Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Tim Loughton and Michelle Donelan

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am so pleased that the Secretary of State is placing great emphasis on AI. When I was a child growing up on a farm, AI stood for artificial insemination—a somewhat messier affair than what we know it as today.

Far from what the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) was saying about the standard of living in this country, many international investors do come to London because of the quality of life. The disincentive is that we do not reward risk enough and it is still too difficult to raise money on the London capital markets for some of these emerging industries. It is great that the Government are putting in seed funding, but we also need to make it much easier and more attractive for private business to put their money where their mouth is.

[Michelle Donelan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s latter point; obviously, when I was referring to AI, I was not talking about what he described to start with. We will continue to work across Government to ensure that we are attracting companies to locate in the UK and create British jobs.

With unique freedoms, ARIA will be able to empower extraordinary people who have a radical vision for a positive approach and positive change for our country. We are a nation of inventors—from the toaster to the television and from tarmac to teabags, we have never been short of good ideas. This rich history of invention and extraordinary research must, of course, be backed to ensure that it continues and that we continue to grow our economy.

As I have emphasised, it is vital that everyone, no matter where they live, has the opportunity to play their part in Britain’s innovation economy. That is why the Chancellor announced the creation of 12 investment zones, to supercharge growth in some of the most exciting areas of the economy, from digital and tech to life sciences and advanced manufacturing. The zones will be clustered around a university or research institution and bring growth to areas that have traditionally underperformed economically. Each new zone will be backed by £80 million of investment over five years.

We have also established the Innovation Accelerator programme, investing £110 million into 26 transformative R&D projects to accelerate the growth of three high-potential innovation clusters—from new health and medical technologies in Birmingham, to productivity-enhancing AI in Manchester and the development of quantum technologies for cleaner and more efficient manufacturing in Glasgow. By bringing universities, local leaders and businesses together, those projects will drive regional economic growth and provide a vital boost to the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

The Chancellor also rightly paid special attention to regulation in the Budget. Smarter, pro-innovation regulation will ensure that we continue to attract and grow the most promising start-ups and scale-ups. Once again, the Budget put the money where it counts. We announced £10 million of extra funding in the next two years for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, helping it to become the most innovative healthcare regulator in the world, to support our life sciences sector and our NHS—and most importantly, to save lives.

The Chancellor also accepted all nine recommendations of the Vallance review on regulating digital technologies, to ensure that we have a coherent, agile and flexible regulatory approach. We need to minimise undue burdens on businesses and grow the economy. That includes the creation of AI sandboxes, which will support the innovative regulatory approaches that we need to drive forward the responsible and safe development of artificial intelligence. We will take that forward in our forthcoming AI White Paper, which will set out our proportionate and pro-innovation approach to regulating AI—designed to make sure that the UK is the best place in the world to develop and deploy AI.

Finally, the Chancellor shares my view that international collaboration has a critical role to play in ensuring that Britain can continue to deliver world-leading research. We welcome the EU’s recent openness to discussions on Horizon association, following two years of unfortunate delay. On 14 March, just last week, I met Pedro Serrano, the EU’s ambassador to the UK, to discuss collaboration on science and research, including the Horizon Europe programme. The Government will continue to back our research community, which is why we have extended the Horizon guarantee and are clear that we will not let our researchers wait another two years for certainty.

This Government are unashamedly pro-growth and pro-business. Even after the corporation tax rise this April, we will have the lowest headline rate in the G7. Only 10% of companies will pay the full 25% rate. It is particularly vital that we support the businesses that are investing in research and development and bringing those science and technology benefits to the British public. That is why loss-making SMEs for which qualifying R&D expenditure constitutes at least 40% of total expenditure will now be able to claim a higher payable credit rate of 14.5% for qualifying R&D expenditure. Our life sciences and tech sectors are expected to be among some of the main beneficiaries of the changes, enabling those crucial companies to drive sustainable growth and jobs in the years to come.

This is not just about giving growth a short-term boost: we have a long-term plan for building an economy fit for the future. That is why the Chancellor also announced that the capital allowances super-deduction will be replaced with full expensing of capital allowances for three years, with a move to make that permanent as soon as possible. That will ensure that the UK’s capital allowances regime is world-leading, as the only major European economy to have such a policy.

Before I conclude, I pay tribute to the millions of people who work in our science, innovation and technology sectors, who are working to change our lives for the better every single day. Budgets are not about Government but about real people who have real families and real jobs that they have to think about. They are looking to this place today, and they want to see that we know what matters to them and are prepared to invest in the things that deliver on our country’s priorities. They want more time with their loved ones. They want to be able to travel safer, faster and cleaner than the generation before us. They want higher-quality jobs, stronger borders, and cleaner and greener towns and cities. These are the things that motivate us to become a science and technology superpower. It is not about status or achieving goals for their own sake, but about making British people happier, healthier, smarter and more prosperous. This is a Budget that puts those priorities at the heart of Government and delivers. I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tim Loughton and Michelle Donelan

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to support the research and development sector.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)]

Backed by our commitment to increasing public expenditure on research and development to £20 billion by 2024-25, we have launched our plan to cement the UK’s place as a science and technology superpower by 2030, fostering the right conditions for industry, innovation and world-leading research.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the futures of so many companies, and thousands of UK jobs, were at stake. My Department worked tirelessly with the Treasury to facilitate a solution. In doing so, we have protected our life sciences and tech sectors, which not only drive economic growth across the country but deliver life-saving products.

[Tim Loughton]

Research and development is particularly resource intensive and in need of raising capital, so what are the Government doing to help tech and life science companies raise money on the London markets, which has been few and far between recently?

[Michelle Donelan]

We are committed to making the UK the most attractive place for innovation and businesses to start and grow. The Treasury has made significant reforms to improve London as a listing destination, and we continue to engage with sectors to secure the most innovative companies in the UK stock exchange.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tim Loughton and Michelle Donelan

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

We recognise that raising educational standards is absolutely key to levelling up opportunity, providing £14 billion in over three years, the biggest uplift to school funding in a decade, investing it in early years education and targeting more than £3 billion in recovery funding. That is why, compared with 2009-10, the proportion achieving A-levels and equivalent improved across all ethnic groups, with the largest improvement in the black and black British ethnic group.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between Tim Loughton and Michelle Donelan

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

I understand that it is a worthy cause, but it is different from enabling people to have their relationship recognised by the state. There are clear financial disadvantages and implications in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. I entirely sympathise with his view and I think that the injustice needs to be dealt with, but I do not propose to deal with it at this stage in my Bill. Doing so would make the Bill even more complicated than it already is. In addition, it is highly likely that the long title of the Bill will need to be amended in Committee, particularly to reflect the change that will be required to the electronic record of marriage certificates.

Let me start with the extension of civil partnerships to include opposite-sex couples. The 2004 Act was long overdue, and it was enthusiastically supported by me and the great majority of hon. Members from all parts of the House. At its heart, the Act tackled a clear obstacle to equal rights for loving couples who just happened to be of the same sex.

Subsequently, the House decided in 2013 that it was time for equal marriage. That has happened, the skies have not caved in and we have moved on. I certainly do not want to reopen the bruising debates that we had at the time, especially across my party. However, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 gave rise to an unintended new inequality, and it is surely time for equal civil partnerships—a natural extension that was supported across all parties when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was introduced and that has just as much support now. In the consultation that the Government conducted before the introduction of that Bill, 61% of respondents were in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Alas, for some inexplicable reason, the proposal never made it into the Act. If it had done, the Act would have been better; that is why change is necessary today.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many people entered that consultation?

[Tim Loughton]

Quite a lot, although I have not got the figures. The consultation was one of two, and the result of the second consultation was different. As a result, no action was taken, but this is clearly unfinished business.

[Michelle Donelan]

To help my hon. Friend, the second consultation had only just over 11,000 entries. One could argue that that is not representative of the population or a gauge of public opinion.

[Tim Loughton]

Given that there are 3.2 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples, it is a very small proportion of those who might be affected, so this is unfinished business. More than 80,000 people have signed a petition in favour of the change, and that is a small indication of the demand that exists.

There are three main rationales for supporting the measure. First, it will correct the unintended but glaring inequality that results from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, whereby same-sex couples are entitled to continue in a civil partnership, take up a civil partnership or enjoy the recent extension of marriage while opposite-sex couples have only the single option of conventional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair, and it gives rise to an inequality in an Act that was billed as promoting equality.

Secondly, a positive reason for pushing forward with the Bill is family stability. As a former children’s Minister, that has always been at the top of my priority list. According to the latest estimate, there are some 3.2 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country. That is more than 4,900 couples per parliamentary constituency, and it is about double the figure that was reported just 15 years ago. Those couples are responsible for more than 2 million children. Some 53% of birth registrations are to married parents, but about a third are to unmarried parents who are living together.

Cohabitation is the fastest growing form of family in this country, whether we like it or not. We need to recognise that our society is changing and we need to adapt in order to promote family stability, in whatever form, to provide a continuum that gives children the best and most stable start in life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I apologise for spoiling the hon. Gentleman’s tweet, but I do not agree with him. Other Members have yet to speak, so I will make the case in the rest of my speech. I am sure I will answer him in full. Marriage is ended by divorce, whereas civil partnerships are ended by a dissolution, which is just as lengthy a process. We need to be clear about that, because some assume that it is easy to dissolve a civil partnership—it is not. There is no difference, other than that adultery cannot be cited as a reason for civil partnerships to dissolve—that is not a case for expanding them further. They both offer legal recognition of a relationship, they are symbolic, they are acts of union, and one does not have financial benefit over the other. Civil partnerships do not act as a form of additional co-habitation rights; they are legally the same as marriage.

Some say that civil partnerships are a modern alternative to marriage, and I recognise that argument, yet they are basically the same. It is important that we educate people about that and do not mis-sell the point. I have spoken to a number of people who have a civil partnership and they find it offensive to suggest these things are not the same. Nor are civil partnerships a stepping stone for couples who are not ready to marry; they are marriage but with a different name. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding that we need to address in the review.

Another point to make is that civil partnerships are not cheaper. That argument has not been made in today’s debate but I have heard it before. Weddings and civil partnerships can cost as much as people make them cost. Another argument used for the Bill is the claim that people can be put off by the word “marriage” and the connotations, social pressures and expectations of what it represents. Do we really believe that a significant number of people choose not to marry because of the word “marriage”, but are absolutely fine to make all the same legal and financial commitments when the name is different? The connotations, social pressures and expectations around marriage often exist because it is seen as something permanent and something that can end badly, but that is equally true of a civil partnership. As time progresses and more and more people have them, that will become known. So in a few years’ time will we offer a third option and then a fourth? It is also important to note that amending the eligibility criteria for entering a civil partnership would cost at least £3.3 million to £4.4 million, so the option on the table is not exactly cheap.

Another key aspect we must consider is the level of demand. That is particularly pertinent and the review will highlight it, which is why I strongly support having a review and a consultation. As lots of Members have said, two consultations have already taken place, but on the whole there was very little input from people. That suggests that there is potentially a lack of demand in this area, but we need a further review to examine that. In addition, no clear consensus was established.

Since the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples, the number of civil partnerships has fallen dramatically, and there were just over 1,000 formed in the UK in 2016. Between 29 March 2014 and 30 June 2015, 7,732 couples converted their civil partnership into marriage. A key aspect for us to consider in enabling opposite-sex civil partnerships is—

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to her view, but I fundamentally disagree with it. I certainly would not wish to deny those potentially many thousands of couples on the basis of this costing about £3 million. She says there is no difference between civil partnership and marriage, and that it should not be treated any differently. In terms of status, that is right, but why is it that more than 80% of same-sex couples who have committed to a civil partnership do not think that they need to or want to convert that into a marriage? They think a civil partnership is different and more appropriate for them—why does she think they are wrong?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We do completely disagree on this topic. His accusation that 80% of that cohort do not want to convert into marriage because they see it as something unique is a wild one. I have many friends who have a civil partnership and they choose not to convert it because they already have something that is equal—my hon. Friend is therefore backing up my point that a civil partnership is just as good as, if not the same as, marriage; it is a duplication. That is why they do not seek to convert it.

A key thrust of the case for enabling opposite-sex civil partnerships is that it would encourage commitment, helping ensure that families stay together, which all the research shows is advantageous to children—I agree with that sentiment. However, the argument is tenuous. Some 2.9 million different-sex couples living together in the UK are not married. The Equal Civil Partnerships website, which backs this campaign, states that some of those people do not want to make a legal commitment, but civil partnerships are the same thing. It cites the “trappings of the institution” as another reason but, as has been discussed, civil partnerships will effectively morph into an institution. They are the same as a marriage.

Committed relationships tend to last for just that reason—they are committed. If we add another tier, that does not necessarily mean that different people will enter into that commitment. It might actually mean that all we do is split the same pool. I am passionate about enabling and facilitating commitment and helping families to stay together, but the answer is to further promote commitment, study why relationships and families break down, and invest in those areas.