The Secretary of State was asked—
I have regular discussions concerning a range of topics with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I am not entirely sure that that answers my question. My constituents pay the same taxes as the people of Scotland, yet receive £2,243 a year less public expenditure. Why should every man, woman and child in my constituency pay an extra £2,200 to subsidise the Scottish Government?
That is not the case at all. The four nations of the United Kingdom are, of course, stronger together. We gain great strength from the cohesiveness of that unique union of the United Kingdom. I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the fact that there is higher spending on policing in England, that the rate of growth in health spending is 7 per cent. in England while in Scotland it is 4 per cent. and that Sure Start is available in England and not in Scotland, and so much else besides. Of course, it is an issue for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament how they allocate the specific funding available to them.
One of the areas to benefit under the Barnett formula is education, yet colleges of education, including those run by South Lanarkshire council in my constituency, are turning away thousands of potential trainees. Following his meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he has plans to meet the First Minister, will the Secretary of State raise the importance of further education and ensure that those people who are demanding training and retraining are not denied it under the Administration in Edinburgh?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I plan to meet the First Minister, the CBI and the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Scotland next month to discuss those and other issues. Further education colleges in Scotland support about half a million Scots every year, including in Lanarkshire. It is essential that those who are unemployed in Scotland, those who need retraining and those who need apprenticeships can gain from those apprenticeships, and that the necessary Government investment is put in place. At the moment, the proposals brought forward by the Scottish SNP Government do not meet that ambition.
It is clear from the Conservative question that the Conservatives want to continue to cut the Scottish budget. Of course, the UK Labour Government’s position is also to cut £1 billion from the Scottish budget. Does the Secretary of State agree with Rhodri Morgan, the leader of the Labour party in Wales, that now is the wrong time to be cutting public expenditure? Will he stand up to the Treasury, demand that the £1 billion cut be frozen or reversed and that Scotland have the opportunity—
I was in Dundee recently and met business representatives and trade unions. They welcomed the proposals being made by the UK Government. The hon. Gentleman invites me to agree with the comments of a fellow politician; I invite him to agree with the comments of Mr. Swinney, who is from his party. He said:
“we welcome a number of elements of the direction that the UK Government has taken to get the economy moving.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 26 November 2008; c. 12722-23.]
The Scottish Government now have more than double the budget that Donald Dewar had about a decade ago. They should put it to good use and invest in Scotland to get us through this economic storm. I am determined to do what I can and will work with anyone in the interests of Scotland to ensure that that happens.
How can a nationalist-Tory alliance complain about a lack of money in Scotland if they can find £12.5 million to buy a single painting for Edinburgh at a time when galleries in Glasgow have rain coming through the roof and when spending on arts and culture in Glasgow is being cut? Does that not show gross incompetence?
My criticism of the SNP Government is not that they have invested in a single painting, but that they are not investing in thousands of Scots or in Scottish apprenticeships so that young Scots, in particular, have the chance to get the skills and confidence to compete in the labour market. We are joined in that criticism by the Scottish trade unions.
Order. May I remind the House that the criticism of the Scottish Government refers to a devolved Parliament? The Scottish Parliament is a creation of this House—we devolved the power—and prolonged criticism of the Scottish Parliament will give the impression that that is all we have to talk about.
Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
I join you in that expectation, Mr. Speaker, but fear that we may be disappointed.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, for those of us who believe in the continuation of the United Kingdom, reform of the Barnett formula is necessary as part of a process that gives the Scottish Parliament more control over how it raises its budget, as well as how it spends it? In that regard, does he agree that the work of the Calman commission is crucial? It has been reported this morning that the Scottish Government are to start engaging with Calman. If so, does he agree that that will be welcome news indeed?
The Calman commission looking at the future of devolution in Scotland is undoubtedly an important piece of work. Ken Calman also initiated the work of the Muscatelli report on the future funding of devolution in Scotland. I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the Calman report today, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an essential and important piece of work and we look forward to co-operating on it very closely.
My right hon. Friend discussed a number of issues, including seeking reassurance that the new industry guidance on mortgage arrears and possessions applied throughout the UK.
I thank the Minister for her reply. The credit crunch continues to affect the lives of many people, in Scotland and all over the world. My constituents welcome the decisions that the British Government have taken to help home owners in Scotland, but unfortunately the Scottish Administration have not given the same guarantees—[Interruption.] I understand, but the problem affects thousands of my constituents in Glasgow. Will the Minister reassure me that she will do everything in her power to ensure that as few people as possible face the nightmare of home repossession?
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. The UK Government are deeply concerned that as few people as possible should face the threat of repossession, and that is exactly why we have strengthened the level of income support for mortgage interest payments. That support is now available after 13 weeks rather than 39, and will cover mortgages of up to £200,000. In addition, we are working very closely with all major lenders on the new home owners mortgage support scheme, which will apply to people who may face redundancy or a drastic loss of income on a temporary basis and allow them to defer their mortgage payments for up to two years.
As my hon. Friend knows, it is also important that the court protocols are in place to make sure that people unfortunate enough to face repossession get protection and good advice when they enter the court process. I am pleased to note that, following representations in the later part of last year, the Scottish Government have agreed to set up a repossessions advice group to see how the law can be strengthened. I very much hope that it can follow the example introduced last year in England.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders was one of the participants in November’s housing summit in Inverness that was organised by the Highland council. One of the summit’s major conclusions was that much more needed to be done, especially at the Scottish Government level, to free up funding for housing associations. The lack of funding is restricting and slowing down housing associations’ ability to build more affordable housing, whereas what should be happening is that that activity should be accelerating. Did the Council of Mortgage Lenders mention that to the Minister, and what action is being taken to apply pressure on the Scottish Government to release the funds needed to get house building going in the highlands?
It is something that we have discussed and will continue to discuss. It is clearly important to stimulate the housing market, especially social housing, throughout the UK, and that is why we have introduced packages to that effect in England and Wales already. It is important to increase the amount of social housing available in Scotland to meet the very high demand that exists already and to stimulate the housing market in general.
My hon. Friend has mentioned that a working party has been established to look at repossession protocols in Scotland, but that has happened four months after the UK Government took action. The process is much too slow, and home owners in Scotland do not have the same protection in the courts as their counterparts in England and Wales. Will my hon. Friend call in Nicola Sturgeon, the relevant Scottish Minister, and make sure that she addresses the issue as urgently as the UK Government are doing, so that the UK and Scottish Governments can work together in a joined-up manner?
My hon. Friend has a long history of providing support and advice for people with personal debt problems, but the momentum in Scotland for repossessions has been growing. For example, Mike Dailly of the Govan law centre has drawn to our attention the fact that the number of repossession proceedings in Scotland has increased rapidly. It is important appropriate protocols to put in place at the earliest opportunity and without delay, and extend the network of sheriff court advice centres. At present, there are advice centres in only seven of Scotland’s 49 sheriff courts, but it is important for people to be able to get advice as soon as they face the threat of repossession.
I have no plans to have such discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence.
Is that not a rather irresponsible position to take, bearing in mind the fact that it is clearly within the rights of the Scottish nation to decide to leave the United Kingdom, and bearing in mind the significant role that the Scottish nation has played over the years in the defence of the British isles? Surely it would be responsible of the Government to have such contingency plans in place.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the defence footprint is significant in Scotland, where 17,000 service personnel and civilians are employed by the Ministry of Defence. The defence industry in Scotland generates about £2.3 billion. All I would say is that there has never been majority support for independence for Scotland. The fact is that the longer the Scottish National party Government are in power in Scotland, the greater the deficit in support for independence becomes. Support for independence in Scotland is, in percentage terms, in the mid-20s. There is not a mandate for independence, and it would not be appropriate to have such conversations.
I agree with my right hon. Friend. On the defence industrial strategy, will he take every opportunity to remind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of the huge Scottish and British asset right at the sharp end—the forefront—of manufacturing, namely Selex, owned by Finmeccanica? Aerospace and avionics are engineering sectors in which Britain still leads. Will he take every opportunity to remind his colleagues of the importance of that facility to our defence, our industry and all military procurement, including Eurofighter?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Scotland, about 16,000 people are directly employed in the defence and aerospace industries, including in the areas to which he alluded. It is an enormous, important part of the Scottish economy, and it is a part of the Scottish economy that can continue to grow in the current economic downturn. It can fuel Scotland’s continued success in future years.
But in the past 12 years there has been a cut in service personnel, bases have been closed, regiments have been axed, and less than our share, in terms of population and tax contribution, is spent on procurement in Scotland. Those are the facts. Why should we put up with that? There is also the fact that Scottish service personnel were committed to illegal wars opposed by the people, and the fact that Trident was based in Scotland—a decision that was also opposed by the people.
I recently had the great honour of meeting the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in Germany, and the whole House—certainly those on the Labour Benches, and almost everyone in the Opposition parties— would talk with great pride of the work that they did, in a remarkable, brave way, to defend democracy in Iraq. The fact is that if the hon. Gentleman had his way, there would be no Royal Navy, no Royal Navy aircraft carriers, and no Royal Navy jobs on the Clyde, in Rosyth or anywhere else. He and his policies are putting in jeopardy thousands of Scottish jobs in the manufacturing base, so it is no wonder that support for independence for Scotland continues to fall.
I speak as someone who gained from an apprenticeship in a shipyard in the west of Scotland. On shipbuilding, orders are being placed on the Clyde as a consequence of our having a United Kingdom, and that is resulting in more apprenticeships on the Clyde. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a good thing?
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There have been recent announcements about recruiting more people to shipbuilding apprenticeships on the Clyde. If it were not for Royal Navy orders for the Clyde area and other parts of Scotland, there would be no ships on which apprentices could learn their skills. I could not put the matter any better than BAE Systems did when it gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee: it said that without Royal Navy orders,
“There would not be a ship building business.”
If the Scottish National party had its way, there would be no Royal Navy orders because there would be no Royal Navy.
The Secretary of State clearly knows the contribution that RAF Leuchars in my constituency has made to British defence for a very long time. He has told the House of the total contribution of defence expenditure to the Scottish economy. Will he consider a study of the contribution that individual defence installations make to their local economy, to include RAF Leuchars and also, perhaps, Faslane?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point about the specific contributions made by RAF Leuchars and Faslane. I am aware that, for example, in Argyll and Clyde about 6,500 defence jobs are reliant on MOD work. On Leuchars, I am happy to discuss with him what specifically we could do to raise the profile of the work of the personnel there and across Scotland, but it is a matter that I would have to discuss in more detail with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
I thank my right hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for all the thousands of jobs for people in my constituency on the Clyde working on the Type 45 and, hopefully, soon on the carrier. Will he not listen to Opposition parties, one of which would have closed the Clyde down before the last election, and the other which supported it in order to try to get rid of a Labour Government? They offer nothing to help the workers in Scotland or the workers in the defence industry.
Again, my hon. Friend is typically correct when he talks about the importance of the shipbuilding on the Clyde that he and other Glasgow Members have championed for some years. Our armed forces are part of our shared heritage—that of Scotland and the United Kingdom—and the Government will do all we can to protect and preserve that for many years to come.
It is perhaps tempting to remind the House of the Scottish National party’s military adviser, Colonel Crawford, who once proposed chemical weapons as a cheaper alternative to the nuclear deterrent in Scotland. May I urge the Minister not to waste any time or money on making unlikely and unnecessary plans for Scottish independence, which would see the demise of the defence industry in Scotland, and may I remind the House that our Army is better because of Scottish soldiers, and Scotland is safer because of the British Union?
The hon. Gentleman is correct: Scotland is stronger because of the Union and the United Kingdom. There is remarkable pride and passion across Scotland about the enormous contribution made by Scots as part of the United Kingdom armed forces. We will continue to oppose plans by the SNP, of course. Much more important is the fact that the vast majority of Scots refute the suggestions from the SNP that we should break up Britain and destroy the UK armed forces.
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about how to support those people who lose their jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, as part of the pre-Budget report, an extra £2 billion is going into the pockets and purses of Scots to support them through these difficult times. Scotland being in the United Kingdom makes Scotland more prosperous in good times and help us to insure against the most difficult times when we face crisis, such as the world faces now. Most Scots appreciate that we are stronger together and would be much weaker apart.
From his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the support that is now embedded to help the long-term unemployed into work. When he meets the First Minister, will he raise my concern that nothing has been done in Scotland to match the skills and training element of that support, which is available elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
My right hon. Friend is right. We need to make sure that today’s newly unemployed do not become the long-term unemployed of tomorrow. We will discuss those issues with the First Minister and others when we meet in Glasgow next month. We are putting in place welfare reform proposals and increasing the investment in Jobcentre Plus because we will not walk away from our responsibility to the newly unemployed in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
The Secretary of State is right to say that preparations need to be made to deal with the inevitable rise in unemployment as a result of the economic crisis. Will he also recognise that the best thing to do is to minimise the number of job losses? To that end, what are the Government doing to try to ensure maximum investment in the North sea during the current credit crisis? The traditional lending markets are drying up.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of North sea oil and gas. I met representatives of the industry last week and, along with the Secretaries of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and for Energy and Climate Change, I will do so again in the next couple of weeks. It is crucial that we continue investment in the North sea, to access oilfields and gasfields that we have not got to in past decades; I am thinking in particular of the enormous untapped resource west of Shetland. We need to do all that we can to support the industry to exploit that.
As people begin to get worried about the rising claimant count, does my right hon. Friend accept that there are concerns in the oil and gas industry and energy companies such as INEOS, which he visited recently with me? However, those concerns are covered in Scotland by the national agreement for the engineering construction industry, or NAECI—made by the companies and Unite—under which the companies draw from within a 40-mile zone in Scotland. The concern in Scotland is that if workers were denied the right to work outwith Scotland, many with high skills would be unemployed. We need more high skills in Scotland to allow people to get the jobs available in the oil and energy industry.
My hon. Friend is right. I recently met representatives of INEOS and at the weekend I met shop stewards from Longannet and Grangemouth—both places out on strike. It was a helpful and constructive conversation. It is clear that the workers are concerned because of the economic climate and are worried that European law is preventing them from having a level playing field when it comes to employment opportunities. It is essential that those workers are able to compete on a level playing field, that European law is applied equally and that British workers are able to compete for jobs in Britain. We make it absolutely clear, along with the companies, that that is exactly the situation that should and must apply in the UK—and, in most cases, we believe that it does.
Will the Secretary of State admit that on the basis of the warnings from the International Monetary Fund and the Fraser of Allander Institute, his Labour Government have led Scotland not just into recession but to the brink of becoming the worst hit part of the worst hit country in the developed world? Does he agree that at such a time, Scotland does not need a do nothing Secretary of State? It needs him to bring the UK and Scottish Governments together to combat this recession. Can he tell Parliament how many times the Prime Minister has met the First Minister to discuss the recession? How many times has he himself done so?
I do not keep the Prime Minister’s diary, but I have announced that the First Minister, the CBI, the STUC and I will be coming together. We will look at what happened during previous recessions in the United Kingdom. We will look at the position of the Government in power at those times, who said that unemployment was a price worth paying. We will do the opposite. Unemployment is never a price worth paying, and we will do everything that we can to prevent the long-term generational unemployment that typified the Tory approach to previous recessions. [Interruption.]
I think we can take it that the answer to the question about the number of meetings between the Prime Minister and the First Minister to discuss the recession is none. The people of Scotland will find it deeply disappointing that there has been so little, and such acrimonious, dialogue between their Prime Minister, Secretary of State and First Minister in the face of such a serious crisis. I say to the Secretary of State that under a Conservative Government things would be very different, because Scotland’s interests would be put first. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us: is it that the Prime Minister has been so busy saving the world that he has not had time to save Scotland, or that he simply puts partisan political interests ahead of Scottish business interests?
There we have it. The Conservatives’ approach would be entirely different. We know that from their history: long-term generational unemployment; incapacity benefit numbers trebling; a poll tax in Scotland first; no investment whatever in public services; and child poverty higher in the United Kingdom than in any industrialised nation in the world. Yes, there are enormous differences between the two parties. We believe in investing in these economically difficult times; the Conservatives are out of touch with the mainstream across the world, including new President Obama. On that basis, they are economically illiterate and politically isolated.
The Prime Minister was asked—
Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our profound condolences to the family and friends of Corporal Danny Nield of 1st Battalion The Rifles, who was killed in Afghanistan last Friday. We owe him, and all who have lost their lives, our gratitude for their service. Our armed forces show us week in and week out their courage and commitment, and we will never forget those who have shown such dedication.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
The whole House will wish to send our deepest sympathy to the family of Corporal Nield.
We are experiencing the worst winter weather for 20 years, but new evidence shows that fuel companies are not cutting fuel bills as their costs reduce. Meanwhile, energy giant BP has just posted £14 billion in profits. What urgent further steps can my right hon. Friend take to reassure pensioners and families who are worried about their fuel bills this winter?
First, I pay tribute to the emergency services for the way that they have dealt with all the troubles and difficulties that have arisen from the cold weather. We are determined to provide real help to people who are facing difficulties with their fuel bills, including pensioners who are worried about their ability to turn on their heating at a time when the weather is really cold. So in addition to the money that we have provided through the winter allowance, with 12 million pensioners who benefit by £250 or £400 this year, and at the same time as the £60 that we are giving to every pensioner now—it has been paid out in the past few days—I can also confirm that this Monday half a million vulnerable families became eligible for payments of £25 on the basis of future weather forecasts. Let me also say that 5 million people will get cold weather payments this week, and we will continue to make payments whenever the weather is so poor.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal Danny Nield, killed in Afghanistan on Friday. We should offer our deepest sympathy to his family and his friends at this time.
Does the Prime Minister share my concern at the decision by the US House of Representatives to pass “Buy America” legislation, and does he agree that a retreat into protectionism is the last thing that the world needs? Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s spokesman refused to confirm that he would specifically condemn these moves. Will the Prime Minister make clear his position today?
I have made it clear throughout the past few months that the biggest danger that the world faces is a retreat into protectionism. I have also made it clear that, as a result of the withdrawal of foreign banking capacity in large numbers of countries, we face a downward spiral whereby these countries cannot borrow from anybody because foreign banks have left. That is all the more reason why, first, we should sign the Doha agreement—that will feature on the G20 agenda—and secondly, we should ensure that every country is analysed by the World Trade Organisation on what it is doing to prevent protectionism. It is also absolutely clear that we should agree, as a world, on a monetary and fiscal stimulus that will take the world out of depression.
The two countries that most need to give ground to achieve action on the Doha round—India and the US—will both be present at the G20. As the Prime Minister said, the aims of the G20 refer to advancing the Doha trade round. Should we not be clear that anything less than removing the barriers to agreement would represent a failure?
I tried very hard before Christmas to talk to both President Bush and the Indian Prime Minister so that we could make progress on this. There are actually only two issues that are left to be decided. The first is a safeguard clause for when there is a surge in imports in any poor country, and the second concerns negotiations on sectorals—different sectors of industry—and how those could be concluded. By the time President Bush had left office, he had made it clear that he would be able to accept the wording on the sectoral agreements, and the Indian Prime Minister has said to me that he wants to make progress on the safeguard clause.
It is now up to President Obama and the Indian Prime Minister to say that they can accept the terms of this agreement. If that were so, we would have a conclusion of the first round of the Doha negotiations. That is in the interests not just of our country, but of the poorest countries in the world, which are now facing poverty as a result of the industrial downturn. Those two issues can be resolved, and I will work very hard to resolve them in the next few weeks.
The point is that if we do not get a conclusion to the Doha round, the existing policy space allows countries to double the level of tariffs. Everyone can hear that the Prime Minister says that it is important to avoid protectionism, but is he not himself guilty of encouraging protectionist sentiment? Does he agree that use of the slogan “British jobs for British workers”—[Interruption.] Does he agree that using that slogan showed a lack of judgment, and does he now regret it?
First, on the trade negotiations, let us be clear that we have done everything in our power. The Brazilians have come on board; the Argentinians have come on board; the South Africans have come on board; the rest of Europe has come on board. It is important that we make all the efforts we can with other countries to get this trade agreement. Pascal Lamy, the head of the WTO, has just published a report on the protectionist tariffs that are being imposed by different countries during the present downturn. At the moment, those tariffs are limited and it is important that we continue to see that they are limited.
On the second question, can anybody here say that they do not want British workers to get jobs in our country? Can anyone here say—[Interruption.] Can anyone here say that they do not want us to help British workers get the skills necessary to get jobs? Let me also say that in an open environment and a global economy where there is competition for jobs, it is crucial that we do everything in our power to help people get the jobs that are available. That is why we are investing in apprenticeships; that is why we are investing in helping the unemployed get back to work; that is why we have a new deal; that is why we are increasing public investment. The pity is that the Opposition do not support us, because they want to do nothing.
He was pandering to people’s fears and he knows it. This is what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, his former Europe Minister, had to say. He said that the slogan
“lacks credible arguments”
“appears to amount to little more than employment apartheid” .
He was asked to repeat the slogan, and because he has got some judgment he refused. Let me ask the Prime Minister again: is not the use of this slogan an error of judgment and a huge mistake, and should he not apologise instead of twisting?
I have already shown that we are far from protectionist as a Government. We are trying to get a world trade agreement. I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman—he does not want to listen—that in an open, global environment where there is competition for jobs, it is our duty to help British workers get the skills necessary for jobs. As far as opportunism is concerned, I have to tell him that there is nothing more opportunistic than his saying in the autumn that he wanted to give all-party support to this Government’s efforts to take us out of a global financial crisis and then, the next moment, withdrawing all that support. That is opportunism.
Does the Prime Minister not understand that he is taking people for fools again? At international summits, he lectures the world on the evils of protectionism, but back at home, with his slogan “British jobs for British workers”, he is pandering to protectionist fears. Does he not understand that he has been found out?
Let me just bring the right hon. Gentleman up to date with what is happening in the industrial dispute, so that he realises what is going on. An ACAS proposal has been put to the work force, and I hope that they will now accept it despite their initial reservations. I can also tell him that the construction and engineering association has issued new guiding principles for companies to consider when using non-UK contractors and labour on engineering construction sites. I hope that the whole House will welcome the fact that it now states in the new advice:
“Always consider whether there are competent workers available locally. If there are, it is good practice for the non-UK contractor to explore and consider the local skills availability and to consider any applications that may be forthcoming.”
That is the common-sense way of dealing in practical terms with the difficulties that we face.
Does the Prime Minister not realise that one of his problems is that he refuses to admit mistakes, even when those mistakes stare him and the whole country in the face? He says “British jobs for British workers” when he knows that it is not deliverable. He says that he ended boom and bust when we are in the deepest recession for a generation. He says that our economy is well prepared when the IMF says that we are going to have the deepest recession of all. I have to tell him that he should just look behind him—they are so ashamed of what he has said about British jobs for British workers. [Interruption.] Let me ask him one final time—[Interruption.]
I do not know why the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is shouting—it was he who specifically criticised the Prime Minister for using that phrase. He said that
“every politician from a Prime Minister down to the most junior”
“in the House of Commons has to choose their words carefully.”
[Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to learn to shout carefully, too.
Let me ask the Prime Minister one final time: was not using that phrase an error of judgment and a big mistake, and will he make a promise not to do it again?
The biggest error of judgment would be to do nothing during this period of the world downturn. The biggest error of judgment would be to fail to invest in the economy and help people get the skills that are necessary for jobs. We are creating 35,000 apprenticeships, we are helping 500,000 people into work and we are investing in the construction industry to create more jobs. The right hon. Gentleman goes around the world talking the pound down; he goes around the world saying that we are going to have to go to the IMF; he goes to Switzerland and says that the British economy is weak. He has decided that it is in the interests of the Conservative party to talk Britain down, and he should be ashamed of himself.
I am aware of several potential bidders to save Wedgwood and the hundreds of jobs affected in north Staffordshire. Although the administrators seem to be doing a very good job of keeping things running, I am worried that they are rapidly running out of time. Will my right hon. Friend look at what Government support can be given to assist the administrators to ensure that Wedgwood can keep running while they consider all potential bidders to save it?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in this matter. We did try to help Wedgwood over the Christmas weeks, to see whether the company could be saved before it went into administration. I am very happy to talk to him about how we can speed up the process to help British workers there, and I am very happy to meet him to do so.
I add my expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Corporal Danny Nield, who tragically lost his life serving this country and the people of Afghanistan in Helmand province.
Week after week, I have been asking the Prime Minister why he is not getting tough on tax avoidance. Every time, he tells me that he is doing all that he can. This week, newspapers have confirmed that big companies are using loopholes to get out of paying £14 billion in corporation tax alone. Instead of going on about British jobs for British workers, is it not time that he went on about British taxes for British companies?
This needs not only the efforts that we are making to clamp down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, but an international agreement. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that there is a case in America at the moment in relation to Swiss tax avoidance. Once it is resolved, I believe that it is possible to get an international agreement for the exchange of information about tax cases. That would be the way to move forward our proposals for the exchange of information on tax and clamping down on tax evaders.
The Prime Minister is living in denial. He created a system that lets big companies run rings round the Treasury, lets peers in the other place not pay their full taxes in this country and allows City bosses to pay less in tax on their capital gains than their cleaners pay on their wages. He is losing this country billions of pounds, which could be used to give big permanent tax cuts to ordinary families. Why should anyone trust him when he makes one rule for the fat cats and another for everyone else?
I remember that the chief donor to the Liberal party got into real trouble because he was a tax evader, and the Liberals never returned the money. Perhaps it is the leader of the Liberal party who is in denial at the moment.
We do everything we can, and will continue to do so, Budget after Budget, to remove the possibility of tax avoidance and tax evasion. In the end, it will need what the right hon. Gentleman should support—an international agreement. In the light of the Swiss case in the United States of America, I hope that we can make big progress on that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
Over the weekend, 400 job losses were announced in my constituency, with the closure of the Stampworks in Ayr, the last truck axle manufacturer in the UK, and 145 job losses in Girvan—work is being transferred to Norway from one of the few sizeable employers in the Girvan area. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to discuss what can be done to help?
I know that my hon. Friend takes a huge interest in increasing employment and ensuring that employment opportunities are available in her constituency. We have talked on many occasions about how we can get more jobs into that area. I would be happy to meet her to discuss these particular redundancies and see what we can do. If the jobs cannot be saved, it is important that we help people get back into work quickly—200,000 people a month can still get new jobs and there are half a million vacancies in the economy. While I understand the feelings and sentiments of people who are in danger of losing their jobs, and I feel for them at this difficult time, we will do everything we can to help them back into work.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the announcement by Pontin’s yesterday of a £50 million expansion plan. I know that Southport will benefit from that with extra jobs. I can also tell him that, in addition, Southport will receive a £4 million grant to help create a new cultural centre in the area under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s sea change programme, which aims to regenerate coastal areas. We will continue to do our best to create jobs and to boost the British tourism industry, which, I believe, will do well this summer.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has pushed this matter for many years, since he was a local authority leader. The decline in mortgage lending is mainly the result of the loss of capacity in the mortgage market. So even if existing banks lend more to home owners, the loss of foreign and other capacity in the market makes it more difficult for people to get mortgages at a price that they can afford. That is why we are saying that local authorities that already have the power to issue mortgages should be encouraged to do so, and why the Minister for Housing has announced a lowering of the standard interest rate. We are now considering what more we can do to help individuals and households meet their housing needs. I hope that the answer I give my hon. Friend on his 68th birthday is acceptable.
I think that the hon. Lady would also accept that the draft plan designates Guildford as a regional hub, as a focus for transport growth and investment. These changes were made following the recommendations of the independent panel of inspectors who examined the draft plan. The final plan will be published in the spring. The Government are still looking at the responses to the consultation. The Government remain committed to the green belt. This is a selective review of part of the metropolitan green belt and we will listen to all responses that have been made.
We all agree about the need to introduce reform in financial regulation and we will be announcing further plans to do so very soon. However, I think that my hon. Friend agrees with me that this has to happen at the international level, as well as the national level, and I hope that the Conservatives will recognise that. As for the posted workers directive, an expert review has been set up in the European Union to look at the impact of the Laval, Viking and other judgments, and a group of employers and the work forces are also meeting to review that at the same time. When they reach their conclusions, we will look at what they have to say.
The answer to the problems that we have today is not to do nothing, as the Conservative party says it is. I have the manifesto of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, and what does it start by saying?
“The financial and economic crisis should not be taken as an excuse to do nothing”.
Even the European Conservatives agree on the need for action.
This extension of free and concessionary travel to elderly people is one of the emancipating forces of our time, because it allows people to travel round the country and not just in their local areas. We have invested £212 million in this new, extra funding for travel. If there is any problem that my hon. Friend brings to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, he will of course look at it, but the truth is that this scheme is a big investment in older people, to help them become more mobile in the later years of their lives.
Just over a week ago I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking about the scrutiny and conditions imposed by the Financial Services Authority when the Chelsea building society sought to establish an offshore bank in Guernsey. I received a reply from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), which said:
“The matters raised in this question are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, whose day to day operations are independent from Government control and influence.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 682W.]
In the nearly 26 years I have been in this House, I have never known a senior Minister refuse to answer a question on a subject where he had responsibility. I am sure that the Prime Minister, when he created the Financial Services Authority, did not intend it to be exempt from scrutiny by this House, and I would be grateful if he would confirm that.
We set up a unified Financial Services Authority and this House of Commons gave it the legislative power to take the action necessary to deal with the regulation of individual institutions. Of course we are now looking at the powers and the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority for the future. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise this individual matter with me, I am very happy to look at it, and I know that the chairman of the Financial Services Authority will be writing to him soon.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Israeli Government have a responsibility to help humanitarian help to get into the Gaza area. I have just written to Prime Minister Olmert asking him to take urgent action to ensure that the crossings are open so that the lorryloads of help can be brought into the area. I am urging him to open the crossings and also to provide proper humanitarian access. I think that people know that the UK has trebled its humanitarian efforts. I have been talking to leaders in the Arab countries about what more they can do, and there is a conference in Egypt over the next few days to pool the resources to ensure that humanitarian help is available not only to provide immediate aid but to rebuild the Gaza area. I believe that all Members of the House will want to see aid getting into Gaza as quickly as possible.
The Competition Commission reported last year that the large supermarkets
“transfer excessive risk and”—
“costs to suppliers”,
which is damaging consumer interests and detrimental to farmers and growers, both here and in the developing world. Does the Prime Minister agree that the commission’s proposed remedies to tackle this problem should now be implemented without further delay?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this problem—first, because of the failure to introduce early payment to many of the suppliers. We are asking the supermarkets to do that. Secondly, in relation to developing countries, we have been in talks with supermarkets such as Asda about how they can source their produce from those countries at a fair price. We will continue to push that as quickly as possible.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for more investment in skills and training in Wales and the rest of the country. Through the Assembly, Wales has developed a new programme called ProAct to help people to stay in jobs rather than be made unemployed, and a great deal of work is being done by us to look at that scheme and at how it could apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. We are also putting aside £250 million for training opportunities during the course of this downturn, and we are determined to do everything we can to help people to get into the jobs that are available.
A quarter of all council tax is now used to pay for local authority pensions. A former chief executive of Northamptonshire county council left his job 18 months ago at the age of 52 with a lump sum payment of £291,000 and a £97,000 a year index-linked pension, which is costing the county £600,000. Nice work if you can get it! When will the Government have the courage to tackle this national pension outrage?
The first thing I should say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is a Conservative council that he is referring to, and the second thing is that most local authority workers do not have that level of pension entitlement. I hope that the Conservative party is not going to make the mistake of identifying one case as representative of what is happening to ordinary local authority workers who, as we found with the emergency services, do a good job when called upon to do so.
I am surprised at the Conservative attitude to public transport, particularly the need to improve bus services around the country. I believe that the new transport Act has been widely welcomed because it recognises that country buses in particular are a lifeline to many communities. The Act is about giving options to local authorities, not being prescriptive about what they should do. It is for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers. My hon. Friend is telling me that Labour local authorities will take that advantage; I hope that Conservative authorities will serve their public as well.
As the Prime Minister is understandably anxious to exercise national leadership in these difficult times and as he must understand that national leadership depends on a degree of consensus, will he invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to No. 10 Downing street to see whether common ground can be found among them?
I am afraid it has been very difficult to find common ground, even across the Dispatch Box today, on how we deal with the problems of the economy. The hon. Gentleman may remember that in October there was talk of all parties working together to solve the economic problem. The Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Ministers were given access to the Bank of England and to the Treasury to find out what was happening; unfortunately, a week later, they withdrew their support. I am very happy to work with all parties to deal with the problems we face. I am very happy to work with all parties so that we can have the fiscal stimulus that is necessary. I am happy to work with all parties to ensure that we invest properly in the future. I hope that the Conservative party will change its position on those issues, so that that co-operation could happen.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Ed Balls, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Jack Straw, Secretary Alan Johnson, Secretary Hazel Blears, Secretary James Purnell, Secretary John Denham, Secretary Paul Murphy, Jim Knight, Mr. Siôn Simon and Sarah McCarthy-Fry presented a Bill to make provision about apprenticeships, education, training and children’s services; to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996; to establish the Young People’s Learning Agency for England, the office of Chief Executive of Skills Funding, the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and the School Support Staff Negotiating Body and to make provision about those bodies and that office; to make provision about the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; to make provision about schools and institutions within the further education sector; to make provision about student loans; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 55) with explanatory notes (Bill 55-EN).