UK Shared Prosperity Fund
Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Chi Onwurah(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing this important debate. It builds on the important Westminster Hall debate that we held recently on this subject called by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). In that debate, we sought to elicit more information from the Government about how the shared prosperity fund would operate, and we also focused on the loss of EU funding and the impact it would have on regions classed by the EU as less developed. That is of particular importance to me because I represent a constituency in the north-east. We need to know what will happen about the shared prosperity fund.
Since that debate, however, we have heard very little from the Government about how things are going to proceed.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way and for her remarks. The UK is the most regionally unequal country in Europe and indeed the world in terms of how the economy is centralised around London. Does she share my concern that any fund administered from Whitehall will not meet the needs of regions such as ours—the north-east—or allow them to achieve their economic potential?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I absolutely agree. Indeed, we have pointed out in previous debates that, given what we know about regional inequality in this country, we do not trust this Government to use these funds to eradicate it.
As we have heard throughout this debate, we need a shared prosperity fund to replace the EU structural funds currently being paid to the UK regions through the European regional development fund and the European social fund. The total value to the UK of funding from these streams in the current funding round is £9.15 billion, or £1.3 billion per year, so we are talking substantial sums of money. There are also smaller pots of funding—the European maritime and fisheries fund, the LEADER programme, the youth employment initiative and so on—amounting to a further £100 million a year.
Although there are funding implications for the whole UK, our withdrawal from the EU and the loss of access to these funding streams is of particular importance to the regions of greatest need. If the UK were to remain in the EU, we would be due to receive significant additional funding in the next round. I am not sure that the Minister has taken this issue on board. It would be really good to hear him acknowledge what these regions would have got if we were staying in the EU. The three regions that are currently affected—Tees Valley and Durham, South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—are on course to slip below the threshold of 75% of EU average GDP per head, which means they will qualify for extra funding. They would join the three regions already acknowledged—west Wales, the valleys and Cornwall—in receiving a much higher level of funding: about £135 million a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Government should be very concerned that these regions are facing such inequality and experiencing a need to develop their economies further. We really do want to hear from the Government how they are going to achieve that.
We want to hear from the Government about how the shared prosperity fund will operate and about timescales. We want to hear what they are doing to address the growing regional inequality in the UK. How do they see the shared prosperity fund sitting alongside local growth funds, for example? How will those funds interact with other funds that are available to support regional development? Are the Government giving themselves a timeframe in which to eradicate regional inequality? To date, we have not had enough information from the Government. Even at this late stage, we know very little about how the fund will operate. What sort of money are we talking about, and will it be disbursed in the same way as it has been under the EU? Will the Government take into account the regions in greatest need, or not?
I feel very strongly about this issue, as do other Members of Parliament in regions that very much need investment to help our economies to grow and to reach their full potential. These are amazing regions with huge skills and talents among the population. They all need development in digital and higher-level skills, so we need to use our universities and colleges to drive up that development. They need investment in renewable energy—particularly the north-east, which has wonderful expertise in this—and in pharmaceuticals. We need to upgrade the transport system. We must ensure that everyone in these regions can reach their potential and contribute to the future prosperity that we all want to see, particularly in the communities that need more support from this Government.
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Chi Onwurah(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah
Absolutely. The Conservative party initiated and promoted the reckless deregulation of our financial sector, which contributed significantly to the financial crisis, and then failed to manage the economy in such a way as to ensure sustained, significant growth. Under this Government, we have had half the historical level of growth.
The prognosis for growth is reflected in business investment, which is the lowest in the G7. We are the only major economy in which investment is falling. Our productivity is 15% lower than in other major economies, and it has not grown this slowly since the Napoleonic wars—there is an achievement. The average real wage growth since the second world war is 2.4% a year, but under the Conservatives, pay has fallen by 3% and the UK remains the most regionally unequal country in Europe.
We needed a big Budget to rebalance our economy and to provide the industrial strategy with the backing it needs to address the serious problems, but the Budget is deeply disappointing. We got an arbitrary announcement of more funding for the national productivity investment fund, but that will be in 2023, with no information on where the money will be allocated.
On research and development, we had another repackaging of money that was announced last year dressed up as additional funding when, in fact, of the £1.6 billion cited by the Government only £180 million, barely 10%, is new. Although we are pleased that there has been a marked increase in R&D expenditure, there is still no overarching strategy for its direction or for how the Government intend to meet their target of spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D. We are a world leader in science, but, let us be clear, the Government’s 2.4% target is average when it comes to R&D spend. Labour’s target is 3% to become one of the leading nations in R&D spend.
What little information there was in the Budget again focused on sexy high-tech areas like nuclear fusion and quantum mechanics. As an engineer, I understand the desire of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to be associated with sexy technologies, and it is of course a vital part of our industrial strategy to support the industries of the future, but the Secretary of State has repeatedly failed to recognise that supporting our biggest sectors to improve their productivity through technology and investment is so important.
Retail is one of the biggest employers outside the public sector, and it is facing a unique crisis. Over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the past three years, and over 25,000 shops stand empty. High streets are the centre of communities, and they should and can continue to be vibrant spaces of which communities are proud, but to achieve that we need proactive policies from the Government, as Labour have been demanding for months.
The Secretary of State has been a bit cheeky and stolen a number of Labour’s policies in this area. A register of empty properties, an adjustment to business rates and a high street taskforce were just some of the policy proposals in the conference speech of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. It would be churlish of me to demand our policies back, but that is where the consensus ends.
The Government’s overall package, “Our Plan for the High Street,” simply does not do enough. Business rates relief would not have saved a single House of Fraser or Debenhams—the vast majority of retail workers are employed in such shops. The British Retail Consortium has said that the Government
“must engage in more extensive business rates reform to help all retailers and their employees through this period of transformation.”
The CBI responded:
“Smaller businesses will be relieved by the support on Business Rates… But larger retailers and manufactures—and the millions they employ across the UK—will continue to suffer needlessly until there is a full, in-depth review.”
Yet the Budget contained no commitment to a review of business rates.
The future high streets fund is yet another fund allocated out of the national productivity investment fund, and there are no details of where the money will be targeted, who will be responsible for administering it or how quickly funds will be made available. The proposals for planning reform have missed the point. It seems that the Government’s idea to save our high streets is to turn them into non-high streets. Frankly, much more work is needed if we are to protect our high streets and the millions of workers who rely on them.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the high street. Does she agree that it is ridiculous of the Chancellor to ask that local authorities develop a plan for their high streets, which is something we support, while he is taking away the means for them to be able to plan for their high streets by introducing yet more permitted development?
Lindisfarne Gospels
Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Chi Onwurah(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree: it would be wonderful for the people of Northern Ireland to have the opportunity to see the Lindisfarne Gospels and other important historical texts in the region too.
Bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s comments, I should be grateful if the Minister said whether his Department will continue to support the loan of the Gospels to the north-east region on a regular basis, and whether the Government will encourage the Heritage Lottery Fund to give access funding to the Gospels exhibition so that not only schools but everyone attending the exhibition can view the Gospels free of charge, just as tourists and others can do in the British Library. I believe that that is particularly important, given that the north-east is the country’s poorest region. Having to pay a charge to see the Gospels does not seem to be entirely fair. It is fantastic, however, that the British Library has agreed to lend the Lindisfarne Gospels to Durham this summer so that they can be displayed in the north-east and many people in the region and elsewhere will have an opportunity to see them.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I apologise for being late for the debate. As my hon. Friend has no doubt mentioned, the last time that the Gospels came to the north-east they came to the Laing art gallery in Newcastle. Does she agree that enthusiasm for their return and the campaign waged by many Members for that return shows the value that the north-east places not only our cultural heritage but on the arts more broadly?
Public Service Broadcasting (North-East)
Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Chi Onwurah(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I have a significant interest to declare. I recall Mike Neville explaining to me personally, or so it seemed at the time, what the posh word for a Geordie was: a Novocastrian. I remember learning the points of the compass—north, east, west and south—from the “Look North” weather map, before I was old enough to own a compass of my own.
Clearly, however, public service broadcasting in the north-east is about more than the memories of one Member of Parliament; it is an important part of the identity, culture and economy of the region. In its 2009 review, Ofcom set out the purpose of public service broadcasting, which included:
“To reflect and strengthen our cultural identity through original programming at UK, national and regional level.”
It characterised public service broadcasting:
“High quality—well-funded and well-produced; original—new UK content rather than repeats or acquisitions; innovative—breaking new ideas or re-inventing exciting approaches; challenging—making viewers think; engaging—remaining accessible; and widely available,”
so that a large majority of citizens have the chance to watch it. Will the Minister clarify whether he stands by those purposes and characteristics of public service broadcasting? If he does, will they continue to apply to public service broadcasting in the north-east after the current round of BBC cost cutting?
The purpose and characteristics of public service broadcasting are also enshrined in the BBC’s duties, and include:
“To reflect and strengthen cultural identities.”
The BBC, however, is not the only public service broadcaster; ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five must also meet public service broadcasting requirements. My concerns about the future of public service broadcasting in the north-east therefore apply to private sector broadcasters as well as to the BBC. In addition, all broadcasters are subject to the broadcasting code, which also recognises the importance of regional and local identity.
In his reply to my letter expressing the dismay of my constituents at the portrayal of Newcastle in “Geordie Shore,” Chris Woolard, group director of Ofcom, explained that cities could complain about how they were portrayed and that their individual identity should be recognised. However, despite long-standing lip service to the importance of regional identity and public service broadcasting, we have seen a steady diminution in its quality and availability in the north-east. The BBC now proposes further cuts in its “Delivering Quality First” consultation, and it is not an exaggeration to say that such cuts threaten the existence of public service broadcasting in the north-east.
In the past, commercial companies such as Tyne Tees Television were often the greatest champions of local culture and regional identity, by giving a platform to local music and drama, holding local politicians to account, and providing children’s programmes, educational, artistic or comedy programmes—indeed, programmes of every genre. Local BBC stations would cover news, sport, politics and documentaries, and support locally produced drama, resulting in a wide and diverse range of programming. I remember watching “When the Boat Comes in”, “The Tube”, “The Likely Lads”, “Razamatazz”, “Northern Life”, “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” and many other great examples of local content, as well as listening to a wide range of local radio programming. As well as reflecting regional culture back on ourselves, such diversity helped build local skills, thereby supporting a regional industry that provided high-quality jobs, and train the next generation of broadcasters.
Unfortunately, following consolidation in the television and broadcasting industry, and in the face of rising competition and falling revenues, regional commercial broadcasting has been much weakened. In 2009, Ofcom further reduced regional broadcasting requirements on commercial public service broadcasters. Some support for local television used to be available through Northern Film and Media, funded by the Film Council and the regional development agency, but the Government have now cut that support.
It is not therefore surprising that this summer, in Ofcom’s latest assessment of the state of public service broadcasting, the criterion
“reflecting and strengthening our cultural identity”
scored the lowest marks ever. Only a third of viewers think that public service broadcasting channels do well in
“portraying my region well to the rest of the UK,”
and in providing
“programmes about my region or nation.”
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; she is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that at a time when the north-east is suffering dreadfully from the economic downturn, it is particularly important that regional broadcasting is able to produce documentaries to show people, both in the region and elsewhere, what is happening? Regional broadcasting can also help to build on a lot of the good that exists in an area, and provide a good and balanced picture. Simply lumping the north-east with other northern areas will not do.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One great strength of regional broadcasting is that local broadcasters understand what is happening in a region such as the north-east, and can go further in identifying issues that are relevant to local people. That is especially true in the north-east at this difficult time. Media outside the north-east have a tendency to portray the area in negative terms—perhaps rightly given the disproportionate cuts that the area is experiencing—but that does not reflect the strengths and the entrepreneurial spirit that is a feature of north-eastern culture.
Against that background, the BBC has proposed the implementation of further drastic cuts to regional provision. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said that he is keen to support local television, but his proposals are—to be kind—not yet viable and not without controversy. There are major gaps in coverage—the city of Durham, for example, will have no local television coverage—and even in the best possible scenario, local services will not be running until after 2015. Does the Minister think that those local TV services will be complementary to regional public service broadcasting, or is he happy to weaken regional broadcasting on the basis that local TV will replace it?
If we accept the purposes and characteristics of public sector broadcasting as set out by Ofcom and if we consider the reductions in commercial regional broadcasting, the cuts to public support for local talent and the limitations of the local TV proposals, there can be no doubt that the existence of regional public sector broadcasting depends on BBC funding. However, the BBC cuts include, among other things, a 40% cut in investigative programming.