Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are switching to routine commissioning from April. It is a deep frustration of mine that some local authorities are not putting in place the necessary measures. I will look into Manchester in particular; I did not know about that example. I personally set the goal of our being HIV-free by 2030. I am delighted that, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) when she was the Minister for Equalities, we have made the progress that we have. I have absolutely no doubt that there is further road to travel and that we should all come together in support of equalities in health provision, especially in this area. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and all those who are on the side of trying to make this change happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Tommy Sheppard. Where is young Sheppard? [Interruption.] He has withdrawn. I was not advised of that. Never mind, he is a most active beaver in the Chamber in normal circumstances. It does not matter that he is not here, because Mr Andrew Rosindell is.

NHS Long-Term Plan: Implementation

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the work that the APPG, so ably led, has done in putting the measurement of improvements of cancer services at the forefront of the debate. I particularly acknowledge the point about early diagnosis. Here in the UK, we are one of the best countries in the world at treating cancer once it is diagnosed, but we are behind the curve on early diagnosis. Putting a one-year cancer diagnosis metric at the heart of the implementation of the long-term plan is a critical step in making that happen. What is going to happen now is that each of the local systems will feed into the framework in terms of how they will be putting this into action. The full implementation plan, which will be published shortly after the spending review, will take that into account, as well as all the budgets that need to be settled in the spending review. I would recommend to my right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Just for now. I recommend that he keep up this campaign, because we have made significant progress in the implementation framework but there is still more to do.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was temporarily elevated to the Privy Council by his right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench. He might—who knows?—regard that as an earnest of what is to come.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

There is no reference to GPs in the statement—I have just been looking through it. This comes at a time when my constituents are telling me that they are having to wait three weeks to get a GP appointment. Faith House GP surgery on Beverley Road, which I have raised with the Secretary of State directly, is now due to close. It is all very well training doctors for the future, but what is he going to do about the crisis in primary care now?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I wish my hon. Friend, with whom I have worked closely and whom I admire very much, great success in her leadership bid. I wish her more success than I had. With the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) sitting next to her, I am sure they will run a great race. I want to reassure her that, as I said the week before last, the NHS is not on the table in trade talks. We now have that assurance from the Americans. NHS data must always be held securely, with the appropriate and proper strong privacy and cyber-security protections.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the Secretary of State means well, but I am not entirely sure that the hon. Lady’s joy at the endorsement from the right hon. Gentleman was undiluted.

Listeria: Contaminated Sandwiches

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Not yet. My hon. Friend rightly raises the question of the supply chain, and it is true that the food in question came from North Country Cooked Meats. In turn, we are trying to identify the suppliers to North Country Cooked Meats to get to the real root of this outbreak. He is quite right to identify that this is a supply chain issue, and that there is a complex supply chain in operation.

I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Public Health England. Within days, it spotted the links between individual cases and, from a local incident, made this into a national incident. At the appropriate moment, it raised the issue with the chief medical officer and with Ministers in the Department, and we could then explain the problem to the public. Its work has identified the problem, and undoubtedly it has potentially saved lives.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will not be saddened by the fact that he is not yet a member of the Privy Council. After all, he is a Staffordshire knight, he has served his constituency without interruption in this House for 35 years, and I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman has a whole chapter named after him in the late Hugo Young’s estimable tome on Britain’s relationship with Europe. There is a chapter in the name of Mr Bill Cash.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I, too, would like to express our sympathies with the families of the five patients who lost their lives, but also the four who remain critically ill. Obviously, we do not know what outcome they face.

As the shadow health spokesperson highlighted, these sandwiches were sold to 43 trusts, and while there have been no cases since 25 May, the incubation period of listeriosis is 70 days, so will surveillance of those 43 trusts continue alongside the Health Secretary’s investigation?

The Food Standards Agency published a report in 2014 about the dangers of hospital food. It cited 32 failures, including sandwiches spending hours outside fridges, and fridges often not being cold enough. Indeed, it has been highlighted that hospital sandwiches have been the commonest source of listeria outbreaks over the past two decades.

As the Health Secretary says, simple cases are often a matter of people being unwell for a few days, but listeria poses a major threat to pregnant women, who may lose their child, and is life-threatening for people who are already ill. Will the Health Secretary therefore pay particular attention in his review to why on earth people who were seriously ill or frail were being fed sandwiches? Someone who has no appetite and is recovering from illness is simply not going to be tempted by a pack of sandwiches. That really makes the case for bringing food preparation in-hospital and producing tempting meals, because nutrition is critical to recovery.

Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is right that screening is vital. One of the reasons why we are looking at the whole screening programme is that the use of technology has not been nearly good enough. For many people, but not all, that can be valuable, especially in rural areas. Technology is not only used for the screening itself, but for notification and for ensuring that we get to everybody who needs to be reached. Professor Sir Mike Richards is undertaking the review of all screening, and I would be happy to put Sir Mike in contact with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the review properly considers the impact of rurality on the need to get screening to everybody who needs it.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), and all colleagues for both the content and the spirit of the exchanges that have just taken place. Let us hope that Tessa’s husband David and children Jess, who has rightly been referred to, and Matthew will derive some succour from knowledge of the continuing interest in Tessa’s passionate crusade that exists in the House. We know in our heart of hearts that that continued interest will endure for as long as is necessary, both because of the supreme importance of the cause and because we are united across the House in this. We have huge respect for the courage, stoicism and unrelenting determination to make progress on this subject that Tessa Jowell, in extreme adversity, exhibited at all times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I always love visiting Scotland and would love to come and see this programme in action; I have heard and read about it. In improving quality across the NHS, we need to improve the ability of the NHS to look everywhere—outside the NHS in England, as well as at other hospitals—to find and emulate best practice.

[Mr Speaker]

This is a general question about best practice in the NHS, into which the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) could legitimately shoehorn his concerns about acupuncture, chiropractic therapies, osteopathy and other non-drug based, non-addictive options for pain management, about which I think he is keen to expatiate.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

19.   Mr Speaker, I am clearly in your good books and I am most grateful. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain why so little use is made of these three therapies in the health service, and why NICE has not made any attempt to look at hospitals in China, 50,000 of which use acupuncture for lower back pain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The only thing that is weighty about the hon. Gentleman, in my experience as a county colleague, is his brain.

[Matt Hancock]

I would be delighted to encourage that which my hon. Friend encourages. One thing that leads to people putting on weight is high levels of stress, so perhaps we could put some contentious issues behind us to reduce stress levels and allow all of us to lead healthier and happier lives.

Access to Medical Cannabis

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I should like my hon. Friend to write to me with the exact details of that case. The process for prescription by someone on the specialist register is well trodden; it is used for all sorts of unlicensed drugs, and it should be available. We are making a second opinion available to ensure that it can be brought to bear in cases such as these. I am interested in hearing about specific cases—this applies to everyone, not just to my hon. Friend—so that we can ensure that the appropriate clinical decisions can be made.

[Mr Speaker]

There was I thinking that the Secretary of State would be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on his prodigious efforts and output as a Minister, but I am sure that that will come ere long.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)]

I warmly welcome the measures announced by the Secretary of State today, but will he go further in discussing the importance of clinical trials and answer some of the many questions about striking the right balance between THC and CBD? We have heard in the Select Committee that some pharmaceutical companies are refusing to make their products available for clinical trials. Will he look specifically at that point? We need to ensure that safe and consistent products are regularly available and that they are of a predictable pharmaceutical grade, as we have heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. The most forward-looking CCGs in the country are working with all sorts of partners—the voluntary sector, charities, local authorities—to deliver better services that make people healthier, even if they are not purely medicinal in the first instance. For instance, tennis lessons may sometimes help people, Mr Speaker, as may all sorts of other activities. This is all part of a broadening social-prescribing agenda to get people healthy, however that is best done.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that, last Monday, I published my report, with the Royal Society for Public Health, on children’s mental health and social media. May I place on the record my thanks to him for his tweet in support of the report? I have asked Education Ministers and I will be doing this with the devolved institutions as well, but would he agree to a meeting with me—and with the Mental Health Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—to look at the report and the recommendations so that we can start working across Departments and across devolved institutions?

Eurotunnel: Payment

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

This was, of course, a cross-Government decision, which is why I am here. It is the medicines that will be using that capacity. In the Hancock family, we are very proud of “Hancock’s Half Hour”, and we thought that Tony was a very funny man.

[Mr Speaker]

It is worth pointing out that that Hancock was deliberately funny.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has talked about medicines, but there are also prescribed foods—for example, the gluten-free food on which some people depend. What will the situation be for those foods?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her point with considerable force and alacrity, and I have no doubt whatever that she is totally sincere, because she came up to the Chair to register her displeasure. I think that the Secretary of State was mildly carried away with the theatricality of the occasion, and he is very accustomed to jousting from the Dispatch Box. Ordinarily I have found him a most good-natured individual, so I think it unlikely—very unlikely indeed—that he would willingly impugn the integrity of a very committed and conscientious Member of Parliament in the hon. Lady, because at heart he is a very gracious chap. He may well wish to proffer an apology to her—[Interruption.]

[Matt Hancock]

Come on then. Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The first thing to note following these points of order is that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not inviting the Secretary of State to give a sort of general response, in the style of a Second Reading debate, to everything that has been said. If he wants to respond in relation to personal offence being taken, he can. That would be appreciated.

[Matt Hancock]

The point I was making, Mr Speaker, which I think I made a few times, is that those who care about having unhindered supply of medicines should vote for the deal, because that is the best way to ensure that people can be kept safe. That is all that I was implying by my comments.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the Secretary of State has said what he has said, and colleagues will make their own assessment of it. I thank him for coming to the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman’s question was more rhetorical than not, and there was not really a question mark at the end of it. I can only say, for my own part, that when discharging my duties to the best of my ability this morning, I was rather under the impression that the urgent question was about the cancellation of the contract on account of legal action and that it was to do with Seaborne Freight. It may be that my interpretation was notably eccentric, but I do not think so. I think I was pretty clear what it was about, and that my assessment was shared by the team that accompanies me at the 12 o’clock meeting on a Monday morning.

[Matt Hancock]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are an esteemed and eloquent Member of this House, as you often say to us, and you have just made a comment about what this case was about. Can I be very clear? The reason we settled this case, as I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), was to ensure that the freight capacity purchased from DFDS and Brittany Ferries continues, in order to have the unhindered supply of medicines. That is what the settlement was a about.

[Mr Speaker]

No, no—I am not arguing the toss with the Secretary of State. I said earlier that he placed his own interpretation on what he judged to be the gravamen of the matter. That the question was about the cancellation of the contract and that it was about Seaborne Freight is, I think, so manifestly clear as to brook no contradiction by any sensible person. That it also related to the delivery of medicines is a perfectly arguable point. The Secretary of State has made his own point in his own way, and if he is satisfied with his own efforts and goes about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step, then I am very happy for him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Because of the votes of most of us in the House, including the hon. Gentleman, no deal of course is the law of the land unless the House passes something else. He is a reasonable man. He is a mentor of the old Blairite moderate wing of his party. He is absolutely a centrist. I do not believe that, privately, he believes in the hard-left guff that comes from other Opposition Front Benchers. He is a very sensible man and I like him an awful lot, so after this session and before 7 o’clock tonight, why does he not take a look in the mirror and ask himself, “In the national interest, is it best to vote for the deal and avoid no deal, or is it best to play politics?”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say very gently to the Secretary of State, who is renowned for his charm in all parts of the House, that his likes and dislikes are a matter of immense fascination to colleagues, including the Chair, but what is of greater interest is his brevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. We support nursing associates and I am delighted to see the rapid expansion that is taking place. We want more universities and higher education institutes to come to the fore to provide that sort of education. I cannot wait to meet my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

Including, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his recent meeting with me, the University of Buckingham in my constituency.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of my constituents, who is 17, seriously ill with breathing difficulties and in need of urgent specialist care, is waiting for a room to be available at the Royal Brompton. Is the Secretary of State aware of any delays and whether these have been caused by not having sufficient NHS facilities at the Royal Brompton to meet such urgent demand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that the ferocity and eloquence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) are legendary, but all he is really telling us is what the Chair already knew, namely that the hon. Gentleman is indestructible.

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and I both come from Nottinghamshire mining stock, and we both support the NHS, which was first proposed from this Dispatch Box by a Conservative Minister under a Conservative Prime Minister, and has been presided over by a Conservative Secretary of State for most of its life. I am delighted that those operations, including under a Conservative-led Administration, kept the hon. Gentleman ticking, because what an adornment he is—I look forward to voting with him this evening.

Prevention of Ill Health: Government Vision

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I will actually be in Derbyshire later this month visiting a neighbouring constituency, but it looks like I have just put another stop on the itinerary.

[Mr Speaker]

I am quite certain that the Secretary of State will want to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I welcome the focus on prevention. Of course, the next best thing is early diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State look again and remove the arbitrary age limit of 25 for women’s smear tests?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Part of the purpose of having a cross-Government suicide prevention Minister is to bring together all these issues. I pay tribute to the work of James’ Place and its founder, Clare Milford Haven. We are spending £30 million of taxpayers’ money to increase the number of health-based places of safety for people experiencing a crisis, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Adam Afriyie.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that early diagnosis provides more opportunity to cure and treat cancers. Some 60% of those treated for cancer will receive radiotherapy, and nearly every radiotherapy centre in the country has linear accelerators that are enabled to provide the advanced SABR, or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, technology, but Government—NHS England—contracts mean that out of the 52 centres in England no more than 20 are contracted to actually use this technology. That means that either patients are not receiving the highest quality life-saving standard of treatment that they could be or that trusts are providing it anyway but are not being paid and valuable data on mistreatment are being completely lost. Will the right hon. Gentleman order NHS England to stop this recklessness, and frankly lethal, nonsense and agree to every—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. The thrust of the question is entirely clear. I was going to offer the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate on the subject until I realised that he had in fact just conducted it.

[Matt Hancock]

And also, Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman’s all-party group is meeting my Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), on this very matter. Since 2016 we have put £130 million of funding in to try to resolve the issue that the hon. Gentleman talks about: to make sure that all new equipment is capable of delivering advanced radiotherapy. Work on this is ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

If the hon. Gentleman is claiming that there were not enough flu jabs under Labour, I might agree with him, because there are now more flu jabs. More than 4 million flu jabs have already taken place. I am delighted that lots of people want flu jabs because everybody who needs one should get one. The arrival of the flu jab medicine is phased, because we have to ensure that we get the right flu jabs. If the hon. Gentleman could carry on promoting flu jabs for the elderly, I would be delighted.

[Mr Speaker]

Is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) satisfied?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post, which is one of the toughest jobs in Parliament. Having worked with him on other things in the past, I am sure that his energy will come through in the Department.

I have a vested interest in the welfare of young children as we are expecting our 11th grandchild in October. Will the Secretary of State look closely at the relationship between obesity in later childhood and the diet of mothers during pregnancy? Early research shows that there is a link, so will he look at it carefully?

[Mr Speaker]

A veritable football team of Sheermans.

[Matt Hancock]

I am sure that they will grow into that, Mr Speaker.

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done, which I have watched with admiration from elsewhere. I will certainly look at the point that he raises, which is very important, and we will take a fully evidence-based approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted to see that the teamwork between my hon. Friend and I is going to continue. You might be surprised to know, Mr Speaker, that there are some things on which my hon. Friend and I agree. One is the importance of individuals taking responsibility—a critical part of public health and tackling obesity—supported by an enabling state.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is working extremely hard. I hope that he will take it in the right spirit if I say that I do not think he has yet quite secured the Shipley vote.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Sarah, who runs the Devonport Live café in Devonport, one of the poorest parts of the country, used to provide cookery classes for local young mums, but she cannot do that anymore because of a lack of funding to provide the support, facilities and food to help young mums—especially those on low incomes—to get the skills that they need to cook healthy meals for their children. What support can the Secretary of State give to young mums and to people such as Sarah who want to provide cookery lessons to support tackling childhood obesity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

As the Clerk advises—his is the intellectual copyright—the hon. Gentleman has used his intelligence artificially to shoehorn his preoccupation into a question to which it has no other relation. But he has got away with it on this occasion, as it is the last day and we are all in a summer mood.

[Matt Hancock]

I welcome the power of new technologies to bring new drugs to the table. NHS England has made a very generous final offer to the manufacturer of Orkambi. Having spoken to those involved again over the past couple of days, I understand that a meeting has been offered to the company but not taken up. The company can break this impasse by accepting the very generous offer on the table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

There is no greater enthusiast for digital technology than me, and I warmly welcome the pupils and staff from Wick high school. Of course, technology must be used appropriately in schools. There are many incredibly bright schoolchildren in the Visitors’ Gallery, and I hope that they can make the most of all the digital technologies that are available.

[Mr Speaker]

Well done Wick, I think we should say. Splendid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady has mentioned the Great Exhibition of the North, which will be launched tomorrow in Newcastle and Gateshead. I shall be going straight up there after questions, and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), will be going tomorrow. It will be a brilliant celebration of everything that the north of England has delivered to the nation in the past and will deliver in the future, and the hon. Lady is a great example of that.

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of the north of England, let us hear from north Yorkshire. Mr Kevin Hollinrake.

Proposed Media Mergers

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is an incredibly important point on which to end. You will know, Mr Speaker, as my hon. Friend does, that I am absolutely committed to high-quality journalism in the UK. The decisions that I have announced today, along with decisions—sometimes controversial ones—to protect the future of high-quality journalism are at the cornerstone of my approach to media policy. It is vital to have a free press and free media to ensure that we have high-quality journalism underpinning our high-quality political debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I entirely accept that the Pow moment was a magnificent one, but the Secretary of State erred in suggested that it was the conclusion of our proceedings, for it would be a very considerable deprivation to the House if we were denied the opportunity to hear the voice of Strangford; and we will hear the voice of Strangford, I am sure, in full force and now. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; you are always very generous. It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the people of Strangford. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Avaaz has won permission to have its case for a judicial review of Ofcom’s decision heard in court on 19 and 20 June, so this statement is not the last word. Does the Minister accept that if Avaaz were to win the case, Ofcom would have to go back and reinvestigate the Fox-Sky bid, adding even more uncertainty to the outcome?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I love Glasgow. It is an amazing city that is really going places. I am delighted that there is so much enthusiasm from every corner of the House for the fulfilment of a Conservative party manifesto commitment.

[Mr Speaker]

I suppose we had better hear about the Northern Ireland situation. I call Mr Gregory Campbell.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I do not wish to add to the bidding war, but when the Secretary of State has discussions with Channel 4 about where it might relocate, perhaps it might also reconsider some of its options in terms of its broadcasting output throughout the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I will.

[Mr Speaker]

Marvellous.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are strong supporters of the other indigenous languages of the UK. We have strongly supported the Welsh-language channel S4C. However, I am keen to see what more we can do to support the Gaelic language, and I look forward to meeting the hon. Lady’s colleagues to discuss how we can make that work.

[Mr Speaker]

I know that—exceptionally—the shadow Secretary of State would like to echo the tributes articulated by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want the hon. Gentleman suddenly to develop self-effacement, with which he has not traditionally been identified. I have been in the House with him for 13 years and I can honestly say that he has done many things, but he has never, ever bored me.

[Matt Hancock]

Nobody has done more to make the case for the rejuvenation of the Bradford Odeon than my hon. Friend. The Odeon has applied to our fund for support for its rejuvenation, right in the heart of Bradford, and this man has put his heart and soul into the campaign. We will be announcing the results very soon. I cannot tell him the answer today, but I have a smile on my face.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may never know—the Secretary of State might one day want his vote.

Cambridge Analytica: Data Privacy

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In the years before the 2008 crash, we were told that the people who were running the City of London were the masters of the universe and we could not touch them. We are seeing the same sort of arrogance from the large internet companies, such as Facebook. The way they are using data, and researching how to use data, is completely unregulated. Other areas of research that affect people’s lives are highly regulated. The Data Protection Bill does not go far enough to protect people’s data and the research that goes into manipulating it.

[Mr Speaker]

I exhort the Secretary of State to imagine that at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s peroration there was in fact a question mark.

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s statement—or question, Mr Speaker. I agree with him that the attitude of the social media giants has been, “Government should get out of the way, because we are doing things differently and better.” It may be a good thing for 95% of us that we are better connected and can use social media in positive ways, as many Members do, but there are serious risks and downsides that need to be addressed properly and appropriately. They are best addressed through legislation where necessary. The parallels he makes are telling.

Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend. Making sure the country works for everyone means making sure we have a press that can investigate people and cannot be put off such investigations by the threat of costs, even if everything they report is accurate. Therefore, I think that section 40 is not appropriate, but it is important that we have proper redress through IPSO, which has recently brought in a new system, and, as I said in my previous response, I would like to see that working.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) will go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step as a result of enjoying the approbation of no less a figure than the Secretary of State.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as being criminal, the behaviour described by John Ford would be actionable in civil law? If section 40 were enforced, it would be of considerable benefit to any member of the public who was a potential claimant, particularly if the publisher of The Sunday Times were held to be vicariously liable for the criminal and civilly actionable behaviour.

Points of Order

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I understand that she has also notified the Secretary of State. The contents of a ministerial statement are the responsibility of the Minister. If the Secretary of State feels that he has been in any way inaccurate in his description of Sir Brian Leveson’s views, I have no doubt that he will take steps to put the record straight. He is not obliged to say anything here, although he can if he so wishes.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Not yet; I am dealing with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman can behave with a statesmanlike reserve befitting his very high office and onerous responsibilities.

As the correspondence has now been made available, it is a matter on which all Members may take their own view. I think it partly comes down to a question of interpretation and of emphasis, and I know where the hon. Lady is coming from on this subject. I am not entirely unaware of what Sir Brian has said about these matters. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady has succeeded in putting her view on the record. I call the Secretary of State, who is in his place and was a moment ago literally leaping towards the Dispatch Box with a breezy air of confident insistence.

[Matt Hancock]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I very clearly and carefully described my position and Sir Brian’s. Now that his letter is in the public domain, I think it is all very straightforward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant]

The Mayor of the West Midlands has cross-party local support in trying to attract the Channel 4 headquarters to the region. Will my right hon. Friend outline in more detail how he thinks—and, more important, when he thinks—Channel 4 will move?

[Mr Speaker]

But not in too much detail.

[Matt Hancock]

Terrific.

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this issue and I have noted the verve with which the Mayor of the west midlands has campaigned for Channel 4 to move there. We believe that the company needs to do more outside London and I can certainly see the arguments for it to move its headquarters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Exactly, because the app I am talking about does not just belong to the Secretary of State, but is named after him, and the general public need to be protected from their privacy being invaded by Matt Hancock, their personal information being shared with third parties by Matt Hancock and their private photos being accessed by Matt Hancock. Will he undertake to ensure that Matt Hancock complies fully with all data protection regulations in future, and explain why he thinks other people should abide by their legal obligations with regard to data protection if Matt Hancock does not?

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that I am surprised the Secretary of State did not call his app “Hancock-Disraeli”.

[Matt Hancock]

Very good, Mr Speaker.

Of course the app does comply but, more importantly, I think we should use digital communications in all their modern forms to communicate with our constituents. I am delighted by the response the app has had—it has been far bigger than I could possibly have imagined—and I look forward to communicating with my constituents over Matt Hancock for many years to come.

Sky/Fox Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am not sure that the high-quality journalism of “Farming Today” will ever be the same again without my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, the importance of high-quality journalism, with a sustainable business model to fund it and plurality around it, are incredibly important policy questions. We will no doubt debate that in future, but it is a commitment to which I stick firmly.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, “Farming Today”’s loss has been Taunton Deane’s gain, as we are all conscious.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will consider “all the evidence carefully” in his quasi-judicial role. How is it possible for him to consider all the evidence unless he goes forward with Leveson 2—thereby honouring the promise given by a Conservative Prime Minister—and hears the evidence that remains unheard so that he can properly judge the Murdochs’ capability and competence for governance?

BBC Pay

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

May I say to the new Secretary of State that some of us—perhaps across the House and perhaps some here on these Benches—do not share quite as strongly the love for the BBC that he, in his first couple of days in the job, has shown? At the end of the day, we are talking about the top end of pay, but I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that this must be going on across the pay bands in the BBC. The BBC is under a charter from this House; we could change that at any time we wished to make sure that it publishes and shows everything, so that there is equality across the pay bands for contractors as well as those at the top end.

[Mr Speaker]

There might have been a question there, but if there was it was very heavily disguised.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting suggestion. It is not true that this issue has been aired for decades. This information has been in the public domain only since last July, because of the actions that we took to insist on transparency, so while the broader issue may have been discussed, we have not had the details to hand in the public debate. That is very important, because it is only once something is measured that it can be managed.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope I can be forgiven for making the point that if the Secretary of State was so keen for the issue to be aired in the Chamber, he could have volunteered to make an oral statement to the House. The reason why the issue is being aired in the Chamber today is that somebody—namely, the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell)—applied for an urgent question and I granted it. I massively welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s participation, but I think it is quite important that the public should know how this matter has come to be aired in the Chamber today.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In Britain in 2018, we have the unbelievably absurd situation where it remains a criminal offence not to pay a licence fee to an organisation that has institutionalised gender pay inequality. Will the Secretary of State invite Lord Hall to his office for an interview without coffee to explain urgently that the situation is unacceptable and needs to change well before 2020?

[Matt Hancock]

I certainly hope that the BBC can act before 2020. Lord Hall has, indeed, said that he wants to act before then, and I will be taking this matter up with him. On your point, Mr Speaker, of course I welcome the urgent question and I am grateful to you for granting it.

[Mr Speaker]

That is extremely gracious of the Secretary of State; I thank him.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), will the Secretary of State now very clearly join us in saying that it is not acceptable that women who speak out on these issues are now facing barriers at work and questions about whether they can carry out their duties and whether or not they will progress in their careers? A very clear message needs to come from this place that that is not acceptable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I have some Christmas cheer for people in Lincolnshire who want better broadband, because yesterday we announced that we are taking forward the legal guarantee for decent high-speed broadband under the universal service obligation. All I can say on this, Mr Speaker, is that all I want for Christmas is USO.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done.

[Lee Rowley]

I am not sure how to follow that, Mr Speaker. A number of villages in my constituency, including Spinkhill, Renishaw and those bordering the Peak District national park, are suffering from similar issues to those that have just been raised. Will the Minister outline all the work the Government are doing to try to improve that?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, the USO for broadband will be UK-wide, so wherever someone lives in the UK they will have a legal right to high-speed broadband by 2020.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes it all sound very exciting, I must say. I obviously have not lived yet.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming moves by the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that providers advertise more accurate average broadband speeds rather than “up to” speeds? Will the Government push for that to be introduced immediately rather than next May, as currently proposed?

Points of Order

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Whether it is incompetence or discourtesy, one knows not, but I think that most people would be interested to know, because of course it could happen to the constituent of any Member. The Minister is poised ready like a panther to pounce, and it would be a pity to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. Let’s hear the fella.

[The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister responsible for this policy area, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and see what we could do to ensure that he gets the appropriate response to his constituents’ concerns.

[Mr Speaker]

Ordinarily I find that if one is sufficiently persistent and demonstrates by one’s behaviour—entirely lawfully, I hasten to add—that there is no question of one’s going away, an institution will, in the end, tend to think that it is best to respond. I have had some modest experience of these matters in the past when seeking to secure a refund for a very elderly constituent in relation, I think, to a satellite dish. In the first instance, the company thought it proper simply to ignore my representations, but I made approaches with notable and perhaps spectacular regularity, as a consequence of which, in the end—this was probably 15 years ago—my constituent was able to seek redress. I never secured anything remotely approximating an apology from the company, but in a sense that mattered not. My constituent got his refund, and I rather doubt that the company would have tried to play the same game, at any rate in relation to any of my constituents, again. If I was able to succeed, I am confident that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), with due persistence, will also be able to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I normally think the hon. Gentleman is sensible, but today he seems to have avoided that. The contestable fund is about ensuring that we have a great diversity of success in broadcasting in our nation. As for the “Today” programme, I thought Nick Robinson’s broadcasts from Silicon Valley yesterday were superb. They were all about the interesting changes that are going on in the world and the economy due to artificial intelligence and digital. I thought that was another excellent direction for the BBC to be taking.

[Mr Speaker]

Stella Creasy? Not here. I call Kelvin Hopkins.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Conservative Members are strong supporters of the newspaper industry, especially local newspapers, which do not need extra costs from certain proposals. Given that we are such strong supporters of the newspaper industry, we have a consultation out on this issue, and I am sure he will look forward to the answer.

[Mr Speaker]

I leave others to judge whether the question was altogether apposite. I judged it orderly, but one thing is for sure: it was certainly creative.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

In Scotland, as the Minister knows, we have a strong, innovative and vibrant creative sector, which is worth £4 billion to our economy and which employs 75,000 people, many of whom are EU nationals. With Brexit looming, what assurances can the Minister give the industry in Scotland, and indeed across the United Kingdom, that this country will still be able to attract and keep the creative talent that is so vital for the industry to work, perform and exhibit in this country free from unnecessary barriers?

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 2, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 3 to 39.

Lords amendment 40, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendments 41 to 236.

Lords amendment 237, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 238, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 239, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 240 and 241.

Lords amendment 242, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 243 to 245.

Lords amendment 246, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 247 to 289.

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted that today we have a final opportunity to scrutinise the Digital Economy Bill and, I hope, get it on to the statute book before the Dissolution of Parliament. The Bill has been widely supported during its passage and tackles head-on some serious issues that many in this House feel strongly about. It will help us to extend digital connectivity, protect children from online pornography and better deliver Government services. The other House has made some amendments to the Bill, so I shall go through them in turn.

Lords amendment 1 challenges the Government to be more ambitious on universal digital connectivity. The universal service obligation forms part of our plan to deliver better connectivity, helping to ensure that everyone gets decent broadband and no one is left behind. However, we have serious concerns about whether the amendment is deliverable. As drafted, it is counterproductive to the implementation of a USO, because of the risk of legal challenge and the delay that that would cause. We are legislating for the USO under the EU telecoms legislative framework, under which a USO is intended to ensure a baseline of services where a substantial majority has taken up the service but the market has not delivered, and where users are at risk of social exclusion.

According to Ofcom’s latest data, in 2016, take-up of ultrafast broadband with a download speed of 300 megabits per second and higher was less than 0.1%, so we are nowhere near being able to demonstrate that the majority of the population have access to full fibre with a download speed of 2 gigabits per second. We therefore cannot accept Lords amendment 1, and we are not in a position of a substantial majority having taken up superfast broadband. I do, however, support the ambition of better, faster, more reliable broadband, so the Government propose an amendment in lieu that requires any broadband USO to set a download speed of at least 10 megabits per second, and requires the Government to direct Ofcom to review the minimum download speed in the broadband USO once superfast take-up is 75%. That gives the assurance that any USO speed will be reconsidered once a substantial majority of subscribers are on superfast.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to tackle a number of issues relating to mobile phones and frustrations about the service we receive. I understand those frustrations—I represent a rural constituency, so am often subject to them—and the Bill is designed to address them through the new electronic communications code, new switching and information powers, the enabling of automatic compensation, and the strengthening of Ofcom’s hand in the interests of consumers. Lords amendment 2 is an understandable reaction to the faults in the market, but it is not the answer, for the following reasons.

First, the requirement to allow customers to roam is unclear, and there are doubts about whether it would work legally, as acknowledged by the Opposition Front-Bench team in the other place. Although superficially attractive, roaming is the wrong solution. It would stymie investment by operators—why would they improve their coverage when a competitor could reap the rewards as their customers roamed on to their network? By contrast, taking roaming off the table in 2014 locked in £5 billion of investment to improve the UK’s mobile infrastructure, and 4G coverage from all operators has grown from 29% to 72% in the past year.

Secondly, the Bill already has greater provision on switching than the Lords amendment would require. That provision concerns operators of all telecom services—including fixed line, broadband and pay TV—not just mobile phones. Ofcom is better placed to ensure that operators adhere to procedures that enable easy and quick switching, thereby compelling operators to improve the level of their service.

Thirdly, the Government intended to look into bill capping in the consumer rights Green Paper, and it is already offered by some providers. Although we cannot accept Lords amendment 2, we can see the benefits for consumers of being offered the choice to limit their bills and avoid bill shock. We have therefore put forward an amendment in lieu that requires providers to make sure that as well as new customers, those with existing contracts have the opportunity to place a limit on their bill. This will not affect any obligations regarding contacting the emergency services, be that by voice call or text message.

We agree with the spirit of Lords amendment 40 and the proposed code of practice for social media platform providers on online abuse. We take the harm caused by online abuse and bullying very seriously. We offer an alternative provision that we think will achieve the intended outcome and which will form part of our work in the next Parliament to tackle serious harms and online threats and improve internet safety. Our amendment in lieu will provide a code of practice that will help to protect the users of online services and set out the behaviour expected of social media companies. The code is intended to give guidance for how social media providers should respond to harmful behaviour such as bullying. Good work is being done by some companies to prevent the use of platforms for illegal purposes and, when it is reported to the police, potential criminal conduct will continue to be liable to investigation, as with any other offence. We already expect social media providers to work closely with law enforcement in relation to potential unlawful activity taking place on their sites.

Other uses of social media might be cruel, upsetting, or insulting, but nevertheless legal. More can be done to tackle online abuse, such as bullying, and the other serious issues that face our children and young people. The code will set out guidance about what social media providers should do in relation to conduct that is lawful but that is nonetheless distressing or upsetting. Our intention is that the guidance will address companies proportionately. The biggest social media companies have recently put in place some improvements to make their platforms safer, but we all agree that they still have some way to go, and the amendment in lieu will help to achieve that.

Lords amendments 237 to 239 would establish a BBC licence fee commission to make a recommendation on the level of the licence fee required to fund the BBC, for a full public consultation on the appropriate level of BBC funding. However, we do not believe it is right for an unelected body effectively to set tax rates. It is a long-established principle that the Government do not consult on the level of taxation, so the amendments are not only impractical but unnecessary.

Lords amendment 242 would extend the public service broadcasting prominence regime for TV to on-demand menus and platforms, and I know it is a favourite of the Opposition Front-Bench team. We recently consulted on this idea and concluded that we could see no compelling evidence to change the regime, but I understand the impulse behind the amendment—to ensure that PSB channels are readily available as technology changes. However, the technologies of broadcasting and internet-based on-demand viewing are completely different, and amendment 242 goes far beyond the current prominence regime because it would extend the regime to content originating from the non-PSB portfolio channels of the commercial PSBs. It also seeks to give absolute prominence to PSB content by removing Ofcom’s discretion in applying prominence rules, and to extend the current definition of an electronic programme guide to include smart TV interfaces, which manufacturers tell us would create the need for bespoke products for the UK market, putting up the cost of a television. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment, but we do understand the strength of feeling in both Houses on this issue so we have tabled an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 242 to place a new requirement on Ofcom to report on the ease of finding and accessing PSB content across all television platforms. If Ofcom’s report makes it clear that there is a problem in this area, and one that can be fixed only by legislation, then, assuming that this Government are returned in June, I can commit to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Working with the hon. Gentleman on this subject has been unusually enjoyable, because he is not making party political points on this one; he has been working hard for his constituents and we have been engaged in serious correspondence. The truth is that we use independent figures on the roll-out, but a lot of people do not take up the broadband that is available to them.

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I would call the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on this question if he were standing, but if he does not stand, I will not do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

In this case, there were four vacancies and we chose the four best candidates. I will have no truck with the argument that we should have tokenism. I support appointment on merit. I also support making sure that we reach into all communities. The fact that this ministerial team has appointed 24% of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds demonstrates how much we care about—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are not as slow as all that. The right hon. Gentleman has made that point with force and eloquence, but it does not improve by being repeated.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s laconic attitude towards this is not helpful at all. He has just said that the appointments were made on merit and that had he gone through with the recommended appointment it would have been an example of tokenism. That is an absolute insult to the candidate, who, as he well knows, was perfectly well qualified and was recommended for appointment on merit.

When are we going to get an end to the uncertainty about Channel 4? The Secretary of State has been in place for 150 days. The sector is in absolute despair about the lack of a decision from the Government. When will we get an answer?

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 29—On-demand programme services: specially restricted material.

New clause 1—Power to require the blocking of access to pornographic material by internet service providers—

“(1) Where the age-verification regulator determines that a person has made pornographic material available on a commercial basis on the internet to persons in the United Kingdom—

(a) in contravention of section 15(1), and

(b) the person has been the subject of a financial penalty or enforcement notice under section 20 and the contravention has not ceased,

the age-verification regulator may issue a notice to internet service providers requiring them to prevent access to the pornographic material that is provided by the non-complying person.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) must—

(a) identify the non-complying person in such manner as the age verification regulator considers appropriate;

(b) provide such further particulars as the age-verification regulator considers appropriate.

(3) When the age-verification regulator gives notice under this section, it must inform the non-complying person, by notice, that it has done so.

(4) An internet service provider who fails to comply with a requirement imposed by subsection (1) commits an offence, subject to subsection (5).

(5) No offence is committed under subsection (4) if the internet service provider took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the requirement would be complied with.

(6) An internet service provider guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine.

(7) In this section “internet service provider” has the same meaning as in section 124N of the Communications Act 2003 (interpretation).”

This new clause gives a power to the age-verification regulator to require internet service providers to block pornography websites that do not offer age-verification.

New clause 3—Safety responsibilities of social media sites—

“(1) This section applies to a person who operates an internet site for commercial purposes which requires a user to create a personal account to fully access the internet site.

(2) A person under subsection (1) must—

(a) undertake and publish an online safety impact assessment in respect of their account holders,

(b) inform the police if they become aware of any threat on its internet site to physically harm an individual,

(c) remove any posts made on its internet site that are deemed to be violent or that could incite violence.”

New clause 10—Internet pornography: requirement to teach age requirement and risks as part of sex education—

“After section 403(1A)(b) of the Education Act 1996, add—

“(c) they learn about the risks and dangers of internet pornography, and the legal age requirement to access internet pornography under Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.””

This new clause would mean that the Secretary of State would have to include in guidance to maintained schools that pupils learn as part of sex education the risks and dangers of internet pornography and the legal age requirement to access it, as provided for under Part 3.

New clause 13—Code of practice for commercial social media platform providers on online abuse—

“(1) The relevant Minister must issue a code of practice about the responsibilities of commercial social media platform providers in dealing with online abuse.

(2) The code of practice must include guidance on—

(a) how a commercial social media platform providers shall respond to cases of a person being victim of online abuse on its internet site;

(b) quality service standards expected of the commercial social media platform providers in determining, assessing, and responding to cases of online abuse; and

(c) the setting and enforcement of privacy settings of persons aged 17 or under, where deemed appropriate.

(3) A commercial social media platform providers must comply with the code of practice.

(4) The relevant Minister may from time to time revise and re-issue the code of practice.

(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after issuing or reissuing the code of practice the relevant Minister must lay, or arrange for the laying of, a copy of it before—

(a) Parliament,

(b) the Scottish Parliament,

(c) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(6) In this section “commercial social media platform providers” means a person who operates an internet site on a commercial basis on which people can interact.”

New clause 32—Approval of Age-verification providers—

“(1) Age-verification providers must be approved by the age-verification regulator.

(2) In this section an “age-verification provider” means a person who appears to the age-verification regulator to provide, in the course of a business, a service used by a person to ensure that pornographic material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18.

(3) The age-verification regulator must publish a code of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.

(4) The code will include provisions to ensure that age-verification providers—

(a) perform a Data Protection Impact Assessment and make this publicly available,

(b) take full and appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of the data of their users,

(c) minimise the processing of personal information to that which is necessary for the purposes of age-verification,

(d) do not disclose the identity of individuals verifying their age to persons making pornography available on the internet,

(e) take full and appropriate measures to ensure that their services do not enable persons making pornography available on the internet to identify users of their sites or services across differing sites or services,

(f) do not create security risks for third parties or adversely impact security systems or cyber security,

(g) comply with a set standard of accuracy in verifying the age of users.

(5) Age-verification Providers must comply with the code of practice.

(6) To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the doing of any act required to comply with the Code, that term is unenforceable.”

Amendment 27, in clause 15, page 18, line 7, after “material” insert “or adult material”.

This amendment and amendments 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 would require all providers of internet content which is not suitable for children to put in place a robust age-verification system. In the offline world, children are not allowed to view material which the BBFC has classified to be only suitable for adults. This amendment ensures that these restrictions apply equally to the online world.

Amendment 28, page 18, line 11, after “material” insert “or adult material”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Amendment 29, page 18, line 18, after “material” insert “or adult material”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Amendment 30, page 18, line 24, after “material” insert “or adult material”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Amendment 2, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must make regulations to ensure that the definition of specially restricted material in section 368E(5) of the Communications Act 2003 is amended to reflect the definitions in this Part.”

The amendment requires the making of regulations to ensure that there is a parity of protection for children using different online media. The regulations would amend the definition of specially restricted material for UK based video on demand programming and extend it to 18 material as well as R18 material.

Amendment 31, in clause 16, page 19, line 17, at end insert—

“16 (1A) In this Part “adult material” means any of the following—

(a) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 certificate;

(b) any other material if it is reasonable to assume from its nature that any classification certificate issued for a video work including it would be an 18 certificate; and

(c) any other material if it is reasonable to assume that the video works authority would determine that a video work including it was not suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.”

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Government amendments 35 and 36.

Amendment 32, in clause 19, page 21, line 9, after “material” insert “or adult material”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Amendment 1, in clause 20, page 22, line 26, at end insert—

“(13) Where a person is—

(a) based in a country outside the United Kingdom, and

(b) refusing to comply with the requirements of the age-verification regulator, the age-verification regulator shall notify Ofcom that the relevant person is refusing to comply with its requirements.

(14) Following a notification made under subsection (13), Ofcom shall direct internet service providers in the United Kingdom to block public access to the material made available by the person on the internet.

(15) An internet service provider that fails to comply with subsection (14) within a reasonable period would be subject to financial penalties imposed by the age-verification regulator under section 21.”

Amendment 33, in clause 22, page 24, line 33, after first “material” insert “, adult material,”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Government amendment 37.

Amendment 34, in clause 23, page 25, line 5, after first “material” insert “, adult material,”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 27.

Government amendments 38 to 42.

New clause 7—Bill limits for all mobile phone contracts—

“(1) A telecommunications service provider supplying a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone must, at the time of entering into such a contract, allow the end-user the opportunity to place a financial cap on the monthly bill under that contract.

(2) A telecommunications service provider under subsection (1) must not begin to supply a contracted service to an end-user unless the end-user has either—

(a) requested the monthly cap be put in place and agreed the amount of that cap, or

(b) decided, on a durable medium, not to put a monthly cap in place.

(3) The end-user should bear no cost for the supply of any service above the cap if the provider has—

(a) failed to impose a cap agreed under subsection (2)(a);

(b) introduce, or amend, a cap following the end-user’s instructions under subsection (2)(b); or

(c) removed the cap without the end-user’s instructions or has removed it without obtaining the consumer’s express consent on a durable medium under subsection (2).”

New clause 14—Impact assessment of macro not-spot roaming—

“(1) Within three months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must commission an impact assessment of enabling a system of macro not-spot roaming in the UK, and shall lay the report of the impact assessment before each House of Parliament.

(2) In this section “macro not-spot roaming” means the ability for hand-held mobile telephone users based in relatively large areas of non or partial broadband coverage to access coverage from networks other than their own.”

This new clause calls for an impact assessment of macro not-spot roaming in the UK, in line with the recommendations of the British Infrastructure Group report on mobile coverage.

New clause 20—Ability of end-user to cancel telephone contract in event of lack of signal at residence—

“A telecommunications service provider must allow an end-user to cancel a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone if, at any point during the contract term, the mobile telephones is consistently unable to obtain a signal when located at the end-user’s main residence.”

New clause 21—Use of emergency serve network wireless telegraphy infrastructure by multiple network providers—

“After section 8(4) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, insert—

“(4A) A licence issued in respect of a wireless telegraphy station or apparatus that is used for the purposes of emergency service network shall stipulate that more than one network provider can use the station or apparatus.””

New clause 22—OFCOM power to enforce structural separation of BT Openreach—

“After section 49C of the Communications Act 2003 insert—

“(49D) OFCOM has the power to enforce the structural separation of BT Openreach, should OFCOM consider this necessary.””

New clause 25—Ability of end-user to cancel mobile telephone contract in event of lack of signal at residence and place of employment—

“A telecommunications service provider must allow an end-user to cancel a contract relating to a hand-held mobile device if, at any point during the contract term, the mobile device is consistently unable to obtain a signal when located at the end user’s main residence or main place of employment.”

New clause 26—Wireless telegraphy licences and medical or hearing technology—

“After section 14(4) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, insert—

“(4A) Before granting a wireless telegraphy licence, Ofcom shall carry out tests to identify the risk of any interference with any medical or hearing technology and publish its findings.

(4B) Ofcom shall not grant a licence if tests carried out under section 14(4A) have found there is a risk of interference with medical or hearing technology unless—

(a) action is taken to eliminate the risk; or

(b) a fund is set up to meet the costs of replacing all medical or hearing technology affected by the interference.

(4C) Where a fund is set up under section 14(4B), Ofcom shall require that any person who is granted a licence takes action to inform its customers of the risk that its devices may lead to interference with medical or hearing technology.””

This new clause would place a duty on Ofcom to carry out tests in advance of the sale of radio frequencies to ensure that any interference identified with medical or hearing devices is made public. Where a risk of interference is identified, Ofcom shall not grant a wireless telegraphy licence unless action is taken to remove the risk of interference or a fund established to cover the cost of replacing medical or hearing technology affected. This new clause is supported by the National Deaf Children’s Society.

New clause 27—Introduction of broadband connection voucher scheme as alternative to universal service order provision—

“The Secretary of State shall introduce a broadband connection voucher scheme to allow an end-user to access broadband other than that supplied by the provider of the universal service order, under Part 2 of the Communications Act 2003.”

Although most individuals are likely to choose the standard universal service order offering, this new clause would provide individuals with the option of a voucher scheme that empowers them to take up an alternative solution.

Government amendments 23 and 24.

[Matt Hancock]

The Digital Economy Bill will help to connect modern Britain, support the digital economy and keep people safe online. The measures in this group are about strengthening the enforcement of protections for children, improving access to online media, and addressing consumer protection in telecoms. I will take in turn those three sub-groups of your excellent grouping, Mr Speaker.

Turning first to child protection, I am delighted by the cross-party support for delivering the Conservative manifesto commitment to require age verification to access online pornography. During the Bill’s passage through the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is in the Chamber, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), has led debate about this by powerfully expressing the view that the enforcement proposed in the Bill is not strong enough—she is right. We have listened to the case that she and others have made. They have advanced the argument that some companies, especially those based overseas, simply will not abide by the law that is enacted by this House, so it is clear that there is a case to direct a UK internet service provider to prevent access.

We all want the internet to be free, but freedom operates within a framework of social responsibility, norms and the law. The approach set out in Government new clause 28 will protect the freedom of adults to watch pornography online, but provide adequate protections by giving children the same sorts of safeguards online as they have offline. We have worked closely with the industry and I am confident that it will take a responsible position. I therefore envisage the regulator needing to use this power only sparingly, because the vast majority of companies will want to obey the law. We will work through the technical detail with the regulator—it is expected to be the British Board of Film Classification—and others to understand the broader implications and make the new system work as we take the proposals through the other place.

We have been persuaded of another argument that was made powerfully on Second Reading. The provisions we have discussed today will see children protected by one of the most robust and sophisticated regimes globally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—I see her in her place—has said, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), the protections have resulted in a disparity between UK-based on-demand services on the one hand, and overseas-based on-demand services and online commercial providers of pornography on the other. We have carefully considered that and concluded that we do not want disparate regimes. Government new clause 29 will ensure that children are protected from pornographic content from wherever it is derived. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for making her case; I believe that we will have a stronger system as a result.

New clause 3 proposes a legal requirement to undertake an online safety impact assessment. I understand the intent behind the new clause, but I think that the measure is unnecessary, because leading social media companies already report on their online safety practices voluntarily as part of the safety framework of the ICT Coalition. We work closely with social media companies to ensure that they take down content that is violent or that incites violence, and to flag terrorist-related content. The system is important and is working well. Since 2010, we have secured the voluntary removal of more than 220,000 pieces of content. A requirement for a safety assessment is likely to be difficult to apply in practice because of the extraterritorial organisations that are involved in this space, and it would be almost impossible to target individuals who run small online websites for commercial purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that competition is incredibly important to the delivery of superfast broadband, especially in fibre. I am glad to say that in the second round of Broadband Delivery UK there is competition, rather than just one company dealing with the delivery. I can also report that more than 91% of properties in the United Kingdom now have access to superfast broadband, and we will not rest until the figure becomes universal.

[Mr Speaker]

The earnestness of the Minister cannot be surpassed.

Voter Registration

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I first commend the Government and my right hon. Friend for so successfully engaging millions of people that they want to register and vote in this referendum? That is definitely a good thing. I am afraid the problems he has encountered are born out of the fact that the Government and the Electoral Commission were ill prepared for the surge of registrations. The Government spent millions of pounds on promoting registration, so they should have been prepared.

This issue now arises: there is a cut-off in our legislation because the register has to be finalised and published six days before the date of the poll for the referendum—there have to be five days remaining so that any name on the register can be challenged during the first five days it is on the register—which leaves very little time for anything like legislation.

May I advise the Minister that it is probably legal to keep the site open for a short period—a few hours, to capture those who did not have the opportunity to register yesterday—but any idea of rewriting the rules in any substantial way would be complete madness and make this country look like an absolute shambles in the run-up to the referendum, which is such an important decision? Will he bear those things in mind, or risk judicial review of the result?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no entitlement in these matters for the Chair of a Select Committee to deliver an oration, and a short question is required. I have been mildly indulgent of the hon. Gentleman, because these are exceptional circumstances, but if people could be pithy from now on that would help.

[Matthew Hancock]

We prepared extensively for a peak in registrations, but the extent of interest in registering was unprecedented. My hon. Friend mentioned the period for which registrations may be valid in future in any legislative measure that we bring forward. He suggested that that should be for a short period, and I agree. That is to rectify the problem of people not being able to vote last night, so we are likely to bring forward proposals with that short period in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am in the happy position of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly open to the Government to bring forward business tomorrow, and I have a sense that that would be widely anticipated and enthusiastically supported in the House. To have some advance indication from the Government that that is their intention would be useful, and a supplementary business statement would be the ordinary, though not the only, way of providing the information.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is all agog and in a state of great excitement. I wish him to feel satisfied before he pops.

[Matthew Hancock]

Well, crikey, Mr Speaker. As I have made clear, it is likely that legislation will be needed, and I warmly welcome what the shadow Leader of the House said just now. We will work with him and through the usual channels to make sure that this is done as effectively as possible. I will take away the point about whether we should have a business statement today in order to facilitate that.

[Mr Speaker]

I know that discussions will take place between the usual channels behind the scenes. Given the normal courtesy of the Leader of the House, I would certainly expect to be kept apprised of the situation as the afternoon and events unfold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will take further points of order if they appertain to this matter. If they are on unrelated matters, they should come after the Standing Order No. 24 application. It is unrelated, so I save up the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman cannot have a commitment that is more important than the Chamber. He is the ultimate parliamentarian. We shall hear from him soon, and I am becoming increasingly excited about the prospect of doing so.

[Matthew Hancock]

Me, too.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister says “Me, too”, but I do not know whether he will feel the same way at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. That remains to be seen.

In a moment, I shall call the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Lady has up to three minutes in which to submit her application.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Government have succeeded in uniting the entire British voluntary sector against them, including household names such as the girl guides, Mencap and Oxfam. Indeed, their actions in trying to suppress debate and discussion are reminiscent of a totalitarian political culture. If voluntary organisations come across systemic child abuse or practices such as female genital mutilation, are you really saying that they should remain silent and not seek to influence Government, when a change in the law could outlaw such practices?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not saying anything of the kind, but I will leave it to the Minister.

[Matthew Hancock]

And nor are we. It is an absurd suggestion. The principle that taxpayers’ money should not be used to lobby Government is perfectly reasonable and one that most people support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

The Trade Union Bill, which is currently before Parliament, takes important steps to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members. Although trade unions play a very important part in our national life and represent the interests of many, they do not represent the interests of all, and we must make sure that that relationship is modern and appropriate. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The Minister must be very disappointed to have such an inattentive audience. Let us hear the words.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. Friend. That is why I will answer his specific point. The question is exactly the reason for prescribing this guidance only in respect of the in/out issue rather than more broadly. That is what the guidance says. This broad approach was set up by the Prime Minister in January, and then discussed and agreed in Cabinet on 20 February as the best way to take forward the position whereby Ministers could disagree with the Government position.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very decent of the Minister to dole out bowls full of respect, but my sense is that, on the whole, although that is enormously important to hon. and right hon. Members here assembled, they are generally more interested in his answers than in his respect.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I previously asked whether the Prime Minister was going to throw his weight behind the in campaign, and I am very pleased that he has done so, because for the sake of our peace, prosperity, opportunity and security, we need to be in. As for what we are discussing now, I would like some clarity from the Minister. Is it the case that there is a list of Ministers who are in, a list of Ministers who are out and a list of Ministers who are undecided, and what happens if a Minister switches from the in to the out campaign or the out to the in campaign?

[Matthew Hancock]

First of all, Mr Speaker, I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I also have respect for you—but perhaps I will drop all that. When the Cabinet met after the Prime Minister agreed the deal with other members of the European Union, Ministers at that point were asked to state their position—whether they wanted to remain or leave—and I doubt whether any of those positions will change.

[Mr Speaker]

Veritably, my cup runneth over at the generosity and good grace of the Minister, to whom we are indebted.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister calls on the law. The question of voter trust in this referendum, as I said to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 3 and 25 February, is paramount. For the voters who will decide this question, knowledge is, as we know, power. Does the Minister deny that under sections 6 and 7 of the later and express provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, a legal duty is imposed on the Government to provide referendum information and the voter is entitled to accurate and impartial information, as the Minister for Europe agreed in reply to me when the House debated that Bill, through and from the Government and all Ministers of the Crown equally, and that this therefore being a statutory obligation overrides any prime ministerial prerogative such as the Cabinet Secretary acted upon in the guidance of 23 February? Does the Minister therefore deny that civil servants as Crown servants are legally obliged to provide such information accurately and impartially to all Ministers within their Departments so that the voters are properly informed and empowered to answer the question in the referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

That is the normal course of events. It is for Ministers to make the argument, and for civil servants to support the Government’s position.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr David Davis.

Points of Order

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter for the Government. Legendarily, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is always keen to address the House—indeed, in the past he has likened himself to Disraeli, who had a notable enthusiasm for addressing the House. If he wishes to respond to the hon. Lady with that legendary succinctness for which he is renowned, we are happy to hear from him, but he is not under any obligation to do so.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I answered that point. The question is how we make sure that the guidance means that civil servants follow the Government position, including on the in/out question, which is the only question on which Ministers can move from the Government position. So it is a question of whether something is an in/out question or is normal EU business. I think I set that out earlier; I might have said the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, we have heard him now, but subsequently louder is better.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am happy to hear more from the hon. Gentleman because I am a great supporter of freedom of information and the Act, and of transparency. We have to make sure that its workings are accurate and we look forward to listening and seeing what the commission comes up with when it reports in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

As a matter of fact, we are the most transparent Government ever. What is more, the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that only this morning the Cabinet Office published further spending information to ensure that we keep that mantle.

[Mr Speaker]

Richard Burgon. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I want to pay tribute to Team Rubicon and all those who work with it. The role that veterans can play in shaping the future of young people and showing what it is to serve their nation is invaluable, and it is a lesson from which all of us can learn.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Harriet Harman.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified that the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] relates exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence, as defined in Standing Order No. 83J. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

Formally.

[Mr Speaker]

Even a nod from a Whip would suffice, but instead we have the full throttle of ministerial words. The House is greatly privileged and the occasion, I feel sure, will not be forgotten.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Gov.uk is one of the first parts of the work that we have done to ensure that government is digitally enabled, making citizens’ lives easier by making it easier for them to interact with government. The number of hits is far higher than anybody expected, which is a tribute to the work of the people who put it together. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions and answers must be heard.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

T6. According to a survey this month by Tungsten Network, 12% of the UK’s 5.2 million small and medium-sized enterprises still have to wait more than 90 days to get paid by suppliers. Will the Minister update us on his Government’s progress on meeting targets on prompt payments to suppliers?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know when those meetings were or how many there were—but I do know that by the sounds of it there were many meetings.

[Mr Speaker]

Put a note in the Library and everybody will be satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid I did not catch the whole of the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can repeat it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Chapman’s question will be heard.

[Douglas Chapman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The manifesto of Canada’s new Government said that they would scrap the purchase of F-35s. Given that the Cabinet Office is responsible for the strategic defence and security review, have the Government given consideration to the unit costs, which will increase, given that other nations such as Canada might cancel their orders for F-35s?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question about making sure that we can protect our national security long into the future. For a detailed answer he will wait for the SDSR to be published, but I can assure him that it will be published soon.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Bone, you have never had any trouble making yourself heard. Let us hear from you.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T4. Members on both sides of the House will be concerned about the steel crisis. Last Friday, at the steel summit, three taskforces were set up to help the steel industry. One of them is headed by the Paymaster General, so will he update the House on what progress has been made?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. To defend Britain from cyber-attack, we need to ensure that we have the cyber-skills in the future. That involves not only university-level skills, which we are putting money into expanding, but cyber-apprenticeships and entry-level schemes to ensure that, at all levels and from all parts of our country, we can recruit people to work in that important defence of our nation.

[Mr Speaker]

It would assist us if the Minister looked towards and spoke into the microphone. That tends to assist amplification in these circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

No matter how great a county Yorkshire is—it is, indeed, a great county—[Interruption.] —we need to make sure that the system works on a GB-wide basis and that it is as efficient as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the ability to access distribution networks and indeed the wider grid to ensure that those producing electricity can connect to nearby demand will enhance the ability of communities to play a part. I can see where he is going, but I am not sure that breaking up the GB-wide energy system is the best way to reach a solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I note that a Lancastrian Whip blurted out what might be described as a competitive chant when the right hon. Gentleman was hailing the merits of Yorkshire, but I will not draw any further attention to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to get a question on coal into one on the Order Paper about renewables. I come from coal mining stock, and I have delivered support to the three remaining deep pits so far to make sure they stay open on a commercial basis, and to ensure, as far as possible within the constraints of affordability and value for money, the continuation of this mining. There is nobody who has done more than me in the past six months to make this happen. I will continue to work with all parties, including the National Union of Mineworkers, to get there.

[Mr Speaker]

Never use one word where 100 will do. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To change the question slightly, one area in which there could be improvement is in encouraging industry to move from electricity to more renewable sources for heat and energy. Is the target of 20% being met, and what discussions has the Minister had with his equivalent in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Arlene Foster, to ensure that these targets are met across the whole United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. Of course the regulatory regime for onshore oil and gas extraction in the UK is very strong. Onshore oil and gas extraction has been going on for many, many decades and hydraulic fracturing has been used onshore over many decades in the UK. We will continue to try to make the most of these huge reserves underneath the UK and do so in a careful and cautious way.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, a lion to roar. Mr John Robertson.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the price of oil has come down, which means that there will be a lack of investment in the North sea either side of the Shetland islands and into the Atlantic as well. What will the Government do about the jobs shortages that are starting to come through the system, and how we will maintain the reduced prices for customers?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Matthew Hancock)]

My hon. Friend is right that we need investment in our energy infrastructure, including gas-powered fire stations. The capacity market auction on which many of those investment decisions will be made is under way this week and is continuing today to get the best possible value for money for energy consumers. It would be insidious of me to comment on an auction while it is under way. [Hon. Members: “Invidious!”] It would be invidious of me as well, so I will not comment, but my hon. Friend makes a critical point that it is vital to get new energy generation investment.

[Mr Speaker]

If the Minister could provide us in future with the energy efficient version of his reply, that would be extremely beneficial. I think with practice he will get there.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T5. As has been said during these questions and earlier this week, fracking is a hot topic of debate, particularly in Scotland, which is surprising, because the Scottish Government have an effective veto. Will the Minister confirm again that he and his Department are powerless to overturn a Scottish Government decision if they decide to deny planning permission for any fracking project?

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said earlier, there have been no licences in the past five years for onshore oil and gas production in Scotland. Planning is a matter for the Scottish authorities and we are clear in our response to the Smith commission, which all parties signed up to, that licensing will also be a matter for Scotland. Onshore oil and gas exploration is a matter for the Scottish Government. If they do not want it to go ahead, it will not, and if it does go ahead, it will be a matter for them.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good also of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to drop in on us. I do not know whether he is aware, but he has a question on the Order Paper and we want to hear him. It is a topical question—anything the hon. Gentleman likes. I will give him a moment or two more to dream something up. Come on, Mr George—let’s hear you!

Rolls-Royce (Aerospace Group)

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great passion and wisdom on matters with which he is intimately concerned. For the future, however, it would be helpful if people tried to stick to the time limits on these matters, because there are many colleagues to accommodate. I do not wish to embarrass her, but I think that colleagues will probably learn shortly from the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) how it can be done pithily.

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course we are working to ensure that, as much as possible, those who face redundancy through this process have the support they need, especially to get other jobs in the sectors that are expanding fast. Aero as a whole is expanding, with its exports up sharply over the last four years.

I would, however, caution the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I very much look forward to working with him, colleagues and others to ensure that those who are affected get the support they need, but the 4,000-job increase in Rolls-Royce employment over the last four years has, in large part, been in exactly the sorts of high-skilled, high-quality jobs we all want to see. I do not think it behoves the hon. Gentleman well to try to deny that in some way. [Interruption.] On the contrary, what we are trying to do is ensure that, where there are skilled people, they get the retraining that they may need or the connection to those who are trying to expand, and where there are skills shortages in engineering, that undoubtedly means that there are opportunities and job vacancies for the people with those skills who are being made redundant by Rolls-Royce.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

We are in the middle of a big culture change, with more and more employers—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister gets ahead of himself, with characteristic enthusiasm and gusto, I think he will want to confirm to the House his intended grouping of Questions 6 and 8, which I think his briefing folder will tell him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I could not have put it better myself, and I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. That is what we are trying to do, by having a three-click programme for an employer to take on an apprentice and through wider reforms.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Minister was intending, at any rate, to offer extravagant praise.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The number of 16 to 18-year-olds undertaking apprenticeships dropped by nearly 14% in the first quarter of the 2013 academic year. With 900,000 young people out of work, is it not time the Minister admitted that his boastful rhetoric does not match his hopeless record of failure?

Vocational Qualifications

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I was disappointed by the curmudgeonly approach of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, to the great success of apprenticeships under this Government. In my constituency of Gloucester, the impact of the increased funding for apprenticeships means that there are now more than three times the number of apprentice starts every year than there were in 2009, and youth unemployment fell by 45% last year alone. When the hon. Gentleman said that he was scratching his head, I was not surprised, because when the shadow Chancellor came to Gloucester he said that he was concerned about the level of youth unemployment. There is always more to do, but it is 20% lower than it was under Labour’s watch. Today, can we celebrate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a pretty healthy dollop.

[Matthew Hancock]

I had more than a dollop when I visited Gloucester with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The fact that youth unemployment has fallen by 20% since he was rightly elected is in no small part thanks to the enormous hard work he does with his magnificent jobs fairs and apprenticeships fairs, and what he does to promote apprentices to employers, which I have seen first hand.

Points of Order

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The countenance of the Minister gives no indication of his awareness or unawareness of that convention. I confirm that it is a convention. The Minister is champing at the bit. He will not be silenced, and nor would we want to silence him.

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

I was quoting from publicly available evidence that shows that the proposals that were brought in by the Labour Government did not lead to sustainable jobs. Of course, we know the result because Labour left office with youth unemployment up, unemployment up and employment falling. This morning, we found out that the inactivity rate in Britain is at its lowest level since 1992, which shows that we are turning that problem around.

[Mr Speaker]

We cannot have a continuing debate on the matter. I simply say, in a spirit of trying to bring the matter to an amicable close and to serve the interests of the House, that it would be helpful, if the Minister was quoting from publicly available material, if he wrote to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoting chapter and verse, and referring him to the particular statements or paragraphs that he has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to be starting to get to grips with parliamentary procedures by now. There is no scope for that grouping and it certainly should not be done on the hoof, as it were. It is a matter of agreement in advance, but the hon. Gentleman will learn and he will know not to make that mistake next time.

[Matthew Hancock]

I apologise if any mis-communication happened before these questions.

Over half of employers report that not enough young people leave education with work experience or having developed employability skills.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), once the hon. Gentleman sees the impact assessment he will be able to have a full view of the value of the policy.

[Mr Speaker]

I was looking for Dr Huppert. He popped up a moment ago but has popped down again. Never mind. We will accommodate him on some other occasion.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

My experience of the Banbury and Bicester job clubs is that young people who have dropped out of education or training often find it difficult to get back into education and training. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that those youngsters who have been NEETs but want to get into further education will be given support to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s inquiry has concluded. What does the Minister think of it?

[Matthew Hancock]

I think much as I thought about five minutes ago when I last answered that question. This is a difficult decision, but the impact assessment—which, of course, I have studied—is very clear about taking difficult decisions to deal with the catastrophic mess left by the Labour Government. We are having to take decisions, and we will take them to put this country on the right track.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Since we launched the loans in April, there has been a robust take-up, and we are working hard to ensure not only that colleges are aware of the opportunities presented by loans to help over-24s to learn at higher levels, but that people are aware of the opportunities available to improve their skills.

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Malcolm Bruce—not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes. I am delighted to say that I have already taken some action, but there is more to do. The first round of the employer ownership pilots included funding for a bid by engineering companies across the country specifically to support engineering apprenticeships and engineering training. I entirely accept the size of the challenge in engineering and ICT. If we say that engineering is not for half of our population, we are never going to have enough high-quality engineers. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has been chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose—[Interruption.] Order. He was making his point sitting down. Would he like to make it standing up?

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

20. Indeed. Would the Minister accept that the withdrawal of funding for the Women into Science and Engineering campaign is not a good idea if we are to be serious about getting more women into engineering and science?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I beg to move amendment 21, page 42, line 38, leave out ‘, other than the Scottish Ministers,’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 22.

Amendment 63, page 43, line 1, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Amendment 64, page 43, line 4, after ‘specified period’, insert ‘, or’.

Amendment 65, page 43, line 6, after ‘specified period’, insert ‘, or’.

Amendment 66, page 43, line 10, leave out line 10 and insert ‘If the provision is made by virtue of subsection (2)(a), it includes’.

Amendment 67, page 43, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must if necessary’.

New clause 26—Review of legislation relating to health and safety at work and application of sunset and review provisions to this legislation—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) carry out a review of the effectiveness of all existing legislation relating to health and safety at work, and

(b) prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.

(2) The review and report must quantify, in particular—

(a) the effectiveness of the legislation in terms of reducing deaths, injuries and sickness in the workplace,

(b) the human cost, and full societal costs of work-related injuries, deaths and ill-health in terms of pain and suffering, injuries, sickness and years of life lost, and

(c) the full societal costs of the impact of the legislation including those costs resulting from welfare and healthcare spending, and resulting from the number of days lost in the workplace due to ill-health.

(3) Subordinate legislation under section 14A of the Interpretation Act 1978 in respect of any provision relating to health and safety at work may not be made until after the report has been published.’.

[Matthew Hancock]

Amendments 21 and 22 are technical amendments, the effect of which I hope will be straightforward and non-controversial. The changes proposed in Clause 50 will support the implementation of the Government’s policy on reducing the burden of regulation by allowing a sunset and review provision to be included in any future secondary legislation. They will enable the Government to put in place a robust and enduring system for tackling obsolete, burdensome or ineffective regulation, in line with the principles set out in the sunsetting guidance first published in March 2011.

I am pleased to say that those principles and the proposed change in the clause are widely supported and received detailed scrutiny in Committee before the summer. The changes proposed in clause 50 are permissive, broad in scope—intentionally so—and apply to powers to make subordinate legislation falling within the scope of the Interpretation Act 1978. Without qualification, this would include powers in a UK Act of Parliament exercisable by Scottish Ministers, whether in relation to matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament or in relation to matters reserved to Westminster.

Following earlier consultation with Scottish Ministers, however, agreement was reached to exclude powers exercised by Scottish Ministers from the effect of the changes. Among other things, that is consistent with the convention, under the present devolution settlement, which has cross-party support, that the Westminster Parliament will not normally legislate on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That seems reasonable to me.

Following further consultation with interested parties, it has become apparent that a further change is required to address the related issue of the powers of non-ministerial Scottish bodies and other persons under UK legislation. For example, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 provides the registrar with various powers to make subordinate legislation in areas of devolved competence. Equally, the Court of Session has powers under successive UK Acts, most recently the Court of Session Act 1988. Because these are powers to make subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, they would also be in the scope of the changes proposed in clause 50. The effect of the Government’s amendments is to ensure that the powers exercised by non-ministerial Scottish bodies and other persons that fall within areas of devolved competence are excluded.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 10—Listed buildings in England: certificates of lawfulness.

Government new schedule 1—‘Local listed Building consent orders: procedure.

Government amendments 38 to 40, 42, 43, and 48 to 50.

[Matthew Hancock]

I shall speak to new clause 9 and new schedule 1 in the first instance. Those provisions are intended to improve the effectiveness of the listed building consent regime and they follow the Penfold review of non-planning consents. They introduce a new system of national and local class consents, and received broad support during consultation. The new system is designed to reduce the number of listed building consent applications for works that have neither a harmful nor significant impact on a building’s special interest. It will be possible to grant consent automatically for certain categories of work or buildings—where the extent of the special interest is well understood—without the need to make an additional application. Thus, the new provisions will protect listed buildings. I, like many others in this House, have a special adoration for the heritage of our listed buildings in this country, not least the one in which we are standing. Our approach will also improve the operation of the regime. [Interruption.] I suppose that I should declare an interest, although it is not the one that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) thinks; I work in a wonderful listed building and I want to ensure that it is protected.

The changes will also reduce burdens on applicants and free up local planning authority resources to focus on the listed building consent applications that really matter. The Secretary of State will be required to consult English Heritage before making a national order and will be able to apply conditions to consent granted by an order, as with listed building consent at the moment. Both the Secretary of State and any local planning authority will be able to direct that an order does not apply to a specified building, or to buildings of a specified type or in a specified area. The Secretary of State will have the power, at any time, to revoke a listed building consent order, having first served notice on the local planning authority and given it an opportunity to make representations.

The Secretary of State or the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings to which the order applies, as well as their setting and any features of special architectural or historic merit that might be affected. We envisage that the processes leading to a class consent will involve the same level of public notice, engagement and consultation as applies to listed building consent currently. These provisions will reduce regulatory burdens without diminishing protection for important heritage sites and buildings. New clause 9 also restates, with minor technical changes in some of the consequential Government amendments, provisions on heritage partnership agreements which were already in the Bill.

New clause 10 introduces a new certificate of lawfulness of proposed works to listed buildings, which will provide certainty to owners and developers of listed buildings—this proposal also received support during consultation. Works to a listed building that do not affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest do not require listed building consent. However, interpretations of whether or not consent is needed can vary, and local planning authorities are often reluctant to give a view because it is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine. That means that those seeking to make changes to listed buildings are sometimes required to submit a formal application for listed building consent in order to gain certainty as to whether or not proposed works would affect the special interest. We hope that certificates of lawfulness of proposed works will provide a simple, straightforward mechanism for owners and developers of listed buildings to gain the certainty they require, while reducing the number of unnecessary consent applications. I therefore trust, not least given the widespread support we had in the consultation, that hon. Members will support these new provisions, and I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I fear I must now call the Minister—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

[Matthew Hancock]

In the very short time available, I shall first deal with the previous two speeches. I agree with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and am grateful for his intervention, but I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, not least because the Government’s measures will make his situation easier, and because changes other than where there is a special interest will no longer require consent in the same way. That will make his life easier.

Higher and Further Education

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. I think that much we have established.

[Matthew Hancock]

It was very clear.

My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) effectively made the case that we all have a responsibility to let everybody know that no one will pay a penny in their fees until they are earning over £21,000. Let that message go out from here. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was typically passionate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire showed strong support for Derby university and for apprenticeships.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Patience rewarded: I call Mr Matthew Hancock.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made this morning:

“The last Labour government didn’t regulate the banks properly. That’s what caused the financial crisis”—

not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—or does he, like me, think that it was caused not just by a failure to regulate the banks but by the Labour Government spending more money than they had?

Northern Rock

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As I said to the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), I understand that there are very strong feelings and effects on constituencies on these occasions, but the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) must not chant a chorus from a sedentary position—or even, for that matter, from a standing position. We are grateful to him for his views when he is called to speak.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Is not the argument that we should hold on to Northern Rock for a few more years in the hope that the price will go up just a punt on the stock market, and is that not exactly the sort of attitude that got us into this mess in the first place?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T7. Will the Minister commend the work of Attitude is Everything, which works extremely hard to promote disabled access to music venues? Going to a music concert is brilliant for the morale of many disabled people and people in wheelchairs, and access—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat when asked to do so. He is making a very important point, but it must be made briefly, and that is the end of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T2. Does my right hon. Friend think that responsible Members of this House, in all parts of the Chamber, should condemn irresponsible strike action that puts children’s education at risk and diminishes public services? Does the silence—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful. The hon. Gentleman has finished.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is quite a lot of chuntering from sedentary positions, but I want to hear both the questions and the answers.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Since the formation of a Government who are determined to deal with the deficit, market interest rates have in some cases halved. What impact does the Chancellor think that has had on both our GDP growth and the interest payments that we have to make on Government debt?

PAYE Contributions

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matthew Elliott. [Interruption.] I mean Matthew Hancock. Tax was on my mind.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Minister said that one reason why some payments will have to be so big is that there has not been a reconciliation for two years. Can he explain why moneys were not required back from taxpayers up and down the country last year in the months running up to the general election?

Education Funding

Debate between Matt Hancock and John Bercow

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions with the brevity demonstrated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) are an inspiration that others might seek to follow.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the hard work that the many inspirational teachers in West Suffolk do to wade through some of the bureaucracy with which they have to deal. Does he agree that it is irresponsible to raise hopes of new schools when no sustainable funding is available?