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 75 of 104.
“The fees can be high, but I put this point to the hon. Gentleman: given our concern about fees, it would be an odd judgment for us not to approve changes that would free resources for creditors.”
“That is sometimes still the case in today’s business world, but it sometimes is not, and trading patterns are more widespread than they once were.”
“I am very happy to repeat that. There is no reason why anything we are proposing in the order before the House, and the Committee’s report on it, should increase fees for practitioners. On the wider subject, I should inform the House that changes that are intended to come into force next year as part of the wider process of change in the insolvency rules will increase the transparency and accountability of insolvency practitioners. This is not just about cost; it is about ensuring that where money has to be spent, that is done in the most effective way. The requirement to use local newspapers goes back to the beginning of the last century and the business practices at that time, when it was more likely that a company would be dealing with customers from its immediate local area.”
“The point about the order is that it gives both the companies involved and the insolvency practitioners the flexibility to choose the best medium for reaching the people whom they wish to reach. Obviously, in the age of digital communication and wider trade patterns, the local paper may not always be the best way of reaching creditors. For example, where a business that was trading all over the country goes bust and we are seeking to identify unidentified creditors, how confident can we be that an advert in the local people is the best way to achieve that, given that all the customers may have been from hundreds of miles away? We are talking about a flexibility that simply reflects that reality.”
“As I say, this is about using the most appropriate form of communication for the particular circumstances. Companies or liquidators can still choose to advertise in a local newspaper if they feel that that is appropriate. Some people have argued—this was reflected in the Committee’s report—that this is perhaps too minor a measure and that it is not worth introducing.”
“We think that that is very unlikely, because notice of the liquidation must be given to creditors personally; as we have heard about online publications, I should say that it is also placed in the London Gazette , which is available online. Companies are also under a legal obligation to maintain accounting records from which it should be possible to compile a list of creditors. They are required to provide that list for the purposes of the liquidation and to surrender the accounting records to the liquidator—a failure to comply with those requirements is a criminal offence. Liquidators must report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of the directors, and failure to comply with those requirements can lead to disqualification. So it would be both wrong and unwise of a director to conceal a creditor from the liquidator.”
“It is about giving people the flexibility to choose the most appropriate media available and to use whatever sums are spent on that in the most effective way to try to identify unknown creditors; as I say, that may be done through a variety of media. There is also a misconception that the advertisements are about a wider public aim of bringing information about the liquidation into the public domain—that is not the case. Their purpose is to reach unknown creditors—that is the purpose set down in the legislation. The adverts are also not intended as general public announcements. People have also asked about companies that might wish to conceal their insolvency from their creditors and whether our changes might enable them to do so.”
“That is a perfectly valid point. I stress that nothing in the order prevents an insolvency practitioner from using the local paper—and its website—if they think that that is the best route by which to reach people. We are changing the requirement in legislation that they must place such adverts in the local press in every case, regardless of the trading patterns involved. That flexibility makes sense; it makes sense to be less prescriptive and to take into account the greater variety of media that are available today compared with when the rules were first instituted about a century ago. In about 98 per cent. of cases the advertising does not result in an unidentified creditor coming forward, so it is perhaps worth asking ourselves whether there is a more effective way to operate. That is what we have done in this order.”
“Given the comments that have been made about the charges and the fixed costs involved in this process, it is incumbent on us to try to increase the pot that is available to creditors. That is the motivation behind the order, and for that reason I commend it to the House. I hope that the House will side with those proposals today.”
“I do not propose to go over all the exchanges between officials on this matter. I believe that dialogue did take place, and my concern is to ensure that the savings identified in this order, taken in the context of the wider changes to insolvency rules that we propose, are made. I believe that these savings will make a difference to creditors, who are already having to cope with the losses that they face from insolvent businesses. The order will give liquidators and companies greater freedom to target their advertising as effectively as possible, either through local newspapers or elsewhere. It is incumbent on us, particularly during an economic downturn, to do what we can to help business.”
“On a procedural point, the hon. Gentleman heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) say that the Committee has a stronger power, which is to recommend that the measure be vetoed. Members of the Committee are in the Chamber, so they can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Committee did not use that power because its concerns were not about the substance of what we were trying to do. In those circumstances, bringing the order to the House is not to railroad the House. If there are concerns, a perfectly proper response is to have a debate about them. I have tried to respond to the concerns of the Committee today. That is not railroading or steamrollering; it is perfectly in line with the proper procedures of the House.”
“The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) asked me some questions about savings and other changes that we are introducing, and asked me to put those in context. I propose to do that. We intend to introduce a further legislative reform order which, like the one that we are discussing, will make parallel changes in the insolvency rules. Together those proposals will contain more about information and how it is supplied. They will cover meetings to do with creditors, reporting by office holders, clarity and accountability on remuneration and so on. So the order is part of a wider programme of change.”
“In the hierarchy of creditors, there are, first, the expenses connected with the liquidation, which we are trying to reduce through the order. Then there are the preferential creditors. In practice, the employees are high on the list, and rightly so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about that. Next in the hierarchy are banks, followed by unsecured creditors. It is not the case that HMRC stands first in line to benefit from the changes that we are proposing.”
“Friend’s point about steamrollering, which was also the subject of the speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). That is not at all what we are doing. As my hon. Friend said, the Committee had some sympathy with the substance of our proposals, but questioned their scope and effect. Other options were open to the Committee, which they did not take. Following the Committee’s consideration, it is perfectly proper to allow the House, as we are doing, to have a full debate and to ask the House to approve the order. I must pick up on a point made several times both before and, more worryingly, after my intervention that the only beneficiary would be the Government. As I said, HMRC stopped being a preferential creditor some years ago.”
“by post to the creditors” shall advertise—I shall return to our friend the Gazette— “in such other manner as he thinks fit” and shall “furnish creditors free of charge with such information concerning the affairs of the company as they may reasonably require”. So there are still important duties to try to identify creditors. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) spoke about the costs and fees involved, and a number of other hon. Members also referred to those. As I said in my opening remarks, there is recourse to the court on these charges, and we are bringing in measures to achieve greater transparency and accountability, which the House will have a chance to discuss, through the methods that I outlined. I want to respond to my hon.”
“I am tempted to use that tremendously flexible parliamentary word, “soon” in respect of the introduction of the order. We hope to introduce it within the April-May timetable. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to be clear—it is a perfectly fair request—that although we would be less prescriptive about the method of trying to contact unidentified creditors, the duty would still exist. I refer him to paragraph 3(b) of the order, which states that “the liquidator— (a) shall summon a meeting of creditors . . . not later than the 28th day after the day on which he formed” the opinion; (b) shall send notices . . .”
“All we are doing in the order is trying to take account of the effect of those adverts—as I said, only in one in 50 cases do they identify an unidentified creditor—and of the changes in the patterns of trade and communication since the rules were first established in the early part of the last century.”
“I want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not quite sure that that is what he was driving at. I do not think he mentioned the banks. He was talking about HMRC. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) expressed concern about what he saw as the local bit disappearing. Let me gently disagree with him. The local bit does not disappear through these changes. They allow flexibility and choice, according to the particular circumstances of the case. It is still open to liquidators to advertise in a local newspaper if they think that is the best way to identify unidentified creditors. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) asked me for a reassurance that there would be no act of discouragement. Of course there will not be an act of discouragement.”
“If we rejected the proposals in the legislative reform order because we were dissatisfied with the insolvency regime more widely, that would show a somewhat odd logic. Our judgment of the legislative reform order and the Committee’s report on it should be based on the merits of the order itself and on whether the change is worth making. My contention is that it is. I have debated with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) a number of times, and we often hear about that newsagent in Swansea; it is a regular feature of his contributions.”
“As one who picked up the baton of the Bill that gave rise to legislative reform orders halfway through its passage through the House, I can say that there are very tight controls on what they can contain. It has been said that the order is not ambitious enough and that there should be a much more wide-ranging reform of the Insolvency Service. That might be a legitimate point, but if we went down the road of totally recasting insolvency law, we would not do that through a legislative reform order; in fact, if we tried to, I suspect that the House would object and say that it was a proper matter for primary legislation. If we are dissatisfied with insolvency in general and we feel that insolvency law needs wider reform, that should be a subject for primary legislation.”
“I am sure that in its dialogue with insolvency practitioners, the Insolvency Service will make it clear that if people still think that that is the most appropriate course, they should take it. I fear that we are slightly mixing up two debates. There is a perfectly legitimate discussion to be had about local newspapers, of which I am a great fan; there is another discussion about the best method of trying to identify unidentified creditors in the insolvency process and trying to give insolvency practitioners and the companies themselves the flexibility to choose the best method. I now come to the point about the narrowness of the order. We might be in danger of putting too much weight on this process. Legislative reform orders are for a specific purpose; there are specific criteria.”
“I am sure that the newsagent benefits greatly from the number of times it is mentioned here, and good luck to the hon. Gentleman. He said that the order leaves us only with the London Gazette , and that the people of Swansea and Ribble Valley probably do not read that every day. He is right about that, but wrong in saying that our changes would leave us only with the London Gazette .”
“My hon. Friend may have heard the phrase “real help now”. It is precisely because we are in favour of real help now that we wanted to make the changes on advertising and bring them in as quickly as possible. Other changes are on a slightly slower timetable, but they will come in due course. I return to my previous remarks. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that the order would leave us only with the London Gazette , which is a bit obscure for his constituents. I understand what he said, but let me make two points. The order does not leave us only with the London Gazette ; it is open to the insolvency practitioner or the company involved to advertise “in such other manner as” they “think fit.””
“However, there is little point in our calling for reductions in regulations and red tape in general and then opposing those reductions in the particular, when they are brought before the House. This measure is a benefit worth having. On that note, I ask the House to disagree with the Regulatory Reform Committee’s report and approve the order. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House disagrees with the Regulatory Reform Committee in its recommendation that the draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Advertising Requirements) Order 2009 should not be approved.”
“Let me assure him and the House that my and the Government’s only intention with the order is to get a better deal for creditors and for the small businesses, about which we have heard, that are often at the sharp end of insolvencies. The change is worth having; it would be a mistake for hon. Members to oppose good measures because they wanted other, wider measures that would not even be appropriate for legislative reform orders. Let us play on the pitch that we are on: legislative reform orders are appropriate for making particular changes. It would not be a good service to small businesses, which we care about, if we turned down a change that could benefit them; those other concerns should be dealt with in another way. In conclusion, we often hear calls to reduce red tape and regulation, and they are repeated often in the House.”
“The practitioners have a duty to try to identify the unidentified creditors. The point of the order is to give them flexibility and choice on how they try to do that. It is important to be serious for a moment. I am not arguing that the London Gazette sells as well as the daily or local papers, but it plays an important role. It is used by credit reference agencies, financial institutions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, trade suppliers and so on. It is intended not to be in the living rooms of every citizen every night, but to act as a central record to which people from anywhere in the country can go to find out information about these matters. It plays a valuable role. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) accused me of having a cunning plan, although I was not sure about what the nature of it was.”
“It seems as if the plans are now in place and I believe that that will make a difference to post office services in his constituency, give local people the continuity of service that they reasonably expect and offer greater satisfaction, for which he has campaigned skilfully and determinedly in recent years. Question put and agreed to.”
“That could bring significant new custom to post office branches. I cannot say yes to my hon. Friend’s proposal for Tilling Green. Post Office Ltd has considered it, and it was happy to support the Post Office Essentials service elsewhere in his constituency. I hope that the new provision planned for the Jempsons Budgens store in Rye offers a long-term solution. I understand that there has been a lack of continuity in the services for the constituents of Rye in recent months. We do not, of course, want that to continue; we want a more permanent solution.”
“We will continue to subsidise this socially and economically important network right up until 2011. Although I cannot commit to numbers beyond that, I believe the social value of the post office and the Government’s recognition of that will continue beyond that date. As the network change programme draws to a close, we are able to ensure greater stability for the post office network, with the card account decision having been taken and new Government services such as the savings gateway being available through the post office. There is an appetite to secure new services for the Post Office that may not have been there in the past. Part of that is down to the post office network’s reaching out and developing new services; today, in fact, we have been discussing an expansion in banking and financial services for the Post Office.”
“It understood that the number of post offices in existence a couple of years ago simply did not have enough work in the face of changing lifestyles and a reduction of custom of some 5 million customers a week to sustain those branches. The viability of existing post offices or, in this case, planned future post offices affects the decision. I hope that the new post office planned for the Jempsons store will provide a long-term solution. As my hon. Friend said, the Government are in the midst of providing £1.7 billion to support the post office network over 2006-11. We do that because we do not believe that that is a purely commercial network. If it ran as a purely commercial network, instead of 11,500 branches we would probably have closer to 4,000 branches.”
“I always tread carefully at this point in Adjournment debates because I am not familiar with the local geography, and obviously my hon. Friend knows his constituency very well. I understand that distance does not tell us everything, and that communities can be distinct, but I am told that Rye post office is little over 0.6 of a mile from Tilling Green and that there is a bus service between the two locations. One of the difficult decisions that Post Office Ltd will have to make when deciding the provision of service is the viability of the existing post office network. That was the reason behind the National Federation of SubPostmasters’ acceptance, albeit with reluctance, of the closures over the past year.”
“That should provide a good post office service for the people of Rye, which both he and I want. My hon. Friend has argued for the establishment of a Post Office Essentials service to replace the former post office provision in Tilling Green, akin to the Post Office Essentials service that exists elsewhere in his constituency at Old Town in Hastings. As I said, that is a lower-cost model of delivering core post office services—perhaps not every service, but most of the commonly used services—which is being piloted in both urban and rural areas. I understand that Post Office Ltd has looked carefully at that suggestion but believes that it could adversely impact on the viability of the new post office at Rye, and in particular on the business plans on which the development of the new, improved post office facility is based.”
“By 21 February, two days earlier than originally scheduled, a three-counter position branch had opened, providing service from 8.30 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday and 8.30 am to 1 pm on Saturdays under the management of a new sub-postmaster. More importantly, work was also being done to identify a longer-term solution to post office services in Rye. Subject to local consultation and resolution of a planning issue, it is planned to introduce a new state of the art post office in Rye as part of a £2 million redevelopment of Jempsons- Budgens supermarket. My hon. Friend spoke with some frustration about the inability to influence events, and I appreciate that it has been a frustrating time for his constituents, but the new post office appears to offer a long-term solution and it is anticipated that it will be completed in about six months.”
“In essence, the Rye post office was run on the same premises by a temporary sub-postmaster on behalf of Post Office Ltd throughout the period in question, until Friday 6 February this year. As a result of rapidly escalating concerns about continued access to the post office premises—my hon. Friend referred to some of those concerns in his speech—Post Office Ltd took the decision to close the office at 3 pm on a Friday afternoon to remove cash and stock and vacate the building. As a result, no post office service was available in Rye on the Saturday morning. However, by the next working day, Monday 9 February, Post Office Ltd had been able to establish an interim post office service in a nearby vacant shop. That interim branch was open for 42 hours a week until more suitable temporary arrangements could be established.”
“I do not want to repeat the debate that we had last year about the network change programme and the closures in his constituency, but I want to put it on record that following that debate, and the closures in his constituency, Post Office Ltd picked one of the locations in his constituency to pilot a new service, Post Office Essentials, which is a lower-cost way of providing post office services. Of course, it is early days for that service, but I understand that so far it appears to be working well. We will monitor that model closely to see whether it might be applicable more widely, in other locations. Let me return to the situation in the post office in Rye.”
“As he will know, there were problems between Post Office Ltd and a former sub-postmaster, which resulted in temporary provision outwith the usual location. Of course, that caused confusion and a degree of frustration to local people, but I believe that Post Office Ltd did what it could to ensure continuity of service. However, I accept that that was not ideal for his constituents, and that a permanent solution has to be found in Rye. As my hon. Friend has made clear, throughout the period, he has assiduously pursued with Post Office Ltd his concerns about how the issue was handled, and about the continuity of service for his constituents in Rye and in nearby Tilling Green.”
“As he said, the Government have committed to a subsidy of £150 million a year over the coming years, which means that the Post Office can look forward to a period of greater stability than it has had for some time. My hon. Friend’s concerns, quite fairly, relate to the provision of post office services in his constituency, and Rye in particular. He is particularly concerned about recent events affecting the service at Rye post office. We have corresponded on the subject, and he has had extensive contact with the management of Post Office Ltd on the issue. Post office services in Rye have certainly been disrupted a number of times in recent months. I appreciate that that has caused concern and frustration to my hon. Friend and, even more importantly, to his constituents.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) on securing this debate on post offices in Rye. I know that he cares passionately about post office services. He is an excellent constituency MP, and he campaigns assiduously on behalf of the people of Hastings and Rye, not only on this issue but across the board. It is not the first time that we have debated the issue. There was an Adjournment debate just over a year ago about post office services in his constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend would agree that we are in a somewhat different position now. The network change programme has drawn to a close. Post Office Ltd has been awarded the new contract for the card account for pensions and benefits. That will help to secure the network of around 11,500 branches.”
“I am interested by the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument. I accept completely that if the House is interested in helping people who face losing their job as a result of the recession, the redundancy pay package is only one part of the picture. But it is also the case that the Conservatives have opposed the extra Government spending in other areas, such the rapid response service—funds for which have doubled—and training places. If he opposes the redundancy pay increases in the Bill, is he also opposed to the extra expenditure elsewhere in the system for those who lose their jobs?”
“The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a dangerous argument. His party has spent the past two to three years trying to change its image and to say that it is no longer the “nasty party”, to quote one of his colleagues, yet he seems to be embarking on an attack on a series of measures that were all designed to improve the lot of working people. That raises an interesting question. Is he saying that at the next election, whenever it should come, his party will say that it wants to reduce the rights to paid leave granted under the working time directive, for example? Will it reduce the rights to trade union recognition contained in some of the legislation that he cites? I do not know what was coming next in his speech, but I am sure that he will take my point. Is his party going to stand on a platform of taking those improvements away?”
“The allegation is frequently made that it is easier to fire workers in the UK compared with other countries and that it leads to higher unemployment in the UK than elsewhere. If that were true, would unemployment in the UK not be higher than in Germany and France? In fact it is lower, so it seems to me that the frequently made allegation that it is easier to fire people in the UK is not reflected in the unemployment figures for the various countries usually cited as examples.”
“Friend said, people expect the Government’s response to the recession to be focused on the concerns of ordinary families. They expect it to be about real help for those at the sharp end. That has been the central concern in everything that we have done in recent months. He suggested that on the Government’s side, there had been some attempt to encourage people to speak against his Bill. I was puzzled by that suggestion. I have tried to find out whether that was the case, and I am told that it was not; it is certainly not something of which I have any knowledge.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on his success in the private Members’ ballot. The issue he raises in his Bill is important, both in itself and in terms of our response to very difficult economic times. I begin with a note of caution: in our attitude to the Bill, we should be careful not to make a judgment about the whole recession and the set of economic circumstances we face. It would be a mistake, particularly for my colleagues on the Labour Benches, to judge purely in terms of our response to the measure whether we were acting in the interests of the working people we care about. They are at the heart of everything we do in response to the recession. I will have more to say about that in relation to the help offered to people who are in difficult circumstances, having lost their job. As my hon.”
“The detail of the response may differ from state to state, but across the world there is a common approach, which is to try to stabilise the banking system and engage in fiscal stimulus in order to restore confidence, get credit moving and ensure that the recession is shallower and less long-lasting than it might otherwise be. Our response is not just national; it is also about calling on other Governments to join us in taking action to get credit flowing again, because that is central to getting the world economy moving. Here in the UK, we have announced a number of measures to help businesses and employment. That is about delivering real help to businesses that are in urgent need of credit, which is important if we are to stop the job losses to which the Bill is designed to respond.”
“For example, with regard to the credit crunch, we believe it is important to try to maintain lending to businesses, so that they can keep employing the people with whom the Bill is concerned, as well as lending to households, which is vital for growth and jobs. The health of the economy also matters to banks, as growth and jobs determine whether borrowers can repay their loans, and whether the banks can make new loans. That is why the Government took decisive action in October and since then to ensure that the banking system does not collapse, and to ensure the certainty and confidence needed to get credit flowing again. This is not just a British response. After the steps taken in October in the United Kingdom, similar action was taken by countries around the world.”
“Of course, banks are the home of the savings of the hard-working men and women who are at the heart of our concerns, and the home of the savings that those who have retired have built up over the course of their life. Although the intervention is in the banks, the concern is not for the bankers but for those who have invested their trust and their savings in the banks. The same is true of the other measures that we have taken in response to the recession. We have taken a dual approach to the downturn, which involves both tackling its causes—the international banking crisis and the lack of adequate lending—and dealing fairly with the consequences. That means providing the right support for people and businesses. The Bill is concerned with support for people who are at the sharp end of what is happening in the downturn.”
“As my hon. Friend remarks, the evidence shows that that was not the case. When we intervene in response to the recession, it is very much because the interests of ordinary, hard-working men and women who do their jobs faithfully, day in and day out, are at the heart of our concerns. There is sometimes confusion about that: when people see us intervening in the banking system, or see us acting as an insurer or a guarantor of lending risk, they may feel that we are doing that purely because we feel concern for the banks, or indeed the investment bankers who took some of the decisions that led to the problems that we face, but that is not the case. We intervene because a properly functioning banking system is an essential prerequisite of a modern economy. It is a basic necessity for companies that employ millions of people.”
“I hope he does not mind me saying that, during the past week or so, we have discussed the fact that when pressing for a new or additional measure it is important not to ignore what the Government are doing for working people, which includes some significant changes that will come into force next month.”
“A number of people are affected by job losses and short-time working. In essence, there are two elements to the context of the Bill: the economic circumstances that we face, and what we said we would do about the issue before the last election. I assure my hon. Friend and the supporters of the Bill that the issues raised by it are under consideration, although he will understand that I cannot set out the conclusions of Government discussions on these issues. I share my hon. Friend’s belief that people should have a fair deal at work, and next month we will see further improvements to people’s employment rights through, for example, the extension of paid leave and the introduction of extended rights to request flexible working, to help people to balance the responsibilities of work and family life.”
“By guaranteeing portfolios of working capital, the package will release capital held by banks against those portfolios—capital that those banks have, in turn, agreed to lend to businesses with turnovers of less than £500 million. That will help to ensure that banks do not reduce or withdraw working capital lines on renewal; as those lines are short-term, they can be easy to cut. It will also ensure that banks have new capacity to lend to UK businesses, which are suffering from the withdrawal of certain lenders from the market. Those credit schemes are particularly important to restoring confidence and trying to avoid redundancies. That is an important part of our response to the recession, but I come now to the specific response for people affected by job losses and what we are doing for them.”