Storm Eunice

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be surprised that I am in a measure of agreement with him. He is absolutely right to warn that extreme weather events could be—I am not saying they will be—a feature of our landscape and climate. As a constituency MP, I remember the floods of 2013-14 and the devastation they caused.

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I launched a review of Storm Arwen, and we have learned many lessons from the interim report. We are committed to conversing with colleagues across Government on a more integrated plan. I am grateful to him for highlighting the extreme weather conditions that many of us may well face in the future.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Thousands of my constituents and others across East Sussex remain not only without electricity but without water. I recognise this is one of the worst storms in decades, and I also recognise the huge amount of work delivered on the ground by the engineers at UK Power Networks and South East Water to try to fix this, but our water supply requires the electricity system to work and it is not good enough that there are no back-up generators in place for the water to be pumped into the hills and other areas across my constituency. May I meet the Secretary of State to discuss how we can have better resilience, with the water companies having their own back-up generators so that people are not without water when the electricity goes down?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and he is right to point out the intolerable difficulties that people face with regard to the water supply. Colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and officials in BEIS are very engaged with this, and I would be happy to speak to him at a convenient time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We have regular conversations with colleagues in DCMS. Some non-disclosure agreements have a commercial benefit, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that inappropriate non-disclosure agreements must be stamped out.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Transport to help support the aviation sector to decarbonise.

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

The Jet Zero Council, which is jointly chaired by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Business and for Transport, brings together industry leaders and the Government to discuss how best to reduce the impact of aviation on our environment. The recently published net zero strategy provides the framework, and the commitment made in the Budget to extend funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute to 2031 demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to making progress on this issue.

[Huw Merriman]

The issue with sustainable aviation fuel is not how to produce it—we can do that—but how to bring the price down so that there is a return on capital and an investment case for it, as there is for renewables. What more can the Government do to support sustainable aviation fuels, and does the Minister agree that we need a global approach to the solution?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the challenges of bringing the cost down, as is the case in so many areas of the net zero strategy, but progress is being made. We are keen to support the development of new technology solutions. He will know that we have set out an ambition for 10% of the UK’s aviation fuel to be SAF by 2030. We recognise the challenge of the cost, but I know that my hon. Friend, in his capacity as Chair of the Transport Committee, has announced an inquiry into the matter; I look forward to working with him and understanding the conclusions and proposals that he puts forward.

Supporting Small Business

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

If the hon. Member does not understand what the Federation of Small Businesses thinks about his Government tearing up their manifesto promise and increasing the burden of national insurance, if he does not understand what small businesses are saying about the impact that Brexit has had on them, if he does not understand that the energy crisis that the United Kingdom still faces, with massively increasing energy costs that then increase costs for every single business on these islands, and if Conservative Members do not understand that all those things are purely the result of their party’s policies, each and every one of which is devastating for the wellbeing of small business, then we have to wonder why on earth they are still in Government.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Perhaps we could mention one example of this Government helping small business: the requirement for outsourcing agencies, such as National Highways and Network Rail, to put a third of all their contracts into the hands of small businesses. Indeed, Network Rail is up to that third already. Is that not a tangible example of this Government doing something to support small businesses?

[Peter Grant]

Well, it was not quite the way that things were done with all the personal protective equipment contracts and other covid contracts. Of course, there is a better way to do it than that. Rather than telling the health service that a fraction of all its privatised contracts have to go to small businesses, why not say to the health service, “Don’t privatise it. Do it yourself.”? The public would get a better, cheaper and more efficient service, which is exactly what we are seeing with the NHS in Scotland since the SNP banned the privatisation of our services all together.

If the Conservatives want to see an example of how to support small businesses, they do not need to look beyond these islands. They need to look beyond this Chamber, beyond this city and beyond this country to some of the other countries that are supposed to be equal partners in this Union. If they do, they will see examples of Governments—I commend also some of the Welsh Government initiatives mentioned earlier—who do not just talk the talk on supporting small business, but who walk the walk as well. That might be something to do with the fact that those Governments are not run by parties whose coffers are swollen to obscene degrees by people who have made their money running big businesses—very often, big businesses that ran small businesses into the ground.

The linkage between the impact of non-domestic rates and other taxes and Government policies on small businesses is clearly complex, so it is not possible to say that simply changing the non-domestic rates scheme on its own will fix the problem. I, for one, do not like the idea of using an imaginary property valuation as a significant feature in deciding somebody’s tax bill, whether it is an individual’s council tax or a business’s non-domestic rates burden. The tax base is far too narrow on far too many businesses. We are taxing things that might have been the right things to tax 500 years ago, but which are not the right things to tax now.

Most importantly, as was mentioned by the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), we have to move to a situation where the tax is due and is paid where the profits are made. We cannot have companies that make substantial profits on the hard work, diligence and expertise of people in the United Kingdom, but where all the profits are magicked away to some offshore tax haven so that no tax is ever paid. The Government have it in their hands to change that. They need to move a lot quicker to do that. Doing so would not only help to plug the gap in the public finances, but would give small businesses a chance to compete on fair and equal terms with the bigger competitors. I can say, for a lot of the small businesses in my constituency, let them compete on equal terms with the big boys; they will take them on and, as often as not, they will beat them, and they will make sure that profits from that success are reinvested in their local communities.

As with so many other things that we debate in this Chamber, I have indicated the successes that the Government of Scotland have had with the powers they have. Others have referred to some of the successful initiatives that the Government of Wales have introduced with the limited powers that they have. With increased powers for those devolved Parliaments will come increased success and increased wellbeing for the citizens of those nations. The only way that small businesses in Scotland will have a long-term, secure and profitable future is when the decisions that affect them are taken by a Government who are accountable to the people of Scotland and to no one else.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to contribute to this debate. I thank the shadow Chancellor for laying this motion, which gives us an opportunity to talk about business and the support that we have for business in our communities. I will certainly be doing so, as well as speaking to the reform of business rates, which I have had a long interest in since coming here in 2015.

Before I do so, let me respond to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I had the pleasure of being up in Edinburgh for a few days over the weekend, and it was very sad to see that not just Jenners on Princes Street but shop after shop had closed. In my view, that demonstrates that across the UK changing trends are causing people to shop differently, which is having a huge impact on our high streets. It is down to this Government, and indeed all Administrations, to support their high streets. That does not just mean expecting the shopping of the past to return, because it will not, but looking at how we can turn these units back into retail, which gives more footfall within the cities and towns and helps, not least, those who are perhaps older and do not wish to live as far out. Those boarded-up shops may be the responsibility of the changing trends or may actually have something to do with the hon. Gentleman’s own Administration as well.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend enjoyed his trip to Scotland. Many businesses in my constituency are facing the challenges imposed by the Scottish Government because of their policy on business rates, but does he agree that the particular challenge they are facing is the continued uncertainty around another independence referendum, which is putting huge pressure on their plans and their economic prospects?

[Huw Merriman]

I do agree. Interestingly, the CBI has talked about the challenge on business rates because every three or five years there is a revaluation and business does not have the certainty it needs. I think in Hackney there was a change of about 46%. The CBI recognised that the uncertainty of this type of big-shock fiscal events can absolutely impact business’s ability to plan and invest in the future. A referendum on the whole future as to whether Scotland will be part of the UK, its biggest trading partner, must surely have some impact.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Princes Street, did he manage to make it along to the new, shiny, marvellous St James Quarter, where a number of the businesses he talked about relocated to? He is making a point in isolation about one street in the country, not the entire nation, and it is possibly unwise to draw too many conclusions from one street.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Member makes a fair point, because two out of four businesses have relocated to St James Quarter, with the interestingly shaped top that is called things that I would not repeat in this Chamber, but Jenners, a classic department store that is not relocating, is a good example of a casualty of changing trends.

It would be absolutely churlish not to recognise what this Government have done over the past 18 months. I represent a constituency in Sussex that is absolutely reliant in employment terms on small businesses in leisure, tourism and retail. The constituency I represent has businesses that were among the 750,000 that were given a business rate holiday. Furlough is not just keeping the employees going but making sure that they are returning back to the businesses. Some 15,300 workers in my constituency, about a third, were reliant on furlough to keep them going. When I went round to visit those businesses last summer—it had been very difficult for us to meet, but the changes in the summer allowed us to do that—they were absolutely of the view that had it not been for the Government’s support, their businesses would have shut down and their employees would have been made redundant. Everything that I am about to say has to be put in the context of the fact that this Government have absolutely supported business. I absolutely refute the point that the Conservative party is no longer the party of business; it absolutely is and it will always have the champions of business on these Benches.

In the six years since I have been a Member of this place, I have always championed the need to reform business rates. If we look across the G7, we see that the UK has the largest property taxes. They are a tax on jobs and a tax on business, and I would like to see them reformed. Over those years, we have had a number of reviews, and we are waiting on one at the moment. I would dearly like to see business rates replaced. The CBI is right when it says that business rates are a tax on business and jobs and lead to uncertainty. I see the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) nodding her head.

What is also important is that I stand for fiscal responsibility. Something has to come in place of business rates that brings in the exact same yield. With respect to the shadow Chancellor, when she was pushed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on how the £20 billion-plus that business rates bring in as revenue would be replaced, she was only able to give a figure of about £7 billion. That leads to a big deficit. That means there would either have to be public spending cuts to make up for the shortfall, or we would have to go into further debt, which is no good for business or the individual.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the shortfall if we get rid of business rates. Those on the Opposition Benches also talk about the national insurance rise, which is raising £36 billion to go into the health service and social care. Is he as unclear as I am on how they would replace that money, as well?

[Huw Merriman]

Yes, I am. I do not want to go too off-piste in terms of the subject of this debate, but I certainly recall that when the Labour party rightly injected funds into the NHS back in 2001, it also agreed that national insurance was the best way to fund it. I have heard it said that wages are not growing at the same rate now as they were then. Actually, if we take a look back, we find that they are growing faster now, which seems to refute that argument.

When it comes to the business of running Government, we have to take these serious decisions and make sure that we do not continue to see this country going ever further into debt. When it comes to business rate replacement, which I would advocate, we need to look at something that brings in the same revenue, and I am left with the view I had previously: we can look at a tax on turnover or sales, but ultimately the simplest way of dealing with it is looking at the VAT system. We all know full well that business rates end up getting channelled all the way through to the individual consumer in any event, but some consumers do not have to pay, particularly with the online side of things, because business rates are not levied there as much as they perhaps are on the high street.

We should level with the public and say, “At the moment, business rates are coming on to your bills, but they are a tax on jobs.” If we were to put the tax instead on VAT or other forms, it would be a lot more transparent, a lot fairer and, most of all, it would make it economically viable for businesses to expand their space and employ more people. If we did that, we would level with the British public and see further investment from business. I do not agree with the motion, although I agree with the Opposition for bringing it forward. It is great that we are debating the ideas, and I welcome that from those on the shadow Front Bench, but I gently prod that ultimately we have to see a payment of like for like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for the contributions they have made. I may not be able to mention them all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) talked about the challenges small businesses face. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) talked with passion about her constituency and the importance of connectivity. She invited us all for a drink in Ye Olde White Harte, an offer I am very glad to take up.

From the Government Benches, the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) took the St Augustine approach. They were all in favour of business rate reform, just not yet.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke of the plight of the travel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke of the thousands of jobs lost in the music and creative industries, and of the help given to business by the Welsh Labour Government.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) spoke thoughtfully about the importance of connectivity and the changing role of our high streets. The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) spoke about how economic and consumer practices have changed through covid.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke about the crucial importance of the wedding industry and the spin-off industries it gives rise to. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke of his frustration, shared by many Members, of the baked-in variations in valuation, with no apparent process of redress or appeal. Every single Member who spoke in this debate spoke with passion about their high streets, their constituencies and the small businesses within them.

[Huw Merriman]

The point I would just gently make, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is that we called for business rates to be reformed right now and indeed came up with a proposal that would cost it right now, too. I hope the right hon. Gentleman might reflect on that and come up with his own.

[Mr McFadden]

I am happy to talk about our proposals and the hint we got on what the eventual outcome might be.

We tabled this proposal because we want to support Britain’s businesses as they try to recover from the pandemic. Many physical retailers could not trade at all during the pandemic. Consumers changed their habits and went online. Our high streets were shuttered and closed. The problem of business rates is well known and has been for a long time: they are weighted against high streets; they are weighted on physical versus online businesses; and they create negative incentives for investment. If someone invests in their business, does the right thing and does their bit for the transition to a greener economy, their business rates actually go up. It is a 20th-century tax for a 21st-century economy.

Our calls for reform have met with widespread support from the business community. UKHospitality says that the biggest cost danger in sight for the hospitality sector is the reintroduction of business rates from 2022. The Federation of Small Businesses said that business rates

“hits firms before they’ve even made a pound in turnover.”

The CBI said that business rates are

“literally…a tax on investment”.

The British Retail Consortium found that without a reduction in rates next year, 83% of retailers said that it was “very likely” or “certain” that they might have to close stores. The Institute for Family Business has also backed this call.

In the short term, businesses need help. That is why our proposal, in the motion before the House, sets out positive steps that will help businesses right now: a freeze on business rates; an increase in the threshold for small business rate reliefs; and a proposal that is fully costed and fully funded.

The Government know that business rates need reform. That is why they launched a review 15 months ago, but where is it? Where are the conclusions? Where is the Chancellor’s plan on business rates? Has it not been published because he is fighting with No. 10 about it, as he is over climate change? Has he not published it because he is fighting with the Business Secretary, as he is on industrial support?

But we did get a clue as to what the preference of Government Members is, because many Members went for the Tory party’s three favourite initials: VAT. Time and again in Government, when they have needed to raise money, they have gone for VAT. We do not yet know what the conclusions of the business rate review will be, but the prospect of the VATman returning is certainly possible given the contributions that we have heard today.

Climate Change Assembly UK: The Path to Net Zero

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As Chairman of one of the six Select Committees that commissioned Climate Assembly UK to report on how the UK should meet the Government’s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, I warmly welcome the report, thank all those who contributed and look forward to the opportunity to debate the contents in the few minutes that I have. I also thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who was Chair of the Transport Committee when the assembly was commissioned.

I want to touch on the transport matters that the report focused on, because, as was rightly hailed, the transport sector is the poster child in its failure to turn itself around. Its carbon footprint still stubbornly contributes 33% of all carbon dioxide emissions released in the UK. There is much for the transport sector to do, therefore. The report rightly focused on surface transport, where 70% of the transport carbon footprint is made. I want to touch on a few of the causes and comment on what the Government are doing and perhaps on what more needs to be done.

First, the assembly called for a ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by between 2030 and 2035, and clearly someone has been listening because the Government’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution brings forward the date from 2040 set earlier in the year to 2035 and now to 2030. That is an incredibly ambitious target from the Government, and it is going to be a big challenge for the motor manufacturing industry and the charging infrastructure industry to ensure they can deliver.

I am pleased that the Government have pledged £500 million to kickstart that shift, but the key is consumer confidence. It is essential that electric vehicle owners are confident, no matter their household circumstances or their travel plans, that the mode is the correct choice for them, although I understand that there needs to be a sea change and, indeed, ambitious targets must be set if we are ever to deliver a shift away from combustion to electric. I think that that will necessitate a look at pay-as-you-drive, and I am pleased that the Transport Committee will be looking at both the question of ending sales of vehicles with combustion engines by 2030 and new modes to pay for driving.

I also want to touch on the call for Government investment in low-carbon buses and trains. The Government have introduced, or plan to introduce, at least 4,000 more British-built zero-emission buses, which I welcome. In addition, two towns will have electric-only buses. That is a great start.

There is already a plan to decarbonise the rail network by 2040, and the Transport Committee is currently in the midst of the “Trains fit for the future?” inquiry. We stand at a great crossroads: with 15,400 kilometres of track currently non-electrified, we can look at electrification, at battery, or even further into the future towards hydrogen, but if we move solely to electrification, we should consider that 1% of the national grid is already used for electrification on trains and 60% of our energy that creates electricity is regarded as dirty, and thus non-renewable. Therefore, if we increase electrification there is a danger that we will increase our carbon footprint, and if in years to come hydrogen is more ready to be used, it would be a huge shame to have vested everything in electrification—and it is more expensive as well. That said, there is a big challenge in industry to ensure that we can get the speed, the range and indeed the freight capability for hydrogen, and at present I absolutely admit that electrification is the only game in town.

On the question of adding more bus routes and more frequent services, the Transport Committee called for a bus strategy. I am pleased the Government have done likewise.

I disagree with bringing public transport back under Government control, although some might say that that has already occurred by osmosis. Under privatisation over the past 20 years, rail passenger numbers have doubled, as private enterprise is more incentivised to get people on to rail services than the general taxpayer ever will be, so I disagree with that one part of the report.

There is much more in this fantastic report, however, but I have run out of time. I very much support everything the assembly has done.

Business and Planning Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I add my name to that long list, but can my right hon. Friend give some confidence to local authorities? There are a lot of planning rules and regulations, and some of our planning officers are quite conservative in their interpretation. Where there is discretion, can we send the message out from this place that decisions must be decided in favour of business and of opening up?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course we want to make sure that businesses open up, and we want local authorities to help local businesses do that, which is precisely the reason for these measures. We will publish guidance alongside the measures in the Bill, and I would ask local authorities to adhere to it. If my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions, I would be very happy to hear from him, as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who will wind up this debate.

National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are not dropping the naming and shaming scheme. He was right to mention corporate governance and the issues around executive pay, which this Government take seriously and we are taking steps to address. He will know that the Low Pay Commission recommends national minimum wage levels to the Government. He mentioned the under-25s, but let me point out to him that almost nine in every 10 18 to 24-year-olds are paid above their wage bracket.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

My constituency is one of the top 10 constituencies with the highest proportion of workers on the national living wage, so I welcome the fact that we have increased that wage by another £600 thanks to our excellent Chancellor and his Budget. I know that the Minister has come here to help the lowest paid make something of themselves, but may I say to her that it is essential that we make sure that employers do not get away with non-compliance, because it is unfair to other employers and to the employees who will not be protected. She is right to review the scheme, and she is taking great steps, but I urge her to keep the name and shame policy because there is no better way of shaming people into compliance.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will investigate any complaint that it receives about underpayment of the national minimum wage. We also have ACAS, which provides a helpline for individuals who feel that they are not being paid the national minimum wage. Naming and shaming is part of our toolkit of enforcement, but, as I have said, it is only one tool. I want to make sure that when we name and shame organisations, we understand what the detriment is and how much the detriment is. We need to make sure that, when we report these companies, we are reporting not just big names to grab a headline, but meaningful information that helps to advise and educate employers and, really importantly, educates workers so that they understand that, where there is a detriment, they can take action.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

She is shaking her head. She cannot even acknowledge that the UK has led the world in this particular area. If we cannot acknowledge our leadership, and celebrate that, how can we possibly hope to persuade other countries that emit far more carbon than us, and have a far greater land area, that they should be making the changes that they also need to make?

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

While I have no time for those who deny climate change, I also have little time for those who deny that great progress has been made. If we have 40% of our electricity from renewables, which is up from 6% in 2010, is it not important that we listen to and work with our scientists and innovators who can improve this picture rather than just listening to those who lie down on the streets?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that this debate is about consumption emissions. I will not take the House through the technicalities, but essentially there is an argument that we have exported much of our heavy energy-creating activities. It is also the case, as people will see if they peruse the base numbers, that our consumption emissions are down by 20% since, I believe, 1997. I will check those facts before the next statement. The whole world’s economic systems are changing. That is why the leadership that we display will help other countries to which much of this activity has been transferred also to make these changes—in particular, to have a low-carbon electricity system as this is often the greatest cause of emissions in those countries.

Construction Sector Deal

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

The devolved authorities are very much part of all our thinking. We will continue to work closely with them. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss Northern Ireland in this context. I congratulate him on his question—and on the questions he has asked at every single statement I have given and every single urgent question I have answered in Parliament.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Is it not the case that if there were further incentives for construction companies and developers to build out, they would be forced, as it were, to recruit and train more people, because they would need them, rather than moving people from one site to another? Is it possible for the Government to consider compulsory purchase powers for local authorities if developers do not build after a couple of years or, indeed, to consider charging council tax 12 months after a planning application is approved, rather than when the build-out occurs?

[Richard Harrington]

The review by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is considering those points, and I am sure that we will be delighted to report the review’s progress to the House.

Erasmus Plus Programme

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to negotiate continued access to the Erasmus+ programme and its successor schemes beyond 2020.

Almost two years on from the referendum, the Government have not answered some of the key questions about how we will continue to co-operate with the Erasmus+ programme post-2020. The British Government cannot afford to duck this issue, because that would put at risk the future openness and vibrancy of our university and youth sectors.

I applied for this debate to bring the issue to the Chamber for the first time in five years and to seek reassurance from the Government that they will actually commit to preserving the Erasmus+ scheme post-2020. I am aware that, on many issues, Brexit hangs over us. However, I stress that this issue cuts across political parties and across pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit lines. I have gained support for this debate from Members of all parties, from the 2017 intake to the Father of the House, and representing all four nations. Those Members are united by a deep concern about the Government’s lack of full commitment to maintaining the Erasmus+ scheme beyond 2020 and to getting on with negotiating the modalities of how we would do that.

What is at stake here is the future existence of one of our most successful exports. The higher education sector is an export that has greatly enriched this country. The question is whether we will maintain an open and accessible higher education sector.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He talks about exports but, of course, we have a situation in which 10,000 students a year leave the UK to study abroad and 30,000 students come over to study in the UK. Why on earth would the European Union not want our engagement to continue?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I agree it is very likely that the European Union would want our engagement to continue, which is why, to some extent, this is an easy door to push against and walk through. The foreign students coming into the UK are economically an export for us, because they bring foreign money to invest in this country. It might seem strange but higher education is a net export, as it brings cash into this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. Some predecessor and current programmes of Erasmus+ are particularly good at diversity; 50% of its participants are from economically deprived or other minority backgrounds, and it helps improve not only grades, but longer-term outcomes. If I may say so, my hon. Friend has done very well for herself.

With a budget of €14.7 billion, Erasmus is an educational scheme that is not only continental, but global in reach.

[Huw Merriman]

I am particularly interested to know, as the hon. Gentleman has such a good understanding of this, why, given that such a wide-ranging Erasmus+ programme is already in existence, the budget is estimated to double to €30 billion. What would we get for that? What would all Erasmus participants get for that?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is a good question. Not only is the youth part of the programme fully subscribed—I am talking about just British applications—but projects that in other places would be accepted are having not to be accepted at the moment because the money runs out before we are able to work down the whole list. I served on the programming committee for a number of years. We would analyse good programmes and then just work our way down until the money ran out. At the moment, the money is running out about halfway down the list. The doubling of the budget would therefore allow good projects that help disadvantaged British kids to travel and go on exchanges. That is exactly why we need an increased budget and why it is being negotiated with the Commission at the moment.

Every sector of lifelong learning is advantaged in some way or another from the Erasmus scheme, and most experts agree that Erasmus has a positive impact, as we have already talked about. Research shows that 81% of students who have gone abroad studying with the Erasmus scheme get a first or upper-second honours degree. That figure is 10% higher than the average in the university sector. At least 2 million young people across the continent have gone on these schemes in the past 30 years, with 600,000 of them having been from the UK just on this current scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) again for securing this important debate about the future of Erasmus. He and I were both on a question time panel at our county’s university, the University of Sussex, and I know he has a great knowledge of and passion for this subject.

I too have a positive passion for the ability of not just students but those involved in education to learn abroad and for us to reciprocate, because we learn hugely from those who come from abroad to study or work here. It is a vital cog in our ability to maintain relations, to develop and to learn from other countries. I am absolutely on the side of ensuring that the UK continues to participate in the Erasmus scheme in the next seven-year block.

I maintain that it is vital for all people—not just young people—to go and have that taster abroad and to develop their language skills. The statistics undoubtedly show that people are more likely to succeed in the workplace, with the responsibilities they will be given, if they have such an opportunity. I am passionate about ensuring that we continue to participate in the scheme, and I was heartened by the Prime Minister’s recent speech in which she talked about the importance of continuing with our education networks and partnerships across Europe. There is no reason to believe that we will do anything but continue in that way.

I am, however, slightly concerned about the ongoing cost, as I said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. To a certain extent, this is a bit of an indicator of why perhaps people in this country have fallen out of love with the European project, as it were. For a scheme—it has become Erasmus+ and already been widened to cover training, apprenticeships and even job seeking—to go from a cost of €15 billion to €30 billion is quite extraordinary. That was why I asked the hon. Gentleman what the scheme was being expanded in scope towards.

[Vicky Ford]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Huw Merriman]

I will just finish this point.

I understand the point that there is lots more we could fund, but unfortunately we have run out of funding. We have the same issue with funding many of our own projects in this country. It is the mentality of the European Union that you can just double the budget in one period, that causes concern about our ability to continue to fund that budget.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

I seem to have stirred the hornets’ nest. I will give way to my hon. Friend first.

[Vicky Ford]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that money needs to be well spent and that sometimes the EU has not spent its pennies quite as carefully as we have done. However, Universities UK wants us to double the number of young people who take part in these programmes because of the benefits and because so few do at the moment. Does he agree that, if we are to double the number taking part, we need to increase the resources?

[Huw Merriman]

I do indeed, and without turning this into a wider universities debate, this is similar to the debate about doubling the number of students, how we fund that and how we then look students in the eye when it comes to their tuition fees. I acknowledge, of course, that these students bring funding over, so my argument is not a brilliant one, and I am sure the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is about to tell me the same thing.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as we are all agreed here, about the huge added value of sending people abroad, and young people particularly? It exposes them to different communities and countries and allows them to gain experience. There is also the money that goes into scientific projects. The University of Bath in my constituency is involved in engineering and science projects that are funded through these streams. It is about not just the individual student being funded but wider co-operation across the European Union. For that reason, does he agree that it is money well spent?

[Huw Merriman]

I do agree. The point I am trying to make is that there is an analogy between the views in this country about the European project and costs continuing to grow. As I say, no one has any issue with costs increasing because the programme expands, but to double it from €15 billion to €30 billion at a time when money is incredibly tight not just in this country but across Europe makes me wonder whether the European Commission has quite understood what many of its citizens feel is an issue.

Let us move on because I actually wish to be positive and come to the reasons why I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown about our future participation in the scheme. Again, for me, it comes down to the numbers. It is absolutely clear that the UK is an attractive destination for the 33 participating members of and the 160 partners in Erasmus, because 30,000 students per year are coming to the UK, whereas we are sending 10,000 over in return. We are seventh in the league table of the number of students participating. Turkey—I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not of course a member of the EU, but it is still a member of Erasmus—is one place ahead of us, in sixth place, in terms of the number of students it places. France sends 7,500 students to the UK each year. The UK sends 2,300 to France. Germany sends 5,000 to this country. We send only 1,300 to Germany. Spain sends just short of 5,000 here and we send just over 2,000 UK students to Spain.

The point I am trying to make is that this is a very attractive option for European citizens, and they will not want their right to come to study in the UK to be fettered. That was the point I was trying to make to the hon. Gentleman. There should be a great desire on the part of the European Commission and European Union members to ensure that the UK remains part of this scheme. Therefore, I dare to venture the point that we have a very good hand when it comes to the negotiations. I take the point that we should be getting on with it, but I am one of those Members who finds that point a little rich, given that MPs spend so much time in this Chamber making it very difficult for Ministers to actually get on with it and help us leave the European Union on these terms. MPs trying to make it as difficult as possible by constantly dragging their heels.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I just want to make it clear that, when I am asking the Minister to negotiate details to allow us to sign on, I am not referring to the Brexit negotiations. There is a totally separate and parallel negotiation going on in the whole of Europe about the future of Erasmus post 2020. I am just trying to ensure that the Minister is negotiating, so that we can sign on without a huge negotiation on Brexit. That is the distinction I am worried about.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman may be on to something. We know that the Erasmus programme is maintained by the European Commission. He will want to make sure that, if we do leave the European Union—I absolutely believe we will do so and he may reluctantly agree with me—we get an absolutely superb deal for all UK citizens. Therefore, to a certain extent, rather than actually giving away one of our good hands—our participation in the Erasmus programme, which so many students from the other 27 member states want to take part in—we should wrap it up to ensure that we get good terms in other matters. If we throw away our best cards, we may suffer in other areas where we do not have such a great export.

I will wrap up because it is important to hear the Front-Bench contributions, but I want to make the point again that I am hugely supportive of the scheme. It has delivered huge benefits not just for us, but for our partners abroad. I want to continue it, not least because it sends out the absolutely correct message that, while we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe or ending our relations with Europe. If anything, we need to cement those relations because we are leaving the European Union. There are very good and optimistic reasons why we continue to remain a member of Erasmus, but perhaps not with the costs getting out of control.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, I meet the steel industry regularly, and I am very interested to meet him to hear his views on the subject. I can assure him that everything that can possibly be done to deal with tariffs is being done. I had a meeting with all the chief executives of the steel business. I went to Brussels last week and met the director general of trade, as well as other CEOs and European colleagues.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

High street businesses lose out when banks close, pensioners lose banking services, and post offices are also facing challenging times. What can be done to make sure that the main high street banks provide their services at least in a host post office that acts as a hub?

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

My hon. Friend, who makes some important points, will know that the Government have invested £2 billion in the post office network to ensure that across the country, in communities where retail banks are closing, the Post Office can step up and allow his constituents and businesses, among others, to access both personal and business banking in their local post office. That is good for the post offices and for our communities.