CPTPP

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

I am absolutely delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and delighted that the Government are seeking to accede to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—something I proposed while I was a Minister. At the time there was very little interest from officials or from other Ministers. It is a shame we had to change the Government and then have a general election to get here, but least said, soonest mended.

I am personally invested in this accession, I am glad to say. CPTPP can provide a better standard of living for people in the UK and across the original member countries. It can deliver free trade plus self-government in this great age of interventionism. By preserving the right to regulate, it can allow democracies to function while delivering free trade—a point I hope to elaborate on before I finish. It is a high-standards agreement, as I will flesh out, and it can facilitate greater international co-operation, which those of us who are free market liberals should aim for.

I want to start by landing the central point: how important this debate is and how important the agreement could be. If we take the current members of CPTPP, and if the United States chose to return to the agreement, plus the United Kingdom, plus other potential accession countries such as Taiwan, it could result in a new platform free trade agreement for the world, covering more than half the global economy. CPTPP is therefore a major geostrategic agreement of relevance to the whole world, so I am really delighted to be here for this debate. It is absolutely vital that the United Kingdom is there at the start.

Colleagues will know the Prime Minister’s speech in Greenwich on free trade. It was an admirable articulation of the principles of free trade, and I wholeheartedly support the policy, which it is refreshing to be able to say.

I want to turn to the Government’s own document, “UK applies to join huge Pacific free trade area CPTPP”. It was issued when the Government formally applied. It explains:

“Joining the £9 trillion partnership will cut tariffs for UK industries including food and drink, and cars, while also creating new opportunities for modern industries like tech and services, ultimately supporting and creating high-value jobs across the UK. Unlike EU membership, joining does not require the UK to cede control over our laws, borders, or money.”

That part, of course, has now run on to the rocks. As the Government explain, it has:

“Modern digital trade rules that allow data to flow freely between members”.

It eliminates tariffs more quickly on UK exports than, for example, the deal that we have with Canada. The rules of origin are extremely important. I will not get into the detail, but they

“allow content from any country within CPTPP to count as ‘originating’.

That is extremely important in a world of free trade areas.

The Prime Minister was very proud to support the agreement. The Secretary of State put out an excellent statement. Our accession was supported by techUK, the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI. I was very pleased to see such a wide range of support.

The reason why I originally came across the CPTPP was that when I re-founded the European Research Group, which seems a long time ago now, it was to unite the various wings of the Conservative party—ironically—and of course, crucially, to do research. We therefore sought the best expertise from outside Parliament, and one of the documents produced was by the Legatum Institute Special Trade Commission, as it then was. It was a group of visionaries led by Shanker Singham, who is now a personal friend of mine. In April 2017, it produced “A Blueprint for UK Trade Policy”, which in particular described the importance of what was then known as the TPP. It states:

“The TPP is probably the most advanced trade agreement that has been agreed by any group of countries. It is a high-standards, platform agreement that attempts to make progress on the most difficult aspects of international trade—especially behind-the-border barriers, regulatory protection, the impact of state-owned business on trade, and distortions more generally.”

It goes through some of the key factors in the agreement; possibly I will come back to those in passing.

I cannot possibly go through all the detail of the agreement and I hope that hon. Members will not test my capacity to recall and interpret the text, although I did wade through the original TPP in detail. There is a very helpful explainer on the New Zealand Government website, and I very much hope that in due course our own Government will explain the agreement, but I will just cover the key features.

The agreement covers goods and market access, including for agriculture, an issue that I wish I had enough time to get into—I hope that other Members will mention it —and services’ market access, which is of course crucial for the UK. We have a comparative advantage in financial services. We should be looking to work with like-minded countries around the world not only to participate in but to define a new global standard for financial services in particular and services in general; and the CPTPP is a great basis on which to start.

The agreement makes provision for easier travel under business visas. It raises labour standards for the region. That is of course a matter of acute interest to all Members of this House. It raises them in the region; that needs to be understood. It has environmental provisions, including ensuring that there can be no waivers or derogations, for trade advantage, from any environmental standards.

The agreement protects individual nations’ right to regulate. Of course, it does not need to be elaborated on—well, perhaps it does—that in this country the idea of using political vertical integration to deliver trade policy within customs unions with harmonised regulation has, whether people like it or not, run on to the rocks of lacking democratic consent. Now, as we come together in a spirit of good will, seeking to unite, move forward and be prosperous, that is something that we need to deal with. The CPTPP is really important because it preserves that right to regulate and preserves the independence of the member countries, while delivering free trade.

There are provisions for pharmaceuticals, investment, disputes and Government procurement, because of course Governments everywhere buy a great deal. There are provisions for intellectual property, geographical indications, trade facilitation, which I will come back to later, and state-owned enterprises, at which point I will say a word about market distortions.

One key feature of Governments’ highly regulating and, indeed, spending a large proportion of GDP is the effect that they have on market economies. It is really important as we go forward, if we are seeking to promote the maximum human welfare—I hope that, despite our disagreements, everyone in the House is seeking to maximise human welfare—that we minimise unhelpful distortions. We are not trying to create the wild west here, not under this agreement and not in any reasonable future. What we are trying to do is to have pro-competitive, welfare-enhancing regulation. Of course I am in favour of doing it under an English common law tradition; there will be Members in this debate who would like to use the Scottish tradition or whichever. But the British tradition of regulation has in some ways, I think, been suppressed by our EU membership and now needs to be rediscovered. Regulation has become altogether too prescriptive. We need to rediscover people’s capacity to co-operate to deliver high quality standards within a framework that is provided by the Government but is not too prescriptive.

As an example of how things could be done better, I refer in passing to how we regulate autonomous vehicles; I remember serving on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee. Our regulation sets out a framework of liability, but does not end up with the Government prescribing software standards, which personally I think would be a disaster. That is just one example of how, using the common law tradition, we can provide high-standards regulation that protects the public and is conducive not only to the enhancement of welfare, but to social progress through innovation—goodness knows we will need that if we are to drive up productivity. Those are just a few thoughts on regulation.

The Government’s document on accession sets out three reasons why we would wish to accede to TPP: first, to

“secure increased trade and investment opportunities that help the UK economy…overcome the unprecedented challenge posed by coronavirus”;

secondly, to

“help us diversify our trading links and supply chains, and in doing increase our economic security”;

and thirdly to

“help us secure our future place in the world and advance our longer-term interests.”

The Government explain that

“CPTPP membership is an important part of our strategy to place the UK at the centre of a modern, progressive network of free trade agreements with dynamic economies. In doing so we aim to turn the UK into a global hub for businesses and investors wanting to trade with the rest of the world.”

That should be a really exciting prospect for everyone in the House and across the country who understands the trajectory. It will help the UK to forge a leadership position, as the Government have set out. So the Government’s strategic vision is excellent.

The agreement also leans into a really important set of current global trends. People will complain that the idealists seek to replace our EU membership, but I do not know of any credible proposition to replace EU trade with CPTPP trade—that is not a practical proposition, and I do not think that anyone is seeking to do it. I am very pleased that the Government have a high-quality agreement in place with the European Union. It is not an either/or; it is a complementary proposition. I am very pleased that the agreement that we finally struck with the European Union facilitates the accession to CPTPP.

I draw on a Bain & Company report, which is a few years old now, on the declining cost of distance. This is not about the momentary cost of containers, but about the great global trends that have taken place in our world, driving down the cost of geographical separation. The Bain paper states:

“The catalyst for this historic shift is an array of new platform technologies that have pushed the cost of distance to the tipping point. Multibillion-dollar investments in robotics, 3-D printing, delivery drones, logistics technology, autonomous vehicles and low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites are giving rise to new products and services that sharply erode the cost of moving people, goods and information. As these technologies combine and converge, change will accelerate…A significant change in the cost of distance would prompt millions of economic actors to rethink their strategies and investments, and cause individuals to reassess where they work, live and raise their families.”

If the coronavirus crisis has done anything on that point, it is to accelerate the trend—here we are, debating the matter in Parliament, with hon. Members about to contribute virtually. Bain was visionary in seeing the declining cost of distance as technology advances, which plays into the accession to CPTPP.

I turn briefly to two final matters. The first is geopolitics. The world can be seen now to be polarising between the Asian authoritarians—Russia and China—and the liberal maritime democracies that believe in free trade. In a speech given to Policy Exchange, the former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that the CPTPP would go

“from being a purely regional pact to now being the beginning of an alternative global order”.

It is a huge and extremely important vision, and the UK’s acceding to the agreement will be a key part.

Let us not forget what is at stake. We see the behaviour of China and we know that the rest of the world’s nations will need to set a better example to their people than this tendency to so control the lives of ordinary people, including persecuting some of them. That is an important illustration, in the little time that remains, of how trade is strategy today, and our accession to CPTPP is about that strategy for not merely the short run but the long run, to position the UK for success and as a global leader. I do not mean “global leader” in any unhelpful way, but in a way that says, “We are your friends and partners in a very open and equal way,” to great nations such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru.

All that grand talk of geostrategy will not mean much to many of the small businesses in Wycombe, and across the country, which are perhaps still struggling with working out which incoterms they should use to help to facilitate their trade with the EU. That leads to a wider issue of trade facilitation, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will touch on. It is important that we help firms that are used to trading and exporting only within a customs union to understand that it can be relatively straightforward to export across the world. It is also important to help firms to get set up to do that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bring his great expertise on those matters to bear through the Government, to help the firms in my constituency and across the country. There will be a huge task of simplification and explanation. The agreements are complex and their interpretation is difficult. It will be for the Government to show small firms how to take the best advantage of them.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will touch on the issue of when the Government will be able to set out their approach to formal negotiations, and that they will say more about their hopes, and what safeguards they will be looking to maintain. Perhaps there can be more about our right to continue to regulate ourselves when entering into such a large agreement. A great deal has been said about our being a small nation, but when I talk to people in Japan or, indeed, when I am inspired, Mr Brandis, the high commissioner of Australia to the United Kingdom, I find that the rest of the world does not see us as we have been encouraged to see ourselves, but as a potentially important catalyst in the new order. I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about major geopolitics, but I appreciate that that might be out of scope. However, perhaps he could emphasise how the issue is really about—I do not like to say “ordinary”—normal men and women trading in the UK, taking advantage of new arrangements around the world, the better to innovate, improve our lives, develop productivity and create a greater spirit of global co-operation around the world.

As I finish my speech, I think I should wave this great doorstop of a document that Business for Britain produced before the referendum, on the back of which is a poster, with a vision of Britain having a future with the world. The accession to CPTPP is central to that bright, hopeful future of trade and co-operation with the world, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister is here to respond to what I am sure will be an interesting debate.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 10.55. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.22. That will be Drew Hendry first. The guideline limits are 10 minutes each for the Scottish National party and Labour spokesmen and the Minister; and Steve Baker will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are nine Back Benchers who seek to contribute before 10.22, and my aim is to get everyone in. If everyone is going to speak for the same length of time, Members will not want to speak for more than four and a half minutes. I know that Angus Brendan MacNeil, who is first, will want to show us how it is done within the time available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is only because of the manner of the speeches by the Opposition spokesmen that I am choosing to attack what they said. I look forward to them supporting the resumption of proceedings.

I have previously critiqued the computable general equilibrium modelling that is used, and I think that Opposition Members’ simplistic analysis and arithmetic shows that they, too, should look at the shortcomings of CGE models and at what can be done in the UK. Lord Lawson of Blaby has said that UK domestic settings will be dominant in our future, and that is something that Wolfgang Münchau turns out to agree with.

Turning to other colleagues, I enjoyed their speeches enormously—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will not be able to do that.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In any divorce, the assets are divided. Including the £39 billion divorce bill, from the day we joined in 1973 to the day we leave, we will have given £250 billion in today’s money to this organisation. What proportion of the assets are we going to get back?

[Mr Baker]

First of all, I refute the idea that this is a divorce. I prefer to think that we are loving siblings who have decided to grow up and move out into the house next door. We have reached a fair financial settlement, and I am pleased that we have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I remind the hon. Lady that the latest figures from NHS Digital show that there were over 3,200 more EU nationals working in the NHS in September 2017 than before the referendum result. Formal impact assessments will, of course, be produced in the normal way in connection with legislation.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

18. What discussions he has had with the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on protecting UK fishing waters from non-UK trawlers in the event of there being no UK-EU trade agreement in place when the UK leaves the common fisheries policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

We have been working closely with our colleagues. In England, the Marine Management Organisation is working with the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy, as well as the Border Force, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and other organisations to deliver fisheries protection and regulation, irrespective of whether an agreement has been reached when we leave the common fisheries policy.

[Mr Hollobone]

Remainers and leavers are united in the opinion that the very worst aspect of our EU membership is the common fisheries policy. When we leave the European Union, we leave the common fisheries policy. On that day, the armada of EU trawlers that have been plundering Britain’s historic fishing grounds since 1973 are not going to be happy that their best years are behind them. Will the Minister ensure that the Royal Navy has the resources it needs to protect our sovereign waters and ensure the rebirth and renaissance of the British fishing industry?

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a serious point, with his usual force. We hope to reach an agreement in our mutual interests but, as the Prime Minister made clear in her Mansion House speech, we are leaving the common fisheries policy, and the UK will regain control over our domestic fisheries management rules and access to our waters. On enforcement, we will strengthen our surveillance capability and make sure that the appropriate capacity is in place to patrol our waters and enforce regulations, as required. This will be underpinned by a robust approach to risk-based assessments.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that pro-remain Members of this House who represent constituencies that voted to leave leap on incomplete economic analysis and profess deep understanding of complex economic methodology, yet fail to wrap their minds around the simple arithmetic of the referendum, which was that 52% voted to leave?

[Mr Baker]

I must exercise some caution, Mr Speaker, because as you will know, Wycombe District, which is substantially larger than the constituency of Wycombe, did express the other view. However, what I think we need to do is come together to unite around the result as a country, and to choose for ourselves not to leave the EU because we must or because we ought, but to leave the EU successfully because we choose to abide by the democratic decision of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Of course we wish to secure tariff-free access to European markets, and indeed to markets across the world, but these are matters for negotiation. I am sure the hon. Lady would join me in saying to the EU that it is in all our interests to move swiftly to discussions on our future agreements.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

British farmers are among the most efficient in Europe. Will Brexit not give us a chance to design an agricultural policy in their interest, not that of inefficient farmers in Europe?

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a unique opportunity for the UK to craft agricultural policies that suit our unique needs, which I hope will be to the benefit of the UK and our farmers.

EU Membership (UK Renegotiation)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has been, as part of his constituency duties, spending too much time at too many big lunches in the City of London with the wrong crowd. I will give an example of what I am talking about. ICAP is the world’s largest dealer broker for financial institutions. The chairman of ICAP, Michael Spencer, has said that the UK can “thrive” outside the European Union. We were told by my right hon. Friend’s friends in the City of London that if we did not join the euro, all that euro-denominated business would go to Frankfurt, Paris and elsewhere. Actually, the City of London is today doing more euro-denominated deals than ever before in its history, so I do not take much notice of those scare stories, but I do suggest to my right hon. Friend that if his contacts want to continue to put out that sort of propaganda for our staying in the European Union, it demonstrates the weakness of their case. I do not want my constituents in Kettering, in middle England, to be unnecessarily scared by baseless scare stories from financial institutions that should know better.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am always shocked and surprised by the argument about retaliation, because we are asked to believe that the European Union project is about suppressing nationalism—the kind of economic and other political nationalisms that lead to war—yet we are also asked to believe that if we chose not to surrender our parliamentary democracy to that set of institutions, we would suffer exactly the kind of nationalisms and retaliation that the EU itself was set up to avoid. Can they make their minds up which way it is to be?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The wording of the e-petition refers to stunning versus non-stunning, but we cannot have a complete debate about this subject unless we tackle the religious dimension because that is the elephant in the room. I have been led down that path in the first few minutes of the debate because that is the understandable concern of Muslim and Jewish communities. He is correct that the wording of the e-petition and the purpose of the debate is about stunned versus non-stunned, but we soon come on to other issues.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Muslim constituents in Wycombe will want to buy halal meat and they should be able to do that. One of my Muslim constituents wants to buy halal meat because of not only the religious justification, but welfare. For him, halal slaughter is a method with a higher standard of welfare than other methods that were common, such as strangulation. Could an element of the debate be that animal welfare standards have advanced with technology, and that in many cases we can find common ground for animals to be both stunned and halal slaughtered?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend has demonstrated once again how he frequently speaks up in a most thoughtful way in this House on behalf of his constituents. His constituent and many others elsewhere who are Muslim might well take that view of halal slaughter, but he will be aware that that is not the majority opinion. Eight out of 10 people want to see an end to non-stunned slaughter and I suggest that the Muslim and Jewish communities have a lot of persuading to do if they want their point of view to win the day.

Co-operatives in Education

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call the sparkling Steve Baker.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Thank you for your kind words, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship in this important debate. I thank the Minister for being here. I know that liberating his time has caused his Department some inconvenience, and I am extremely grateful to him for being here willingly when his Department is so busy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is of course right that we sometimes forget to look at such points. It is crucial that no one should be left behind and the ethos of the school, as he will appreciate, is that the co-operators involved are determined to lift everyone up. I appreciate his point and I apologise that I do not have that information to hand.

Mr Hood made the point that performance in all core subjects rose markedly. In particular, Cressex has risen well above the national average in maths for the first time. He said that that is an exceptional achievement and he is right. Cressex is improving itself, which goes back to the point about defiant spirit. Cressex does not wish to have a model imposed on it; it is improving itself.

I have been on a journey, discovering something of the traditions of the left and the co-operative movement, and to me, that was the essential thing to understand. It is about self-help—a difficult term for a Conservative to use—mutuality, self-responsibility, direct democratic control, equality and solidarity. Such terms are perhaps vexed for Conservatives, but separated from state power, they actually just represent values and ideals that any fully formed human being should support. That, to me, explains the defiant spirit of autonomy that I found. Those values are being used by the Cressex school to engage with the community around it, and they are values transforming the lives and prospects of individuals whom we cannot allow to fall into neglect. Those people must be supported with a degree of delicacy if they are to flourish, which, in the end, is what we want for all the people in our constituencies, irrespective of their voting habits.

I turn to what it means to be a co-operative, and how Cressex has applied some of those principles. In the co-operative statement on identity, we find a definition that I think anyone could support and welcome:

“A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.”

That crucial element of voluntarism surprised me. I hope that Members on the left will forgive me if I say that I have always misunderstood socialism to mean compulsion, and I was amazed to discover that on the left, there is this great tradition of voluntarism. When I look down through the values—

“ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others”—

who could possibly disagree with them?

I turn to the principles: “Voluntary and Open Membership”—of course, a school should certainly comply with that. When I look at “Democratic Member Control”, I start thinking that the Government need to act, because it seems to me that across the whole suite of policy areas in education, the Government need to ensure that when parents, staff and others in the community are engaged in a school, they have the opportunity for their democratic control to be meaningful. The next principle is “Member Economic Participation”—although I paid £1 to become a member of Cressex co-operative, it does not seem to me, unless an Opposition Member would like to correct me, that anyone is immediately leaping to suggest that there should be economic participation in schools. However, “Autonomy and Independence”—what a marvellous idea, which seems to go directly to the heart of the Government’s policies. We then have “Education, Training and Information”, “Co-operation among Co-operatives”, and “Concern for Community”.

Those are some of the values that the Cressex co-operative trust has implemented, and which I think could allow other schools to follow suit, particularly where they are smaller and need to combine in order to be viable. The partnership with Cressex school has included Buckinghamshire New university, Dr Challoner’s grammar school, Wycombe Abbey school, the local authority and the Co-operative college.

After years of campaigning, the school moved into a new building, which certainly lifted spirits, and I have to say that we are grateful to the previous Government and all those involved locally for giving us those new premises. The community’s values were naturally aligned to those of the co-operative movement, and particularly the notion of being values-driven and faith-neutral, which, in my constituency, is highly relevant. The community engages actively, and as I mentioned in response to an intervention, is a specialist business and enterprise school.

I am particularly pleased that Johnson & Johnson’s Dr Cesar Rodriguez Valdajos, a Spaniard, has engaged with the school and become a governor. At a time when we are challenging how capitalism is working and where it has gone wrong, it is particularly interesting that someone from Johnson & Johnson has engaged with the school. When capitalism previously failed, that company showed, through its credo, how private enterprise could step up. What I find encouraging is that the notion of enterprise being people-centred is actually highly inclusive. Wycombe Abbey school is one of the finest independent girls’ schools in the country, and its engagement with Cressex has been not only crucial but mutual, because it is in those sixth-form pupils’ interests that they engage with the school and help with literacy and numeracy.

Crucially, the pupils share the school’s co-operative vision and values. As a former head boy told the governors recently:

“High achievement for all is certainly our shared responsibility. I can say for a fact that Cressex is a rising star. It’s climbing to the top and I am proud to be head boy.”

I have to say that Cressex has travelled a long way very quickly, since when I first visited the school as a candidate and saw a collection of prefab buildings and some people who were rather long in the face. There were some poor results, but Cressex is transforming itself very rapidly.

I am aware of the time, and that other Members would like to speak, so I shall abridge some of my other remarks on other co-operatives, but I particularly want to point to the experience of Mondragon university from the Library debate pack. Mondragon university is a Spanish institution owned by its staff, and an article, in the course of describing it, interviews a British academic, saying that

“many of the principles on which cooperatives are based are not necessarily that radical in higher education. Cook”—

Dan Cook—

“points out that the University of Cambridge ‘is already configured as a sort of workers’ co-op’ because every academic is part of the governing body…he adds: ‘I don’t think anyone has told them yet.’”

Therefore, it may well be that co-operatives are more advanced in the United Kingdom at all levels than has generally been believed.

Co-operative schools are now the third largest network of schools in the country, following Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. More than a quarter of a million young people attend a co-op school and more than £4 billion of assets have been transferred from local education authorities to co-operative trusts. In September 2011, co-op trusts ran 63 secondary schools. There are now 94 and the figure is predicted to be 102 by December. In the same period, co-op primary schools increased from 76 to a surprising 389, which is predicted to be 444 by December. Overall, co-operative schools have grown from 188 in September 2011 to a predicted 714 in December this year. That is an astonishing vote in support of autonomy and self-governance in relationship with others. To me, it is an enormous endorsement of liberty and civil society, and I believe that the Government should row in behind it.

The first co-op free school will be in Swanage, which demonstrates that co-ops are not incompatible with the Government’s free school programme. However, I look ahead to 2014, and I must say to the Government that at this time there are real imperatives for action, because about half of secondary schools and almost 90% of primaries still need to determine their long-term structure. There is every likelihood that they could choose to be co-operatives. If co-operation is a necessary requirement to enable small schools to flourish, the Government certainly need to act fast to put in place whatever is necessary to allow co-operation to thrive.

The Government ought not to fear co-operatives. I know that the co-operative movement began with figures such as Robert Owen, who was a utopian socialist, but the values and principles, and the place reached by the co-operative movement today, are not to be feared by people on the Government side of the House of Commons. Co-operatives are, above all, people-centred businesses, and it strikes me that co-operatives can resolve a number of conflicts of interest and ideology.

On markets versus collectivism, we have democratic, collective ownership of property, and yet co-operatives participate—and always have participated—in markets. I observe that one of the crucial reasons why state socialism can never work is that it eliminates markets in capital goods. Co-operation does not do that.

On employer versus worker, the Co-operative party’s website recognises that producer interest can effectively be dealt with through co-operation. I would suggest that some problems that the Government are currently experiencing could be ameliorated if more schools were directly controlled by parents, staff and the community, so that not only were industrial relations easier from the outset, but if difficulties did arise, they would be easier to resolve, because it would be clear who was negotiating with whom, and to what end.

It seems to me that today, sometimes co-operative schools are succeeding despite obstacles. That may well be in the spirit of the co-operative movement, but it seems that the Government ought to do more to ensure a crisp, simple and effective legal framework. I do not wish to pre-empt the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), but I would like to ask the Government to look closely at the ten-minute rule Bill that she brought forward. She proposed a measure that would enable schools to register as industrial and provident societies and enable nursery schools to be established as school trusts. That seems an extremely good idea, not only to complete that scale of education from nursery through to—it turns out—university level, but to ensure that things are viable and sustainable. I expect the Government to go down that road because of what has been said, and I would like to provide a little detail on what has gone before.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said:

“First, let me pay tribute to the work of the co-operative movement. Since it started in Rochdale, many of us have been inspired by its achievements. I believe that the academies programme and particularly the free schools programme provide an opportunity for the ideals of the original co-operative movement to be embedded in our schools. The idea that all work together for the good of their community and for the fulfilment of higher ideals is one that Government Members wholeheartedly applaud.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 468.]

Cabinet Office Ministers have been outspoken in support of co-operatives. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said of mutuals and the Government’s policies:

“The right to provide will challenge traditional public service structures and unleash the pent up ideas and innovation that has been stifled by bureaucracy.”

That chimes directly with the Co-operative party’s message that co-operative models offer the best model for the reform of the public services or public service delivery.

In November 2007, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of co-operatives in Manchester and developed arguments leading to the tantalising prospect of

“a new generation of co-operative schools in Britain—funded by the taxpayer but owned by parents and the local community.”

In January 2012, he also held out the prospect of a new co-operatives Bill. Without wishing to give succour to Opposition Members, I say gently to the Government that the Prime Minister ought now to find time to bring forward that Bill, encompassing the proposals of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, if we are to avoid the allegation of mere posturing. I want us to get behind co-operative schools, and more broadly co-operatives in education, in the general interest, to transcend some of the partisan debate that has gone to and fro, because I know that, in Wycombe, co-operative principles are transforming Cressex school. Those principles are proving increasingly popular across the country.

Today, a revolution in autonomy for schools is taking place, but it seems to me that it is taking place despite obstacles, so I ask the Government please to work more closely with the co-operative movement in establishing new free schools and helping academies to become co-op trusts. Will they bring forward the co-operatives Bill and will they look closely at the hon. Lady’s proposals? I am sure that Ministers will be welcome at Cressex school if they wish to see how it works in practice.

The Government ought just to do the right thing. Principles of co-operation entrench liberty and civil society. They produce self-esteem, confidence and resilience. They are evidently popular with the public. The Government should now move heaven and earth to liberate the co-operative spirit in education.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

From the sparkling Steve Baker to the fragrant Meg Munn.

Information for Backbenchers on Statements

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Steve Baker

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he, too, makes a representation to the Procedure Committee. The difficulty that we all face is that if the Government were to make all announcements on the Floor of the House, there would not be much time left for other business—Government or otherwise. The difficulty is striking the right balance between the most important policy announcements and the others.

We saw a very good example of that today on the occasion of the urgent question about the Office for Tax Simplification. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Exchequer Secretary had very good intentions in releasing a written ministerial statement, but as a humble Back Bencher I must express my personal view that on a day when we were discussing Treasury matters, it would have made sense for him to come to the House to make an oral statement.

The difficulty faced by my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary lay in the need to achieve the right balance between what is a really important statement and what is not. Today Mr Speaker rightly accepted an urgent question because he felt that it concerned a matter that he felt needed to be discussed on the Floor of the House. However, I think that if we can clarify the protocol, with the guidance of the Procedure Committee and input from hon. Members, the Exchequer Secretary, if faced with a similar situation in the future, will be crystal clear about what should be announced on the Floor of the House and what should be released in the form of a written ministerial statement. That is an illustration of the fact that the present system is not working properly.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am put in mind of, I think, Pericles in Athens. He said that while only a few might originate a policy, anyone could judge it. Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on where we are more broadly in our country in terms of the internet? Nowadays, when a policy is announced anyone can indeed judge it, and can immediately start to communicate about it. Could my hon. Friend perhaps put that in the context of the House of Commons?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is clearly better educated than I, especially in the classics, and I commend him for that. He has also made a very good point. As well as 24-hour news media, we now have the internet and all its ramifications.

I do not particularly mind how people comment on Government policy announcements. I do not mind whether they do so by means of a written note, internet traffic or any other means, as long as the House hears about the policy first. I want the Press Gallery to be full. When an important announcement is made by, say, a Minister from the Department for Transport, the Press Gallery is full because members of the press want to hear the news on the Floor of the House first. When it is pre-released to the media, the Gallery is empty.

I have spoken for too long—[Hon. Members: “No, no!”] I shall take those expressions of mock affection as they were intended.

I want to end my speech not by being teacher’s pet, but by genuinely saying to you, Mr Speaker, that many of us who are in the Chamber and many Members who are not present genuinely admire what you have done with regard to statements. I want to reprise what you said two days after your election as Speaker, because I consider it to be important and a good base on which to proceed. On 24 June last year, Sir, you said:

“Just before we move on to the main business, I want to make a brief statement of just three points. First, as I said on Monday, when Ministers have key policy statements to make, the House must be the first to hear them, and they should not be released beforehand. Secondly, in statements, I ask the Front Benchers to stick to their allotted times. I also ask that the Back-Bench Members taking part each confine themselves to one, brief supplementary question. In the same vein, I hope that Ministers’ replies will be kept to a reasonable length. Finally, I always expect that those speaking in this Chamber will be heard, so that an atmosphere of calm, reasoned debate is maintained.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 797.]

It is possible that not all those boxes have been ticked—and if so, it is probably largely the fault of us Back Benchers—but your central point, Sir, about the need to ensure that policy announcements are made to the people’s representatives first on the Floor of the House, was absolutely spot on. It is the job of this motion, and of subsequent action, to ensure that we bring that about.