Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Freer and Matt Hancock

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said in my earlier answers, we will publish the impact assessment very soon. The crucial question is how, in the context of getting the country out of the budget deficit mess that was left by Opposition Members, we can make decisions that will have the best possible impact on the ground. Is it fair to fund 18-year-olds, who usually take fewer hours of education per week, at the same rate, or should we reduce the funding for all 16 to 19-year-olds instead?

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

T6. Does the Minister agree with the shadow Secretary of State that Labour failed on vocational education, and does he agree with me that the Government’s rectifying of that mistake means that we now have more employer-led apprenticeships than ever before?

[Matthew Hancock]

I try not to be partisan at the Dispatch Box, as you well know, Mr Speaker, but it is absolutely true that we are driving up standards in vocational education across the board and in apprenticeships. It was a real pleasure to visit McDonald’s in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which does a brilliant job on vocational in-work education. The previous Government made the intellectual error of thinking that just because people have not attained yet, we should not have high expectations of them. We are reversing the consequences of that error.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Freer and Matt Hancock

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The gathering of that evidence started in 2008. It is shocking that that happened under the previous Administration, and we have stopped it.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of national apprenticeship week 2013.

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

National apprenticeship week last week was a triumph. Tens of thousands of new apprenticeship places were announced; there was double the coverage of last year; and the message went out loud and clear from this House and beyond that apprenticeships deliver.

[Mike Freer]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Last week I had an apprenticeships fair. Does the Minister agree that the National Apprenticeship Service does a wonderful job in supporting MPs, private organisations and charities in boosting apprenticeships in this country?

[Matthew Hancock]

I commend the National Apprenticeship Service for its work, and I know there were more than 400 local residents and 22 employers at my hon. Friend’s job fair. I have my own jobs fair tomorrow, and national apprenticeship week next year will take place on 3-7 March. I hope that all hon. Members will get involved.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Debate between Mike Freer and Matt Hancock

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for introducing the Bill. He has a reputation as a firebrand in Parliament, so I was surprised and pleased at his thoughtful speech. He almost got me to cross the line and support him. However, I was somewhat surprised to realise, as the debate continued, that the Bill is a Trojan horse. It is not about the Governor of the Bank of England; it is about appointments in general and the power of Parliament in making them. The Bill should do what it says on the tin. If it is meant to be a prod for us to debate reforming the role of Parliament in making appointments, it should say so, but it does not. It is specifically about the power of appointment and dismissal of the Governor of the Bank of England.

[Matthew Hancock]

Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear some Members argue that they do not support the Bill as it stands but would vote for it on different grounds?

[Mike Freer]

I never fail to be surprised at the ability of hon. Friends and hon. Members to vote for what they do not really believe in, as we might see next Tuesday. [Laughter.] The Whips do not need to write that down.

Before I read the substance of the Bill, I thought I would look at the history of the Bank of England. I promise not to go too far back, but I glanced to see whether there was a precedent for Parliament’s being involved in the appointment of the Governor. The Bank of England was formed to raise money for the Government of the day, who could not raise the princely sum of £1.2 million themselves because they were not credit worthy, even though they had sought to attract money by offering 8% interest rates—an eerie echo of the problems of the Greek and Spanish Governments 318 years later. It is not the time, while we are dealing with sovereign debt crises, to discuss whether Parliament should appoint the Governor of the Bank of England, and I will talk later about what would happen if we had to appoint someone in the middle of a crisis.

The Bank was originally a private bank paid for by private subscriptions. I read through its book of subscriptions from 1694—in fact, I have a copy of it with me. I was tempted to read it all out. I have the scars on my back from introducing the London Local Authorities Bill. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) here, because he taught me that the way to prolong a debate was to read out, in detail, the coat of arms of all the London boroughs, so it was tempting to read out the list of original subscribers.