AstraZeneca (Pfizer Bid)

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As I have already said, I would certainly rule out intervention on protectionist grounds, but I am not ruling out intervention, because we need to look at all the options available to us.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that this issue should not be decided on the basis of whether the proposed takeover comes from a foreign company. There is enough narrow nationalism in British politics without our adding to it here. However, there is a question of whether companies keep their promises. The right hon. Gentleman has referred several times to Kraft and Cadbury. Kraft broke its word when it said that it would keep open the Somerdale factory and then announced, after the bid had gone through, that it was going to close it. The question now is how does the right hon. Gentleman know and how can he ensure that, if the takeover goes through, Pfizer will keep its promises on R and D and the British science base?

[Vince Cable]

Should this proceed—as I said at the outset, we have not yet had a formal bid—it will obviously be a matter for negotiation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want me to go into exactly what is being said in the discussions at the moment. Negotiations will clearly happen to make sure that any obligation is binding. I am sure that Pfizer itself would want to ensure that any obligations are clear and binding. Just to reinforce the point about nationality, which the right hon. Gentleman rightly stressed at the outset, we are talking about two international companies. I think we all acknowledge that AstraZeneca is an admirable company. It is Anglo-Swedish, with a Swedish chairman, a French chief executive and an international shareholder base. Pfizer is predominantly an American company and has a British chief executive. We are talking about international companies.

Royal Mail

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Post Office Ltd is a separate organisation under a publicly owned umbrella, and within that there are large numbers of highly competitive, self-employed entrepreneurs who run the post office network. We are supporting it substantially, modernising it and preventing large-scale closures. There is indeed an excellent future for the hon. Gentleman’s local post office.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that this process began five years ago with the Hooper review, and he is right, but will he also confirm that the critical difference between the Bill he passed and the one proposed by the previous Government was that our Bill contained a clause stating that Royal Mail must remain publicly owned?

Executive Pay

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. That is why one element of transparency that we have advocated is a breakdown of the different streams of payment by companies, which include payments to shareholders, payments to employees and other costs.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that context, as well as contracts, matters? Whatever it says in the contracts of the top people in the banks in which the Government have a major stake, the context is pay freezes for millions of workers and the biggest squeeze in living standards since the war. Will he therefore resist the temptation to rely on the defence advocated by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) about contracts and agree that there is nothing to stop bankers exercising restraint, given the economic context?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

There is a lot of evidence that some banks are genuinely trying to change their culture of lending. I referred to that point in a productive exchange in the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee yesterday. The banks have come forward with a new code of practice to be operated through the British Bankers Association, which allows, for example, for a banking ombudsman to deal with complaints of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

There is a genuinely difficult problem of trying to get highly over-extended banks to lend to small and medium-sized businesses. The Secretary of State was very critical of the previous Government’s performance on this issue. He said that the banks ran rings around that Government. Given that the first indications on Project Merlin show a £2.2 billion shortfall between what the banks are doing and what the Government agreed they would do, how would he describe the performance of his Government on bank lending?

[Vince Cable]

Of the leading Merlin banks, two have met their targets, which demonstrates that the demand is there for banks that are able and willing to change their culture of lending. Of course, we have taken the previous Government’s arrangements further by bringing private banks that are not owned wholly or partly by the taxpayer into the agreement. They are undoubtedly taking it seriously, and we are making it absolutely clear that we expect the agreement to be delivered and that the volume of lending to SMEs will increase.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure that what Keynes said was a matter of changing his mind in response to a change in fact. He was stating one of the basic principles of Keynesian economics—that the cost of capital has to be kept low.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that the evidence had borne out his decision to change his mind on the scale and pace of deficit reduction, but what evidence does he need? Since he made that decision, the unemployment forecasts have risen, the inflation forecasts have risen, the growth forecasts have fallen, the debt repayment forecasts have risen, and as for bond yields he has no evidence that at the time of the election they were causing any problem for the UK’s financing of its debt under the last Government. What evidence is there to suggest that he was right to change his mind?

[Vince Cable]

I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman last opened a financial newspaper. If he had done so recently, he would know that all the countries on the periphery of Europe that have been hit by the rising cost of capital are in very acute financial crisis, which we have avoided. We have German interest rates, and at the same time we are carrying a deficit on the scale of the most debt-ridden economies such as Ireland and Portugal.

Trade and Investment for Growth White Paper

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As far as the ECGD is concerned, one of the things that we discovered when we investigated this matter is that Britain is far behind countries such as France—which has COFACE and other such agencies—in providing trade finance. That is the gap—the market failure—that we are trying to fill. I hear my hon. Friend’s point about banks in general—a point that the Chancellor dealt with a few moments ago. There is clearly an issue about the extent to which the FSA has overreacted in its interpretation of international rules.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House will welcome measures to help small and medium-sized businesses to export more, but how are small businesses helped to export by the abolition of the grants for business investment scheme? The figures from the Secretary of State’s own Department show that this money produced £10 of private sector investment for every £1 of public money spent. The money was directed overwhelmingly at small and medium-sized businesses, and overwhelmingly at manufacturing companies, and it was available only in the assisted areas that the Government say they want to help. Does not the abolition of the scheme show that there is now a widening gulf between the rhetoric about rebalancing the economy and the reality of the policies that the Government are pursuing?

[Vince Cable]

We want to help small businesses, but we intend to do so in a more cost-effective way, and in a more effective way overall. The support for trade finance that I have described is specifically directed at small enterprises. As for the other schemes, such as mentoring, which the right hon. Gentleman will know about through my colleague the Minister of State, Lord Green, we are putting in place a whole series of measures that are focused specifically on the SME community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a massive sector of the UK economy and it makes a major positive contribution. It is unfortunate, in a way, that its reputation has been so damaged by activities in a handful of banks.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has been right to say that as long as the taxpayer acts as a guarantor of the banking industry, the Government have a legitimate interest in remuneration, specifically in banks in which the state has a large stake. Will he therefore tell the House what he and the Chancellor mean when they say that no option will be taken off the table if the bonus round is not agreed to the Government’s satisfaction? In other words, what specific actions will the Government take if they are not satisfied with the outcome of the bonus round?

[Vince Cable]

The right hon. Gentleman poses the problem absolutely correctly. The reason why bonuses are an issue—they are not one to anything like the same degree in other industries—is that some banks are publicly owned and others are guaranteed. The remedy lies in the work of the Independent Commission on Banking, which reported last year on issues such as generating competition and the possible break-up of particular institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I do share my hon. Friend’s concerns. As she knows, the decision originated last June with the Payments Council, which is an independent body. The decision was based on the fact that there had been a dramatic fall in cheque use, from 11 million a day in 1990 to 3.5 million. However, the Government recognise that there are large numbers of individuals, small companies and charities for whom the cheque is an extremely important way of making transactions. The Payments Council is an independent body, but we are trying to ensure that it has alternatives in place, so that people are not greatly disadvantaged by the change.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State about an important area for consumers and businesses—the future of mobile broadband internet? As he will know, it is growing exponentially, and is hugely important for consumers and businesses. Will the Government therefore put an end to the uncertainty on the issue that has been created since the election, and proceed with the statutory instrument on the planned future spectrum option, which can make the sector grow in the UK? That measure, which was put together by the Labour Government, would have ensured fair competition through caps on the amount of spectrum that could be bought by a single operator. There has been great uncertainty on the issue since the election. Do the Government accept that it would be wrong to have that option in place in a way that squeezed out competition, and will they therefore set out their plans?

Industry (Government Support)

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I have taken a lot of interventions. I am always generous, but may I come back to the hon. Gentleman?

I want to pursue the issue of cuts. I have dealt with the issue of immediate cuts; however, the question is where they were going to lead. I know that we have gone quite far in the modernisation of the House, but we have not got as far as PowerPoint projections, so I am a bit limited in what I can show. However, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East will be familiar with the work that the IFS did before the election showing where cuts were going to appear in different Departments, had the Labour party been returned to power. I have here one of its charts, which shows what would have happened to the Department that I now lead. It shows a projection of cuts in the order of £4.4 billion, or 20%. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were planning.

[Mr McFadden]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

Let me finish my point. The north-east councils and local businesses might prefer a structure like the one they already have—it is for them to decide—and there will be a process by which any proposals can be evaluated. In other parts of the country, a different route will be chosen. As I have said, the Minister of State will set out in due course how that transition will be managed.

[Mr McFadden]

I genuinely seek clarification because I am confused by what the Secretary of State is saying. A few minutes ago, he said that the RDAs would be replaced, yet in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), he seemed to say that it was a kind of maybe rather than a certainty. This is a really important issue to get clear. Is it true that all RDAs will be replaced, or could that be affected by the consultation that the right hon. Gentleman talks about? To take the example of One NorthEast, if it were the view of business and local authorities—I would like to hear how that will be determined—to retain that RDA, would the Government accept that? It is important to clarify this matter.

[Vince Cable]

For the avoidance of all doubt, they will be replaced, but the structures that emerge could have a regional scope if that is what local people want. That is the answer. The process will be set out in due course. All that needs to be said for the moment in clarifying our position is that the RDAs will be replaced. They did not give consistently good value for money. We need another approach, another structure, and partnerships of local business and councils. That is what this Government will now put in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Vince Cable

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

What I said is that Yorkshire, together with the north-east, the north-west and the west midlands, has particular structural problems that do need to be addressed.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their post and wish them well. The Secretary of State and I have something in common: we both used to work for the late John Smith in times past, but that of course was before the Secretary of State fell in with the wrong crowd—and now he has fallen in with an even worse crowd.

The Secretary of State has said several times in recent weeks that his Department will be the Department for growth. I am not going to begin these exchanges by denying that whoever won the election, there would have been difficult decisions to take on deficit reduction, but does he accept that the £300 million of cuts to RDA budgets this year are not efficiency savings? They will mean real cuts in real business support, with less private investment leveraged in and cuts to important regeneration projects. Is it not the case that the specific feature of these cuts and his plans for replacing RDAs is that they will impact on our capacity to secure the very growth that is necessary to make deficit reduction a success?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

I understand the importance of that project to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to Sheffield, but he needs to understand that we inherited a very large number of projects that were agreed in a hurry in the run-up to the general election. I do not want to speculate about the motives, but we inherited a lot of projects that were of variable quality. We now have to judge those projects, including this one, according to the criteria of value for money and affordability.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Let me assure the House that the Sheffield Forgemasters project was not agreed in a hurry. Does the Secretary of State understand that the decision of the last Government to provide a loan, not a grant, to that company was about not just support for one company but our ambition to secure a national capability for the United Kingdom in making key components for the nuclear supply chain that is set to grow throughout the world in the coming years? Does he also accept that if the damaging uncertainty not only about this but about other important projects, such as the electric car at Nissan and the automotive assistance to Ford, is not resolved soon, all the Government’s talk about supporting a lower-carbon economy will be seen as nothing more than rhetoric, with their actions going in entirely the opposite direction?

[Vince Cable]

I understand the issue because I have studied the reasoning behind the project. However, the hon. Gentleman has got to understand that we must do due diligence and a lot of projects have to be reviewed. There is also the basic question of affordability. We have inherited a very serious financial situation and all such projects must be judged against whether money is available for them.