Mark Ferguson
MP for Gateshead Central and Whickham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I also want to recognise the party’s fantastic head of politics, Caitlin Prowle, who I am sure has put a huge amount of work into this debate.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) spoke about new forms of co-operative support. It would not be a first appearance at the Dispatch Box without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I thank him for his very kind words, and I know how important the co-operative sector is in Northern Ireland.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Please do not adjust your sets: I am not the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. But I am very pleased to be here on her behalf for my first stint at the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I am grateful to my hon.”
“After the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has read Hansard tonight, before bed, which I am sure she will—as we all do every night—she will write back to him on the point about the British Business Bank. The Government look forward to the Law Commission review coming out.”
“I have to make progress—sorry. Additionally, the Government asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce, by the end of 2025, a report on the wider mutuals landscape, which is well under way.”
“That point is very well made, and my hon. Friend is right to be proud of his forebears, who were doughty working-class politicians and representatives of his area, as he is. The Rochdale principles, established by the Rochdale pioneers, have formed the basis of modern ideals for the operation of co-operatives across the globe.”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Mark Ferguson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is no longer in her place, because I would have said to her that there is no lack of reading on my part. In fact, Stephen Elstub has written very compellingly on citizens’ assemblies. While I do not agree with all his writing, and cannot claim to have read it all, I think he has certainly made some compelling points. I am not inherently opposed to citizens’ assemblies —I believe there are circumstances in which they could work—but I find the idea of having a national citizens’ assembly on something as specific as this challenging, and I would like more information on that as conversations in this area progress. I sense that my hon.”
“I am also particularly pleased at the changes in the Water (Special Measures) Act around the ringfencing of money for investment, so that there is a real focus on investment rather than money slipping away to other places. I want briefly to come back to citizens’ assemblies, because I would hate for my position on this to be misrepresented. I do have concerns as to how national citizens’ assemblies can work with a geographically disparate nation. I am constantly concerned that the voices of the people of my region—and, within my region, the people of my constituency—are not always heard in the national conversation. If sometimes I am a little loud, it is because I am trying to make up for that. It is a shame that the hon.”
“Our plan for change to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good is supported by our Independent Water Commission. When it launched last October, it held a huge call for evidence, urging people to provide feedback on what needs to change to clean up our waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure. The call for evidence, by the way, closes at midnight on 23 April, so there is still time for people to make their submissions. That is why the new Labour Government and the Environment Agency have announced these changes. In January, the water sector made record commitments to clean up the environment and invest in new infrastructure, representing a £22.1 billion investment in the environment.”
“The Water (Special Measures) Act—which, as the shadow Minister notes, the Conservatives did not entirely support or, perhaps, entirely oppose—introduces a number of important changes, including criminal liabilities for water executives and new, tougher penalties, including imprisonment when companies fail to co-operate or obstruct investigations, which used to result only in a fine. If companies fail to comply, the executives will end up in the dock and face up to two years of jail time—a meaningful disincentive. Further changes in the Act include a ban on bonuses for CEOs and those in senior leadership unless high standards are met on protecting the environment, their consumers and financial resilience. I am aware there has already been some discussion about star ratings, and I am sure the Minister will be coming back to that later.”
“I will happily correct the record. Let me say instead, then, that the Conservatives failed to give the Act their full support, which I am sure all our constituents would have liked to see. I am afraid I have seen similar carping recently—over whether the Opposition opposed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill only earlier this week, for instance. As we say in the north-east—I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is parliamentary language—if you sit on the fence, you tend to get spelks in your bottom. I would advise that abstaining can also have such spelky consequences.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Can she update me on the conversations the Department has had with Gateshead council about the state of Gateshead flyover? This 400-tonne barrier to jobs running through the middle of our town is holding back businesses and growth, and stopping us achieving our full potential.”
“I thank the Minister for her comments on the national steel strategy and for agreeing to meet the owners of Union Electric Steel in my constituency. Does she agree that continuing to be able to produce cast steel rolls in the UK is an essential part of the steel strategy that will benefit Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and other communities?”
“To have a PhD in oncology, to be a GP, to work in a women’s prison—each would mark someone out as a remarkable person, but Dr Jenefer Llewelyn did all three. In her final email to me on 29 January, she said: “I implore you to keep up the fight for those with cholangiocarcinoma.” I regret to inform the House that Dr Llewelyn passed away on 15 March, leaving behind her partner and three children, as well as the rest of those in my community who loved, respected and relied on her. In Dr Llewelyn’s name, I want to keep my promise to her and keep on fighting, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the treatment of those with cholangiocarcinoma?”
“I welcome the Chancellor’s reference to the £13 billion of additional capital expenditure announced today. Will she put today’s statement into the context of the significant investments that have already been made and those that are forthcoming, and contrast that with the previous Government, who did not have a plan for long-term growth and abandoned communities like mine?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the concerns shared by the Conservatives are the same as those raised at the time of the introduction of the minimum wage?”
“I gently remind Opposition Members—not for the first time in this place—that if this is what they consider opposition to look like, they are going to spend a lot more time on those Benches than they might wish. It is often said that any day in government is better than any day in opposition. I am sure Members on the Opposition Benches are very much enjoying the opportunity to repeat arguments we have heard numerous times already. But every single day in government is also a time when we must make decisions, and we on this side of the House—in this Government—have been very clear about the decision we have taken. We have not shirked from it. We have not hidden it. Our decision on the winter fuel allowance was announced in this place. It was not an easy decision—far from it.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), a Member for whom I have a lot of fondness, but with whom I am afraid I am going to part ways quite considerably this afternoon. The point has been made by Opposition Members about the difficulties of government, so I will repeat a point I have made in previous Opposition day debates. Members on the Opposition Benches, for the time being, have considerably more experience of government than Members on the Government Benches. I believe that regrettably, many of the actions my own party took during our time in opposition prolonged that, but as a result, I and many Members on these Benches gained a huge amount of experience of what real opposition looks like, as well as what flawed opposition looks like.”
“I am very, very close to making a point, but why not? There are more people wishing to speak on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches, so as someone who has many teachers in the family—we have mentioned teachers in this debate already —I will give way and say, “It’s not my time you’re wasting.””
“I would, and here’s why: when there are difficult decisions to be taken, we cannot shirk from them. When the Government shirk from those decisions, they end up with the grotesque chaos of entering a general election having accrued £22 billion of expenditure that there has not been sufficient allocation for, which is why someone else has to pick up the pieces.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his talking points from Conservative campaign headquarters —they have been very much received on this side of the House. I do not relish having to take money away from anyone. It is one of the most difficult decisions that any of us will take. I hope that all of us in all parts of the House—every single person here—believes they are doing what is best for their constituents. I believe that every single Member on the Opposition Benches believes that what they are doing is best for their constituents. I do not believe that what they are doing is best for my constituents, but those are arguments I dare say we will continue to have vigorously over the next four years in this place.”
“The Conservatives, who are very keen to say that they are the party of the triple lock, turned it into a double lock. I think that it is fair to say—as many Members did at the time—that it was a very unusual time in the market—”
“I am about to get to the thrust of my argument, if the hon. Lady would not mind. We have been talking about the winter fuel allowance and money being taken from pensioners, which is a serious point. I wish to talk briefly about what happened four years ago, when, in this place, the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 was passed. That was a very serious decision that the previous Government had to take. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for some of the enlightening research that he commissioned from the House of Commons Library. In 2021, the Conservative Government made a decision, following the unusual turbulence in the employment market after covid, that the triple lock would become, for one year only, a double lock.”
“However, Members on the Labour Benches—I was sadly not one of them at the time—supported a Lords amendment that asked for the covid-specific elements to be stripped out to allow the Conservative party to maintain their manifesto commitment to a triple lock. That was voted down by the Conservative party. Labour Members have been attempting to be reasonable and considered in opposition and in government about the impacts of spending on pensioners. Conservative Members are arguing as if they have never had to take difficult decisions that would have impacts on pensioners. We have all had to take difficult decisions, and we will all continue to do so.”
“I would be happy to give way, but I am coming to the thrust of my argument. As a result, the state pension did not increase by 8.3%, as it could have done that year. It instead rose by the absolute minimum of 2.5%, and that has had cumulative effects. In year one, pensioners were £470 worse off. In year two, they were £520 worse off. And in year three, they were £560 worse off. As I want to be reasonable in this debate, I make it clear that the Labour party did not support the 8.3% rise, because we believed, as a reasonable Opposition who went on to win the general election, that it was not within the bounds of what would normally be considered a rise in wages and was because of the impacts of covid.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I feel like he has not really listened to what I was saying. The point that I was making was that, at the time, the Government of the day had an opportunity to strip out the covid effects. I have already used the phrase “covid effects” and I have referred to the once-in-a-generation pandemic—my Lord, did we not all live through it? None of us has forgotten about it. But instead of stripping out the covid effects, the Conservative Government argued that that would be too difficult, so, instead, there was a 2.5% rise. That had an effect on pensioners, but I do not feel that the Conservative party has had the same reckoning with that difficult decision that we on Labour Benches have had with the decisions that we have taken.”
“On the contrary. Of course there are difficulties and complexities caused by a war on the continent of Europe and by a once-in-a-generation pandemic, but they did not cause the previous Government to spend £6 billion on asylum hotels that they have not accounted for. The point is often made about train drivers. As Labour Members have pointed out, it is not just train drivers who receive pay rises. I was not going to get into this, but while I am here I might as well declare that I am very proud to have been a serving trade union official for Unison, representing care workers, hospital cleaners and catering staff, who all received a reasonable pay rise under this Government. Incidentally, it was a pay rise recommended by an independent pay review body that was ignored and left on the shelf by the previous Government.”
“I will be reasonable and give way to Members, but first I want to point out that some of the money that has been saved will be spent on the national health service. There is £25.6 billion extra for the NHS this year. Unfortunately, I have had the bad luck of being in accident and emergency with a number of family members in recent months. In this place we often talk about the impact of the national health service struggling, and what I saw there shocked me. I have seen children sleeping on their coats on the waiting room floor for 12 hours. I have seen pensioners on trolleys in corridors for days, crying out for help. It is an appalling legacy—”
“I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your reminder. I have come to the end of my section on context, so let me bring my speech to a close. [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) makes the good point that I should give way.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but those in receipt of pension credit are still receiving winter fuel allowance, and all will benefit from this party’s total commitment to the triple lock.”
“As I mentioned, my hon. Friend commissioned research from the Library. The cumulative effect overall will be somewhere in the realm of £1,500 per pensioner. As I said, were I a Member in 2021, I believe that I would have agreed that 8.3% was an unlikely increase. However, the Conservative Government were happy to raise it by 10.1% and then 8.5% in subsequent years. There is clearly a bit of dissonance.”
“As I have said, the Opposition’s time is being taken up, not mine, so I will draw this entertaining speech to a close. I am pleased that Opposition Members are proud of their position on the winter fuel payment. I am very happy for them. But under their Government, the winter fuel allowance was never increased. By my own assessment, it went down by around a third in real terms; the Minister said around 50%, and it is a matter of public record that he is far better at numbers than me, so I defer to him. If the Opposition care about the most vulnerable, they also have to care about our national health service and support the action being taken on the triple lock, and they must consider why in 14 years of government the winter fuel allowance was increased zero times.”
“I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome Opposition Members’ interest in breakfast clubs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that all primary schools and all primary school students will have breakfast clubs by the end of this Parliament?”
“I urge them to put it on their leaflets, because I will certainly be putting it on mine. I will also proudly be putting on leaflets the measures in the Employment Rights Bill. Let me talk about some of them: getting rid of zero-hours contracts; introducing day one rights; and getting rid of fire and rehire. I do not think, when the Bill passes and its measures are a success, that Conservative Members will be quite so keen to trumpet what terrible things they think they are, but if they wish to do so, they are more than welcome to say on leaflets at the next election how they want to bring back zero-hours contracts and the ability to introduce fire and rehire, and abolish day one rights.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was very taken by the point made by the shadow Chancellor when he talked about the excellent inheritance left by the previous Government. We have had to listen to his views on what his Government have done and been given the benefit of his knowledge and his experience during his time in government. I regret to say that I have spent most of my adult life in the Labour party in opposition, but as a result, I have gained a huge amount of experience about opposition, which I am more than happy to pass on to the Conservatives. Let me say this very clearly: if they continue to say throughout the next few years up to the next election that they left an excellent inheritance for this country, they will be sent into an even greater electoral oblivion than last July.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for his question. I am afraid I do not remember that, because I am far more youthful than I look but, as with the corn laws, I have read about it in the history books and have no doubt my hon. Friend is correct. I am also aware from the history books that the Conservative party has often been very worried about the humble pint and what might happen to it. As a proud pint drinker, perhaps sometimes to the detriment of my health and my finances, I can say that the great British pint is going absolutely nowhere, not from the small businesses in Gateshead Central and Whickham and not from anywhere else.”
“I have seen it with my own eyes in my own community—people doing something incredibly challenging in a community that is not often supported more widely in Gateshead. I am incredibly proud of them and incredibly proud of other small businesses like them. I am not astonished that we are discussing this interesting pick-and-mix motion, which might as well be called “Things the Conservative party does not like that the Labour party has done”, because that is the nature of Opposition day debates. I am enjoying this opportunity to talk about the family businesses in Gateshead and about my passion—our passion on the Labour Benches—for the humble British pint.”
“It was a shell during the general election when I went to visit it. An orthodox Haredi family in Gateshead—generations of the same Gateshead family—have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds of their own money into setting up what some might find slightly unlikely. I admit that when I first heard of it I was not sure that it would be a success. It is a kosher Parisian patisserie in the heart of Bensham in Gateshead, and it has been a tremendous success. There are queues around the block most days and if anyone makes the mistake of going in at 2 o’clock in the afternoon, as I did last week, they will be greeted by a coffee machine and an empty patisserie counter. The idea that someone cannot set up a successful small business under this Government is absolutely for the birds.”
“I defer to my hon. Friend; he is a learned historian and I dare say knows far more about the history of the pint then I will ever muster. I have probably drunk more than him, but he has probably read about more of them than I have. The title of this motion is “Family Businesses”. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) has already assiduously made the point to the shadow Chancellor that 96% of family businesses will not be affected by some of the measures mentioned in this motion, but I wish to discuss some of the family businesses in my constituency, a couple of which I have spoken to recently. Meldrum, for example, is a successful construction business that recently conducted a transfer into employee ownership—a show of confidence in our economy. Savour bakery was set up from scratch under this Government.”
“I will rightly be voting against the motion because I am afraid, to quote a former leader of the Conservative party, that it is an “inverted pyramid of piffle”.”
“I have spoken to Josh who runs the business about every single aspect of it and I assure Members that he is delighted with how his business is going. I am delighted— [Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, as of course is their right, but my high street in Gateshead, for example, which I am pleased to say the Minister who will be responding later has been to visit, was wrecked under the last Government. The decisions made by the last Government had a profound impact on my high street and those across the country, so the idea that the Conservatives are tribunes of small business is for the birds. This Government are going to rebuild the great British high street and we will do so by supporting small businesses.”
“I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, because although difficult decisions have had to be taken today, the alternative is inaction—which, of course, is also a decision. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of history is that Ukraine’s survival and its defence are completely indivisible from our own?”
“Caedmon is tackling the causes of poverty and inequality, which would otherwise hold their children back, and it is just one example in my community of real, transformative work on the ground. We in this place need to have a candid conversation about the challenges that children’s services are facing in the north-east and how we tackle the root causes of poverty and inequality, which have been suffocating my region over the past two decades.”
“The project is underpinned by the school’s recognition of the systemic causes of poverty and inequality, which have held too many children back. The headteacher, the remarkable Mr Wisby, has instilled in Caedmon school a strong set of values, based on the practice of radical candour. It creates an environment for honest conversations between staff, parents and pupils, who often face very challenging circumstances. Through radical candour, Caedmon parents know that staff are acting in the best interests of their child, even if it involves tough conversations and challenge. I dare say that we could perhaps do with a bit more radical candour in this place from time to time. It is about getting to the root of the problem, rather than treating the symptoms.”
“I met parents who, over the past two years, have organised a uniform drive every half term, with a swap shop—a place for parents and children to come together to share the uniforms that their children have grown out of. It was set up primarily to reduce the amount of clothing waste going to landfill, but the impact has been so much greater. Caedmon serves a diverse community and families from a real mix of economic and social backgrounds. Following the cost of living crisis and, quite frankly, the two decades of economic hardship and austerity that Gateshead has experienced, the cost of uniforms is a financial barrier to families accessing education. The drive is helping parents to save hundreds of pounds every year.”
“I am glad to have secured the debate. I am also grateful to the Members who have stayed in the Chamber for a debate that is beginning somewhat later than they may have expected. I must start by declaring an interest, because a huge proportion of those who work in social care will be members of Unison, and I am proud to say that I am a former national official of that trade union and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), a co-chair of its parliamentary group. Last month I visited Caedmon primary school, a wonderful community school based in Bensham, at the heart of my community. I met teachers, support staff, school leaders and parents, all pulling in the same direction to break down barriers to opportunity for every child in the school.”
“Fourteen years of Conservative austerity and public service cuts have destroyed our safety net and social fabric, and turned back the clock on opportunity for children and young people in our region.”
“I echo my hon. Friend’s praise for schools in Gateshead, and indeed across the wider north-east, which I am sure we will cover in this debate. The changes being brought forward in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will obviously make a profound impact through the provision of breakfast clubs, but they will also have an effect on the cost of uniforms by introducing a limit of only three branded items. That will make a massive difference to communities such as mine and my hon. Friend’s. Compared with people in other parts of the country, those in the north-east face the lowest life expectancy at birth, high levels of economic inactivity, the lowest pay and, disgracefully, the highest rate of child poverty in the UK—worse, it continues to grow.”
“I very much agree with my constituency neighbour. This is a huge problem and it increases the pressure on children’s social care, which, as I am sure we are all aware, already takes up a huge proportion of local government budgets. That is very relevant to those of us who sat through today’s debate on the local government finance settlement. Children’s social care is locked in a vicious cycle. Chronic underfunding has led to far too many children reaching crisis point, pushing more and more of them into the care system. Many local authorities have been left with little choice but to spend an increasing proportion of their limited funds on late intervention, and to reduce investment in early support for families and young people.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for raising the vital issue of kinship care. It is something that is very dear to my heart. Gateshead’s kinship care—a programme I am particularly proud of—has enabled the majority of children to safely remain in the care of their family or trusted kin, maintaining a stable family environment, protecting the children and preventing them from entering the care system. It is a key intervention that is making a real difference in Gateshead.”
“But against the odds, Gateshead council’s children’s services have recently been praised for their hard work to prioritise prevention and early intervention, and have been recognised by Ofsted for their dedication to our children and young people.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. The Family Rights Group saves a huge amount of money and does incredibly valuable work, and it is important to talk about the funding here. The funding for children’s services is incredibly important. Since 2010, for example, Gateshead council’s budget has been cut to the bone. Children’s services have been cut by a staggering £31 million, driven by huge and frankly unfair cuts, and the people of Gateshead have had to pay for this in every sense of the word. We all remember the former Prime Minister’s comments about removing funding from areas of need—places such as Gateshead and places represented by those here on these Benches today—and giving it to areas whose needs are deserving but, I am afraid, less acute.”
“I could not agree more, and I commend North Tyneside children’s services. I also commend and echo Ofsted’s recognition for Gateshead council’s children’s services and place on record my personal gratitude to all the staff in Gateshead children’s services, including the director, Helen Fergusson—no relation—and Councillor Gary Haley for their strong leadership and strong focus on corporate parenting.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. We both have experience of representing in the workplace those who stand up for children in and across local government as well as in the health service, and I know we share a passion for the work that they do. They do not always get as much credit and commendation, in this place or anywhere else, as we would like them to have. It should not just be when they receive their Ofsted reports that we praise them, although that is, of course, an important opportunity for us to do so.”
“Gateshead’s success has partly been built on its commitment to a happy, supported and directly employed social work team. I welcome the Government’s new standards to limit local authorities’ use of agency workers in children’s social care by giving the Secretary of State the power to make new regulations. There is so much good work taking place in local authorities such as Gateshead. However, questions remain about the time-limited funding in place for family hubs. I conclude by asking the Minister to outline the Government’s plans to fund early intervention-driven children’s services, which are so vital in communities such as mine.”
“I know this Government are serious about supporting children’s services to address the chasm of inequalities faced by children in the north-east, so I welcome their investment, including the £1.29 million of prevention funding. I also welcome the raft of measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including a child-centred social care system that delivers the best start in life; £44 million for kinship and foster care; and £90 million to expand placement sufficiency in local authority-owned residential children’s homes, to help our most vulnerable children and young people. Strengthening Ofsted’s powers to allow it to act quickly against unregistered provision, greater regulation of placements and ensuring that care comes before profit will also benefit our children.”