuaded by it if they have looked at the experience of the last 18 months. We discovered that an old, cheap drug, dexamethasone, helped to reduce the likelihood of someone dying if they ended up in hospital with covid, and as a result it has saved around a million lives across the globe. We discovered that in the NHS because of the data that we have and because of a well-structured, high-quality data architecture project to find out which drugs worked.

We know that the NHS will operate better if different parts of it can compare their performance better. We also know that patients want their data to be used better, because the frustration expressed to me so frequently by patients who are asked over and over “Who are you and what’s wrong with you?”, when that data should be available to the clinicians who need to see it, is palpable. And we know that the clinicians in the NHS want high-quality use of data so that they do not waste so much time on outdated IT and can treat the people in their care better. All these things matter, and they will save lives.

The current GP data service, GPES—the general practice extraction service—is over 10 years old, and it needs to be replaced. The project that my right hon. Friend referred to, GP data for planning and research, is there to unlock the intrinsic benefits of this data, but that must be done in a way that maintains the highest possible standards of security. The goals of this, and the outcomes when we get it right—I say when, not if—are that it will reduce the bureaucracy and workload for GPs, it will strengthen privacy and security, and it will replace around 300 separate data collections with one single collection.

If I may take my right hon. Friend back to 2018, I piloted through this House the Data Protection Act 2018, in which we brought the GDPR into UK law and strengthened provisions for data security. You may remember that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you may have received a few emails about it at the time from companies asking whether you were still happy for them to hold your data. You could have replied, “No.” In fact, I came off quite a few lists I was no longer interested in receiving emails from because I was reminded that I was still on them and that I could opt out. I think the time has come for a similar approach—an update—to the way we think about health data in this country that puts security and privacy at its heart and, in so doing, unlocks the insights in that data and allows us to hold the trust of the citizens we serve.

The way I think about that is this. Current law considers that citizens do not control their health data, but the NHS does. For instance, GP data is controlled by GPs. However, the approach we should take is that citizens are in charge of their data. It is our data. The details of my bunion are a matter for me, and me primarily. I will not have anyone in the NHS tell me whether I can or cannot disclose the details of my bunion—it is going fine, thank you very much for asking. It matters to me, even though it is a completely uncontroversial health condition, but, as my right hon. Friend set out, for many people their health data is incredibly sensitive and it is vital that it is kept safe.

On the question at hand, the programme—GP data for planning and research—will be underpinned by the highest standards of safety and security. Like my right hon. Friend, I am a huge fan of the progress and advances we have seen in trusted research environments. Those are the safe and secure places for bringing together data, where researchers can access the data or, more accurately, the insights in the data while maintaining the highest standards of privacy.

I, too, am an enormous fan of Dr Ben Goldacre and his team. The OpenSAFELY project has shown the benefits that TREs can bring, because they allow us to support urgent research and to find the insights in the data while protecting privacy. During the pandemic, the project was absolutely fundamental to our response. In fact, it existed before the pandemic, but really came into its own during the pandemic. For instance, it was the first project to find underlying risk factors for covid-19. OpenSAFELY was the first project around the world to find statistically and significantly that obesity makes it more likely that someone will die of covid. That was an important fact, discovered through this project and without disclosing anybody’s body mass index in doing so. That is therefore the approach that we will take.

I can tell my right hon. Friend and the House that I have heard people’s concerns about using dissemination of pseudonymised data. We will not use that approach in the new GPDPR. The new system will instead use trusted research environments. All data in the system will only ever be accessible through a TRE. This means that the data will always be protected in the secure environment. Individual data will never be visible to the researcher, and we will know, and will publish, who has run what query or used which bit of data. The question was asked: who has access to what data, and who knows about it? The answer is that we should all know about it and that people should have access in a trusted way, but to be able to find insights in the data, not people’s individual personalised data itself.

I hope that that will help to build trust. It will mean a different way of operating for data researchers, but I disagree with my right hon Friend that it will allow us only to get 80% or 90% of the research benefit. A well structured TRE allows us to find more insight from the data, not least because the data could be better curated, and therefore more people can spend more time finding the insights in the data, rather than curating it over and over again. The dangers that come with the dissemination of pseudonymised data are removed.

It will take some time to move over to the new system, hence I have delayed its introduction, but we have also made that delay to ensure that more people can hear about it. That is the other reason that I came to the House today: I want people to be engaged in the project. People are engaged in their health like never before, and in their health data like never before, in part because of the pandemic. If we think about the NHS app, which is no doubt in everyone’s pocket—it is certainly in mine—if we think about the covid app, which has been downloaded 25 million times, we have never seen people more interested in their health data. We have never seen a greater connection, and we should use that to make sure that consent, when it is given, is given fully and properly.

I can assure the House we have an extremely high benchmark for who can access data. We have put in place a rigorous and independent approvals process, and audits are carried out to make sure the data is only being used for legitimate purposes. We will make sure that the right data can be accessed by the right people at the right time, but only by the right people at the right time. Both sides of that—that it can be accessed by people who need to see it, but only by the people who need to see it—are critical to getting this right.

On the question of the giving of that consent, it is crucial that we ensure that there is enough knowledge and understanding of these changes, that people are brought into the process, and that people know they have an opt-out. The research is clear: the majority of people are keen to allow their data to be used to help to save other people’s lives, but they want to know they have an opt-out and are reassured if they have one, even if they stay opted in, because they know then that it is based on their consent.

This important programme will have an opt-out system. We are strengthening the opt-out system already, and we will take the time to work with those who are enthusiastic about using data properly, with those who ensure that questions of privacy and security are put to the fore, with the public and, of course, with clinicians to make sure that we strengthen this programme further in terms of its security and privacy, yes, but also in terms of the outcomes we can get from the data, so that we can find new treatments to help save lives.

This is an important programme. The use of data in the NHS will have a huge impact on the future of health and care in this country, and we want to take people with us on this mission. We have developed this policy together with doctors, patients and experts in data and privacy, and more than 200 prominent scientific and medical researchers have endorsed a statement of support for this mission, but we have decided to take some extra time to consult further and to be even more ambitious about what we want to deliver, with a new implementation date of 1 September.

One of the central lessons of the pandemic is that data makes a difference, so let us keep working to take this programme forward, learning the lessons of the crisis, so that we can build back better and use data to save lives.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

And the Secretary of State’s bunion.

Question put and agreed to.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all those involved in the vaccine roll-out, everywhere in the UK. In Scotland, it has been a remarkable effort, with the UK Government working with the Scottish Administration, the NHS across the country, local councils and the armed services—it has been a big team effort, and that has been part of the success of the vaccine roll-out.

The hon. Gentleman asked about three critical areas of the science. Reviews of all three areas are ongoing. They are led by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer, whom the hon. Gentleman may have heard of, who is an absolutely brilliant clinician in this space—there are a lot more people involved who are doing excellent scientific work on these questions. That surveillance on immunogenicity, the work on the next-generation variant vaccine and the work on understanding the variants as we spot them is all going on. Public Health England has done a huge amount of work, working with public health colleagues right across the country, and I am grateful to them all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for responding to 31 questions in just over one hour.

Before we move on to the next statement, we will suspend for three minutes.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Because we have a better approach. Our UK approach has led to the vaccination of 400 million people. The hon. Gentleman should take enormous pride in that. We have been able to do that while protecting the intellectual property rights that will lead to the development, for instance, of the new vaccines, the new technologies and the variant vaccines that are going to be necessary in the future. It is that combination of the protection of intellectual property rights plus the giving away of this vaccine at cost to the developing world—to lower and middle-income countries.

I reiterate the point I made earlier, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will take pride in: of the 54 million vaccine doses delivered through the COVAX facility, of which we are a major funder, 53 million have been of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, delivered with no charge for the intellectual property. That is the approach we should be taking. That is what we will do, and I urge everybody around the world to follow.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do aim to try to take everybody, so can we have concise questions—and concise answers, Secretary of State?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that London has a younger cohort and is full of communities from across the world, but many are hesitant because of the activities of pharmaceutical companies in the countries of their origin. Will he look at aspects of control to ensure that those communities can get the vaccine they choose to take, rather than attempting to force them to take vaccines they are extremely reluctant to take?

[Matt Hancock]

We have had a principle of saying that they come forward for the vaccine and get the vaccine that is there on the day, but of course we have nuanced that because of the changes in the clinical advice on the AstraZeneca vaccine. As we reach further and further into those who need encouragement to come forward, so we are willing to look at more and more creative solutions to tackle people’s hesitancy. As it happens, I was in Brent central mosque last week at Eid. It was absolutely wonderful to see the work they have done to make sure that people of all faiths and none can come forward. For many Muslim people it means that in Brent they can go forward to somewhere where they are very comfortable being vaccinated. It was brilliant, frankly, to see teams working in the mosque to vaccinate people of all backgrounds. The imam was vaccinated by someone with the support of a member of the Jewish community with me looking on, all organised by a Hindu administrator. It was modern Britain at its best. They have done thousands of vaccines and they have done great work. I know it is that sort of approach that my hon. Friend is looking for. If we can do more on the specifics of which vaccine, I am very happy to look at that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think we have just heard the skies opening above us. I am grateful we can now eat inside restaurants.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Hull Royal Infirmary is a tower block and the geography of the building has resulted in a higher number of covid transmissions in hospital, despite the excellent work being done by all NHS staff. I fear that covid cases caught in hospital will only increase with a more transmissible strain of the virus. Will the Secretary of State look urgently at providing Hull Royal Infirmary with the funding it needs to improve its building as we all learn to live with the virus?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

No. The statistic that is missing from that analysis, which was also missing from that of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), is the amount of testing that is done in each country. We have to look at the positivity when an appropriate selected sample is tested. It is not possible to do that in many low and middle-income countries, so the best way is to look at the positivity rate of people who are travelling to the UK, because we test everybody. That is the most statistically appropriate way to assess the question that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) rightly tries to assess, and it showed that positivity rates were three times higher in India.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The time limit in the Queen’s Speech debate following this statement will start at five minutes, but I am sure it will go down thereafter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am incredibly proud that the UK has the highest measured rate of enthusiasm for taking the vaccine in the world, and especially that such a diverse nation has been able to achieve that record by taking this positive attitude and having people from Her Majesty down setting out the value of being vaccinated. I pay tribute to the comms team at NHS England and my communications team from across Whitehall, which have taken the lessons for how to get a positive narrative, especially on social media, and made sure we fought lies with objective truth. That has been fantastic.

On the ground, there are some really good examples. I mentioned my visit to Brent central mosque and I pay tribute to the people there. Some brilliant work has happened in Leicester; for instance, there was a vaccination centre right next to an area heavily populated by those of Somali background, but they were not going to the vaccination centre despite the fact that it was next door and so we set up a vaccination centre almost next door but where the doctors and clinicians are themselves Somalis. We then we saw a very sharp rate in the Somali vaccination rate. That is one example that I can immediately add to the elucidation of the answer to this question, but there are legion. People from around the world have been coming, via Zoom, to talk to some of our more innovative vaccination centres, be it at the mosque, at the Hindu temple in Neasden, which is doing brilliant work, in Leicester or, now, in Bolton and Blackburn, where I hope we can make some really significant progress. Frankly, this country should be proud of how people have pulled together to make this vaccination programme work.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Unbelievably, I am older than Will Wragg, marginally, so I have had my first jab. The second jab is a week Saturday—bring it on! Secretary of State, thank you for your statement today. We will suspend for two minutes.

Future of Health and Care

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. We care about technology in the NHS because we care about people and the improvements to people’s lives that it can generate. Surgical robots are just one example. I am very glad to hear that they are being used in such an innovative way in Burnley Hospital. I would love to come and see that for myself some time. This is exactly the sort of progress that the NHS should be making to free up the time of dedicated and highly skilled clinicians, and to enable the delivery of more high-quality surgery because of, for instance, the higher magnification that one can get in using a robot for surgery. That is just one example of the sort of thing that we can push further as a result of the measures in this White Paper.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

When you go to Burnley, Secretary of State, I know you will also put Ribble Valley, Chorley and a few other places on your list.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State may be aware that before I returned to Parliament, I had some involvement with the establishment of the Greater Manchester model of health and social care. Can I offer him two insights from that? First, social care is clearly not yet funded in the way that is needed if we are to have proper integration. Secondly, it was possible to have a Greater Manchester strategic level for the nearly 3 million people of the conurbation, but to have integration and delivery at the district level. On the integrated care systems, will he guarantee that there will be nothing that prevents the very successful model that Greater Manchester is already pioneering?

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]]

A year and a half ago, we halted the dangerous back-door privatisation of key services in Bradford’s hospitals while Ministers sat on their hands and ignored the outcry of NHS staff and local people. The proposals in the press confirm what I and many others have long said about the disaster and waste of privatisation in our NHS—[Inaudible.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Imran, it is a very bad line, even on audio-only, but the Secretary of State is going to have a go at answering.

[Matt Hancock]

The irony is that the proposed changes that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about, which were halted, were ones that it is currently legally impossible for a Minister to stop without going through a whole process, which he knows about. The proposals in the White Paper will make it easier for us to work together collaboratively on the right outcome and remove some of the bureaucracy that, frankly, stops Ministers getting involved when a project is not going in the right direction. On that basis, I hope that he welcomes the White Paper.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sorry about the gremlins, Imran, but the Secretary of State did very well in answering your question.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]]

Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that bringing health and social care much closer together will help to provide a more efficient, higher-quality service? Can he specifically outline how an integrated care model may help to reduce demand for emergency services in Lincolnshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

The White Paper takes forward parts of those proposals relating to the integration between health and social care, and ensuring that it is those on the ground delivering health and social care who can decide the best way to provide that for their population. We are committed to taking forward funding reforms, as set out in our manifesto. Those funding reforms are not part of this Bill, but the Prime Minister has committed to bring those forward this calendar year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for answering 30 questions in just under one hour and 10 minutes.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is down to the local authority, in the first instance, to notify a Member of Parliament, although often, if an issue is very significant, we in the Department will also work with the local Member of Parliament. The Health and Safety Executive takes a risk-based approach, so it is not possible to give a definitive answer about how often it should visit; it depends on the level of the risk.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Jacob Young, I would just like to say thanks for all the birthday wishes. I absolve anybody else from saying happy birthday to me. I am coming to terms with the fact that The Times added a year to my age. It is bad enough being the age I am, I do assure you, but none the less.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Last week, I spoke to care providers in Redcar and Cleveland who outlined that, when it comes to testing in care homes, two groups of people are still missed out: first, agency workers, who go to and from care home to care home, currently fall outside the weekly testing programme; and secondly, family members of those who live in care homes. If we can roll out testing for those people, they could be treated as care workers and enabled to visit their loved ones again. Will the Secretary of State urgently address these two gaps in our testing programme, to help lift some hardship from the most vulnerable in our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am a fan of new technology—I am not going to deny that—because it can help to improve people’s lives, and this is one example. New technology, such as testing technology and quite intricate biochemistry, will help to enable people to see their loved ones in care homes. I cannot think of a better example of how new technology can really help to improve people’s lives. I cannot wait to see that happen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for answering the questions of 55 Members of Parliament. We will move on to the ten-minute rule motion, and then we will suspend for three minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The short answer is yes. The proposals that we are working through and that I will bring to this House are to have a more simplified approach to the local action that we took. We have shared that approach with the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I have discussed it with Vaughan Gething, my opposite number in Wales. It is the sort of approach that would simplify matters further were it undertaken across the UK, but that is a decision for the Welsh Government in Wales, and for the other devolved Administrations, because public health decisions are devolved. I urge the Welsh Government to continue working with us. I urge my right hon. Friend, who is a very strong voice in Wales, to try to persuade the Welsh Government to take that sort of approach across the whole of the Principality.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jonathan Edwards.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. Increasing evidence indicates that so-called long covid is impacting around 10% of those contracting the virus. What assessments have been undertaken of the potential long-term social and economic impacts of long covid, as well as of the lasting pressures on health and care systems?

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

On Friday, I and my constituents learned via local media and press reports that there are Government plans to close the hospitals in Lancaster and Preston, with plans to replace them with a super-hospital, which would have obvious implications for other Lancashire hospitals, such as Chorley and Blackpool Victoria. Closing two hospitals in Lancashire to build one super-hospital does not make it easier for my constituents or the people of Lancashire to access vital medical care. Does the Secretary of State believe, as I do, that the next time we hear a Minister talk about building 40 new hospitals, it should come with a health warning that that also means closing 80 hospitals?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before I invite the Secretary of State to answer that—I will give some flexibility—please make sure that your questions relate to the statement that has just been given.

[Matt Hancock]

As well as responding to coronavirus, we need to ensure that we invest in the physical infrastructure of the NHS. I would just correct the hon. Lady, because the proposal in her part of the world is to consult on whether one or two hospitals is the right approach and the right thing for her part of the world. I encourage her to welcome the massive investment in the NHS in Lancashire, and across the country, which will improve care right across this land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

For all my huge enthusiasm for technology, it is obviously critical for people to have a face-to-face appointment in primary care at their GP’s surgery, if one is needed. We have made it clear that every GP practice should offer those face-to-face appointments in a covid-secure way where they are needed. The vast majority of GPs are doing incredible work, and offering the public the service and the vocation that they went into medicine for. If my hon. Friend has specific examples, I will be happy to look into them, but overall, it is so important that we keep primary care running.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Barry Sheerman.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Mr Deputy Speaker, my former student—thank you. I say to the Secretary of State that we are talking about human beings working systems, and I warn him that there will be more glitches. Technology means glitches, so I am worried about him, because we have a long, hard winter ahead. Does he agree with me that what we are doing in Huddersfield, in Kirklees—working together as a council, a local university and a local health trust, putting party political issues to one side—is what we must do this winter? We have to beat this virus, and we have to work together in order to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In the Secretary of State’s statement, he spoke with pride about the Prime Minister’s announcement on Friday of the additional capital programme for hospitals. In Cumbria, we met that announcement with some dismay. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, there is a proposal to close the Preston and Lancaster hospitals and merge them into a single hospital somewhere in between. Does the Secretary of State realise that that will mean even longer journeys for acute care for people from the South Lakes? Will he have a word with the Prime Minister, and drop that dangerous proposal from the consultation, so that people in south Cumbria do not have to make dangerous journeys for emergency care?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That was only touched on briefly in the statement, which was a covid update. It would have been really nice if the hon. Member could have asked his question in relation to the covid update, which is what the statement was mainly about.

[Matt Hancock]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As part of the coronavirus response across Lancashire and Cumbria, we want to ensure that the NHS is prepared for the long term, so we are putting a huge investment into Lancashire and the new hospitals in Lancashire. The hon. Gentleman almost mentioned that there is a consultation on whether to have two replacements or one. I entirely understand that he takes a position within that consultation, but it is worth explaining that there is a consultation on whether to replace them with two hospitals or one. There will rightly be full public engagement, with his constituents, those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and potentially yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, on which is the right approach. However, this is a massive investment in the local NHS that everybody should welcome.

[Matt Hancock]

As part of the coronavirus response, we must ensure that we keep our physical NHS up to date, and we will build the new hospital in Kettering. We will complete it before 2030 at the latest, and I very much hope a long time before then. I want to say how much my hon. Friend has done to work towards delivering it, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove) nearby. It has been a team effort, and I was thrilled to be able to let them know that this is happening, and it will happen before the decade is out.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will be lots of opportunities to question the Secretary of State about the new hospitals at a more appropriate time.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

In the past 14 days, New Zealand has had 35 coronavirus cases, China, Hong Kong and Macau 260, Vietnam 28, Thailand 84 and Australia 238. The UK has had 108,000 cases. Our coronavirus strategy is failing. Others show we can fix this and get the test and trace system our people need. So will the Secretary of State do what is needed: kick out Serco, sack Dido Harding, and put the billions of pounds wasted on private companies that are failing into our NHS, which will do the job properly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We are of course vigilant and we have to bring in local action in some cases, as we have in his area, but we will also bring areas out of restrictions when it is safe to do so, as we did in his area, although unfortunately it then had to go back in again. I would prefer it if places did not come in, out and back in again in that way, but my view is that that is better than leaving the measures in place when they are not needed.

We publish the data, which has now been updated to take into account the issues we had over the weekend, and we will have in place the minimum interventions that are necessary to keep the virus suppressed and to protect the economy, education and the NHS as much as possible until the vaccine arrives. That is the strategy, which is true in Colne Valley and true right across the country, and I look forward to working with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and colleagues across the House to help the country to get through this.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for updating the House on covid-19 measures and for answering questions for the last hour and a half. Thank you very much.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

In the short term, we have seen a rise in demand for testing, and the capacity—the supply—has been increasing too. We had some short-term problems with contracts; before the summer, I came to the House to describe the problem with a particular contract to do with swabs and the cleanliness of the swabs. The bigger challenge is to make sure that capacity stays ahead of demand, and when demand has gone up sharply, we need to make sure that capacity expands. There are two ways of doing that. The first is more expansion of the current technology, which we are doing, both within the NHS, as the Scottish National party spokesperson correctly called for, and by using more private sector capacity—the combination of the two. The second, where we can really break through this, is with the new generation of tests, which are much, much easier, much better value for money and easier for people to use. The combination of trying to drive up capacity in the existing system, as we have been doing for months and months, and then bringing onstream these innovative new tests is what we are trying to pull off.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The call list has the party of Mr Alyn Smith wrong—he is from the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I absolutely will. The UK Government and the Welsh Government working together is incredibly important. We have weekly calls, and Vaughan Gething and I speak and are in contact regularly. I support the action that he has had to take, as I say, with a heavy heart, but it is necessary action. My message to the people of Caerphilly, who are so ably represented in this House, is that this action and following the stricter local rules are absolutely critical to getting this virus under control locally, to protecting people themselves and to protecting their loved ones.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his statement today.

Before I take the point of order from Maria Miller, I ask those leaving the Chamber to please do so with care and in a socially distanced way.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)

Coronavirus Response

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman was doing so well when he was supporting what we were saying. I am grateful to him for support on what we are doing on vaccines. I am also grateful to him for his offer to stand shoulder to shoulder against the anti-vaccination movement. Those who promulgate lies about dangers of vaccines that are safe and have been approved are threatening lives. We should all in this House stand shoulder to shoulder against the anti-vax movement.

The hon. Gentleman asks what happens if there is no vaccine. If there is no vaccine—no vaccine can be guaranteed—then the next best thing is good treatment. We have the first treatment here in the UK, dexamethasone, and we have promising news of another today. We put all the support we can behind finding treatments. In fact, the UK recovery trial is the biggest—I would argue, the most effective—treatment clinical trial for covid-19 in the world. From the start, we backed our science. We supported our science, and with the help of the NHS we are able to do scientific research here with great rigour.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the SAGE advice from March about lockdown. The SAGE advice that the CSA was referring to was implemented. That was precisely the point I was making on Thursday and I did so very straightforwardly. It was implemented straight away. If he looks at that SAGE advice and what happened, that is what he will find. I seem to remember that at the time he supported the action. Maybe now he is looking in the rear-view mirror. He should spend a bit more time looking forward, not backwards.

On social distancing, as on Leicester, the hon. Gentleman asked about the data and thresholds. We use all our data. We use all the data available to make these judgments. We do not put numerical thresholds on any particular figure. We use all data and we make judgments based on them. He also asked about data being made available to local authorities. On Thursday last week, I said I wanted to provide more data to local authorities and was going to provide more data to local authorities. We have done that today. We had provided patient-identifiable information based on postcode-level testing. We are now able to provide full information, including the name and address of those who tested positive, to local authorities where they have signed a data protection agreement.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the effectiveness of NHS Test and Trace. He needs to stop for a moment and recognise the enormous impact of NHS Test and Trace, and the 180,000 people it has been in contact with to advise them to isolate. On Blackburn, yes, it is hard sometimes in certain areas to find all the contacts, so we will be sharing with the local area the information on those whom NHS Test and Trace has not been able to contact, so that local directors of public health will be able to support the action there. Again, I think his tone on that, sniping from the sidelines, ill becomes that enormous effort and the previous work he did to support those measures across party lines.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks what we have learned. I would say that the thing he needs to learn—I have certainly learned it—is that things go best when we get the work of the public sector and the private sector coming together. He does not even believe his own attempt to divide us, but uses his argument just to play to his base. Honestly, there are more important things going on. We have set out a direction. We are going as hard as we can down that direction of travel, and we have announced to the House further action in that direction of travel. He should get alongside.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If questions and answers can be as concise as possible, we will hopefully get many more Members in.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

This may be the last coronavirus statement before the summer break, so I congratulate the Health Secretary on his stamina over the past six months and in particular on his decision to introduce the 100,000 tests target in April, which I think will be seen as a turning point in our battle against the virus.

The central challenge we now face is that according to the latest figures and as the Secretary of State knows, about 1,700 people a day are being infected by the virus and about 400 a day are going into NHS test and trace, which is about a quarter. As we think about how to prevent a second wave, will he give the House some details as to how we are going to bridge that gap so that we can go into our Christmas holiday with the same cautious optimism as we are going into our summer one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the public health services, the NHS and the councils across Staffordshire that have worked so hard to get this virus under control and have really got it right down in Staffordshire, including in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which my hon. Friend regards as the finest part of Staffordshire. The first point that he makes is also absolutely valid and something that I will consider going forward.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Please take care when leaving the Chamber. The House is suspended for three minutes.

Points of Order

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you for that point of order. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is still sitting in his place and will have heard that point of order.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is an assiduous representative for his constituency, and to make sure that his concerns are taken into account. He is right to raise them. I have been working on them all weekend, and it is very important. I can reassure him that, as far as we know, the outbreak has been confined to the farm in question, but we absolutely will be looking into it in great detail.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am just grateful that I could be so effective in creating this meeting so quickly. [Laughter.] It was a very important point of order, though, and I am extremely grateful for it and extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for his response.

Coronavirus Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important question for the small but significant proportion of people who have long-term detrimental effects from coronavirus. I am glad that Michael Rosen got such excellent care at the Whittington, and I can assure him and the hon. Lady that we are putting in place NHS treatment for people with long-term impacts and research to make sure we understand as much as possible about those long-term impacts, because they are still little understood.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will try one more time to reach Dr Lisa Cameron.

[Dr Cameron [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have been hearing concerns from those who may be exempt from wearing face masks but are fearful of being confronted because not all disabilities are visible. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating East Kilbride’s Hannah Kelsall on developing free “chase the rainbow” carry cards that explain this exemption? Ultimately, no one should ever be challenging vulnerable people outside. It takes a lot of courage for many to leave their homes, but these innovative cards are providing reassurance for many across my constituency and beyond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

The programme that we have in hospitals is a risk-based one, according to the risk of the individual. It is much harder to put that risk base in place in care homes. Both of these proposals, while seemingly different, are based on the same clinical advice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for the statement today.

Coronavirus

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Today we have upgraded the response to flights coming back from Italy. I understand some of the concerns raised earlier in the week. We have put an awful lot of effort in with the Department for Transport, the Border Force and the airports authorities themselves— I pay tribute to them all—to address exactly the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and I wish him and his wonderful NHS team well in their endeavours during this pandemic.

Coronavirus

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I agree with all of that. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Critically, as the scientists have advised us, getting the timing of the interventions right is crucial for getting the best possible response as a nation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If Members continue to be pithy, we will get everybody in.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Last week I asked the Secretary of State about the advice given about coronavirus to DWP decision makers. We were not particularly reassured by the answers given by Department for Work and Pensions Ministers this morning, and that advice has still not appeared in our inboxes. Can he please follow that up?

Health and Social Care

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before the Secretary of State answers that, may I just gently remind him that 40 people are trying to get in? It would be generous if he could at least keep that in mind as he takes interventions.

[Matt Hancock]

I will rattle through as fast as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I also want to take as many interventions as I can, if that is okay. [Interruption.] No, okay, no interventions. That is an unusual request from the House, if I may say so. [Laughter.]

Putting social care on a sustainable footing, where everybody is treated with dignity and respect, is one of the biggest challenges we face as a society. The Prime Minister has said that we will bring forward a plan for social care this year. These are complex questions and the point my hon. Friend raises is very important.

The draft legislation on the long-term plan Bill aims to help us to: speed up the delivery of the long-term plan; reduce bureaucracy; and help to harness the potential of genomics and other new technologies. I hope the House will support it.

The third piece of proposed legislation is the medicines and medical devices Bill. We are at an important moment in the life sciences. This country can and will be at the forefront as the NHS gets access to new medicines and new treatments earlier, so patients can benefit from scientific breakthroughs sooner.

Proposed Media Mergers

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I relish the prospect of a contest against anybody in West Suffolk. I am not sure that the path set out by the hon. Gentleman, who is normally an optimist by nature, is the most likely one, not least because I will seek undertakings to ensure that Sky News remains viable over the long term and independent so that it can pursue us politicians without fear or favour.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Nobody could accuse the Secretary of State’s Department of rushing this decision; it has been made very carefully and cautiously, as it should, because Sky is well loved. I fought the Pontypridd by-election in 1989, which was the first by-election to be broadcast on Sky TV, so I have great fondness for the organisation. Sky has clearly weathered better than I did at the Pontypridd by-election. None the less, there is great plurality out there with the changing way in which people are accessing news these days. Given the diversification of Sky News and these guarantees, surely now is the time for the decision to be made so that the shareholders can make their decision.

[Matt Hancock]

I recognise the amount of time that has passed since we were first notified of this proposal. That is why I want to reach an agreement on the undertakings within a fortnight. I am absolutely certain that the parties will stand ready to meet that deadline, as my team and I also stand ready. We must then have the 15-day formal consultation, but I hope that will mean that the formal approval process from the Government side can be concluded within a month from now. There is a merger battle closer than on the horizon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

7. What additional funding for training his Department has provided to support unemployed people and people aged 16 to 24 to get into employment.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We have record numbers participating in apprenticeships, new traineeships, maths and English training, which, with the record number of jobs, have contributed to a 98,000 fall in youth unemployment over the last year. We are simplifying vocational education and today publishing a simple slide showing young people their education options between the ages of 14 and 18.

[Mr Evans]

I have a BAE Systems plant at Samlesbury in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has one in Warton. BAE Systems took on a record number of apprentices last year, giving young people an opportunity to learn new skills to use in highly paid jobs when they are later taken on. What are the Government doing to encourage many more smaller firms to understand that apprenticeships can also benefit them?

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the work that BAE Systems does with its apprenticeships. It not only has hundreds of apprentices, many of whom I have met, but offers more and more higher apprenticeships, which provide the very best available training on the job. We have to make sure that smaller businesses get the message that apprenticeships can help them too; in fact, the majority of apprentices are in smaller businesses. We have made the apprenticeship grant for employers focused on smaller businesses to help them with the extra costs they have in taking on apprentices.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I beg to move amendment 23,  page 47, line 17, at end insert—

“( ) But regulations under this section may make only such provision as may be made under subsection (2) of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 or such provision as could be made under that subsection if paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to that Act did not apply.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 24.

Amendment 75, in clause 59, page 49, line 19, at end insert—

‘(7) The Secretary of State must have regard to any feasibility study commissioned on the licensing of orphan works in advance of the regulations being laid before Parliament.’.

[Matthew Hancock]

In Committee, a number of questions were asked about the scope of what was then clause 56—now clause 57—on copyright. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was a Minister in the Department at the time,agreed to reflect on the clause and we have also had further discussions with interested parties.

The Government have considered this point carefully and think that amendments to clause 57 are the best way to address the concerns expressed by Committee members and industry stakeholders. I reassure hon. Members that the policy intent behind the clause remains unchanged. The clause was never intended to give the Government the ability to change copyright exceptions in ways that we cannot already change them and I hope that the amendments now make that abundantly clear.

Changes to copyright exceptions are subject to a tightly prescribed list set out in the EU information society directive. The European Communities Act 1972 provide the mechanism by which EU law is applied at a national level—in this case on copyright exceptions. The clause will permit the Secretary of State to make any changes that remove or narrow an exception without affecting the maximum criminal penalties that Parliament has set. Without the amendment, the criminal penalties might have had to be reduced and I do not think that is the aim of the Bill.

The stakeholders who had raised concerns about the clause, including the British Copyright Council, UK Music, the Publishers Association, the Creators’ Rights Alliance and the Premier League, have written to the Secretary of State confirming their support for the Government’s amendments.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 34.

[Matthew Hancock]

Government new clause 14 relates to civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties. It fulfils our commitment in the Budget to introduce measures to reduce the burden of health and safety, following the recommendations made in the independent Löfstedt report. Professor Löfstedt considered the impact that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving over-compliance with health and safety at work regulations. The fear of being sued drives businesses to exceed what is required by the criminal law, diverting them from focusing on sensible preventive health and safety management and resulting in unnecessary costs and burdens.

Professor Löfstedt identified the unfairness that can arise when health and safety at work regulations impose a strict duty on employers that makes them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work, despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm. Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.

We all have different reasons for coming into politics. When I was growing up, I had one of the experiences that brought me to this place, concerning the over-burdensome intervention of health and safety officers. I worked in a family computer software company when an over-long health and safety investigation took place, which took up huge amounts time for the officers and senior management. The only result at the end of it was the recommendation that some bleach in a cupboard must be labelled correctly. After a sign was put up saying, “There is bleach in the cupboard. Please do not drink it,” the company was passed under the health and safety regulations.

These changes will ensure that there is a reasonableness defence in the consideration of some health and safety cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

If businesses behave unreasonably and are negligent, they will be caught by the system. That proves the point about why we have to strike a good balance between a health and safety system that everybody supports and under which employers—and others—have to behave reasonably and take reasonable precautions, and a system in which the test of having acted reasonably is not a defence in civil law. That is the change being made; it will help to free up business, and I commend the new clause to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Minister [Interruption.] I meant the shadow Minister.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I supported yesterday’s decision, because one thing we are dealing with now is the consequence of money being too loose, which is the deleveraging in the banking system, which is causing a huge drag on the economy. Therefore, the mitigation of that deleveraging, through loose monetary policy—low interest rates and in a quantitative sense—is something that I support. However, more strongly than I support the Bank’s decision, I support its ability to make it in a way that is unconstrained by political considerations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Any chance of mentioning the Bill from time to time?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely; this argument is vital to the Bill. It is a question of whether the Governor’s appointment should be in the gift of the Government or should be capable of being vetoed by people who are not necessarily the Government’s appointees. I apologise if I did not make it clear why this is precisely and closely related to the Bill.

In considering the Bill’s impact, it is important to remember that the Governor is only one member of the Monetary Policy Committee and of the Financial Policy Committee. As we saw last month, the Governor voted in favour of quantitative easing a month before the Committee had a majority for it. In that light, it is slightly odd that the Bill considers only the Governor when the body that determines our monetary policy is the whole membership of the Monetary Policy Committee. There are nine members, five of whom are executives of the Bank of England and four are so-called external members. While the Treasury Committee has oversight of, and the ability to scrutinise, all the others, there is no proposal for the other eight Committee members or the other members of the Financial Policy Committee to be subject to a veto by the Treasury Committee. In that sense, those who support the arguments in this Bill—I do not—should support a veto over the appointment of the other members of the Committee.

The Bill makes it clear from line 20 onwards that the deputy governors are not subject to the oversight of the Treasury Committee. Given that the deputy governors have one vote each and the Governor has only one vote, too, although he does by convention vote last, the argument does not change with respect to the deputy governors and the Governor. There is thus a confusion at the heart of the Bill.

The proposed appointment process by the Treasury Committee ignores the measures in the Financial Services Bill, which I think removes the motivation for bringing this Bill forward now. The structure of the Bank of England will change from having an imperial Governor to having one who is the head of a committee—the Financial Policy Committee—on the financial stability side of the Bank.

The need for a common strategy between the Bank and the Government is more important now than it has been for a long time. The financial crisis laid bare the importance of co-ordinating monetary and fiscal policy. For a while, it was wrongly believed in this country that those two policies could be separate. Indeed, financial policy was separated again, so we had a tripartite system, with financial policy vested in the Financial Services Authority, monetary policy in the Bank of England and fiscal policy in the Treasury. It is not the case that they were separable. It is clear from how the world is having to manage the current difficult situation that these are not discrete entities, but aspects of one another.

The banks themselves are part of the transmission mechanism, too. I like to say that they stand in relation to the Monetary Policy Committee as the Higgs boson particle stands to matter: they give substance to the Committee’s decisions because they transmit interest rates and monetary policy into the real economy. Similarly, the level of debt in the economy is symbiotically connected to banking regulation because regulation of the leverage of banks has a direct impact on the amount of debt, and the removal of the regulation over leverage and the amount of debt in the economy was one of the main drivers of the over-leverage and vast expansion of the money supply that led to the grave difficulties we face in managing the current economy. That explains why it is so important for the broad strategy of the Government of the day to be supported by the Governor of the Bank of England.

What we do not want to see are more asset bubbles, and we might see those if we had a Governor who did not agree with the strategy of the day. Fiscal policy could work against monetary policy, rather than the two broadly working together both to deal with an over-indebted economy and to enable the decisive action that is necessary to stimulate the economy and prevent a banking crisis from turning into a slump. This is not, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, a matter that has no impact on our postbags. Although few people write to me about the appointment process of the Bank of England, an error in that process could have a profound impact on our economy, and would doubtless hit our postbags very hard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

That would be an example of where monetary policy and the wider economic policies of the Government were not working in tandem. The Minister explained the procedures for the removal of a Governor, and they require the proposal of the court—I think the strengthening of the court is important. There are procedures in place, therefore. It might be thought that a wider discussion of this point would not be in order, but the Bill is about getting rid of the Governor as well as the appointment of the Governor. My hon. Friend might therefore want to touch on that point in more detail later. I had not considered it, but it is important and it should be scrutinised properly and at length by somebody who has considered it more closely than I have.

As for the counter-factual, or what happens when the views of the central bank are at variance with those of the Government, the problem in the years running up to the crisis was not that the leadership of the Bank was too close to the Government, but that the voice of the Bank was being ignored by the Government for political reasons, hence the fact that the growth of the money supply was too fast and the subsequent difficulties in handling the crisis. This was pointed out by the Bank, and Sir Andrew Large made a speech making clear the problems of over-rapid growth of the money supply in 2004. He pointed to the dangers of supposedly benevolent innovations such as the rise of securitisation, and he asked whether that was causing problems that our Government should be addressing. There was no response from the Government of the day.

In May 2006, the current Governor warned that

“a potentially large social problem, with many households getting into difficulty with their debts, is materialising.”

He was in a position to know, because he had received in the post a piece of junk mail—a credit card application from a bank—and the literature said:

“We have the solution, Mervyn, for your bankruptcy.”

The bank in question did not realise that Sir Mervyn King was not bankrupt—and I certainly hope he would never be bankrupt. Indeed, there was a worse problem: one bank—RBS—sent a credit card to a—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. What has this got to do with the Bill?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is important that the Governor of the day has the same broad strategy as the Government—but I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have one further, and chilling, example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think that it is up to any hon. Member to use whatever communicating devices are at their disposal, quite frankly. The House is clearly here for the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) to come to and speak, if he so wishes; if he does not wish to do so, it is up to him.

[Matthew Hancock]

Hear, hear, I say. I think that all sorts of communication are very useful in this modern age. I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) a great deal—and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—but I have a very simple response. As I said at the start of my speech, I think that this proposal would mark a significant constitutional departure. It is about the distinction between the legislature and the Executive and about blurring that distinction. The idea that we should pass the Bill after only five hours of debate on a Friday lunchtime, compared with the 10 days of debate in Committee of the whole House proposed by the Government on House of Lords reform, which merely changes the architecture within that legislative branch, is absurd. If we want to make a change of such importance, we should be able to debate it fully and frankly. Going through some of the historical and international comparisons is vital to a significant change.

Finance Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

On that specific point of corporations looking to the future and thinking about how to plan their business, can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any industrial sector or any big British company that has responded to the austerity budget and said that they now anticipate significant growth and taking on new people? I have not seen any such report.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) resumes his speech, let me say that we allow some latitude on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, but that it would be useful if Members made reference to the Bill from time to time.

[Matthew Hancock]

The reductions in corporation tax that are outlined in this Bill have been welcomed by the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses. Indeed, a multitude of business organisations have welcomed it. Even the Engineering Employers Federation said that this was a path in the right direction. That shows the support from business organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am new to the House. Could you possibly advise me whether it is appropriate for a Member to make an entire speech having stated in advance that he or she will take no interventions whatever?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is very much up to hon. Members whether to take any interventions or a number of interventions, but what I have heard from the hon. Lady tells me that she is going to take no interventions during her speech.