Manufacturing and Engineering

Debate between Ian Swales and Iain Wright

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wright]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. Many people accept, quite rightly, the importance of not being too reliant on foreign sources of energy; that is why we need to ensure that we have a diverse energy policy. Frankly, we need the same approach for manufacturing—we should not be too reliant on our foreign competitors. We need a vibrant steel industry and a vibrant shipbuilding industry to ensure that we have that capacity, and that we produce the next generation of ships and use steel for offshore wind—that is exactly what we need to do.

Let me turn to another important issue, which I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Stroud: the tie-in between manufacturing, engineering, the wider point about business and schools, and our education system. If we are to see engineering and other STEM subjects rise in cultural importance, it is vital that engineering qualifications have at least parity of esteem with more liberal arts-based subjects. That is why, as I mentioned in my intervention, the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to downgrade the value of the engineering diploma from the equivalent of five GCSEs to just one is simply wrong.

In the previous Government, I was the Minister with responsibility for 14 to 19 reform and apprenticeships. I had responsibility for the engineering diploma, so I feel protective towards it. It was, and is, a high-quality and rigorous qualification that has the support of business and backs the interests of many of our brightest young children. The downgrade is the wrong move if we are to promote engineering. Do not take my word for it. Dr Mike Short, president of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, along with 16 senior industrialists, put his name to a letter to The Daily Telegraph that said:

“The Engineering Diploma is widely recognised as a significant route to providing the crucial technical and practical skills that young people will need to build a Britain that can compete effectively and internationally where technology can make such a difference to our digital world. Industry and the professional engineering institutions have worked extensively to make this 14-19 qualification a highly robust and attractive qualification, which now appears to be being undermined by the Government's premature decision to downgrade its worth.”

[Ian Swales]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when I asked the Secretary of State for Education a question on this subject a couple of weeks ago, his answer that the engineering diploma had to be seen as level with physics, chemistry or biology showed a basic misunderstanding of what the engineering diploma actually is?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For far too long, we have had a culture that considered academic subjects to be successful, and vocational and engineering-based qualifications to be somehow second rate. Germany does not have that culture, which is why it has a flourishing manufacturing sector. We need a similar parity of esteem in this country; otherwise, we will never be able to achieve our potential in manufacturing and engineering.

The world will not wait for us. We need a sense of determination and urgency in light of the fiercest competition the global economy has ever known. Instead, and to my utter frustration, we have a sense of drift and a lack of co-ordination from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and across Whitehall. The time is now, as senior industrialists, the CBI, the TUC, and hon. Members here today have said, to play to our strengths, seize the opportunity and put manufacturing and engineering at the heart of the economy. The Government need to act now.

Health Inequalities (North-East)

Debate between Ian Swales and Iain Wright

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I apologise for turning up late to this debate. I was chairing another meeting, which I was obviously doing badly because we overran our time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this debate, which is on one of the most important issues facing the north-east. The health inequalities in my own constituency are certainly unacceptable. For many years, the health of the people in Hartlepool has generally been worse than the national average. Although progress has been made, health levels remain too low and are not improving fast enough for many of my constituents.

Life expectancy in Hartlepool is lower than in the rest of the country. A boy born in Hartlepool today would expect to live until he was 75.9 years old, which is two years shorter than the national average. A girl born in Hartlepool would expect to live until she was 81 years old, which is longer than her counterparts in Middlesbrough, Gateshead, South Tyneside or Sunderland. None the less, her life expectancy is still more than a year shorter than the national average for girls and women.

Those figures have improved dramatically over the past 15 years, which reflects increased health funding, more investment in primary care, a greater emphasis on prevention and rising living standards. However, there are several worrying elements within the data. First, generally rising life expectancy rates mask huge inequalities within Hartlepool that simply should not be tolerated in a civilised society. A constituent of mine living in Stranton, Dyke House or Owton Manor would expect to die up to 11 years earlier than a similar constituent living in the area close to Ward Jackson park.

Secondly, the mortality rate for women of all ages has fallen across all parts of the country, with the exception of those in my constituency. Data show the contrasting fortunes of different local areas. In the decade after 1998, the mortality rate for women in Kensington and Chelsea fell by more than 40%, but it barely moved in Hartlepool. I suggest to the Minister, who has some experience of Hartlepool, that women in my constituency consider the health of their children and family over and above their own. What can she do to address that cultural issue, so that the caring nature of Hartlepool’s womenfolk is retained, but not at the expense of their health?

Thirdly, much behaviour in Hartlepool leads to poor health outcomes. For example, estimated healthy eating, smoking rates and obesity are significantly worse than the England average. Although deaths from heart disease and strokes in Hartlepool have fallen, they remain well above the national average, while death rates from cancer remain some of the worst in the country. Hip fractures for people in Hartlepool aged 65 and above are off the scale by comparison with other areas in England. Why? It is mostly because of our place in history and the manner in which we have been affected by de-industrialisation.

Given our legacy as a place of heavy manufacturing, we have a disproportionate amount of people suffering from industrial diseases and injuries. I particularly want to highlight the number of chest-related diseases. The number of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases such as pleural plaques and mesothelioma is heartbreaking. The present Government’s delay in setting up any response to deal with those cases is prolonging the suffering for many constituents and their families. I urge the Minister to speak to her counterparts at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the employers’ liability insurance bureau is established as quickly as possible.

[Ian Swales]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not take interventions because a lot of my hon. Friends want to contribute to this debate.

I mentioned the de-industrialisation of the past 30 years. The loss of the shipyards, the docks and many of the steelworks and our engineering firms has hit Hartlepool’s prosperity hard. As my hon. Friend said, there is a very clear correlation between income, employment and health. Given the bad and deteriorating economic situation in my constituency and the wider north-east, the Minister needs to be mindful of the implications on health of the Government’s economic policy.

As unemployment in the north-east and in Hartlepool is high and rising, and there is a direct link between being unemployed and being unwell, the significant health inequalities that my constituents experience will only get worse. Only this week, the Centre for Cities highlighted a growing divide between northern cities and their southern counterparts in prosperity, innovation and resilience to an economic downturn in 2012 and beyond. That is bound to have a worsening effect on health inequalities, whether physical health or mental well-being.

The Minister will recognise the direct link between economic policy and health inequalities. How will she combat the health fall-out from the failures of the Chancellor’s economic policy and the neglect of the north-east? The problem will be made worse by the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement to regionalise public sector pay. That will have enormous repercussions on the NHS in the north-east. Although highly professional, the NHS in the region is already struggling to recruit and retain appropriate staff tasked with addressing health inequalities in our region. Health services are already under strain not merely because of budgetary pressures, but because of difficulties in recruitment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) mentioned difficulties in attracting and recruiting GPs. My area has one of the lowest GP per capita rates anywhere in the country, and that does not help to reduce health inequalities. Does the Minister not think that that problem and therefore health inequalities will get worse under the Chancellor’s proposals for regionalised pay, and how will she counteract it with regards to recruitment and retention in the NHS?

Let me refer to the ongoing saga of the University hospital of Hartlepool. The Minister will be aware of the closure of accident and emergency last year, which no one in Hartlepool wanted. It has been announced recently that some services will migrate back, which is very welcome, but the whole health economy in my area and, by implication, the health inequalities in the region remain uncertain because of the lack of a clear decision about the new hospital and its funding arrangements.

Will the Minister today provide some clarity about what will happen with regards to the future provision of a hospital in Hartlepool? I do not want to take away the welcome news of a new hospital for the constituents in Hexham, but what about my constituents in Hartlepool? Will she reconsider the proposals put forward by Lord Darzi five or six years ago? In short, can we have clarity with regard to the ongoing provision of a hospital in Hartlepool?

We in the north-east and in Hartlepool have suffered for far too long with disease, ill health and early death, much of which is linked to deprivation and poverty. Government policy threatens to make that worse, so I hope that the Minister can provide us with some reassurances this morning.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Ian Swales and Iain Wright

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I thank my—yes—hon. Friend for his intervention. It seems that the issue is becoming more prominent. That is due partly to industry lobbying. Earlier this year we set up an all-party parliamentary group on energy-intensive industries. I have major concerns for my constituency and the Tees valley, and I am an officer of that group—at least one other officer is in the Chamber. The very high level of interest shown in the group by companies from all sectors indicates the potential gravity of the problem.

Those industries are looking not for special favours, but simply for a level playing field on which to compete internationally. Despite what some commentators claim, there is already a price issue. Even before the Bill, the increase in bulk electricity prices in the UK over the past 10 years was 22% more than in Germany, 29% more than in France and 64% more than in Spain.

The inconvenient truth about UK carbon reduction performance is that it is partly due to the rapid decline in manufacturing. As we have heard in this Chamber many times, under the previous Government manufacturing reduced from 22% to 11% of the economy. Our goal should not simply be to reduce our energy usage at the expense of those industries which, by their nature, are energy intensive. A tonne of steel cannot be melted, and chlorine cannot be made from brine, without using a huge amount of energy—it is simply not possible. Our goal should be to improve our energy efficiency for the same level of activity, not to reduce activity. Otherwise, the trend of the UK exporting jobs and importing carbon will continue.

To ensure that the UK makes a real contribution to climate change, we cannot look just at carbon production; we must also measure carbon consumption. I say that mainly to ensure that the effect of imports is recognised, but we must also acknowledge the contribution of export businesses to our economy. There is no better example than the restarted Redcar steelworks, which will contribute almost 1% to the UK’s carbon emissions, but whose output will go almost wholly to Thailand. Whose carbon is that?

The Government’s policy has far wider economic consequences. Energy-intensive industries play a vital economic role. For example, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said, the chemical industry is a vital exporter—in fact, I believe that it is our biggest exporter. That illustrates how important such industries are to our national economy as well as our local economies. Those sectors feed many other industries, such as automotive, aerospace and green technology, which needs materials for wind, wave and solar power.

We should also remember that the service economy does not exist in isolation—it partly depends on manufacturing, all the way from office cleaners to corporate lawyers and merchant bankers. Pricing those industries out of the UK would mean that tax revenues fell because of closures, and a lack of further investment. That will have the knock-on effect of higher unemployment and an increased burden in welfare costs. I therefore hope that the Minister considers the wider economic consequences of the effects of the Government’s policy on energy-intensive industry.

Energy-intensive industries are often capital intensive, which means that companies cannot just pick up their kit and move. The key thing for the UK is whether executives in boardrooms across the world are writing off the UK as a place to invest and reinvest. International businesses have options on where to put their money. I know from experience in the chemical industry that a business can take up to 20 years to die after an exit decision is effectively made by ceasing to reinvest.

Energy-intensive industry does and will continue to play its part in improving energy efficiently. It also produces a range of environmentally beneficial products, such as catalysts, insulation, lightweight plastics, and, as we have heard, energy-saving aerospace products. The all-party group recently heard how developments in tyre technology reduce fuel use in vehicles, how new types of glass reduce heat loss from buildings, and which industries are needed to make photovoltaic cells. To give another example, I am aware of a research project in my constituency between Tata, the steel producer, and the Centre for Process Innovation, to make construction-grade photovoltaic panels. Such developments are vital in moving the UK towards a low-carbon economy. We do not want that expertise to be lost to the UK. Energy-intensive industries are not sunset industries that stand in the way of our low-carbon goals, but crucial allies in delivering the necessary technology to make them a reality.

There is therefore an urgent need for simplicity in carbon taxes and for long-term certainty for the industry. Energy-intensive industries need such clarity before the carbon price support mechanism is introduced. Will the Minister assure me that she supports the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, who said—and I repeat—that

“we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business”?—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 177.]

Will she ensure that the Government engage in comprehensive consultation, and take steps to ensure that a full package of mitigation measures is agreed and legislated for, ahead of the introduction of carbon price support?

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my north-east neighbour, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), and if I may, I shall reiterate some of what he said.

I agree with both amendments, particularly amendment 12 tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. If this country was portrayed as a heat map, with particular emphasis on different components of industry, such as nuclear energy, energy-intensive industries and renewable energies, my constituency would burn the brightest. We on Teesside provide a large part of this country’s energy needs. I have a nuclear power station in my constituency, and just outside there is a gas turbine station and a combined heat and power facility. Petroplus, Europe’s biggest independent refiner and wholesaler of petroleum products, has significant oil and gas refining capabilities in my constituency.

Although we generate a lot of the country’s energy requirements, we use a lot of it too. As the hon. Member for Redcar said, we have significant energy-intensive industries—not just refining but petrochemicals, speciality and fine chemicals, plastics, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. I also have a world-class steel pipe mill in Hartlepool supplying essential components in the supply chain for the oil, gas and chemical industries, although unfortunately the pipe mill has just laid off 90 people. Some 60% of the UK petrochemical industry is based on Teesside, as well as more than one third of our country’s pharmaceutical and chemical industry. The Tees valley has the largest concentration of petrochemical industry anywhere in western Europe, and we have the largest hydrogen network on the continent.

A single venture in Teesside, GrowHow UK, which makes nitrogen fertilizer in my area, uses 1% of the UK’s entire natural gas capacity. About 40,000 people are employed directly in the process industries on Teesside, with a further 250,000 employed indirectly through the supply chain. Energy-intensive industries generate one quarter of my region’s gross domestic product, with about £10 billion of sales. As the hon. Member for Redcar said, the importance of Teesside and these industries to the national economy, let alone the regional economy, cannot be overstated.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who sits on the Front Bench, I agree with the principle of a carbon floor price. However, given the importance of energy-intensive industries to my area, I remain very concerned that the proposals in the Bill for carbon floor pricing represent a serious threat to UK competitiveness.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Swales and Iain Wright

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

With this amendment and new clause 7, we return to a subject that we have discussed time and again in this brief Committee stage. One of the most fundamental weaknesses of the entire Bill is its wholly inadequate provision for consultation. Clause 4 sets out the process for the Secretary of State to consider and approve an academy order. It also sets out the criteria by which an application may be considered. The two criteria are that the governing body has applied or that the school is eligible for intervention. This provides no role for the local community or for parents to ask for intervention, however. Time and again this afternoon, the point has been raised about the lack of consultation for local stakeholders, especially parents. We believe that local authorities, communities, teachers, trade unionists and, most importantly, parents should have a role in calling for intervention.

Inherent in the Bill is a massive risk of creating a two-tier system that will divide rather than unite communities, and that will set deprived communities against affluent neighbourhoods. As I said in Committee last week, the Bill could ensure that the most important relationship was between the individual school and the Secretary of State, rather than between the school and its local community.

We have just been discussing amendment 54. One of my concerns is that the Bill, as it stands, is a highly centralising piece of legislation whose focus is firmly on the school and the Secretary of State, rather than on the wider area. There is also a risk that the Secretary of State intends to use the freedoms that academies allow to give only successful, prosperous schools the flexibility and resources to thrive. Those freedoms could well be provided at the expense of the vast majority of schools, which could face cuts to support services and experience severe disruption. The fragmentation of our schools system would be a real step backwards for social progress and social cohesion.

Amendment 79 would ensure that, before making an academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult the local authority, teachers and other staff at the school, parents and pupils of the school and the other schools in the community, and any other such persons who are considered appropriate. In addition, he would have to consult other local authorities that might be affected by an academy order. This is most common, although not exclusively so, in London, where pupils in a particular school may be drawn from a wide variety of local authorities. Demand for places at a school in a particular local authority, especially a popular school, can affect the demand, and hence the viability, of schools in other boroughs. Surely the Minister accepts that it is right for those affected local authorities to be consulted as well. Proposed new subsection 8(b) would ensure that any other local authority that might be affected by the making of an academy order was consulted. For those reasons, we believe that amendment 79 offers an important means of injecting more challenge, scrutiny and consultation into the proposed legislation.

We believe strongly that local authorities have a strong role to play in helping every child to succeed. They do not, and should not, run schools, but they can provide a strategic function, and commission provision across an area that is relevant, suitable and in keeping with the local authority’s vision for the shape of their economy. Local authorities can ensure that local services are of a high quality and meet the needs, ambitions and aspirations of children and young people. The actions or, at times, inactions of local authorities can also be held to account by local people in a truly democratic fashion, as a means of securing effective, efficient and fair local public services.

We on the Labour Benches and, I suspect, some on the Government Benches, believe that local authorities are best placed to facilitate partnerships across different schools and drive forward improvement and rising standards. I said “I suspect”, but it is fair to say that all Liberal Democrats subscribe to that view. I quote page 37 of their 2010 general election manifesto, which states:

“Local authorities will not run schools, but will have a central and strategic role, including responsibility for oversight of school performance and fair admissions. They will be expected to intervene where school leadership or performance is weak.”

We can all agree with that sentiment. I can more or less agree, too, with the next bullet point in their manifesto:

“We will ensure a level playing field for admissions and funding and replace Academies with our own model of ‘Sponsor-Managed Schools’. These schools will be commissioned by and accountable to local authorities and not Whitehall”.

That is an important commitment, on which every Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament was returned to the House. It is important that the Committee has the opportunity to vote on the matter, so that Liberal Democrat Members can support their manifesto commitments to a level playing field on admissions and funding and on social cohesion. On that basis, I give notice that I want to test the Committee’s opinion with regard to new clause 7.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

What did the hon. Gentleman think about the provisions under discussion when the Labour Government introduced academies? As far as I know, none of the provisions apply to the current academy system.

[Mr Wright]

I do not want to return to the Second Reading debate, but the purpose and definition of academies under the Bill differ fundamentally from those of the academies introduced by the Labour Government. We gave freedoms and flexibilities to poorly performing schools in deprived areas. The Bill is a completely different kettle of fish, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Under new clause 7, before a school can make an application for an academy order—or arrangement with a free school—local authorities would be asked to assess the impact of such an order or arrangement on admissions, the funding between all state-funded schools and social cohesion in an area. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) ably articulated, social cohesion with regard to education is vital. There is a huge risk inherent in the Bill that social cohesion will be threatened and compromised. The new clause addresses that.