Pensions Bill [Lords]

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that the deficit will be brought down by 2015-16. That may be the case, but this country will still owe £1.14 trillion or £1.15 trillion. Does he think it fair and just that our children and their children, and probably their children, will be taking on that debt?

[Gregg McClymont]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand his own Government’s policy, which is to eradicate the structural deficit by 2015? [Interruption.] According to the Government, the deficit will have gone. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, makes the distinction between debt and deficit. I can tell him that I am well aware of that distinction, but I suggest that Members on the Government Benches are not so clear on this. I say that because £1 billion a year is one 1,000th of the debt that the hon. Gentleman just—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way again, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question very clearly. I will restate the point: £1 billion a year is one 1,000th of the national debt figure to which he just referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont]

I am sorry, but I have given way enough and I have to make progress.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way. I am sorry to be able to quote some relevant arithmetic to Conservative Members—they do not seem to like it— but these are facts. Let me continue my point: £1 billion a year for 10 years is one 1,000th of our national debt.

Youth Unemployment

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

The figures are very clear. Between 1997 and the start of the global financial crisis the number of young people on the claimant count fell by 40%.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman and his party seem to blame the global financial crisis for every ill, but figures I received from the House of Commons Library this morning make it clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, youth unemployment has been rising since 2001, yet the global financial crisis did not start until 2008. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

[Mr Byrne]

The facts speak for themselves. Between 1997 and the start of the financial crisis the number of young people on the claimant count fell by 40%. Because of the changes we put in place, the number of young people coming off JSA within six months was about three quarters of the number going on. That is why Lord Freud—the Government’s own welfare reform Minister—was right to say that the progress we have made was “remarkable”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on youth unemployment. As I am sure all hon. Members know, youth unemployment is a huge problem that needs to be tackled. We should try to avoid playing politics on such an issue, but, sadly, the motion serves to make a party political point.

The future jobs fund is currently part of the policy, but the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) seems to think that it is the be-all and end-all, and a utopian solution to the problem of youth unemployment. He does not take into account the fact that it is part of an overall policy to tackle the huge problem of getting our young people into the labour market on a sustainable footing—I emphasise the word “sustainable”.

In proposing the motion, the Labour party is creating a smokescreen—it is a red herring—to disguise the many years of failure to tackle youth unemployment. One in five young people is out of work, nearly 1 million are unemployed, and 600,000 who left education under the previous Government are yet to find work. That record of abject failure and that legacy leave little room for the Labour party to lecture the Government who are trying to sort those problems out, having taken on the worst public finances in living memory.

The future jobs fund was, I am sure, beneficial to some young people, but was it cost-effective and sustainable? Did it lead to permanent and sustainable employment for our young people? The evidence tells us that it did not.

[Dame Anne Begg]

As an employer, would the hon. Gentleman employ the person with two weeks’ work experience on their CV or the person with six months’ of work?

[Mr Jones]

It is incumbent on the Government to offer not short-term help but long-term sustainable help for young people. It is important for this Government to make sure that we create a culture in which our young people are ready for work, not force them into short-term work to try to prove themselves to employers. Our youngsters must be ready for work.

The evidence tells us that the future jobs fund was twice as expensive as an apprenticeship. In some places, particularly Birmingham, only 3% of jobs were in the private sector and in most instances very few permanent jobs were created. Most young people, however, are looking for permanent jobs. A grandmother who came to my surgery a few weeks ago wanted her grandson to have a sustainable, long-term future.

I would also like to explore the job market and the culture behind it, which is very important. Throughout Government policy, we must promote the idea of getting our young people into employment and it must be a priority across Departments to reduce the barriers that prevent young people from getting work and take down the barriers that prevent employers from taking young people on, because such barriers do exist.

We also need to look at aspiration, which is acknowledged, particularly by head teachers, as a problem in my constituency. On a number of recent visits to schools, I was told that many of their young people have two aspirations: one is to become a footballer and the other is to become a pop star. My lifelong knowledge of my constituency tells me that during my lifetime we have probably bred three or four people who have become professional footballers and made a living from the sport.

[Chris Ruane]

Name them!

[Mr Jones]

John Curtis, Peter Whittingham, Darren Gradsby, Julian Alsop—there’s four. They have all done well at varying levels at the professional game. I can tell the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that I cannot name anyone who has made it as a pop star. That is why I said that we need young people to have reasonable and achievable aspiration at all levels, which does not seem to be the case at the moment. We have to be honest and recognise that people have different abilities and different levels. That is the case in this House and in the country as a whole.

We must ensure that those who can become doctors and those who go into the trades are valued. We must ensure that the work of young people on the checkout or stacking shelves at Tesco is also valued. We must show those young people that they can make it by working from right at the bottom up towards the top. One good example of that is Terry Leahy who went from stacking shelves at Tesco to become its chief executive; he has been very successful in the business world. We need to show young people that it is worth starting at the bottom of the ladder and working their way up, which can often be a fulfilling experience.

We need to ensure that employers have the right culture, particularly for apprentices. As part of national apprenticeship week, I last week visited a fine small business called MES Systems in my constituency. It employs two young apprentices who are doing fantastic work; they are both excellent and well rounded young men. They were hindered, however, because the culture makes it difficult for employers to give our young people the necessary leg-up to get out and do things on their own. This company employed two youngsters, as I say, one of whom was perfectly able to fit and maintain alarm systems under his own steam. Unfortunately, however, he still had to go around with an engineer and could not go out on his own in his van, as the company could not get access to insurance for him because he was too young. That is the sort of barrier that holds companies back. From what the company told me, I have no doubt that it could take on more young people if it had access to that type of facility.

On the Work programme, I welcome the policies put forward by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). The integrated package of support will replace an unclear, confused system that lacks accountability. We will reduce the bureaucratic burden of the current system, and make it simpler for young people and employers to understand, increasing the number of young people who get into work. It is important that we do not have a one-size-fits-all policy for such young people. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and others have mentioned, things are not as they used to be: sons do not follow their fathers down the pit, or into the car factories as used to be the case in Coventry—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) comments from a sedentary position, but in my area, which was heavily dependent on manufacturing, thousands of jobs at some of the biggest manufacturing names in this country were lost on his Government’s watch, so they do not have such a proud record on that.

I reject the assertion in the motion about the future jobs fund, given the gravity of the problems faced by the Government in tackling youth unemployment. Members must work hard and take responsibility, across the House, to sort out the problem. I hope the Minister will elaborate on how that work will be taken forward.

Work and Pensions (CSR)

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is quoting a system that she appears to support, but is it not the case that over the past 13 years of the Labour Government, in which this type of policy was actively encouraged and pursued, the gap between rich and poor widened?

[Miss Begg]

The rich have got richer, which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome. The poor have also got richer, but the gap is wider because of what has happened at the top end. There is no doubt that those who live in poverty have a relatively higher income than they would have done without the measures that the previous Government put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) for securing this debate on an important and emotive subject. I speak as a constituency Member who brings to the table constituency observations, not experience from the Work and Pensions Committee or in-depth knowledge of the subject. However, I welcome the fact that the Government seem more and more willing to take difficult decisions that the previous Government unfortunately would not take. The comprehensive spending review is a vital part of starting to clear up the economic car crash—those are the only words I can find to describe the situation—that the new Government have inherited.

Today we have seen that when it comes to tackling the difficult issues, Opposition Members prevaricate and oppose. They come out with the odd titbit to give us a little taster of what they might think is the right thing to do, but they never seem to have a plan, or ever look like putting a plan forward. That is getting rather tedious.

Overall, the issue is that we have had a steep and astounding increase in the cost of benefits over the past five years. There has been a 45% increase in the cost of benefits over that time, which means that for every £3 that the Government spend, £1 is spent on welfare benefits. We as a country cannot sustain such a situation. Again, that shows how out of control the welfare situation was under the previous Government—just like the situation with the Budget deficit, immigration and a number of other issues that they failed to tackle.

As I have mentioned, thankfully, we have a coalition that might not always be perfect in its approach, but is willing to take the necessary decisions to put the country back on the right course. I think all hon. Members would acknowledge that we need to make it very clear that, as a civilised society, we must provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. I do not think anyone would advocate that as a country, as a Government and as politicians, we should not support those people in our society.

However, we should also strive to reform and arrest a situation in which many genuine people are trapped in the system. Such people want to contribute to society, to go out to work and make their own way, but unfortunately they are stifled by the current system. We also need to bear in mind—I do not think this has been mentioned in the debate—that for a very small minority of people benefits are a lifestyle choice. A number of colleagues have put it to me—I have heard this comment in my constituency—that some people consider that going to claim their benefits is tantamount to turning up for their wages. That is not acceptable in a civilised society. We must look after the people who should be looked after, but we cannot afford to allow people to choose not to contribute—unless, of course, they are willing to contribute to society in a financial sense for themselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) pointed out eloquently that many young people are growing up in households where they have never seen anybody work. That is not a new phenomenon. There are second and third generations of people who have never worked, and young people are growing up in those households with no role models. They have no one to look up to, copy in life or attach their thoughts to. I understand that there are now around 3 million such households. Again, that situation is totally unsustainable.

There are people who are genuine losers in our benefit system. I am aware of many constituents with physical and mental disabilities, and learning disabilities and difficulties who have little chance of ever working. I would like the Minister to make it clear that those people will definitely be protected under the changes to the benefit system. We must make sure that we protect them if we are to be considered a civilised Government.

We also need to ensure that we make every effort to try to help people on incapacity benefit and ESA, who are rightly being asked to take work capability assessments. We must consider the fact that when people go to the assessment their condition might not be taken into account on the particular day they attend. People with multiple sclerosis, myalgic encephalomyelitis, rheumatoid arthritis or conditions that can be quite different on a given day could experience such a situation. What does the Minister propose we do to try to make sure that assessments are fair for those people?

I would also like to make hon. Members aware that I have constituents who are in what I would call the middle ground. They are between being able and unable to work, and are on the edge of being able to enter the workplace. The current system deters those people from going into the workplace because they do not seem to have the necessary support to enable them to get a taster for work, which would encourage them and give them the necessary opportunities.

I welcome the back to Work programme and the package of support that will be offered, particularly the help for people to get back to the workplace. I am encouraged by the personalised nature of that programme. We need to ensure that such packages are personal because, as Members from all parties have said, this is not a one-size-fits-all situation. It is extremely important that we put more of the onus on the back to work providers and that we ensure they are doing the job properly and in a sustainable way. We can help to do that through payment by results.

I have been made aware of a particular case from my surgery; it involves a very genuine woman who has been through a horrendous experience. She is currently receiving ESA and wants to go back to work but, in the words of her specialist, she is not yet in a position to do so. At the moment, there seems to be no middle ground between ESA or jobseeker’s allowance. I think she has just been told that she must choose the JSA route, which means she will receive pretty poor and confusing support to get back into work.

I welcome the announcements made by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), which will, indeed, start getting people back into work. However, I have concerns, particularly for my constituent, who feels as though she is wading through treacle trying to get the skills, support and confidence to go back to the workplace. I fear that the reforms that will come in next year will not be expeditious enough for my constituent. What is the Minister doing to advise and direct various organisations—Jobcentre Plus and other agencies—on what can be done to help such people now, rather than waiting until next year? I expect that most Members would rather we helped people as expeditiously as we can as a Government, than waited for legislation to come into force.

I now turn to the limits that are being put on benefits. I understand why hon. Members, particularly those in London, have concerns about the cap that will be put on benefits. Many hardworking people in my constituency have said that they would be absolutely overjoyed to earn £25,000 after tax and spend £20,000 a year on housing. However, unfortunately, they are not in a position to do so. The decision to put caps on the amount of benefit that people can claim has been greeted with some enthusiasm in my constituency. In many ways, such an approach is progressive; although I take into account the difficulties that some Members may have, particularly those with London constituencies.

Although my constituents have welcomed the announcements, they are not mercenaries, and I do not think anyone here would profess to be so. My constituents want to support people to get back into the workplace, but they also want to ensure that, as a Government, we do not allow the situation to get out of control. My constituents welcome the discretionary housing payments that will be allowed to go to the poorest in our society.

Some Opposition Members have used the politics of fear around the issue and have talked about social engineering. My theory is that trapping families in a financial position where they are totally dependent, and beholden to politicians who are edging ever closer to taking complete control of individual lives, is social engineering of the worst form.

We must encourage an economy in which we bring the necessary training, jobs and employment to sustain the people who have become dependent on benefits. The Government are on the right lines in making sincere proposals for getting people back into work. It will sometimes be difficult to put those things into practice, and there will be some anomalies, but I am sure the Minister will tell us how they can be ironed out. I welcome the moves that have been proposed and sincerely hope that they will help people in constituencies such as mine to move forward from the difficult and prescriptive place where many have found themselves trapped, particularly those who have been unable to source work for many years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is not right, because written evidence can already be submitted to an inquiry. The decision maker in Jobcentre Plus will look at written matters as well, and that is right and proper. I have also asked those taking responsibility for the test to ensure that we maximise the discretion that is available to all the professionals involved, so that we get the assessment right. It is of course proper that we do so, but although the previous Government introduced the assessment for new claimants they left the 2.5 million people on incapacity benefit untouched. That was a mistake, and I hope that we can all work together to put it right.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of benefit fraud detected.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Total fraud—benefits and tax credits, involving my Department and the Treasury—stands at £5.2 billion. Total welfare fraud stands at £1.5 billion, involving £1 billion in benefits and about £500 million on tax credits. My Department performs about 500,000 data matches per year, and under the new strategy we will use more private sector data matching to try to catch fraudsters and to stop errors. We will recruit more than 200 new anti-fraud officers to sanction about 10,000 fraudsters every year, and there will be a new three strikes regime to ensure that the worst cases, of criminal gangs and larger-scale identity fraudsters are robustly dealt with. It is worth reminding the House that the universal credit system reform will go a very long way to helping to resolve some of the problems concerning errors, which amount to a huge and significant sum each year.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Many of my constituents will be horrified to learn that during the last year of the Labour Government, prosecutions for false benefit claims slumped by 11%. I should therefore be grateful if he confirmed what action he intends to take to reverse that worrying trend.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I said earlier, we will undertake a major drive on that issue. We think that, taking on board what the previous Government did, we need to take further action. There have been reports about the issue, and I can clarify some matters. The three strikes policy to which I referred consists of, first, essentially the loss of benefit, sanctioned for four weeks, going up to 13 weeks; secondly, the loss of benefit from 12 weeks to 26 weeks; and, on third conviction, the loss of benefit sanctioned for about three years. We will look further at the penalties, particularly when we detect criminal activity by a consortium trying to defraud the state. The reality is that we have to undertake that drive, and to those who moan about it and say that it is wrong, I must say that the main problem that we face is that taxpayers, who are often on low earnings, pay their taxes to support people in difficulty, and they do not want to see their money wasted, going to people who, frankly, set out to defraud the system. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree that Remploy plays an important part in providing employment services for disabled people. As he would expect, we have been looking at the contribution that Remploy makes as part of the spending review process. I would just urge him perhaps not to believe everything that he reads in the newspaper, and say that he will get further details on Wednesday when the Chancellor speaks.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T4. Following a succession of soundbites from the previous Government, who promised to be tough on benefit fraud but delivered, as usual, very little, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain to the House why he thinks the new initiatives that he has proposed today will succeed where those of other Governments have failed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I can. One thing that it is important for everybody to understand is that not only will we have the three-strikes policy, but we will try to disincentivise people in what I call the low-level area of fraud, which is when they knowingly fail to report changes in their circumstances. In those cases, there will be the ability to fine them £50 on the spot, which will have a big effect on people saying, “Well, I forgot and I didn’t do it.” Providing that we think they knew, it is time they realised that they have, in fact, defrauded the state as well.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your new role, and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House today. I congratulate the Members who have preceded me, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who has just made a magnificent speech. I congratulate other Members on both sides of the House on making eloquent speeches, which I hope I can live up to today.

I must say how delighted and proud I am to be elected to represent the good people of my home town constituency. They have shown a great deal of faith in me, which I intend to repay over the course of my time in the House. I aim to be an excellent constituency representative and to work diligently for my constituents with the same enthusiasm, passion and old-fashioned hard work that I showed during the election campaign.

The Nuneaton constituency in the fine county of Warwickshire in the heart of our country was formed in 1885, following the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. From that time until the second world war, the seat regularly changed hands between parties of all persuasions. After the second world war, however, the seat became somewhat of a Labour stronghold. That lasted until the general election of 1983, by which time the seat included several wards from the borough of Rugby.

Mr Lewis Stevens became the first Conservative post-war Member for Nuneaton. He was regarded as a hard-working and conscientious Member who was one of the best attendees in the House during his time here and had an excellent voting record. He was also extremely well respected within the constituency. Mr Stevens, who still lives in Nuneaton today, has been a good personal friend, to whom I have always been able to look for advice and support. I thank him for that. It is a great privilege for me to join Lewis in such an exclusive club as only the second Conservative Member for Nuneaton since 1935.

In 1992, I cast my first vote for Mr Stevens, although it was not perhaps the luckiest of omens because unfortunately he was sadly defeated by Mr Bill Olner. From 1992 until the Dissolution of Parliament earlier this year, Mr Bill Olner served the constituents of Nuneaton. In my experience, Bill was a reasonable and gentlemanly character, who was a loyal supporter of the Labour Government. I am aware that he seemed to be well liked on all sides of the House. He was a prominent local figure, and like my good self, before his election he served for many years on the Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council before eventually becoming its leader—a privilege that I also enjoyed. Bill was also involved in the establishment of the Mary Ann Evans hospice and is still the president of that fine organisation today. I would like to thank Mr Olner for his work and service to the people of Nuneaton, and I wish him well on his retirement.

The latest incarnation of the constituency sees the wards from the borough of Rugby that came into it in 1983 returned to the constituency of Rugby. I now formally welcome the North Warwickshire borough wards of Hartshill, Arley and Whitacre to the constituency. It was apparent during the election campaign that many constituents from these wards were mostly unaware of the boundary changes. There appears to have been a most unfortunate lack of consultation, from which the House should perhaps learn when we conduct the reorganisation that is outlined in the coalition document.

Both the urban and rural areas of the constituency at one time relied heavily on the industries of mining and mineral extraction, much of which has now ceased, with the notable exception of Daw Mill colliery— the single largest coal-producing colliery in the UK. The colliery is situated right on the border where the constituencies of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire meet.

Nuneaton itself was traditionally an industrial town known for textiles and manufacturing, but like many constituencies it has changed dramatically in the post-war period. The traditional industries have given way, and in recent years, due to its convenient geographical location and unparalleled transport links at the heart of the motorway network, Nuneaton has become an excellent distribution hub. Companies such as RS Components and Dairy Crest have their national distribution centres within the constituency. Other major companies such as Holland & Barrett have their headquarters in the constituency.

Manufacturing is still very much alive, with a number of small and medium-sized enterprises that work in the supply chain to the car, aviation and defence industries. I am aware from speaking to local business leaders that those industries depend considerably on available credit for both cashflow and development. Many have struggled through the current recession, and continue to do so. I hope very much that the new Government will be instrumental in ensuring that credit is made available to SMEs, particularly those engaged in manufacturing. They are vital to our economy, particularly in the west midlands.

Nuneaton also has a fantastic town centre which has done exceptionally well to fend off the challenges from the big cities—the likes of Coventry, Birmingham and Leicester. A key to the success of the town centre is the vibrant and historic street market, which has operated in the town since the charter of 1226 and is going strong to this day, winning the accolade of the UK’s best market in 2009 and best market attraction in 2010. Those are proud achievements. However, in 2010 our traditional markets face serious challenges, and we must recognise them if the markets are to survive the test of time as they have so far.

The constituency has been home to a number of famous sons and daughters. Among the most notable is the Victorian novelist George Eliot, born at South Farm, Arbury, as Mary Ann Evans. She adopted the name George Eliot to overcome the prejudice against female writers that existed at the time. Her works include “Adam Bede”, “The Mill on the Floss” and “Silas Marner”. She was inspired by Nuneaton’s Arbury estate, the jewel in whose crown is Arbury hall, built during the reign of Elizabeth I. Arbury hall is still recognised as one of the most authentic stately homes of the era. A previous owner of the estate, Francis Newdegate, represented Nuneaton in this very House, and the Newdegates are still the owners and custodians of the estate. Although Nuneaton is not necessarily renowned as a tourist destination, it does attract many tourists from as far afield as Japan, who come to see where George Eliot was inspired to write such great works.

Probably the most famous son of Nuneaton was the late entertainer Larry Grayson, who Members of a certain age may remember entertaining us on Saturday nights during the 1970s and 1980s as the effervescent host of television’s “The Generation Game”. They may recall such sayings as “Shut that door”. Nuneaton is also linked to two former giants of this House, Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone, fierce rivals who both owned land in Nuneaton. The original deeds with which the pieces of land were transferred are still on display in Nuneaton and the neighbouring town of Bedworth.

Nuneaton is a friendly and homely place in which to live, and on the whole still enjoys an excellent community spirit. Demographically, the constituency is very diverse. We have areas of relative affluence, but pockets of real deprivation. In fact, three wards in the constituency are in the bottom 20% in the country. Over the past 13 years the last Government made much of the need to narrow the gap between rich and poor in such wards and ensure that child poverty ended, and substantial amounts were spent during that time, but outcomes were often not proportionate to expenditure.

Although well intentioned, the last Government received very little for their money in terms of social mobility and a reduction in the gap between the rich and the poor, and they have further fuelled a culture of benefit dependency in which children grow up seeing parents and grandparents who have never worked as their role models, in which people are better off living apart than living together, and in which there is no incentive to work because of the fear of becoming worse off.

I must say that I am enthused by the coalition document, and particularly the work conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), with his practical and pragmatic ideas to simplify the benefits system, help people into work, and prioritise early intervention which will help our most deprived communities. I am sure that the new Government’s commitment to such measures as the pupil premium and support for further education colleges and universities will give the young people of my constituency the educational opportunity that will make them more socially mobile, raise their aspirations, unlock untapped potential and let individuals take control of their own lives once more.

I particularly welcome the new Government’s commitment to providing an additional 50,0000 apprenticeships, which I am sure will engage and enthuse many young people who do not have the necessary aptitude for—or, more often, are not attracted to—further academic studies. I hope that many of those apprentices will be employed in Nuneaton. I am also convinced that there is no better way of regenerating our areas of deprivation than to create an environment in which the private sector can thrive. We must reduce regulation and business taxes and get credit moving, so that businesses can create the jobs that the skills provided by our Government will deserve.

Let me sum up by again thanking the people of Nuneaton, whom I now represent. I will work hard and to the best of my ability properly to represent them both in the constituency and in the House. I will do whatever I can to make a contribution that will have a more positive effect on their lives.