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 73 of 104.
“This country has to make the most of the transition to a low-carbon economy. Hon. Members have also stressed that we need to equip our workers with the skills to take part in the low-carbon economy, and it is important to create opportunities, as well as to know that the demand exists. To that end, we have the Train to Gain programme, we have 12,000 new apprenticeships this year and we have 300,000 more higher education students than we had when we came into office. Ensuring that our country has the skills to take part is crucial, and not only for economic reasons. If we do not ensure that, there will be a great sense of exclusion from the economy of the future, and we must guard against that. The third theme of the debate was demand, which was raised specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey).”
“In the year to April, manufacturing output in the UK declined by 13 per cent., which compares with 14.6 per cent. in the United States, 19.9 per cent. in France, 24.3 per cent. in Germany and more than 30 per cent. in Japan. There has been an effect and companies have gone to the wall, but the United Kingdom has not been hit disproportionately hard compared with other countries—some countries have done worse. A second theme was shown in the agreement across the House on the importance of the transition to a low-carbon economy for our manufacturing future. The hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) commented on that. It is right that carbon capture should be considered as part of that.”
“This short debate has shown the passion that exists in this House for manufacturing. Of course this has been a changing story for our nation and we no longer have as many large manufacturing plants with thousands of employees as we did some decades ago. However, in that story of change we must not be too quick to ascribe a story of failure and decline. One of the themes to emerge from this debate is the impact of the recession on manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) rightly said that it would be remiss of us not to acknowledge that, given the people who have lost their jobs and the companies that have gone to the wall. We do acknowledge that, but I wish to say something about the scale of the impact and to repeat the figures that I used in my opening comments.”
“People in my constituency in Bilston still have as strong a sense of identity today as they had prior to 1966, but for administrative purposes they are part of the city of Wolverhampton—they have a Wolverhampton postcode and so on. I am sure there are other examples around the country about which we could say the same thing. I understand the issue, but the purpose of the postcode is to ensure the efficient delivery of mail; it is not designed to give us an absolutely accurate description of community identity.”
“Royal Mail has to keep focused on the purpose of the postcode address file, which is the efficient delivery of mail. Whatever passions surround the issue, it is important to recognise that. Others may use the database, but its purpose is to ensure the efficient delivery of mail. The allocation of a postcode is linked to Royal Mail’s network of sorting and delivery offices. Postcodes were never intended to signify a geographically definitive address by local authority, other administrative boundary or community identity. I have had the same issue in my constituency. There was a reorganisation of local government in the black country in 1966, part of which was the incorporation of the town of Bilston into Wolverhampton.”
“A postal address can be made up of a number of elements—the name of the addressee, the name of the company or organisation, the number of the building and so on—but the critical part is the postcode. County information—whether it is Pembrokeshire or Dyfed—is not a required part of the postal address. The issue comes up time after time with regard to Royal Mail when, for example, people want their postcode changed for house insurance purposes because postcodes can be used by insurance companies. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that postcode information is used in the tourism industry, but it is used in a number of industries. Although Royal Mail recognises that, it cannot change the postcode information on an ad hoc basis because of all those other uses.”
“Let me return to the issue before us: the postcode address file, its purposes and so on. Royal Mail delivers around 80 million postal items every day to businesses and residential addresses throughout the UK. Unfortunately, as technology changes, the amount of mail is declining, but dealing with it is still a substantial job, which involves more than 28 million addresses. As I said, I understand that community, identity and affinity with place are all things about which people care deeply. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the postcode address file is the delivery of mail. The critical point of the debate is to establish the purpose of the postcode address file.”
“I appreciate well the fondness that he has for his constituency and the county. The hon. Gentleman asks a number of significant questions. One issue I must confront at the outset is the role of Ministers in telling Royal Mail what to do—if I can put it in its most colloquial way. On what he said about the urgent issues facing Royal Mail, after being involved with such matters for a couple of years, my reflection is that perhaps that organisation has suffered from too much rather than too little political interference from Ministers over the years. It has been part of Royal Mail’s history that what it does is often second guessed by politicians—often for laudable reasons—but we should get away from that rather than do more of it. Such an approach is in the interests of our constituents for the necessary modernisation of Royal Mail.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) on securing the debate. He should not be too apologetic in saying that this may not be the most urgent issue. It might be fair of him to say that, but my predecessor before I came into the House taught me something, which is, “If it’s important to your constituents, it’s important to you as the MP,” so it is entirely fair to raise these issues. I appreciate completely the passion that he showed for the county of Pembrokeshire. He is fortunate to represent one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. I have visited it many times and have had many an enjoyable lunch in Fishguard. There is a Celtic magic about Pembrokeshire that touches every visitor.”
“It provides an opportunity to explore the relationship between Royal Mail’s primary purpose for the postcode address file and the other purposes to which he referred. In conclusion, the question before us is what is the job of the postcode address file. From the point of view of the hon. Gentleman and some of his constituents, its job is to define accurately the county of Pembrokeshire. However, Royal Mail has not used the county name since 1996. I understand from my constituency experience why that might cause frustration locally. I suggest that he takes part in the consultation and argues his corner on the use of county names. Royal Mail will then have to decide whether to change from using the postcode address file purely as a tool for the delivery of mail to using it for other purposes.”
“I do not promise it because Royal Mail, understandably, focuses on the efficiency of mail delivery and does not see it as its purpose to consider every secondary use of the postcode address file for things such as insurance, tourism and the other examples that he mentioned. Royal Mail acknowledges that county information is important to some customers and would like to find out more about the perceived importance of including it in postal addresses. That is why the issue is included in the current consultation on the code of practice. Along with other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman has until 28 July to take part in the consultation that is being carried out by Postcomm. I encourage him to do so.”
“The county does not form part of an official postal address, and changes to it are therefore not covered by the code of practice on changes to the postcode address file. The name “Dyfed” appears because the database still lists historical county details for customer reference. Those can include the formal postal county, the traditional county, the administrative county and so on. It is what is called an alias database, which can be used by third parties, but because Royal Mail does not use that information itself, it has not been changed since 1996. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes part in the new consultation on the code of practice for changing the postcode address file. I do not promise that the county names will be changed in the way that he would like, but he is open to make that suggestion.”
“I understand that in recent months, Royal Mail, Postcomm and Consumer Focus, which took over Postwatch’s job, have been revisiting the code’s operation. They are considering what further changes are required to clarify the code of practice and bring it up to date. Royal Mail does not believe that significant changes are required. I am not saying that there will be extensive changes to postcode information—as I said, the system works pretty well—but Royal Mail believes that the code of practice would benefit from being clearer in a number of ways. One area not currently covered by the code of practice is county information, because county information is not required for postal purposes.”
“Routes taken by postmen across the country are devised on the basis of the postcode address file. Can the situation be changed, or is it set in stone for ever and a day? The system can be changed. I have a suggestion that I hope will be constructive. In December 2001, Postcomm, the industry regulator, issued a consultation document seeking views on a code of practice to govern changes to Royal Mail’s postcode address file. The code of practice was issued in March 2002 and was subject to a further review on its working a year later. In March 2004, Postcomm published its review, in which the code of practice was further amended to account for things such as customer-initiated changes to locality information.”
“Let me come to the Royal Mail database because I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a slightly different thing from me. Delivery offices may be in different counties and so on. The postcode system was developed in the 1960s as a tool to help sort mail more efficiently. County names were dropped from essential information in 1996, when the Conservative party was in power. That is the root of the issue, because from that day—it is not just about Dyfed or Pembrokeshire; I suspect that other places are similarly affected—Royal Mail has not used the county name as an essential part of a postal address. There is nothing to prevent someone from using it in the address if they wish, but it is not essential for mail delivery. The postcode system has been very successful and serves its essential purpose well.”
“My Department will invest some £5.5 billion in research funding in 2009-10. This is made up of the science research budget, which will reach almost £4 billion next year, and the Higher Education Funding Council quality-related research grants.”
“I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that our Science Minister brings an enormous wealth of expertise from his industrial background that is to the advantage of both the country and the Government. As for the Department, it makes absolute sense to bring together our leading-edge scientific research and support for business and the fields of higher and further education. The economic situation that we face requires all those things to be brought together, in the interests of scientific research and the country’s economic future.”
“The investment over recent years in the north-west has been extremely welcome, and is a reflection of the fact that the science budget has trebled since 1997. We have maintained our commitment to the science budget, and that stands in contrast to the signals given yesterday, when we were told that the Opposition are planning a 10 per cent. cut across the board in such funding. The sort of choice that the country will face in respect of science funding is therefore quite clear.”
“The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a very long time, and I have to remind him that it is not unknown for science to be a responsibility of this Department. That was the case until a couple of years ago, so I do not see the need for consternation about its return to the Department. That synergy was there before, and it will still be here in the future.”
“I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion of science funding, research and educational opportunity. His point about the application of science and bringing research to market is well made. We are hugely committed to that. It is one reason we have backed the science budget and why it is in such a different state today from the science budget that we inherited when we came into office. I assure him that that commitment will remain in the future.”
“We are acutely aware of the graduates who will come out of universities in the coming months. The predecessor Department, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, announced measures on the expansion of internships and so on to try to expand opportunity for people in that position. I quite agree with him that research should not just be about science; we have also expanded funding to the economic and social research budget, which has gone up from £105 million in 2004-05 to £166 million in the last financial year. Once again, there is a stark contrast between that commitment, and pledges for a 10 per cent. cut across the board from the Conservative party.”
“My hon. Friend makes his point very well. The excellence at Daresbury is well recognised. I know that he is a strong advocate for it, and I can assure him that that is understood in Government. His points about the spin-offs and benefits from that are absolutely correct.”
“I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been living for the past two years, but I have to tell him that there have been some changes in the economy in that period. We face a worldwide economic downturn, and in those circumstances it makes absolute sense to bring together science, business, and higher and further education. We now have a Department in which educational opportunity, science and innovation and support for business all work together for the benefit of the country’s economy. That can only be a good thing, and I would have hoped that he supported it. Perhaps he should address his concerns to his party’s Treasury spokespeople, given the 10 per cent. cut in the Department’s budget that his party would make if it had its way.”
“Our Department brings together support for business and enterprise with innovation, skills and further and higher education policy to ensure that we foster competitiveness and spread opportunity. All that is important to Britain’s economic future.”
“The reform of Royal Mail is important, and Richard Hooper recommended the three elements that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The Bill to carry forward those reforms has completed its stages in the other place and been introduced here. Its Second Reading is a decision for the business managers at the appropriate time. On whether all three elements are essential, they are very important, but, as the Secretary of State also said, we will continue to try to secure best value for the taxpayer, and the timetable for any transaction for Royal Mail may be a little longer than that for the legislation.”
“Sir Alan Sugar is one of Britain’s most well known and respected entrepreneurs. He will act as an adviser to Government—not as a Minister. We believe that it is important to draw on that sort of entrepreneurial talent precisely because of the economic challenges that the country faces. While we draw on the best talent available, others are indulging in parlour games about peers and personalities. We will continue to draw on whatever talent is necessary to do the best economic job for the country.”
“The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that no date for a Second Reading was announced. The Government are committed— [ Interruption. ] The Government are committed to reform of the Royal Mail. The challenges that it faces in addressing the pension fund deficit, the need for investment and change, and the need to change the regulatory system are real. We remain committed to the legislation, which will be brought forward. What the Secretary of State also said about the transaction is that we have a duty to secure the best value of money for the taxpayer and to have an eye to the market conditions, but the legislation will be brought forward.”
“I brought a legislative reform order on insolvency before the House just some weeks ago, and I recommend the debate to the hon. Gentleman very strongly.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman that regulatory change in postal services is necessary, and the proposal in the Bill is to put at the heart of the new regulatory system the maintenance of the universal service—the six days a week, one-price-goes-anywhere service that is at the heart of our postal system. I remind the House that the conclusion drawn by Richard Hooper was that if we did not change and reform the Royal Mail, that service would be under threat. That is what has happened in some other countries, and it is certainly not what we want to see here in the United Kingdom.”
“In May this year it was added to the list of law enforcement agencies that are empowered to conduct financial investigations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These extra powers may give Ofcom a greater capacity to get behind those who are operating the station at the time of the raid.”
“I have just set out the maximum punishments, but it is always for the courts to apply those penalties as they see fit. One of the problems of challenging illegal stations is that we might be able to get to those operating the equipment at the time, but it might be a much more difficult task for the authorities to get to whoever may be behind them. The person operating the equipment, their income and their employment status will be taken into account by the court. That in part explains the level of fines that are levied. Ofcom obtained authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to access data about telephone, e-mail and internet communications and to undertake covert surveillance.”
“Ofcom estimates that there are about 150 illegal broadcasters, most of them concentrated in the London area. Ofcom aims to reduce interference by sending out a strong message that illegal broadcasters will suffer consequences. It uses a range of criteria to determine when to act, including the size of the area of the broadcast and the volume of complaints. When an issue could endanger lives, Ofcom obviously and rightly treats it as a matter of priority for investigation and action. As for penalties, an illegal broadcaster can receive up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Anyone convicted of an offence is barred from working for a legitimate station for five years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fines, and I want to address that point directly. It is for Parliament to set the legal framework of punishment.”
“Sometimes the installations are guarded with glass, syringes and other things that create a danger for those trying to enforce the law. When people go to those lengths, we should not be surprised that illegal broadcasting can sometimes be linked to other illegal behaviour. In one case a few years ago, an illegal broadcaster had his studio raided, and at the police station was found to be in possession of a loaded firearm. He was eventually sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The chief responsibility for stopping the proliferation of illegal radio stations lies with Ofcom, which derives its power for spectrum allocation and use in the UK from the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. It is inevitably difficult to say exactly how many pirate stations there are; they are, by their nature, being set up and closed down all the time.”
“We want nothing to stand in the way of the emergency services knowing where the problem is, and getting there as fast as possible. Of course we do not want interference with critical air traffic control communication. Pirate radio can interfere with those vital services, so its operation is not just a matter of commercial damage; there is also an issue of public safety. The figure that the hon. Gentleman gave of 36 cases reported to him by Ofcom in just six months last year shows that we are not talking about a theoretical scare, but about a real danger. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out the damaging impact that pirate stations have on their immediate local environment. There are issues affecting tower blocks, and there can be a loss of power supply to lifts, and damage to buildings.”
“They are funded by the licence fee, in the case of BBC local radio, or through hard-won advertising revenue, yet they find that their signals are blocked by illegal stations that have done none of that work. That not only frustrates the listener, who cannot hear the station that they want to, but can hit the income of the station through loss of advertising revenue, as advertisers will be reluctant to spend money if they think that the delivery of the service is patchy and unreliable. Sometimes a whole borough can be knocked out of reception. The commercial effect is deeply damaging, but there is an even more serious aspect, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted: interference with blue-light emergency services and air traffic control. When someone calls the fire brigade or the police, we want the most reliable communications possible.”
“My ministerial colleague Lord Stephen Carter, the founding chief executive of Ofcom, takes the lead on spectrum issues for my Department. He has a great deal of expertise on the issue. He cares passionately about it, and he tells me that in his past life, he took part in a raid with police officers to close down precisely the kind of illegal station that the hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned. I want to go through some of the damaging effects of such stations. The first that I want to highlight is the damaging effect on the many excellent legitimate local radio stations around the country; we have mentioned a couple of them. The founders of those radio stations have gone through the process of getting a licence. They have done the hard work of building up an audience.”
“The issues surrounding pirate radio—or illegal radio, as he called it—are very different from those that existed in the 1960s. Today, pirate radio undermines legitimate radio. It can be used as a cover for more serious crimes, and the act of setting up a pirate radio station can have a damaging effect on people’s quality of life. In other words, pirate radio is a serious issue and it is taken seriously by the Government. My Department, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, has policy responsibility for the radio spectrum and the legislation from which Ofcom, the independent regulator, derives its powers. Those powers come from the Communications Act 2003 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. Ofcom’s duties include ensuring the efficient use of the spectrum and minimising harmful interference.”
“Gentleman is right to say that, in any debate about illegal or pirate radio, there is a temptation to be wistful about the days of Radio Caroline and to pay tribute to the free spirit and early creativity of pirate radio. That temptation might be stronger when a popular film that celebrates that era is out, as is the case at the moment. However, as he said, comparisons between then and now do not stand up to scrutiny. Back then, there was little choice for the listener and unlicensed radio was often the only way to hear much of the music of the time. Today, however, that is not the case, as there are hundreds of radio stations throughout the country. The digital revolution is making setting up legitimate radio stations and getting them licensed ever easier, so the point about choice can no longer be argued.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on securing this debate on an issue in which he has a long-standing interest. As he said, he secured an Adjournment debate on the matter three years ago and he has tabled several parliamentary questions. The issue is of interest to several hon. Members. For example, the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who is in the Chamber, has raised it with me because her community radio station’s frequency is regularly occupied by illegal stations. In my capacity of a constituency MP, I know the value of community radio stations such as Link FM, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and Wolverhampton Community Radio, which does an absolutely excellent job for my city. The hon.”
“Gentleman for securing the debate tonight, and I am sure that those Departments other than my own to which he referred, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will take account of his comments. He is absolutely right to say that we must work together throughout Government to tackle what is a serious issue. Question put and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o’clock.”
“They can even be dangerous and, critically, as technology changes and the digital revolution unfolds, there is less need for them than ever before. My Department is working on its “Digital Britain” report, a key part of which will involve extending access to legitimate creative people who want to establish radio stations. The question that will be asked much more frequently in the future is: why is there a need for such stations, unless it is for some motive far less high-minded than musical creativity and choice? That is why the Government and Ofcom will continue to take enforcement seriously. I thank the hon.”
“Ofcom has developed close relationships with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, regional asset recovery teams and other agencies. Following the hon. Gentleman’s previous debate, one of my predecessors in the Department held a specially convened meeting with a number of agencies to help to co-ordinate that activity, too. Ofcom has also negotiated service level agreements in a variety of police sectors throughout London, enabling staff to purchase police support. In the past, pirate radio stations may have had a role in nurturing talent and in ensuring that minority tastes were properly catered for but, for the reasons that I have set out, it is much more difficult to argue that case today. Now, such stations are much more harmful.”
“Should he fail to pay within the time, the individual will serve a default prison sentence of no less than four years, and action will be taken to recover the money owed. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about fines, but where there is a link to other illegal activity, significant sentences can be imposed. The issue is not for Ofcom alone, but for a number of agencies. I spoke today to the head of spectrum enforcement at Ofcom in advance of the debate. He told me that the Government’s introduction of safer neighbourhood policing teams has helped significantly in co-ordinating the work between the police and Ofcom on the issue. So developments have taken place since the hon. Gentleman’s debate three years ago, which make it easier for the agencies to work together.”
“No matter how much resource is put into tackling the problem, the regulator inevitably faces a tough battle in trying to control the numbers. Despite these difficulties, tough punishments can be levied. Let us take the example of Lightning FM. In December 2007, the owner of a south London illegal radio station, Lightning FM, appeared at Inner London Crown court convicted of two counts of money laundering and two counts of managing an illegal broadcast station. For the money laundering offences he received 10 months’ imprisonment, and for the illegal broadcast offences another 10 months. A financial investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act was then conducted and the person was ordered to pay £375,000 to the court within 12 months.”
“As I said, other options are already available to the courts, but they will select the penalty on the basis of some of the factors that I cited. With reference to resources, last year Ofcom spent £1.5 million on enforcement. It undertook 525 separate operations against illegal broadcasters, resulting in 28 convictions. Those included the seizure of transmitters, disconnection of transmitters’ aerials, and raids on studios. When there are convictions, the courts are responsible for punishment within the limits set by Parliament. It is not true to say that the issue is not taken seriously by the Government or Ofcom, but there is a difficult truth. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is relatively cheap and simple to set up illegal radio stations.”
“The Government will continue to support the post office network financially with a subsidy worth £150 million per year until 2011 and, building on the recent allocation of the contract for the Post Office card account, we will continue to work with Post Office Ltd to support new areas of work and new business opportunities for the post office network.”
“I agree that banking and financial services are an important part of the Post Office’s work, and it is already the leading supplier of foreign exchange services to the public. It also provides savings products and insurances, and millions of bank accounts held with high street banks are also available through post offices. It makes sense for Post Office Ltd to build on those services, and I know that both the company and sub-postmasters are very keen to expand their services in the banking and financial services area.”
“I very much agree with my hon. Friend that Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail are linked. There is an inter-business agreement between the two and that will continue under the Government’s plans in the Postal Services Bill. As to the issue he raises about Network Rail, the Government do not legislate with a closed mind, as I have said several times this week. However, some of the plans put to us do not meet the test of transforming Royal Mail, and we need a future for that organisation that does not just attract new capital, but provides a convincing plan for transformation. That is what we have set out in the Postal Services Bill.”
“Unlike the Conservatives, we have supported the post office network financially. As I said, we give a subsidy of £150 million a year to the Post Office that helps to sustain many thousands of branches that might otherwise be under threat. With the Conservatives’ new-found enthusiasm for cutting public expenditure, I wonder whether they could guarantee a subsidy of that size. They certainly have not said so, and people would have good reason to doubt whether that would be the case.”
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. As she will remember, we have met to talk about credit unions offering services through post offices. Following that meeting, I spoke to the managing director of Post Office Ltd and I understand that discussions are taking place between the company and the Association of British Credit Unions.”