Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I hate to get territorial but the money has actually been offered by DCMS not DCLG. It is important that the money is match funded because having local authorities involved makes the programme even more effective than it already is, but as my hon. Friend knows we have a £10 million innovation fund for the last 5%, which we are hoping many young and nimble companies will apply for.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

3. What plans her Department has put in place to ensure a suitable commemoration of the first world war.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The Government will deliver a four-year programme to mark the centenary, focused around the themes of remembrance, youth and education. We will lead the nation in appropriate acts of remembrance and provide a framework for learning, community and cultural projects through a package of funded activity worth nearly £100 million.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

As part of our local commemorations, I am leading a project that will see schools, veterans organisations, sports bodies, clubs, societies and the wider community in Basildon and its two twin-towns of Heiligenhaus in Germany and Ville de Meaux in France come together to create a unique trilingual exhibition exploring social attitudes then and now called “Never forget”, “N’oubliez jamais” and “Niemals vergessen”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the commemorations offer an excellent opportunity to remember that however dark the hour, there is always light and hope to be found?

[Mr Vaizey]

This is becoming a multilingual Question Time. Having recently visited Thurrock and seen for myself the amazing cultural activity that goes on in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, I have to say that the innovation he talks about does not surprise me in the slightest.

Ford and Visteon UK Ltd

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that, when Visteon UK Ltd was spun off from the Ford Motor Company, employees transferred from Ford’s pension scheme into the Visteon UK pension fund on the clear understanding that their pension rights would be unaffected; further notes that, when Visteon UK subsequently went into administration, now over four years ago, former Ford employees suffered a substantial reduction in their pension rights; regrets that the resolution of any court action is still some way off; believes that Ford should recognise a duty of care to its former employees and should make good the pension losses suffered by those worst affected without the need for legal action; and calls on the Government to use the power and influence at its disposal to help ensure that Ford recognises its obligations and accepts voluntarily its duty of care to former Visteon UK pensioners.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to open the debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group in support of Visteon pensioners, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time in the schedule to allow us to discuss this important national issue.

I do not really want to be standing here, criticising one of Britain’s great institutions and highlighting publicly what I believe to be a scandal, but I must. I owe it to my constituents and to the thousands of former Ford employees who transferred their pensions from Ford to the new entity of Visteon to do so. An injustice has been done and it continues to be done. I therefore stand here more in sadness than in anger.

This is a truly national issue. The request for today’s debate was signed by more than 10% of Members of this House and by Members who represent all parts of the country and sit in all parts of the House. Although a good number of Members are in the Chamber, there are many others who unfortunately cannot be with us. I mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who have Public Bill Committee duties.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for securing the debate. There are other Members, like me, who were unable to put their names to that request, but who are here and who support the motion. He is right to say that Ford is a good company. It employs 2,000 people in the neighbouring constituency of Bridgend. However, people who transferred their pensions to Visteon are at a loss in trying to explain why, when they were given categorical assurances, time after time, that their pensions would be safe and protected, they have not been. All we are asking Ford to do is to step up to the mark and comply with its moral obligations as well as its legal obligations.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I could not agree more, and the issue transcends any legal debates that might be in a court of law. This is about trust and moral responsibility, and a fine company such as Ford has unfortunately blemished its character by not living up to the expectations of its former employees. That is the nub of the matter, and why I will address my remarks not so much to Ford in the UK, but perhaps to Ford globally. This is a global issue, and ultimately its resolution lies in Dearborn in the United States. I hope that Ford executives in the States are watching this debate, because it is they who are able to solve the issue.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I apologise for being unable to stay for the whole debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that restitution to the Visteon pensioners would be good not only for them but for the reputation of Ford?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Absolutely. As I have said, this is a stain on Ford’s character and it does not live up to people’s expectations of a blue-chip brand that has been in this country for more than 100 years. That is why I have taken up the issue with such passion over the past three and a half years. Ford is damaging itself as well as its former employees. I want those executives in the States to watch this debate and listen loud and clear to the message that comes from this House. Indeed, I would be very disappointed if they were not watching—particularly Alan Mulally, the chief executive, and Bill Ford, the executive chairman—and I ask them to step up and sort the issue out once and for all.

I had hoped—as, no doubt, had many other Members—that our debate last year would have sparked some progress and provided the impetus needed to get justice done and see our constituents’ problems solved. Unfortunately, however, that was not the case and it is sad that we have had to come back a year later to rehearse many of the same arguments and ask Ford, again, to live up to its responsibilities. The Visteon pensioners find themselves in the same position; progress has been slow, and their fight for justice continues. Because of that, much of what I say today will sound similar to what I said last year, but it is worth repeating and I and colleagues will keep repeating the same message until Ford listens. To do anything else would be doing a great disservice to our constituents and to the Visteon pensioners, and I place on the record my total respect for the way they have conducted this campaign. Their dedication and commitment have been extraordinary, and that is one reason why I have been pleased to support their campaign.

For those who are new to this topic, I will provide a little history. Visteon was the global parts manufacturer of the Ford motor company, and in June 2000 it was spun off in an attempt to reduce supply chain costs. Visteon employees were actively advised by Ford to transfer their pensions to the new Visteon scheme, and they were promised that in transferring they would still

“receive the same benefits as at Ford, both now and in the future for all their pensionable service.”

They were told in no uncertain terms that their accrued pension rights would be protected, and they were given no new contracts of employment. On the contrary, the new entity continued to use Ford’s logo, it remained affiliated, and people used the same identity cards as previously and received loyalty awards on Ford paper—the list is endless. The two companies remained intertwined, even after the spin-off.

One thing that stands out after the spin-off is that Visteon UK never turned a profit after 2000—not in a single year. It ran up losses of approximately £800 million.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I congratulate colleagues on securing this debate, and it is sad that we have to repeat the same arguments from last year. Does my hon. Friend remember reading the Detroit Free Press in November 2012, which I am sure is a common read in his office? Tim Leuliette was asked:

“Did Visteon have a chance when it was spun-off?”

He said:

“No. The labour cost issues and the burden and the overhead was so out of line with reality that it was almost comical. It just wasn’t going to work”.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Visteon was simply set up to fail?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

With great sadness I must agree with my hon. Friend. When the chief executive of an entity the size of Visteon says that he could never work out how it was going to succeed, we can draw the conclusion that it was set up to fail. Someone somewhere must have known that the cost base was too high, and that Visteon did not have a bright future when it was spun off in 2000.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

In his research, has the hon. Gentleman come across any other company of Ford’s standing, large or small, that has done what Ford did and set up a company almost to ensure that it fails?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I have not, but I have confined my research to this issue. There was a trend back in the late 1990s and early 2000s for large motor companies to spin off their parts manufacturer and create separate entities, but Visteon never had a chance, certainly in the UK, as demonstrated by its profit and loss. It never made a profit, and no company that never makes a profit can succeed. Inevitably, in March 2009 Visteon collapsed, shortly before the global corporation went into chapter 11 in the United States. Following the collapse in the UK, it emerged fairly quickly that the UK pension fund was underfunded to the tune of about £350 million. That required the pension fund to be placed in the Pension Protection Fund for assessment, which ultimately left former Ford employees with much reduced pensions. Some suffered cuts of up to 50% to a pension they had paid into and had earned. Indeed, my constituent Dennis Varney, who has been leading the campaign so vigorously with me in the past few years, told me his story and I would like to share it with the House.

Dennis joined Ford in 1967 as an apprentice toolmaker. He studied, worked, gained qualifications and got promoted. In 1973, he became a press toolmaker. In 1976, he transferred to the Basildon radiator plant and became responsible for maintaining press tools and related equipment in the manufacture of heat exchange components. In 1978, he was promoted again, with responsibility for the press shop. In 1986, he was promoted to senior manufacturing engineer and then to a management position in 1990. He went to university to study between September 1998 and 2000, and completed a degree course in engineering manufacturing. In 2000, he was transferred to Visteon UK after more than 32 years with Ford. At Visteon he held a management position in a simultaneous engineering group, and had 20 engineers reporting to him directly. In 2006, after 38 years of combined service, Dennis retired. He had worked a lifetime for a company he respected and trusted, and looked forward to a well-deserved and well-earned retirement. We can therefore imagine his dismay—I put it mildly—when Visteon collapsed and his pension was cut by almost 50%. What had he done to deserve this, other than provide decades of loyal service? This was Ford’s response to the plight of Dennis and the many others affected:

“While Ford recognises the severity of the situation for former Visteon UK employees, Visteon became an independent company in 2000 and was responsible for its own business decisions…Ford fully fulfilled both its legal and moral responsibilities to former Visteon UK employees.”

I, for one, do not think it did. I do not intend to comment on whether it fulfilled its legal obligations, as that matter may well go before the court. I remind Members of the words of Madam Deputy Speaker—to be cautious in what they say. Let me say, however, that in my view Ford has not met its moral obligations.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done to try to secure justice for the Visteon pensioners. On that specific point and to avoid this situation in future, would he welcome the Government reflecting on the legal obligations of employers to employees who have their rights transferred to a spin-off company? One big weakness in this case is that the employees who transferred did not have access to good financial advice. We need to ensure that protections are in place for workers.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The root of the issue does not lie at the door of the Government, but the Government can do more to protect workers, particularly on how the Pension Protection Fund cap operates when long service is involved. The Government need to ensure that people receive proper, independent, sound financial advice when they are transferred to a new pension fund. That would be a good and sensible step forward.

This is not a personal issue and I have no particular beef with the individuals I have dealt with at Ford. I have great respect for those who have worked with me on this issue over the past three and a half years—the former Ford UK chairman, Joe Greenwall; Christophe Clarke from the government affairs team; and, most recently, the director of government affairs, Madeleine Hallward—but is time for Ford globally to face up to its responsibilities and to do the right thing. I, with colleagues across the House, have been campaigning on this issue for nearly four years and we want to see it resolved.

Some might argue, agreeing with Ford, that this has nothing to do with Ford, but I disagree. Yes, Visteon was an independent company, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), it never stood a chance, and someone somewhere knew it. I submit that Ford recognised it could source its parts cheaper from other companies around the world and needed to get rid of its expensive in-house manufacturing plants, so it spun them off. That is what Tim Leuliette said. He said it did not stand a chance: the cost base was too high, the overheads were too high, the labour costs were too high. It was totally out of sync with the running of a profitable motor business, so it was sent floating off on its own into the great blue yonder.

That is why I am calling on Ford to meet its moral responsibilities. It knew that Visteon had no long-term future and that among the casualties when it inevitably collapsed would be thousands of former employees who had given loyal service. Those employees have now suffered serious pension losses. They transferred their pensions from Ford to Visteon in good faith, on the basis of trust. People trusted Ford, so when it gave them its assurances, they took them at face value. Why wouldn’t they?

I would like to quote the words of John Hill, a former Ford employer, then Visteon pensioner, who unfortunately is no longer with us:

“I had absolute faith in Ford, and I trusted them. Although over the years we had our ups and downs, everybody had a great respect for the company and a degree of affection for being part of its traditional values and the ‘family of Ford’. A long heritage, and the fact that they had been around for so long formed part of that trust. I just cannot believe that this could happen, and we have been betrayed.”

Unfortunately, he is one of the pensioners who will never benefit, whatever the outcome of the court case and our campaign.

Trust is important, as is family, and Ford likes to talk about family. When Bill Ford celebrated Ford’s 100th anniversary in the UK in 2011, he said:

“I have always thought of Ford employees, dealers, suppliers and partners as members of our extended family. My visit here has confirmed that belief—it has felt like a homecoming.”

He also said:

“Ford of Britain has a proud heritage…The United Kingdom quickly became the most important market for our cars outside of the United States.”

There is no doubt that Ford UK is a vital cog in the global Ford machine and Ford family, yet “family” is probably not the word that Visteon pensioners would associate with their former employers any longer. Simply put, people trusted Ford, and now they wish they had not. That is sad. Ford is a great company and has the potential still to be great in the future, but it is allowing its reputation to be tarnished by not stepping up to the plate. I am asking, in all good faith and in recognition of Ford’s contribution to the UK, that Ford do what is right by its former employees and resolve this issue. Yes, times are tough for the motor industry, especially in Europe, but this goes further than just a financial transaction; it is about restoring trust in what should be a rock-solid brand and removing a stain from Ford’s rich history.

Finally, I can do no better than refer colleagues and the Government to the wording of the motion. That is why we are here and that is what we want—put simply: justice for our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and understand that he has to attend to pressing priorities, and rightly so.

I would like to highlight two points. We have talked about the possible lack of understanding at Ford in the US about the consequences of the decisions that were taken here in the UK. I have considerable experience—some might say that I have the scars on my back—of working in America, having worked with American businesses and set up my own business there. It is an extremely different culture, particularly when it comes to employee relations. I can speak only about my area, and of course the company was not a substantive corporation like Ford, but I know that the work force protection schemes in America are nothing like those in this country, and many say that we have some of the least onerous schemes, compared with the rest of Europe. In America, an employer can hire and fire almost at will without recompense. There are a limited set of protections for redundancy or sacking with or without cause, but it is a very different culture. We may speak the same language, but we are not necessarily united by it in our practices.

It may well be that people in the boardrooms in America do not understand the implications or the potential harm to their reputation of pressing ahead and distancing themselves from the issues facing the pensioners of Visteon. I urge them to listen carefully and to imagine themselves not in the boardrooms of America looking over here, but over here looking at it through the eyes of their UK allies and partners. They might then understand what has driven us to the Chamber today and what has driven the unrelenting cause of Visteon pensioners.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Does my hon. Friend agree that had the situation occurred in the United States and 3,500 employees who had worked for such an iconic corporation were banging on Ford’s front door in Dearborn because they had had their pensions reduced so dramatically, the issue might have been solved long ago? It is out of sight and out of mind over here.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Not only have I watched the film, but one of my constituents, Lesley Butcher, starred in it in a voiceover role. She is also an excellent parish councillor in Rochford, but that is her claim to fame. That goes to show what a close community we are. The community trusted Ford and was badly let down.

The motion has been signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). People who do not know his background might think that his speech verged on being anti-American. Given his strong passion for that country, I do not think it can be seen as anti-American. He will certainly be distraught that the project that allowed the supply chain to continue had the name Project Kennedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) made the very good point that this was clearly not an independent company. Project Kennedy allowed the continuity of the supply chain. Effectively, the directors and managers of Ford were shadow directors of Visteon. They were manipulating what went on in that separate company.

I hesitate to share with the House my ambitions as a young child.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Oh, do.

[James Duddridge]

I am urged to do so, so I will. I wanted to be a Conservative Member of Parliament and I have achieved that. I wanted to have a purple pool table, and I hope that my wife reads Hansard tomorrow so that she knows what to get me as a Christmas present. I have always wanted a Ford Capri Mk II. It saddens me that, even if I had the space and the money, I would not be prepared to buy a Ford now. I am not irresponsible enough to call on my constituents, many of whom work at Ford, to boycott Ford in its entirety. However, I am sure that there are many people like me who are proud of Ford’s heritage, like Ford cars and like the Mustang that is coming out, but who would not think of buying a Ford car because of Visteon.

Every Saturday, I go to mini-football with my son and I sit alongside somebody who works at Ford. I have discussed the Visteon issue with him. I am fearful that an organisation that has made such a mistake with Visteon may very well make it again. Are the pension funds of Ford safe at the moment? If I were a Ford employee, I would be very fearful of that.

I do not know what Ford executives consider to be normal behaviour within a family, but this is no way to behave. If we follow the analogy, such behaviour would lead to divorce, family breakdown and great woes. Ford has let us down consistently. There is a small window of opportunity between now and the court case for it to do the right thing morally by our constituents, six of whom have made direct representations to me. If it does the right thing kicking and screaming, only when forced to by the courts, it deserves to take no credit whatever. It needs to act now, before the court case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

It is not the Government who pay for the PPF, but the rest of British industry. It is funded partly by the assets of the schemes in the fund and the investment returns on them and partly by a levy on schemes with defined benefit pension liabilities. I realise it does not change the issue my hon. Friend raises, but it is not the taxpayer who funds the PPF; it is other firms with ongoing defined benefit pension liabilities. The PPF does not form a judgment on the rights and wrongs of a firm’s conduct leading up to insolvency. That is a separate matter that might come up during the court proceedings.

During the debate, we heard that Visteon was spun off from Ford in 2000, before the present architecture—the Pensions Regulator and the PPF—was in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) asked whether these sorts of things could happen again and whether a hypothetical future firm could structure its affairs with a view to minimising its pensions liabilities and passing them on to the PPF. I can reassure her that part of the remit of the Pensions Regulator is to protect the PPF and hence other levy payers. For example, firms considering a corporate restructuring that would have implications for the covenant of their pensions scheme can seek pre-clearance from the Pensions Regulator, and the latter has powers to act if a corporate transaction has been undertaken with specific intent to weaken pension protection. The situation, therefore, is considerably different from the one pertaining in 2000.

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) described the workers who accepted the transfer from Ford to Visteon. The hon. Gentleman said they were not greedy or stupid, which of course they were not, and my hon. Friend said they were sensible and level-headed. It was the natural thing to do at the time: someone’s employment is transferred from one employer to another, they are given assurances about their pension and it is suggested they transfer it across. There are different accounts of exactly how the conversation went, but it was an entirely rational thing for people to do. There is no suggestion that people who made that decision acted inappropriately; they acted in good faith on the assurances given.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

One issue that arose about the point of transfer was that some were reaching the end of their careers within Ford but were still left obliged to transfer before—in one case, only three months before—they retired, only to find out later that they had been disadvantaged. Could the Government look at providing for those in the process of reaching retirement a buffer zone, whereby people do not have to transfer out of the fund into which they have put most of their earnings over their working lives?

[Steve Webb]

It is worth bearing in mind that, in all these cases, we are generally dealing with a trust—a pension fund set up as a trust has trustees—and with private companies, scheme rules and so forth. It is difficult to see how the Government could write a law that interacted with all those different aspects in a rational way. I take my hon. Friend’s point, as I, too, have heard about folk who worked only a few months for Visteon, yet transferred across their life’s pension rights with Ford—with very adverse consequences. I appreciate that that happened. It is quite clear that no blame or criticism could possibly attach to the workers whose pensions were transferred across; they are clearly the innocent parties in all this.

Prior to this debate, I re-read the transcript of our debate of a year ago. I was struck by the tone, which was slightly different. I do not know whether this was co-ordinated because I was not involved in those conversations, but I was struck that a number of hon. Members said that they did not want to drag Ford down, as they recognised that Ford was a key employer for this country and that many people who worked for the company were proud to do. As I say, I was struck that hon. Members were not trying to denigrate Ford, but were concerned that, if the matter remained unresolved, Ford’s reputation would suffer. I think this striking tone will have been noticed.

It was made clear during the debate that although Visteon was spun off as a separate company, there were close links between Visteon and Ford. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned the nature of the relationship, drawing on his business expertise, while some hon. Members pointed out that new contracts were not signed. Reference was made to the fact that the long service award that Visteon workers received accumulated their Ford service, and there was Ford branding and all of that. Leaving aside the legalities, it is absolutely clear that the two companies were very closely interlinked; there can be no doubt about that.

During our discussions, the potential for Select Committees to look into this issue was raised. What Select Committees choose to investigate is obviously not a matter for the Government, but I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave a year ago that if any Select Committee—perhaps the Culture, Media and Sport Committee could find an obscure angle to get going on this—decided to take up this issue, we would be happy to put at its disposal the expertise of the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and my own officials to advise or guide in any such investigation.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) asked what the Government could do. At this point, I refer back to the motion, which “calls on the Government” to do what they can and use what influence they can to bring matters to a “resolution”. The court process is happening, so the legalities will be resolved one way or another through that.

Prompted by today’s debate, I asked my officials to contact Ford UK, which they have done. We have agreed that I shall meet Ford UK early in the UK and I shall take up the concerns that have been voiced. Ford and I have agreed that the spirit of that meeting will be one of constructive dialogue. I thought the best way I could reflect the spirit of today’s debate and the many excellent speeches we have heard would be to relay in person to senior executives of Ford UK the tenor of our debate and the views of the House. Almost uniquely, we have spoken with one voice. I hope that that reassures hon. Members. In addition to what they have done by properly putting their concerns on the record again, I hope that, with our proceedings being heard beyond this House, further steps will be taken on behalf of these pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Thank you for the opportunity to wrap up the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the relationship between Visteon and Ford has been very well explored, as has the reason for the belief of members of the all-party parliamentary group that Ford has a moral responsibility to make good the losses that have been suffered by our constituents.

We have heard from a number of Members today. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) drew comparisons with the way in which other companies have dealt with this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) described the differences between the ways in which business is conducted on the two sides of the Atlantic. We also heard from my hon. Friend—and I do call him a friend—the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, and whom I thank for his invaluable help. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) expressed the hope that the issue would not go to court, and that is probably the feeling of the whole House. I think that if the issue did go to court and Ford were victorious, it would be a hollow victory anyway, because the company would still not have met its moral obligations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) presented a strong argument about the links between Ford and Visteon and the continuity in the supply chain, and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) referred to Project Kennedy, which was intended to ensure that the supply chain was continuous. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) described Ford as a four-letter word behaving in a four-letter way. I am grateful to all of them, I am grateful to the shadow Minister, and I am especially grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made over the last three years. I am particularly impressed to learn that he has been in contact with Ford UK, and that a meeting is planned. That is a positive step.

The final message that I want to send to all who have listened to the debate, inside and outside the House, is that this fight will not go away. We see an injustice that has been done to our constituents, and we will carry on fighting until justice has been done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that, when Visteon UK Ltd was spun off from the Ford Motor Company, employees transferred from Ford’s pension scheme into the Visteon UK pension fund on the clear understanding that their pension rights would be unaffected; further notes that, when Visteon UK subsequently went into administration, now over four years ago, former Ford employees suffered a substantial reduction in their pension rights; regrets that the resolution of any court action is still some way off; believes that Ford should recognise a duty of care to its former employees and should make good the pension losses suffered by those worst affected without the need for legal action; and calls on the Government to use the power and influence at its disposal to help ensure that Ford recognises its obligations and accepts voluntarily its duty of care to former Visteon UK pensioners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue and I will definitely have it looked into immediately. It is meant to flow easily. If there is a misunderstanding, or people do not know what it is, we must take that on and ensure that they do.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

25. As Essex has a long and rich tradition of enterprise and entrepreneurial endeavour, I thank the Government for introducing the scheme to support the next generation of business leaders in Basildon and Thurrock. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many businesses have been started with the support of the allowance in Essex, preferably in south Essex?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will get back to my hon. Friend about the more specific details, if he wants. About 26,000 new businesses have started already and the target is to get 40,000 going by December 2013. There are about 2,000 start-ups every single month under this scheme. Out of the first 3,000 people on it, 85% are still off benefit a year later. That is a successful scheme.

Capping Welfare Spending

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, in this very important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on securing the debate. I am sure that we are both disappointed that no one from the Opposition is here to state their point of view, since they have opposed every benefit change we have put through.

I do not propose to speak for long because we want to leave plenty of time for the Minister to respond to the important points that my hon. Friend raised, but I want to share with hon. Members my recent experience of the benefit cap. As part of my duties in my constituency, I visited my local jobcentre to hear about the impact the benefit changes were having and to understand what actions were being taken there to help people to deal with the changes, and I was surprised to hear some positive news. One of the most positive things was that the jobcentre had appointed a social justice adviser, whose role is to work inside the centre with the people affected, helping them to understand where they might be able to make savings and what benefits they are entitled to. Their role is also to work with those who have been affected by the benefit cap.

The newly appointed social justice adviser talked to me with great pride about a case he had recently dealt with. He had invited in a person who was getting £700 a week in benefits for her and her family, and they had sat down and reviewed all the benefits she was receiving and all the money she was spending. What came out of all that was that she was paying £1,200 a month in rent. When they looked a little closer, they discovered that the property was substandard and was massively over the market value for a property on that estate. With a little bit of work and some involvement from the council, instead of her paying approximately £300 a week in rent, she now pays £85, which brings her below the benefit cap. She and her family are now in better accommodation and on the right track. The other advantage is that because she now falls below the cap she can afford to look for work.

The one thing that the cap has done is to make us all look again at who is in receipt of benefits, and rather than just abandoning them into the benefits trap we are bringing them out, to the jobcentres, and helping them to get their lives back on track. That woman’s life has been turned around purely and simply because the benefit cap was introduced. She is now looking for work because she can afford to, and she has escaped the trap.

I said I would be brief, so I shall draw to a close. We should not allow the Opposition to tell us that the things we are doing are terrible and have a dreadful impact on everyone. While we have to accept that there will be an impact, we must work with those who have been affected to help them see the benefits, and to see that work will pay and that we will make it pay for them. The changes that the Government have introduced are a genuine opportunity for people, and I was delighted to be able to see and hear about that at first hand on that recent visit.

The Government should be congratulated and, as I said right at the beginning, I am just disappointed that someone from the Opposition is not here to listen to this important debate and to congratulate the Minister before he sums up. I am thankful for having been given the opportunity to say a few words, and I again thank my hon. Friend for introducing this very important debate.

Jobs and Business

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) who, with his usual enthusiasm, delivered an entertaining and informative speech.

I want to mention a number of issues this morning. Although not all of them are covered by the subject of today’s debate, it is important that we get them on the record. I want to discuss three main areas, and then to propose one in which we as a Government could go further. There is no doubt that we face huge challenges as a country, and the biggest challenge remains our economy. It colours everything that we do and it is the backdrop to every decision we make.

It is worth reiterating the facts of the toxic inheritance we acquired when we came into government. We were running a deficit of 11% and had borrowed the equivalent of £1 million a day for the past 4,000 years—since the pyramids were topping out. We must deal with that. We are dealing with it and we are tackling it, but there is no doubt that the waters are choppy. Rather than talking down our economy, which we so often take great glee in doing, we need to start talking it up and looking for some of the positives that we can find out there. The fact that there are 1.25 million new private sector jobs is a positive, as is the fact that there are more people in employment than ever before.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman talks about talking down the economy, but what did the coalition Government do in their first six months if not talk down the economy? They tried to scare people, saying that if we did not take the draconian action they have taken, our levels of debt could be on a par with those of the likes of Greece.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My understanding is that our levels of debt are on a par with those of Greece as a percentage of GDP. They certainly were at the time. Yes, when we came into government—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Shall I answer the hon. Gentleman’s first point before I take a second intervention?

The hon. Gentleman’s other point was about our explaining to people when we came to power the inheritance we were left and the measures we had to take to tackle it. I was slightly confused earlier this morning when listening to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) who said that the only additional borrowing that Labour had mentioned was the VAT cut, which would add an additional £12 billion to the overall borrowing we have identified. I assume that means that he would stick to every spending plan we have in place. Our spending plans have resulted in spending reductions across Departments, every single one of which have been opposed by the Opposition. I am slightly confused about their current line. Do they agree with the cuts and just want to borrow an additional £12 billion to cut VAT, or are they saying that they do not agree with the cuts, that they will backtrack on all that and that they will raise additional taxation?

[Mr Umunna]

As the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, the first thing to say about our five-point plan for growth and jobs is that it is a plan to stimulate the economy now. The ridiculous argument made by Government Members is that if we are voting against things, that has nothing to do with their choices and decisions. It is important to remind him of that. I think that people resent his Government giving people who earn millions of pounds a huge tax cut while ordinary people in his constituency suffer because of what his Government are doing. It is about the choices one makes.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

People in my constituency are suffering because of the toxic economic inheritance we acquired when we came into government. [Interruption.] I am sorry; it is simple. If we had not inherited the largest deficit in the developed world and a huge debt, we would not need to make the decisions that we are making now. We never hear a credible alternative from the Labour party; we just hear opposition.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I shall move on.

I shall structure my remarks around the national insurance contributions Bill and what more we can do to support business, but first I shall mention two issues that are of great importance to my constituents. Along with the economy, one of the issues that we struggle with is what we should do about immigration, and how we should handle that quite sensitive issue. We have to get the balance right. Undoubtedly, as a nation we have benefited from immigration. We are a global trading nation; we have sat at the heart of world economic development for very many years, and people come to this country to add to our economic vibrancy. But I share with my constituents a concern about how we handle that fairly—how we achieve a balance. Some of the announcements made in the Gracious Speech will be very welcome. It strikes a sensible balance between my constituents’ rights and those of migrants or immigrants who then commit a criminal offence. It seems to strike people that the pendulum often swings too far in support of the perpetrator rather than the victim.

We are a fundamentally fair nation. We are respectful, we are tolerant, and we believe in fair play, but we do not believe that a person who abuses that tolerance has a right to remain here. I am therefore very pleased with some of the announcements in the Gracious Speech, and I hope the Bill will demonstrate to my constituents that we are tackling a serious problem. They really do not understand how people who break the law here are able to continue to benefit from our good standards of respect for them. Those people should return to their own country when they break the rules here; they forfeit the right to stay.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On that point, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that if people advocate breaking the law—by making death threats, for example, against people of this country—they should be put on the list to leave as soon as possible.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not agree with him more. If appropriate measures do not exist, we should put them in place, and if they are there, we should remind our judiciary to exercise them.

My constituents will be pleased to hear that we are taking action on antisocial behaviour. When I came into office in 2010, I pledged to my constituents that I would look at tackling antisocial behaviour with them. In my constituency I organised an antisocial behaviour conference, which was attended by a Minister and at which we brought together councillors, the council and local residents to talk about their experience of antisocial behaviour. It is the scourge of many of our estates and town centres, and the description often belies its seriousness. It can make people’s lives a living hell. I am very pleased to see that we are recognising that and taking greater action to streamline the process for tackling it.

I do not want to demonise young people, who often get put in the frame for being responsible for most antisocial behaviour. Just because they are young and meet their friends in the street does not mean that they are committing antisocial behaviour; we should remind people of that. However, when such gatherings turn into antisocial behaviour we need to tackle it, and fast; and we need to give councils or the police the necessary power to do so. The most difficult issue that I am presented with at my surgery is that of neighbours creating problems for each other. I hope the Bill will make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour caused by neighbours.

Thirdly, I want to discuss our economy and business. At this point I should declare my interests. I am a shareholder in a small business and worked in a small business throughout my career. Consequently, everything that I say about small business will probably benefit not only the business that I was involved in but many businesses across the country.

For too long we have focused on the public sector, and we have focused too much of the private sector into one area—banking, on which we have relied too much. I am pleased that there has been a push towards rebalancing our economy. I am also pleased that there has been significant growth in private sector businesses over the past three years—up 250,000. In south Essex, where I represent Basildon and Thurrock, the number of new businesses is up nearly 9% on last year—three times the regional average. There is a lot going on down in my patch. We are doing well in terms of job creation. DP World—Dubai Ports—is creating the London Gateway container port, which will generate 12,000 new jobs, but there is much more to be done. Many small businesses throughout my constituency are still trying hard to make ends meet. They will particularly welcome the measures announced for the national insurance contributions Bill. Anything that cuts the cost of doing business must be welcomed.

I will be honest: small businesses are struggling out there. It is tough. Rising costs, changing trends, changes on the high street, the rise of the internet, and ever-changing technology mean that small and medium-sized enterprises face ever-increasing challenges, yet they persevere in trying to make ends meet. I make a plea to the Government on their behalf: please keep listening to them; keep your ears open, and please, please remember that many small businesses act as a social service to their employees. They recognise that their employees are one of their greatest assets and do all they can to nurture and support them. They do not abuse them; they recognise that their future prosperity lies with their employees. I hope that, as a result of the changes announced for the national insurance contributions Bill, those small businesses will be encouraged to take on even more employees in the coming months.

There is still a significant challenge out there. If small businesses, the lifeblood of our economy, are to prosper they need access to easy, cheap finance. The Government have moved a significant distance. They have brought forward many initiatives to address the issue, but there is still a significant problem. Many of the initiatives address issues of access—some are those of cost—but I do not think that any yet address both. Banks are taking too risk averse an approach to lending and we must intervene to change that. Too many banks find ways of demonstrating lending while supporting those who do not necessarily need it. While we can show that lending is up, I am not convinced that it is getting to the right destination.

I would encourage the Government to consider using their borrowing powers—the trumpeted 2%, depending on the length of the bond—to borrow and lend directly to businesses. The announcement of the business bank is very welcome, but I fear that with an arrival date of late 2014 and only £1 billion available, it may be too little, too late. I am 100% behind the Government’s debt and deficit reduction plans and 100% behind the approach that they are taking, but we must put all our energy into finding ways to make access to finance easier, whether through lending at the rate at which we borrow or even subsidising it and lending at 0%. Lending a business £100,000 at 0% over a couple of years would cost a sum similar to the employment support allowance of £2,000 and it may well deliver significant economic growth and job creation. This is not unheard of. The Government already operate similar schemes. The Insolvency Service operates a scheme that supports businesses when they need to make difficult decisions to keep them in business. I would like the Government to explore how they might make access to finance easier.

The one thing that I am sure of is that only this Government and only those on the Government Benches have the drive, the energy, the commitment and the understanding to do what is right for this country, whether for small businesses, our own constituents, large businesses or the wider society. I am confident that only we will be able to sort out the toxic inheritance that we acquired and do the right thing. I hope that when the next election comes, we will be able to reap the benefits of that for the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

We made some progress on that when in government in relation to Crown immunity and the fact that people can now access war pensions for such things, but it is very difficult. It is easy to argue that their exposure to asbestos was quite limited, but it can still cause some debilitating diseases. The proposals do not represent a great victory for victims.

The deregulation Bill has been trumpeted as something that will remove the burdens on business and civil society in order to facilitate growth. The great idea seems to be that sole traders will somehow be exempt from health and safety legislation. We wait to see how that will generate growth. It will also create some problems. For example, will we have a two-tier work force on certain sites, with some people having, quite rightly, to follow sensible health and safety legislation, which was put in place to protect not only them but the public, while others will be able to do what they want? As I asked the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) earlier, if I invite an electrician into my house as a sole trader, will I be signing up to the fact that he can completely ignore any type of health and safety legislation, whether in relation to me, my family or anyone else?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The point that the hon. Gentleman is making would be a fair one if it was accurate, but the actual wording refers to exempting the self-employed from health and safety law where they pose no potential risk of harm to others. That addresses the point he has just made, because an electrician working in his house could cause harm to others and so would have to comply with all the regulations relating to the work being undertaken. The purpose of that part of the Bill is to prevent the ridiculous amount of records that have to be produced and kept when people work for themselves.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was outlined very well in today’s newspapers by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. At a time when we are struggling to grow our export base, why on earth would we choose voluntarily to put in jeopardy our membership of the world’s largest free trade zone?

The challenge is not simply that global demand conditions are weak—the Business Secretary said as much in his New Statesman essay—but that our exporters are losing market share. The Prime Minister is fond of telling us that we are in a global race, but the problem is that we have stalled on the starting grid. He is instead locking us into a race to the bottom, with a policy that will deliver nothing better than low growth, low skills and a low-wage future.

Those are the challenges that the Queen’s Speech should have addressed—the investment crisis on the one hand and the jobs crisis on the other—but there were big holes where the Bills on promoting investment and growing jobs should have been. Let us start with the investment crisis. The Breedon review showed some time ago that SMEs in our country confront banks that are deleveraging on a scale unseen anywhere else in Europe. The country’s investment rate is now under 15%. It is flatlining and well below the levels seen elsewhere in Europe. Business investment is £11 billion lower than it was during the peak before the crash, and there is falling investment in the venture capital industry, which is £80 million down on the latest set of figures.

Meanwhile, in corporate bank accounts cash is piling up. It is what the incoming Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has criticised in Canada as the phenomenon of “dead money”. Dead money is piling up in bank accounts in this country because the business community does not have confidence in the Government’s economic plans, yet all we got in the Queen’s Speech was a carry-over Bill on bank reform. As the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) said, that will probably not unlock the kind of business and banking investment we need. The Chair of the Treasury Committee has criticised the Bill because he found the Government’s arguments insubstantial. We did not get answers to Britain’s investment crisis in the Queen’s Speech, which is why it is such a wasted opportunity.

The wasted opportunity on jobs is perhaps more serious. Unemployment today is 90,000 higher than it was at the general election. There is simply not enough work to go around. Once upon a time we were promised a welfare revolution, and no doubt it was well intentioned, but the Work programme is not delivering for those who need jobs or those on employment and support allowance. I look forward to some reassurance from the Secretary of State when he responds. Universal credit, again, was a good idea, but if its virtues are confined to 300 citizens in Tameside, I am afraid that it will not revolutionise the back-to-work business here in Britain.

Perhaps worst of all, the Secretary of State stands before us today as a man who has failed the test he set himself in Easterhouse. Unemployment on three quarters of our worst estates is going up, not coming down, and long-term unemployment is going up on two thirds of those estates. Three years into this Parliament, that is simply not good enough, and it is not good enough that there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to fix it.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about rising unemployment on some of our estates. Does he not accept any responsibility for failing to give those people the skills they need to access the opportunities that do exist across our economy? I think that is why some people on our estates are, unfortunately, finding it so hard to get the employment opportunities that do exist.

[Mr Byrne]

Apprenticeships quadrupled during our time in office. In the decade before the crash, we achieved rising productivity and rising wage growth. That is why wages were so much higher when we left office than when we began. Because we invested in skills, our record on rising wages was beaten only by Ireland and Australia. The Government should be building on that record, not watering it down.

Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. Thank you for calling me in this important debate. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate. It was a joint effort, and he was the successful candidate. He opened the debate very professionally, laying out the landscape so that we can fully understand the impact of the closure of Visteon.

I thank colleagues from across the House who have supported me on the issue. My involvement goes back to 2009—before I was elected—when I heard about the closure of a business on the other side of the constituency boundary. Over the past three and a half years, I have become more deeply involved, and I have received support from many colleagues. The fundamental reason for that is that we all share the same concerns on behalf of our constituents.

When the business collapsed, there were obviously redundancies, and there were also calls for compensation and holiday pay—in due course, some of those were met—but at that point the full ramifications were not fully understood. It was not until just before the election in 2010 that I began to understand that those ramifications went much wider than people losing their jobs. Very early on in my newly elected role, a gentleman came to one of my surgeries and asked for help. He told me that Ford had failed him. He said that he was a former worker of Visteon and that his pension has been dramatically cut. He went on to tell me about other people who had had their pensions cut by up to 45%. The more I looked into the matter, the more I came to realise that Ford had a responsibility and a duty of care to and for its former employees, which is what we are here to debate today. That is why I have pursued this issue over the past two and a half years.

In our attempts to get justice for our constituents, we have held meetings with Ford and former Visteon employees, tabled an early-day motion and met Ministers, whom I am grateful to for giving us their time. I have asked questions on the Floor of the House and we have asked questions outside of this place. I have met the administrators, KPMG, and the Pension Protection Fund. I met a representative from the relatively new Visteon Engineering Services, which was one of the companies that spun off from Visteon before it collapsed, and which has been very evasive about coming to talk to us as a group. We have recently established an all-party parliamentary group, of which I am chairman. Through that organisation, we have started to hold evidence sessions to try to gather more detailed information. Most recently, we have, through our joint efforts, managed to secure this important debate.

After all those discussions with the various organisations, I keep coming back to the fact that Ford had the greatest responsibility for its former employees.

[Rebecca Harris]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the degree to which the affected pensioners, with absolute unanimity, blame Ford for the situation is quite astonishing? I have not had one constituent say that they are disappointed with the management of Visteon. As they stand outside the Ford dealership on Saturday mornings, they unanimously hold Ford responsible.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Indeed. The reason for that is that while there may be issues of mismanagement within Visteon, many of the individuals whom we represent spent a lifetime working for Ford. They felt part of the Ford family, and they were transferred out of that business into a new business. They felt that they had safeguards, but when it came to it those safeguards were not worth the paper they were written on. That is why they hold Ford responsible.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for being late for this debate, but I am pleased that I am able to hear the hon. Gentleman point to his own role in establishing the all-party parliamentary group, which he has done such a lot to promote and encourage, and I congratulate him on that. As someone who has had constituents who worked at Ford over decades, I know that the points he has just made are absolutely right, and we need to pursue the matter until we get satisfaction.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. We are aware, and we have also been warned by you, Mr Caton, that the details of this case are the subject of legal action. The details of whether Ford is legally responsible for its former employees will be tested in court, and that is right and proper, so I do not want to talk about that.

However, I do want to discuss the reasons why Ford has a moral responsibility for this issue. May I state for the record that this is not personal? I have great respect for the individuals at Ford—for Joe Greenwell, who is the chairman of Ford of Britain and for Christophe Clark, head of Government affairs. I have always found them to be open, accessible and willing to engage with the group and come and talk to us, and I recognise that this issue is outside of their control; it is not in their hands. They are neither directly or personally responsible for the case. In return, I want them to understand that I am standing up for my constituents and trying to get justice for them and that this is not a personal attack on them or on Ford per se. None the less, I, like many others, believe that Ford has an obligation towards its former employees.

I must also pay tribute to the Visteon pensioners action group, which has been utterly tenacious in its pursuit of justice and completely committed to its cause. Without its dedication, this issue would have slipped off the agenda a long time ago, leaving thousands of pensioners with no hope of recompense.

As I have said, Ford has a moral obligation to its former employees, many of whom have spent a lifetime of work at the company. I became aware of the issue just after midday on 31 March 2009 when what we now know to be a very troubled company finally met its end—Visteon, a firm many will never have heard of, was placed unceremoniously into administration. When the administrators arrived, they turned off the machines, sacked the staff, turned out the lights and locked the doors, and that was that.

Many would say that Visteon was just another victim of a worldwide economic crisis and that as an automotive parts manufacturer, the collapse in car sales made its position untenable. Although those are contributing factors, the whole story is somewhat more complex. Sadly, in the wake of the collapse, there were not just hundreds of unemployed workers at every level of the business but thousands of present and future Visteon pensioners who had been seriously disadvantaged. Moreover, there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of Visteon pensioners, who have worked for Visteon, who do not yet know that they have been disadvantaged and may not find that out until they come to retire. Although VPAG and various other groups tried to get in touch with the beneficiaries of the fund, not all of them have responded, which is a great shame.

What has all this to do with Ford? Visteon was not just another business that failed to adapt to the modern world, but part of a large American corporation. Interestingly, Visteon Corporation went into chapter 11 shortly after Visteon UK collapsed. We all know that Visteon was Ford’s global parts manufacturer. It was a multi-billion dollar business, supplying everything from brake drums to radiators. It had started off as part of Ford, but soon became a separate trading arm before eventually being spun off. Why was it spun off? It is true that there seemed to be a trend in the late 1990s and early 2000s to spin off businesses and to separate out the manufacture of parts from the main business, but what was the reason behind it? The answer to that is relatively simple and the crux of why Ford has a responsibility to its employees. Ford wanted out. I have this nagging feeling that someone somewhere within Ford decided that they wanted to get out of the parts manufacturing business; it was too expensive, too labour-intensive and Ford knew that it could get the parts cheaper elsewhere. That is why Visteon was born.

We heard the evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green when he quoted Tim D. Leuliette, the new chief executive of Visteon Corporation—it is now out of chapter 11 and is being restructured—who, when asked whether Visteon ever had a chance, said, “No”. He told us about the labour costs, the burden, the overheads and how it was a joke. He then said:

“It was sort of like when you’ve got an uncle you know has got a problem but no one in the family wants to talk about it.”

That is quite important, because Ford always talks of itself as a family. In 2011, it was Ford’s 100th anniversary in the UK, and Bill Ford came over to the UK and made a speech at the Science museum. There were a couple of telling remarks in his speech. He said:

“I have always thought of Ford employees, dealers, suppliers and partners as members of our extended family. My visit here has confirmed that belief—it has felt like a homecoming.”

Further on, he said:

“Ford of Britain has a proud heritage…The United Kingdom quickly became the most important market for our cars outside of the United States.”

There is no doubt that here in the UK, Ford has played an important role. If this is how Ford treats its family, I would be sad to think that it would treat other people in its family in the same way.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend probably has as deep an attachment to this issue as any other colleague, and many hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge about the issue today. Does he detect any way in which we can achieve anything in the court of Parliament if a favourable answer is not found in the courts of law?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and yes, that is really why we are having this debate. Ultimately we all believe that, whatever the outcome of the court case, Ford has a moral obligation and that if it does not meet that moral obligation we will continue to highlight the fact that it has failed its former employees. One of those former employees worked for Ford for 30 years before working for Visteon for only three months, but they have now suffered a significant loss in pension.

As I have said, the courts will test the legality, but the moral case stands for itself. Ford wanted out of this expensive business, and that is why it spun off Visteon. Ford talks about being a “family”, and the reason why its former employees feel so aggrieved is that, because they felt part of that “family”, they trusted their employer, Ford. Ford is a blue-chip firm with a history going back to before the first world war, and its employees were told that their pension was secure. The employees took that at face value. Of course, perhaps in hindsight they should have sought a little more clarity and explored what that promise meant, but they were allowed to take away the general impression that their rights were protected and that they were still part of the Ford “family”.

If those employees had looked a little more deeply and if they had considered the nightmare scenario of the business collapsing and the pension fund being underfunded, perhaps things might have turned out differently; perhaps they would not have transferred and perhaps it would have been more difficult for Visteon to spin off. But they did not do those things. They took Ford at its word and Visteon was floated off in a vessel that I believe was already holed below the waterline even though it was trying to make its way in the world.

[Geraint Davies]

It is bad enough that Ford basically agreed terms of reference—it agreed wages and conditions, and pensions for a group of workers—but then hived them off and looked, as it were, to the future for lower costs. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the pension costs are actually historical costs that should be honoured, irrespective of what happens in the future? Those pension costs are a part of the contract of employment in the past that should be signed and sealed. The workers thought those pension costs were signed and sealed, but now they find that they have been ripped off.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. People were left with the impression that they had protection and that a pension was their right, whatever happened. They were also left with the impression that once they retired, at that point their pension was secured for them. Little did they know that it could be cut at some later date from a business that they might have been detached from for the best part of a decade, and suddenly they would turn round one day and find that, because of something they had virtually no involvement with, they are now seriously disadvantaged.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the point about the courts determining a contractual issue, is it not important that Parliament has united around concern about mis-selling of interest rate deals? This is a similar scandal, in terms of not only presenting a product but actively encouraging employees to take it up. Parliament has expressed a similar scale of concern about such products.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. That aspect of the case will be tested in court, to see what promises were made and how they were communicated to the work force. What I am championing in Westminster Hall today, with other colleagues, is the case that Ford must meet its moral obligations to its former employees. However that is achieved, I believe that Ford has a moral obligation.

We have heard about other allegations of unilateral price changes, which of course Ford denies; of the pension fund being underfunded, which could be explained as a technical issue involving different valuations; and of Ford moving work away prior to the collapse of Visteon to ensure that its supply chain was not interrupted, and it is interesting to note that Ford never lost a day’s production because of the collapse of Visteon.

However, I will return to my main point one more time before I finish. I suspect that Ford did not want the hassle, the expense or the reputational damage of shutting down its expensive British parts manufacturers or other expensive plants around the world, so it spun them off knowing that ultimately it would be able to source the parts cheaper elsewhere and knowing that Visteon UK probably had no long-term future. I believe that that was known at the time that Visteon UK was spun off.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I referred earlier to the main board of Ford United States. My reckoning is that five of the present board members were directors from before 2000: Edsel B. Ford II; William Clay Ford Junior; Irvine O. Hockaday; Ellen Marram; and John Thornton. Homer Neal was also possibly a director from before 2000, which would make six current directors who were in that position. Could they be asked what they knew, if they still have the relevant papers and whether they were ignorant of what was going on in a major supplier in this country?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Yes. That is a very interesting point and one that, as a group, we should pursue. We have been communicating with Ford UK and Ford Europe, but we should take this matter all the way to the main board of Ford in America.

It is interesting to note that the arrangements in the US are different from the arrangements here. The former employees of Visteon in the US have not been disadvantaged in the same way as the former employees of Visteon in the UK, and if this issue was on the doorstep of Ford’s head office and the 3,000 Visteon employees had been so disadvantaged closer to home, we might have had a different outcome.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the all-party group in support of Visteon pensioners has no power to require people to appear in front of it, but of course Select Committees can summon people. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Minister perhaps signalled that that was something that he would encourage so that there was redress and people had to be accountable?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Yes. I have written, and I know that other colleagues from across the House have written, to the Chairmen of various Select Committees, asking them to look at this issue, either on its own or as part of a wider inquiry into pension transfers. We can renew that call now; summoning people before a Select Committee would be a very positive step.

As I have said, I believe that people within Ford knew at the time that Visteon was spun off that there was no long-term future for Visteon. I do not want to damage my relationship with Ford; I have great respect for the company. I want it to succeed, and it has a great and noble history in this country. But even the best employers or organisations occasionally get things wrong, and on this occasion that is what has happened—Ford has got it wrong. It needs to stand up and meet its obligations. If it does so, I believe that people in this House and outside it will view Ford as being all the better for having done so.

That is why I am championing the cause of the Visteon pensioners, and why I am standing up for my constituents. I will continue to do that, and I will continue to fight until I get justice for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. However, one important point I would raise is that if someone only builds up a very small pension pot, they have a legal right to take it, in most circumstances, as a cash lump sum with a quarter tax-free. Even someone later in life can get an employer contribution tax relief—a lump sum taken with a tax-free contribution. That will be attractive, even in later life.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to tackle the causes of social breakdown.

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

Last week we published the social justice outcomes framework, which has a set of indicators that highlight our priorities: to eradicate family breakdown, educational failure, worklessness, addiction and crime, and to grow the social investment market—a big area for us. The framework will measure our progress towards achieving these aims, shifting the policy focus and spending towards outcomes rather than inputs.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how projects supported by the innovation fund will tackle social breakdown?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Indeed I can. The innovation fund was set up by me when I came into the Department. It consists of approximately £30 million of seedcorn funding to enable voluntary groups, charities and organisations—beyond the normal organisations that one comes across in the work process—to show that their programmes, which help people to deal with drug addiction, family breakdown or gang violence, actually work, to prove that concept, and to set them up to be able to run those programmes. At least 11 social impact bonds have come out of this and we have just launched a second round.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It compares very favourably. First, it is better. Secondly, it costs a lot less. Labour paid huge sums of money up front, whereas we pay the jobseeker’s allowance. The key point is that not once has any Opposition Front-Bench Member got up to defend this work experience programme, which many of their colleagues attack and try to destroy.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will my right hon. Friend remind us how long a young person can stay on the work experience scheme before they lose their benefit, and how that compares with the situation under the previous Government?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

This is the interesting bit, because the previous Government legislated for work experience before they left office and now attack it, but they allowed people only two weeks, which was not enough time for them to get the experience they needed. We have given people two months, and a third month if the employer offers them either an apprenticeship or a job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on the youth contract; and if he will make a statement.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

18. What progress he has made on the youth contract; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The youth contract was successfully launched on 2 April 2012. It builds on existing support available through Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme, enabling young people who are unemployed to look for work, gain work experience and skills, and find real, lasting jobs.

[Chris Grayling]

We published the latest assessment of the effectiveness of the work experience scheme last week. It showed that the people who participated were 16% more likely to be off benefits 21 weeks after starting than a similar group who did not. It is worth stating that that is similar to the success rate of the future jobs fund, at a 20th of the cost.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how the youth contract is being received by employers across the country?

[Chris Grayling]

We have had enormously gratifying levels of support from employers for the youth contract, in terms of their willingness both to hire and to give apprenticeships to young people. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to all the companies, large and small, around this country, including in your constituency, Mr Speaker, and that of my hon. Friend, which are providing work experience opportunities for young people. We know that such opportunities give them a much better start in life than those who do not have that experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Most recently, we have increased the number of youth advisers so that we have additional support in places such as Lewisham to enhance our work to help unemployed young people get into work. I hope that those advisers will make a difference to young people’s prospects.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Is the number of people in receipt of out-of-work benefit higher or lower now than it was in May 2010?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very pleased to tell the House that since May 2010, the total number of people in this country on out-of-work benefits has fallen by 45,000.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the outcomes of his Department’s work experience schemes for unemployed people.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the outcomes of his Department’s work experience schemes for unemployed people.

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

Work experience is a very positive scheme, and 51% of people are off benefits 13 weeks after starting a placement. I am delighted to tell the House that, notwithstanding the attempts to damage the programme, it remains strong, with another 200 employers, including Airbus and Centre Parcs, wanting to get involved to help young people to gain vital experience of work.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will my right hon. Friend expand on the answer he has just given and tell the House what other support he has received since the row about work experience broke out? This vitally important and publicly popular initiative helps young people to get the experience they need to get into work. Would he echo Sir Stuart Rose’s comments that companies involved in the scheme should show some “backbone” and not give in to politically motivated protests?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Before I answer that question, may I pass our message of support to the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, who has had a terrible accident? We wish her well and a speedy recovery to her normal place for Work and Pensions questions.

There has been a lot of support for the work experience programme. A small number of people, in some cases backed by the unions, have made trouble. I shall quote Sir Stuart Rose—this is interesting because his successful career started at the bottom. He said:

“We’re offering young people the opportunity to…understand what the workplace is…really…about and it appears that there is some plan to sabotage this which…is nonsense…it seems …straightforward. You can come in, you can get work experience and if you…don’t like it after the first week you can”

leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

If Labour Members really want to answer the questions about the work experience scheme, they need to talk to some of the young people who have been through it, got jobs in their thousands and are delighted by the support they have received. That is what a responsible Government do: try to tackle a real challenge, find the right way to solve it and do so in a cost-effective way for the taxpayer. It is just a shame that the Labour party is not more vociferous in its support for what we are doing.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the Labour party seems unable to get behind the work experience programme and condemn the protests out of hand, and will he tell the House why he thinks that might be the case?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have been wondering about that. Some right hon. and hon. Members—and some more so than others—have been conspicuous by their absence in this debate, and I sometimes wonder whether their trade union paymasters have something to do with their staying quiet throughout this whole debate.