Oral Answers to Questions

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge) [V]]

The humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is bad. I had been an optimist on Zimbabwe post Mugabe, but things are bleak across the political, economic, social and humanitarian fronts. Her Majesty’s Government stand ready to support, but only when we see genuine reform. Until then, we support the people of Zimbabwe with a £140 million development package, but, crucially, none of that money goes directly through the Government of Zimbabwe.

[Ruth Jones [V]]

I thank the Minister for that update. There are currently 7 million people in urban and rural areas of Zimbabwe in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, compared with only 5.5 million in August last year. What conversations has he had with the Zimbabwean Government to discuss their humanitarian needs?

[James Duddridge]

On Thursday I spoke to the Department for International Development head in Zimbabwe and our ambassador about the situation. They were very clear, as I am, that we need domestic reform in Zimbabwe as well as external international development.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

What recent assessment he has made of the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran’s regional activity.

Local Housing Allowance: Supreme Court Ruling

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

Despite the freeze in Scotland, we have seen LHA rates rise. One rate rose in 2017-18, three rates rose in 2018-19 and 16 rates rose in 2019-20. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am looking at various options in this area ahead of potential spending review bids. The freeze comes to an end next year, and I look forward to working with him.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place, which will give great reassurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) that it is possible to leave the Government and rejoin at a more senior level in short order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) hit the nail on the head. It is all about the supply of private sector housing. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Housing on increasing the supply of housing and, in particular, building above shops? Whether in Birmingham, Colchester, Cheltenham or Southend, this has to be part of the solution.

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his question. He is right that supply is a key element. Raising LHA rates would be one thing, but it will not have the impact we need if we do not build the housing that is desperately needed.

I am working closely with my counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we are looking at supply ahead of potential spending review bids. We will be holding regular meetings to discuss these matters further.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

James Duddridge Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is at the heart of the legislation. The strong and quick growth of master trusts in response to the success of automatic enrolment has been in danger of running ahead of the regulatory system. In the Bill, we are catching up and making sure that the regulatory system is adequate to deal with these trusts, which will be hugely important in 20 years’ time. We hope and expect that auto-enrolment will carry on, so the funds under management will increase hugely in the decades to come. It is really important to have the regulation right from the early days of the new system.

Automatic enrolment requires employers to provide a pension for their workers. It is, as I have said, helping to ensure that tomorrow’s pensioners have greater security and an asset base. Many employers have selected master trust pension schemes because they offer scale, good governance and value for members.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

As well as being equitable for employees, will the schemes be equitable for employers? In the past, one of the problems of pooled defined benefit funds was that employers had ongoing liabilities beyond their initial contributions. Will the master trusts include only defined contributions and limit employers’ liability in the longer term, so that it is just an amount that will be put in, rather than an ongoing liability?

[Damian Green]

The purpose of the regulatory system we are introducing in the Bill is precisely to ensure that there are checks and balances to avoid some of the problems we have seen in traditional schemes. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are about to produce a wider consultation on defined benefit schemes, so some of the problems he rightly identifies will be addressed in that consultation.

There has been very fast growth in the use of master trust schemes. In 2010, there were about 200,000 members in master trust schemes in the UK. By December 2016, there were over 7 million members, and £10 billion of assets in 87 master trusts. The schemes are regulated by the Pensions Regulator in accordance with occupational pensions legislation, but that legislation was developed mainly with single employer pension schemes in mind. The master trust schemes have different structures and dynamics, which give rise to different risks. We have worked closely with the Pensions Regulator and engaged with other stakeholders to see what essential protections are needed. We believe that the measures in the Bill, while proportionate to the risks, will provide those protections.

The Bill introduces a new authorisation regime for master trusts. Under the new regime, the trusts will have to satisfy the regulator that they meet certain criteria before operating, or achieve those criteria if they are already operating. The criteria have been developed in discussion with the industry, and they include the same kind of risks that the Financial Conduct Authority regulation addresses in relation to group personal pensions, with which master trust schemes have some similarities.

Master trusts will now be required to demonstrate five things: that the persons involved in the scheme are fit and proper; that the scheme has financial sustainability; that the scheme funder meets certain requirements; that the systems and processes relating to the governance and administration of the scheme are sufficient to ensure that it is run effectively; and that the scheme has an adequate continuity strategy. The Bill sets out these criteria so that it is clear to master trusts and other stakeholders what the new regime will entail. Schemes will have to continue to meet the criteria to remain authorised. The regulator will also be given new powers to supervise master trusts, enabling it to intervene where schemes are at risk of falling below the required standards.

The Bill also places certain key requirements on master trusts and provides additional powers for the regulator where a master trust experiences key risk events, such as the scheme funder deciding to withdraw from its relationship with the scheme. The Bill requires a scheme that has experienced such an event to resolve the issue or to close. This requirement, along with the regulator’s new powers, supports continuity of savings for members, protects members where a scheme is to wind up or close, and supports employers in continuing to fulfil their automatic enrolment duties.

On the introduction of the Bill in the other place, the Pensions Regulator said:

“We are very pleased that the Pension Schemes Bill will drive up standards and give us tough new supervisory powers…ensuring members are better protected and ultimately receive the benefits they expect.”

In welcoming the Bill, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association commented that

“tighter regulation of master trusts is essential to protect savers and ensure that only good master trusts operate in the market”.

It went on:

“This is an important Bill that will provide the appropriate safeguards for the millions of people now saving for their retirement through master trusts.”

As I have said, we continue to engage with stakeholders on aspects of the detail to be made in regulations. We anticipate the initial consultation to inform the regulations will take place in the autumn, and it will be followed by a formal consultation on the draft regulations. Our intention is to lay the regulations during the summer of 2018, and the authorisation and supervision regime is likely to be commenced in full that year.

However, the Bill also contains provisions that, on enactment, will have effect back to 20 October 2016, the day on which the Bill was published. These provisions relate to requirements to notify key events to the Pensions Regulator, and constraints on charges levied on or in respect of members in circumstances relating to key risk events or scheme failure. That is vital for protecting members in the short term and will ensure that a backstop is in place until the full regime commences.

The Bill makes a necessary change in relation to the existing legislation on charges. We are keen to remove some of the barriers that might prevent people from accessing pension freedoms.

DWP: Performance

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend puts it very succinctly, and I am coming on to some of the examples we have all heard about from our constituency surgeries.

What we here must take care to do and what this Government have now totally failed to do is to remember the human impact, often on people in vulnerable circumstances, of this catalogue of chaos. Behind the bureaucratic language and spreadsheets showing backlogs and overspends are people in need who are being let down and mistreated, and taxpayers who can ill afford the mismanagement and waste of their money. Let me provide just a few examples that I am sure will be familiar to Members of all parties from our constituency surgeries.

In February, a woman came to my surgery in a state of desperation. Her husband had suffered a stroke the previous year, rendering him unfit for work. He applied for the personal independence payment and employment and support allowance, but a month after making the application, they were still waiting just to get their Atos assessment. She had given up work to look after her husband, but because they had not had their decision on PIP, she could not apply for carer’s allowance. They were so short of money that I referred them to one of the food banks. Both had worked for many years and paid into the system, but when they needed support, it was not there for them. In March this year, the husband died. His Atos appointment letter had never come. His wife, now a widow, had been made unwell by all the stress of this experience. She applied for ESA, but she has heard nothing.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady regret the fact that it was her Government who appointed Atos in the first place?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, the example that I gave involved personal independence payments, which were introduced by this Government, not the last one. We have made our position clear. Although we appointed Atos, we said last autumn that it should be sacked. However, it is not just a question of replacing Atos; it is a question of reforming the work capability assessment and introducing targets relating not just to the number of decisions, but to the correct decisions.

Another couple came to me after applying for personal independence payments last August. The husband was asked to attend an assessment on a date when he would be in hospital for a spine operation. Nursing staff at Leeds General Infirmary advised the Department for Work and Pensions that he would be unable to attend the appointment, and he was told that a home assessment would be arranged, but he then heard nothing for months. In May, I wrote to the Department on the couple’s behalf. The reply that I received said simply:

“we will respond to your query as soon as possible but due to the volumes being received and the PIP system still being in its infancy there may be delays in getting back to you”.

Meanwhile, we also referred that couple to a food bank when their money ran out. These people deserve better.

Ford and Visteon UK Ltd

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with typical focus and strength. The Belfast workers will be looking at today’s debate and asking how Ford will respond. The Ford directors cannot sit around with their hands covering their eyes, ears and mouths, pretending that this will go away. They may think it can be kicked into the long grass of the lawyers, where there is an army supported by a huge ammunition dump of money to keep it there, but their business ultimately depends on the good will of consumers.

This is not just about Ford manufacturing innovative, efficient and modern cars; it is about the brand being one that people can be proud of. It is about not hiding behind the brand name a predisposition towards running away from responsibilities to people who have spent a working lifetime, in good faith, making quality cars for people to buy, for a business that is viable. It is simply not acceptable for the people to whom those workers have expressed such loyalty to walk away and leave them near destitute. We will not accept it in our House, our community or across our shores. I believe that the ethics of American consumers and American workers, both in Ford and beyond, mean that they will share our sentiments that we are in it together, to use those immortal words, in terms of our future and how this works. People may increasingly make consumer choices for ethical reasons—various brands have ethical dimensions and do the right thing—and this could be one of those instances.

I am not going to dwell on the details of the case. I simply say that it appears, on the face of things, that various undertakings were given to Ford workers which, as has been pointed out, any lay person would interpret as cast-iron guarantees, whatever the legal beagles might construe, with massive expense, could conceivably have been meant. Almost everybody took those assurances as being cast-iron guarantees.

The Ford pension fund was initially set up £49 million light and by the end of the period of Visteon’s existence—the nine or 10 years in which it continued, when, as has been said, it lost nearly $1 billion and did not turn a profit—that pension fund had become underfunded by some £350 million. The knock-on effect for the more than 3,000 workers who have been affected is a savage cut in the future incomes they can expect into their retirement and their capability to sustain a future of dignity and enjoyment in older age that they deserve.

It has been pointed out that Ford was, in essence, manipulating the profit and loss account of Visteon. On the input side, it was able to demand a certain input of raw materials at specific prices that may have been above the market price, so the input cost was up. On the output side, 90% of Visteon’s sales were set by Ford, which consistently reduced the prices that it was given to squeeze the profit of Visteon, so it was no surprise that it was making a loss and that that loss was manifested in the pension fund.

Interestingly and coincidentally, if we look at figures for 2005-06, Visteon Europe lost £700 million and Ford Europe made £700 million in profit. The point I am trying to make is that their accountancy animal was woven together—that £700 million could have gone either way. In essence, Ford chose the loss to fall on Visteon and on the workers who had nobly and loyally served it for so many years.

I know that a number of Members want to speak so I will not go on. In the evidence we took in the all-party group, and before that, we heard stories of representatives from Ford who, after sitting on the board of Visteon pension fund trustees and then having a vested interest in the closure of the plant, transferred their own pension out of the Visteon pension fund into a specially created fund—another Visteon pension fund, the engineering scheme. Clearly, they had a different and conflicting interest. We asked Phil Woodward, who was a director of the trustees, to give evidence to the all-party group, but what do Members think happened? He did not turn up. What does that say about this whole saga? The more we scratch the surface of this story, the worse it gets.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I find it fascinating that people did not turn up to give evidence. If there were a Select Committee inquiry, could we not ultimately bring in those whom we want to give evidence from wherever they are, including the current Ford executives? Could they not be forced to come here in the same way that Rupert Murdoch was?

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, with pie on their faces! On a serious note, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That point has been made in the all-party group, and we have been trying to get a Select Committee to take on this matter. Possible options included the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. When we took it to the Welsh Affairs Committee, there were concerns that the matter was sub judice. However, Mr Speaker has now ruled that the matter has been trundling on for far too long. We are four years into the campaign and there will be another year at least before there is a court hearing. Clearly, we cannot wait for ever, and there is a role for this Parliament to express itself and to ask questions about what has gone on and the duty of care.

What I say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent question is that we have thought about that, but as the momentum has been building and we have now reached this point—we have had questions, discussions, early-day motions, a Westminster Hall debate and now this major debate in the Chamber—we should be aiming, given that we have the implicit sanction of Mr Speaker, to take the matter back to the Select Committees and demand that those executives give evidence. If they do not want to come, they can be dragged here screaming and shouting.

Ford needs to think carefully about doing the right thing for the workers and for the brand as this rolls on and as reporters in America say, “Hold on. Why are all parties in Britain uniting to say things about the glorious Ford? What about Henry Ford? What a great bloke he was. Wouldn’t he turn in his grave if he knew what was happening?”

Other people might talk about more of the detail, but there are some difficult questions that the brand managers and marketing managers for Ford need to think carefully about. What does Ford mean now in a qualitative and quantitative group? What will it look like in a month’s time, or a year’s time? What will it look like against emerging competitors, whether they are Nissan, General Motors or whatever? How is this playing and what are people saying about it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned BP, which, of course, took an enormous financial hit after its environmental issues and also took a hit to its brand values and to perceptions of what it cares about. Those are enormous things for global players. If we, in an advanced western democracy—the seventh largest economy in the world—do not stand up for people and cannot get a global company such as Ford to come to here and do the right thing, we are setting an example for less developed countries where global players might go in and out and cause social, economic and environmental harm.

It is time to say enough is enough. We are one global community, so let us work together and play together for the good of all countries. We should bring something to the table and remember that democracies here and elsewhere will work together to ensure fair play for pensioners, for consumers and for workers, as well as good jobs and good cars. Let us work together for a better world. Come on Ford, do the right thing. Stop hiding and put your money on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow such an enviable group of MPs, particularly those from Essex. We started with eminent words from Basildon and then moved down the estuary to those from Castle Point, and we will end—I hope on a high point—in Rochford and Southend East. Several points have been made, and I will take care not to reiterate them, even to add emphasis.

Not in the last debate on Visteon but in the one before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) referred to Ford as

“a four-letter company, behaving in a four-letter way”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 182WH.]

Hon. Members will recognise that we normally speak in very temperate language, so people should bear in mind how strongly we all feel about this issue. Very rarely is there a debate in which such strong words are used as we have heard today from both sides of the House. It has been not so much a debate as a siren call for action. Points have been made from either side, but they have all pressed Ford in the same direction.

I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who felt that the issue was a stylistic change between American and British business practices and some type of misunderstanding. If it had involved Baltimore rather than Basildon, or Seattle rather than Swansea, the same lack of duty of care and the same lack of moral responsibility towards employees would not have been tolerated.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has travelled to the US and had informal discussions with several Congressmen. I hope that in the near future that can be formalised by making a request that the US Congress look at the issue alongside us, which will increase the pressure on Ford Motor Company.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the film “Made in Dagenham”, but it clearly brings out the very close relationship between Ford and the unions, and how the workers trusted it to give them the best deal. In that respect, have not the workers been greatly let down? They expected a deal to be made that was good for them and they had put their trust in the company, but they were sitting ducks to be misled.

[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 ---

[Gregg McClymont]

We have to be careful, given the ongoing legal case, but the comments from both sides of the House on these issues have resonated with everyone in the House today, including with those in the Public Gallery. Both sides of the House are clear that Ford must engage with its responsibilities. The wider issue is that if companies have a responsibility, beyond the bottom line, to their employees and the countries in which they operate, the direction of travel for Ford in this case must be clear.

What more can the Government do to satisfy the demands of Ford Visteon pensioners? I would be delighted to hear the Minister outline what the changes to the PPF cap mean and talk about the wider issue of ensuring that such pension transfers do not end up being to the great detriment of employees.

[James Duddridge]

On what more the Government can do, in my speech I explained that—doing my bit in my small way—I would not be buying a Ford Capri Mk II. The Government have a bit more purchasing power than the Duddridge household. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the Government reconsidering purchasing Ford vehicles until this matter is resolved?

[Gregg McClymont]

That is a question for the Minister, who is just about to respond to the debate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on his work as chair of the all-party group and his perseverance over a number years in raising this issue, along with the officers and members of the all-party group, which is well represented today. Such unanimity across the House, across political parties and across parts of the United Kingdom is rare and is all the more telling for that. The House has spoken today with a single voice. Those who follow our proceedings, both in person and by other means, will have heard clearly the single view of the House of Commons.

As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of our proceedings your fellow Deputy Speaker relayed Mr Speaker’s guidance. We respect that guidance, of course. I am particularly conscious of the need to avoid saying anything that would in any way undermine or prejudice the case being brought by Unite the union and by individual former Visteon workers. We want to see justice done through due process. I hope the House will understand that my remarks are slightly more guarded for that reason.

We discussed this matter almost exactly a year ago in a debate in Westminster Hall that raised many of the same issues. In the course of that debate, I said that I was particularly conscious of the Visteon workers ending up in the Pension Protection Fund and, as hon. Members have said, finding that the pension they receive is not much more than half the pension they were expecting. With my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, I met members of the Visteon Pension Action Group in summer 2012, and it was their individual case studies that made me acutely aware of the impact of the PPF cap on their entitlements under the scheme. As I explained at the time, the thinking behind the cap was to ensure that what I loosely call the “fat cats” of the scheme, the people right at the top, could not manipulate matters and still receive a full pension. That was why the previous Government introduced the cap. It was my judgment at the time, and it remains so, that the cap was having an unfair and adverse impact on people who had relatively large pension entitlements not because they had earned phenomenal amounts of money, but because they had given very long service.

During the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock referred to his constituent Mr Varney, who had about 38 years of combined service with Visteon and Ford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) referred to his constituent Mr Sharpe, who had served for 27 years. These are the sorts of workers potentially caught by the cap, depending—obviously—on their wage. I said in last year’s debate that we were looking at whether we could do something about that, and I am pleased to confirm today that we have acted upon that promise. The Pensions Bill, which is now in another place, provides that for those who have been members of a scheme for more than 20 years, the cap should be increased by 3% for each additional year they are above the cap. Obviously I cannot comment on individual cases but, in principle, someone who has served for 38 years would have 18 lots of 3% so a cap 54% higher than the standard cap. If they were still capped at that point, as it were, their pension would be 54% higher than it is currently.

Sadly, these things take time—the Bill has not passed the other place and when it has we will have to produce detailed secondary legislation—but I can assure the House that we intend these higher rates of payment to be in place in the lifetime of this Parliament and to apply from that date onwards. They will not be retrospectively applied, but they will apply to schemes already in the PPF, such as the Visteon scheme. I am aware that probably only 60 or 70 Visteon employees will be affected by this measure, but I hope that for them, who have suffered the biggest proportionate loss, this will be of some benefit.

[James Duddridge]

I fully support the payment protection being discussed, but if I follow the logic correctly, the Government are, in effect, paying for Ford’s failure to take moral responsibility. Will there come a point when the Government look to Ford to repay money they have paid out through the PPF?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I totally agree that constructive dialogue will provide the right way forward. It is what everyone has been trying to achieve ever since the first debate on the issue. If that constructive dialogue does not produce the results we hope for, will the Minister consider seeking a meeting with his opposite number in the United States to see whether any political options across the pond could be explored to encourage everyone to do the right thing?

[Steve Webb]

At the back of my mind is a feeling that I would not want to meet my hon. Friend in a dark alley at night. I am not sure why I have that feeling. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend put his point forcefully. Given that representatives of Ford have agreed to meet me in a spirit of constructive dialogue, I shall leave it at that for now, but we shall clearly have to reflect on what further actions could be taken.

Finally, let me reassure members of the all-party parliamentary group that I shall be happy to report the outcome of my conversation with Ford UK to their office. Obviously I do not want to raise any false hopes—Ford’s position is well known, and I do not want to pretend that it has suddenly changed—but I am trying to engage constructively with the company, and I hope that the company will engage constructively with the House.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Duddridge Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being picked out in the Budget—it is not often that people are picked out in a Budget. He should shake hands with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He was angry before the Budget, but waved his Order Paper to applaud the Chancellor during his speech. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman, because he helped to change opinion—[Interruption.] I apologise. I do not want to talk about that too much because he has a career ahead of him—I hope.

Finally, in a welcome move, we are raising personal tax allowances to £10,000 by the end of the Parliament. That measure, which is a result of a good coalition agreement, means that working families pay £700 less in tax than when the Government took office, and that almost 3 million more of the lowest earners will pay no income tax at all.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The concept that 24 million people are helped by that measure is somewhat difficult to grapple with. It is much better interpreted by individual constituency. In my constituency, for example, 38,062 people will be £700 better off, and 359 people will be lifted out of income tax altogether.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for reminding me that we need to centre the measure down to constituency level, so that hon. Members know what it does. With my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I will endeavour to ensure that every constituency is informed about how many people will be lifted out of tax and how many will benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Rather than advice, I will take that to be an instruction, gently and eloquently given. I can crawl with the best of them—I hope better than my opposite number, but he will make his own attempt. I will make progress and try to be quicker.

I will talk briefly about the single-tier changes for which we are legislating. They are not just about improving the prospects of workers today, but about securing their position as they enter retirement. I am enormously pleased that the Chancellor confirmed that the single-tier pension will start in April 2016, which is in keeping with our original timetable. That means that after 60 years of modifications and tinkering, we will deliver a vital overhaul of the pensions system as soon as possible. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who has been instrumental in driving that forward. If anyone is able to say at the end of this Parliament, “I made a difference,” it will be him. I will ensure that his name is remembered for that.

We are successfully rolling out auto-enrolment, which will help up to 9 million people get into a workplace pension scheme. That is important as it will make saving the norm. However, auto-enrolment will not work unless it pays to save. That is the key problem that the Minister and I have been discussing endlessly. What is the incentive to save? Too many people in Britain have been spending rather than saving.

The single-tier pension is all about solving that problem. We are replacing the complicated two-tier system of the basic state pension, additional state pension and the other outdated add-ons with a single flat-rate payment. That means that people will know what they are entitled to and will be able to project forward so that they know what they need to save. They will know that what they save will go above the line and that they will be able to use every pound; it will not be means-tested away so that they cannot use it. At £144 a week, the new state pension will be set above the level of the means test.

We are ending the unfairness whereby many people reach state pension age, having scrimped and saved all their life, only to find that others, who did not make any effort, get the same income through the pension credit. That is unfair. This change is about fairness and making saving pay. Michelle Mitchell, the charity director general of Age UK, said:

“The government’s proposals for a single tier state pension could help transform retirement for future pensioners, bringing clarity and stability to a system which is currently opaque and unfair.”

In 2020, three quarters of new pensioners will get a higher state pension following the introduction of single tier. That will benefit those who have historically had poorer state pension outcomes in particular. There will be better provision for the low-paid. Some 60% of low-income pensioners will see their income in retirement increase by 2040, compared with the current system.

Critically, there will be better provision for the self-employed, who, for the first time in about 40 years, will be treated the same as employees for the purposes of state pension retirement. There will be better provision for those with broken contributions, such as women and those with caring responsibilities. Some 700,000 women who reach state pension age in the 10 years after the single tier is introduced will receive £9 per week more on average. Implementing it in 2016 will benefit an additional 85,000 women who will now retire under single tier.

The single-tier pension is one of the big reforms, alongside universal credit, that will transform the landscape. It pays to work and it will now pay to save.

[James Duddridge]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

With respect, I am under the eye of Mr Speaker. Although he is invariably generous, given his admonition, I will make a little more progress to ensure that I finish on time.

Universal credit makes it pay to work. Alongside universal credit sits universal jobmatch, an online job searching and matching service that is revolutionising the way in which people look for work. Two million people are already registered. It is already allowing us to segment those who are out of work so that we can deal with the people who are the most difficult to get into work earlier than we could before.

From April, we will begin to replace disability living allowance with the fairer and more objective personal independence payment. We are also improving employment opportunities for disabled people so that they can live independent lives.

Finally, we are getting to grips with the housing benefit system, which the last Government allowed to run out of control. Housing benefit doubled in 10 years. We are dealing with the problems that we inherited.

[James Duddridge]

As well as being welcome to individuals, will not the simplification of benefits bring massive savings in the administration of the Department by making it much simpler not only to deal with claims at the outset, but to stop people coming to us repeatedly who have problems not with the outcome, but with the system and the bureaucracy?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Absolutely. Our dramatic changes will allow savings to be made for the right reasons, such as improving efficiency. The system will be simpler and easier, so people will understand it better. The lack of complication will help to save more.

In conclusion, the Labour Opposition vote against our reforms again and again. On welfare alone, they have voted against savings of £80 billion. That money needs to come from somewhere. They do not say where it would come from, apart from borrowing. Once again, that is backward logic: borrow more to cut borrowing; spend more to cut spending. Meanwhile, the Government are changing the culture of welfare and Government spending in the country. We are backing people who want to work hard and get on in life, and taking bold action to ensure that we succeed in the global race. It pays to work. It pays to save. The Chancellor’s Budget delivers sound public finances and a fairer deal for working families. It has all the right elements and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

The chief economist to the IMF has been clear that a different fiscal strategy is needed. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills hinted that what was needed at the moment was a whacking great boost in capital spending, and the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that the Government cut capital spending far too fast. That is why we have set out clear, costed plans to increase capital spending and change course.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister bear responsibility for that catastrophic failure and the failure of their fiscal plans, but, let us be honest, they have been aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has proved incapable of translating his fabled welfare revolution into practice. There could not have been a worse curtain-raiser to Budget day on Wednesday than the unemployment figures that we saw at 9.30 am. Halfway through this Parliament, unemployment is higher than it was at the general election—and it is not going down, it is going up. [Interruption.] I do not know where Government Members were on Wednesday. Unemployment rose on Wednesday. Youth unemployment went up by 50,000 on Wednesday. Unemployment among women went up, not down, on Wednesday. Government Members would do well to live in the real world for once.

[James Duddridge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Will he admit that unemployment rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, but I am happy to give way.

[James Duddridge]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought he had already given way, which is why I started. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the right hon. Gentleman who has been kind to give way. The only point I wanted to make was that since 2010 employment has increased. Yes, in my constituency there was a short period last month when unemployment was reported to have gone up, but even on a year-on-year basis employment has gone up and unemployment has gone down for both men and women.

[Mr Byrne]

Unemployment is 50,000 higher than it was at the general election. Those are the facts and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny them.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] In my rush to speak, I almost ended up advertising an election leaflet for the Conservative party. It was not intentionally aimed at Opposition Members.

I would like to focus on two quite technical issues that have not been raised but are worth raising, and then turn to some issues affecting Rochford and Southend East, the constituency I have the honour of representing. The first issue is the change to shares and stamp duty on shares on AIM—the alternative investment market. Although the change will not make the front page of the Southend Echo this morning, it will help the longer-term regeneration of small and medium-sized enterprises. However, this is not just about aspiring individuals for an aspiring nation; it is also about aspiring businesses that want a step up. Floating more companies on AIM and raising equity is essential. Reducing stamp duty on AIM, which represents only 6% of shares, is a step in the right direction that will allow small and medium-sized companies in Southend and elsewhere to raise equity, rather than having to rely on banks, which we all know have their own set of problems.

The Government have taken a step in the right direction. I hope that in future Budgets they will consider extending the decision to the other 94% of shares, to allow greater participation by small and medium-sized companies. That would also improve the liquidity of the London financial markets, which, although liquid enough to support basic transactions, will benefit from greater liquidity, which would mean cheaper financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, allowing them to grow further.

The second thing I would to note—again, it will not make the front page of the Southend Echo tomorrow, although I think a number of families will appreciate it when they start to benefit from it—is the change to the child trust fund regulations. The previous Government gave away £250 that could be put in a child trust fund—either a cash fund or an equity fund. This Government did not think that was affordable and introduced junior individual savings accounts. As all those changes were unwrapped, some anomalies emerged. Most people did not put in more money, which was what the previous Government desired; rather, most people’s children had just the £250. Firms are putting up their charging rates disproportionately—for what is, in the case of equities, essentially an index tracker—and people are locked into the funds.

To be frank, I feel a degree of sympathy for the financial services companies involved, because 1.5% on £250 plus a bit of growth does not even pay for the stamp on the statement at the end of the year. However, measures in the Budget will mean that such funds can be converted into junior ISAs. I have not seen the detail—I am not sure whether it has come out of the Treasury—but I would also encourage the Treasury, as well as looking at actual transfers, to consider allowing people, if they choose, to leave the fund to one side and still open a junior ISA. At the moment, people cannot have both open at the same time.

Those are two quite detailed, technical points in the Budget. I should apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for being unfamiliar with the process, but I think that at the beginning of my speech I should have drawn Members’ attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and some work that I do outside the House.

My constituents in Rochford and Southend East talk to me about the cost of fuel—not only individuals, but businesses. In the run-up to the Budget, staff at Churchill’s sandwich bar, where I always get my panini on a Friday—it is very good and I recommend it to all hon. Members who visit my constituency—told me about the fuel cost not just for the business but for their suppliers. The cost made a difference to individuals, even within a sandwich business. When we leverage that up to show the costs to our constituents of other goods with greater transportation costs, we can see that the Budget will not just help aspiring companies. A van driver could save up to £340 a year, a haulier more than £5,000. Those are big numbers and this will assist people.

I welcome the non-increase in beer duty—the reduction by 1p. That will not transform the economic outlook of the United Kingdom, but it is a nice hat-tip to the direction that the Government would like to take in future as we do more for hard-working families.

The £10,000 personal allowance is enormously significant, particularly for young mums looking to get back to work. It provides clarity about the lack of bureaucracy in taxation and all of the first £10,000 will go into their pockets, rather than into tax. There is a barrier to entry to work, not only because of the growth of the economy but because of confusion about the interaction between the benefits system, which has been overly complex, and the taxation system, which has dragged in far too many people too early and too low down the salary scales.

I have been disappointed by the tone of the debate. I am a great fan of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). It is important to be candid when writing and it is an excellent idea to tell people what one wants, although the details about the cappuccino and so on might have gone a little over the top. The infamous letter that said, “Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid there’s no money left. Kind regards and good luck, Liam,” was not the total picture—even though in humour it is good to be brief. There is no money left and they maxed out the nation’s corporate credit card. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to apologise.

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering me that opportunity. He will know that I also left a Budget, drafted with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who was Chancellor at the time, that would have halved the deficit over four years as opposed to putting the total debt burden of this country up by £245 billion, which is what his Government have secured.

[James Duddridge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for the extra minute of time he has given me. If that was truly the sentiment and he felt that that was the case, why did he not leave that in a note? He left a candid note that gave half the picture.

The truth is that the previous Government ran down the economy. It is as if the nation were a family, and two individuals within that family had been given responsibility for the finance and budget for 10 years each. One spends and borrows and enjoys the good times, and the other has to clear up the mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I almost choked on my cornflakes this morning when reading Jonathan Portes’s blog. We have to remember that Mr Portes, like Mr Blanchflower, is an arch-Keynsian and proponent of plan B—borrowing more money in a debt crisis. Referring to Robert Chote and the Office for Budget Responsibility, he observed that the OBR has shown

“that, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit has indeed fallen by a third. The Chancellor is correct.”

He went on to say:

“The UK’s underlying economic strengths remain, as the current health of the labour market illustrates.”

The Budget and, indeed, the performance of the Chancellor and his team at the Treasury have much to commend them. If we remember, three years ago, UK plc was on the verge of economic collapse. We were living far beyond our means, and the Chancellor’s emergency Budget in 2010 sought to address that problem. Two and a half years later, where are we and what progress has been made? First, the deficit is indeed down by a third. Annual borrowing has come down from £159 billion and is almost under £120 billion. We have more men in work than ever before, and we have more women in work than ever before. Indeed, the amount claimed in jobseeker’s allowance in Braintree, my constituency, has dropped by 11%. We have created more than 1.25 million jobs in the private sector. We have created 250,000 new businesses, so the Chancellor, the Treasury and the Government have much of which to be proud.

It is true, however, that growth has not been as robust as we would like, and neither has the pace of Government debt reduction been as fast as we would like. The reason is a combination of the crisis in the eurozone, which has become worse since the emergency Budget, and the inflationary impact of energy costs—a fact acknowledged by Mr Chote and the OBR. The bottom line for many of our constituents is a record level of employment. In other words, more people are in work than ever before. We have record low interest rates, which means that more homeowners have low mortgages and businesses have low interest payments.

This week’s Budget seeks to build on the strong foundation established by the original emergency Budget, addressing the need to help those who aspire to work hard, as the Chancellor said. It is a Budget to help families. Indeed, as we have heard, the personal allowance, which has been raised to £10,000, will help, as there will be a tax cut for more than 24 million families—or, in my constituency, 38,391 families. Families, in fact, will pay roughly £700 less than they did in 2010—2.7 million families will be taken out of tax altogether, or, in my constituency, 3,905 families. Fuel duty will be frozen, saving people, particularly in rural areas in my constituency, £7 every time they fill up the tank, compared with what would have been under Labour.

We will help a typical family with two children under 12 with child tax credit to the tune of £2,400— 2.5 million families will benefit from that. There is help, too, to enable people to get on the housing ladder, with the shared equity scheme that the Government have proposed, as well as the mortgage guarantee scheme. It is a Budget to help businesses. The new £2,000 employment allowance will help the average business to hire an extra person for £22,400 or, hopefully, four young people on the minimum wage. I pay tribute to Lottie Dexter and the Million Jobs campaign, which tries to help young people to get back into work.

Some 450,000 small businesses and a third of employees will pay no jobs tax at all. Corporation tax will be driven down from 28% to 20% by 2015, which will make it the lowest such tax in any G20 country. Help to Buy will help the building industry which, we all know, has been struggling. In my constituency—the constituency of white van man and Essex man—I have many entrepreneurs such as electricians and plumbers, and the scheme will help them to secure much-needed work. There is help, too, for angel investors and entrepreneurs. I have been plugging the seed enterprise investment scheme, and on capital gains tax for reinvestment in qualifying schemes there will be another holiday for another year. I commend that measure.

[James Duddridge]

I recall that in the Budget, the Chancellor praised my hon. Friend in relation to that work. What advice can he give me and other hon. Members on how best to promote those schemes in our constituencies, as that seems to be a really good way to drive growth?

[Mr Newmark]

This is an important scheme, because it will help angel investors and people starting businesses. There is a gap in the market, and funding has been lacking. The tax scheme is highly attractive, and offers 50% off income tax. For example, for a £10,000 investment, people will get £5,000. If they hold the investment for three years, it is capital gains tax-free, so it is highly attractive.

Labour got us into this mess. Having listened to the responses from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, I do not think they have a solution to the country’s problems other than plan B, to borrow more. That would cost up to £200 billion more, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. We have already had a debt crisis. Labour’s plan would cost an average family £2,000 more.

The Chancellor has set out a Budget for those who work hard and want to get on. This Budget backs families; this Budget backs jobseekers; this Budget backs drivers; this Budget backs home buyers; and this Budget backs businesses. The Government are clearing up Labour’s mess, they are backing those who want to work hard and want to get on, and they are moving Britain forward. I commend the Budget to the House.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am actually a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes any reference to the Eastleigh by-election, when the Labour party’s position was an absolute disaster. This is not about that; the reality is simply that we need to ensure that the procedures are tightened up, mostly because of fairness to those who pay their taxes in Britain, who work hard and do not want to see social housing and all these other areas going to people who never made a commitment to this country. This is simply about fairness. We were left a bad position. I am trying to change it, while being infracted by the European Commission and saying no to it at the same time.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State repeatedly talks of the infraction process, which is surely just a fine. No one has ever paid any of these fines. Please, please, please: just say no, tell the Commission to sod off and do not pay the fine.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will skip the language and keep to the sentiment.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

Uprating should indeed be in line with inflation, as it always was in the past.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Timms]

I will make a little more progress, and then gladly give way again. As I was saying, schedule 1(b) means that housing benefit for people in work will be cut in real terms as well. We will return to that when we speak to amendment 17.

The change in the personal tax allowance, which we have heard a good deal about, will not do very much to help people who are in work on low incomes. Citizens Advice points out that

“any rise in net earnings leads to a reduction in housing benefit and council tax benefit.”

In addition, of course, the change will do nothing at all for people who are out of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as are the organisations to which she refers. Indeed, as I shall say, there has been a widespread call along those lines pointing out the damage that the Bill will do. Disability Rights UK states:

“The Government has suggested that all disabled people are protected from the lower 1% increase in benefits. This is not the case.”

In fact, as the impact assessment tells us, disabled households are more likely than others to be hit by the changes in the Bill.

[James Duddridge]

The right hon. Gentleman has twice from the Dispatch Box repeated the commitment to uprate benefits by inflation. Is that the retail prices index or the consumer prices index, or has that yet to be decided?

[Stephen Timms]

That is a matter to be announced at the appropriate time. At the end of this year, we will set out how benefits should be uprated for the following year, as it always has been done, and at the end of next year for the year after that.

Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad to have had that intervention. It is very important to remember that this issue has been bubbling for 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) has done an enormous amount of work, and obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who has just intervened, had the original factory in his backyard. As this situation has gone on so long, Ford may be under the misapprehension that the issue will go away. It has been mentioned that some of the pensioners may in fact die and nobody will take much notice of it. However, what we see here, on the foundation of the work that has been done in the past, is the coming together of a new all-party group. I pay my respects to the previous all-party group for keeping the issue moving, but we now have a new sense of energy.

The significance of this debate, of course, is that it will put it not just on the UK airwaves but on the US airwaves that Ford is not just a whiter-than-white company. It needs to take responsibility for its employees around the world, not least the British cousins of the US workers, who have worked so hard for Ford throughout their lives in good faith and now feel that they have been shoddily treated. We all know that the matter will be carefully argued in court by very rich lawyers, but what we are saying here, and what the Ford directorship in the US needs to understand, is that a cross-party group of parliamentarians in Britain will focus on it and keep it on the agenda, and ultimately that will have an impact on the brand values that Ford relies on for its profitability. We are saying not only that this is a moral obligation, but that Ford must financially do the right thing; otherwise, it will pay the price one way or another.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman almost anticipates the point I was going to make. Does he agree that this is not only an historical issue, but about the future of Ford Motor Company? Who in their right mind would work for an organisation that has treated its employees so dishonourably? It is about not only Visteon pensioners, but the future of Ford, the nature of its corporate and social responsibility and its future relationship with employees and customers.

[Geraint Davies]

That is precisely the point that needs to be made. There is great empathy with Ford in Britain. Everyone has heard of Henry Ford and thinks of the motor car as coming from Ford. As the story comes out and is amplified by more groups, people will think, “Why should I choose a Ford car over a Nissan or a Honda, who are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new production in Britain this year?” We have a loyalty to the people who work in Britain, as well as a wish to buy the best product. If 3,000 pensions are affected, it is our responsibility to stand up and let the people we represent know what we are doing and why we are doing it. They can make judgments about which cars they choose to buy.

The original £49 million gap in the pension fund in 2000 was alongside a significant surplus in the main Ford pension fund. We should obviously ask why; it seems an unacceptable start. Since then, the gap has grown to something like £350 million. As the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green said, Ford had almost a monopoly over the supply of parts coming out of Visteon, so it was in a position to drive down prices unilaterally. There was no proper market. I have a Visteon internal e-mail from December 2000, which states:

“Ford have reduced PATS prices twice this year…9.2% as part of the EWC agreement…and then reduced prices again by 10.5%. This was never agreed.”

In that one year, prices reduced by 20%. If one company is supplying a company that controls the prices, it is not surprising that costs can be transferred. In one year, 2005-06, Visteon Europe lost £700 million and Ford Europe made a £700 million profit. Who makes a profit and who makes a loss is clearly determined by Ford. It had a direct knock-on effect on the value of the pension fund, which is now £350 million in the red.

Visteon had to buy inputs from Ford. It bought materials from the Ford foundry at Leamington, for example, which it could have sourced more cheaply elsewhere, to make parts that it then sold back to Ford at a price that Ford dictated. Clearly, this was all part of a strategy for Ford to manage down its costs and gradually outsource from Visteon, to places such as Korea, in a way that did not invoke any business discontinuity that would have cost it profits. It was carefully managed, but the people who really suffered were obviously the Visteon workers.

Meanwhile, on the Visteon trustee pension directorate, a separate pension fund was set up—the Visteon engineering scheme for cherry-picked Ford personnel. One of the people we invited to speak to us, who has not as yet agreed, is Mr Phil Woodward, a company-nominated Visteon pension trustee director. He was on the trustee board, where he had a duty of care to the Visteon pensioners, and transferred his pension to the new fund, taking money out of the Visteon fund. All the transfers and the voluntary redundancies would again deflate the Visteon pension fund. At that time, he was also involved in the closure of plants in Bridgend and Belfast. There certainly seems to be a conflict of interest there.

I shall not keep hon. Members much longer, as I know many others want to speak. The simple point is that there will ultimately be a decision in court, but we are saying that, from the evidence we have received—we are happy to receive other evidence from Mr Woodward or representatives of Visteon, who have not come to us either—we believe that there is a duty of care to our constituents who have been sold down the river. We will not let this rest until we get justice for the pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Caton, for calling me to speak. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing this debate and on bringing to it his expertise, which was developed not only in his casework but in his time at Barclays bank, which is a period of time that I am very familiar with. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for all the work that he has done on this issue. This debate demonstrates how, as a House, we can operate together, and how we can operate together regionally, with our friends in Wales working alongside our colleagues in Essex. I am also reminded of an Adjournment debate that took place back in 2009, when my hon. Friend’s predecessor, who is now Baroness Smith of Basildon, spoke very ably. Her father was actually a Visteon pensioner and I suspect that she maintains an interest in this matter.

Like other hon. Members, I have had several constituents raise this issue with me: more than five of them have done so formally; and I am sure that many more are concerned about it. I am particularly concerned about those people with deferred rights within the pension who perhaps have not looked closely at this issue, who are still of working age and who have little idea of how their Ford and Visteon pension has diminished over time.

The debate title rather summarises things; this is not a general debate on Visteon pensions, but a debate that is specifically about the duty of care of Ford UK to Visteon pensioners. As I understand it, a duty of care has the sole purpose of ensuring that a person, or in this case a company, adheres to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could potentially impinge on, or detrimentally impact, others. On that basis, I do not believe that Ford has carried out its duty of care well. There are two main issues Ford needs to address: why were employees actively encouraged to transfer their pensions in the statements my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green mentioned, and to what degree were those involved aware of the risk factors involved in establishing the group?

There has been a lot of discussion of the legal responsibilities, and reference has been made to the court case. The moral responsibilities have also been mentioned, initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and subsequently by a number of other hon. Members. However, there is also a reputational issue, because one of the most valuable things an international conglomerate has is its reputation, and Ford’s is being damaged daily because it has not dealt with this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned the current board, and I had not appreciated how many of its members were around at the time. That raises questions about the board’s competence, and I very much hope that the matter is tabled at the next board meeting and that board members look not only at their financial, legal and moral obligations, but specifically at the real damage they are doing to Ford’s reputation.

A few years ago, I considered buying a Ford—I had not thought through the ethics of that in relation to my constituents. I would certainly not consider buying one now, and I would feel somewhat seedy driving around in one, given that that organisation does not treat its employees properly. It is hypocritical for a member of the Ford family to talk of a family when those he describes as its members have been so poorly treated—that is not acceptable. We need to be temperate in our language in the House of Commons, but I was sympathetic when my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) described Ford as a four-letter company behaving in a four-letter way. I am not sure quite which word he was referring to, given that I am a very naive and sheltered young man, but I am sure he will educate me later outside the Chamber.

The idea of bringing the employees and the trustees from Visteon and Ford into the House of Commons is excellent, and I urge the Minister to indicate to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Work and Pensions Committee that he would welcome an inquiry into Ford’s responsibility in relation to Visteon, because that could turn up the temperature. It would be fair to say that although the people from Ford who have come along to the meetings—not all of which I have been able to attend—have been very good, there is no point talking a good game and then not delivering. It is perfectly legitimate, therefore, for us to set out to damage the reputation of Ford until the company does the right thing.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

We have been aware of this case for several years, and Ford has had plenty of opportunity to put things right on its own. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time for Parliament to take action, whether by taking up his suggestion or by taking up any other suggestion the Minister might come up with?

[James Duddridge]

Absolutely. As with many cases that go on for a long time, it is only when we review them for meetings and for debates such as this that we realise quite how long they have gone on for. It has been an unacceptable period, and it is quite chilling when hon. Members say that the company is perhaps waiting for the bulk of those affected to die so that when it does settle, it will be cheaper. That is truly disgusting.