Car Production: Solihull

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing this debate, although I must confess I am a little disappointed because, when I came into the Chamber, I saw lots of people, who I thought had come to listen to this debate. I thought, “Perhaps it is because of Jaguar.” Jaguars are known as “supertoys” by many people. Members may aspire to owning them and I can strongly recommend them. I have had a little indication that Madam Deputy Speaker may have a product manufactured by this company. So if representatives from the company are listening, I can say that we do have her endorsement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And the Minister.

[Richard Harrington]

And indeed myself, although not at taxpayers’ expense. In addition, it is not a “supertoy”; it is a more modest model.

Tonight’s subject is very important and I wish to thank other Members who have contributed. Jaguar Land Rover has an excellent group of MPs in the area, and I was pleased to meet them last week to discuss the announcement that was made. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) shaking his head. I do hope I have not affronted him if I have not met him—most Members were there. If I have, I really apologise and I will make sure he is always invited.

Good Work Plan

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the Dickensian and Edwardian eras. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we consider the Mines and Collieries Act 1842 that took children out of mines and collieries, the Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act 1875 that cleared the slums and paved the way for the Peabody Trust homes that are loved to this day, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 that imposed a duty on employers to compensate workers injured at work, this is the party—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is a statement. We do not have heckling during a statement. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question, and then everyone will have a chance to ask their questions in the same way.

Fuel Poverty

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House will be aware that this is a necessarily short debate. I hope that we will manage without a formal time limit, but I advise Members who wish to take part to prepare around five minutes of speaking notes, and no more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid that I was over-optimistic about the five minutes. We will need to have a time limit, and it has to be three minutes.

Carillion

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will now have a time limit of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Clearly the House wants the Minister to have time to respond to the matters that have been raised in the debate. Therefore, there will now be a time limit of three minutes.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I cannot possibly deliver my speech in three minutes, but I will do my best.

I am pleased to be able to speak in this significant debate on an issue that marks a turning point in Britain’s politics and economics. The collapse of Carillion should see the end of a huge policy mistake—the dogma-driven tragedy of the privatising, outsourcing and marketising of our public services. It is now time to accept that mistake, and to begin the process of rebuilding the public utilities and public services established in the early post-war decades that underpinned the enormous social advances achieved in those times.

The neoliberal economic model has brought political and economic instability, slower and erratic growth rates, and greater inequality—a world where the mega-wealthy and unconstrained private banking and corporate power have prospered at the expense of the rest of us. The death knell for neoliberalism was sounded by the 2008 crisis, when a catastrophic financial collapse was prevented only by spending billions of taxpayers’ cash to prop up the corrupt and out-of-control banking system. But the Frankenstein’s monster did not quite die then, and has limped along for another decade despite financial scandals and failures, with the public purse being ripped off time and again. The collapse of Carillion is one more nail in the coffin of the monster, but it is still not dead. It is time to ensure that it finally dies, and soon.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which is an excellent Committee with a first-class Chair and brilliant staff. As we have heard, the Committee has just produced its own report, which is very well written and contains much good material, but I was unable to support it because it did not draw the obvious conclusion that the drive to outsource and privatise—to hand vast sums of public money to grasping private companies through PFI schemes and outsourcing—has been an enormous and costly mistake, driven by ideology and not the public interest. We should have said in the report that PFI should be abandoned forthwith, and that the process of insourcing should be supported and accelerated.

The report says:

“PFI financing costs more than government financing because the state can borrow at a cheaper rate than the private sector. While we are confident that PFI costs more than conventional procurement, neither…the National Audit Office nor the Public Accounts Committee can find any evidence of the benefits the Government claims”.

This is pretty damning, but the report stops short of saying that PFI should be stopped now and for good and confined to the dustbin of history.

We have been here before—long before Carillion—with the collapse of Jarvis 14 years ago. At that time, I put a question to the then Prime Minister in the following terms:

“My right hon. Friend will be aware that the private finance initiative contractor, Jarvis, has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for weeks now. This is putting at risk a large number of school repair schemes and other public sector works. Would he not think it sensible, given that Jarvis’s share price has now collapsed to junk levels, to buy out all those public sector schemes, get them done in the public sector, and save billions of pounds of public money?”—[Official Report, 14 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1408.]

As hon. Members may have guessed, I received no sensible answer. Now, 14 years on, we have Carillion, and the present Government are still persisting with the failed models of privatisation, including the appalling PFI.

Some public authorities are beginning to insource, with significant financial and service benefits, but the drive to privatise continues, especially in the national health service. The failures of the model are legion, from prisons to probation, and from long-term care to smaller issues such as building control. But perhaps the greatest—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

Energy Policy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Secretary of State has been very thorough in answering questions but, as the House can see, a great many people wish to ask questions. We have about 20 minutes left for the statement, which will allow everyone to get in if we can have just short questions and short answers.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I have to say that this is a sad day for Swansea, for Gloucester—the home of Tidal Lagoon Power plc—and, indeed, for other innovative sources of marine energy more widely. Since the project was entirely financed by entrepreneurs and institutional investors, not by the Government, the only real point of argument was the price at which the Government were prepared to buy the energy through the grid. Will the Secretary of State tell us at what price he would have approved the Swansea project? Will he also confirm that his Department will lay out a programme of how it will develop a real strategy for taking forward tidal and other forms of marine energy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And finally, the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Tonia Antoniazzi.

Retail Sector

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I hope that in a good-natured debate of this kind, we can get through the afternoon without a formal time limit. This is always an experiment, but I am going to ask hon. Members please not to exceed seven minutes in their speeches. If they do, then all they are doing is squeezing the time for someone else to take part in the debate. Of course I appreciate that some Members do not want other Members to have a say, but I want everyone to have an equal go at their arguments. Therefore, if seven minutes is exceeded, I will have to put on a formal time limit. I call Derek Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman did very well in keeping to his seven minutes, but I am now imposing a formal limit of seven minutes to make sure that everyone’s time is protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid I must now reduce the time limit to six minutes.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 11, in the schedule, leave out ‘parent’ and insert ‘primary care giver’.

This amendment would widen the provision to include those who are not ‘parents’ but were the main carer of the deceased child.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 11, after ‘parent’, insert

‘or grandparent where they were the primary carer of the child.’

This amendment would widen the provision to include grandparents where they were the primary carer of the deceased child.

Amendment 3, page 2, leave out line 22.

This amendment would remove the ability to set the period within which the leave may be taken.

Amendment 22, page 2, line 22, at end insert,

“, including arrangements for taking the entitled leave at different points within the period specified in subsection (6).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations on parental bereavement leave provide flexibility on when the entitled leave can be taken.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 25, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘four’.

This amendment would increase the minimum time off from work from two to four weeks.

Amendment 5, page 2, leave out lines 26 to 28.

This amendment would remove any deadline for when the leave must be taken.

Amendment 23, page 2, line 27, leave out ‘56 days’ and insert ‘52 weeks’.

This amendment would extend the period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks

Amendment 6, page 3, line 1, leave out

‘“child” means a person under the age of 18;’.

This amendment would mean that parental bereavement leave would apply to a child of any age, not just those below the age of 18.

Amendment 24, page 3, line 1, leave out from ‘a’ to end of line 3 and insert

‘son or daughter of any age’.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement leave, to a son or daughter of any age.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 11, after ‘absence,’ insert ‘save for remuneration’.

This amendment would make clear that the employee is not entitled to contractual pay for the leave.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 18, leave out

‘a job of a kind prescribed by regulations,’

and insert

‘the job in which they were employed before their absence,’.

Amendment 11, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 17.

This amendment would remove the power to make regulations providing for notices, or make provision for any consequences as a result of failing to give notice, or failure to keep records of notice or comply with other procedural requirements.

Amendment 10, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10.

This amendment would remove the requirement to give any notice to take leave.

Amendment 9, page 4, line 8, after ‘about’ insert ‘reasonable’.

This amendment would create a requirement of giving a reasonable notice period before taking the leave.

Amendment 12, page 5, line 9, leave out ‘parent’ and insert ‘primary care giver’.

This amendment would widen the provision to include those who are not ‘parents’ but were the main carer of the deceased child.

Amendment 13, page 5, line 11, leave out from ‘employer’ to end of line 12.

This amendment would remove the qualifying period to make the pay element a day one right.

Amendment 15, page 5, leave out from the start of line 40 to the end of line 2 on page 6.

This amendment would remove the requirement to give notice, and how to give notice in order to receive parental bereavement pay.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 44, after ‘which’ insert ‘reasonable’.

This amendment would require the individual to give a reasonable amount of notice for taking bereavement pay.

Amendment 17, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

“(3) Employers must accept notice given in writing, face to face, by telephone or through a third party on behalf of the bereaved parent.”

This amendment would remove the requirement to give notice in writing, allowing this to be given in conversation or through a third party on their behalf.

Amendment 18, page 6, leave out from start of line 48 to end of line 2 on page 7.

This amendment would remove the liability of HMRC to pay statutory bereavement pay.

Amendment 19, page 7, line 13, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘four’.

This amendment would increase the payment for bereavement pay from a minimum of two to four weeks.

Amendment 20, page 7, leave out lines 18 to 21.

This amendment would remove the requirement for bereavement pay to be paid within at least 56 days.

Amendment 21, page 9, line 18, leave out

‘“child” means a person under the age of 18’.

This amendment would mean that parental bereavement pay would apply to a child of any age, not just those below the age of 18.

Amendment 25, page 9, line 18, leave out from ‘a’ to end of line 20 and insert

‘son or daughter of any age’.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement pay, to a son or daughter of any age.

[Kevin Foster]

It makes a change to be called first in a Friday debate. [Interruption] Yes, or ever. I usually have to wait for at least three or four hours before being called.

First, let me make it clear that I fully support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and I have no intention of attempting to make a monumentally long speech to talk it out. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and I wish to test some of the provisions, particularly in the schedule. We do not propose amendments to the two main clauses; our amendments are only to the schedule, as we would like to hear a bit more about some aspects of it and to test the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Minister to some of our amendments.

This is a simple Bill; it has just two clauses, one of which is the title clause. However, the attached schedule requires further debate and scrutiny on the Floor of the House. I should make it clear that no employee in the country would ever want to benefit from the Bill’s provisions, as it addresses what would undoubtedly be one of the most difficult periods in anyone’s life; all parents and grandparents will want to see their children and grandchildren live long and happy lives. However, it is to be welcomed that the House is talking about this subject today, and we hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading and head off to the other place. The Bill demonstrates how MPs can in this place draw on their personal experiences to make a difference for others who might have to deal with similar experiences. I accept that some of the issues we will be discussing today might have been debated in the Bill Committee, but, sadly, I was not lucky enough to be selected to serve on it, which is why I raise them on Report.

In the interests of brevity, I will talk about my amendments in groups, according to the themes they cover, rather than go through each one individually. Also, some of the amendments work in combination to offer distinct packages that address particular themes, and in these cases it would not make sense to pass one amendment but not another, as that would create odd law.

The amendments cover four distinct themes. The first deals with people who act as the parent but are not the biological parent, such as a primary carer who has picked up the reins when things go wrong; that is addressed by my amendments 1 and 2 and amendment 12 from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. The second theme is the issue of when leave may be taken, given that some people might wish to work in the immediate aftermath of losing a child but subsequently find that grief requires them to take time off at a slightly later date; not everyone reacts in the same way. This area is addressed by my amendments 3 and 5, amendments 22 and 23 in the name of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and amendments 15, 16, 17 and 20 from my hon. Friend.

The third theme involves the requirement to give notice and, given the nature of this provision, my proposal for a requirement to give reasonable notice instead. This is covered in my amendments 9, 10 and 11. The fourth theme relates to the cut-off created by the 18th birthday and the proposals to change the definition of a child so that the provisions refer not only to sons and daughters under the age of 18. This is covered by amendments 6, 24 and 21. Finally there are three more amendments that I will speak to specifically: amendments 4, 7 and 8.

I shall start with the first theme. Sometimes, the person acting as a parent is not the biological parent. They could be a primary carer who has picked up the reins when things have gone wrong. Amendments 1, 2 and 12 cover this area. I think that we would all agree that parenting is not just about biology. It is not just about who has physically created a child, as we see with egg and sperm donor births. My concern is that if the Bill is passed without amendment to the schedule, there could be too much focus on the parent, rather than on the person who has done the parenting by looking after the child, bringing them up and loving and caring for them. The amendments will make it clearer that this is about the primary care giver—the person who is acting as the parent. I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s views on this and those of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington). We would not want to get into a situation where the person or couple who were acting as the parents could not take time off, yet an estranged biological parent could do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the Minister for his very clear representation of the Bill and his responses to the amendments, which I will not cover in great detail because he did an excellent job of that. I also thank the small business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), for all his work in taking this Bill forward. He cannot be here today, but I know he very much wanted to be present to see the Bill, hopefully, through its final stages.

I also thank all Members who have contributed today and throughout the passage of the Bill. We have heard excellent speeches that have helped to shape the Bill. I thank in particular those Members who have been willing to share their personal experiences; there is nothing better to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose as it goes through this House and the other place than hearing from Members from both sides of the House who have suffered such experiences. I have been lucky in my life, as I have four very healthy children. We have had a few mishaps along the way, but nothing along the lines of a stillbirth or the loss of a child. It amazes me—I find it inspirational—that Members are able to talk about their experiences in this Chamber.

I have had experiences from another relevant perspective—as an employer. Prior to entering this House I was an employer for 25 years, and I am still associated with the business. A number of people who worked for us have suffered these terrible tragedies, and I cannot think it ever entered our minds that we would not give people the leave that they needed for as long as they needed it, and to pay them without any deduction from their normal pay. That is the approach we have always taken, and I absolutely believe that it is the approach that the vast majority of employers in this country take, too. It is important to recognise that all the proposals and amendments are, understandably, trying to deal with the minority—the one in 10 who do not do the right thing—but those contributions are nevertheless incredibly important.

I want to thank a number of people individually. The first of them must be my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I am definitely the baton-carrier —if that is the right expression—for this Bill, as he brought forward a very similar Bill in the last Parliament but could not get it through in time. We absolutely would not have this Bill without him. Thousands of parents every year suffer these tragedies, so this is a hugely important proposal.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for all her contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who cannot be here today but I know would have wanted to be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am listening carefully to what he is saying, and while of course he can thank his colleagues and other hon. Members as often as he wishes—I have no objection; that is perfectly in order—I gently remind him that at the moment he should be addressing the amendments that we have been dealing with since 9.35 this morning. Once he has done that and we come to the end of this process, we will go on to Third Reading, when it is customary for the thanks to come, but of course the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his thanks more than once, and there is nothing wrong with that. If he does so more than twice or three times, I will have to say he is being repetitive, but I never discourage courtesy in this place—I am merely pointing him in this direction.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very grateful for that informative interruption to my remarks. I was going to move on to the amendments, but the contributions of my colleagues and Opposition Members have helped to inform the discussion around them. However, of course I will respect your views, Madam Deputy Speaker, and move on now to the amendments themselves.

The principal amendments on which most of the debate has been focused are those dealing with the definition of a bereaved parent: amendments 1, 2, 12 and 14. My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) talked about primary care givers and grandparents. We have had a number of contributions on this matter, not only from hon. Members but from charities and individuals who have contacted me on Facebook. We had a Facebook debate on the issue, in which Nicky Clifford said that she wanted the measure to extend to grandparents when they were the child’s primary carer. Mrs Clifford felt that the grandparents had suffered a double loss when her son died. The charity Together for Short Lives said that the right to leave should be extended to legal guardians, as did the Rainbow Trust, which also mentioned foster carers. There is certainly a wide breadth of opinion on how the regulations should be set, hence the need for a consultation. The Government are consulting on these issues now, and the consultation should come to an end at 11.45 pm on 8 June. I urge all Members to make submissions to the consultation on the definition of a parent before that is set in regulations.

The other key amendments were amendments 3, 5, 20 and 23, which relate to the window during which leave can be taken. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about the shock and disbelief that is felt when these things happen. Of course every case is entirely different, so it is absolutely right that we should be flexible. The same point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Mid Dorset and North Poole. This was the principal area into which charities had an input. Faye Williams said on Facebook that her partner had been allowed two weeks leave, but that the funeral was not arranged in time within that window. Louise Wright said that her son’s inquest was in October, five months after he had passed away. Cruse Bereavement Care said that the leave entitlement should be spread over a longer period of 52 weeks. Interestingly, one of the bereaved mothers who made a submission to the consultation through Cruse stated:

“When my child was born, I was entitled to a year off, but when he died I wasn’t entitled to a day off.”

That is an excellent reason for bringing forward this Bill.

We need to take all these things into account. It is right that there should be a baseline minimum—amendment 5 would take out that minimum—but it is also right that we should look to increase it. I am certainly sympathetic to increasing it from eight weeks to a longer period of perhaps six or 12 months. I am sure that the Minister will listen to such representations. However, we also need to keep the legislation simple for reasons of administration, and for the sake of the businesses that deal with these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked about whether the leave needed to be taken as a two-week block. This is really about HMRC’s systems, but we would expect employers to be more flexible. On the point about extending the period of pay from two weeks to four weeks, we would need to look at the costs involved. The Bill has been carefully costed, and the cost to the Treasury will be £3.2 million per annum. The taxpayer will pay for the statutory pay, but employers will pay as well. The annual cost to businesses will be around £2.6 million, and we need to take that into account.

Amendments 6, 24, 21 and 25 focus on the age limit, and we had some good contributions on this point. From a parent’s perspective, there is no difference between the grief for someone who was 18 and that for someone who was 19. I quite understand that, and we had a number of similar submissions from the charities on this point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) mentioned this, but we need more discussion about the 24-week cut-off point between miscarriage and stillbirth, and the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) seeks to consider that issue. There must be a cut-off somewhere, and our friends at the Treasury certainly want to know exactly what the proposals will cost. We have already passed the money resolution, so I suggest to hon. Members that now is not the right time to try to amend the Bill in that way.

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive, informed and human contributions. I politely suggest that Members do not press their amendments to a Division so that we ensure that the Bill can proceed.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the urgent question on the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review earlier on, which had been published at 8 am on Friday 4 May with no press releases or advance copies in the middle of the local election results, the Minister of State for Care said:

“It is an independent document and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday without permission from or any kind of communication with the Department of Health and Social Care.”

However, the Secretary of State had told the House in December 2016:

“As the programme develops, all learnings will be transferred to the national avoidable mortality programme. I have today asked the LeDeR programme to provide annual reports to the Department of Health on its findings”—[Official Report, 13 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 622.]

What the Minister of State said today cuts directly across what the Secretary of State told the House, which was that he intended annual reports to be made to the Department of Health. Since our urgent question, the programme itself has clarified this on social media. It said that following claims made by the Care Minister in Parliament,

“we would like to clarify that @NHSEngland chose when to publish the #Leder report and directed all communications.”

Given that clarification from the programme itself, has the Minister of State or the Secretary of State asked to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady wishes to put her point on the record and, by raising a point of order, she has done so. I am quite certain that the Treasury Bench will have taken note of what she has said. She, like all Members of this House, will know that it is not a matter for the Chair what an individual Minister says at the Dispatch Box. Therefore, I cannot give her any ruling on the matter, but she has sought to put her point on the record, and she has succeeded in doing so.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to Criminal Legal Aid Remuneration may continue, though opposed, for 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Higher Education

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ben Bradley]

I am going to crack on and finish because I am nearly done.

Moving on from fees, without this agreement there is a risk that universities will not receive crucial grant funding. These transitional regulations enable the OfS to allocate £1.3 billion of teaching grants. Without this legislation, there would be no means to give out those grants and no provision to offer access agreements to support disadvantaged students in the next academic year.

I understand that the Opposition have reservations about how the OfS board has been set up and about appointments to it, but this is not the place to raise such issues. Those decisions have already been made, and their actions risk—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. It is no use everybody shouting at him, because we cannot hear what he is saying.

[Ben Bradley]

I have one line left, so I am nearly there.

The Opposition’s actions risk creating a regulatory gap in the higher education sector and uncertainty for both students and universities. Ultimately, it is that uncertainty that we are trying to avoid, which is why I am supporting the Government today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman has already had his chance. Establishing a single regulator, which brings together the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. People have been asking questions of the Minister all evening and now they are not listening to his answers.

[Mr Gyimah]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you make a fine Chair.

Establishing a single regulator, which brings together the regulatory functions of HEFCE in relation to teaching in higher education with the statutory remit of the Director of Fair Access, delivers a significant change in ownership of responsibility for widening access and participation. It brings together the powers, duties, expertise and resources under the collective responsibility of the OfS and allows for a smooth and orderly transition.

In conclusion, during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act, Members across the House debated long and hard the future of higher education. Irrespective of different views about how we finance higher education or how it should be regulated, there will always be an imperative to ensure that students are getting a high-quality experience and positive outcomes from the time and effort they put into their education. This Government firmly believe that giving students real and well-informed choices is the most effective way to achieve that, and that the regulatory system should be designed to support healthy competition on a level playing field.

In attempting to annul these regulations, the Opposition are proving that they have no desire to give students more information, protection, choice or value for their money, and that they will bring nothing other than chaos and confusion for students and providers alike. While I am dismayed that the Opposition prayed against these regulations and did not even utter one sentence about them, I urge the House to vote for this important champion of students.

Question put.

Industrial Strategy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, let me say that it will be obvious that a great many Members—I have indications from more than 20 people—wish to speak this afternoon, and there is limited time. I therefore give a warning now, so that colleagues who wish to speak can tailor their notes accordingly, that there will be a time limit of six minutes to start with, but that is likely to be reduced later. That provides plenty of warning, but the time limit does not of course apply to Rebecca Long Bailey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George]

I met many businesses in my constituency last week. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that several of them are already having to move trade to EU countries because they are worried about the cost of a visa system when they cannot guarantee that they will hang on to the staff they pay for, the ending of preferential tariffs at the EU rate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech; she is also taking away from the time for other Members.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend made some pertinent points and I will talk about skills shortly, and the extreme worry that many of our business leaders across the country have voiced about both Brexit and the quality and adequacy of the supply we have currently in the UK.

Returning to the problems that are a barometer of the issues in our economy, will the Minister update us in his summing up on the Government’s rabbit-in-the-headlights approach to the risks currently faced by our steel industry as a result of recent discussions and the global crisis of overcapacity and dumping? This Government have been in power for eight years—the best part of a decade—and they must own these problems if they are to make any progress; they must own the fact that they have not solved the five problems I outlined earlier, and that instead they have festered.

The Secretary of State and I are in clear agreement on the need for an effective industrial strategy. I applauded the Government for adopting to some extent Labour’s mission-orientated policy approach and the Secretary of State outlined the challenges again today, but I am afraid that this is where the consensus ends. As I set out late last year, the detail and investment proposed in the industrial strategy White Paper simply did not match the surrounding rhetoric and fell far short of what was needed truly to boost our economy. Indeed, a Government source was recently quoted as saying:

“It’s all perfectly worthy, who could oppose any of it? But there is no money, and even if there was, no one has a decent idea of what to do with it.”

So for the benefit of the House let us look briefly at a few key snippets again.

The Secretary of State touched on innovation. Raising total R&D investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 is certainly better than where we were, but the UK has been below the OECD average of 2.4% of GDP for years, and we are way behind world leaders who spend over 3% such as Japan, South Korea, Finland and Sweden. Why are we simply aiming for average? It must also be noted that the R&D investment of many of our regions and nations is also well below average. Over half of all research funding goes to the south-east, for example.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I just cannot contain my anger: settle for average? We have some of the best universities on the planet in this country and investment by this Government in some of the most world-leading, cutting-edge technology. I visited Birmingham university and saw its work on quantum computing; it is absolutely world-leading. We are not average at all, and it is so dismissive of this country to say we would settle for average; we are excellent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making a speech either, but I think the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) has got his point.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very passionately, but I do not think he has really listened to what I have been saying. We are certainly—[Interruption.] Please! If Government Members would listen rather than chunter, they might actually learn something.

We are far from average, as these comments from the Commission on Economic Justice illustrate quite articulately:

“We have vast ingenuity and creativity among our people, where enterprise and industry have deep roots going back to the Industrial Revolution. Many of the most important scientific discoveries in human history have taken place in Britain, advancing not only this country but also the entirety of humanity.”

We are far from average—I agree with the comments that the hon. Gentleman made in a, shall we say, quite haphazard and incoherent way—so why should we have to trail behind the world and settle for mediocrity from this Government in terms of investment in research and development?