UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Northern/Central England

  • Gordon Brown – 2001 Speech on Enterprise and the Regions

    Gordon Brown – 2001 Speech on Enterprise and the Regions

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Manchester on 29 January 2001.

    Introduction

    It is a pleasure to be here in Manchester this morning.

    For two centuries Manchester and the North West have been a world wide centre for manufacturing strength. This region led in the 19th Century and now it can lead again.

    And let me say how pleased I am to be speaking here at UMIST. Founded early in the nineteenth century by the business community of Manchester, it enters the Twenty First Century a leading centre for scientific research, its links with business stronger than ever – promoting growth, jobs and opportunity for the North West region and beyond.

    Today I want to show how in the North West and the other regions of our country, the high ideals and public purpose contained in the economic goal of 1944 can be achieved.

    Full employment – defined as in 1944 as ‘high and stable levels of employment’ – was a reality for the country as a whole for twenty years after the Second World War.

    But not only did rising unemployment in the 1970’s and beyond undermine these goals but so too did persistently higher unemployment in our regions

    As recently as 1997, one in five working age households had no one in work in seven of our twelve regions and nations.

    Some believe that full employment can be achieved only by a return to macroeconomic fine tuning.

    Others believe that in the new more open economy governments cannot hope to meet the 1944 objectives.

    I reject both the dogma of insisting on old ways and the defeatism of abandoning the objectives. But to achieve full employment in all the regions is a large and ever present challenge and demands new approaches not the old ways.

    So since 1997 the new Government has been putting in place a new framework to deliver our growth and employment objectives.

    Last year I set down four objectives:

    – first: stability – a pro-active monetary policy and prudent fiscal policy to deliver the necessary platform of stability;

    – second: employability – a strengthening of the programme to move the unemployed from welfare to work;

    – third: productivity – a commitment to high quality long term investment in science and innovation, new technology and skills;

    – fourth: responsibility – avoiding short termism in pay and wage bargaining across the private and public sectors, and building a shared sense of national purpose.

    These conditions – requirements for stability, employability, productivity and responsibility – are and have always been the necessary conditions for full employment.

    The first condition, stability, is needed to ensure a sustainable high demand for labour. The second, employability, promotes a sustainable high supply of labour. The third, raising productivity, provides a sustainable basis for rising living standards. And the fourth, responsibility in bargaining, ensures a sustainable basis for combining full employment with low inflation.

    But there is a fifth condition I wish to discuss in detail today – the need for regionally balanced growth, essential if there is to be opportunity for all in all regions.

    Now the first generation of regional and urban policies – starting in the thirties – amounted essentially to ambulance work – first aid measures, urgently needed assistance and relief in areas of high unemployment.

    The second generation of regional policies came in the sixties when then the emphasis was on large capital grants and tax incentives for regions anxious to encourage mobile capital into our regions as inward investment.

    Now we are entering a third generation of regional policies inaugurated by Stephen Byers, David Blunkett and John Prescott, where we concentrate on indigenous measures – strengthening, within the regions, the essential building blocks of self generating growth. And on tackling the imbalances that prevent economic strength:

    – first, bridging the investment and enterprise gap;

    – second, bridging the skills gap;

    – third, bridging the technology gap, including support for e-commerce;

    – fourth, bridging the employment gap.

    Indeed, as these challenges suggest, now, as the economy starts to strengthen, is the perfect time to think not in a short termist way about our economic future but to think and plan long term; and to bring together strategic plans for our future.

    And I want to suggest that with the creation of the new regional development agencies – for which I believe John Prescott deserves our congratulations – we are not only recognising the many regional centres in Britain today and giving them new strength and powers. But we are creating, at a regional level, the economic policy instruments of the future: the measures that will foster innovation, develop the skills for the twenty first century economy, build a strong enterprise culture open to all and help us lead in the digital revolution and ensure all of us benefit fully from our participation in Europe.

    But the emphasis is not simply on local needs but on local initiative. Our reforms show that we are entering an era in which national government, instead of directing, enables powerful regional and local initiatives to work, where Britain becomes as it should be – a Britain of nations and regions where there are many and not just one centre of initiative and energy for our country.

    With regional development agencies and the flexibilities we are offering them there is for the first time both a shared understanding of the challenges the region faces and a strategic means of meeting them.
    Investment and enterprise

    In our Pre Budget consultation we welcome further proposals for encouraging enterprise in high unemployment areas.

    The 2001 Budget – and our future plans will continue this Government’s policies to offer greater incentives to business, remove unacceptable barriers that prevent people with enterprise getting on and, from the classroom to the boardroom, widen and deepen the spirit of enterprise in Britain.

    The Government’s ambition is to make opportunity for all the foundation of a more dynamic enterprise economy, breaking free of the old dependency culture in high unemployment areas.

    In an enterprise Budget we will consider extending capital gains tax relief and the 10p rate.

    In an enterprise Budget we will consider extending our R and D tax credit by examining proposals to do so from the CBI, EEF and others interested in improving Britain’s R and D effort.

    In an enterprise Budget we will consult on new reliefs for corporation tax including for intellectual property.

    As we move to an enterprise Budget we will consult on capital gains tax relief for the sale of substantial shareholdings.

    As we move to an enterprise Budget we are considering improvements in our enterprise management incentive scheme, the share options we offer new and dynamic companies.

    As we move to an enterprise Budget we will consider new incentives for urban renewal and inner city development.

    And an enterprise Budget means measures to encourage an enterprise culture in high unemployment areas where the greatest need is not more benefit offices but more businesses as we move from a dependency culture based on entitlements to a dynamic business culture based on enterprise.

    Instead of acquiescing in the old giro culture – simply paying benefits to compensate people for their social exclusion – we must back success rather than accept failure. And to do that we must extend fiscal and other financial incentives that open up economic and business opportunity in high unemployment areas, and encourage and reward new enterprise.

    If we are to achieve higher start-up rates in high unemployment areas, economic stability is critically important to business confidence, as we found in the early nineties when the recession not only destroyed existing businesses but discouraged new ones.

    So in the Budget our aim is to create the stronger enterprise culture that America enjoys, reduce the costs of business failure and address the sharp regional and local divergences in small business creation.

    Behind the creation of regional development agencies is our view that the way forward is one of empowering local people with skills and confidence.

    Indeed, our old cities and estates should be seen as new markets with competitive advantages – their strategic locations, their often untapped retail markets, and the potential of their workforce.

    And so it is right to put in place the best possible incentive structure to stimulate business-led growth as well as much bigger flows of private investment.

    So, to meet the challenge of increasing private investment in high unemployment areas by one billion pounds, we will now consult before the Budget on targeted tax incentives in four areas – cuts in stamp duty, reduced business rates, changes in capital gains tax and a new community investment tax credit.

    But changing our culture to one that favours enterprise in every area needs not just incentives but a real shift in attitudes too. And that will come about quickest if it starts, not in the boardroom, but in our schools.

    I want every young person to hear about business and enterprise in school; every college student to be made aware of the opportunities in business; every teacher to be able to communicate the virtues and potential of business and enterprise.

    I want businessmen and women to visit our schools and talk to their enterprise classes; I want every student to have a quality experience of working in a local business before they leave school. I want management training scholarships to be available even in the poorest areas and I want every community to see business leaders as role models.

    Regional coordination and accountability

    But let me say something more on our proposals for regional co-ordination – which will form our next five years’ programme for economic growth in our country – and the central role we see for regional development agencies as the strategic leaders of economic policies in the regions – in employment, skills, innovation and regeneration.

    The New Deal has already brought into being new partnerships between companies, the world of education and training, and the employment service.

    Regional approaches to the delivery of the New Deal and to training will become ever more important.

    The enterprise centres mean companies, universities and government must work together.

    The regional approach to venture capital funds, coordinated by the regional development agencies and the small business service, again requires business and government to work in partnership.

    To benefit fully from the university for industry, companies, educational authorities, schools and colleges themselves will want to form new partnerships.

    And local government – casting aside any idea that it should look inwards – must, as it looks outwards, be involved in all these initiatives.

    And we are ensuring the resources and flexibilities that regional development agencies need, but in return we are demanding strenuous targets be met in skills, innovation, business creation, new technology and employment. This is the new regional policy – locally sensitive and locally delivered, local people meeting local needs through local agencies.

    At every regional level, businesses, local authorities and the world of education will want to work together on their bids for funds and resources, and at the same time to make their case not just in Britain but abroad.

    And in making this happen the new local and regional centres of initiative in this country will show that leadership in Britain can come from every regional capital as much as from London itself.

    But as we develop regional policies that are locally generated and managed there has to be local and regional accountability too.

    Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland moved from 1997 to elected bodies. The Manifesto on which this Government was elected set out the options for elected regional government in England where there is popular consent for it.

    As we expand regional institutions – regional government offices, regional development agencies – so too we must expand regional accountability.

    John Prescott and I believe that in the consideration of new and better regional systems of accountability we need a greater role for both the House of Commons and the regional chambers.

    I hope that the regional chambers established in every region will hold annual hearings to examine the RDAS”’ annual reports and review progress against their published strategies – and report back on their findings. We should ensure they have the resources to meet this duty.

    By extending the scope for region by region initiatives and by complimenting these with greater accountability at a regional level and through the select committee system in the Commons, we are improving our ability to ensure that regionally set objectives are met.

    Combined with our national economic policy measures for stability, productivity, skills and responsibility, the third generation regional policy that I am describing is in my view the route to full employment in each region, that is employment opportunity for each region’s citizens.

    More than that, these are the means by which Britain is becoming a Britain of regions and nations with a new dynamism and where for locally generated initiatives we learn anew from each other, and where our diversity can become a source not only of new energy but of national strength.

    So our new development agencies both make sense of regional sentiment and respond to the challenges of the next millennium.

    Regions building new strengths from the ground upwards.

    Regions not looking in on themselves but looking outwards to the challenges of the global economy.

    Regions in which we make the connections so that schools and colleges, companies and local authorities work in a coordinated way for the same objectives – addressing inequalities within our regions.

    Conclusion

    I believe what is happening in each region today is showing the growing vitality of a new Britain, where there are new local and regional centres of initiative leading Britain.

    We are moving away from the old Britain of subjects where people had to look upwards to a Whitehall bureaucracy for their solutions – to a Britain of citizens where region to region, locality to locality we are ourselves in charge and where it is up to us.

    And where as a result Britain becomes stronger as each nation and region learns from another.

    In so many areas of our national life individual regions are leading the way.

    And what a strong country we can be when we are enriched by the different cultures and centres of initiative which together make up Britain.

    We are indeed stronger together, weaker apart.

    So, this morning I have suggested how we can strengthen our regional and national economy.

    I have said we must rediscover the national purpose that allows us to break from the old conflicts which have divided us.

    I look forward to a Britain in which instead of public versus private, state versus market, management versus workers, we have public and private, government and markets, employers and managers and workforces working together for the high levels of growth and employment we need for long term prosperity.

    I have pointed the way to full employment in this region in our generation.

    It is a challenge for all of us, a challenge that together we can meet and surmount.

  • Ed Balls – 2000 Speech to the Core Cities Conference in Sheffield

    Ed Balls – 2000 Speech to the Core Cities Conference in Sheffield

    The speech made by Ed Balls, the then Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury, in Sheffield on 15 September 2000.

    INTRODUCTION

    It is a great pleasure to be here in Sheffield today at the second Core Cities conference.

    Sheffield is a city truly at the centre of Britain – not simply geographically, but at the heart of our manufacturing and wealth-creating economy.

    This city led in the 18th and 19th centuries, building an international reputation for innovation and industrial leadership. But, as I learned when I visited the city with my Treasury colleague Lucy de Groot earlier this year, Sheffield is now leading again – developing new steel making techniques – with “made in Sheffield” prized as a mark of quality throughout the country and the world, but also developing new industries, mastering the new information technologies, designing software, and providing the internet and e-mail facilities that will drive forward the next stage of the information revolution.

    Sheffield and its fellow members of the Core Cities group are also together leading in local government, building new partnerships with the private sector to promote growth and tackle poverty and exclusion and co-ordinate economic development.

    When you came together as a group of seven major cities – Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield – you declared your aim to be to develop a vision of the distinctive role that the major cities must play in the future to ensure economic growth and social cohesion, to learn from your experiences and share best practice from each other and with your partners in local government across the country.

    The policy challenges you face are daunting. Because cities are places of extremes – of dynamism alongside economic stagnation, wealth alongside poverty and deprivation, creativity and culture alongside pollution and ugliness, often circles of reinforcing opportunity next door to centres of multiple disadvantage.

    I am sure that all participants in today’s workshops would agree that this conference has certainly been about sharing best practice. And the size, ambition and preparation of your conference demonstrate your determination to rise to the challenges you have set yourselves.

    But my purpose today is not to lecture you on the area which you know and understand far better than me – the policy and leadership challenges of urban government and regeneration.

    My task is two fold:

    • to persuade you that we do have the opportunity to achieve balanced growth, rising prosperity but also the opportunity too to deliver full employment not just in one region but in every region and city of our country;
    • and to convince you that with our new approach – a new regional policy for Britain – this Government is backing your efforts and determination to promote dynamic, fair and sustainable cities and regions.

    There is sometimes an assumption that because for the much of the twentieth century, the cities north of London have fallen behind the south-east and Europe that this must therefore continue. Today I want to suggest why this need not be true and why cities which led the country in the nineteenth century can lead again in the twenty-first century.

    CREATING PROSPERITY

    The title you have given me today is also the theme of your conference – creating and sharing prosperity.

    These goals are at the heart of the Treasury’s mission. Gordon Brown’s first words from the Treasury in May 1997 when he announced the independence of the Bank of England, were to reaffirm, for this Government, our commitment to the goals of high and stable levels of growth and employment first set out in 1944. The Treasury’s objective is now “to raise the rate of sustainable growth, and achieve rising prosperity, through creating economic and employment opportunities for all” and in the new public service agreements published in July the Treasury is committed not only to prudence in monetary and fiscal stability but also to raising the trend growth rate of the economy.

    I believe that there is a growing consensus in Britain around the policy agenda we are following to deliver higher, sustainable growth – to entrench economic stability, ensure a tax and regulatory environment that promotes investment, open competition and entrepreneurship; invest in education, skills and infrastructure; and ensure consistent and sound economic governance based on openness, transparency and partnership.

    SHARING PROSPERITY

    But greater prosperity does not automatically mean a fairer sharing of prosperity. Growth is the prime engine for poverty reduction. But growth does not necessarily lead to falling poverty or inequality. And even where poverty is falling, there can be pockets of poverty and deprivation where people are excluded from the benefits of growth. This is not only unfair. It also represents a huge waste of economic and human potential.

    That is why policies for growth must be combined with as the New Deal to promote employment opportunity and the Working Families’ Tax Credit and increases in child benefit to tackle the causes of poverty. And it is also why the Treasury – with other departments – has targets to raise employment and cut child poverty as we move towards our long-term goal of halving child poverty in 10 years and abolishing it in 20.

    Nor does growth necessarily lead to greater sharing of prosperity across regions, cities or neighbourhoods. Internationally, poor countries have not been catching up with rich countries, although there are impressive exceptions. Within Europe, while the poorer countries have been catching up with the richer European countries there is little evidence of regional convergence. And while in the UK regional variation in GDP per head has been narrowing slowly over the post-war period, this convergence can easily go off track, as the deep manufacturing recession of 1980-81 recession and then the late 1980s boom and bust have shown. Today 6 of the 8 English regions still have GDP per head below the EU average.

    PROSPECTS FOR BALANCED GROWTH

    There are those, I know, who have doubts about the prospects for more balanced growth and full employment across Britain’s cities and regions.

    In one of the background papers for this conference, the authors write: “Britain’s regional economic map is becoming structurally unbalanced – a process which further reinforces the longstanding GDP disparities of what is popularity termed the ‘north-south divide’.”

    I want to tell you why I do not share this sense of pessimism.

    Yes, many of our cities have been coping over the past two decades with difficult adjustments – changes in employment patterns, population decline, vacant brownfield sites and contaminated land, ageing infrastructure, poor public services, and pockets of multiple deprivation which will take a long time to solve.

    Yes, many regions have weaknesses – which must be tackled – in educational standards, business start-up and survival rates, use of information technology in small companies, levels of research and innovation.

    And, yes, it is much easier for economists to get publicity predicting a widening of regional divides.

    But I suggest that there are also reasons to believe that – for the first time for decades – we have the prospect of more balanced growth and full employment across Britain’s regions. We can create and share prosperity better, and so make our national economy stronger.

    There are three reasons for this optimism:

    • the prospect of sustained economic stability which will benefit every region;
    • new opportunities for investment as a result of global and technological change;
    • and the new regional policy that this government is pursuing.

    Long-term stability is the pre-condition for our goals of high and balanced growth and for achieving full employment in Britain. Since we came to power we have put in place a new economic policy framework – independence of the Bank of England and tough fiscal rules – based on credible institutions, clear objectives to promote stability and growth, and maximum openness and transparency.

    Some argue that the forward-looking approach that the MPC has taken over the past three years has exacerbated regional economic imbalances – that when there is spare capacity outside the south-east we would do better by ignoring the inflation target or that when things get difficult we can try to run policy both to deliver low inflation and to cap the exchange rate in the short-term.

    We have tried that approach before and it was manufacturing industry, the long-term unemployed and the regions of Britain that paid the price. Remember the recessions of 1980 and 1990. The deep recession of the early 1980s caused permanent damage to UK manufacturing. Then came the boom of the late 1980s when growth in one part of the country was allowed to run out of control as regional skills shortages and housing market pressures fueled inflationary pressures, destabilising the prospects for stability and steady growth across the economy. Both times it was regions and cities outside the south-east which bore the heaviest burden.

    Of course, the strength of sterling as a result of the weak Euro has caused difficulties. But we have not and must not return to the old short-termist ways of the past. And by steering a course of stability – the MPC’s forward-looking approach, backed by a big fiscal tightening – we have not only avoided the recession that many predicted but exceeded our own forecasts for economic growth, with employment up one million since 1997. Interest rates peaked in 1998 at a little over 7 per cent, in marked contrast to the 15 per cent peak a decade ago. Long term unemployment is now at its lowest since the 1970s.

    And – most importantly – we have employment rising in every region of the country – up 5.5% in Yorkshire and Humber, 4.1% in the North West and 4.1% in the South West.

    Within the core cities themselves, claimant unemployment has fallen by 30% since the general election to 5.4% – still too high and with many pockets of much higher unemployment within our cities. But the fact that unemployment has fallen fastest and vacancies have risen fastest in those regions that were hardest hit in the 1980s, and we now have record levels of vacancies across the country – in every region – tells me that full employment – a goal that not long ago we thought was beyond our grasp – can be achieved again in every British region.

    The second reason for optimism is that the new challenges of the global economy and the information revolution mean that companies are increasingly mobile as they search for the new technologies and skills they need.

    Your work shows that cities and regions prosper for the same reasons as the economy as a whole – if they are open to trade and new ideas, encourage entrepreneurs and new investment, if they have high levels of skills and good infrastructure. But your work also shows that success can breed success as companies cluster together to integrate their operations, exploit economies of scale or draw on a pool of specialised labour.

    These forces for concentration help explain why Sheffield became the centre of steelmaking or textiles became centred in Manchester. They also help explain why London and the South-East have benefitted over the past two decades from the expansion of national and international trade in financial services, media and publishing.

    But there are also factors which mitigate against concentration – rising land rents, the costs of scale and congestion – which are making London a more expensive place for companies to locate and people to live.

    And, as communications technology increases mobility and the speed of integration, there are strong attractions to locate in cities and regions outside the south-east – growing financial centres in core cities, new investments in airports and our transport infrastructure, world-class universities and a thriving regional media.

    Take foreign direct investment. The UK attracts more foreign direct investment than any other developed country in the world, apart from the United States. London and the south-east have historically attracted a disproportionate share of this FDI. But the evidence shows that all UK regions can attract new investment. Firms outside of London and the South East now win more than two thirds of all new investment projects – 508 of 757 investments in 1999-2000.

    And across Britain’s cities, we see evidence of economic developments which play to traditional strengths but also to new opportunities – such as new investments from Oracle in Birmingham; in Bristol, Orange, Hewlett-Packard and Toshiba, who have established a research base in the city in collaboration with Bristol University, and in Liverpool the new investments locating at the Estuary Commerce Park.

    And while our cities have suffered significant population losses in the 1970s and 1980s, there has been a widespread turnaround in the last decade, with South and West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester showing population increases and city centres such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham have seen people moving back into city centres – indeed, the resident population in Manchester’s city centre has risen from 300 at the end of the 1980s to an estimated 6,000 today.

    The third reason for optimism about the future is this Government’s commitment to play an active role in supporting balanced regional growth and urban regeneration.

    When we came into government, we were determined that the new Treasury would make a decisive break from the past. We have a national target to raise the trend growth rate. But we recognised that this must be accompanied by a commitment and target to improve the economic performance of all regions measured by the trend rate of regional GDP per head.

    And we saw that this required a new approach to regional policy.

    The old Treasury was not enthusiastic about regional policy. As one research paper commissioned in preparation for the Urban White Paper put it, “the prevailing orthodoxy at the Treasury was that….city and regeneration policies were essentially seen as distributional palliatives for treating symptoms in the poorest places”.

    The first generation of regional policy, before the war, was essentially ambulance work getting help to high unemployment areas. The second generation in the 1960s and 1970s was based on large capital and tax incentives delivered by the then Department of Industry, almost certainly opposed by the Treasury. It was inflexible but it was also top-down. And it did not work.

    Our new regional policy is based on two principles – it aims to strengthen the essential building blocks of growth – innovation, skills, the development of enterprise – by exploiting the indigenous strengths in each region and city. And it is bottom-up not top-down, with national government enabling powerful regional and local initiatives to work by providing the necessary flexibility and resources.

    National government does not have all the answers – it never could. We need strategic decision-making and accountability at the regional and local level. That is why we have also put in place a network of regional development agencies to play a strategic and co-ordinating role; and why we see a much greater role for local strategic partnerships at the city level to co-ordinate economic development and regeneration.

    This new regional policy is at any early stage – there is much to learn. And let me say that the Treasury is keen to work with you – and others in the public and private sectors – in a structured way to make this work.

    THE NEW REGIONAL POLICY

    First the RDAs. Established last year, their first task has been to draw up and agree regional strategies which can build a shared understanding of the challenges regions face and a strategic vision for meeting them. At the same time, over the last three years, we have put in place the resources which the RDAs can shape to promote enterprise, innovation and skills in every region. Twelve Institutes for Enterprise across the regions, the University Challenge scheme to support innovation, a network of regional venture capital funds, a £50 million clusters fund to invest in business incubators to build connections between funds, advisers, banks and business angels and local transport plans as part of the ten year boost to transport investment announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Spending Review.

    Here in Yorkshire the RDA has not pulled its punches in highlighting strategic weaknesses across the region: too few businesses, especially high tech firms and poor business survival rates; low levels of inward investment; lower levels of educational achievement, particularly staying on rates at age 16; insufficient use of IT by SMEs. But it has also identified the region’s strengths which can be built upon: an excellent strategic location; unrivaled communications infrastructure; a strong financial centre in Leeds; excellent universities, with a joint institute for enterprise between Sheffield, Leeds and York universities; and a skilled workforce which has shown great resourcefulness in adapting to change.

    But we did not get it all right at the beginning. I know that many RDA chairs felt over the past year that their ability to implement these strategies has been hampered by restrictions on the size of their budgets, their ability to direct resources to meet the economic priorities that they have identified and the fact that they have been reporting to three different departments.

    As the Minister for Trade, Dick Caborn, said yesterday, the Treasury has worked closely with the DETR and the DTI to meet these concerns – and to be honest to go further than the RDAs themselves were expecting.

    In July, Gordon Brown and John Prescott announced a major enhancement in the role of the Regional Development Agencies. The new funding package for the RDAs provides:

    • an increase in their budgets by £500 million a year by 2003/4 to £1.7 billion – and these resources continue to be skewed towards the poorer regions;
    • a greater focus for RDAs on regional economic development and regeneration with extra funding. This will help bring derelict and contaminated land back into productive use, support jobs, and promote enterprise;
    • and in addition much greater flexibility for the RDAs to shift resources to local priorities, including a commitment by central government to implement a single cross-Departmental budget for the RDAs.

    In return, the RDAs will have to demonstrate top class leadership, co-ordinate with other regional and local agencies and be more accountable for their activities – nationally, regionally and locally. As I learned when I visited the Yorkshire Forward board meeting in July, the RDA has already agreed clear and measurable targets for the Yorkshire and Humber region, to:

    •  create 150,000 new jobs by 2010;
    •  double the rate of small business start-ups;
    •  treble foreign manufacturing investment;
    •  train 2 million people with IT skills;
    •  halve the number of deprived wards;
    •  cut greenhouse gas emissions by over a fifth;
    •  and finally to achieve an increase in GDP per head above the UK and European average.

    These targets demonstrate the combination of ambition and commitment to accountability which the RDAs will need if the new regional policy is to succeed and if our goals for balanced growth and full employment are to be achieved.

    THE NEW URBAN POLICY AGENDA

    But while the RDAs role is catalytic, it is locally – in towns and particularly in cities – that wealth creation happens. As the papers prepared for your conference demonstrate, urban centres are powerful drivers for economic development and prosperity across their regions – centres of knowledge, learning and innovation, regional centres for business services, centres of culture and diversity.

    You have identified the characteristics of strong and dynamic cities and city regions. You are working with the RDAs to ensure proper co-ordination of regional and urban policy.

    Your experience also shows that strong and prosperous cities will ultimately depend on strong partnerships between public and private sectors and I know that has been central to the strategies of all the core cities.

    The new regional policy requires that partnerships perform at the local or city level what the RDA can do regionally – devising the strategy, building on local strengths. So, following the Spending Review, we are setting aside resources within the New Deal for Communities to support more cities in setting up effective local partnerships.

    But as at the national and regional level, so at the city level we also need clear accountability and transparency. Which is why the Government will pilot local Public Service Agreements with 20 local authorities – including some of the core cities – and which will cover economic development and regeneration as well as public services.

    You also have the responsibility – in drawing up these strategies – to ensure that prosperity is shared across the region. And just as successful cities will promote investment and jobs in their surrounding regions, so within core cities we want to see much bigger flows of private investment in low-income, high-unemployment areas and encourage a dynamic enterprise culture in these areas, based on business-led growth and job creation.

    The new way forward is to tackle the causes of slower growth – not with tax incentives for property development, but by empowering local people with the skills and confidence they need to build the enterprising businesses that work.

    So the government is determined to support the expansion of local finance intermediaries – community finance initiatives – to provide micro-finance for enterprises who cannot access mainstream sources of finance.

    The £30 million Phoenix Fund that the Treasury announced last November will provide grants to help community finance initiatives get off the ground. Gordon Brown has asked the Social Investment Task Force led by Ronald Cohen to plan a community venture capital fund targeted at promoting investment in our low income areas and we will provide matching funding. The Small Business Service has also been given a remit to maximise the opportunities for start ups and small business growth, especially in our poorest regions and areas.

    And the next phase of the New Deal will create greater room for local initiatives. We are creating action teams to give intensive help for job search and training in the high unemployment areas of the country and to promote new self-employment in those areas we will support intensive programmes of pre-start training, advice and mentoring, with new ‘incubator’ units in every region.

    We also need to build sustainable cities and urban areas. The Lord Rogers Task Force reported to the Government last year and set out a challenging analysis and policy agenda. The Task Force stressed that to meet the target that 60% of all new homes will be built on brownfield sites, we need better use of derelict, vacant and underused land and buildings. And it highlighted the leadership role that local authorities must play in regeneration in partnership with the individuals and communities they represent.

    We share this vision. Many cities including the core cities have already developed a vision for their city and I know that many authorities are now responding to this agenda and contributing to an urban renaissance – by working with the New Deal for Communities, initiating the New Committment for Regeneration, and setting up Urban Regeneration Companies. Pilots are under way in Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool and we stand ready to do more to help as we learn lessons from these pilots.

    The Government and the Treasury are also responding to the challenge that the Rogers report sets down and we will go further by promoting the use of appropriate national and local fiscal instruments to promote better land use and support regeneration. Gordon Brown has already announced that we are actively consulting on stamp duty relief for regeneration in brownfield sites. Details of this and a number of other new tax measures will be announced this autumn in the Pre-Budget report and the Urban White Paper.

    But we know that the story of economic improvement is not a story of improvement for everyone, that there are still too many people left out of the British success. Cities will not be able to reach their full economic potential unless they can tap into the unfulfilled potential of those stuck in our poorest communities and tackle the causes of poverty and lack of opportunity locally.

    This poverty is concentrated in cities – and not just in those represented here today. For example, Glasgow covers nine out of the ten most deprived postcode areas in Scotland at a time when the city has seen a net increase in employment of over 30,000 in the last decade. This picture is repeated over and over again across the country and particularly in central London.

    Why are deprived neighbourhoods benefiting so little from the increase in opportunities around them? Government – national as well as local – should take its share of the blame. A failure to deliver economic conditions necessary for growth. Planning policies that failed. Housing allocations that intensified divisions. And regeneration programmes that focused on one individual problem without tackling the causes of poverty and building solutions from the bottom up.

    So our new regional policy means also a new urban policy. And the reforms to local government, the work of the Social Exclusion Unit and the Spending Review are all based on clear principles:

    •  main services should be equipped to become the main weapons against deprivation;
    •  local service deliverers need greater flexibility to work together through stronger local co-ordination;
    •  and, local communities – residents and businesses – need to be fully involved in deciding the services that are provided for them.

    In short, tackling the causes of poverty and disadvantage in a bottom-up way. And the Spending Review is putting these principles into practice, with:

    •  explicit commitments to minimum service outcomes or “floor targets” in all areas in jobs, crime, education and health;
    •  additional funding for the most deprived areas through an £800 million Neighbourhood Renewal Fund with local partners left free to decide how to invest it;
    •  a Performance Reward Fund for those local authorities and their partners prepared to sign up to and deliver demanding local PSA targets;
    •  and extra money for those interventions in deprived areas that have been shown to work – for example, doubling the support for Sure Start and increasing funding for local crime prevention initiatives.

    CONCLUSION

    So let me conclude by saying how important it is that national and local government share the same goals.

    It must have been difficult to be in local government in recent decades when the atmosphere was all too often one of confrontation, conflict between central and local government, a top-down and centralised regional policy and contradictory and overlapping requirements on local government.

    I hope those days are behind us. We do have a great opportunity to work together. Because together we share a vision of balanced growth and full employment in every region and the confidence that this can be achieved. Together we are putting the building blocks in place for better strategic co-ordination at the regional and local level. And together we will deliver the resources too. We have a chance to put things right. The public will judge us all badly if we do not rise to the challenge.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail

    Dan Jarvis – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail

    The parliamentary question asked by Dan Jarvis, the Labour MP for Barnsley Central, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)

    What recent estimate he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the level of public funding that will be required to build core Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)

    May I begin, Mr Speaker, by wishing you and all of your brilliant House of Commons staff a very merry Christmas?

    The integrated rail plan, published last November, set out an estimate of £17.2 billion at 2019 prices for the core Northern Powerhouse Rail network, with a further £5.4 billion for the TransPennine route upgrade. That includes building 40 miles of new, high-speed line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire, as well as upgrading and electrifying the rest of the route between Liverpool and York, and the existing line between Leeds and Bradford.

    Dan Jarvis

    I am grateful to the Minister for that response. The Chancellor has rightly spoken about the importance of capital investment to the long-term growth of the economy but, at the same time, he has downgraded the £40 billion vision of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was agreed on a cross-party basis with northern leaders, to the much-reduced £17 billion core scheme. Decisions on Northern Powerhouse Rail will shape the future of the railways in the north of England for generations to come and unlock massive economic benefits. Will the Minister look at refocusing Treasury appraisal of NPR on its long-term transformative benefits and whole-life value, rather than on short-term factors? Otherwise, a massive opportunity, not just for the north, but for the whole of the country, will be missed.

    James Cartlidge

    I commend the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great passion on these issues. He is right that the Chancellor is absolutely committed to the long-term benefit to the economy of capital investment and infrastructure schemes like these. Just to be clear, the IRP set out the Government’s view that the core NPR network is the most effective way to deliver rail connectivity benefiting the north. Our plans would deliver substantial journey-time saving and capacity benefits all the way from Liverpool to York. It will do so far more quickly and cost-effectively than alternatives.

  • Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    The speech made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) for securing the debate and bringing attention to an important, serious issue that has been worrying a number of his constituents as well as constituents of those hon. Members who made contributions: my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Although my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) cannot speak as he is a Government Whip, I know that he has also been active in contacting his affected constituents.

    While cyber-resilience in the water sector is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am responding as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for data protection and cyber-resilience for the wider economy—I know that you were wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I was here once again. The threat to the UK from cyber-attacks is on the increase as evidenced by the sharp rise in ransomware attacks that British companies have suffered in the last few years. Cyber-criminals are increasingly seeing ransomware as a profitable business. The Government are committed to addressing that issue, as evidenced by the national cyber strategy that was published in December 2021.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North highlighted, in August, South Staffordshire plc—the parent company of South Staffs Water and Cambridge Water—was hit by a cyber-attack that resulted in data extortion and ransom. The criminals also exfiltrated information from the company and attempted to extort it for their own financial gains. The National Cyber Security Centre, which is a part of GCHQ, alongside UK law enforcement and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, offered support to South Staffs Water and its incident response provider. In particular, the NCSC’s technical experts offered tactical and strategic guidance on how to effectively respond to and recover from the incident. DEFRA, which is responsible for the security and resilience of the water sector, also responded quickly and worked with South Staffs Water to understand the potential impact, provide business continuity advice and help it with notification requirements.

    It is important to note that at no time was the water supply to residents affected. This was an attack on the organisation’s corporate IT system, which resulted in the theft of some customers’ personal data. I extend my sympathies to the customers who were affected and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North again for taking up this issue with the company on their behalf. As we heard, the company has contacted the affected customers and offered them advice and support, including a free 12-month credit monitoring and fraud alert service.

    South Staffs Water made the Information Commissioner’s Office aware of the incident, and the ICO is making the necessary inquiries. Under the UK’s data protection legislation, organisations must take appropriate security measures to ensure the protection of the personal data they hold. That includes the personal and financial details of customers. If there is a breach of personal data that presents a risk to the affected individuals, organisations must notify the ICO within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach. Breaches of the legislation are liable to enforcement action by the ICO, including fines of up to £17 million or 4% of the organisation’s global turnover for the most serious breaches.

    Firms that deliver essential services like the supply of drinking water, transport or electricity are subject to regulations to ensure that their protections are appropriate to the risk. The Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, or NIS regulations, which the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport brought into effect, are the relevant regulations in this case. The regulations require companies, including South Staffs Water, to take steps to ensure the security, resilience and continuity of their services.

    The NIS competent authorities are responsible for ensuring that organisations adhere to the regulations. The competent authority for the water supply sector is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and implementation is overseen by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. They responded to this incident, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre, to ensure that water remained safe and that the company was supported in its response. The NCSC worked with South Staffs Water by providing guidance on messaging, helping it to understand the potential impact and advising it on business continuity.

    Only two weeks ago, the Government announced that following a public consultation, DCMS would strengthen the NIS regulations to boost security standards and increase the reporting of serious cyber-incidents. We will ensure that more services and organisations, including outsourced IT services, come within the scope of the NIS legislation. Those changes will reduce the risk of cyber-attacks causing damage and disruption. The changes to the law will be made as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    However, legislation is not a silver bullet to address all cyber-threats. While it is important, it is only one of a broad range of activities, initiatives, programmes, and policies that are in place as part of the UK’s broader national cyber strategy, which was published in December 2021. If we are to limit the likelihood of such attacks being successful in the future, we have to raise the collective security and resilience of the whole country, and make everyone better equipped to resist and respond to those who would do us harm. The security and safety of our country is a top priority of the Government. Our national cyber strategy, backed with investment of £2.6 billion, sets out how the Government are taking action to ensure our people, businesses and essential services are secure and resilient to cyber-attacks. The National Cyber Security Centre is the Government’s technical authority on cyber-security. The NCSC is providing the expertise, advice, tools and support to ensure that government, industry and the public are secure online.

    Those in law enforcement, including the National Crime Agency and our specialist cyber-trained officers in police forces across the country, are apprehending cyber-criminals and providing advice on how businesses can protect themselves. My Department is also working to improve levels of cyber-resilience right across the wider economy. That includes ensuring we have the skilled professionals we need, supported by a growing and innovative cyber-security sector that provides the products and services to keep organisations secure. We are also working to ensure organisations are operated and governed in a way that tackles the cyber threat appropriately, for example, by training board members and including digital risks in company annual reports. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is also taking action to improve the security of the technology being used by businesses, organisations and consumers.

    Given what we have heard today, I again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North for the way he engaged with the company about the correspondence, which, as I said, has to balance being simple to understand and including the complexities of the case. He was right to address that and I am glad that the company responded to his intervention. He talked about CIFAS. The fact is that that £25 subscription is an additional option. Again, I am glad that, thanks to his encouragement, the company clarified that for people who would, understandably, already be worried about loss and risk. Worrying about having to pay £25 to get support would have been an extra concern, but it is important to emphasise that that is not the case; they get all the support from the water company, but the £25 is an additional option, should they wish to take it up.

    Despite your encouragement, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not go on long today. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to reassure Members that the Government continue to take significant action to ensure the security and resilience of our country’s essential services and the wider digital economy. However, the cyber threat continues to evolve and remains very real, despite the good progress we have made in recent years. In the past 12 months, 39% of businesses and 30% of charities suffered a cyber-breach or attack. Many of them lost money and data, as well as suffering from disruption and having to invest staff time to fix the problems. Cyber-security threats posed by criminals and nation states continue to be acute, particularly from low-sophistication cyber-crime. Ransomware attacks are also on the rise, and their use as a service is becoming more and more prevalent. For that reason, organisations across the economy must ensure they continue to manage their risks appropriately and put in place the measures needed to protect their money, data and operations.

  • Marco Longhi – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    Marco Longhi – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    The speech made by Marco Longhi, the Conservative MP for Dudley North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing this Adjournment debate.

    In July this year, South Staffordshire PLC, the parent company of both South Staffs Water and Cambridge Water, experienced a criminal cyber-attack. The incident involved the theft of data from its IT systems. Following the incident, it found evidence that some of its staff and customer data had been accessed. With investigations still ongoing, it has now been confirmed that at least 249,000 customers who pay by direct debit—pretty much all of my Dudley North constituents and myself included—have now seen their personal contact and banking details available on the dark web.

    The incident took place in July this year, and customers have only in recent weeks been made aware of the real scale of the damage. I did meet virtually with the South Staffs team yesterday, ahead of this evening’s debate. To their credit, they are seemingly taking the issue much more seriously than initially perceived. It is clear that no business wants to harm its customers or be the victim of a cyber-attack.

    Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

    I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this issue. I am a South Staffs Water customer myself, although my bank account details have not been breached. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be concerned about the amount of time that it has taken between this issue being apparently found out by South Staffordshire PLC and customers being informed? I sincerely hope that South Staffordshire is able to reassure its customers that, when it comes to data, it will continue to take this matter incredibly seriously and do all it can to rectify the matter and continue to protect both my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine.

    Marco Longhi

    My right hon. Friend is correct. In fact, one aspect of the conversation that I had with the chief executive of South Staffordshire PLC was to challenge that very point. The response was that, at the time of the cyber-attack, it was not aware of the damage that had been caused and how extensive it might have been. It has taken time for it to understand the extent of what had happened. Then it had to respond within a certain timeframe under a duty to its customers. I have to say that it does feel like a long time, and, of course, during that time we have seen what has happened to customers’ data.

    As I was saying a few moments ago, it is clear that no business wants to harm its customers or be victims of a cyber-attack, particularly those with a proven long and positive relationship with their customers, as in fact South Staffs Water does have. Not only were cyber-defences not strong enough, but I have been clear, and the company recognises, that the communications and response from the company were not as appropriate or as user-friendly as many of us would and should have expected.

    Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)

    I, too, was a victim of this situation as a Cambridge Water customer. On the communications point, it was lengthy and detailed, but for many customers I suspect it was intimidating. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the company had just said, “There is a problem. You can find out more here, but don’t worry, whatever happens, we will sort it out for you”?

    Marco Longhi

    The hon. Member is right, although I would not want to oversimplify the extent of the problem. The company has acknowledged that the response was not appropriate. It has accepted the critique and a number of the suggestions I made, and on the back of that, it has committed to making some improvements. I have yet to hear what those improvements will look like, but he is correct in what he says. Given the spectrum of customers that the company serves, we also need to think about tailored responses to different people, given the predicaments some of them may be in.

    Several constituents have reached out to me with real anxieties and concerns, as have other Members. Picture this, if you will, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are an elderly resident with little or no access to IT or no IT literacy, and you have just received a six-page letter with instructions you are unable to deal with. It is a long and complicated letter—with very small font, I might add; something that even I would struggle with—with important information hidden several pages deep. You establish in the first page that your banking details and other personal details have been sold on a wholly unlawful area on the internet known as the dark web. You are told that criminals might take large sums of money from your accounts. Furthermore, upon reading the reams of prose, you find out you can only seek to protect yourself on the internet—something you might not even have access to. You may also be a vulnerable customer who perhaps receives care support in independent settings, but be wholly unprepared and unable to deal with something this complicated and even alien to the life you experience daily.

    Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)

    My hon. Friend has mentioned those who do not have access to internet or emails. I contacted South Staffs Water—I, too, have constituents affected by this cyber-attack—and it advised that these constituents would need to apply for paper copies of their records from three different credit reference agencies, and they would also need to verify their identity first. Does he agree that this will cause a considerable amount of work for those in these situations, particularly as they will presumably have to do this regularly to ensure they have up-to-date records?

    Marco Longhi

    My hon. Friend is right. All I can say is that the situation is clearly unacceptable, and the senior management team at the company now agree that their initial response was not adequate or appropriate. They physically have not had the time to address these concerns yet, but we should all be looking on behalf of our constituents to ensure that their response takes on board all these considerations.

    Picturing yourself again as this vulnerable customer, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are then advised that to secure your data, you should register with another organisation called CIFAS—this was one of the things mentioned in the letter—at an additional personal cost, it was suggested by the company, of £25 a year. You are asked to then release yet more personal data on to the internet. That angered me somewhat, and it was one of the first things I mentioned to the chief executive. Their immediate response was, “We have withdrawn that. We are writing again to customers, and we have removed that, as it has created confusion. We should not have done it”, and that is part of the package that the company will be coming back with in support of its customers.

    When a data breach such as this has happened, one cannot simply let it go, because it can affect credit ratings, which can in turn affect an individual’s ability to apply for credit, whether a loan, credit card, mortgage or even a mobile phone contract. It could lead to a household finding itself unable to pay for household bills, groceries, electricity or heating. Should the worst happen, a data breach could lead to an individual or family finding themselves severely impoverished through no fault of their own—that point must be emphasised.

    I know that I would panic and be extremely anxious, and I am sure that you would be as well, Mr Deputy Speaker, should you have found yourself in such a situation. As many of us in the House will know, good, easy to read and user-friendly communications are vital for keeping our constituents informed and with peace of mind. That is why, after I met South Staffs Water, it acknowledged shortcomings in its initial communications with its customers, and I am assured at this point that it is taking serious steps to mitigate the anxiety caused and ensuring that its customers are supported. I have also asked it to make special arrangements—I do not know yet what they will look like—to reach out to some of those more vulnerable customer groups that I mentioned.

    Those of us with constituents who are customers of South Staffs Water and Cambridge Water know that what is needed is better access to over-the-phone support and in-person community support—events and surgeries —to give the best support to the hardest-to-reach members of our communities and to proactively reach those who may not know how to respond to a data breach letter. We must ensure that those who may be less comfortable accessing support online, and indeed those who cannot do so, are not left out in the cold.

    I am pleased that, having met South Staffs Water, it has committed to upping its game and is taking better action to support our constituents. What are businesses doing to support our constituents by future-proofing themselves against cyber-attacks? What are the Government doing to assist businesses in that endeavour, and indeed to protect public services that could be victims of such attacks, ultimately to protect all of our constituents?

  • Mark Harper – 2022 Statement on Rail Services in the North

    Mark Harper – 2022 Statement on Rail Services in the North

    The statement made by Mark Harper, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Members will be aware that, in July 2022, Avanti West Coast experienced an immediate and near total cessation of drivers volunteering to work on passenger trains on rest days. In response, it has had to reduce its timetable to provide greater certainty for passengers.

    Similarly, TransPennine Express services continue to be impacted by the loss of rest day working, higher than average staff sickness levels, and historically high levels of drivers leaving the business.

    The current rail services in the north have therefore been unacceptable, and on November 30 I met with the northern Mayors in Manchester. In that meeting, we agreed that the rail industry is not set up to deliver a modern, reliable service, and that we need both short-term and long-term measures to address this.

    As a short-term measure, Avanti West Coast and TransPennine Express have both been rapidly increasing the number of drivers they employ. This is helping Avanti restore the services that it was forced to withdraw. Services increased in September, and have now increased to 7 trains per hour, restoring the full Manchester-London service. It is therefore disappointing that passengers will not see the full benefit of these changes until the current wave of industrial action is over. I was pleased to see the RMT call off the strike action scheduled for Avanti West Coast on 11 and 12 December, as sustaining this level of service will require the support of the trade unions.

    I have also given TransPennine Express and Northern the scope they need to put a meaningful and generous rest day working offer to ASLEF. However, giving operators a mandate is only the first step. ASLEF needs to enter negotiations, and put any new deal to its members and, if accepted, do all it can to make that deal work. TransPennine has made a generous revised offer to ASLEF and it was almost immediately rejected without being put to members. It is up to the unions to decide if they want to improve services, for the good of passengers and the wider economy in the north.

    Today, the RMT is on strike across the country again, disrupting services and driving passengers away from the railway. In my meeting with the Mayors, we all agreed on the need for a reliable railway seven days a week. That means not having fragile rest day working agreements and breaking the railway’s dependence on rest day working altogether. No modern and successful business relies on the good will of its staff to deliver for its customers in the evening and at the weekend. I want a railway with rewarding jobs, contracted to deliver every service promised to the public. I want to encourage passengers back to a financially sustainable railway.

  • Emma Hardy – 2022 Speech on the NHS Workforce

    Emma Hardy – 2022 Speech on the NHS Workforce

    The speech made by Emma Hardy, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.

    In Hull West and Hessle, 1,730 people are waiting more than 28 days to see a GP and 6,225 are waiting more than 14 days. The ratio of GPs to patients in Hull is one of the lowest in the country, which is fuelling some of the many problems that we are seeing in accident and emergency. That is combined with the concerns that I raised with the Secretary of State about the delay to discharge; the 30% vacancies in our adult healthcare sector; and the delay in money that the Government promised to adult healthcare services, which means that delays are only increasing. I am incredibly concerned about what will happen over the winter.

    I will focus my remarks on my concerns about radiotherapy, about which I have written to the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). With respect, I wrote to her on 3 September and received a reply on 28 November, which is disappointing on such a serious matter. I raise that issue today because, in August, I received an update from the Humber and North Yorkshire cancer alliance about the state of radiotherapy. For those who are unfamiliar, radiotherapy is used to treat and kill cancer cells and to shrink tumours. It is often used in the early stages of cancer.

    In the briefing note that the Humber and North Yorkshire cancer alliance sent me, which I can only assume it sent to other Members of Parliament, it says:

    “It is expected that the radiotherapy position at HUTH will worsen through the year. The reduced capacity obviously could pose a risk to patients (from a health and wellbeing perspective, as well as from a patient experience perspective).”

    The reason it wrote to me to tell me of its concerns about radiotherapy is the shortages we have in the area. It says that the percentage of Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust patients who began radiotherapy as their first definitive treatment for cancer and who did so within 62 days of an urgent referral for suspected cancer—within 62 days of an urgent referral—was 22% in July, 50% in June and 29% in May, compared with over 50% previously. The percentage of HUTH patients who received radiotherapy following their first definitive treatment within the 31-day target was 44%. So the majority of people are not being seen for their cancer treatment within the 31-day target, and only 22% of people sent for urgent referrals for suspected cancer are being seen.

    The reason for this is given in the briefing note, which says:

    “Many of HUTH’s therapeutic radiographers have left the profession to pursue a better work-life balance, while those who have remained in their roles have also sought improved work-life balance by seeking roles closer to where they live to reduce commute times.”

    That is the reason people are leaving—to seek a better work-life balance. It is not because they do not care or they do not wish to continue to treat people, but because they simply cannot maintain it at this level. The note says that

    “staffing shortages is an issue experienced across the country.”

    It also says—this is a key point because the Government’s defence is often that the pandemic has caused all these problems:

    “Therapeutic radiography has been considered a vulnerable profession for years.”

    Pre-pandemic we were having problems with radiographers, but no action was taken, and this is still considered a problem right now.

    I wrote to the Minister and the Secretary of State about this, quoting from the briefing note. I sent the letter on 3 September, and I said:

    “I am sure you will agree that the evidently increased waiting time for potential life-saving or life-prolonging treatment is extremely concerning.”

    I understand that Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust is doing everything it possibly can. It has taken on two apprentices to be trained up as radiographers, but we all understand that we cannot instantly produce the radiographers we need. As I say, I sent the letter on 3 September, and it was also signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). It took the Minister until 28 November to reply, even though I started the letter by saying:

    “I am writing having received a very worrying update from the Humber and North Yorkshire Cancer Alliance regarding a reduction in services”

    in my constituency.

    In her reply, the Minister admitted:

    “HUTH advises that, to protect existing staff and maintain the service, it was necessary to reduce capacity to sustainable levels, which has in turn led to the inability to reach specific targets and a growing waiting list.”

    So this is a problem that the Government are well aware of, despite their delay in responding to it. It is a problem that has been around for years, and it is a problem that is literally a matter of life and death. If people do not get the cancer treatment they need when they need it, we know the consequences. The failure to deal with and address the NHS workforce is not just a mild inconvenience; it is an incredibly serious matter that has been a long time coming and a damning indictment of 12 years of Conservative mismanagement of our NHS.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Comments on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Comments on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    The comments made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

    The world is currently meeting in Montreal for COP15 to deal with the pressing climate and nature crisis that we are facing. A common message from there is that coal should be kept in the ground. It will be incredibly difficult for the Government to convince the public at home and abroad that opening a new coalmine is dealing with that urgent climate crisis in a progressive way. His colleague, the former COP26 President, described this decision as an “own goal”, so may I ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks approving a new coalmine in the middle of a climate crisis will enhance or damage Britain’s reputation as a global green leader?

    Michael Gove

    Again, I stress the importance of looking at what the inspector says. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out that international partners are meeting in Montreal, alongside the UK, in order to uphold the importance of biodiversity and to help protect species. I should point out that in paragraph 21.163 of the inspector’s report the inspector specifically addresses the question of biodiversity and says that he

    “is satisfied that the Supplemental Undertaking”—

    given by the applicant—

    “would ensure that the proposed development would provide for a minimum net gain”—

    in biodiversity—

    “of 10% prior to the commencement of production and further net gain to be achieved on restoration.”

    The inspector took account of biodiversity in coming to his judgment, and so have I.

  • Katherine Fletcher – 2022 Comments on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    Katherine Fletcher – 2022 Comments on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    The comments made by Katherine Fletcher, the Conservative MP for South Ribble, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you know me to be a biologist and an environmentalist—I should confess to the House that I also get called a tree hugger by certain hon. Members of this House—but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the “net” in net zero that is the crucial thing here? We have heard today from the Opposition that this development is not green, but they are wrong. It is better to do this mining on our shores and in a responsible way. Does he agree that the north-west of England has the pride, the heritage, the skills and the future to deliver not only this coking coalmine, but the future industries of 4.0?

    Michael Gove

    I am tempted to say that any tree that is hugged by my hon. Friend is a very lucky tree.

    On the substance of the very important point that my hon. Friend makes, yes, in order to ensure that we have a transition to net zero we do need to reduce our reliance on a variety of different materials. However, as the inspector makes clear, and as my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the economic benefits that this development brings to the north-west are also entirely consistent with our broader environmental ambitions.

  • Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    The decision has been condemned by the Chair of the Climate Change Committee. Chris Stark, chief executive of the committee, retweeted that this is

    “climate vandalism and economic incompetence on a scale difficult to believe”.

    The International Energy Agency previously stated that no further fossil fuel projects can be built if net zero is to be achievable by 2050 and OECD countries need to end use of coal by 2030, so why license this mine to 2049? Ron Deelan, a former chief executive of British Steel, called it

    “a completely unnecessary step for the British Steel Industry”.

    Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute research centre, previously advised that British Steel could not use this coal because it is

    “not of the right quality”.

    The reality is that 85% of this coal is going to be exported, so talking about cancelling imports is a complete red herring. What we are doing is increasing our carbon footprint to support industry in the EU. It is illogical and we know demand for coking coal will fall, as the EU is further ahead on the development of green steel. Where is the UK progress on green steel? Coking coal is not even identified on the UK’s critical mineral strategy or in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, although it is a critical mineral for the EU. But, clearly, this mine is not needed for the UK. Given this decision, what steps are being taken to rapidly accelerate the net zero pathway, for example, by changing the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster to track 1 status?

    The Secretary of State hides behind the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate. Why did his Government override the Planning Inspectorate on Sizewell C? This coking coal is not critical for the UK. It is going to be exported, so why has he made this decision just to appease Tory Back-Bench climate change cynics?

    Michael Gove

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He quotes a number of individuals and draws explicitly—he was good enough to acknowledge this—party political conclusions. I relied on the inspector’s report and on the evidence in front of me. As I explained in my decision letter, no evidence was provided to suggest that any other metallurgical coal mine in the world aspires to be net zero, so the proposed mine is likely to be much better placed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions than comparative mining operations around the world. On that basis, it is entirely in keeping with our net zero commitments, and indeed with the commitment to not only jobs, but the environment, to approve the inspector’s case.