Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Well, I will be honest: it is usually Radio 4, Radio 5 or Radio 5 live sports extra, particularly when it is carrying the cricket commentary.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Does my hon. Friend not think that many people also carry digital radios with them wherever they go not least so that, on a Friday, they can listen to his wonderful speeches in Parliament?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am sure that is not the case.

In her most recent intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) asked whether I use digital radio to listen to community radio stations. Of course, there are very few of those operating, but if the Bill reaches the statute book and is followed up by an order and some activity from commercial radio stations, it will enable me to have even more stations on my little digital radio than there are already—and there are already plenty on there from around the country.

Incidentally, I made sure that my last car, which I bought a few years ago, had a digital radio. I understand that virtually all cars now have digital radio as standard. At that time, it was an option, and people had to pay a little extra if they wanted it—I wanted it mainly because “Test Match Special” was no longer broadcast on long wave, and to reach it I had to get Radio 5 live sports extra.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We will set out our plans for the future of Channel 4 in due course.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

What possible justification is there for the Government owning both the BBC and Channel 4?

[Matt Hancock]

Channel 4 is not paid for but is owned by the Government. It was set up under Government ownership, but it pays for itself through its advertising, and delivers brilliantly—I think—within its remit.

Voter Registration

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The boundary review has to operate from an electoral roll on an agreed date. That date was agreed by this House. In the past, the review operated on a 10-year cycle, and the electoral roll was therefore 10 years out of date by the time it was reviewed. We are now moving to five-year cycles, so we have brought in more frequent use of electoral roll data by the boundary review. If we could not have a drop-dead date we could not have a boundary review at all.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The fact that someone has a national insurance number does not of itself establish that they are eligible to vote in the referendum. Will my right hon. Friend explain what checks are being done to verify that everyone who applies is genuinely able to vote in the referendum?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is an incredibly important question. The eligibility requirements were debated extensively in this House. After someone applies to register online, the application is not taken at face value but is checked against Government data to make sure that that person meets the eligibility rules set by this House. That is one reason why there needs to be time between the deadline and polling day—to make sure that exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises are met.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I am an enormous supporter of the work of charities, but I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman seems to be a supporter of lobbyists using money only when it comes from taxpayers. I think that taxpayers’ money should be put to better use.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when our constituents give money to charity, they expect it to be used directly to help those disadvantaged people whom the charity claims to help, and that if they wanted it to be used for political lobbying, they would have made a donation to a political party?

[Matthew Hancock]

I could not have put it better myself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Shale gas has the potential to reduce energy bills and increase the security of supply. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps his Department is taking to allay public concerns about fracking?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am delighted that this question has come up although I am a bit surprised that it took until 10.29 to do so. It is also a bit of a surprise that the shadow Secretary of State is not attending DECC questions; I understand that she is campaigning in a Labour marginal seat. It is absolutely imperative and a duty on the Government to allow exploration for shale gas, which has the potential to be a significant resource, but to do so carefully and cautiously, and that is exactly what we are doing.

UK Anti-corruption Plan

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I would say that this plan is one of the most advanced anti-corruption plans, but I also pay tribute to the work of DFID. Corruption undermines prosperity and development as much as, if not more than, almost any other failing, so focusing DFID resources on measures to tackle corruption is a very powerful way to help development. We must make sure that we use the DFID budget in a way that promotes long-term prosperity, and tackling corruption is a very powerful way of doing so.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Last month, a report published by the Financial Conduct Authority concluded that most small banks have significant problems with anti-money laundering. Given that finding, will my right hon. Friend explain what measures in the plan will deliver a more focused money laundering regulatory regime?

[Matthew Hancock]

Again, the question is how we can have strong money-laundering and anti-corruption rules that cause distress to those who try to break them, but do not place undue burdens on perfectly legitimate individuals and businesses. Getting the right balance between the two is very important and there is more work to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is ongoing work on the commercial feasibility of SNRs. There was a further small package in the autumn statement to take that work forward, and we are working internationally to see whether the technology can become feasible.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will the Minister set out what financial benefits will be available for local communities where shale gas sites are situated? Will he confirm that it will be local communities that benefit, and that it will not be possible for councils to pocket the cash and use it elsewhere?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. The industry is committed to ensuring that there is a contribution to communities for exploration, but also that a minimum of 1% of production revenues goes to local communities. Some companies have said that they will put more than that minimum into local communities. It is crucial that the communities from under which gas can be extracted benefit from that extraction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree that it is important to ensure that as we explore for this domestic energy resource, we do so cautiously and carefully. Environmental impact assessments are an important part of the planning process. The House is considering the Infrastructure Bill and we will listen to the debates on that.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that any decision about the exploitation of shale gas should be taken by local councils, and that, once taken, those decisions should not be overridden by officials in Whitehall?

[Matthew Hancock]

Local engagement is incredibly important, as, likewise, is ensuring that local communities benefit from the successful extraction of shale gas. After all, being able to get shale gas successfully out of the ground will bring a benefit for the nation in terms of energy security, but also a financial benefit. The Treasury, inevitably, is keen to make sure that it has a part of that, but local communities also should.

Tata Steel

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his question, and he is absolutely right. We are having those conversations—the Business Secretary is in India as we speak having those conversations with Tata. Tata also has big strip product operations in the Netherlands, but the other announcement it has made on investment in Port Talbot demonstrates its commitment to steel in the UK.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that 2 million more people have been employed in the private sector since the last general election, does the Minister agree that that should be a source of optimism for anyone who loses their job that they will find a new one?

[Matthew Hancock]

Employment in steel manufacturing has gone up in the past few years, and unemployment in all the constituencies affected has come down. None the less, first and foremost my task is to ensure that we support the continuing development of steel manufacturing in the UK, and where there are changes to employment, that we support those who are affected. We will be vigilant in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We are looking carefully at all the amendments that have been tabled to the Infrastructure Bill. In several cases, the amendments reiterate what already happens. We want to ensure that we make the most of Britain’s indigenous energy supplies in a way that is safe and secure, creates jobs and will give us better security of supply. We will consider all measures to try to do that.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that the UK has been producing nuclear energy safely for nearly 60 years without any major problems, does the Minister agree that, given all the safety regulation we have, there is no reason to believe that this country is not capable of extracting shale gas safely?

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend, and that is what we are going to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I have seen the report on the future of the coalfields. On the issue of NEETs, I would point out that yesterday’s figures show that the number of people not in education, employment or training is at a record low since the series of statistics began in 1994. I have no doubt that there is much more to do, because any young person not in education, employment or training is one NEET too many. The fact that the number of NEETs is at a record low shows that the economic plan is working.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

On the issue of new EU legislation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would benefit British business if the EU adopted the same one-in, two-out rule that the UK Government apply?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to MBDA, which I visited to see its work on apprenticeships. The apprentice of the year was a young woman from MBDA. It does great work, but there is much more to be done so that all employers can engage in schools and colleges to show young people what they can do.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

When I visit engineering and manufacturing companies in my Bury North constituency, they often say that not just girls, but boys find the idea of taking up trades off-putting because they are noisy, dirty and sometimes smelly. Does the Minister agree that the teachers in our schools need to do more to encourage people of both sexes to take up such jobs?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. The very best people to do that are the people who are in those careers themselves and who can show what a modern engineering workplace looks like. They tend to be problem-solving institutions that are exciting and that pay well, which I find is a message that goes down particularly well with apprentices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman says. We are supporting crowdfunding on financial terms, not least through the new business bank, but we are also making sure that it can operate in a high-quality framework. The fact that there will be a regulatory framework around crowd-sourced funding has been welcomed by the sector. We have to get it right, and I will meet Martin Wheatley of the FCA to make sure that we get the details right.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Some of the most burdensome regulations on manufacturing companies in my constituency are the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulations imposed by Brussels. Will the Minister undertake to work across Government to do all he can to reduce the burden of these REACH regulations?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, the REACH regulations are among the 30 recently highlighted by the EU business taskforce. As my hon. Friend knows, we are working hard to reduce the burden of those regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

One of the biggest and most important decisions that any sole trader has to make is whether and when to take on their first employee. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department is taking to make that process as easy as possible?

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

My hon. Friend is right to identify that moment in the life of a small business. By reducing the amount of national insurance paid, by introducing the employer allowance of £2,000 from April and by setting out that a company cannot be taken to a tribunal for two years, we are hoping to make it much easier to employ people and for small businesses to expand.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and David Nuttall

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend anticipates a couple of the points I shall go into in more detail later.

[Mr Nuttall]

At the start of my hon. Friend’s reply to the last-but-one intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), he said that the money supply was too loose after 1997. What does he think about the Bank of England’s decision yesterday to print another £50 billion?

[Matthew Hancock]

I supported yesterday’s decision, because one thing we are dealing with now is the consequence of money being too loose, which is the deleveraging in the banking system, which is causing a huge drag on the economy. Therefore, the mitigation of that deleveraging, through loose monetary policy—low interest rates and in a quantitative sense—is something that I support. However, more strongly than I support the Bank’s decision, I support its ability to make it in a way that is unconstrained by political considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

It is important that the Governor of the day has the same broad strategy as the Government—but I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have one further, and chilling, example.

[Mr Nuttall]

Just to be clear, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill is about the appointment and the dismissal of the Governor and has nothing to do with broad policy?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is to do with the appointment and dismissal of the Governor, and my argument is that the broad strategy of the Governor must be aligned with the broad economic strategy of the Government, and that this Bill could rend the two asunder.

What is currently happening in the eurozone serves as a definitive example of the problems that can arise when the views of Governments and of the leadership of a central bank diverge, and it shows what could happen if this Bill were to be enacted. The history is familiar to us all, so I will not go through it again in detail. Since the start of the sovereign debt crisis, the European Central Bank has injected euros and liquidity into the system, yet monetary policy in much of the eurozone remains very tight. That clearly harms some of the countries in the eurozone. There are tensions as a result of the relatively tight monetary policy and the need for some countries to tighten fiscal policy—there are no fiscal transfers between the members of that currency. That, compounded by weak banks, means that the monetary policy on the ground is even tighter. The lack of co-ordination between the ECB and the countries and Governments in the eurozone is highlighted on our television screens many nights of the week. Greek bond deals leapt more than 10 points to more than 100% when it was announced by the Government in November that there was to be a referendum on the bail-out package supported by the president of the ECB.

We have heard anecdotal evidence so far about the impact of a governor on financial markets and uncertainty. Adam Posen, who serves on the MPC, and Kenneth Kuttner wrote a paper in 2007 which found substantial academic evidence that the appointment of a central bank governor can have a direct impact on the markets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was speaking about. They concluded that

“financial markets tend to react to the appointment of a new central bank governor with larger-than-normal price changes, especially when a distinction is made between ‘newsworthy’ announcements…and those merely confirming an anticipated appointment.”

That is the problem that Members were talking about: uncertainty in the financial markets as a result of bank appointments becoming unclear and uncertain.

I want to take up the question of whether the Treasury Committee should have a veto. I said earlier that I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I am also privileged to be on the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee’s power over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is, I think, similar to the power of veto that the Treasury Committee has over the OBR. The National Audit Office is obviously not Executive but merely a provider of sophisticated information about the Government and the wider world. That distinction between providing information in an independent way, separate from Government, and taking Executive action in the broad strategy set out by the Government is crucial.

As I come to a conclusion, I want briefly to consider the international evidence.