---

Employment, Universities and Skills and Housing

I realise that many of the matters that we might address in this debate have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but there are some points I would like to raise. In debating the matters before us, we could do worse than go all the way back to a previous Queen's Speech, when Her Majesty said:"““A stable economy is the foundation of a fair and prosperous society. My Government will continue to maintain low inflation, sound public finances and high employment.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2006; Vol. 687, c. 1.]" I will be generous to Labour Members by ignoring the obvious temptation to say that a stable economy is one that is not beset by boom and bust. However, although I will resist that temptation, I will point out that economic stability is foundational to almost everything else a Government might seek to do. That brings me on to the issues of employment and skills. I spent almost 30 years building up my own company before I entered full-time politics—and I suppose there are those in Northern Ireland who would say that I would have been safer if I had stayed in business and not gone into politics, but we shall not elaborate on that. I know what it is to struggle and to work long, hard and unsocial hours to make a business a success. It is a bit like being an MP; the roles have a lot in common. I started the company when I was a young man of 19. I was what one would call wet behind the ears, and I admit there were times when others in the business world took advantage of me and my family within that business because of my lack of experience. That was 30-odd years ago in Northern Ireland, and things were different there then. We did not have innovations such as training to be a business individual or entrepreneur. It was difficult, because things were hard in Northern Ireland, as all Members will know. I noted what the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) said about funding for science education. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I agree with what he said. More money needs to be invested in such skills; I will elaborate on that later. Just last week, I met local business people in the Province, including representatives of a company that employs more than 40,000 people worldwide and has annual sales of about £5 billion. Many of their concerns are very similar to what I have encountered in a much smaller measure and are shared by business and employers across the United Kingdom. I am thinking, for example, of the sheer number of people who present themselves as potential employees without having even the most basic skills. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned science funding. A large pharmaceutical company called Almac, which is based in my constituency, is considering developing a new site to employ some 300 to 400 young people—technicians and young scientists. In my recent meeting with the company, I discovered that it honestly does not know where it is going to get those people from, unless it looks to eastern Europe or the United States. We need to support and fund science courses in order to fill the gaps that exist across the whole of the United Kingdom in this area. Education must be tailored to the needs of the workplace. There is absolutely no point in someone's going to university, getting an honours degree in karaoke singing or whatever, and then looking to get a job in the real world. Such an approach does not and cannot work, and those people will end up out of work. I hope that the proposed education and skills Bill and apprenticeship Bill will prove to be a step in the right direction—we shall wait and see. Apprenticeships should be embedded in the workplace and not left solely to the classroom. This is not only about the skills of the prospective individual member of staff; it is about the skills of the company itself. Research and development uptake needs to be emphasised and prioritised. I have been struck by the absence of any recent mention of trade unions by those on the Government Benches and by the fact that trade unions were not mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. We are told on a daily basis that the country faces a global economic crisis and that every part of the world is suffering because of what began in the USA. If that really is the case, and if it is true that the UK is facing into the same wind and storm as the rest of the world, surely we should seek to give ourselves every possible advantage over the rest of the world. In such circumstances, do trade union leaders not have an important role to assume? My own constituency recently faced the possible loss of 120 jobs as a result of the threatened closure of the local offices of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. I lobbied the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), when she was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and her successor, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), and I am pleased to say that those jobs have been saved. One of the key elements in that was the very positive campaigning on the part of the unions, and I want to commend them for their efforts in securing those jobs and ensuring that those 120 homes will be much happier over the Christmas period than they would have been otherwise. But it is not always like that. As I have said, if what the Government tell us about the economic crisis is correct, we should give ourselves every possible advantage and that surely means that at the very highest level there must be a coming together of government, employers and trade unionists to agree that the first priority is to get through the current situation successfully. That is especially so given the many billions of pounds that the Government have thrown at the problem. The Chancellor has recently outlined proposals in relation to tax and VAT that he is going to use as a temporary measure, and he has told us that it may well be the case that we shall all pay a bit more down the line. Well, if that is to be the case and if there is to be a bit of additional financial relief over the next couple of years, should not that be matched by trade union leaders making it clear that for the same period of time they will exercise caution in wage demands? If on the one hand the Chancellor is trying to ease the pressure on the economy, employers and jobs by taking the action he took, would the potential benefits not be increased by a reciprocal move by the unions? Would that not greatly assist business needs and be a positive contribution to employment prospects over coming months? After all, with unemployment at almost the 2 million mark and projected to rise as high as 3 million, I would imagine that trade unions would want to see their members remain in jobs rather than end up on the scrapheap. A few moments ago, I used the phrase ““business needs””. In looking at the Government's programme as outlined in Her Majesty's Speech, I have to say that I am not convinced that business needs will necessarily be best served over the coming period. There are some positives, that is true. A female should be paid the same wage for doing the same job as a male. The gender pay gap needs to be closed and I hope that the equality proposals will achieve that end. But there are other measures that I fear will not have a positive effect. For example, the plan to further extend the right to request flexible working is fraught with negative potential. The fact of the matter is that while it will only be right to make the request, that right will come with a moral pressure on many small businesses. To me, it is simply not in the business needs to introduce this at this time. Let us think, too, of the opportunities missed. While on the one hand the Government are intent on pushing through the flexible working proposals, they have failed to address the ongoing bureaucracy and regulation industry that has cost the country many billions of pounds over recent years—the very money that could have contributed to the Chancellor's financial stimulus package. We know that as recently as last year the Government said that they would deliver 3 million new homes by 2020. Speaking in July 2007, the Prime Minister said:"““it is right, in the interests of good and open government and public debate, that each year the Prime Minister make a summer ""statement to the House so that initial thinking, previously private, can be the subject of widespread and informed public debate. Putting affordable housing within the reach of not just the few but the many is vital both to meeting individual aspirations and to securing a better future for our country””.—[Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1449.]" He also said that the annual target would be raised from 200,000 to 240,000 new homes in England from 2016. At the time, The Independent newspaper ran a headline that read ““Brown's plans to build three million new homes 'will bankrupt social housing sector in five years'.”” The story quoted the National Housing Federation, which claimed that the Government's financial predictions were based on an assumption that housing associations would fund the work by taking out huge loans that, in fact, they would be unable to afford. What became of those plans? How close are the Government to fulfilling that pledge? Of course, it could be argued that the crisis in social housing—for it was and is a crisis—was inherited by the Prime Minister from his predecessor, who saw the number of social houses built per year fall to just over 17,000. Be that as it may, the Prime Minister was still the Chancellor at the time and he is now the man in the hot seat. I remain to be convinced that the need for social and affordable housing will be met by any of the measures outlined by Her Majesty. All in all, many people—whether they are members of the business community or in jobs that are at risk, are unemployed or homeless, or are young couples just starting out in life together—will feel short changed. I would be hard pressed to argue that they were unjustified for feeling that way.