EU Merger Control

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 General Committees

[Nick Boles]

That was a long question, and I am happy to give a short answer: yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am pleased that the Government seem to be resisting more powers being transferred from our national Parliament to the EU. I think that the Minister made the point that many mergers relate to companies that are not based in the rest of the European Union. It is appropriate that they should be managed at national level, rather than EU level. Does he agree?

[Nick Boles]

Absolutely. Full-blown mergers—acquisitions of the control of other businesses—have to pass clear criteria on turnover both within the EU and within the respective countries to be reviewed at European level rather than the national level. The criteria are reasonably complicated. My hon. Friend will be more familiar with them than probably any of us. I think that they are set at roughly the right level. As a result, the overwhelming majority of mergers and acquisitions that take place are reviewed by our excellent Competition and Markets Authority, which has a very high reputation. It is absolutely appropriate that only a very small number of mergers and acquisitions are reviewed at European level.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think that the European Scrutiny Committee, in general and broad terms, would agree with the Government on this. The principle of subsidiarity is much talked about in European Union circles, but the EU seems reluctant actually to indulge in it much. Would the Minister not suggest that the EU should recognise that some things should be dealt with at national level to make subsidiarity more meaningful?

[Nick Boles]

I cannot pretend that everything involved in preparation for the Committee was absolutely gripping, but nevertheless I found myself intrigued by a debate on the vexed question of subsidiarity between, in particular, the noble Lord Boswell and my predecessor and then me—in reality, the officials who drafted my reply. I had the layman’s understanding of subsidiarity, which is shared, I suspect, by most of us and by most of our constituents: “Don’t do it at European level unless you need to; do it at national, regional or local level.” However, I understand from the correspondence that, within a legal framework, the principle of subsidiarity at European level is applied only in certain areas, where it is acknowledged in treaties that the EU does not have sole competence—only then does something become a question of subsidiarity.

To the extent that this power is necessary for the EU to make the internal market function, questions of subsidiarity would apparently not be raised under the legal framework. That is why we have emphasised proportionality. It would be disproportionate for the EU to start interfering in a small number of cases that rarely have a European-wide impact. In a sense, I rest with the layman’s view of subsidiarity as useful—in general, the EU should not interfere unless necessary, and unless doing so will dramatically add value to individual nation states and their citizens—but in this case we are clear that it would not be necessary or proportionate for the EU to do so.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have one more question. Is it not right to be extremely wary of any kind of merger? Mergers inevitably lead to more monopolistic powers for companies to exploit markets. If we are serious about competition, we should maintain a sufficient number of competing companies in any industry.

[Nick Boles]

We are probably straying slightly from the subject. In general, I have agreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I suspect that there will be a slight note of difference here. There are many fragmented industries in which the merger of two participants would in no way undermine the consumer’s power and might even enable them to become more efficient and productive, thereby lowering costs to the benefit of the consumer. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that in cases of relatively concentrated industries—we can all think of many, and they are often where mergers are most frequently proposed—it is important to have a robust regime. I am glad to say that we have such a regime in this country. We should therefore allow most decisions about mergers in the UK to take place under the jurisdiction of the UK authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I entirely understand those arguments and have some sympathy with them, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that sixth-form colleges, like further education colleges, also have the freedom to borrow, which many of them have taken advantage of. That is not a freedom that is available to other schools, so there are swings and roundabouts.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Sixth-form colleges are arguably the most successful education institutions in our system, in terms of educational achievement and financial efficiency, so would it not be sensible for the Government to encourage the creation of more sixth-form colleges, rather than punishing them for their success?

[Nick Boles]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are remarkable sixth-form colleges achieving extraordinary things, and I want to support them as best we can. As he knows, one option we are keen to explore is whether some sixth-form colleges might want to link up with groups of schools and multi-academy trusts in order to be stronger themselves and to provide more of their great education to more people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

On every educational and efficiency measure, sixth-form colleges outperform all other sixth-form providers. When will the Government treat sixth-form colleges fairly in taxation terms and take steps to establish many more sixth-form colleges throughout the country?

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

11. If she will take steps to promote the establishment of more sixth-form colleges.

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

We have supported the creation of new sixth-form schools, such as Exeter Mathematics school, the London Academy of Excellence in Newham and Sir Isaac Newton sixth-form school in Norwich, but we do not currently plan to promote the establishment of more sixth-form colleges.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister will have seen the statistics showing that sixth-form colleges outperform other providers of 16-to-18 education on every measure of academic success and in value for money. Does he not therefore agree that an intelligent Government would seek actively to establish many more sixth-form colleges, instead of allowing their numbers to reduce?

[Nick Boles]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s support for and admiration of the work of sixth-form colleges, which are generally fantastic institutions producing great results, but I disagree with him on this obsession with particular forms and structures. I agree with him that schools that are dedicated to teaching 16 to 19-year-olds in sixth forms do very well, which is why we have supported the creation of so many sixth-form schools, but whether they are schools or colleges is a second-order issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T2. More than 10,000 people have now signed an e-petition urging the Government to introduce a VAT refund scheme for sixth-form colleges. Does the Minister now accept that it is time to drop this learning tax on sixth-form colleges, which does not have to be paid by schools, academies and free schools?

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

I am aware of this long-standing issue, which the last Government also failed to correct. One of the things that I am looking into is the possibility of enabling sixth-form colleges to change their status if they are willing to link up with other schools. But that is something that has to be brought forward by sixth-form colleges themselves, and it is still subject to discussions with the Treasury, which is always pretty fierce on these matters. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

The great Sir Bob—my hon. Friend—is of course so experienced in the House that he knows he has attacked Ministers for withdrawing funding from one institution too quickly, and I am sure that he has argued for damping mechanisms for any sudden effects of changes in the funding formula. There is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that the funding is fair and ensuring that no institution has the rug pulled from under it. It is a balance that we are determined to achieve.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the undoubted unfairness of their funding arrangements, sixth-form colleges are the most successful institutions in our education system, with regard to both the quality of education provided and value for money. When will the Government take steps to increase the number of sixth-form colleges across the country, and would the Minister care to visit the superb Luton sixth-form college in my constituency to find out how good they really are?

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to take up any invitation; as the former planning Minister, I do not get so many. I will simply say that there are more places in sixth-form colleges this year than there were in 2010. Despite the funding constraints and the need to make some difficult choices, this Government are backing sixth-form colleges.

European Union Bill

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We must take all those things into account when we make our decisions, but we make those decisions and stand by them, which I like to think I have done. I have regretted one or two things, but the hon. Gentleman is right. In defence of two-party Government—or our party system—I do not believe that we are elected as individual anarchists. We are here to represent a philosophy and interests in society. I am not by nature an anarchist; I am a collective democrat. That is where I stand.

The most important aspect of amendment 11, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Hertsmere, is that it would have an impact on the EU, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned. If the EU wants to push something through that it suspects will be unpopular in this Parliament, it might not proceed if the provision in the amendment were in force, whereas if it thinks it must win over only the Minister, the Prime Minister or the Executive, it might think it will get away with it. If it knows that its proposals are likely to go to a referendum and that their significance will be voted on by the House, it will be a little more careful.

That impact on the EU is more significant than giving decisions to ourselves because we like to make decisions. The EU will be much more careful about its proposals if it thinks that they might be subject to a referendum in Britain, because it knows very well that the justifiably strong degree of Euroscepticism will come to the fore, that there could be a problem, and that it might not win. If the EU thinks that there is a chance of not winning a referendum, it will not risk it. A referendum is much more likely to be risked if a decision is made in this House rather than by the Minister. That is the way of things.

Finally, I want to draw a parallel. I mentioned the excessive centralisation of power in British politics, particularly in No. 10 Downing street, the Prime Minister and his little entourage, but the other thing that is wrong is secrecy. I was a strong supporter of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. When it was going through Parliament, the Government proposed an amendment to the effect that we could have freedom of information except when the Minister says no. My good friend Tony Wright, the former Member for Cannock Chase and Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration, led a rebellion. We did not win, but we made our point. He was very much a politician of the moderate left who would go along, by and large, with the leadership—he was not as critical as I was. He was an architect of that Act, and quite strongly in favour of it, but he was quite shocked when that qualification was proposed. Ministers are fine people who do a great job, but in the end, this House must make serious decisions about things, not just Ministers. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere presses amendment 11 to a Division, and I certainly wish to vote for it.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I should like to share with hon. Members why I think the Bill is the most significant thing that the Government will do in this Parliament. The House knows that I am a strong, enthusiastic supporter of the Government. I cheerfully look forward to voting for the Localism Bill, the education Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill, and many others that we will debate in next few years, but I do not exaggerate it when I say that this is most significant thing that we will do, because it is the “Thus far and no further” Bill.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that this Bill will start a debate on Europe in the country, but they are wrong. The country has had its debate on Europe. It made up its mind a very long time ago, and said, “Thus far and no further.” Unfortunately, Parliament and previous Governments did not listen to the country and did not understand that that is the country’s decision. They continued to try to evade the will of the people by ratifying treaties of which the people wanted nothing.

The Bill is the Bill that says, “We have finally listened. We finally understand, and we will not put through any treaty, or any change or shift in sovereignty and power, that you, the people, do not want.” That is why I believe —only somewhat mischievously—that the Bill should be viewed as a tribute to the indefatigable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who sadly is no longer in his place. Although he and I disagree on many things—I will go on to say why I disagree with his amendments—it is clear that his achievement in the Bill is greater than the achievement of almost any Back Bencher I can remember, and probably greater than almost any Minister any of us can remember. For nearly 30 years, he has led the campaign to say, “Thus far and no further!” Tonight and on future nights when we debate the Bill, he will get his way, and he will have given to the British people what they want and what he has always wanted to give them—the right to say, “Thus far and no further!” Were he not quite so hale and hearty and not quite so obviously going to survive and outlive me—he will still be here long after I leave this place—I would even go so far as to suggest that the Bill be called the William Cash memorial Bill.

Having made that case, I want to say why I believe that the Opposition amendments are damaging in so many ways. Their amendment 85 is a poison pill—a poison pill coated in the sweet chocolate of parliamentary sovereignty and power, but a poison pill nevertheless. By moving the amendment, they are trying to seduce the great defenders of parliamentary sovereignty on the Government Benches into creating the possibility for them in the future to undo and reverse the effects of the Bill. They know that if they refer a decision to this committee of theirs, there is a chance—they cannot absolutely be certain who will be on it or how it will vote—that they can control it, whereas they know for a fact that there is no chance of controlling the British people. That is why their amendment is pernicious and insidious. That shows the view the Labour party has of the views of the British people on this great issue. It is that approach that informed its entirely insincere promise of a referendum on the European constitution—happily just before an election—and the attitude that led it to scuttle around, to persuade its European partners to take out a couple of things, to rename it a “treaty” and then to declare that there would be no referendum after all.

Government Members, as well as Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is so brave and forthright on this issue, should not be fooled by the amendment. I know that we are not allowed to call amendments “wrecking” amendments, but this amendment surely is designed to undermine the entire purpose of the Bill.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Nick Boles and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate, but I am seriously concerned about what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, which is a degree of politicisation of the monarch, as Head of State, from which I would draw back. If a degree of automaticity were involved and any Prime Minister of the day who could not form a Government automatically, as a convention, asked the leader of the next major party to form one, that would be one thing. If the monarch is making political judgments about who he or she should choose, that is a very different matter. When George V involved himself in helping to form the national Government in 1931 that was pushing the monarch too far into politics. Heads of State should not have that role.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman also makes a strong argument and has much greater historical knowledge than I do. I would say only that if the Bill becomes law, it will become a clear part of our constitutional arrangements that the expectation, the desire and the will of the people is that we have fixed-term Parliaments lasting five years. Therefore, should there be an interruption that led to a vote of no confidence in a Government and the Prime Minister came to the sovereign asking for her to prorogue Parliament, it would be clear to the sovereign, who would also receive advice from her advisers, that there was a danger of frustrating the constitution and frustrating the will of the people for us to have elections every five years.

Given that the Prime Minister would have lost a vote of confidence in this House—in the old days that would normally have automatically led to their no longer having a right to govern—I do not think it would be classified as the sovereign “meddling” in politics were she then to say that she would invite alternatives if the Prime Minister could not tell her that he or she could form a stable Government without going to the people in an election. If the Prime Minister could not give her that reassurance, it would be entirely proper for the sovereign—her advisers would tell her this—to see whether the Parliament that had not run its full course did not contain an alternative stable Government who could be formed and for her to invite the relevant leader of any such Government to kiss hands, become Prime Minister and resummon Parliament to see whether they could win a vote of confidence. That is why the fear of the hon. Member for Rhondda is not justified. In fact, a reverse fear is involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

That is an even more ingenious attempt, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is harder for me to appeal to you for succour on this point, but I reject my hon. Friend’s point because I believe that the Bill is one of principle. I believe that the idea of Prime Ministers picking the dates of elections is wholly outrageous in a modern democracy and that we must have fixed-term Parliaments. I happen to know that this argument has been raging inside the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties for years, so it is a cause of high principle.

The history of the British constitution is that changes of high principle happen only when the parties in power see political advantage in such change; that is how democracy works. Britain has been reformed when the great causes have been aligned with low party interest and I thank—I am not sure if I am allowed to say what I was going to say—the stars that in this Parliament at this time that alliance of high principle and low politics has come together and that we are putting through Parliament a Bill that will establish fixed-term elections and remove the Prime Minister’s right to choose a date that is to his or her advantage.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. But I would be more convinced by his argument if the Bill were to apply after the next election, but this looks like a Government trying to perpetuate their term in office to five years.

[Nick Boles]

I detect from the hon. Gentleman’s expression and demeanour that he is worried, but he should not be because we genuinely want the changes to become permanent—as much as the constitution of our country can allow that. We genuinely want there to be, at least for as long as any of us can see, a habit, norm and expectation deep in our society that there will be elections in May every five years. I hope that is how the situation will be perceived in this country after the Bill is passed—without my hon. Friends’ amendments.