Pat McFadden
MP for Wolverhampton South East · Labour · United Kingdom
“In his review Alan Milburn considered that issue and said that, “the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.” As I said earlier, 400,000 more people are in work this year than last year, and the number of young people in employment is up since the election.”
“Since our last DWP questions, both Alan Milburn and the Pensions Commission have published their respective interim reports on young people and on the current state of saving for retirement. I look forward to receiving their final reports later in the year.”
“As Alan Milburn pointed out in his recent report, the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years. There are 400,000 more people in work than last year. The number of young people in employment is up by 74,000 since the election.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman and send him commiserations for whatever has left him reliant on his crutches today. I am happy to congratulate the businesses he mentioned in his constituency. He raises a serious point: it is important not only to come up with the right policy, but to make it simple for businesses to use.”
“My hon. Friend is right, and I thank Cardiff football club for being a partner. We are supporting nearly 1 million young people and creating up to half a million opportunities for jobs and training.”
“We are making strong progress on expanding youth hubs, with around 130 already in operation across Great Britain. In March, I announced the locations that we want to open in this year, and I have just announced a further 180 locations for the following two years.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,181 lines we hold for Pat McFadden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 68 of 104.
“I have had no recent discussions with the Ministry of Justice on this subject, but I understand that this is a long-running issue and that hon. Members are keen to see it brought to a conclusion.”
“As I said, I do understand that hon. Members are keen to reach a conclusion on this subject. I also understand that a meeting has been scheduled to take place shortly in which my hon. Friend and others will meet the Secretary of State for Justice and the Prime Minister. The Government are aware that we need to respond not only to this but to issues relating to other respiratory conditions.”
“The Government estimate that just over 60,000 workers could benefit from the change to the minimum wage regulations. This will prevent tips from being counted towards the national minimum wage. Customers do not expect the tips that they leave to be used to make up the minimum wage, and the changes that we have introduced mean that tips can no longer be used in that way.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point. Alongside the change in the law that we have made, we need proper enforcement and proper transparency in regard to what happens to tips. The public have a right to know what happens to the money that they voluntarily leave to reward the service they receive. The Government have also toughened up the law on the enforcement of the minimum wage, and there are now better arrears systems for employees who are not paid the minimum wage and tougher penalties for the minority of employers who do not pay it. We have also brought together the helplines for different rights at work to form a single pay and work rights helpline, which will make it easier for people to report abuses. The number is 0800 9172368.”
“That is precisely why, alongside the change in the law to make sure that tips and gratuities cannot be used to make up the minimum wage, we want the industry to promote a code of transparency to ensure that the customer knows exactly what happens to the money they give. If I went into a restaurant and thought that the staff were not receiving anything of the tip, why would I leave one? I want to reward for the service we receive, and that is what the customer wants. That is why we have changed the law and want to see more transparency in addition to it.”
“The Government want to get the legislation to implement the agency workers directive on to the statute book by the end of this Parliament. We will shortly table the relevant regulations and publish the Government’s response to the recent consultation.”
“That is the aim. My hon. Friend says that it has been left until late in the day, but if he looks across Europe he will see that we are legislating ahead of many other countries. I do not accept that there has been an unacceptable delay, but it is our aim to get this provision on the statute book by the end of the Parliament. As I have said, we will be publishing the relevant regulations shortly.”
“Our aim in bringing forward these regulations is to abide by the agreement that we reached in Europe to ensure fairness for agency workers and flexibility for employers. That was the basis of the TUC-CBI agreement, and it stands in stark contrast to the Opposition’s pledge to downgrade the employment rights that have been agreed in Europe. There will be a very clear choice on this matter when it comes to the election.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this has been under discussion for some time. It took a long time to get agreement in Europe. We were able to reach agreement on the basis of an agreement in the UK between the TUC and the CBI. We then successfully negotiated for that to be reflected in the European directive. That was something we could do only because this country, under this Government, is properly engaged with our European allies. I dread to think how we would negotiate in Europe if the Opposition, who are isolated in Europe, were trying to negotiate with 27 other countries.”
“Last week the Department published a growth paper setting out what we needed to do to drive forward economic recovery. The priorities included promoting enterprise, better access to finance, securing much-needed infrastructure investment and making the most of the transition to a low-carbon economy. Those are the priorities as we come out of the recession that will ensure that the recovery is sustained in the long term.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the meeting today between the Secretary of State and institutional investors. We should not see the meeting purely through the lens of a single takeover battle. It is important for the long-term health of the economy that we have long-term commitment from institutional investors. That will be at the heart of the discussions that take place today.”
“It is always difficult to comment on one case on the hoof, but with the Department of Energy and Climate Change we have published a low- carbon economic strategy. We have put considerable Government resources behind that, a significant part of which is support for the development and manufacture of low-carbon vehicles here in the UK. Low-carbon industries are an essential part of our economic future, and that is why we have put in resources behind them.”
“It is time for a confession: I am a cheque user. If that is old-fashioned, I am afraid that I cannot make an apology for it. I understand that cheque use has declined more widely, but I certainly hope the transition is managed as sensitively and as carefully as possible—for small businesses and for us cheque users.”
“Manufacturing is still immensely important to the UK economy and to the region that I have the honour of representing. In the past 18 months alone, we have given significant support to the aerospace sector, to new nuclear and to other low-carbon manufacturing industries. It is sad that that support, through the strategic investment fund, was described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), as a disgrace. We do not think it is a disgrace; we think it is essential, and that is why we are committed to supporting manufacturing in this country.”
“I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present when my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) asked me about that matter a short time ago, but I appreciate that hon. Members wish to see a solution to it. I understand that a meeting involving hon. Members, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice will take place in the near future, and I am sure that they will have heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).”
“I have received representations about that issue from hon. Members on behalf of sub-postmasters in their constituencies. The Post Office tells me that it has looked into all those complaints, and says that it has faith in the integrity of the Horizon system. However, I am sure that if there are further complaints, the Post Office will properly examine them, as it should do.”
“As my hon. Friend knows, the Government decide the minimum wage rates on the basis of recommendations from the independent Low Pay Commission, which has on it representatives of employers and employees, as well as independent experts. The commission has recommended that youth rates are justified for the minimum wage. We, too, want to see maximum employment chances for young people. I can tell my hon. Friend that this year the commission recommended that the adult rate for the minimum wage kick in at the age of 21 rather than 22. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government, and it will come into force in October.”
“As I said, we are giving considerable support to manufacturing; this was set out in the paper on growth that we published last week. I have to say that there is a stark contrast between our commitments on aerospace, on low-carbon vehicles and on advanced engineering and the utter silence and utter absence of a manufacturing or an industrial policy from the Conservative party.”
“I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is not much to add to what I said earlier. The Government understand the desire for a response to these issues, not only on pleural plaques but on wider respiratory conditions.”
“The rewards are indeed high; the hon. Gentleman is quite fair in saying that. The transformation and modernisation task at Royal Mail is enormous, and for those rewards we want to see modernisation carried through—delivered—to give us the healthy, efficient and modern Royal Mail service that we need in order to maintain the universal service that is at the heart of our postal system.”
“These decisions will be taken across Government. As I said, I understand that hon. Members are looking for a response soon. A meeting will take place soon involving the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Justice, which leads on this issue.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the huge investment, employment and industrial potential of those industries. He is also absolutely right to say that if we want to maximise the opportunities presented by the transition to a lower-carbon economy, we have to give young people the skills to do the jobs that that will bring.”
“I can tell my hon. Friend that altogether, following announcements from across the Government, there is some £500 million-plus for low-carbon industries. That is significant backing for a range of low-carbon industries, many of which we have mentioned in our answers today.”
“This has been a significant issue during the recession. I agree with my hon. Friend and many companies have reported problems. It appears to me that there are flaws in a product that is insurance only for good times. After all, we want insurance for good and for bad times. The flaw in the product has been exposed during the recession, and I suggest that we need a better system in the future that helps businesses in bad times and good.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing. That is why we have given it support, and why I am so disappointed that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) described that support as a disgrace. I disagree with those on his Front Bench, and I am glad that he does too.”
“It is the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is reported to have told the Japanese chamber of commerce that the Lisbon treaty was a modest and sensible set of reforms. I am only sad that the rest of those on the Opposition Front Bench disagree. As on several other occasions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows considerable wisdom that is sadly not shared by the rest of his party.”
“Not surprisingly, that has put severe pressure on Corus’s finances and the economics of its steelmaking operations, hence the announcement of large-scale job losses twice this year, even before the Teesside announcement a couple of weeks ago.”
“of capacity. Teesside Cast Products—TCP—makes steel for export, but if we compare the first nine months of 2008 with the same period in 2009, we see that steel demand throughout Europe has fallen by 40 per cent. The potential for the company to trade its way out of its difficulties in this country is severely limited. The second factor is a fall in price. Between July 2008, when prices peaked at just over $1,000 per tonne, and December 2009 the price per tonne of the kind of steel produced at Teesside has fallen by nearly 60 per cent. That has left Corus struggling to cope with the twin problems of a fall in demand for its product and a fall in price.”
“If anyone doubted the strength of feeling in the local community about what is happening at the Teesside plant, they need only to have seen the demonstration of support at Middlesbrough’s Riverside football ground over the weekend. I understand that. I understand the pain caused by the loss of a steelworks in a local community, as steel runs through my constituency too. It is now 30 years since the Bilston steelworks closed, but local people remember it as though it was yesterday. It has taken a long, long time for the area to recover. The current recession has hit the steel industry hard. Three specific factors serve as the backdrop for Corus’s decision to mothball the Teesside plant. The first is a fall in demand. This year, steel production at Corus is expected to be some 33 per cent. down on 2008, and only about 60 per cent.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate. I know how much the steel industry means to him personally—as he said, he worked for many years in the steel industry at Teesside—and to his constituents. It is in his blood, as it is in theirs. I note the presence here today of other Members from the area, including my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—and you, Mr. Cook. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland said, as a constituency MP you too have a great interest in the subject.”
“If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about failure, I simply turn to the Opposition’s continued opposition to the fiscal stimulus that has boosted demand for steel products. I am not going to take any lessons on inaction from a party that, throughout the recession, has consistently called on us to cut spending. That would have hurt steelmaking even more than the difficulties I have outlined.”
“Again, I stress that those stimulus measures were opposed every step of the way by the Opposition. Had we taken their advice—if they had had their way—demand for steel would have been hurt even more than was dictated by the market conditions. I set out the background in order to make it clear that Corus’s decision of a couple weeks ago was not taken as a result of Government inaction. We went the extra mile to try to boost demand and to resurrect the off-take agreement upon which TCP depended. Corus has not asked for aid to keep the plant open, which in any case is not possible under state aid rules. The fact is that Corus cannot run the plant without customers and without demand for the product it makes.”
“Against a background of falling demand and a depressed price, and with no partner for its product, the future for TCP looked bleak. Despite that, Corus tried to keep the plant alive, transferring internal work to it and securing some short-term export work. Eventually, however, the three factors that I mentioned earlier took their toll, and the decision to mothball the plant was announced. Throughout, the Government did what we could to keep up demand for steel. We brought forward capital spending on construction, which accounts for about half the steel used in the UK. Without that investment, the UK construction industry would be flat on its back. We also committed £400 million to the car scrappage scheme to underpin the vital automotive sector, another very large user of steel.”
“Earlier this year, that agreement broke down, in part because the world market cost of steel had fallen below the cost of producing steel at Teesside; the off-takers walked away from the agreement. I spoke at the time to Corus chief executive Kirby Adams and to Antonio Marcegaglia of Marcegaglia steel, the lead partner in the consortium, to encourage them to resurrect the off-take agreement. I asked the two sides to meet again to try to resurrect the agreement, and stressed how critical it was to the future of the plant and to the thousands of people of Teesside who depended for their livelihoods on the continued operation of the plant—the reason for the agreement. Members will know that that meeting took place in July, but no agreement was reached.”
“I assure my hon. Friend that we are not in the business of blocking anything that might be constructive for the future of the Teesside plant or the area. In contrast, our response has been both swift and significant in scale. The third reason for Corus’s decision, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland referred, is specific to the Teesside plant: the collapse of the off-take agreement to buy the steel produced there. The agreement was reached in December 2004. Under it, 78 per cent. of the slab steel produced at Teesside was to be sold at cost over a 10-year period to a consortium of four foreign steel companies.”
“If we are to succeed, we must have a national low carbon capability. It will include £6 million of support for research and development of bio-based materials, £3 million to undertake engineering design, and £20 million for infrastructure development. We will also support the critical Wilton chemicals cluster; we want to see it continue and prosper as part of the low carbon future. The Government are committed to the people of the north-east, and wish to help them recover from this decision. I have seen what can happen when whole communities are left on their own. We will not let that happen in this case. Rarely can a Government have moved so fast and on such a scale in response to a closure, but the people of Teesside deserve it. They deserve our help, and we will stand by them in future.”
“However, those possibilities will not come about easily, and it would be wrong of the Government to stand back and wait for that to happen. The people affected by this announcement need help now. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £60 million package of support. My hon. Friend asked some questions about that funding. It includes £30 million of new money from the Government’s strategic investment fund, and £30 million from One North East, the RDA, which is to be reprioritised from within its existing resources. Much has been said about low carbon, rightly so, as it is critical to the future of manufacturing in the area. We will use the money to equip Teesside to become part of our low carbon manufacturing base. We know that low carbon is the future.”
“I am keen to press on if my hon. Friend will forgive me. As a result of Corus’s decision, 1,700 people employed directly by the company will lose their jobs, as will a further 1,000 sub-contractors. In the couple of minutes left to me, I want to move on to the questions about the support package that have been asked today. The Government have moved quickly. The Prime Minister and I have both spoken to the chief executive of Corus. The chief executive has stressed that the site is mothballed and that no decision has been taken to close it permanently. Of course, market conditions may change, a new partner may be found and steel could be produced again at the site. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland that if we can help to bring that about, we will do so.”
“I hope that discussions will continue between my right hon. Friend, his local council and the Department. Let me now turn to the main issue that is before us. The way in which we secure— [Interruption.]”
“I shall deal with those issues later, but one or two Members also raised issues specifically involving their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) spoke with great passion about a planning application in his constituency that has been turned down. I hesitate to comment on individual planning applications, but I am sure that the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been drawn to my right hon. Friend’s speech. The one thing that I will say, and I hope I am not going too far in saying it, is that when such circumstances arise—and I understand that the Secretary of State’s recommendation was made on the advice of inspectors, not against it—sometimes an altered, or amended, application can present a way through the logjam.”
“Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on what, as we learned earlier, was his first winding-up speech in a debate of this kind for some 20 years. I believe that he was recently awarded the “Best Newcomer” award by The Spectator , and I congratulate him on that as well. Perhaps the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the arena for comeback kids. If so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is most welcome. Today’s debate has focused on the parts of the Gracious Speech that are about recovery from the recession and establishing the foundations of future prosperity and economic growth. A number of Members have spoken, raising issues relating to Government debt, banks and access to credit for small businesses, and Government support schemes.”
“I really do not think that the unprecedented intervention in the banking system a year ago can be characterised as a timid or limited response. The decision to intervene on such a scale to shore up the banking system was a huge decision, and whatever the consequences and the difficulties now are for businesses and home owners—and they do exist—the consequences of not taking such action and allowing the system to collapse, which was the alternative, would have been absolutely catastrophic for the people we represent.”
“Labour Members, at least, believe that how we secure future prosperity and growth is important. It matters to every family and every community in the country. People in the country have felt the pain of the downturn, and now they want to know about the economic future. They want to know how our industries are to recover, and how people are to be equipped for the jobs of tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the response that the Government had made to the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) drew our attention to the enormity of the decisions that were made, particularly just over a year ago when the banks were nearing collapse. I think that we are in danger of taking that for granted. One of my hon. Friends referred to timidity and a limited response.”
“None of this would have come from a Government determined to cut support in the middle of a recession.”
“A number of Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, spoke about the importance of manufacturing and the digital economy. Time after time in recent months, we have made announcements and allocated funds in these areas of future opportunity. The low-carbon industrial strategy, launched with our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, set out support of up to £120 million for offshore wind, up to £60 million for wave and tidal power and £19 million for the nuclear supply chain. There is support, too, for aerospace, printed electronics and electric vehicle-charging infrastructure, and today my noble Friend the Secretary of State announced over £20 million to establish a national composites centre in Bristol and a competition to make sure we succeed in these technologies that are so important to our economy.”
“The Bill will make it clear that we want a strong financial services sector, but also that it has to behave in a way that acknowledges the support given by taxpayers and the obligation to them, rather than in a way that flouts that support or acts irresponsibly with other people’s money. Like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has welcomed the Walker report and has asked the Financial Reporting Council to take forward the work on engagement by institutional investors. However, our response to the recession has not just been about the financial services sector; we have also looked beyond the recession to the jobs and industries of the future, to ensure that there is national capability in key areas and to equip people to do the jobs that the changes will bring.”
“It was the companies who came together; the Government did not force that merger. All around the world, other Governments did things similar to what we were doing in terms of fiscal stimulus, but the Leader of the Opposition said: “We were against the fiscal stimulus”. He and his shadow Chancellor argued for public spending to be cut just when the country needed it most. The taxpayer has saved the financial system, and the Financial Services Bill focuses on the need for responsibility in the financial services industry in return for the commitment given by the taxpayer.”
“Not next year, not after the election—now.” His shadow Chancellor followed that up by making a speech at the Conservative party conference that never mentioned growth once. The problem for the Conservative party is that ideologically it cannot see a role for Government in fostering growth. Even after the events of the past two years—after the recession has hurt communities across the country and after all that has happened with the banks—the Conservatives have identified the biggest problem facing the country not as the irresponsibility in the banking system or the consequences that followed, but as “big government”. They told us that the age of austerity was dawning.”
“I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s account of events, and I refer him back to what I said on that subject a few moments ago. There is all this emphasis on industry as well as finance because we on this side of the House believe the best way out of the recession is to foster pro-growth policies. Growth is the best antidote to debt. Growth will get industry back on its feet, will get orders moving again for services and manufacturing alike and, crucially, will get people back to work. However, throughout the entire economic downturn, the official Opposition said we could not afford to take the action we took. The Leader of the Opposition called this a new age of austerity. He said the Government should have started reducing their spending plans last year; he said that should happen “right now.”
“Can they further confirm that a small firm investing £50,000 would get £9,000 more tax relief on that investment in the first year under this Government’s system than under the proposals that they advocate? Theirs is not a plan to support recovery; it is a plan to withdraw tax relief from the investments necessary for a recovery. Apart from that, all we get is the scorecard on our initiatives. We have launched a number of schemes to get lending moving and to support manufacturing, such as the enterprise finance guarantee, which has provided £660 million to 6,500 businesses. Some 150,000 businesses have been helped by the time-to-pay tax initiative. Question put, That the amendment be made.”