‘Nick Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East, Labour)

‘It is a pleasure to follow Mr Binley, and I strongly agree with what he had to say about the bully-boy school of management. The hon. Gentleman is committed to privatisation, as he made clear in responding to the intervention from his hon. Friend Mr Leigh. However, although I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, I do not think that he made a case for selling Royal Mail.

My problem with the Bill is that it does not seem to be directed at the individual problems faced by Royal Mail. Indeed, I believe that in some ways it would make matters worse. Specifically, privatisation does not of itself deal with the problems identified in the Hooper report.

At the time of the Bill proposed by the last Labour Government, two arguments were advanced in favour of a private sector minority stake in Royal Mail. It was argued that Royal Mail needed private sector drivers, incentives, commercialisation and benchmarking-all the disciplines associated with private enterprise. It was said that they were necessary to drive forward the modernisation programme. At the same time and in the same context, it was argued that there was a need for the managerial expertise that could be found in the private sector, which prompted a question: if that managerial expertise was really needed, why could it not simply be hired?

The Government-correctly, in my opinion-have asked Richard Hooper to review his work. He has reported progress on the crucial modernisation issue, and has had reassuring things to say about managerial expertise. The key necessity is surely to drive the modernisation through, but that will not be easy, because mechanisation brings with it job losses and reorganised work arrangements.

The challenges are well understood. My right hon. Friend Mr Denham listed some of them.

Modern communications such as text, e-mail and mobile phones have led to a remorseless decline in the use of traditional postal services. That has been offset to some extent by the use of direct mail marketing and the growth of the parcel business, which is partly dependent on internet shopping-but the trend is clear, and change is therefore essential. I accept that the background of poor industrial relations makes the process harder, but in the circumstances it is surely right to support the progress that has already been made-and identified by Richard Hooper-and to find ways of reinforcing the work on the modernisation programme.

In any event, why do we need legislation to bring about privatisation? The Government have the power to sell shares now, although they are handicapped by the need to report the precise arrangements to the House and obtain our consent. The then Business and Enterprise Committee was very forceful on that point when it examined the Labour Government’s proposals, and I am pretty certain that its members’ views will not have changed.

The Bill also separates Royal Mail from the post office network, even more explicitly than is currently the case. That will not solve the problems faced by individual post offices, and it will open up new dangers. In short, the problems are insufficient turnover and a small margin on individual transactions through the outlets. It is reasonable to consider what other business could be put through traditional sub-post offices-that is not an original idea-but it will be difficult to provide services requiring a volume of users in smaller population catchment areas. The problem is usually discussed in terms of rural communities, but it affects inner-city and other urban communities as well. The Government should focus on that, rather than on separating Royal Mail from the post office network.

The burden of the universal service guarantee still rests effectively with Royal Mail, to the extent that it is effectively forced to subsidise its competitors in the parcel business, apparently-although I understand that the figures are a matter of dispute-to the tune of some 6.5p per item. That cannot be fair, and it is evidence of poor regulation.

I urge caution, although I am not opposed to the idea of share ownership. However, as my hon. Friend Mr Cunningham pointed out, when employee share ownership was introduced at Rolls-Royce and by the municipal bus companies, the employees took the shares and then sold them. What matters to employees is the wages, job security and pension arrangements; those are the crucial things for them.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with the regulator and reconfigures the existing arrangements. The relationship between Royal Mail and its regulator is poor. I have looked at the arrangements in the Bill, and this looks to me-I was wondering how I could explain this in summary to the House-like the Post Office version of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, with the industry having to pay for the regulator, at costs set by the regulator.

Part 4 deals with what happens when everything goes wrong. I will urge the House to pass that part of the Bill if the rest of it is passed.’

As part of its transformation programme, the Lib Dem led council has made 510 workers redundant in the hope of saving £169m over five years. Nick Brown said the council’s move had seen social workers’ job load soar. According to serious case reviews published in response to social worker failings in Newcastle, staff are overworked and unable to cope with the demands placed on them.

Nick said: “The Labour and trade union movement will have to fight to protect public services and show we are on the side of ordinary people. We are going to be confronted with a lot of shoddy, ill-founded spending cuts dressed up as efficiency savings.

“The impact of this can be seen by the work of Tories and the Liberal Democrats in local government. Newcastle City Council should think again about how to run an effective social service department.”

The Agency have got off to a great start with this launch coming 4 months ahead of schedule.

This is what we are trying to do:

• create opportunity for people to live in high quality, sustainable places
• provide funding for affordable housing;
• to bring land back into productive use
• Improve quality of life by raising standards for the physical and social environment.

How we are going about doing it:

By bringing together the investment functions of the Housing Corporation, all of English Partnerships, the Academy for Sustainable Communities and the delivery programmes of CLG such as Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders, Growth Points and the Places of Change programme.

We’ve created a national agency that will work and deliver locally.

The regional structure is a good fit with the other agencies that focus on public service delivery in our region.

The case for the new structure is well made, but it couldn’t have come about at a more fortuitous time.

The recessionary forces at work in our economy have had an impact on most sectors, but surely none more so than the housing market.

In our region the housing market is intimately linked to the broader prospects for economic regeneration.

Just as we work our way through the downturn we should also build our way through it.

The Government response:

• A £200 million Mortgage Rescue Scheme is now live across the whole country and aims to help 6,000 of the most vulnerable households facing repossession over the next two years.

• In the North East, four local authorities agreed to be ‘fast track’ authorities and operate the scheme before it went national. These are:

• Stockton
• Middlesbrough
• Darlington
• North Tyneside

• There is also a Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme to enable households that experience a significant and temporary loss of income as a result of the economic downturn to defer a proportion of the interest payments on their mortgage for up to two years.

• The Government has also doubled the capital limit on which eligibility for Income Support for Mortgage Interest is calculated to £200,000

• HomeBuy Direct is a new shared equity scheme designed to help up to 18,000 First-Time Buyers into affordable home ownership. The scheme will also help participating house builders by enabling more First-Time Buyers to purchase their newly built properties. The scheme has been allocated £400m of Communities and Local Government funding. Through this programme £39.5 million will be invested in the North East region, assisting in the purchase of more than 1,600 homes in schemes such as North Ormesby in Middlesbrough, Parkside Crescent in Widdrington, Northumberland and Hadrian Mews in Wallsend.

• The scheme will be offered on specific new build properties brought forward by developers. Buyers will be offered an equity loan of up to 30 per cent of the purchase price, co-funded by Government and the developer.

• Government has also been working with lenders to encourage them to resume investing in property. It is encouraging to see that Northern Rock has announced that it is to start lending again with loan-to-value rates of 80 per cent.

• The Government has also brought forward £400 million in order to deliver up to 5,500 new social homes

The Agencies Response:

The Homes and Communities Agency brings together the strengths of a number of organisations under one body which can provide a range of support to meet local needs.

• Since December last year, the Homes and Communities Agency has brought forward more than £8 million of investment that has allowed local Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to buy more than 180 high quality homes in areas of strong demand such as the Staiths development in Gateshead and Northumberland Park in North Tyneside.

• This investment not only supports the needs of those seeking affordable housing in the region, it also gives much needed certainty to private sector development partners that enables them to continue to invest in developing new homes, while retaining jobs within the region.

• I know that Pat Ritchie and her team have continued to meet with RSLs and private developers in the region to discuss their needs in the current economic climate.

• This is the right approach. By engaging with these partners directly the Homes and Communities Agency can identify where and how to target investment and support to meet local needs and ensure projects can be delivered successfully on time.

• In places such as Scotswood in Newcastle this will mean a comprehensive regeneration in a massive scheme that will deliver 1,800 new homes, transform the image of the area and require an investment of £30 million.

• At the other end of the scale on Holy Island, in the north of the region, the Homes and Communities Agency has partnered with its first ever community land trust (CLT) to secure the delivery of the four affordable homes that will help to maintain vitality in the community there. This partnership between the CLT, Homes and Communities Agency and Tudor Trust will help to tackle issues of affordability in an area where the average house price is 18 times the income of local residents. The HCA grant of £200,000 will help to meet a third of the cost of providing these homes.

• Also the Homes and Communities Agency has worked with the local community at Mandale and Stockton Council, NomadE5 and Barratt Homes to develop a plan for a new, mixed community with excellent green spaces. By developing new private houses for sale as well as social rented homes, the community in Mandale has been completely transformed. Proof of this transformation is that even in the current climate homes are continuing to sell in the new Mandale. This community-led regeneration has been nominated for a number of national awards.

The housing market in our region has some clear features:

• The link between economic regeneration and housing (as I said earlier)

• Owner occupation is not the only model for those in work.

• Demand for rent, extends well beyond social housing.

• Strength of cooperative model and way of working in the North east. ONE and ANEC.

It is essential that the agency is a vehicle for delivery, works well as part of a team in the North East, avoids the dangerous error of process substituting for delivery.

During the last two decades, no English region has done more to help itself than the North East. Comparative studies of the English regions often highlight the continuing income gap between our region and others. It is more instructive to look at where we were and how far we have come over the last two decades.

With recessionary forces at work in the economy this series of studies published by the Smith Institute is timely. The Smith Institute’s earlier work on regionalism has helped set the agenda for what is in the North East a very important and vigorously debated series of topics. In taking stock, this publication attempts to look ahead and to reflect on recent developments.

When I was appointed the Regional Minister I made it clear that my objective was to drive up the prosperity of the region. My key instrument for doing so was to work closely with the private sector. I wanted to further expand and diversify the region’s employment base and to build stronger sectors, particularly service sectors which were historically underrepresented. 32% of the region’s employment base is in the public sector, compared with a national average of 27%. Manufacturing employment counts for 12.5%, compared to a national average of 10.7%. Until the recession struck we were doing well, with the fastest economic growth rates of any English region.

The reasons for the region’s success and for our ability to work our way through the slowdown are not always understood by outsiders. The city region analysis is a good fit for the North East in terms of economic development, housing policy, and spatial strategy. It also has quite a lot to offer to the debates about transport policy. However, there are all sorts of other nuances to the North East, cultural, sentimental, traditional, that add huge passion and value to the region’s political life, but which tend not to show up to the cold analytical eye of an outsider. One of the great strengths of the North East of England has been the remorseless growth of institutional co-operation at regional and sub-regional level.

The twin drivers of the region’s economy are the conurbation of Tyne and Wear, with its hinterland in South Northumberland and North and East Durham, and the Tees Valley, which would count South Durham as its hinterland. Co-operation at political level, working closely with the region’s economic development agency, One NorthEast, across political boundaries, has been the largest single driver of change over the last decade.

As regional minister, I have invested a lot of time in bilateral meetings, placing the emphasis on economic development in the private sector. More than anything else I see the role of Regional Minister as being the region’s champion within the Government.

As the labour market loosens, I see it as my job to try and tighten it. There are a range of really exciting private sector-led projects which can make a real impact on the employment base of our region, and which the region will take to its heart. Nowhere is this more true than in the renewable energy sector. There is enormous enthusiasm, right across the region, for doing our bit to combat climate change. This is as true of the university sector, the regional TUC, and the region’s strategic local authorities, as it is of the private sector and the general public.

Perhaps the most exciting single development is the prospect of a UK centre of excellence for renewable energy on the North banks of the Tyne. Located in the old ship-building and ship-repair yards, there is a real prospect of creating something like 4000 jobs on the back of an off-shore wind farm industry. The whole region is behind these exciting plans to bring the river back to life and to give effect to the Prime Minister’s vision of employment based on new green industries.

Similarly, the Teesside regeneration programmes, with the potential to be joined together by a Tees Metro public transport system connecting with Darlington and the East coast mainline, is a project that has captured the enthusiasm of the region.

In other areas as varied as the expansion of Teesport, to the underdeveloped potential of the region’s cultural, tourist and hospitality attractions, there is an energy and a practical determination about the North East that is unique to the region. The success of the Sage on Gateshead’s bank of the Tyne is a showcase for our region at its best. As well as attracting artists of international standing, its outreach work bears comparison with anything else in the country.

This pride in the region’s achievements and its history comes together in the campaign to rescue the Lindisfarne Gospels from the vaults of the British Library and to showcase them to the world in their proper home in Durham Cathedral. When the Gospels were last allowed into the North East on loan they attracted record visitor numbers. The region kept them safe during the Viking invasions, so it’s safe to say we can look after them now. 

The challenge for our region should not just be seen in economic development terms. The region still has far too many youngsters not taking part in skill development or higher education. Retention rates are high, but we still have too many who don’t participate at all. As a region we have to turn this around. Our future is not as a supplier of unskilled labour, but as a vigorous, dynamic, well-skilled and well-educated community shaping its own future. The region is a great place to live and work. If my strategy of driving up the region’s prosperity is the right one, it has to be a strategy that everyone can participate in and get the benefits of the success that we aspire to.

WHAT I WANT TO DO TODAY IS TO REPORT BACK ON WHAT WE HAVE ACHEIVED TOGETHER AND TO SET OUT THE WORK WE HAVE IN HAND TO GET OUR REGION THROUGH THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND BEYOND THE RECESSIONARY FORCES THAT ARE AT WORK IN THE ECONOMY.

LAST YEAR I SAID THAT I WANTED TO DO THE REGIONAL MINISTER’S JOB ONE STEP BACK FROM PARTY POLITICS, IN AS MUCH AS THAT IS POSSIBLE, IT’S AN APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN BROADLY WELCOMED IN OUR REGION, ALTHOUGH HARDER TO SUSTAIN NATIONALLY.

LAST YEAR I SAID THAT MY AMBITION WAS TO DRIVE UP THE PROSPERITY OF OUR REGION. I SAID THAT I WANTED TO WORK WITH EVERY IMPORTANT SECTOR IN OUR REGION, BILATERALLY WHERE I COULD. I SAID THAT I PLACED PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES, AS WELL AS THE BIG PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.

SO THAT’S WHAT I’VE SET OUT TO DO AND I’VE INVESTED A FAIR BIT OF TIME IN DOING IT. I THINK BILATERAL MEETINGS, FOCUSED ON SPECIFIC TOPICS ARE OF MORE VALUE; BUT IT REQUIRES, OF COURSE, A GREATER INVESTMENT OF TIME FROM ME AS THE MINISTER AND FROM THE CIVIL SERVANT’S WHO SUPPORT ME.

I HAVE MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM ACROSS ALL SECTORS. THERE HAVE BEEN 7 BILATERALS WITH THE NOTHERN BUSINESS FORUM AND FURTHER MEETINGS WITH THE FSB AND THE NORTH EAST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS WELL AS MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF SPECIFIC PRIVATE SECTOR PROJECtS SONHOE, EASINGTON FILM STUDIO, EASTGATE RENEWABLE ENERGY VILLAGE AND THE EXPANSION OF TEES PORT AND OF COURSE THE EXCITING PLANS FOR BRINGING THE MANUFACTURE OF OFFSHORE WIND FARM STRUCTURES TO THE NORTH BANK OF THE TYNE.

WE’ve HAD BILATERALS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY AND THE VICE CHANCELLORS OF THE REGION’S UNIVERSITIES AS WELL AS THE STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TUC, ANEC, LSC, TEES VALLEY REGENRATION AND THE LEADERS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVES OF THE 12 STRATEGIC LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

I HELD 9 EVENTS ON THE DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME. THESE INCLUDED BILATERALS WITH THE SHA, VICE CHANCELLORS, REPRESENTATIVES OF CIVIC SOCIETY (THIRD SECTOR/VOLUNTRAY GROUPS), THE NORTHERN BUSINESS FORUM, THE REGIONAL TUC AND THE 12 LOCAL AUTHORITY LEADERS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVES.

MY PRINCIPLE JOB IS TO BE AN ADVOCATE, A CHAMPION FOR THE REGION AT THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT. OVER THE LAST YEAR I HAVE TAKEN UP INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE SECTOR SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT WITHIN GOVERNMENT. WE’VE HAD OUR SUCCESSES.

I WANT TO THANK BOTH THE EVENING CHRONICLE AND THE MIDDLESBROUGH GAZZETTE FOR HOSTING TWO LIVELY CONSULTATION EVENTS. A GREAT DEAL WAS SAID ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF CRIME AT THE NEWCASTLE EVENT. I TOOK THE ISSUE UP WITHIN GOVERNMENT AS I PROMISED AND THE VICTIM’S COMMISSIONER IS NOW ANNOUNCED AS GOVERNMENT POLICY.

IT’S WORTH REMINDING OURSELVES THAT THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS UNDERWAY IN OUR REGION. THE TEESPORT EXPANSION, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON THE NORTH BANK OF THE TYNE AND THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE SECOND TYNE TUNNEL.

BUT I WANT TO FOCUS MY REMARKS ON HOW WE WILL GET THROUGH THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.

IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM THAT CONFRONTS US, IT IS NECESSARY TO ACCURATELY ANALYSE HOW IT CAME ABOUT AND WHAT ITS KEY FEATURES ARE. AN INABILITY TO EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM WILL LEAD TO AN INABILITY TO SOLVE IT. EQUALLY HOPELESS IS TO SAY: “LOOK HOW TERRIBLE EVERYTHING IS,” AS IF SAYING THING’S “aRE TERRIBLE” WAS A SOLUTION ITSELF. OF COURSE IT IS NOT.

The root of today’s problems are failings in the global financial system. The crisis began in the US housing market. The problems in that sub-prime housing market rapidly spread to the entire global financial system, causing a disastrous tightening in credit and undermining confidence (the fall in the value of Global shares by 50 per cent since May DEMONSTRATES THE DROP IN CONFIDENCE.)

All this happened, too, at a time when the global economy was already suffering from unprecedented increases in energy, food and commodity prices. Those increases pushed up inflation everywhere, and added to the pressure on businesses and households. In the UK, inflation, although now falling, is still at AROUND 4.5 per cent. The result has been a sharp reduction in growth across the world.

the impact is felt right across our economy and by every one of us, so restoring and maintaining financial stability is absolutely crucial.

THE CHOICE IS EITHER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE AND USE PUBLIC MONEY WHERE PRIVATE MONEY CAN NO LONGER BE RAISED OR, LET THE RECESSIONARY FORCES UNLEASHED BY A RAPID CURTAILING OF CREDIT TAKE THEIR COURSE.

THERE ARE TWO FURTHER POINTS THAT I BELIEVE NEED TO BE MADE HERE BEFORE I GO ON TO ADDRESS THE REGIONAL DIMENSION: WHAT IT MEANS FOR US AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET THROUGH.

THE FIRST POINT IS THE WIDESPREAD PUBLIC ANGER THAT WE ARE IN THIS POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE BEHAVIOUR OF THOSE WHO HAD CHARGE OF GREAT PRIVATE SECTOR LENDING INSTITUTIONS AND THOSE WHO HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATING THEM IS COMING IN FOR A GREAT DEAL OF CRITICISM. AS WELL IT MIGHT.

ANGER AND CRITICISM, HOWEVER JUSTIFIED, WILL NOT OF THEMSELVES GET US THROUGH THE PRESENT DIFFICULTIES. THERE ARE LESSONS IN ALL OF THIS FOR THE FUTURE, BUT THE SITUATION IS SO SERIOUS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO TAKE DECISIVE ACTION NOW. WE HAVE DONE; AND OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN ECHOED WORLDWIDE.

THE SECOND POINT THAT NEEDS MAKING IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HASN’T ‘GIVEN’ LENDING INSTITUTIONS LARGE SUMS OF TAX PAYERS MONEY. THE GOVERNMENT’S INVESTMENTS ARE SECURED AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE BANKS. THE GOVERNMENT IS EARNING INTEREST ON THE MONEY COMMITTED.  IN RETURN THE special liquidity scheme that gIVES money to the banks is on condition that THOSE BANKS THE GOVERNMENT own, put the same amount of lending into small businesses as they did in 2007.

I DON’T NEED TO REMIND A NORTH EAST AUDIENCE AS TO WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE LOOKS LIKE, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT IS A RECENT MEMORY FOR OUR REGION. I CAN REMEMBER THE PRIDE WE ALL FELT ON TYNESIDE AS HMS RICHMOND LEFT THE TYNE FROM SWAN HUNTER’S SHIPYARD. THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE TORIES AND THE YARD WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE RECEIVERS.

TOGETHER WITH THE MUNICIPAL LEADERS OF NORTH TYNESIDE AND NEWCASTLE, OTHER MP’S AND TRADE UNION LEADERS, I WALKED UP THE BANK AT THE HEAD OF THREE THOUSAND SHIPYARD WORKERS WHO HAD DONE THEIR VERY BEST AND WERE NOW REDUNDANT. RENDUNDANT AT A TIME WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT WAS HIGH. INTEREST RATES WERE HIGH BECAUSE INFLATION WAS HIGH.

LIKE EVERYONE ELSE I WAS ANGRY AT WHAT WAS BEING DONE TO US AND ANGRY THAT I COULDN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, EXCEPT STAND UP FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT HAD ELECTED ME TO REPRESENT THEM.

NOW, WE ARE NOT POWERLESS. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET THIS REGION THROUGH THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. THERE MUST BE NO RETURN TO THE MASS UNEMPLOYMENT AND ACCOMPANYING MISERY OF THE PAST. AND HERE’S HOW WE ARE GOING TO GO ABOUT IT.

AS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE THE PRIME MINISTER HAS ASKED EACH REGIONAL MINISTER TO ENGAGE WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE REGION AND FEED BACK CONCERNS AND IDEAS TO GOVERNMENT.

BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE NORTH EAST AND ALREADY ESTABLISHED BILATERAL WAY OF WORKING, I WAS ABLE TO GET ON THE FRONT FOOT. 

SINCE SEPTEMBER I HAVE MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NORTHERN BUSINESS FORUM 4 TIMES AND MOST RECENTLY HELD A MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF BANKING AND FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING. FURTHER MEETINGS WITH SPECIFIC SECTORS SUCH AS THE MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING SECTOR ARE PLANNED.  

I ENSURE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AT THESE MEETINGS ARE REPORTED BACK TO APPROPRIATE COLLEAGUES IN GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ACTION.

TO NAME BUT A FEW EXAMPLES:

1)    CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED OVER PROMPT PAYMENT OF BILLS: The Government has responded with Central Government and RDAs committing to pay suppliers within 10 days. 

gOVERNMENT is now working with the NHS, THE LGA and others to extend the 10-day payment aim TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR. WE ARE REVIEWING LEAD CONTRACTOR ARRANGEMENTS, TO ENSURE PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUPPLIERS FURTHER DOWN THE SUPPLY CHAIN.

2)     Response to concerns over reforms to Empty Property Rate Relief:

I HAVE TAKEN UP THE REGION’S CONCERNS OVER EMPTY PROPERTY RATE RELIEF TO THE TREASURY INCLUDING 2 written representations and MEETINGS WITH THE EXCHEQUER SECRETARY.

MY EFFORTS HERE GOT SOME NATIONAL ATTENTION WHEN TORIES IN LONDON TRIED TO MAKE IT INTO A SPLIT IN THE LABOUR PARTY STORY SAYING THAT I WAS ORGANISING A REBELLION AS CHIEF WHIP AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER. FOR THOSE WHO KNOW THEIR POLITICS, THIS IS TOO LUDICROUS, EVEN FOR THE DAILY MAIL AND SO THE STORY CHANGED INTO A NORTH VERSUS SOUTH VERSION WITH MORE EXTREME WRITE UP’S SUGGESTING THAT I WANTED A SPECIAL TAX RELIEF ONLY FOR NEWCASTLE EAST AND WALLSEND.

IN FACT THE TREASURY HAS RESPONDED announcing in the PBR a temporary increase in the threshold at which an empty property becomes liable for business rates. For the financial year 2009/10 empty properties with a rateable value of less than £15,000 will be exempt from business rates.

This is estimated to cover 77% of empty properties in the North East and seven Out of ten properties nationally.

3)    CONCERNS OVER ACCESS TO FINANCE AND CASH FLOW PARTICUALRY SMEs:

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMMON CONCERNS RAISED WITH ME WHICH I HAVE PUT TO COLLEAGUES IN GOVERNMENT.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS RESPONDED, TAKING DIRECT ACTION TO HELP BUSINESSES ACCESS THE CAPITAL AND MANAGE THE CASH FLOW THEY REQUIRE. MEASURES IN THE PBR DEMONSTRATE THIS:   

• More generous tax relief for businesses now experiencing losses, by allowing temporary additional carry-back of up to £50,000 of losses to be set against taxable profits from the last three years;

• A new HMRC Business Payment Support Service to allow businesses in temporary financial difficulty to spread payment of their HMRC tax bills over a timetable they can afford, with no additional surcharges or penalties

• A new Small Business Finance Scheme to support up to £1 billion of bank lending; a separate £1 billion guarantee facility to support bank lending to small exporters; a £50 million fund to convert businesses’ debt into equity; and a £25 million regional loan transition fund.
• TO HELP SMALL BUSINESS THE PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY THE GOVERNMENT’S INTENTION TO PUT THE BANK codes on a statutory footing.

THESE MEASURES WILL BENEFIT OUR REGION WITH THE DISPROPRTINATLY HIGH NUMBER OF SMES. 133,620 SME’s Will BENEFIT in the north east.

The RDA has PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE TOO:

iT ANNOUNCED A £10 MILLION Support package In September and ANNOUNCED the JEREMIE fund of £125 million (Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises Initiative) in November which IT is estimated will help 850 SMEs to access finance over a five year period.

oNE NORTH EAST HAS AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE £110 MILLION TO SUPPORT REGIONAL BUSINESSES THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT’S NEW SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE SCHEME, CAPITAL LOAN SCHEME AND TRANSITION LOAN FUND. THIS IS ON TOP OF THE £10 MILLION IT COMMITTED TO A BUSINESS SUPPORT PACKAGE LAUNCHED IN SEPTEMBER.

SIMILARLY Business Enterprise North East which operates the Business Link Service in the North East has carried out important work in working with over 17,000 businesses and people starting business in the first six months of this year alone providing health checks and advice and support. 

OF ALL THE ISSUES RAISED WITH ME. THE REGION’S TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE COMES UP MORE OFTEN THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE TOPIC. I KNOW THAT MY COLLEAGUE GEOFF HOON ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES AT YOUR DINNER LAST NIGHT AND SO I WON’T DO AGAIN, EXCEPT TO MAKE TWO POINTS.

FIRSTLY, I WANT TO WELCOME SUE GOLDSMITH’S OFFER MADE ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL EXPRESS  TO HELP IN EXAMINING THE BUSINESS CASE FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL CONNECTIVITY ON THE EAST COAST LINE, BY WHICH OF COURSE I MEAN ALL OF ITAND NOT MAKING THE FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT THE NORTH ENDS AT LEEDS, AS THE CONSERVATIVES DO.

ALL THE ADVICE TO ME IS THAT THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE IS CAPACITY RATHER THAN SPEED, BUT THIS MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE, IT IS ALSO NECCESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE RUNNING AHEAD OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA AND NOT BEHIND IT. TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT WE ARE KEEPING ALL OF THIS ADEQUATELY REVIEWED I WANT TO GIVE NATIONAL EXPRESS THE FASTEST RESPONSE THAT THEY’VE EVER HAD FROM GOVERNMENT AND TO OFFER AN EARLY MEETING TO DISCUSS WHAT A DETAILED WORK PROGRAMME WOULD LOOK LIKE.

SECONDLY, I WANT TO REPORT THAT TOGETHER WITH MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT FROM TEESSIDE I HAVE BEEN TO SEE LORD ADONIS, THE NEW TRANSPORT MINISTER TO DISCUSS HOW WE TAKE FORWARD THE CASE FOR THE TEES METRO. AGAIN I WANT US TO REACH CONCLUSIONS AND GET ON WITH THINGS IF WE CAN.

LET ME SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE HOUSING MARKET IN THE REGION AND LIQUIDITY MORE GENERALLY.  ON WEDNESDAY IN THE QUEEN’S SPEECH, THE GOVERNMENT ANOUNCED:

1. Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley have joined the Royal Bank of Scotland in agreeing that it will not repossess homes for a full six months. OTHERS HAVE FOLLOWED their example.

2. THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE IT CLEAR IN ITS new pre-action PROTOCOL THAT repossession should be a last resort. Judges now expect lenders to consider what steps and what flexibilities might help to keep families in their homes. We are backing that up with free debt advice in every court, and we will work to ensure that the protocol is minimising the number of repossessions ever brought to court.

3. THE GOVERNMENT IS OFFERING FAMILIES WORRIED ABOUT THEIR MORTGAGES A THIRD PROTECTION. Hard-working households that experience a redundancy or significant loss of income as a result of the downturn will be able to defer a proportion of their interest payments for up to two years while they get their family finances back on track.

This measure is in addition to THE protection for the unemployed, who, after 13 weeks, can claim help with their mortgage. It will extend protection for those in work as well as those out of work. We will make this possible by guaranteeing lenders against the risk of loss from those deferred interest payments.

THE PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY THAT THE country’s eight largest lenders have already agreed to sign up FOR THIS schemE. these lenders include HBOS, Nationwide, Abbey, Lloyds TSB, Northern Rock, Barclays and HSBC—already 70 per cent of the mortgages that are held in this country.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE action to improve social housing, with new investment brought forward—an extra £100 million this year and £450 million the year after. THIS HELPS 3,600 HOUSEHOLDS IN THE NORTH EAST.

AND THERE IS MORE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE:

1) THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS REQUESTS TO DO MORE TO RAISE AWARENESS OF ENTITLEMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS RATE RELIEF. ANEC ARE EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY FOR RUNNING AN AWARENESS CAMPAIGN IN OUR REGION AND I HAVE ASKED FOR ADVICE ON HOW BEST TO RUN A TAKE UP CAMPAIGN.

2)  THE GOVERNMENT HAS REALLOCATED £350million under ‘train to gain’ programme for SMEs to ensure employees have the skills and business knowledge they need.  I WANT TO DO MORE. I KNOW THAT THE NBF plans to write TO ME WITH AN OVERVIEW OF CONCERNS ON THE SKILLS AGENDA AND AM MORE THAN willing to DO WHAT I CAN.

I AM CLEAR THAT THE OPEN, INCLUSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE APPROACH THAT I’VE TRIED TO CHAMPION WITHIN THE REGION IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DEAL WITH OUR PROBLEMS.

THIS WOULD BE TRUE IN GOOD TIMES, IT IS EVEN MORE TRUE AS WE FACE UP TO THE CHALLENGES, NOT OF OUR OWN MAKING, BUT CREATED FOR US BY AMERICA’S BAD DEBT CATASTROPHE AND THE INSUING LIQUIDITY CRISIS IN THE WHOLE OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD.

WHEN THE COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE IT’S ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET THE COUNTRY THROUGH.  AS YOU ALL KNOW THIS IS NOT WHAT’S HAPPENING AND SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO GET ON WITH IT ANYWAY.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE ITS CHOICE; a cohesive approach that will get the north east through. action to get liquidity back into the economy, action to support business and ACTION to put money in the pockets of ordinary people.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE BOLD – RIGHT CHOICE FOR OUR COUNTRY – BUT SO MUCH MORe SO for our region.

Serious-minded MPs stay out of the silly season by going on holiday, nurturing the constituency or clearing off to the Edinburgh Festival. That’s what I was doing until I picked up the Sunday Times. Normally I throw the paper away and keep the Culture section but, being on holiday, I read David Cameron’s article about the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia. Lights, camera, action: cue David. The Tory leader is suddenly among the Georgians. This modern-day Metternich has a plan. Georgia’s leaders are probably not used to dealing with Conservative politicians, and they seem to have taken his encouragement at face value. They shouldn’t.

As told to the readers of the Times, the Tory Talleyrand’s plan has three elements. We must all condemn Russia, there must be “urgent diplomatic efforts”, and the Russians must be punished. The first and the third points don’t sound to me like a very promising start to the “urgent diplomatic efforts”.

Cameron urges Nato to admit Georgia. Nato is a mutual defence pact. This position will have gone down very well in Tbilisi, but do we really mean to commit ourselves to all-out war against the Russian Federation if something like this happens again? I don’t favour that approach, and I don’t know anyone who does. There is a bigger point here. If western hawks really are advocating Nato membership for every small country that borders the Russian Federation, even a government far more charitably disposed towards Nato than the present Russian one is going to see the move as a direct challenge. Constantly reprimanding the Russians isn’t the right way to deal with this problem. It makes us look pompous and ineffective.

Dave does have one sanction to advocate. The Bullingdon Bismarck is going to ban Russians from shopping at (or, as he puts it, “marching into”) Selfridges. Perhaps he thinks they are going to annex it. And why pick on Selfridges? Is it all right for them to shop at Woolworths? As a foreign policy, this is ludicrous. Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev are unlikely to back down because they have been banned from shopping trips to London department stores. Poor old Yuri Fedotov, Russia’s ambassador to the UK, will be inundated with requests for Selfridge’s branded goods every time he goes back to Moscow. The Russian cabinet will meet with little teddy bears wearing Selfridges T-shirts decorating the table. Will they be frightened of dangerous Dave? They are more likely to laugh.

There are serious issues in all of this, most of which were missed in Dave’s article. Much has been made of the Russian overreaction and the need for the Russians to leave Georgia and for Georgia’s sovereignty to be maintained. But there are two other overreactions which deserve rather more coverage and discussion than they’ve received so far. The first is the original reason why Georgian troops were sent into South Ossetia. Why did they do this, and why were they killing people? The Russian allegation is that the Georgians wanted the land but not the people, and were attempting something pretty close to ethnic cleansing. I would like to hear testimony from the South Ossetians and to see an independent assessment of what exactly was going on. If these were the circumstances, would it be reasonable (let alone likely) for the Russians to stand by and do nothing?

This brings me to the second overreaction, which is Cameron’s one-sided condemnation of Russia. The Tory leader showed no acknowledgement of the context or the history of the issue. Rightwing leaders in France and Germany are taking a more thoughtful approach, without being soft.

So it’s bad luck for Georgia that publicity-seeking Dave was holidaying next door in Turkey when the trouble started and not in Cornwall, as the British newspapers might have led them to believe.

This article can also be found on the Guardian Website.

Mr. Speaker, you are presiding, Sir, over what I think is a pioneering parliamentary event. I believe that I am the first of the newly appointed regional Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and respond to a debate under that portfolio. I am also responding under that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) for his kind words about the ministerial office that I hold, and I can tell the House that we have been political friends and allies for a very long time. He has been a champion for the community that he represents, as his securing of the debate, and his contribution to it, shows. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics had hoped to attend the debate, but she is metaphorically “Over the hills and far away”—no doubt “Out on the tiles”—so that leaves me to say to my hon. Friend, “Your time is gonna come”. Through “Good times, bad times”, my hon. Friend has been a champion for Middlesbrough and for Cleveland. Indeed, in securing today’s Adjournment debate and drawing attention to the Olympics—an event that is an opportunity to bring economic, social and cultural benefits to the north-east of England and Middlesbrough, and right across the UK—he has shown a determination and commitment to stand up for the communities that he represents as an MP, and that I represent as regional Minister.

The Government and the London Organising Committee for the Olympic games are working hard to ensure that the benefits of the games reach across the UK. One of the main formal mechanisms for achieving that is the nations and regions group to which my hon. Friend referred. The group is chaired by Charles Allen, and it works to optimise the benefits from the 2012 games to the three nations and nine English regions of the UK. Each of those nations and regions has a senior representative in the group. Also, each nation and region has a 2012 co-ordinator who works full time on maintaining strong links with the region and others working on the games.

Obviously, the primary purpose of the games is sport. We want to stimulate interest in sport throughout the world, and nowhere more so than in the host nation. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the achievement of winning the games for the UK and London. They are something in which the whole country can participate and take pride. There are, of course, the added benefits of tourism, culture and business, as he appreciates. A business opportunities network has been created, which will do three things that I hope will be of some reassurance to him. It will offer information about the 2012 contracts through an e-tendering alert service and an electronic brokerage service. It will offer support and guidance through Business Link, and as he knows, Business Link in the north-east has, through its chief executive, already got a connection with Middlesbrough. It is a good organisation, which serves us well. The network will also provide events and engagements. There will be a range of regional and national industry events, which are opportunities to meet the buyer, so that those who wish to submit tenders can interface with those to whom they apply.

There will be pre-games training camps. In preparing for the debate, I had a chance to discuss those matters with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics and she assures me that, although decisions will not be made until January and afterwards, there are bids in, as my hon. Friend said, from the north-east, and the people assembling and evaluating the different bids are impressed with those from the north-east of England.

The run-up to the games will be an opportunity for volunteering. Approximately 70,000 games time volunteers are needed from throughout the country and I hope, as does my hon. Friend, that some of them will come from the north-east.

Let me to deal with my hon. Friend’s specific points. I cannot say more about the training camp proposals except that the submissions are highly regarded and that, as Minister for the region, I will do my best with him to champion its case. My hon. Friend asked whether the Olympics committee had visited the north-east to examine the facilities that are available in our region. The answer is yes. As he probably recalls, the Olympic roadshow came to Middlesbrough on 4 July for the festival of sport activities. However, I am not sure whether that qualifies as inspecting the facilities. He made his point, which was reasonable, well, and I will join him in my capacity as regional Minister to ensure that it is properly made to the Government. When decisions are for the London Organising Committee, not specifically for the Department, it is nevertheless right to make the representations that my hon. Friend has made so that they can be tackled supportively and appropriately.

My hon. Friend referred to skateboarding. As I understand it, the International Olympic Committee is looking to reduce, not increase the number of sports that the Olympic games cover. However, as I understand the current position, things may have changed by 2012, not least with the growing enthusiasm for and popularity of the sport of skateboarding. I welcome the new, world-class stadium that was built in Middlesbrough. If there were to be a centre for the sport, Middlesbrough would be a good candidate. Again, should circumstances change, or should there be other events that could take place in Middlesbrough, I will stand alongside my hon. Friend to champion that cause.

My hon. Friend said that he feared a “Communications breakdown” in tackling interdepartmental co-ordination. Elaborate arrangements are in place to ensure that that does not happen. Time is moving on and it is not possible in such a debate to elaborate on all the arrangements. However, if it will satisfy my hon. Friend, I will write to him from my comprehensive briefing on the subject, and set out the arrangements that are currently in place. If he feels that there are any shortcomings and that our region or a specific aspect of our nation’s public life is not represented, I promise to take that up directly with those who deal with the co-ordinating arrangements.

Let me conclude this useful, important and, in one way, pathfinding debate with a quote from the pop group Led Zeppelin: “Many dreams come true and some have silver linings… I live for my dream and a pocketful of gold.”

100 yrs ago this year, in August 1907, the general workers in Belfast went on strike

The strike wasn’t specific to a particular industry, nor, for once, was it wholly sectarian in nature

The UK Liberal Govt met the strikers, peaceful pickets, with troops, rifles and fixed bayonets

The peaceful pickets became less peaceful, and threw stones and bottles at the soldiers

A month previously, two new Members of Parliament had been elected for Jarrow and, a fortnight later, Colne Valley

It was Jarrow’s Peter Curran who led a ferocious parliamentary onslaught on the use of armed troops against striking workers, and whose Parliamentary activity and leadership brought about an enduring change in public attitudes and the attitudes of parliamentarians to the responses to peaceful industrial disputes

It is the memory of a great Parliamentarian, and a great trade Union leader, that we are celebrating today

In his Parliamentary work, Peter Curran was disciplined and persistent

He had the strength of character, and determination to take on difficult, not always glamorous, organisational tasks, and to see them through to an effective conclusion 

And he was not to be the last Member of Parliament for Jarrow about whom that could be said

In researching the events of the 4^th July 1907, I found much that I expected, and almost as much that I did not

In spite of coming from a very large Irish family, Peter Curran did not get the bulk of the Tyneside Irish vote in the 1907 election

It was an important vote – the Jarrow party still fights in green

When I first fought Newcastle East, just the other side of the river, the party colours were green, red and white

Green for the ground that was fought for

Red for the blood that was spilt

And white for purity of the cause

Needless to say we had to change our colours

It was also made very clear to me that the green was emerald green 

What seems to have happened is that the Irish Nationalist Party – the constitutional Irish National Party of the day – endorsed Sir Charles Mark Palmer, the long-serving Liberal MP 

Palmer was the Palmer of Palmer’s Yard. He was responsible for much of the ship-building enterprises growing up on the south of the river Tyne, and indeed for much of Jarrow town itself

He had defeated Peter Curran at the 1906 election, but Curran continued to work the seat, having shrewdly noted that Palmer was 85 yrs old and no doubt calculating that he, Curran, could fight the seat next time, or that there might be a by-election, as indeed there was, when Palmer died the following year

I thought I’d find that the shipyard workers of Jarrow carried Peter Curran to office in the by-election, but this isn’t what happened either

The shipyard workers vote split between the Irish Nationalist Party with Tyneside Irish Shipyard workers voting for the Constitutional Irish National Cause.

The Nationalist Candidate was himself a shipyard worker

The traders in Jarrow, and the freeholders in South Shields who had votes in Jarrow in those days, voted Unionist

It was the mining community of West Bouldon and Bouldon Colliery that voted solidly for the Labour candidate – the other votes split four ways and Peter Curran won, thus becoming the first Labour MP for the North East of England

I thought I would find that in the election campaign he emphasised his Labour credentials, as he would have had every right to do

In fact he fought the campaign more as a trade unionist than as a political activist, emphasising his 20 yrs as a full time Trade Union official with the Union that he, Will Thorne and others, helped to found.This was the National Union of Gasworkers and General Labourers

There is even an irony here – Peter Curran began his working career in a Steelworks’ Blacksmiths Shop, first by assisting the hammer driver, and then doing the job himself

A generation later this is something he couldn’t have done because he would have been in the wrong union

Peter Curran is the Curran in the court of appeal case Curran vs Straleven in 1891

The case overturns Curran’s earlier conviction and fine for intimidation which was imposed on him during an industrial dispute at Plymouth 

He was one of the first National Leaders of our Union in the days when Labour leaders like Curran, Clynes and Thorne were able to lead Trade Unions and serve in Parliament as well

They saw no contradiction in this and indeed there wasn’t 

Nowadays its hard to imagine anyone leaving the Fabian Society, except perhaps because of the annual fee

Peter Curran left the Fabian Society because he was against the war. The Boer War.

He was clearly a strong-willed man with drive, courage and by all accounts having an extrovert good nature 

He was a born leader and political organiser.

He died in 1910, and it’s a measure of how much he was admired that thousands of people turned out for his burial at Leytonstone Roman Catholic Cemetary

A gas-worker’s union man to the very last, the funeral procession was led by the Stepney Gas-worker’s brass band.

Nick Brown: It is a rare pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) in debate, as it is unusual for a Labour Member to speak immediately after another Labour Member. It is worth pausing to reflect on why that has happened. In fairness to the Conservative party, it is being consistent. Conservatives do not like bus travel, they are not wedded to public transport and they have not turned up for this debate. They are at least being consistent in not being present. However, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) is the only Liberal Democrat who has attended this debate. When I think of all the “Fib Dem” “Focus” leaflets that have been shoved through my letter box—I am sure other Members have had the same experience—saying how much they care about where the bus stop is, the frequency of the bus service, how wrong it is that somebody else, either the Labour Government or the Labour-controlled passenger transport authority, has not done this, that or the other, I would have thought that their parliamentary representatives might have found time to have attended the debate.

Tobias Ellwood (Con): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not surprised
that a Member rises to respond to that comment. He is right that the debate is on an important issue, but let us look at the timetable for it. On what day is the debate taking place? This is the last day before recess and we are having a discussion about buses. Why was the subject of the debate not expanded? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should have a wider debate—one that is not only on buses, but on transport? If that were the case, we would find that not only Opposition Members but Labour Members would be more inclined to join in the debate.

Nick Brown: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I wish to observe that the conditions that pertain to today’s debate pertain for all Members equally. It is not easier for Labour Members to get to the House than Conservative Members—or easier even than Liberal Democrats. However, I shall follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and return to the subject of buses.

The case for public bus transport has never been stronger. The arguments for it have been well rehearsed in the House. Bus transport is liberating for those who do not have access to other means of transportation. It is socially inclusive for those on low incomes, including pensioners and those who do not receive a wage. The economic case for bus transportation in broadening the range of jobs that are available to people has an important part to play in the Government’s “making work pay” strategy. There is, and always has been, a strong case for bus transportation in terms of the impact that it has on relieving traffic congestion. Perhaps the most important argument in favour of bus transportation is the environmental case; a bus journey produces far less carbon dioxide per person than individual car travel for the same journey.

I want to pay tribute and give due credit to individual Government Departments for their recognition of the role of bus transportation in achieving their departmental objectives. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions has provided financial support for bus transportation defined specifically to link rural communities with larger neighbouring labour markets. Through its agencies, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its predecessor, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have supported rural bus schemes, including minibus schemes, to mitigate the isolation of those in rural communities who do not have access to their own transport. Some of those schemes have been highly imaginative, taking careful account of people’s preferred journey patterns. The Chancellor has provided funding for concessionary bus travel for older and disabled people in his last two Budget statements, and the latest proposal from the Department for Transport is to take forward the quality contract idea in the Transport Act 2000, which I think has so far found only one taker. So if there is merit in the idea—I think that there is—it needs revisiting.

Having said all that, the question that the House ought to be considering is why the use of buses outside London has been in sharp decline since bus deregulation in the 1980s. Bus use in Tyne and Wear has declined by 48 per cent. in the past 20 years, and part of the explanation might be found in the level of expenditure on transport. Public spending on transport in London stands at £631 per head. The equivalent figure for the four English regions of the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west and the west midlands is £239 per head. That is a substantial difference. Deregulation of the bus industry outside London has not brought the benefits claimed for it, and it seems that the application of competition policy in this area has turned out to be more of a hindrance than a help.

With declining passenger numbers, bus companies are slow in investing and short-termist in their decision making, and there has been little innovation from the private sector. Now that the private sector bus market has settled down following initial deregulation, there has been a marked tendency toward the establishment of effective private sector monopolies area by area. That is exacerbated by the fact that the cost of entry into the market for new competition is high, so it is rarely attempted. Whatever this is, it is not competition policy. Bus companies are also not slow in coming forward to demand public subsidies for every social element of the service that they provide—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) made very effectively. The most obvious example is concessionary travel. Bus companies seek to reclaim from public authorities the full cost of pensioners’ and older people’s travel. If a real private market were operating, surely all bus companies would introduce concessionary travel arrangements of their own. However, because the state is paying, those private companies want to charge full fare.

Paul Rowen (LD): I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has moved on to concessionary fares. What is his view of the Government’s revenue support grant settlement for Tyne and Wear, which resulted in massive cuts in bus services and an increase in concessionary fares? Does he think that the Government got it right?

Nick Brown: It will come as no surprise whatsoever to the hon. Gentleman to learn that I will have quite a lot to say about that issue later. Indeed, I have asked questions of the Minister about it, met various Ministers to discuss it, had an Adjournment debate on it and introduced a ten-minute Bill in an attempt to remedy the problem. So it is not as if I have been silent on the matter, and nor will I be silent this time. I should add one cautionary note, however. The difficult situation in which Tyne and Wear finds itself is not the responsibility of the Ministers opening and responding to today’s debate. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Transport went out of his way to be as helpful as he could to Tyne and Wear; the blame lies elsewhere.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. On his substantive point, he has made an intricate, detailed and effective attack on the way in which the subsidy is being applied. Surely that bears out the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who said that one does not have to disagree with the level of subsidy in order to argue that it is none the less being extremely ineffectively applied.

Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman—I hope that I do not do him any harm in saying this—is absolutely right. An appropriate sum of money was allocated to the policy; it is the way in which it has been distributed to individual authorities that has given rise to the problem. Some authorities were given too much money and were reluctant to give it back. That is understandable, but the area that I represent was not given enough money. It says that it needs more, and it does, as I shall point out.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will also agree with me about the dangers before privatisation. Unresponsive, complacent, inflexible and inefficient public monopolies are no more acceptable than their under-funded private sector equivalents. Many of my hon. Friends have said that they do not want to go back to the situation of the early 1980s. I endorse that sentiment and I shall propose a better way forward.

The issue is important for the whole country, and especially for English conurbations outside London. It is especially important to the community in Tyne and Wear that I represent, partly because car ownership is substantially lower than the national average and partly because the usage of public transport is substantially higher than the national average. It is those facts that, as well as underpinning the importance of public transport, have got us into the budgetary difficulty that the PTA, Nexus, faces. For those who do not know the area, Nexus covers the five metropolitan district authorities in Tyne and Wear. The funding arrangements for the Government-inspired concessionary travel scheme have left the authority with a shortfall of £5.4 million.

I have raised the issue in an Adjournment debate and in a ten-minute Bill. The Tyne and Wear MPs have had meetings with Ministers and even with the Prime Minister to try to resolve the issue, but it remains unresolved. It is completely unacceptable that the injustice has remained unresolved for 18 months.

Nexus has tried to deal with the problem by drawing down its reserves to bridge the funding gap. That might be a reasonable short-term strategy, but it can only do it once. The reserves cannot be drawn down again, so some other means will have to be found to meet the budget shortfall. That inevitably means cuts in services and the withdrawal of other concessions that do not have the statutory underpinning of the arrangements for pensioners and persons with disabilities. That is desperately unfair—and even more so because the pressure to cut other arrangements is not being put on other passenger transport authorities. In any event, such pressure is contrary to the public interest.

I wish to conclude my short contribution to today’s debate by suggesting a way forward. The debate about city regions offers in its analysis some very important points on economic development and public transport, although it is unwise to draw more general conclusions about political structures from it. What is needed is a combination of the ideas proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for taking forward the quality contract proposals, which have much merit, combined with an empowering of passenger transport authorities.

I took great heart from the Minister’s comments on the issue. I shall await the details of the proposals, but it sounds as if they are on the right lines. I strongly believe that passenger transport authorities should be able to make strategic alliances across their existing boundaries with neighbouring communities. They should be led, as they are now, by elected local representatives. However, I am not taken with the idea that they should comprise the leaders of the district authorities in the area. Council leaders are very busy people: a mixture of other councillors, in proportion to party representation in the area, would be able to specialise in transport matters, and make that their main contribution to local public service.

The PTAs need to have the power to assert specific bus routes. They do not have it at present, but instead must allow routes to be chosen by the bus companies. They should be able to impose bus-only lanes and make arrangements with the police for their enforcement. They should be able to assert the frequency of service on specific routes, and they need to be adequately funded so that they can support innovative public transport projects.

A strong case can be made for funding short or environmentally friendly journeys, such as school bus journeys in urban areas that might replace the car trips that parents make when taking their children to school. That idea has much to commend it on environmental and congestion-reduction grounds, but the obvious objection is that parents pay for their journeys by car to school, whereas the public purse would end up paying for the bus. Nevertheless, the time has come for such ideas, and the PTAs should be able to innovate in that way.

If bus travel is to make the contribution that many Ministers want it to make, we have to believe in it and create enthusiastic public authorities to champion it. The new proposals from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have their greatest impact if local PTAs are empowered to act as strong advocates for them.

The following is Nick’s contribution to a debate in the House of Commons on “Defence in the World”, in which he sets out his thoughts on the renewal of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. You can find the complete debate here.

Nick Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). When he referred to the danger posed to us by Russia, I at first thought that he was using an old Conservative party speaking note, but as he developed the argument I could see that he was referring to contemporary circumstances. My judgment of the current situation is not the same as his. The 20th century has not been kind to Russia and I urge him to try to look at things from Russia’s point of view, rather than from the point of view that he adopts, namely, that we always have to think the worst of the Russians and to fear their intentions. Russia is a state that is in transition from a very difficult historical background and we should give it a chance to make that journey, rather than always looking for the worst and asserting it as a new threat. I do not see the situation in the same way as he does.

The communities that I represent in Newcastle and North Tyneside have a long association with the armed services. As well as building warships for the Royal Navy at Swan Hunter and fighting vehicles for the Army at BAE Systems in Newcastle, our community has service personnel in each branch of the armed forces. We are particularly strongly represented in the artillery, the infantry and the Royal Marines. I identify myself and the community that I represent with the remarks made by the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman in applauding and honouring the bravery of our service personnel. Today’s debate is an opportunity to discuss what we expect of our armed forces and what support we give them to undertake their tasks.

The cornerstone of the debate is our membership of NATO, which I strongly support, and the question of how best to make an effective contribution to NATO, bearing in mind our other obligations. We need to ask what it is we are setting out to do. What are the budgetary constraints? What are the capacity constraints? Those questions have not changed. I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1983 and arrived just in time to take part in the great debate about the original Trident programme. My view then was that we should do what other European members of NATO do and rely on America’s strategic deterrent, and not duplicate it ourselves. There is only so much money that can be spent on defence. My view then was that our money would be better spent on supplementing NATO’s conventional capacity, which we were more likely to use, rather than duplicating the strategic nuclear capacity. I could envisage no circumstances in which we would ever use that capacity, let alone independently of the Americans. Back in 1983, that was regarded in the Labour party as a very right-wing view, because it was pro-American and showed both a commitment to and confidence in NATO. Unlike other recently elected MPs at the time, I would not join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament because of its opposition to NATO. I hold the same view now, and it is one of the small ironies of Labour politics that that view is now regarded in the Labour party as a rebel left-wing view.

All the key features of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent—the platform, the delivery system, the warheads and even the onshore-based support—depend in part on our relationship with the United States. The Trident II D5 missiles are leased from the US missile pool. They are manufactured, tested and serviced in the US. The warheads are US-designed, and several crucial components, without which they would not work, are manufactured in the US and purchased off the shelf. The system is reliant, too, on US software for all aspects of targeting.

I think that those working relationships with the United States are beneficial, but the logical next step is to integrate the whole thing into NATO’s strategic deterrent. It is the case for having a strategic deterrent that the British Prime Minister can fire separately of the Americans that has just not been made. No Minister has been able to describe to the House the circumstances in which the United Kingdom would be completely isolated from our NATO partners with only our deterrent to fall back on. The major security threat facing Britain is not an enemy state with a strategic nuclear deterrent of its own threatening Britain alone, but not our NATO partners—the main security threat facing Britain is terrorism. The Select Committee on Defence recently concluded that the

“strategic nuclear deterrent could serve no useful or practical purpose in countering this kind of threat.”

The money that the Government plan to commit to the programme could be more usefully spent on conventional armed forces and on specialist anti-terrorism units, which could do something to make us safer against the most serious threat.

In his statement to the House on 4 December 2006, the Prime Minister said that

“the investment required will not be at the expense of the conventional capabilities our armed forces need.”—[ Official Report, 4 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 23.]

I take issue with that view—the money can be spent on upgrading our strategic nuclear deterrent or it can be spent on something else. The cost of Trident in the 1980s had an impact on the budget for conventional defence equipment, and nowhere more so than on the procurement of warships and fleet auxiliaries for the Royal Navy. There are also substantial continuing revenue costs.

I remind the House of the words of Coroner Selena Lynch at the inquest into the death of my constituent, Mr. Anthony Wakefield, who served with the Coldstream Guards in Iraq. He died instantly from neck and chest wounds when a bomb exploded close to his Snatch Land Rover near al-Almarah on 1 May last year. He was wearing standard body armour, but not Kestrel kit, which has added neck and arm protection. The coroner’s finding was that Anthony Wakefield may have survived the roadside bomb blast if he had been equipped with Kestrel body armour. That is not my assertion—that is the coroner’s finding. Recording a verdict of unlawful killing, she said:

“it is regrettable that our soldiers cannot all be provided with what they need immediately”.

There are choices facing the House today. I believe that our first priority is the immediate well-being of our service personnel. We should ensure that front-line troops get all the equipment that they need—and that should be our priority.

Strategic defence systems do not exist in a vacuum. If the argument is that Britain must have an independent strategic nuclear deterrent as well as the security of NATO’s American deterrent, surely it is open to other nation states to argue that they, too, need a similar independent strategic nuclear deterrent. The hon. Member for Woodspring referred to the situation in Iran. Its near neighbours—India, Pakistan, China and Israel, and now America in Iraq—all have some form of nuclear weapon capability, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) pointed out. Our contribution is to say that we need to upgrade our weapons system and that Iran should not have those things at all. I do not see anything in that argument that would make the people of Iran feel more secure or less isolated. If ever there was a case for renewed diplomatic activity and for trying to find a peaceful way forward, surely this is it.

The real argument for Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is not military at all—the real argument for the possession of an independent strategic nuclear deterrent is that such a deterrent is vital for Britain to maintain its “big power” role in the world, including our permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Linda Gilroy (Lab/Co-op): I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can make a speech and deal with some of those issues. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that evidence taken by the Defence Committee suggested that it is not essential to retain the deterrent to maintain our seat at the Security Council? There are other strong reasons for doing so, however, as I hope to explain.

Nick Brown: I fully understand and acknowledge my hon. Friend’s constituency interest in these matters, and I accept what she said about the Defence Committee’s views. I shall make a similar argument myself.

It is also argued that the independent strategic nuclear deterrent affects our status in the European Union and with America. Although I think those are the real arguments that underpin the views of those who believe in the independent nuclear deterrent, I also think that they are the worst arguments of all. There is a pretty strong case for reforming the way in which the Security Council works and who sit on it as permanent members, and reform should not be driven by who has and who does not have nuclear weapons.

Our relations with our strategic partners in the European Union and the United States have very little to do with Britain’s military capabilities and everything to do with mutual self-interest, bound together by trading and commercial relationships and a shared belief in international conventions and the rule of law. Britain will punch above its weight in the world if we spend money on the threats that actually confront us, rather than on those that do not, and spend money on things that those who are poorer and more disadvantaged than ourselves really need.