Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Come on, Minister—you said you had already answered it once.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

The proposed takeover of Activision by Microsoft has the potential to have a profound impact on many of Britain’s brilliant video games industry manufacturers and makers. Although I know that the Secretary of State will not want to comment on the specifics of that case, can he reassure me that the Competition and Markets Authority has all the resources it needs to come to the right conclusion and to do so as thoroughly and rapidly as possible on this important matter?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. I know that the CMA has received a large number of submissions, and some very large submissions as well. I think it has until 1 March next year to complete its phase 2 inquiry. We absolutely believe that it has the right resources to do that, and we will make sure that it has over the coming months.

Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I will not detain the House long, but I want to speak in support of this SI, which secures funding that is vital for some projects in my constituency. Overall, £41 million comes to Lincolnshire, of which about £500,000 is helping to secure a project that protects large amounts of farmland from flooding. This is an important measure from a Government who are taking sensible steps.

The broader but not lengthy point I seek to make is that while money did come back to Lincolnshire, the fact that Britain was a net overall contributor to the EU does mean that, when we set up the funds the Minister spoke about post our exit from the European Union, that will give us the opportunity to do two things. The first is to redress some of the regional imbalances mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), which have a particularly extreme effect on regions such as Lincolnshire. However, I hope it will also give us a much more serious opportunity to win the argument around funding and what the Government are doing to seek to address regional imbalances. That is an argument the EU totally failed to win or even engage in, which is in many ways why, in a constituency such as mine, even when money came back to Lincolnshire from the EU, we saw no great love for the European Union. That was of course reflected, as it was in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, in the referendum result.

I therefore hope that the Government, in establishing these new funds, will seize the opportunity not only to redress these imbalances, which is very real work, but to get an advantage from being seen to do what all good Governments should do, which is to move some of these opportunities around the country—in my case, away from the south-east and into Lincolnshire. That is good, sensible work and good, sensible economics, and it will allow us to improve productivity and to grow our thriving agricultural economy.

However, that also needs to be sold to the public. As I said, the European Union encouraged huge antipathy for the European project, and we have enough trouble with people holding politicians in this place in contempt, so we need to sell the work we do to redistribute that money. That will go far further than investing in sensible infrastructure projects such as the drainage project I referred to, and will allow people to see that we do fundamentally good work in this place that addresses things our constituents want done. Ultimately, that is about not just economics but good democracy, which is why I will be supporting this SI.

Good Work Plan

Matt Warman Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I completely agree with what the hon. Lady said at the end about her aspiration, and I am grateful for her endorsement of the reform. Of course, our vision for our economy is that we should see continually rising standards and opportunities for workers; that has been in our tradition and it is strategically in our interest as well. If we want to compete with other nations, that should be based on the quality and excellence of our work, rather than on a competition based on low standards. Now and in the future, we will look to build on these standards, but I am grateful that she recognises that this is a very important step forward today.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

The good work plan is, in many ways, the first Government document to really wrestle with the changes technology has brought about on workers. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has brought in meaningful changes, but he has not imposed things that would limit the future flexibility of both employers and employees, so this country can maximise the opportunities of that industrial revolution rather than have that done unto us by other countries.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

Matt Warman Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It is an attractive market. That is one reason there is interest from several companies in the new nuclear opportunities available. Our market has always been open to overseas investment, and our commitments have attracted interest, not least in the next in the pipeline, which is Hitachi’s proposed investment in Wylfa in north Wales.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Small nuclear reactors have already been mentioned briefly today. May I invite the Secretary of State to go fractionally further than he did in his previous answer and say that when it comes to these smaller, cheaper, more efficient reactors, we should be looking not just at existing nuclear sites, but at other sites being decommissioned in the near future?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the advantages of small modular reactors is that they can be deployed in a wider range of locations than the larger traditional reactors, and that is part of the attraction recognised in the sector deal.

Brexit, Science and Innovation

Matt Warman Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I will be comparatively brief. I speak as a former member of the Science and Technology Committee—first under Nicola Blackwood, the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and then under my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). I even had the temerity to run for the chairmanship of the Committee, but the less said about that the better.

What struck me time and again during my years on the Select Committee was that science is hugely collaborative and international. Horizon 2020, which is now Horizon Europe, is a hugely important part of that, but we should not have this debate imagining that it is by any means the only part. One of the most fascinating visits the Select Committee went on was to DeepMind, a private business that was started in Britain and then bought by an American company in the form of Google. We should not pretend that this conversation is happening solely in the context of funding from the European Union, or solely in the context of us as a net beneficiary of scientific funding when we are actually a net contributor to the EU.

I urge the Government and colleagues to look at this in the round. When we went to see DeepMind and other companies, it was very clear that immigration is a hugely important factor, but it is by no means the only factor. The question of what the Government can do to encourage more people to work in science and in business that relies on science goes far beyond the conversations we are having about Brexit. I do not want to harp on solely about DeepMind, but what did we hear at such private companies? What we heard was as much about regulation, insurance when it comes to driverless cars and a whole host of things on which the Government will have greater freedom to act when we leave the European Union.

There are opportunities that I urge the Government to seize in relation to this issue, but there are of course challenges as well. I welcome the fact that the Government have made some very encouraging noises on scientific funding—not just post the referendum, but in every previous Budget while I have been lucky enough to be a Member of this House. This Government have consistently backed science and innovation, and I hope we will continue to do so.

The industrial strategy demonstrates a much greater commitment to such an agenda than we have seen for many years. I welcome that, but I would caution the Government not to be too prescriptive. This is about allowing businesses and universities to empower themselves, rather than about picking winners. I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has never sought to pick winners, but I suggest that that is something we should always guard against. In my constituency, we need greater innovation in agri-tech, which is also driven by business, and our own regional industrial strategy will deliver a huge amount of that.

What are the continuing barriers to working in science and to driving forward scientific innovation? It is as much the constant reliance on soft money that stops people coming to and getting work in our universities as anything else. Those are the systemic issues in science and innovation that we can tackle regardless of our decision to leave the European Union. Immigration is of course one of the single most important issues in relation to recruiting to universities and within the scientific community.

I welcome both of the reports that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), talked about. As a deregulating Conservative, I wonder whether we could simplify even some of the suggestions in those reports. My own constituency voted more than any other to leave the European Union and free movement was a huge part of that, but I think many people might ask whether we could not look at something as simple as free movement for people with a PhD or something as straightforward as that. I am not by any means the first person to suggest it. That would allow us to send a very clear signal in contrast to some of the very unfortunate and inaccurate characterisations of the Brexit vote. There are legitimate worries in the scientific community around the world about whether Britain is the open and eager-to-collaborate landscape that it has been for many decades. I wonder whether we can do simpler things and be more attractive to the international scientific community even than the suggestions made in the Select Committee reports.

The most important thing in all that is to emphasise that this should not be a discussion about whether we are open to collaboration with the European Union or open for business. This must be a discussion about whether we are open to global collaboration that leads to future growth in our science and innovation sector. That is because science and innovation does not recognise the boundaries of the European Union or those of Britain; it is genuinely a global industry. We must do all we can to get across those borders and to meet those challenges.

We must have in mind what individual technology companies can be encouraged to do that will also be in our national interest. It worries me that Google has made a decision to avoid any contact with our military establishments, because some of the greatest innovations have come out of our military establishments and those of America. It is important that we recognise no barriers internationally, and that we recognise all the opportunities that come from working across sectors that have not previously thought of themselves as technology sectors. Thinking of my own county of Lincolnshire, the Air Force will need more computer programmers than ever before. If companies such as Google are disinclined to work with the Air Force, that will be a sorry state of affairs, although I am slightly simplifying the approach Google has taken.

These are the barrier-less worlds in which we must now live, and it is important to consider not just how the Minister sees this, but how he interacts with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, and of course in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and elsewhere. I hope we can use the opportunity of leaving the European Union to see what we can do in a freer and different regulatory world.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is talking of his concerns about such risks. In my constituency, I have a life sciences company called Hologic, which has just told me that it is on the verge of losing a major contract because of the threat in relation to reciprocal agreements and the regulatory framework for batch releases. It is very concerned about job losses and about losing contracts. Does he recognise that, for many companies in my constituency, such as Hologic, not knowing means that, in their words, the game is potentially a bogey?

[Matt Warman]

I agree that uncertainty is the enemy of any business, whether it is a technology business or something else. That is why we should welcome the release of all the documents—no-deal documents or anything else—that the Government have been producing to try to provide as much certainty as they possibly can. I appreciate, however, that until there is a done deal, many businesses will take the cautious approach that the hon. Lady describes, and we must do everything we can to avoid that.

In closing, I return to the point that I made at the beginning. As many other speakers have said, this is a global industry in which Britain punches well above its weight. By seeking to look beyond the regulatory constraints that have been imposed by the European Union, as well as by looking beyond our borders and encouraging collaboration through the industrial strategy and the good work of the Minister, we can, I hope, not only preserve the brilliant position we are currently in, but enhance it. We can do that with some of the very sensible measures that the Select Committee has proposed in its reports, and we can even go further. In a debate on science and innovation, I hope that the Minister will be keen to embrace as many innovative suggestions as he possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

This has been quite a triumph: we have had a debate on Brexit that has been rational and where there has been broad consensus across the House. We have had a proud Brexiteer, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman)—

[Matt Warman]

indicated dissent.

[Norman Lamb]

Well, someone representing a Brexit constituency then has made the case for a more liberal position on immigration for scientists and PhD students. I think there has been a clear call from this debate to the Government, and I welcome the constructive response from the Minister on the absolute importance of a deal for science that protects and, indeed, enhances science in this country. We cannot take our pre-eminent position in science for granted. We have to protect and, indeed, strengthen it, and the deal we do with the EU will be of vital importance to achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Science and Technology Committee’s Second Report on Brexit, science and innovation, HC 705, and the Government Response, Fifth Special Report, HC 1008; further takes note of the Science and Technology Committee’s Eighth Report on An immigration system that works for science and innovation, HC 1061; believes that the Government should seek to agree with the EU the far-reaching science and innovation accord proposed by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech and in The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union White Paper, Cm 9593; calls for this accord to be negotiated separately from wider EU-UK trade negotiations; and further calls for the science and innovation accord to include details of an immigration system that works for the science and innovation community.

Industrial Strategy

Matt Warman Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

This debate is about the future, so I want to talk about the 19th century. To set the scene, new technologies are sweeping away centuries-old techniques, placing whole professions at the risk of extinction. The year is 1841, and a royal commission is publishing its report on the condition of handloom weavers.

Back then, 100,000 handloom weavers had lost their jobs in just 10 years thanks, in part, to the new power loom. The remaining 300,000 were living in increasingly appalling conditions. Today, Parliament has the same duty to cab drivers, lorry drivers and, increasingly, to white collar professionals such as accountants and lawyers. We would do well to look at what our predecessors found.

The commissioners proposed a number of immediate solutions, not least some reform of the corn laws. But they were more interesting when they considered the Luddite case to tax power looms so that the less well paid hand weavers could be protected. The commissioners concluded that

“if we were insane enough to legislate against power-looms…the consequence would be not to raise the wages of the hand-loom weaver, but to depress those of the power-loom weaver to his level.”

Likewise, they concluded that taxing foreign cloth would not help much either. They backed the new technology, realising that investing in it would put the UK at a greater advantage.

The commissioners found again and again that the solutions were measures that would improve the general quality of life and embrace technology, not protect vested interests. If only the RMT would read their report, we might already have driverless trains. Time and again, the evidence showed that the workers who resisted change and clung on to a diminishing industry were those who then suffered most. The work done by Matthew Taylor in this regard is in the same vein. Crucially, the commissioners wrote bluntly that

“aversion to change…prevails in proportion as education is deficient.”

In short, constituents then and now resisted a brighter future because they thought, quite wrongly, that it was worse than a diminishing standard of living by clinging to old ways. This Parliament, as the Victorians did, has a duty to excite our constituents about the prospects of technological advancement just as much as it has to guard against the perils that modern technology brings—for instance, in the misuse of our data.

The approach that the commissioners suggested was in part to make reforms, such as to the corn laws, but they also realised that the revolution was coming for all industries, just as the internet will affect all industries now. Our Victorian predecessors were brave enough to embrace that reality, and we should be, too. The 1841 report, for instance, refers to a school of design that had recently been set up, because it was human capital that was most valuable. Machines were rubbish at creativity, but humans were brilliant at it. Similarly, the commissioners sought to protect copyright and improve workers’ rights, just as we do in this industrial strategy.

There is much more to say about the 1841 report and, frankly, I had written a much longer speech. There was by necessity a local approach to our industrial strategy in the 19th century. If I may end with one plea, it is that today we consider devolving responsibilities for skills to local areas so that we, too, can cater to our local areas and industries. It is by being local that we may be truly international in our ambitions and successes. It is by not repeating the mistakes of the past—whether protectionism or clinging on to old technologies—that Britain can truly make the most of its potential.

Unconditional University Offers

Matt Warman Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered unconditional university offers.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, for what I hope will be a debate that is both pithy and genuinely important.

I remember being at school when I first heard about unconditional offers. I thought that perhaps some Oxbridge college, then the usual issuer of such things, would be so obviously struck by my talents that an unconditional offer would be a possibility. The prospect of an unconditional offer gave me hope of relief from the pressures of the exams that dominated my life then and that sometimes dominate young people’s lives now. So I hope that hon. Members will not interpret this speech as an attack on unconditional offers per se.

By the way, I pause briefly to add that in so far as Oxbridge was struck by my obvious talents, it was only to suggest that I attend a different university, but perhaps taking my teenage self down a peg or two was the best thing that Oxbridge could have done.

Back then in 1999, and indeed up until last year, the typical student who was made an unconditional offer was still predicted three As—by the way, I was not predicted three As—although Oxbridge had abolished unconditional offers earlier. UCAS has reported that 3,000 unconditional offers were made in 2013, and that in 2017 the figure was 50,000. The Department for Education and the Select Committee on Education are therefore right to look at the overall picture, which has seen a quintupling of such applications, according to UCAS, from less than 1% of all offers in the past to more than 5% today. In my own constituency nearly 30% of all applicants received at least one unconditional offer, and those applicants were predicted grades ranging from BBC up to ABB.

This growth in unconditional offers comes not from universities that dominate the top of the league tables but from elsewhere; nor does it come in the subjects for which university entrance is the most hotly contested. Less than 0.1% of all medicine and dentistry students received unconditional offers, compared with nearly 10% of all mass communications and documentations degrees. As a former journalist myself, I would not dare to demean a media studies degree, but given that at one time there were more people studying the media at university than there were actually working in all of it, it is right to ask why universities are seeking to fill their courses in this new way, and whether it is for financial reasons.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward for debate; I spoke to him before the debate, telling him that I would seek to make an intervention. Does he agree that the fact that over 15 times more unconditional offers as in the past have been made to university students in the UK indicates a mindset among universities of focusing on ensuring that they reach their capacity of “bums on seats” rather than on a student’s ability to take a course? Does he agree that some children will go with a course that is less suited to them than other courses as they will know it is in the bag, as it were, and that they will therefore miss out on courses that could have been better for them as an individual?

[Matt Warman]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, that contrasts sharply with what Universities UK has said in response to the Education Committee:

“Unconditional offers account for a very small proportion of all offers made by universities. It is simply not in the interests of universities to take students without the potential to succeed at university.”

There has clearly been a huge growth in the number of unconditional offers, for some of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

Schools have expressed concerns about students across the spectrum of abilities not performing to their full potential in exams, because they are safe in the knowledge that they have already secured a place at university regardless of their grades. Although that can be a welcome safety net for some students, we must balance it with the impacts that it can have on schools and how it affects their exam results overall, for which they are held accountable and against which, of course, they have their own performance measured. This is not a new problem but it has now spread far more widely, as I said earlier.

In my constituency, anecdotal evidence has been cited of students giving up college courses after receiving an unconditional offer, which of course may result in their struggling at university if they have missed fundamental information that they would otherwise have been taught. If we let this development go unchecked, we are letting our young people down at a time when we should be supporting them in preparing for their next step in education. Of course all universities should be able to make unconditional offers, but in doing so they should surely exercise a duty of care to the interests of the prospective student at the same time.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views in a moment on what is a complex matter. Some universities, for instance, have reportedly been inducing students to come to them by giving unconditional offers, so long as they are ranked as the student’s first choice. In the competitive landscape that a large number of universities find themselves in, such a tactic could be seen as potentially damaging to students, when other incentives would more typically involve vouchers or computers.

The risk is that a student might end up with a degree from one university when they might have got into another university that is ranked more highly, and that they might end up with worse results in their school exams because they did not need good grades to get to university. It is a vicious circle if things go wrong, and it applies to all subjects rather than simply being about the promotion of the most academic subjects.

I will give an example from my constituency. Already this year, 23 students at Boston Grammar School have received an unconditional offer from at least one university. That is more than a third of the students from the school who have applied to universities for admission through UCAS. If there is a demotivational effect, there is a risk that it will reflect badly both on the school and on the students themselves in later life.

The headmaster of Boston Grammar School, John McHenry, who has helped me to put together this speech, tells me that the school has even seen comments suggesting that universities would “appreciate” it if students completed their studies. He says:

“In other words, it actually won’t make any difference at all if they don’t finish their A-level courses. It’s very difficult to understand how it is possible for universities to permit students onto degree courses without passing examinations, when schools themselves have strict admission criteria relating to A-level courses. How would a ‘free for all’ at A level impact on GCSE results nationally?”

If people drop out of school courses prior to university, or prior to doing anything else, it will compromise both their ability to complete a degree and their CV for the rest of their life. This is a serious issue.

The risks of having the wrong unconditional offers system are obvious: universities struggle to attract the best students for a course, which can lead to those with lower exam results being accepted, but those students then end up struggling further, which in turn holds those children back when they become adults. It compromises the long-term quality of that university course, and schools, too, are punished for declining results. The ramifications of getting this matter wrong are extensive.

Universities are rightly independent of Government, but they are also regulated and subsidised by taxpayers. In this area, as in others, a totally free market may not serve the wider interest. As The Times Educational Supplement has highlighted, some universities have explored making so-called “contextual offers”, whereby lower grades are required of members of certain demographics. Although that seems like part of the solution, that sort of positive discrimination should very much be handled with care. Likewise, courses such as music and art may rightly rely on a portfolio of work rather than purely relying on A-level grades. However, those two things do not explain the situation that we are in.

This debate is ultimately about pupils; it is not about universities or schools, but about the pupils who are going through the system potentially damaging their CVs and job prospects for the rest of their lives. I end by quoting Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders:

“Universities need to understand that making unconditional offers to students on the basis of predicted grades is not in the best interests of these young people. It can lead to students being less focused on their A-levels because they feel their university place is in the bag. They then attain a lower grade than they are capable of achieving and this can later become a significant problem for them if a prospective future employer takes A-level grades into account in their selection process. We urge universities not to make unconditional offers on the basis of predicted grades, and advise students against choosing a course on the basis of an unconditional offer and to ensure they find the university and course that best suits them.”

Today I echo that call, and I hope that the Minister will consider reviewing the effect of unconditional offers on the overall education ecosystem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

We are working with the Department for Education, which is investing hugely in lifelong learning, skills and employability. We are prioritising the digital skills capability within that mission, which I am sure will be of great benefit to SMEs.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

T6. A recent report from Intel identified £2 trillion of global opportunities in artificial intelligence and driverless cars. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to invest in the skills that Britain will need to capitalise on that huge opportunity?

[Greg Clark]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend draws attention to this area, and he is a great expert in it. He will know that, in the industrial strategy, we established as one of the four grand challenges leadership in the world in artificial intelligence and the analysis of big data. A crucial part of that is making sure that our young people and people retraining have the skills to take up those jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

1. What steps he has taken to support the development of electric and autonomous vehicles.

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to support businesses that are developing connected and autonomous vehicles through the Midlands Engine.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Our industrial strategy capitalises on our strengths as we build the next generation of motor vehicles. In July, we committed £246 million to the Faraday Battery Challenge to make Britain a centre for the development of battery storage. I have also announced £51 million to fund automated vehicle testbeds across the country. I am delighted to say that in October Ford opened its new European Mobility headquarters in Britain.

[Matt Warman]

Whether lorries or tractors, it is in rural areas where autonomous vehicles have the potential to make a particularly profound impact. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the research that he is funding will look in particular at rural areas rather than simply focusing on our very well connected cities?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right in saying that, if this is to apply right across the country, the opportunities in rural areas are very important not just for the vehicles he describes, but for public transport. He will know that at the University of Lincoln, not far from him, excellent work is being done through the Centre for Autonomous Systems on the future of mobility. I hope that it will be a participant in this great wave across the country of research and development in the technologies of the future.

Taylor Review: Working Practices

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

The Government cannot mandate people to join trade unions. Trade unions are still an important force for the protection of workers’ rights among the sectors of the economy in which they are still dominant, and I commend them for their work.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

If one talks to drivers for Uber or cleaners using platforms such as Hassle, they will largely acknowledge the benefits of flexibility to them. To coin a phrase, would it not be morally unacceptable to misread the 21st-century labour market and construct a set of rules that forced those people out of work, rather than allowing them to stay in it?