Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking through the levelling-up fund to improve transport infrastructure in the north of England.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

22. What steps he is taking to level up Rother Valley constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

It is certainly equitable, transparent and fair, and should the hon. Member wish, there is an explanatory memorandum on gov.uk, which would take him, as it would any hon. Member, through the process by which funds have been allocated. I should say that the whole Liverpool city region received £37.5 million through the levelling-up fund, but I would be delighted to talk to him and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) to ensure that future bids can land carefully, safely and successfully.

[Chi Onwurah]

In Newcastle, we have been waiting seven years—seven years—for real-time integrated bus information of the type that Londoners take for granted. Now we hear that the £3 billion bus improvement funding is less than half that, and much of that is going on zero-emission buses, meaning even less money for our bus improvement plan, which includes real-time information. Will the Secretary of State commit to levelling up bus transport in the north so that we are no longer under-served, overcharged and underinformed?

[Michael Gove]

Having spent some of the happiest months of my twenties on buses in Newcastle, I can absolutely sympathise with the hon. Member. It is the case that her constituency received £20 million from the levelling-up fund, but I look forward to working with her, the North of Tyne Mayor and Newcastle City Council to see what more we can do to improve public transport.

Tyne Bridge: Celebrating 100 Years

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and also before they leave the room after the debate, and I also remind Members that the Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered celebrating 100 years of the Tyne Bridge.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to share with you and the Minister the details of the celebration of our fantastic Tyne bridge.

We often say of people that they need no introduction, and that is certainly true of the Tyne bridge. It is a great icon of the north-east, of our pride, our people, our culture and our engineering. It is one of the greatest bridges of the world and, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful bridge ever built—or it is when it is looking its best, which is not now. The Tyne bridge is a nonagenarian. It will be 100 years old in 2028. We want to celebrate it and the purpose of this debate is to find out from the Minister what he plans to bring to the party.

First, I will give a little bit of history. The roots of our Tyne bridge go back millennia. The first recorded bridge across the Tyne, near to the location of the current bridge, was the Roman pons aelius, which was built in about 122 AD. The Romans believed that all rivers had a god who blessed the community living by the water, and representations of the Tyne’s river god can be found across Tyneside to this day. In 1270, a medieval stone bridge was built, which stood for 500 years until it was badly damaged by the great flood of 1771 and replaced by a new stone bridge in 1781. That replacement was itself removed in 1866 to allow the taller ships that existed by then to pass up the Tyne, with the swing bridge being built in 1876 by the “Magician of the North”, William Armstrong.

In August 1925, construction of the current Tyne bridge began. High enough for ships to pass underneath, it was built for the new age of the motorised vehicle and to cope with the increased volume of traffic across the Tyne. Made of steel and granite, the bridge was a major feat of engineering. It was constructed using shipbuilding techniques by local shipyard workers—hence the steel rivets, which can still be seen today. When it was opened in August 1928, it was the world’s longest span bridge. I recommend that everyone sees the fantastic photographs of its construction, which can be found online.

The Tyne bridge is sometimes cited as a prototype for the Sydney Harbour bridge. In fact, although the Sydney Harbour bridge was not completed until four years after the Tyne bridge opened, work began on Sydney’s bridge first. Although the two bridges had the same design team, the differences between them are really quite striking, as was explained to me by Vin Riley, a local engineer and historian. The Sydney Harbour bridge is 1,149 metres in length and 48 metres wide, which makes it almost exactly three times the size of the Tyne bridge, which is 389 metres long and 17 metres wide. But what the Tyne bridge may lack in size, it more than makes up for in beauty, being more perfectly proportioned than Sydney Harbour bridge.

The Sydney Harbour bridge is simply flatter, as its nickname of “the Coathanger” implies. That makes for a gentler, less hair-raising experience for those who have walked the bridge arch—I have not done so, but I understand that it is very popular—but it also makes the bridge less inspiring. The arch of the Sydney Harbour bridge is thicker at its base than at its height. The Tyne bridge, on the other hand, is thinner at its earth-bound side and much broader at the height of the arch, which gives the impression that it is bounding up, soaring away, almost as if it were trying to shake itself free of its earthly constraints. What more apt symbol could there be of the people of the north-east, who have so often shown through generosity and social activism, through passion and protest, through hope and hard work, a desire to put an end to earthly pain and a determination to build a better, brighter and more just world?

That is not the only way in which the Tyne bridge represents our whole region. It connects the north and south of the Tyne and spans the region in its construction. It was built by Dorman Long, which went on to become British Steel and was based in Middlesbrough on the Tees. Building the Tyne bridge was a mammoth task, and workmen risked their lives working up to 200 feet above the river without the benefit of safety harnesses, helmets and ropes. One worker died—Nathaniel Collins, a 33-year-old scaffolder from South Shields.

The bridge was officially opened on 10 October 1928 by King George V. The King and Queen were the first to cross it in their State Landau horse-drawn carriage, as thousands of people lined the streets for the opening ceremony and 20,000 local schoolchildren were given the day off to mark the occasion.

It is particularly fitting that we are celebrating the bridge today, as it is International Women in Engineering Day. The Dorman Long design team included the first woman to gain entry to the Institution of Civil Engineers, Dorothy Buchanan. As a chartered engineer myself—though an electrical engineer, not a civil engineer—I want to pay particular tribute to her on this day. She said:

“I felt that I represented all the women in the world. It was my hope that I would be followed by many others.”

It is our hope, too. In 2018, more than 90 female engineers from across the country gathered in Newcastle to celebrate the bridge’s 90th birthday and Dorothy Buchanan.

Today, the Tyne bridge is an important part of our north-east transport infrastructure and is used by more than 70,000 vehicles every day. It was upgraded to grade II* listed status in August 2018 as part of the Great Exhibition of the North, meaning that it is a particularly important structure of more than special interest. It is also home to the furthest inland breeding kittiwake colony in the world. Any work on the bridge must be planned around their breeding season on the towers.

The beautiful granite towers, which stand at each edge of the bridge, used to be open to the public, but in recent years have been used only for the odd illegal rave. It is a huge pity that there is no longer a legal way for north-east communities to use that space. It has magnificent views across the Tyne, from the north and the south, and would be a superb exhibition space, restaurant or other community space.

But the bridge as a whole is not looking its best—far from it. I am regularly contacted by constituents and visitors to our city upset at the state into which it has been allowed to fall. A bridge of that stature and importance requires regular safety checks, repairs, preservation and upkeep. The Tyne bridge was last fully painted in 2000, and the paint system is designed to last approximately 18 to 20 years, so a new paint job is overdue. Repairs are needed to the road deck, the towers, the stonework and the steelwork, and a new drainage system needs to be installed. A major refurbishment takes time—some years—in addition to the tendering process, which may also take over a year. If the bridge is to be ready for its birthday, we need to start planning it now.

We want to celebrate the Tyne bridge in 2028, and celebrate our region. Just last week, Members of Parliament from across the north-east—many Members wished to contribute to this debate but were unable to be here—together with local authority leaders, the North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll and the police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Transport Secretary to request the £18.5 million needed to repaint the bridge from the levelling up fund. We want to ensure that it looks at its best, as a symbol of our region’s proud engineering past and, we hope, prosperous future. We want to make it fit for a queen—the Queen, in fact. We very much hope that the Queen will consider commemorating the bridge her grandfather opened.

We cannot allow the bridge to continue in its current state of disrepair. It represents our region nationally and globally. It is the familiar backdrop to the annual great north run, as 54,000 runners pass over the bridge, accompanied by a display from the Red Arrows. The bridge is also used for other large events, including hosting the rings for the 2012 Olympics, the 2015 rugby world cup, and, more recently, the 2019 European rugby champions cup final. It was the location for the amazing closing ceremony of Freedom City 2017, when we celebrated 50 years since Martin Luther King’s visit to our city, and also the closing ceremony of the Great Exhibition of the North.

However, the sad fact is that the bridge’s last proper birthday celebrations were for its 75th birthday, hosted by local mayors from Gateshead and Newcastle. The Sydney Harbour bridge, on the other hand, is celebrated annually as the backdrop for the first fireworks display of each new year and had a large, organised 80th birthday celebration, with a special performance by musicians on the top of its 134 metre-high arch. The Tyne bridge, I am afraid to say, had nothing.

The Government make much of their levelling-up agenda, yet the north seems to be forgotten when it comes to celebrating our communities. I have raised with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade that they only seem to use London images—red buses and Big Ben—to promote the United Kingdom abroad. Why not the Tyne bridge and the Angel of the North? Global Britain must mean global Britain including the north-east. If this refurbishment does not happen and the bridge is allowed to continue in its current state of disrepair and neglect, I am afraid to say that it will become a different kind of symbol of the north-east. It will become a symbol of the neglect of the north-east, which has been forgotten by this Government—its great heritage and great future have been forgotten.

What support does the Minister propose to offer my region for this momentous celebration? I do not suppose that the Minister can tell us the Communities Secretary’s response to our levelling-up fund application—although I would be very much pleased if he gave a certain yes—but does he agree that celebrations of such a national icon cannot be left simply to the local authority funds? Does he recognise that 10 years of austerity have slashed local government spending? For example, Newcastle City Council has lost more than a third of its spending power since 2010, with city spending entirely taken up by statutory duties such as social care. Does the Minister agree that local authorities cannot be expected to fund such a major project? Would he expect Westminster City Council to pay for the refurbishment of the Big Ben, for example?

How will the Minister ensure that all the north-east’s communities benefit from the celebrations? How will he work with other Departments to ensure that great engineering stories, such as those of Dorman Long and—this is particularly relevant on International Women in Engineering Day—of Dorothy Buchanan, are celebrated as part of the festivities? We want to inspire another generation of engineers, particularly women engineers, with our celebrations. Will the Minister talk to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure support for protecting our kittiwakes?

In the north-east, we know how to give a party. The north-east will bring our bridge, our passion and our people to the party. What will the Minister bring?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for securing this important debate and for highlighting the importance of the Tyne bridge to her constituents. The Tyne bridge is rightly a source of immense pride for communities in the north-east. Alongside the Angel of the North, Durham cathedral and Hadrian’s wall, it is recognised the world over as a potent symbol of the region, its character and heritage.

The affection for this iconic landmark and much-loved feature of the Newcastle and Gateshead skyline is clear from the comments we have heard today. The majestic arch of the Tyne bridge is a symbol of Tyneside’s international reputation for industrial excellence. As the hon. Lady noted, the bridge was officially opened on 10 October 1928 by King George V, grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. Constructed from Tyneside steel, the Tyne bridge is a magnificent feat of British engineering.

As a civil engineer, I note with genuine enthusiasm the proposals to celebrate the anniversary in seven years’ time. The bridge plays a vital role in the everyday lives of people in Tyneside, allowing easy access across the river for work and education. It is an exciting symbol of the rich cultural life of Newcastle, Gateshead and the north-east. From hosting the country’s largest Olympic rings in 2012, to celebrating 50 years since Martin Luther King visited Newcastle in 1967, the Tyne bridge has been closely connected to major sporting and cultural moments over the years.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to the restoration of such an important local and national landmark. I am aware that Newcastle has entered a bid to repair the bridge, through the Government’s £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. I understand that Newcastle is in the high-priority category 1 for the fund. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I am unable to comment on individual bids at this stage of the process, as applications for round 1 of the fund closed only last Friday. Levelling-up fund proposals are currently in assessment and I look forward to my Department announcing successful bids in the autumn.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of proposals for the Tyne bridge, including £36.7 million of major road network funding developed by Transport for the North. Department for Transport officials are continuing to work with Newcastle City Council officials on a business case, as that is the best way to make progress on securing the funding.

I am also pleased to note that there has already been significant Government investment in Newcastle and the north-east. To support the north-east’s economic recovery, the Government have allocated £47 million from the getting building fund to the North East local enterprise partnership, for local shovel-ready infrastructure projects. That includes £7 million for a landmark regeneration scheme on the banks of Newcastle and Gateshead quayside, set to open in 2023, with a new hotel, arena and conference centre; £5.1 million for public realm and digital infrastructure works in Newcastle city centre; and £780,000 towards NU Futures, a new leisure, careers and skills venue for young people.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his comments on the importance of the Tyne bridge as a regional iconic symbol, and for referring to investment in projects on the banks of the river. Does he agree that that makes it all the more important that our bridge, which has not had such investment for decades, should be fit for its surroundings, as well as for its birthday in 2028?

[Eddie Hughes]

As a civil engineer who appreciates the fine beauty of bridges and has visited Sydney harbour and seen its poor comparative version, I hope that the hon. Lady is successful in securing the funding she needs. There are a number of options open. The bridge deserves to be restored to its former glory.

The Department for Transport has provided significant funding to the north-east, including £198 million to the North East combined authority and the North of Tyne combined authority for local transport improvements through the transforming cities fund. The Government have also provided £82.9 million for 2021-22 to authorities in the north-east for highway maintenance, pothole repairs and local transport measures. Some £700 million has been provided for strategic road schemes between 2020 and 2025, including the A1 and A19 junctions north of Newcastle. The north-east has also received more than £9 million in investment from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport culture recovery fund.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue.

[Chi Onwurah]

Before the Minister concludes, I hope that he, a civil engineer, will join me, an electrical engineer, in celebrating International Women in Engineering Day and particularly the contribution of Dorothy Buchanan to the Tyne bridge.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to restate my enthusiasm for engaging more women in engineering and construction. As a proud member of the Chartered Institute of Building, I have previously done work not just on attracting women to the industry, which is sometimes successful, but on the less successful aspect of retaining them in the industry, because sometimes working practices do not fit with the way they would like to live. The construction and engineering sector has moved considerably on being welcoming to women and I hope that that continues in the future. When I was at university, only two of the 50 people on my degree course were women. I hope there is a significant improvement and that we will continue to build on it.

I recognise the pride held by the people of Newcastle and Gateshead in the Tyne bridge and I welcome the hon. Lady’s efforts to represent their strength of feeling. Although I am unable to comment on Newcastle’s bid for the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund while those bids are assessed, I look forward to the autumn when we will be in a position to announce those results.

The Government have provided significant funding for Newcastle City Council both during the pandemic and to support recovery from it. We are working hard to ensure that there is a strong settlement for all of local government at the forthcoming spending review, which will provide certainty for the coming period. I wish the hon. Lady all the best in her preparations as we approach the centenary of this iconic feat of engineering and I look forward to celebrating with her in 2028.

Question put and agreed to.

Royal Mail

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing this important debate. This will be the first time that I have spoken as shadow Minister for postal affairs, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for all her work on this critical service.

Every Member who has spoken has emphasised the importance of Royal Mail to communities and businesses across the UK, as seen most recently and indeed currently, during the pandemic. In the face of covid-19, our local posties stepped up as key workers, keeping us connected, enabling small businesses to continue trading, and playing a vital public health role. Royal Mail delivered and collected tens of millions of covid-19 tests, distributed 1.5 billion items of personal protective equipment to our frontline workers, and delivered more than 300 million vaccination letters. I thank Royal Mail staff for their commitment during the pandemic, and reassure them that, as this debate has shown, it has not gone unrecognised. I pay special tribute to the posties whose smile and cheery hello, despite their higher rate of covid as a consequence of their frontline work, was for many the only real human contact during the darkest days of lockdown.

Royal Mail traces its history back to 1516, when Henry VII introduced a master of the posts. Under state control, Royal Mail successfully established itself as a leading and innovative pioneer in postal services, achieving many global firsts, such as the first uniform postage rate in 1839, and the creation of the world’s first stamp in 1840—my understanding is that that is why the UK is the only country that does not have its name on the stamp, but just the Queen’s head. There was also the introduction of first and second-class letter services in 1968, and the launch of the UK’s first digital stamp in 2004. Today, Royal Mail connects more than 30 million addresses across the UK, employing more than 160,000 staff.

In 2014, however, the Tory-led coalition chose to privatise the postal service. That mistake is estimated to have lost the taxpayer £1 billion, according to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Labour fought against that, arguing that privatisation would prioritise profit over services. Unfortunately, that has become a reality, which is why Labour remains committed to supporting the public ownership of Royal Mail.

As many have pointed out, Royal Mail recorded record profits—the newly appointed CEO takes home £525,000 per year—but consumers and workers have paid the price with rising costs, longer delivery times and job losses. In the last year alone, there have been two above-inflation increases to stamp prices. In January, as the hon. Member for Wantage pointed out, the price of first-class stamps increased by 12% to 85p, while various operational changes, such as online stamp printing, the reduction of opening times and the closure of sorting offices, saw 12,000 jobs lost by 2017. That is in addition to the loss of 2,000 managerial roles as a result of restructuring during the pandemic.

I am also the shadow Minister for digital, and I know all too well the impact of digital exclusion on the UK and how Royal Mail allows many excluded communities to remain connected. Between 2013 and 2017, the closure of 75 delivery offices disproportionately impacted those who rely on them most, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) emphasised. As delivery offices play the important role of ensuring that undelivered mail can be conveniently collected by the recipient, their closure often causes avoidable stress for individuals who are forced to travel further and owners whose businesses require the frequent collection of parcels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) pointed out. Workers have also been collateral damage in Royal Mail’s mission to maximise profits. In 2018, after months of disputes between Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union, a package covering pay, pensions and working conditions was agreed to. Despite union members voting overwhelmingly in favour of the deal, Royal Mail abandoned the agreement in 2019, leading to the biggest vote for national industrial action since the passing of the Trade Union Act 2016. The Communication Workers Union has worked hard to reach a new agreement. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Royal Mail management has a better grasp of effective industrial relations and supports good jobs, as emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green?

Royal Mail is the UK’s sole designated universal service provider. That is an honour and a privilege, and means that it is so important to our communities. It remains the UK’s largest postal operator: 75% of small and medium-sized businesses surveyed by Ofcom in 2020 cited Royal Mail as their main postal services provider. Although letter volumes declined by 25% during the pandemic, the demand for parcel delivery increased by 32% as consumer behaviour changed.

We heard from the hon. Member for Wantage anecdotal evidence of parcels being prioritised by Royal Mail. The UK parcel market is highly competitive. Although Royal Mail continues to hold the largest share, at 35%, other providers, such as Amazon and Hermes, are on the rise. What recent assessment has the Minister made of competition in this market? What impact does cross-subsidy, which is prevalent in Amazon’s retail sector, have? What is the impact on the environment and our climate change commitments of charge-free delivery, which is associated with, for example, Amazon Prime, which encourages parcels to be ordered and delivered individually?

As we have heard, posties have worked tirelessly through the pandemic. We have also heard disturbing details about the service disruption resulting, at least in part, from higher levels of sickness absence. In 2021, Royal Mail missed the 93% target for first-class mail being delivered the next working day by eight percentage points. Members highlighted that, behind that statistic, there are particular areas of very low performance, which has had an unspeakable impact on our constituents’ lives. That was particularly highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood and for Hornsey and Wood Green.

Does the Minister think Royal Mail did all it could to inform people of service disruptions? How can we better hold Royal Mail to account for the impact of that disruption? Royal Mail was not penalised during the past year because of the pandemic, but in 2018-19, Ofcom fined it £50 million for failing to reach first-class delivery targets. As we have heard, it consistently failed to meet targets, particularly in relation to special delivery, in the three years prior to the pandemic.

To improve its performance, Royal Mail has invested approximately £2 billion in modernising operations since 2013. That is to be welcomed but, despite that, Ofcom’s analysis of Royal Mail efficiency in 2020 found that it failed to meet its own productivity targets. Ofcom warned that, unless Royal Mail modernised its network to ensure that it served rural and urban spaces equally,

“the sustainability of the universal service could be at risk in the longer term.”

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the universal service delivery requirements are fit for purpose in relation to changing markets and consumer needs, and does Ofcom have the appropriate powers to monitor and enforce it, as Members have highlighted?

Before I close, I think it is worth mentioning the Horizon scandal, which was the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with more than 900 false prosecutions, destroying lives, families and reputations. When the Horizon service was commissioned in 1999, the Post Office and Royal Mail were still operating under the same ownership and management structure. I hope that the Minister will confirm that Royal Mail is also learning the lessons of that scandal.

Finally, the Minister and I have discussed postcodes through parliamentary questions. In privatising Royal Mail, the Government also privatised our postcodes, and on the cheap. Royal Mail charges for access to the postcode address file even though much of the intellectual property comes from the local authorities who assign addresses. The Government’s national data strategy says that we will encourage data sharing, opening up data; yet this remains a significant barrier to communication, location and innovation, so what steps will the Minister take to address that?

Royal Mail is a UK institution of which we have been proud for hundreds of years, but this Government have failed to treat it with respect or care. Despite its importance to communities and the economy, the Government are failing postal service users and communities, putting ideology above competence in their privatisation, and now their monitoring and accountability to maintain the quality of services. Unfortunately, that is a theme with this Government. We have become all too familiar with the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of risk. Labour is committed to supporting a better postal service under public ownership.

National Security and Investment Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.

The amendments made in the other place concern what is in effect a reporting requirement to the Intelligence and Security Committee in respect of the national security and investment regime. They incorporate the text of Lords amendments 11 and 15, which were considered in this House on 26 April. In addition, they would end the reporting requirements on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided for by Lords amendments 11 and 15 should the memorandum of understanding that governs the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee be amended to bring the Secretary of State’s activities under clause 26 into the scope of ISC scrutiny.

This House has already offered a view on the substance of amendments. It is disappointing that the other place has not heeded the clear and carefully considered message from this Chamber that the amendment to provide for a reporting requirement to the ISC is neither necessary nor appropriate. I welcome the Lords’ continuing attempts to find compromise, but I respectfully disagree with them. The Secretary of State has written to confirm plans for scrutiny with the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The ISC remains able to scrutinise the work of the intelligence services where it falls within the memorandum of understanding and in accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013.

As we rapidly approach the end of this Session, it is essential that this vital Bill on the UK’s national security does not fall as a result of our failure to agree that the BEIS Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 11B an 11C from the other place and reiterate its message about the will of this democratically elected House, to help ensure that the Bill becomes law without delay.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I again thank colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve the Bill.

Labour is the party of national security and has long called for a new regime to deal with the evolving national security threat arising from mergers and acquisitions, as the Bill seeks to do. The Bill was much improved in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged in Monday’s debate; however, as Members from all parties highlighted then, it still lacks an appropriate level of oversight for critical national security decisions. Labour believes that Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditionally lacking in national security experience.

On Monday, as the Minister indicated, the Government rejected Lords amendments 11 and 15, stating that

“it is appropriate and sufficient for oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS to be conducted by their departmental select committee”—

that is, the BEIS Committee. The Lords have responded with amendments 11B and 11C, which would allow the Government to add the Investment Security Unit into the Government and ISC memorandum of understanding, thereby removing the obligation to provide the ISC with a confidential annexe.

We maintain our position: that the BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny. In Monday’s debate, the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said clearly that the Committee

“does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 164.]

As the Minister indicated, the Secretary of State has said that classified information could be shared with the BEIS Committee on a case-by-case basis, but the retaining, recording, discussing or reporting of that information after the fact would constitute a security breach, somewhat limiting the Committee’s actions.

In this afternoon’s debate in the other place, the Government said that they will “carefully consider” ways in which classified information could be provided so that the Committee can do its job. Why do we need careful consideration when we have, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, an existing and functioning mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny on issues of national security? Earlier this afternoon, the Government were again defeated in the other place, this time by an even greater margin, showing that, despite the Minister’s efforts, support for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight is growing. I feel that it is becoming an issue of intransigence and stubbornness—or, as former Conservative Health Secretary Lord Lansley put it today, “arrogance”—by a Government refusing to prioritise national security in the National Security and Investment Bill, and determined to overturn common sense for reasons that are unclear to us all.

It is clear to us that there is a need for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight. Indeed the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said:

“The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS”—

a function of this Bill—

“is…precisely the situation that the Government assured the House”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 157.]

would mean that there was ISC oversight, under the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Today’s amendment provides for ISC scrutiny until an amended MOU resolves the confusion that appears to exist—on the Government’s part, at least.

If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s national security through this Bill, they will not force through legislation with such a significant blind spot. Labour, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, many Government Back Benchers and cross-party consensus in the other place all agree that the ISC is best placed to provide national security oversight. Why are the Government determined to stand alone in risking our national security in this case?

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I will be very brief. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made the case very clearly that we broadly support the principles of the Bill, but still have concerns over the levels of scrutiny, as we have heard from other Members. We have attempted to be constructive at all stages, and have tried to support the Government to find a balance between the needs of business and national security, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Many amendments have been accepted, which will help to achieve this; we welcome the Government’s steps in that regard. However, the scrutiny process remains vital and we are not yet satisfied that it has been taken fully into consideration. The comments made by the Chair of the ISC earlier this week certainly highlighted that. I urge the Government to heed those words and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

On Friday 23 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. This is a landmark judgment, and I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming the court’s decision to quash those convictions. I will turn to what more needs to be done to address the wrongs of the past and to ensure that injustices such as this do not happen again, but I will begin by setting out the context to the judgment.

Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in post office branches. The Post Office at the time thought that they were caused by postmasters, and that led to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. A group of 555 of those postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2016. In late 2019, after a lengthy period of litigation, the Post Office reached a full and final settlement with claimants in that group.

It is clear from the findings of the presiding judge, Mr Justice Fraser, that there were real problems with the Horizon IT system and failings in the way that the Post Office dealt with postmasters who encountered problems or raised complaints in relation to Horizon. The findings of Mr Justice Fraser led the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the convictions of 51 postmasters for appeal: eight to the Crown court and 43 cases to the Court of Appeal. The Crown court quashed the convictions of six postmasters back in December 2020, and 42 further appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal in late March.

The Court of Appeal was asked in late March to decide whether the convictions of those postmasters were safe based on two grounds of appeal, namely whether the prosecutions were an abuse of process either because of the postmaster being unable to receive a fair trial or because of its being an affront to the public conscience for the postmaster to be tried. On Friday, the Court of Appeal announced its judgment. The Court decided to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the Horizon cases an affront to the conscience of the court. In the remaining three cases, the convictions were found to be safe.

In response to the Court of Appeal judgment, the Post Office has apologised for serious failings in historical prosecutions. Tim Parker, the Post Office chair, has said that the Post Office is

“extremely sorry for the impact on the lives of these postmasters and their families that was caused by historical failings.”

The Government recognise the gravity of the court’s judgment in those cases and the hugely negative impact that the convictions have had on individual postmasters and their families, as has been highlighted on a number of occasions in this place. The journey to get to last Friday’s Court of Appeal judgment has unquestionably been a long and difficult one for affected postmasters and their families, and the Government pay tribute to them for their courage and tenacity in pursuing their fight for justice. The Government also pay tribute to colleagues across the House who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf.

However, while the Court of Appeal decision represents the culmination of years of efforts by those postmasters, it is not the end of the road. The Post Office is already contacting other postmasters with historical criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 to notify them of the outcome of those appeals and provide information in respect of how they could also appeal. The Post Office’s chief executive officer, Nick Read, is also leading a programme of improvements to overhaul the culture, practices and operating procedures throughout every part of its business. The Government continue to closely monitor delivery of those improvements. The changes are critical to ensure that similar events to these can never happen again.

Last week, the Post Office announced the appointment of two serving postmasters, Saf Ismail and Elliot Jacobs, as non-executive directors to the Post Office board. I wholeheartedly welcome those appointments. Their presence on the Post Office board will ensure that postmasters have a strong voice at the very highest level in the organisation. As part of the 2019 settlement, the Post Office also committed to launch a scheme to compensate postmasters who did not have criminal convictions who had suffered shortfalls because of Horizon, and who were not party to the 2019 settlement. The Post Office established the historical shortfall scheme in response.

Applications to that scheme were much higher than anticipated. Consequently, in March 2021, the Government announced that it would provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the scheme could proceed, based on current expectations of the likely cost. Payments under the scheme have now begun, and the Government will continue to work with the Post Office to see that the scheme delivers on all of its objectives, and that appropriate compensation is paid to all eligible postmasters in a timely manner.

While those are positive steps in the right direction, the Government are clear that there is still more to do. Postmasters whose convictions were quashed last week will also now be turning to the question of appropriate compensation, which I know will again be of great interest to the House. The judgment last week will require careful consideration by all involved. The Government want to see all postmasters whose convictions have been overturned fairly compensated as quickly as possible, and we will work with the Post Office towards that goal. I commit to keep the House informed on this matter going forward.

Finally, it is essential that we determine what went wrong at the Post Office during this period to make sure a situation like this can never happen again. To ensure the right lessons have been learned and to establish what must change, the Government launched an independent inquiry led by ex-High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams in September last year. The inquiry has made swift progress already, having heard from a number of affected postmasters and a call for evidence has recently closed. The inquiry is now planning public hearings. The Horizon dispute has been long-running. For the benefit of everyone involved, it is important that the inquiry reaches its conclusions swiftly. I look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report later this summer. As the Prime Minister said, lessons should and will be learned to ensure that this never happens again.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

This is the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history: 900 false prosecutions, each one its own story of persecution, fear, despair, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed, lives lost, and innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I want to congratulate each and every postmaster and their families who withstood this onslaught of false accusations and fought back. I want to congratulate the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union who campaigned to get at the truth for over a decade. I want to congratulate hon. and right hon. Members across this House who fought for justice for their constituents.

I wish I could congratulate the Minister and the Government, but I cannot. I am pleased to see the Minister here making today’s statement, but the Government have consistently failed to stand with the postmasters in their quest for justice: investigations delayed, claims denied and not one word of explanation or apology as to why the Government let it take so long to clear these innocent victims.

Now, to add insult to injury, the Government are failing to deliver the proper statutory public inquiry that postmasters, their families and the British public deserve. Let us be clear: Friday’s judgment vindicates the postmasters, but to deliver justice we need a statutory inquiry with genuine subpoena and witness compulsion powers, and a specific remit to consider compensation claims. We have the greatest respect for Sir Wyn Williams, but his inquiry has no real powers and key questions about compensation, the criminal prosecutions of postmasters, and the responsibility of civil servants and Government, are outside its remit. As such, the inquiry is toothless and may even lead to a whitewash. Postmasters have been clear that they will fail to recognise and participate in such an inquiry. How can the Minister stand there with the wreck of hundreds and hundreds of lives before him, and say that this scandal does not warrant a statutory inquiry?

The sad truth is that this horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade now, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. Given the long litany of Government failure, there are a number of urgent questions for the Minister. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and time again the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the court. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today?

The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that and what are the implications for algorithmic management? The faulty software was provided by Fujitsu. What steps are the Government taking to hold it to account? Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE. Is it right that she continues to be so honoured? The Minister referred to what he described as a full and final settlement for some postmasters with the Post Office. Their compensation was largely taken in lawyers’ fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation? Finally, does the Minister agree that actions should have consequences, and that it is therefore essential that there is a thorough criminal investigation into any potential wrongdoing?

In recent weeks, we have heard about the special access and power that millionaires and billionaires have with the Government, Ministers and the Prime Minister personally. Compare and contrast that with how the postmasters have been treated. They did not have the Prime Minister’s personal phone number. They did not have a former Prime Minister lobbying for them. They were not millionaires looking for tax breaks. They were ordinary working people. This speaks to a broader question of whose voice the Government hear and whose justice they deliver. On behalf of the working people who have had their lives ruined, I urge the Minister to apologise, own the Government’s mistakes and commit to a real public inquiry so that justice, for far too long delayed, can finally be delivered.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady makes some important points about the length of time and the egregious nature of the situation that the former postmasters have had to suffer. She talks about the time it takes to get justice, and that is one of the core reasons why we set up the inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams. The average length of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is nearly three and a half years, which is a long time. We want to get answers now for the postmasters so that we are able to answer questions about who knew what, who did what and at what point, and learn lessons.

The hon. Lady asked about the Government’s role in this. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working well with Sir Wyn Williams, and we are participating fully in the inquiry, as are the Post Office and Fujitsu. Sir Wyn Williams clearly feels that he is getting the support, answers and participation that he needs from the relevant organisations. If that changes, clearly we can review that.

The hon. Lady talks about Fujitsu. As well as the inquiry, there are ongoing investigations with the police into wider aspects of the case. She talks about Paula Vennells. People will talk about Paula Vennells’ positions and awards—there is an independent forfeiture committee to consider awards—but I am particularly pleased that, having stepped back from her other roles, she has committed to participate fully in this inquiry. It is to be welcomed that the former chief executive of the Post Office is doing that.

Finally, the hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister not being on speed dial, or however she described it, for the group of litigants and the other postmasters. I can confirm that the Prime Minister is incredibly interested in and exercised about the situation, as we all are. He wants to make sure we work with the sub-postmasters to get them the justice they want and compensation for the prosecutions, through discussion and dialogue and by working with them and the Post Office in the first instance.

National Security and Investment Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s explanation.

I believe that the Bill as amended by the other place through amendments 11 and 15 would require the Secretary of State to provide a confidential annexe, to be provided to the ISC. I am advised by my noble Friends Lord Callanan and Lord Grimstone that there is considerable strength of feeling in the other place about ensuring that the operation of the regime receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and I welcome the passionate and expert debate that this question has already received. It has been proposed that the ISC is better placed than the BEIS Committee to scrutinise the Investment and Security Unit, despite the Secretary of State for BEIS having responsibility for the unit. The implication of the amendments is that the Select Committee responsible for holding the Secretary of State to account across their responsibilities is insufficient in that regard. It is also suggested that the ISC would have inadequate access to information to carry out its duties.

In essence, the amendments would require sensitive details to be provided to the ISC regarding the Secretary of State’s decision on final notifications given and final orders made, varied or revoked, but the ISC is already able to request such information as soon as is appropriate from the security services where it forms part of its long-established scrutiny responsibilities under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and, as I hope I have made clear, its accompanying memorandum of understanding. In addition, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must publish details of each final order made, varied or revoked, and clause 61 already requires the annual report to include the number of final orders made, together with a number of other details. Indeed, that clause was amended in the other place to include further such information in the annual report.

We do not disagree that further information may be required for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Where that is the case, the Government will follow existing procedures for reporting back to Parliament, but that should be done primarily through responding to the BEIS Committee as it goes about its work of ably scrutinising the work of the Department. We will ensure that the BEIS Committee is able to access the material it needs.

It is of course right that the ISC continues its excellent scrutiny of the work of the security services. The work of the security services on investment security in support of the ISU clearly falls within the remit of the ISC. That does not require any statutory change to be made. As I said, the memorandum of understanding pertains to the continuing work of the ISC, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that Committee. As such, and with the BEIS Committee having appropriate assurance that it will be provided with the information necessary, there is no need for these changes made to the Bill by the other place to stand.

In summary, with the exception of amendments 11 and 15, I believe that this House is today presented with an improved set of measures to safeguard our national security. The ISC will not have its powers—existing powers —diluted through the discussion of the memorandum of understanding, as we have already said. Therefore, I commend the amendments, with the exception of amendments 11 and 15, to the House.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

Let me start by welcoming the Minister to the National Security and Investment Bill, and I would like to wish his predecessor well in his work on the vaccine roll-out. I would also like to thank colleagues in the other place who have worked so hard to improve this Bill, and the Members of both Houses who scrutinised its important provisions.

Labour is the party of national security, and has long called for a new regime to deal with evolving national security threats in corporate transactions. A robust takeover regime is also essential if we want firms in our key sectors to grow and provide good jobs here in the UK. So we support this Bill, which allows the Government to intervene when mergers and acquisitions could threaten national security. Unfortunately, the Bill in its original form lacked certain provisions, and particularly the oversight necessary to ensure it was successful in protecting our national security and national interest. So we have sought to improve the Bill along the way, and we are pleased that the Government have adopted some of our suggestions.

Members across party lines raised concerns over the capacity and capability of the new Investment Security Unit to deliver on the Bill’s ambition. We are pleased that the Government have acted on this, and Lords amendments 12 to 14 to clause 61 are based on Labour’s original amendment 31 during the House of Commons Committee stage, and a later amendment tabled by Labour at Lords Committee. Reporting the aggregate time taken for decisions will help to ensure that the new regime works more efficiently for small and medium-sized enterprises, and I was pleased to hear the Minister quoting my remarks to that effect.

We are also pleased to see that the Government have taken steps to address concerns regarding the 15% threshold for a notifiable acquisition. This follows Labour’s probing amendment 16 during Lords Committee stage and Cross-Bench concern. The Wellcome Trust labelled the 15% threshold as a

“regulatory burden for those that may not be able to afford it”.

With Lords amendment 3, the Secretary of State will still be able to call in acquisitions across the economy at or below 25%—and, if necessary, below 15%—where they reasonably suspect that material influence has been or will be acquired. But this amendment will bring the notifiable acquisition threshold in line with our allies in France, Australia and Canada. We are pleased the Government have listened to Labour and made a change that will be beneficial to small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is also welcome to see that the Government have now committed to issue public guidance, which Labour called for with our amendment 17 at the Commons Committee stage. This is good news for transparency. Our approach has been to ensure that our small and medium-sized enterprises have clarity, and that those investing in the UK understand what the rules are and how they will work. The publication of guidance will boost confidence in the new regime for national security screening.

But we are here today because of Lords amendments 11 and 15, and to vote on the Government motion to disagree. Labour believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditional lacking in national security experience. The BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny, and the confidential briefings to the Chair described by the Minister will not change that.

Levelling Up

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

Absolutely. One key aim of the fund is connectivity and transport in local need, so that is absolutely at the heart of what this fund is about. I encourage my hon. Friend to work with local councils to identify a priority bid for his area to ensure the maximum opportunity for success.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

This Government have devastated the finances of local authorities, such as Newcastle City Council, cutting their funding year after year, breaking their promise to pay their covid costs and forcing them to raise council tax, which itself raises more in some areas than in others and takes money out of the pockets of those who need it most. This fund pits councils against each other to compete for meagre and recycled pots of money, with Government Departments taking all the decisions. Why does levelling up mean putting Whitehall in charge?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I am slightly confused. This process will allow local MPs to work with their local councils to identify priority projects for their area and will provide those councils with funding—£125,000 in the case of Newcastle upon Tyne, which is a category 1 authority—so that they have the funds available and they have the opportunity, working collaboratively, to identify a good project. I ask the hon. Lady to work with the council to get on and identify a project and bring money to her constituency.

Rough Sleeping

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Yes, I can. It was very important to us that those sleeping rough were not left out of the vaccination programme, by oversight or omission, so we launched the Protect Plus programme to provide extra support to local councils so that they can work with the NHS, weave those individuals into the local vaccination programmes or get them GP registered, which is a good in itself. That will ensure that when their time comes, they are vaccinated so that even if they return to the streets, which of course we hope they do not, they do so protected by the vaccination.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

During the recent cold spell, it was heartbreaking to see rough sleepers in the heart of Newcastle in the snow. Newcastle City Council has a bed for every rough sleeper, but hostel accommodation is not suitable for everyone. Does the Secretary of State agree that annual short-term programmes, however successful, will not end rough sleeping, and will he provide the long-term funding needed to support real change at a local level, as well as greater access to social housing?

[Robert Jenrick]

I pay tribute to Newcastle City Council, which has made great progress over the course of the year. Its snapshot shows that the numbers have almost halved compared with the prior year. The hon. Lady is right that we need a long-term strategy. That is why we have the rough sleeping initiative, which is now in its third year, and we are really starting to see the fruits of that work. I want to see that continue for many years. That is also why we have created the multi-year Move On accommodation programme, backed by £400 million, and of course I hope that there is a multi-year settlement across Government later this year and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be able to continue that level of investment well into the future.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I appreciate the very unique challenge that she has as the Member of Parliament for Kensington. As I said earlier, the £700,000 of public money that we are putting aside to support the training of assessors will deliver about 2,000 assessors—clearly qualified assessors—who will be able to undertake the assessment work over the next 12 months, so I trust that that will also be a means by which we will not be having this conversation again any time in the future. The public money that we have set aside beyond that—the £1.6 billion—is also designed to ensure that the worst, most dangerous buildings are dealt with quickly and effectively. I hope and trust that the conversations we have ongoing with developers and owners to make sure that they step up to the plate will mean that very soon, we will remediate all the buildings that are affected, and that we will be able to see value and trust restored to those buildings and the development sector.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

My constituent is a leaseholder in one of the 2,700 blocks —I think that is what the Minister said—that have applied to the building safety fund, which has approximately enough money to remedy about 600 blocks. She does not know whether her flat is safe. She cannot sell it and she does not know how much her liabilities may be. The Minister can talk about finding innovative solutions, but it is three and a half years since Grenfell and we still do not see builders, owners or developers paying for remediation. Will he guarantee to my constituent that she will not have to be liable—that she will not have to pay for these costs—and does he agree that this is just one more example that shows that the leasehold system is broken and needs to be reformed?

[Christopher Pincher]

The leasehold system and its reform will form part of a Government White Paper and separate debates in this Chamber, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will play her part in those.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 10MC.] It is not true to say that developers and others are not funding remediation. As I have described, firms such as Pemberstone, Mace, Peabody, Barratt and, I think, Legal and General are all stepping forward with funds to remediate buildings for which they are responsible, resulting in something like 50% of ACM-clad buildings being remediated by the private sector. I do not know the specific issues of the buildings in her constituency to which she refers, but I am happy to talk to her separately about them. I am confident that the £1 billion of public money that we will set aside through the Building Safety Bill will be allocated by the end of this financial year, as we said it would be, and that remediation of those non-ACM buildings will begin.

Towns Fund

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a strong case for Burnley. As I say, we will bring forward that competitive phase early next year, and before the end of this year, I hope to be announcing the successful bidders for the future high streets fund, where we will be ensuring that up to £25 million of investment flows to dozens of communities across the country. It is another fund designed before covid, but it will be ever more important as we see the pressures wreaked on our high streets by the pandemic.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It was really distressing to see such critical funding for our regions mired in political favouritism. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the shared prosperity fund does not suffer the same fate? Will he confirm that the north-east will receive from the shared prosperity fund at least the £1 billion that it would have got from the European structural funds?

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have already said, a fair and robust procedure was used to determine the places, and many places adjacent to the hon. Lady’s constituency have benefited. I think of Blyth, for example—a community that needed investment. It saw very little of it under the last Labour Government and will now, I hope, be benefiting. She represents a great city. That was not the primary focus of the towns fund, as the name rather suggests.

With the UK shared prosperity fund, we will be ensuring that each of the nations of the United Kingdom receives the same funding as they did under the EU structural funds. We fundamentally believe that we can design better, more outcomes-focused funding streams than the European Union was ever able to do during our long years of membership. We will bring forward more details on that very soon.