Backbench Business Committee
Transcript of meeting
Tuesday 3 May 2016
Representations made before the Backbench Business Committee on Tuesday 3 May 2016
Members present; Ian Mearns (Chair), Bob Blackman, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Jess Phillips.
Mr Alan Mak; Mims Davies made representations.
Questions 1-9
Mr Alan Mak made representations.
Q1 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have two applications this afternoon. The first is from Alan Mak, on the fourth industrial revolution.
Mr Mak: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Committee for considering my application, which I make jointly with Peter Kyle, the Labour Member for Hove and Portslade and a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Mr Kyle cannot be with us today as he is attending a funeral; he sends his apologies and reiterates his full support for the application.
The application is for a three-hour debate in the main Chamber to examine the nature and consequences of the fourth industrial revolution. In summary, that is the emerging trend of the fusion of technological, biological, physical and electronic innovation in the UK and world economy. It is an issue that I understand has never been debated in Parliament before—certainly not in the main Chamber of the Commons. It affects all parts of the country—rural, suburban, coastal and all other areas in between—as well as large areas of Government policy, from industrial strategy through apprenticeship policy to regional growth. It is an issue that has been of interest to many Members across the House. You will see from my application that there has been a high level of interest, beyond what is needed to secure a debate, and I think I could have progressed the number of signatures even further had I needed to.
If the Committee were to grant the debate, it would be an important affirmation of the importance of this issue to the country. It would hopefully also prompt the Government to provide a response that would be useful to Members across the House.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed.
Q2 Jess Phillips: Thank you very much. I didn’t know that we’d had a second or third industrial revolution, but I am delighted to hear that we are already on the fourth.
While I think that everything that you are trying to say is fine, the motion seems a little bit—for want of a better word—sycophantic towards the Government. You are not really asking them to do anything more; it is a sort of, “As you were—carry on, Macduff.” It asks Her Majesty’s Government “to continue introducing and supporting policies.” I think normally with a substantive motion we are asking the Government to do something differently from how they are doing it now, whereas this is just patting them on the back.
Mr Mak: My response is that the fourth industrial revolution as a concept is relatively new and wide-ranging. Therefore, there is no individual intervention that the Government could specifically introduce, which is why I call upon the Government to continue to explore, investigate and implement a range of policies.
For the Committee’s benefit, it may be useful if I give a quick summary of the different types of topic areas that come under the fourth industrial revolution. I hope that Committee members will see the breadth of the issue. It ranges from life sciences, such as nanotechnology and personalised medicine, all the way through advanced manufacturing and engineering, computer games, artificial intelligence, the social impact of deindustrialisation and the rise of machines and mechanics, to the role of apprenticeships and renewable energy. So it is a hugely broad topic. There is not really one intervention, it is more to call upon the Government to continue exploring the issue and to come up with positive policies.
I would also add, perhaps to presage a later question, that the Government will be producing its national innovation plan over the summer, and I think a debate would be a good opportunity for Members from all sides of the House to focus the Government’s mind on the fact that that plan should have the fourth industrial revolution and its consequences built in, rather than bolt-on.
Q3 Mr Hollobone: What were the second and third industrial revolutions?
Mr Mak: Well, the first industrial revolution, which Britain was a world leader in, was the use of water and steam power to mechanise production. The second industrial revolution was the widespread use of electricity to create mass production. The third industrial revolution was the use of electronics, information technology and the internet to build the digital age, and the fourth digital revolution is really a fusion of technological, digital, biological and physical. That gives rise to things like artificial intelligence, smart robotics, advanced manufacturing, personalised medicine, wearable technologies, renewable energies, driverless cars—the list goes on.
Chair: Thank you very much, Alan. That has been very interesting and informative. Of course, as you will be aware, we are coming rapidly towards the end of this Session of Parliament. You mentioned trying to influence the Government’s thinking in advance of the national innovation plan, which they are meant to be putting together this summer, so we will probably be looking at dates in the next Session of Parliament, immediately after the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Mak: Thank you, Chairman.
Mims Davies made representations.
Q4 Chair: Mims, you have an application about carers.
Mims Davies: Yes; thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Committee, for hearing this application and considering it for a debate, hopefully during Carers Week, which is in the early part of June—6 to 12 June.
The reason for this application is the breadth of support across the House for this discussion to be had. There has not been one in the House since 2013. Carers Week and the Government strategy on carers present a perfect opportunity to have a look at this issue at the beginning of June. Some 6.5 million people in the UK are now carers for ill, older or disabled people—friends or relatives. I have certainly had personal experience of that, and I know other Members have.
There is a silent carers army, and I feel that they need a voice here in Parliament. It is estimated that £132 billion a year is saved thanks to the unpaid carers who work to look after their families and give them a better life. We have seven different charities that are keen to see that this work is highlighted as the Government looks at the care strategy, and that the Department of Health understands the pressures that people are under. So I hope you will look favourably at this application as an opportunity to look at all the different aspects of caring.
Trying to keep in employment was something that affected me with two young children and two ill parents at different points in my life—having flexibility and being able to juggle things. Quite often people fall out of employment during their caring responsibilities, only to find that it is a short-term measure that can affect their employability in the long term. This is a chance for the Government to take a look at the wider context of caring and the impact that it has in our communities.
I am happy to take any questions, but I hope you will see that this is quite a broad application, with some good support from across the House. I think Carers Week would be a great time for the debate, if you were able to schedule it. We are also hoping to focus on carer-friendly communities in 2016, so that people understand that there are different challenges for those who look after other people and so that employers in communities have an understanding of the toll that caring can take on all families.
Q5 Chair: Thank you very much. I am sorry, Mims, but I have been taken aback—I have a letter from Carers Week here, and it is dated 29 May.
Mims Davies: Is it?
Chair: It is, yes.
Mims Davies: Wow. We are in a time machine, are we?
Chair: I wonder if we can get on to Emily and find out what happens in the 2.30 at Ascot.
Mims Davies: Sounds good to me. We’ll all go and get some lottery tickets.
Q6 Chair: This issue is something that I am acutely aware of—in my constituency, the headquarters of Gateshead Carers was literally the next-door office to mine, so I was never allowed to forget. It has moved, but I am still not allowed to forget, and I have certainly been aware of Carers Week being at that time for a few months now.
The one problem I would mention is that that is immediately after the Whitsun break, and immediately before the Whitsun break this Committee will not have been reconstituted. We might find it difficult, so we will have to think about a way of trying to get round that if we are going to get a time-sensitive slot for you.
Mims Davies: Yes. As I have had the pleasure of coming to this Committee before, I know that you struggle with those things, but you work very sensitively. We could do it in advance of Carers Week, to highlight the opportunities, if that was agreeable.
Q7 Chair: I think you would basically be clashing with Queen’s Speech business immediately prior to Whitsun.
Mims Davies: Sure. You are absolutely right. I am sure you will find a way.
Chair: Nothing is beyond the wit of man.
Q8 Jess Phillips: Bearing in mind all the caveats about how it might be difficult, I think that if anything, you have underestimated the level of interest that you will get, and that potentially you should push to be in the Chamber to talk about something so important. That is entirely up to you—you have put down for Westminster Hall. But also, I think that 90 minutes won’t be enough. Hundreds of Members will want to speak on the subject. That is all I would say—you are doing a better job than you think.
Mims Davies: Well, if the Committee is minded to find time in the main Chamber for as many Members as possible, I will be delighted to hear it.
I was at a Genetic Alliance APPG meeting just a few days ago, and I heard about the experiences of carers of young disabled children who do not have a label for the issues that those children have. They have to deal with different authorities—they can live in one authority but be served by doctors in different areas, so it is really difficult. That is a particular group of carers that I feel does not have any kind of voice, because they do not have a label for the illness that their children have. Sometimes they do not even have any kind of prognosis or any way to handle the way their children are looked after. I absolutely agree with Jess, and I would be most appreciative of whatever we could best do to highlight the issue, as would the 6.5 million carers and all the people they care for.
Q9 Bob Blackman: What are you trying to achieve from this first debate? I think a series of debates could potentially be generated as a result, but what is the aim for this debate?
Mims Davies: For me it is about the challenge of day-to-day life and making sure that people understand just what a toll caring takes. There is a point—I had it in my life, and I know that many carers find this—when you decide whether to give up work and be with your family member. If you do, what impact does that have on you? Do you have the confidence and the ability to go and talk to your employer about some flexibility and some time out? In some spheres employers feel very empowered to do that when people’s life circumstances change, but sometimes people have a long caring responsibility, and it can be quite a shock to change their life around completely. The area I am particularly interested in highlighting is people who need to come out of work to care. How they then get back into work can cause all sorts of long-term problems for them financially, and they have taken a hit in the short term as well.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. As we have highlighted, we may have a timing problem, but we will certainly try to circumvent it.
Mims Davies: Thank you, Committee, and thank you, Chair.
5