Economic Downturn

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Christopher Chope

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)

† Benton, Mr. Joe (Bootle) (Lab)

Blears, Hazel (Salford) (Lab)

Borrow, Mr. David S. (South Ribble) (Lab)

Brady, Mr. Graham (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con)

Burnham, Andy (Leigh) (Lab)

† Chapman, Ben (Wirral, South) (Lab)

Chaytor, Mr. David (Bury, North) (Lab)

Coffey, Ann (Stockport) (Lab)

† Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)

† Crausby, Mr. David (Bolton, North-East) (Lab)

Cunningham, Tony ( Workington )

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire (Crosby) (Lab)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) (Lab)

Eagle, Maria (Liverpool, Garston) (Lab)

Ellman, Mrs. Louise (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)

Evans, Mr. Nigel (Ribble Valley) (Con)

Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

Field, Mr. Frank (Birkenhead) (Lab)

Goggins, Paul (Wythenshawe and Sale, East) (Lab)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

Hall, Mr. Mike (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

Hendrick, Mr. Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)

Hesford, Stephen (Wirral, West) (Lab)

† Heyes, David (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)

† Howarth, Mr. George (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab)

† Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay (Chorley) (Lab)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)

Humble, Mrs. Joan (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab)

Hunter, Mark (Cheadle) (LD)

Hutton, Mr. John (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)

Iddon, Dr. Brian (Bolton, South-East) (Lab)

Jack, Mr. Michael (Fylde) (Con)

† Jones, Helen ( Warrington, North )

Kaufman, Sir Gerald (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton, West) (Lab)

† Kennedy, Jane (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)

Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

Leech, Mr. John (Manchester, Withington) (LD)

Lewis, Mr. Ivan (Bury, South) (Lab)

† Lloyd, Tony (Manchester, Central) (Lab)

McCartney, Mr. Ian (Makerfield) (Lab)

† Maclean, David (Penrith and The Border) (Con)

Marsden, Mr. Gordon (Blackpool, South) (Lab)

Martlew, Mr. Eric (Carlisle) (Lab)

Meacher, Mr. Michael (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab)

Miller, Andrew (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

O'Brien, Mr. Stephen (Eddisbury) (Con)

† O'Hara, Mr. Edward (Knowsley, South) (Lab)

Osborne, Mr. George (Tatton) (Con)

Pope, Mr. Greg (Hyndburn) (Lab)

Prentice, Mr. Gordon (Pendle) (Lab)

Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)

Purnell, James (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)

Reed, Mr. Jamie (Copeland) (Lab)

† Rowen, Paul (Rochdale) (LD)

Russell, Christine (City of Chester) (Lab)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)

Southworth, Helen (Warrington, South) (Lab)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles) (Lab)

Straw, Mr. Jack (Blackburn) (Lab)

Stringer, Graham (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab)

† Stunell, Andrew (Hazel Grove) (LD)

Timpson, Mr. Edward (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)

† Turner, Mr. Neil (Wigan) (Lab)

† Twigg, Derek (Halton) (Lab)

Ussher, Kitty (Burnley) (Lab)

Wallace, Mr. Ben (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con)

Wareing, Mr. Robert N. (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

† Watts, Mr. Dave ( St. Helens, North )

Winterton, Ann (Congleton) (Con)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield) (Con)

Woodward, Mr. Shaun (St. Helens, South) (Lab)

† Woolas, Mr. Phil (Minister for the North West)

Simon Patrick, Gosia McBride, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

North West Regional Grand Committee

Thursday 22 October 2009

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

The North West’s Response to the Economic Downturn

2.13 pm

Chairman: The first business is oral questions, but because of the acoustics and the recording problems in this room, I first ask that people switch off their Blackberrys because, by all accounts, they will cause havoc with the recording equipment.

Oral Answers to QuestionsThe Secretary of State was asked—

Ministerial Effectiveness (Assessment)

1. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): What arrangements are in place to assess the effectiveness of his role in representing the interests of the North West in the formulation of Government policy. [294831]

The Minister for the North West (Mr. Phil Woolas): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As with all Government Ministers, our effectiveness as Regional Ministers is scrutinised by Members of Parliament, the electorate and the Prime Minister. Regional Ministers were introduced in 2007, as part of “The Governance of Britain” reforms. I was delighted to accept this challenge from the Prime Minister in June, and am equally delighted that the Regional Grand Committee and the Regional Select Committee are particularly important parts of the process of accountability.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. I also welcome the Minister, and I appreciate his answer. With his role as the Immigration Minister and his work in the Treasury, he clearly has a full-time job to do. How will we be able to tell whether his work has been effective? During the last few months we have lost the railway carriages that my commuters were relying on. The Learning and Skills Council funding cuts have hit one of my sixth-form colleges and a Building Schools for the Future bid has been rejected in Stockport. So how will we be able to measure the difference that his appointment in June has made?

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful for the question and welcome you, Mr. Chope, to the Chair and to the most beautiful and important region in the United Kingdom. You are very welcome. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that it is for the Members of Parliament and, through them, the public to judge. I will make available a list of the duties I have carried out as Regional Minister. Some of my work is done in London

on behalf of the region, as well as the work that is done in the region on behalf of the region and in explaining Government policies.

On the particular examples that the hon. Gentleman raises, as he will know, together with colleagues I have been engaged in the debate about the extra carriages. We have not given up yet. The announcements that have been made by the integrated transport authority in the Greater Manchester area are welcome. On the LSC funding, our region achieved five of the 13 allocations for the whole of the country. We got more than our share of the cake that was distributed. That is a tribute to the colleges, the local authorities and the Members of Parliament, some of whom are here. I remember speaking in particular to colleagues. While the problems were there, from the regional perspective we did better.

I do not have the figures in front of me on the BSF allocation for our region, but that is an important point: there is a Minister who can act as a representative for the region and bring problems and issues to the attention of the Government. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that, as I said in my speech to the 4NW conference in July, I believe that this region can lead and is leading the country out of recession. It is against the prosperity and the full employment measures that I would wish to be judged. But it is a matter for hon. Members.

Regional Spatial Strategy

3. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the regional spatial strategy for the North West. [294833]

Mr. Woolas : I am grateful for this question on the very important regional spatial strategy which was published in September 2008 and is currently subject to the partial review on three specific subjects. Those are the accommodation requirement for Gypsies and Travellers; travelling show people; and the important subject of parking standards. I have had no specific recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the overall matter of the regional spatial strategy.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Minister for that response, but the regional spatial strategy identifies for an area like Tameside the need for 750 new housing units to be built per year. The council’s own needs survey identifies the need for 1,700 units, of which 424 should be affordable homes. Neither target is being met and it is a similar story for the Stockport part of my constituency. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that despite the current economic difficulties, housing units, particularly affordable housing and social rented houses, are built in areas like my constituency to meet that need?

Mr. Woolas: My hon. Friend raises what is probably the most important issue, other than the economy itself, for our constituents. I have met the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), on the specific point that he has raised. In particular, in our region the Home and Communities Agency is a full and active member of the North West

Joint Economic Commission and I am grateful for that. We have put in place the Kickstart programme to identify those areas where the recession has slowed down development. I hope I am not accused of blowing the region’s trumpet too much but again we have achieved more than a fair share, taking a per capita measure. The issue of social housing and affordable housing is central to our strategies, given the regional disparities in the fall in house prices and the pick-up in house prices. I should add that, not within the hon. Gentleman’s constituency but in those of other hon. Members, the housing market renewal fund is precisely designed to address the issue of affordable housing in the private sector too.

Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend, think that the role of public markets, both retail and wholesale, is given sufficient importance in the regional spatial plan? I invite him to look particularly at the proposals being considered by Liverpool Vision and, through it, the regional development agency for the development of the Edge Lane wholesale fruit and vegetable and meat markets. The food sector is one of the strongest and most important industrial sectors in the UK, particularly in the North West, and it is an excellent way for people to start up in business.

Mr. Woolas: The food processing sector is often overlooked in public debate but it is, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, a critical sector—indeed, I believe the second largest sector for export—of our region, particularly in the Merseyside area, where there is a centuries-old tradition of food processing.

On the points about markets, could I offer to take away and consider the specific point? I am aware of the Edge Lane development and I am sure the hon. Lady has welcomed the announcement of the improvements to the road corridor into the city centre, which is vital, not just for the people who live there but for the attractiveness of Liverpool as a place to invest.

The third point which the spatial strategy recognises is the issue of sustainability. The better markets we have and the better access we have—wholesale and retail—the more likely we are to have sustainability. That is one of the lessons that the British Retail Consortium has been explaining to Government, as my right hon. Friend knows a lot better than I do.

European Regional Development Fund

4. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): What representations he has received on the effectiveness of the administration of the European regional development fund in the north-west.

[294834]

Mr. Woolas: I have received no direct representation on the specific matter of the effectiveness of the administration of the fund but I do regularly discuss the fund and the many benefits it has brought to the north-west—investing over £1.8 billion in the region since 1997—with the regional organisations and, of course, with ministerial colleagues and others.

David Maclean: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. As I understand it, of the £755 million European regional development fund currently provided for the north-west, £307 million has been allocated to Merseyside with the remaining £448 million to the whole of the north-west

region. Up in Cumbria, we appreciate the difficulties of Liverpool because our GVA two years ago was only 71 per cent. of the national average. Cumbria is one of the poorest sub-regions in the whole of Europe, so we therefore appreciate Liverpool’s difficulties. Bearing in mind those allocations, and the plight of Cumbria, does the Minister not agree that in his next round of discussions with Ministers he should argue that Cumbria should get a slightly bigger share without increasing the overall pot?

Mr. Woolas: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on using the opportunity to raise the matter of distribution. The £650 million figure is, as he says, addressed in significant part to Merseyside—although not exclusively, as he has acknowledged, given the history of objective 1 in the area. Other regeneration funds are brought to the table to make the jigsaw puzzle for the whole region fit together. Particular attention is given by the Government office for the north-west to his point, particularly in terms of connectivity and the announcement on the Carlisle bypass, which will benefit his constituents.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the points on rural disadvantage, which sometimes can be measured, or needs to be measured, in a different way. On a personal note, I absolutely understand his point because my mother reinforces it regularly.

Environmental Policies (Employment)

5. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the relationship between the Government’s policies on the environment and job creation and retention in the north-west; and if he will make a statement. [294835]

Mr. Woolas: The environment is an essential north-west asset, making a significant contribution to our economy. In 2008-09, the north-west low carbon economy was valued at £10.7 billion. Under the national future jobs funds, the north-west will seek to establish approximately 1,300 green jobs. The joint economic commission, which I chair jointly with Mr. Robert Hough from the Northwest Regional Development Agency, has identified green jobs as a key economic driver. In December, we will agree the actions required to maintain the north-west’s strong performance in that sector.

Ben Chapman: Does the Minister agree that in developing the north-west economy, we need to create and maintain jobs in the context of a green economy? Both jobs and projects need to be sustainable. Does he also agree that the Bromborough dock landfill reclamation is the sort of project that we should look at with great enthusiasm, bringing, as it does, tourism aspects, a window on the region and environmental aspects for the people in the whole region? Finally, will he say more about how, in considering development, he balances the interests of economy and ecology?

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me advance notice of his success in promoting the Bromborough site. It was formerly a landfill site, and now it is being restored. It is a good example of how we can renovate to protect our environment and provide for economic and leisure opportunities. As regional

Minister, I have an advisory role on policy, not an executive role on planning applications, as my hon. Friend knows.

The general approach that we are taking through the regional spatial strategy, the priority programme areas of work and the criteria that the NWDA uses—not just in its strategies, but in its allocation of funds—is for environmental and ecological sustainability, as my hon. Friend has said. If we are to lead the worldwide industrial revolution to green and sustainable jobs, which I believe we are doing and are well-placed to do much more, we need exactly to meet my hon. Friend’s point. I think there is consensus across the Committee on that point.

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): Earlier this morning, during Transport Question Time in the House, I asked the transport Minister when he expects to make a decision on the Mersey gateway bridge. He said he expects the inspector’s report in December. The scheme is vital for Merseyside and Cheshire. I ask the Minister to answer the question with his Treasury hat on, but may I make a point first? The scheme is expected to provide around 4,000 new jobs. It will be good for the environment because it will introduce bus ways, walkways and cycle ways, and it will also reduce the congestion, which is apparent around the current bridge.

Jobs are particularly important because there will be hundreds of jobs during the construction phase, which are much needed at the moment, not least in Merseyside, Cheshire and my constituency of Halton. Will the Minister do his best to ensure that colleagues in the Treasury do not in any way hold up the final decision for the Mersey gateway if it is approved by the Department for Transport? It is vital that we get on with it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Woolas: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on making the journey from Transport questions in the House to this magnificent ballroom in the old town hall in Liverpool. It shows that the modernisation of the railway service, led by the Government, has been a great success. Secondly, I thank him for telling me my what my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Department for Transport said in response to his question, because, of course, it is not in my brief.

The serious question that he has asked is whether the Government, and the Treasury in particular, understand the economic importance and potential of the crossing. I assure him that that is the case. On the decision-making process that he has outlined, let me reassure him further that in our meetings with the private and public sectors, the development agency and the Government office for the north-west, there has been a clear understanding of the importance of this matter. As he has mentioned, I also have Treasury responsibilities, which allow me to put forward arguments for the region and for this project in particular.

Mr. Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab): The Minister will be aware that many local authorities and primary care trusts in the north-west do not receive the level of grant that the Government’s criteria say that they should. That prevents them from giving the support that is needed for companies to retain and create jobs and to help the north-west region out of recession. Will he use his best endeavours between now and the next

comprehensive spending review round to ensure that the pace of change in both health and local government funding is such that authorities such as his and mine receive the amount of money that the Government say they should? They will then have the headroom to ensure that the economy improves more rapidly than it otherwise would.

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I congratulate him on the work that he in particular has done to put this issue into the public domain and into the in-tray of decision makers in Whitehall and Westminster. He makes the important point that although the gap has closed significantly, it has not closed completely. There is the developing national care strategy—it is important that this point is fed into that—as well as the pre-Budget and Budget processes to which he refers. There is also a critical point to consider about age and longevity within our region. I understand that he has written to the Prime Minister about that issue. There are regional discrepancies and significant discrepancies within many of our constituencies. The greatest discrepancies in some areas of Crewe and Nantwich that I visited on Monday are as much as 14 years, within the same area, in life expectancy for males. That is an important point across the region, but, taking the region against the national average, it is important that funding that recognises longevity also recognises prevention, and that we want our constituents to live longer. We have considered the electoral advantages of that, of course, and we decided that the alternative is not advisable.

On my hon. Friend’s serious point, money for health and local authority services that can help us to meet our targets on longevity is important. It is also important to recognise that there are extra costs in our constituencies for the very elderly—other things being equal. Closing that gap is an objective of Government policy and is extremely important in the CSR and the revenue support grant settlement.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): The Minister might not have expected to hear these words coming from the Benches that are traditionally reserved for the Opposition, but may I say what a tremendous job he is doing, and what a great job the Government are doing for the whole of the north-west? I want to press him a little on the link between jobs and the environment. One of the Government’s recent major announcements was about the electrification of the railway line between Liverpool and Manchester, which is very important in both environmental and job creation terms. Is the Minister having advanced discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Transport to make the case that the north-west needs other lines to be electrified, such as the Liverpool to Preston and Preston to Manchester lines, as well as the lines across the Pennines that would link Merseyside, through Manchester, to west Yorkshire and Hull?

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should point out to representatives of the press and public that he is the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. Nothing should be read into him sitting on the opposite side of the chamber. His question gives me the opportunity to point out the significant announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the electrification of the Manchester to Liverpool line from Victoria, via Newton, to Lime Street. That was the world’s first passenger railway line and it is fitting that it should be the first in our region to receive such modernisation.

Following the announcement, I met the Secretary of State to consider what more could be done on connectivity in the region, particularly through rail. We have the regional funding allocation 2 for transport, but there are other schemes that can be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central mentioned Preston and the Pennines, but other hon. Members have raised issues of connectivity in other areas. Our region has the advantage that the transport authorities are putting their shoulder behind the wheel of low-carbon integrated transport, to the benefit of us all.

The answer to the question is yes. We are currently having discussions about what the schemes could be, where they would fit in and what funding might be available from public and private sector partnerships. Getting such connectivity in the region is critical to our future prosperity. It is important that happens across the region as well as up and down it.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): The Minister’s answer on the connectivity between Liverpool and Manchester is interesting. As is well known, the announcement about electrification came out of the blue and, like everybody else, he did not know about it. It was sprung not only on the Minister for the North West, but on most others. No study was carried out. If it had been, the requirement of electrification between Preston and Manchester would have been recognised. [ Interruption. ] Does the Whip wish to say something?

The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr. Dave Watts) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoyle: That is all right then. Electrification between Preston and Manchester is a priority, not only because of overcrowding. The only way that west coast main line trains can go direct from Glasgow to Manchester is by electrification of the line from Preston into Manchester. It is about taking out overcrowding and getting the benefits of the improvements. The only way to speed up the trains is through electrification. That has never been on offer. What does the Minister have to say about that?

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful for the question. My hon. Friend makes the important point that I touched on about electrification for the Manchester-Preston-Liverpool triangle. The announcement to which he referred included the policy aim of electrifying the Preston to Manchester link. The cost of electrification will be funded by Network Rail and supported by the Government. Over the medium term, the programme will pay for itself through less train and track maintenance, and lower operating and leasing costs. The financial case that the Secretary of State for Transport put forward is sensible.

My hon. Friend mentioned consultation. In the implementation of the plans, there will be consultation. We are looking intensively at the costs and benefits of electrifying the remainder of the Lancashire triangle, that is the routes between Manchester and Preston and Liverpool and Preston. The Preston to Blackpool route is also being considered, as many hon. Members have

said. That would allow the deployment of cascaded Thameslink EMUs—I believe that stands for electrified motor units, but I am looking to my colleague who formerly served in the Department for Transport to help me. That would free up a number of diesel motor units to be used elsewhere and relieve the congestion referred to by many hon. Members. That could help replace the Pacer fleet as those vehicles are coming towards the end of their time.

Employment

6. Mr. Hoyle : What recent representations he has received on levels of employment in the North West. [R] [29483G]

Mr. Woolas: I regularly receive representations on the economic position within the North West and closely related issues, such as the levels of employment. For example, this Monday, the Joint Economic Commission for the North West received the latest information on employment in the region in an analysis presented by the Northwest Regional Development Agency. I also meet North West employers and trade unions regularly. For example, on 21 September I hosted a meeting between the regional business representatives and Jobcentre Plus.

Mr. Hoyle: That is an interesting answer and, quite rightly, the Minister projects hope and aspiration for the region, but unfortunately this has been a disastrous day for our region. Once again the scientific base has been attacked: the closure was announced this morning of Chorley forensic science laboratory, with the loss of up to 200 scientists, who actually stop crimes taking place in the area with the second highest crime figures in the UK—the North West. Those 200 jobs should have a major effect on the Minister’s answer. In fact, the Prime Minister stated in his speech to conference that it would be a disaster for a Government to cut 3,500 police officers—accusing the Opposition of planning that—and stated that the police are more effective when there are enough of them and they are able to use DNA evidence. Closing the Chorley forensic science laboratory erodes the ability to deal with the collection of DNA.

This region cannot afford to lose 200 scientists and it certainly cannot afford to lose that forensic science service. We will be left without the service and will have to rely on Birmingham or Wetherby over in Yorkshire. It will be absolutely absurd. I hope that the Minister will take this on board, reject the Government decision, and fight for the North West in the job that he has been elected to do.

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the Committee. It is an important point. The science base in our region is one of the foundation stones of our economic growth. There has been a 57 per cent. increase in gross value added over the past 12 years, in large part funded by a significant allocation of extra science resource to our university base, which in turn has greatly enhanced partnerships with the private sector. The decision, as I understand it, on the forensic science service is about the concentration of centres of excellence. He made strong points about the role that Chorley plays, and we will have to examine the announcement to look

at the timetable proposed by the Forensic Science Service board and at the impact on individuals and, as he says, on the science base of our region.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I would like to ask the Minister about youth unemployment in the North West and, in particular, the Government’s young person’s guarantee. I appreciate the work that the Government have done to expand the number of apprenticeships, but I am told that in the current economic climate things are getting very difficult. I was at Hopwood Hall college on Monday; it is putting on places, but finding employers willing to sponsor young people in the current climate is proving extremely difficult. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues to resolve that matter?

Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am grateful to him for advance notice of his concerns. He makes the point that investment in his sixth form college has been welcomed, but there is always more that we can do. In particular, what jobs are there for the youngsters to go to? I suggest that the detailed policies be covered in the debates later this afternoon. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Chope.

The Government are focused on a strategy to lead the region out of recession. The evidence suggests—I am cautious like he is about that, but the evidence is there—that we are coming out of recession more strongly than other regions in the country. For example, if we look at the indices of confidence and decision-making through the purchasing managers index, our region is roaring ahead of the rest of the country because we have a relatively strong and high-skilled manufacturing base. Within that priority is the jobs guarantee for our youngsters. This Government will not allow a generation of youngsters to sit on the dole without training, without skills and without job opportunities, and that is one of the subjects of debate this afternoon—what more we can do.

Mr. Joe Benton (Bootle) (Lab): May I apologise to my hon. Friend for not giving notice of any questions? I was a little uncertain as to whether I would be here today. I want to be a little parochial, if I may. First, there have been great expectations raised over the transfer of Home Office jobs to Liverpool in recent times. From time to time, we hear about those opportunities. I wonder if my hon. Friend could tell me how he can best assist in trying to secure those jobs, which are desperately needed, for Liverpool and Merseyside?

Turning to another point that I feel is very much up to date, we have had indications that the proposed tram system for Merseyside is on the back burner. In fact, it does not appear that it will come to any sort of realisation. Is it possible for my hon. Friend to revisit that issue, with a view to raising it again with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport?

Mr. Woolas: On my hon. Friend’s first point, I met with Merseyside partnership and with a number of MPs visited the proposed site in the centre of Liverpool as part of the examination of the case. It is important that our region is a beneficiary of the Government’s policy, which was announced, to move and relocate from London and the south-east. Some significant decisions are coming up. I have an advisory role in that decision. My priority is to ensure that the region benefits and

that there is no preconceived notion. I can give the House the guarantee that there is absolutely no preconceived notion as to where in the region it should be. The best site and the best benefit for our region will be the criteria for decision-making. The Government office for the north-west and the NWDA are involved in ensuring that that is the case.

On the question of the proposed Merseyside tram, I have already met with my colleagues in Government to put the case and discuss the pros and cons of the scheme. Personally, I am a strong supporter of light rail, not just for the transport and carbon benefits, but also the regeneration benefits created through connectivity. Certainly, in the jigsaw puzzle that we have for our region, the tramway is not, as far as I am concerned, on the back burner.

Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East) (Lab): The North West Regional Select Committee, in its recent report on the impact of the current economic situation in the North West, made the point that the manufacturing base is absolutely vital to the North West—as indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley says, is the scientific base. The report welcomed the efforts of the NWDA and the manufacturing advisory service, but the scale of the problem for the North West manufacturing industry is so large that the present size of the budget will not be adequate. What can my hon. Friend do to protect the North West manufacturing base which is at the heart of the industrial revolution?

Mr. Woolas: I concur that the North West is the heart, the cradle and the crucible of the industrial revolution. The productivity and value added from the North West’s manufacturing base are greater than those of any region outside London and the south-east. In short, our companies have survived two bad recessions and are, comparatively speaking, very strong. The volume of manufacturing—but not of manufacturing employment, as my hon. Friend knows better than I do—has increased recently. Key sectors such as defence industries, nuclear, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, textile engineering and others—food processing, which also involves high-technology and manufacturing products, has also been mentioned—are the reason, along with our currency’s relative value, why the region is moving ahead of other regions as we come out of the recession.

I am grateful to Mr. Broomhead and his team for their work, through which we have made a priority of protecting the base, particularly the automotive sector. Ellesmere Port may not have survived without the £8.7 million injection from the NWDA to get us through a trough and provide the base for the Astra 2. We are now working hard to provide for the Ampera electrical car to be built at Ellesmere Port. Similarly, I was pleased to visit the MBDA factory in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West and see the superb job that it is doing. MBDA is the second largest defence manufacturing company in western Europe and, along with British Aerospace, is one of ours.

Our policy is to invest to get the country out of recession. Public sector infrastructure and revenue grants are not the only things that are critical to that; the manufacturing sector is, too, because an alternative strategy would take away the foundation, particularly in defence and in areas of our region. I refer not only to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for

Bolton, North-East, but also to the central Lancashire belt, which is dependent on contracts. If we look at the relative standing of the North West’s towns and cities and the way in which they have changed, we will see that Barrow and Furness is leading the pack. It has risen from fourth from bottom on the list to the high teens, because of the base. We cannot overstate the case, and strategies must involve manufacturing as part of the public sector investment as we lead ourselves out of recession.

Brownfield Sites

7. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had on the cancellation or deferment of developments planned for brownfield sites in the North West; and if he will make a statement. [294837]

Mr. Woolas: I am aware of the downturn’s impact on development across the region, and I have been working with Government colleagues and the Joint Economic Commission for the North West to help unblock stalled developments. Housing development has been particularly affected and the Government have invested an additional £200 million of funding through programmes such as Kickstart, which has already been mentioned and which will advance development on 54 strategic housing sites across the region.

Rosie Cooper: West Lancashire is proud of its green belt and needs it. Development in the green belt rightly raises a lot of questions, and there is a great fear that that option is all too easy. My constituents are concerned that the region needs to retain its focus on urban renaissance and regenerating towns and cities, rather than taking what appears to be an easy option into the green belt.

Mr. Woolas: Government policy agrees with that. Indeed, the reversal of the policy on out-of-town development is a symbol of that. My hon. Friend’s constituency, which I am pleased to have visited twice in the past three months, is a good example of town centre development. I refer, of course, to Skelmersdale and the plans for 1,100 new houses, the high street retail developments, sports centre, cinema and so on, which she explained are critical. In our view, that should be an urban development, not a green belt one, and that policy runs through the regional spatial strategy. If I may say, Mr. Chope, it is why one needs a regional strategy, because if it were left to our individual areas there would perhaps be conflict, which might be more likely to lead to development on green belt areas.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): My hon. Friend will be aware that major developments are sitting on the desks of ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. If they go ahead they will attract massive amounts of private sector funding, particularly in my own constituency. A large number of new jobs in the private sector will be created and I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire—it is important that urban development is given priority, because that is where the majority of jobs will be found and where the majority of businesses will want to locate.

Mr. Woolas: I am of course aware, following my hon. Friend’s representations and the points of others, of the £400 million proposal for the retail and sports development. The policy that we pursue in the Government office for the north-west is a region first policy. The connectivity between our regions and the mutual benefits between the different areas of our regions are put to the fore. He knows that I cannot say anything on the subject. The tightrope that I am on is thinner than the border between the two constituencies. But one has to look at the merit of the schemes and I can reassure all parties involved that full information and transparency is being brought to this and the Secretary of State is fully apprised of the points that have been made about the development that my hon. Friend referred to.

David Heyes (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab): Part of the Minister’s constituency is in the borough of Oldham—like mine—and for that reason he will be familiar with the Hollinwood part of Oldham and the major motorway junction, which is the main route into the town that he and I represent. I wonder what the Minister can do to encourage more progress in the development of the site. It is interesting that the adjacent local authority of Tameside on the next motorway junction has had great success in bringing development to their brownfield sites, and yet Oldham seems to be somewhat tardy in taking it forward. What can he do in his role and through his good offices to encourage the local authority to make more progress to develop that very important part—the gateway to Oldham?

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of not only the Committee but the most important newspaper outlet in the world, the Oldham Evening Chronic le, which is following our proceedings as we speak. I think page 3 may be waiting for the answer to the question. It depends what it is, of course. It may be page 1 or not in there at all.

My hon. Friend has made the serious point that the development agency has given support to a strategically important junction. One of the benefits to our area of the opening of the M60 was to improve hugely the transport connections not just within the North West region but between that region and the Yorkshire and Humberside region, making that area and that junction in particular one of the best placed investment sites in the UK, given its geographical position. The hon. Member for Rochdale represents the area of Kingsway business park, and my hon. Friend represents the area to which reference has been made. Such issues have been taken up with the Northwest Development Agency and the Government office because, clearly, there needs to be a change in strategy as anyone passing through that gateway can see. Frankly, it is not adequate that there are derelict buildings in one of the most important gateways not only for our area, but for the North West economy as a whole. I hope that the Committee can gather from my tone that the matter has been given serious consideration. A change in strategy is clearly needed.

Chairman: Order. That is the end of the time for oral questions. The written answer to Question 2 will appear in the Official Report. We now move on to the general debate.

Economic Downturn

2.58 pm

Chairman: It might be helpful if I remind members of the Committee of the timing of the debate. We have from now until 5.30 pm, but no later. I have no power to impose a time limit on speeches, but brief contributions will enable me to call as many hon. Members as possible. I call the Minister to move the motion.

The Minister for the North West (Mr. Phil Woolas): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the matter of Building Britain’s Future: the North West’s response to the economic downturn.

Relevant document: The First Report from the North West Regional Select Committee, Session 2008-09, on the impact of the current economic situation on the North West and the Government’s response, HC 696.

I will keep my remarks succinct because I know that right hon. and hon. Members want to make points not just on behalf—quite rightly—of their constituents, but of the region as a whole. I wish to start by saying that it is a great honour for me and a humbling experience to be the first Minister to address the first Grand Committee of the North West Region. We have a democratic deficit at regional level and it is right that parliamentarians should be the people who fill that democratic deficit. I am not diminishing at all the work of our council and local authority leaders, and their success in pulling together 4NW, but it is right that we should fill the democratic deficit and I have been a long-standing supporter of the idea of a Regional Grand Committee.

Mr. Chope, I ask you to take back to the House and to Mr. Speaker the knowledge that this region was the cradle of universal suffrage. It was in this region that the idea of one person, one vote and equal representation in our Parliament first took hold. I say that not just out of parochialism—although that is reason enough—but because it is true, which is always a virtue when putting an argument.

Secondly, I wish to thank the city of Liverpool for providing the venue and the hospitality. It has been superb and reflects the tradition of Liverpool hospitality, which I have always found friendly and first rate. I want also to put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston who did the job of regional Minister with her usual professionalism and commitment until June this year. As Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents, we have a vested interest in how the Government support our region and how decisions that affect our constituents can be influenced. This Grand Committee gives us the opportunity to do that.

The subject of today’s debate is building Britain’s future and the North West’s response to the economic downturn. I have said already that my primary aim as regional Minister is to help improve the prosperity of the region by striving to achieve full employment for our people. Since taking up the post earlier in the year, I have spoken to key regional and local bodies in the public, private and voluntary sectors as well as taking very seriously the report from the North West Regional Select Committee, which highlighted a number of important

points that I will cover and that have been implemented, precisely because of the report and the Committee’s investigations.

The challenges presented by the economic climate are at the forefront of our minds, but so is the preparation for recovery—which has begun—and how it can be put on a sustainable basis. For example, repeated concerns were expressed about the need for the public sector to pay its bills to suppliers faster. As we know from past experience, cash flow is critical for businesses as they restock and come out of recession, and I am pleased that, as a result of our efforts, central Departments now pay invoices—nine out of 10 of them—within 10 days, which ensures that up to £66 billion in payments reaches businesses more quickly than before. I am pleased that the Northwest Regional Development Agency, the Government office for the north-west, all our NHS trusts and PCTs, and many, but not all, our local authorities—I have written to them again on that point—have now signed up to the Government’s prompt payment code, to improve cash flow, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that can go out of business, not because they are not viable but because the cash flow is not there. We have taken up that issue.

To that end, and in respect of the wider agenda, I have also met representatives of the seven leading banks in the region to identify what actions both we and they can take at regional level, and have reported back on that to the Council of Regional Ministers and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. In our region we have, of course, the Co-operative bank, as the hon. Member for Rochdale will no doubt remind us.

I have made great play today of our region’s strength, and of the fact that it is leading the country out of recession because of its manufacturing base, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East referred to. We represent £120 billion of gross value added, and have a population of nearly 7 million. We are the largest region outside of London and the south-east, in both economic measurements and population. The city regions of Merseyside and Greater Manchester are already the main drivers of growth, and have grown faster than the average for England since 1997, again closing that gap in a way that is beneficial for all. That has also been supported by growth in other key strategic centres such as Chester, Crewe, Preston and Warrington.

The North West is, for example, the centre of the nuclear industry, with capability throughout the nuclear chain and a number of world-class assets and facilities. Sellafield is the largest civilian nuclear site in the United Kingdom, and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is headquartered in west Cumbria. We have nuclear power stations at Heysham and a nuclear fuel production facility at Preston.

As we have already heard, the region has excellent potential in renewable energy from wind, waves and waste, which we are starting to exploit. We are committed to providing 20 per cent. of electricity in the region from renewables by 2020.

MediaCityUK, the recent development at Salford Quays, is providing Europe’s first ever purpose-built business hub for creative and digital industries. I met the creative manager of the BBC on Monday and, in his presentation to the Joint Economic Commission, I was pleased to hear a commitment to opening up that centre

to the industry. That will benefit not only the creative industries of broadcasting, but business processes in the public and private sectors, through greater speed of connectivity, creating the world’s first asset of its kind. It will create more than 15,000 jobs, contribute directly £200 million a year to the North West’s economy and provide work space for more than 1,100 creative and related businesses. I am committed to the centre’s benefiting the whole of our region through its link-up with businesses, the public sector and our universities and colleges. It will also improve the BBC’s output, and address some of the regional bias that undoubtedly exists, in not only news and current affairs—I might say especially in news and current affairs. That will benefit not only our region but the BBC’s output.

We have already mentioned the rural areas of our country. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rightly mentioned the green lungs of the region and the importance of agriculture. Although it has diminished in terms of numbers of employees, it has a strong future because of the low carbon and sustainability point. I think of the reforms—I know he would like them to be quicker—in the common agricultural policy, but I can reassure him about the regional interests, which are not always the same by any means as the national criteria in that sector.

There are also the tourism benefits of our region. The quality of life that our constituents can enjoy by access to these areas is terrific. It says in my brief that we also have world-class brands in sport. In view of the sensitivities, I shall not mention individual brands. [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central says, “Mention the Beatles.”

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I said the Beach Boys.

Mr. Woolas: Moving quickly on.

Other industries are critically important to us: the pharmaceuticals industry, the defence industry and bio-manufacturing, which is being led by our universities. Manufacturing in the North West employs some 400,000 people across the region, and contributes £20.3 billion per annum to the region, with manufacturing being the largest export sector in the United Kingdom. We retain strengths in our high proportion of knowledge-intensive business, our global reach and our strong skill set.

The North West Universities Association has arrived at a position whereby, instead of universities being in direct competition, as they were in the past, they now complement each other, to the mutual benefit of the universities and our economy. Graduate retention in our region is showing trends towards improvement that will benefit our region in the long term. The brain drain will be to our region, not from it. That is something that we should welcome.

I turn briefly to the downturn and our efforts to get us out of the economic recession that has been brought about by the worldwide financial situation. I referred to the Ellesmere Port situation, but there are many others where we believe the quick and decisive action taken by the Government and implemented by regional bodies has, in many respects, mitigated the worst impacts of this recession. The pace of decline in the economy is slowing significantly. I do not claim that we are at all

out of this yet, but the good news is that the pace of decline is significantly slower. To support financial stability and provide help to our businesses and the public sector we have put a £20 billion stimulus into the economy. Bank interest rates have also reduced by 5 per cent. and the money supply has increased as a result.

Critically, the intervention at regional level to devolve decision making more so that banks have been able to lend to viable businesses has been key. It relates to cash flow, too. No one in our region has lost savings as a result of the recession, which has not been the case in other parts of the country, particularly Northern Ireland. The Government have acted to get the banking system working again so that it can support families and firms. A packet of targeted support has been developed: for example, for family finances, by putting money into people’s pockets by cutting VAT, raising personal tax allowances, guaranteeing work or training for every young person out of work for 10 months or longer, helping people to stay in their homes by paying the interest on mortgages if they lose their job and making repossession an absolute last resort.

In the region, we have helped more than 150,000 companies with cash-flow problems by allowing them to defer more than £3 billion in tax. I am sorry, Mr. Chope, I should say that more than 23,000 businesses in the region—out of the 150,000 nationally—have benefited to the value of £394 million. In addition, we have brought forward £3 billion of capital projects on housing repairs, insulation, school extensions, GP facility refurbishment, transport improvements and other matters, as well as £1.06 billion to provide support to house building.

I have argued already that in the region we have had more than our fair share and I can back that up with statistics and facts. For example, there is help with cash flow for businesses—trading loss carry back will be extended from one to three years for up to £50,000 of losses and now covers losses made in 2008-09 as well as 2009-10. There is additional funding and support to help Jobcentre Plus to respond to unemployment. In September 2009 alone, more than 42,000 people were moved off jobseeker’s allowance in the North West and this additional support will ensure that more continue to do so. We have 65,240 young people on jobseeker’s allowance in the North West. From this month, all 18 to 24-year-olds who have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for 10 months will be guaranteed six months of meaningful activity—a job, work placement or work-related skills training. To date, the North West has had 13 successful bids for the future jobs fund, which will help create almost 18,000 jobs for young people and the long-term unemployed in the region. The Northwest Regional Development Agency and the learning and skills council have been playing a full part. Our strategy is to put money where it is needed most, to provide support for cash flow for our businesses and for investment, and in particular, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, to address those resources to young people.

In the past few months, I have been visiting apprenticeship schemes around our region that are inspirational in their achievements. As the NWDA report to the Joint Economic Commission says, we are ahead of the game. We are moving out of recession faster and stronger. There is of course no complacency. However, this region is one of the strongest, not just in the UK but in the

European Union. We should be proud of our contribution through our skills base, human capital, world brands, world-leading companies, universities—and, indeed, sports teams. It is something that the Government are determined to support.

I will draw my remarks to a close to allow Members to make contributions and to try to answer questions. If I cannot answer them today, I will, of course, follow them up in writing.

3.16 pm

David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): It is a pleasure to participate in a debate with the Minister, whom I respect immensely. He and I have already saved the planet; we served on the Climate Change Bill together a couple of years ago. As the Minister is such a decent man, I would like to invite him to visit Cumbria and to tour the whole of our county, so that he can see what the Government can do to help get the region out of the recession and see what they should not do—what they should leave us alone to get on with. The first thing that the Government should do is fully push ahead with nuclear power. As the only MP from Cumbria here today, I will try to speak in a non-partisan way, and to speak for the whole county. I will speak in as non-partisan a way as a former Tory Chief Whip can.

The first thing to do is to push on with that nuclear power battle as soon as possible. I know that the Government are committed to doing so, as are the official Opposition. In many parts of the country, people do not like nuclear power, but up in Cumbria, we rather like it. The Minister has already mentioned Sellafield. It is a tremendous centre of excellence. We can help this country get out of recession by pushing on with the next generation of nuclear power reactors.

The Minister should then discourage the ghastly land-based wind turbines in Cumbria, which have the potential to destroy tourism. We will take part in waste conversion, and we are keen on microgeneration, on saving energy and on wave power. We will also tolerate wind turbines, if they do not destroy our precious Lakeland landscape. However, if I show the Minister a map of the whole of Cumbria and a map of the applications for wind farms, he will see that there is a noose around the Lake District national park; there are dozens of applications. The applicants know that the turbines cannot get inside it, but some of them are half a mile outside, with wind turbine pylons 400 feet tall. The power that they generate is miniscule, but the damage that they can do 24/7 to our visual landscape is immense.

We in Cumbria will help with power and energy in this country, and we will take all the other renewables, on which we are very keen. We are also keen on using farming where possible to generate power, but we do not want to distract farmers from the vital purpose of growing food in this country by diverting them to some green energy resources that may not be appropriate.

We want the Government to get off the backs of small businesses. The number of small businesses in Cumbria is way above the national average. If the Government removed some of the controls from them and let them get on with things, they would help expand our economy. The prime example is housing. The

Government have huge restrictions on the number of houses that we can build in Cumbria. Someone in Manchester has determined our housing need. I haven’t got a clue how many houses we need in Penrith; the local council will not be sure either. I suspect that builders and those who need the homes have a better idea how many homes are needed, but with the greatest of respect, I am absolutely certain that planners in Manchester do not have a clue what we need in Cumbria.

Just take the shackles off the local councils. They will neither destroy our landscapes nor foul the nest; they will get on and let people build the homes that they want. We do not need extra Government funding for Government-built housing. There are a great many applications in the pipeline for homes across the whole of Cumbria, and we could have a huge boost to our building industry if we let it build the homes that are needed. If the industry cannot do so, it will hold us back from attracting middle management and head teachers. Of course we need low-cost social housing, but in Cumbria, we are short of housing at all income levels. We should also free up agriculture to get on with developing the new products and the wonderful foodstuffs that we have in the North West. It is not just Cumbria that is good in that respect; every single North West county produces some absolutely excellent food, as we can see in the awards each year.

I also ask the Government to stop pulling the guts out of Cumbria. Ten years ago, if I looked at a map of Cumbria, I would have seen a Cumbria police headquarters, a Cumbria fire HQ, a Cumbria ambulance HQ, a learning and skills council and military bases all over the place. We fought police amalgamations, and we still have a Cumbria police force, but when I look at the map now, it is rather empty, with regional fire and ambulance controls.

One of the splendid things about our region is the wonderful regional accents, including my own, but we now have problems with the regional ambulance control. Cumbria is rich in accents, and when someone in a panic dials 999 and asks for an ambulance in a part of Cumbria, and that call is answered either in Macclesfield or in Warrington, there is sometimes an accent problem. We have ambulance delays simply because we do not all necessarily speak the same language in our region. There is no need for that sort of regional ambulance or fire control; that should have been left in our county. We probably cannot unscramble that, but I say to the Minister, please do not force a regional agenda on our region that pulls more and more bits of control out of Cumbria.

Put it this way: if I were a business man in Milton Keynes and a delegation came from the North West or from Cumbria and said, “Move your business up north to our region”, I would look at the map and think, “God, they do not even have a fire brigade HQ or an ambulance HQ. That is Beverly hillbilly county, so I will move no further north than Manchester.” That is jolly good for Manchester, and for Liverpool, but up in Cumbria we want businesses, too. Cumbria must look as though it has some of the governmental features that capitals have, otherwise many businesses will not go there.

The Government must also ensure that we are not deprived of our transport links. We are grateful for the improvement to the west coast main line—it cost an

absolute fortune, of course—which has helped speed up services from Glasgow, Carlisle and Penrith to London. Our only concern is that fewer and fewer trains are stopping to pick up passengers, because in order to get the highest speed between Glasgow and London, Virgin Trains and the Department for Transport seem happy for the trains not to stop anywhere in between. Getting people from Glasgow to London in four hours does not help our carbon footprint if we cannot pick anyone else up at Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme or Lancaster. The train might stop at Preston, and it is bound to stop at Crewe, but it will stop nowhere else. There is merit in a high-speed railway, but it must pick up passengers along the whole route.

I understand that Network Rail has proposed a super-duper, £35-million railway, which I doubt will be built in my lifetime. That £35 million is the current estimate; the cost is probably £70 million in reality, and will be £200 million before the money is found for it. If it is built, the plan is that the trains should stop nowhere along the route. They will go from Glasgow, stop at Crewe and arrive in London. That is just not acceptable. Giving passengers from Glasgow a two-hour rail journey is not good enough when the rest of us in the North West might have to travel 50 miles by car to pick up another train.

No matter what improvements we make to road and rail, Carlisle and Penrith will always be 320 miles and 300 miles away from London respectively, but if the Government ensure that we all have fair and equal access to broadband, those places, and everywhere else in Cumbria, will be a millionth of a millisecond away from London, and the same as Liverpool and Manchester. The Government are committed to ensuring that 98 per cent. of the country has broadband. That 98 per cent. will cover 100 per cent. of Liverpool, Manchester and Preston, but probably 85 per cent. of Cumbria. I occasionally meet people, not politicians, but civil servants—I deeply respect our civil servants and some of the quangos—who say, “If you decide to live in one of those beautiful Lakeland valleys, what do you expect? Of course your ambulances will arrive half an hour later, and of course your house will burn down before the fire brigade gets there, and you cannot expect broadband to work everywhere.” I do not like that attitude.

Most rural people have not decided to live in some posh, wealthy valley in Cumbria. A report published a couple of days ago suggested that one in four rural families live in fuel poverty or poverty, and if that is even half correct we have a serious problem. It is possible to go to a street or an area in a city and see obvious poverty, but one cannot do that in the countryside: one does not see a row of houses in which everyone is poor, but that poverty exists just the same. It is more hidden and more insidious, and it affects one in five houses, tucked away here and there. Those people do not have access to buses. A tiny percentage of the pensioners in my constituency will benefit from free bus passes, and that is the case with all our constituents in Cumbria. We ain’t got the buses going round the countryside. We have genuine poverty.

It is not an elected choice to go and live in some remote, rural valley. The vast majority of our constituents in Cumbria were born and bred there. If they are lucky, a few years after leaving school they might earn 15,000 quid a year. It is not a high-wage economy. The

only thing that can really put those people on a level footing with those in this beautiful city of Liverpool, with its wonderful improvements and developments, and with others in the North West, is access to broadband on an equal basis. If we can guarantee that, we will not need much other special help. We will not need extra heating allowances and we will not demand more money for buses to take one person a week around rural areas. People in all parts of Cumbria have the nous, initiative and drive to ensure that they use that broadband facility to build businesses and industries that can compete in every corner of the world in a fraction of a second.

That is my plea to the Minister, although there are many other things that we could whinge about—or twine about, as they say up in Cumbria. We have a wonderful county, but my colleagues in the House of Commons who live a wee bit to the south of us should not assume that, because there are nice lakes and because the tourist board plugs the beautiful Lakeland mountains, it is a wealthy county, because it is not. As I said in my question to the Minister, a couple of years ago, our gross value added for the whole county was lower than that of Liverpool. We are one of five sub-regions in Europe that include the poorest bits of Albania. We in Cumbria do not want to boast about that. We want to get out of that situation, and we are capable of getting out of it, with the will and spirit of the people, if the Government will, as I say, push that nuclear button, stop holding us back and let us get on with things. If they just make sure that we get broadband and equal treatment, Cumbria will deliver more than its pro rata share to help this region get us out of recession.

3.29 pm

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border for touching on certain issues about the North West. He has made a superb case for what Cumbria needs and what its outlook is, but he missed a small point. If there is a serious crime in Cumbria—if someone has been murdered or raped—who will solve the crime? Where are the forensic scientists going to come from? Will they come from Birmingham, Wetherby, London or Cambridge? That would be absurd. How would DNA be protected in such a situation, and how would anyone begin to solve a crime without those scientists? It is ridiculous to believe that crime in the region that has the second greatest amount of crime, including very serious crime, can be dealt with from outside the region.

We are in danger of creating a charter for criminals, and the likes of Cumbria will become more remote as a result. Indeed, parts of every county will not be reached in time. Evidence out on the street will wash away unless it is reached quickly and taken to labs to help solve the crime. Can we really do that from Birmingham or Wetherby? The answer is absolutely not, so why on earth are we putting at risk the scientific base in the region, the Forensic Science Service?

We have lost the synchrotron and all the scientists at Warrington. When that happened, we said that it must never happen again, but we have heard the announcement today that, once again, this region is facing the eradication of its scientific base. The Minister rightly says that this is not just about employment, but about links to universities. However, one of the world’s leading universities on forensic science is the university of Central Lancashire,

which is next to the Forensic Science Service of Chorley. And what are we doing? We are closing those links that could be built for the future. That is an absolute disgrace. That decision is totally unacceptable and must have been made by chumps—and I mean that. When we look back at what has happened, we will regret it for ever and a day.

There is still time for our Minister, the Minister for the North West, to get up there and battle for our future—and it is our future that we have to battle for. The challenge is laid down to him. How would we have solved the Garry Newlove crime without forensic scientists, or the crime in my constituency when a young girl called Jessica Knight was stabbed 32 times? Those are just a few crimes that were solved because of the FSS in the North West.

Do we really believe that we would build an airport somewhere such as Nelson? Of course not—it would be built near a city. If we have a major crime hot spot, the Forensic Science Service should be within the region. I need the Minister to use all his powers, initiative and arm-twisting because, as he rightly said, this is about a centre of excellence. We would not close a centre of excellence in London, so why would he sit back and allow one in the North West to close?

I call on the Minister to do more and to use his best endeavours, and I hope that the Government office for the north-west might also awaken and see what it can do. There seems to be silence coming from it. I know that the Northwest Regional Development Agency has been doing its bit, trying to link the university and the future of the FSS, so there is a challenge to the Government office for the north-west.

My experience of dealing with the Government office is not great at the moment. I am still waiting for a meeting that was meant to have been organised way back. I asked in July for a meeting with Chorley borough council and British Aerospace about the future of social housing, but I am still waiting for it to be put together.

Social housing is an important factor. I say to the Government office for the north-west that it should get its finger out and get on with doing something about the requirements for social housing in our region. In fact, local governments such as Chorley should be providing social housing. What we have is the Government office for the north-west supporting growth points and buildings on green fields, yet in Chorley we have possibly the biggest brownfield site in Europe.

We could do more about housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East said, it is about the regeneration of brownfield sites in cities, towns and urban areas. We ought not to be looking to greenfield sites, yet somehow, that organisation feels that we should have growth points and buildings on green fields. That is absolutely absurd. I have heard nothing like it, and I am still waiting for the meeting. I hope someone is listening. I hope the meeting will be set up. Do I get a nod? Nothing. Let us hope they can do a shade better, because what we have at the moment is not good enough.

We have heard about the level of manufacturing in the UK, how important it is, and that that it is where the future should be. Can we do more? Of course we can.

We have a region that is bigger than any others, not only in population but in size, and, of course, an economy that is based on manufacturing. I should have thought that if Wales can put in a short-time working subsidy to save jobs—we have seen France and Germany do that as well—we ought to be looking at something like that. We ought to be pushing forward with a working subsidy to keep people in manufacturing, because it does not make sense to subsidise them in the jobcentre. There is something absurd about that.

For the small amount of money that we would pay to manufacturers, we could keep more people in the workplace. Instead, we allow them to go to the jobcentre, where we will pick them up and then subsidise them through unemployment. Who knows—if they are lucky, they may get retraining within six months. To me, that is absurd. Put the money into manufacturing, keep people in employment and retrain them there for the time when the economy comes back.

We have some great success stories. The Minister touched on them. In defence, we have BAE Systems—a fantastic, great company that has delivered a lot. Some people may argue about ethics, but when we have a world leader in manufacturing, we should not give it up. Unfortunately, we have Woodford—it is not all good news. We are losing jobs at Woodford and that is sad. A Government contract for leased second-hand aircraft could have been awarded to a UK company instead of going to the Americans. Unfortunately, there are tough decisions and the pot is not endless, but there is more we could do to protect our manufacturing base in the UK.

Of course, we have Vauxhall, where the Government have stepped in. They have worked hard, and we should praise them when they work hard and deliver. In this city, we have Land Rover and Jaguar, without doubt one of the finest manufacturers at the prestige end of the car market, and it is this Government who have shown commitment with an expansion of jobs.

We also have the commercial sector and Leyland Trucks, which is a fantastic company. Unfortunately, it has had to shed some 500 to 600 jobs, but there are still 1,200 jobs on that site. We can do more to help it. The Government are looking to assist, and thankfully the Northwest Regional Development Agency has stepped in and is working closely with the company.

We talked about green manufacturing. The future of green vehicles is not just about cars; it is also about trucks. Leyland Trucks is developing a hybrid that Ministers are happy to be seen riding round in. The difference is that this is not built in Japan, with Japanese jobs and Japanese components: this is a truck that is manufactured in Lancashire; this is a truck for the future. We have to do more to ensure that that green manufacturing stays.

Of course, we talked about defence. My hon. Friend the Minister wants to bang the drum and stand up for jobs in the North West. I am pleased to hear that. I just wonder what more he can do. We are in a tendering process for Army uniforms. At the moment, our Army is provided with uniforms manufactured in China. I do not think that is good. I do not think that is fair competition. We are out to tender with a company within the North West that wishes to manufacture those uniforms. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use all his pressure to ensure that that textile company can win that contract. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Why

should British troops walk round in Chinese uniforms? They should be in British uniforms, made by a British company. It is absurd that the Afghan army is provided with textiles and uniforms from Lancashire, yet our own troops are not. Such absurdity goes on within Governments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that up for the future and take up the issue of where we are going on our defence manufacturing.

Without doubt, as has been mentioned, nuclear is our future and we have to ensure that we make the right decisions. We cannot afford to see the lights going out. We cannot afford for the energy not to be there for our manufacturing in the North West.

Of course, I will mention farming. Farming is so important, whether in Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Merseyside or Greater Manchester—although there might not be so much of it in Merseyside and Manchester. But Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria are the backbone. I represent a lot of farmers who want to ensure that we have security of food supply. We have to give support to those farmers, whether dairy or arable. They should also have a bright future. We need to be doing something in respect of the likes of Asda, who wish to come to Chorley. Who knows whether the Government office for the north-west will call the application in? It may or it may not, depending on how it feels. Who knows about Asda? It may be good or bad for Chorley, but Asda should be saying, “If we’re coming into Chorley town centre, we don’t want to close down the shops. We want to work with the people of Chorley. And we also want a local purchasing policy.” That would make sense, coming from the supermarkets. Booths supermarket, a regional supermarket, buys the majority of its produce from the North West. Asda should have a local policy supporting local farmers within Lancashire. That can be achieved and done. We should be putting those constraints on the supermarkets, so that they are supporting British farming and are not trying to close it down.

There is so much more that we can do. I hope that the message goes out. Yes, the Government office of the north-west can do a lot more. I look to see what it will do. I say to the Northwest Regional Development Agency: you are doing a good job; you need more funding, because you could do a lot more for the future of manufacturing and to ensure that universities are tied up in that way.

I have mentioned transport. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to forget about electrification from Blackpool through to Manchester, via Preston. It is important for the livelihood of those commuters and important for the lifeblood of the area. My hon. Friend mentioned the triangle between Manchester, Liverpool and Preston. That reminds me of the speech that I made, not too long ago, about North West transportation. It proves that someone in Government does listen, because we are using the same speech. However, what my hon. Friend missed out of his speech was the fact that Chorley is in the heart of that triangle, so it has a major, important role to play.

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chope.

3.41 pm

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I am not sure that I can match the fluency of the two vintage contributions that we have had so far. But I am pleased to, and was

ready to take part in, this debate, not least because of the importance of the North West region, which is larger than quite a few of the nations in the European Union and has a gross domestic product that exceeds theirs. [Interruption.] I have had a sign from the Minister, which I will interpret as “seven”, rather than anything else.

The North West is a large region, which is the equivalent of a nation, and it is right that we should have the opportunity of some democratic accountability for all the public money and central Government money that is spent within the region. To that extent, I certainly welcome today’s debate. But I have to make it clear from the outset that—

Chairman: Order. I must suspend the sitting because we don’t, at the moment, have a quorum.

3.42 pm

The Chairman’s attention having been called to the fact that fewer than seventeen Members were present, he accordingly suspended the proceedings.

3.48 pm

Other Members havin g come into the room, and seventeen Members being present, the proceedings were resumed.

Andrew Stunell: I was encouraged by the Government Whip, during the pause, to speak briefly and I said that the opportunity to speak at all would be welcome. The point I was developing as quickly as I could was that while this is a welcome opportunity to hold the Government to account, it is far from sufficient. I want to put our view on the record that the mechanisms we have here are not sufficiently robust and are not effective for the work in hand. I was a strong supporter of the yes campaign for a north-west assembly and my personal view is that that should have been the way we moved ahead. What we have is a Regional Select Committee which, I have to say, despite its composition, has produced a very worthwhile report. I will comment on that report, briefly, in a minute or two. We have the Grand Committee, which is hardly a representative institution in its own right when four-fifths of its membership belongs to one political party despite only securing half, or less, of the votes. Of course, we accept that that is the system we have, but I say to the Minister that I hope there will be an opportunity in the future to revisit that particular point.

Let us quickly turn to the North West Regional Select Committee report, which makes the point that unemployment in the North West has gone up by 35 per cent. in the 12 months from June 2008 to June 2009. In the same period, jobseeker’s allowance payments are up from 109,700 to 194,100—an 85 per cent. rise. It is certainly robust in its critique—criticism is the right word, I think—of the Learning and Skills Council’s impact in the North West. As a constituency MP, it seemed that everything the Learning and Skills Council touched in the North West turned to ashes, from the rebuilding projects that hit my constituency hard to the student support scheme. The report quite rightly urges the Minister to ensure that he strongly connects the Skills Funding Agency with the NWDA so that the two agendas and the economic strategy of the region are

properly integrated. The report makes a very strong point about access to, and the cost of, credit to businesses in the North West—an issue that I have found on my constituency agenda time and again.

Like every responsible commentator, the report expresses concern about how reductions in central Government funding are going to hit regional and local government budgets over the next two or three years. It explicitly makes the point that the NWDA budget is likely to be directly hit by the Government switching money to the HomeBuy Direct project. I want to say a bit more about housing in my very short remarks in just a minute or two. The Regional Select Committee consists entirely of Labour Members and the report pleads with the Government not to make any cuts to regional funding in the 2008-11 spending sequence. Can the Minister give that assurance? If not, where will those budget reductions—let us call them cuts—be applied in the North West? Will the reductions be in infrastructure development, assistance and support for industry and others, or will they be in changes to the bureaucracy and management of the regional bodies? I would welcome the latter option, because we need to get those institutions back to the grass-roots level on the one hand, and to the representative level on the other.

Things have got worse in relation to employment since the Regional Select Committee’s report was published. The Minister is right to say that things are not getting worse as quickly, but we can only take a limited amount of encouragement from that. According to the August figures, unemployment in the North West has increased from 283,000 to 300,000, which is a 6 per cent. rise. The unemployment rate for the whole of the North West is 8.7 per cent. against 7.9 per cent. nationally. August saw another rise of 2,200 in the number of jobseeker’s allowance applicants.

I want to celebrate something that has not been mentioned yet, namely the safeguarding of jobs at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. I do not want to suggest that everything is wrong, and I echo the Minister’s point that we have a strong regional economy and centres of excellence and that there are opportunities for growth and development. However, I do not want this debate to pass with the Minister purely surrounded by self-congratulatory Labour MPs, although perhaps that is an unfair criticism considering the contribution of the hon. Member for Chorley.

The Regional Select Committee’s report states that

“we now need to see evidence of action to be persuaded that the Regional Minister carries real weight and influence at Westminster, and that he has time to commit to the role in addition to his other ministerial responsibilities.”

Those with long memories will remember my earlier question probing exactly that point. If the Minister does not feel able to respond to what I have said, will he respond to what the Regional Select Committee has said?

I would like the Minister to get leverage for a commitment to more social housing in the North West. That is high up the agenda of what I want us to achieve. I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border about his circumstances, but the fact of the matter is that the people least able to get, and most under pressure for, adequate housing are those with the

lowest incomes, so social housing is important. Affordable housing is also important, and I want to draw a distinction between those two types of housing. Getting housing going again is high on my list and it has an important economic consequence in terms of employing people and getting the region’s economy turning over.

I urge the Minister to take up transport and infrastructure issues, some of which have already been mentioned. The electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester railway—or maybe it is the Manchester to Liverpool railway—is good news. However, it is one thing to electrify the line for passenger traffic, but there is a freight issue as well.

Mr. Woolas indicated assent.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister acknowledges that point. It may require not only the straight passenger routes, but also various spurs, connections and things of which he is well aware. I urge him to closely engage with and help achieve the Manchester Hub. I do not like the name Manchester Hub, because it implies that it is something for the benefit of Manchester when it is very much something that is for the benefit of the whole of the North West, particularly the east-west corridor, which is jammed up at the moment.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested—I do not know where he grabbed such a suggestion from—that the electrification of the railway line from Liverpool to Manchester would free up diesel units, which could help my commuters in Hazel Grove. I ask him to come to Hazel Grove and then he will see that we have an electrified line. What he perhaps does not know is that, at the beginning of this year, the three-car electric trains were taken off that route and replaced by two-car diesels, a consequence of which is that my commuters have far fewer seats to sit on—the trains being overcrowded already. A fair amount in Hansard reports my rattling on about that. The palliative that the right hon. Gentleman offered me will not be of any help whatever to my constituents. The issue of the extra carriages and dealing with the capacity shortages of Northern Rail ought to be high on his agenda.

I heard what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said about the high-speed rail report, and we all hope that something will happen. However, I doubt that we are holding our breath because we must seriously hope that anything that happens on the high-speed rail line will come long after we are out of the recession. If the recession is still going in 10 years’ time when the first sod is dug for the high-speed rail line, that will be a poor look-out for us all.

I hope also that the Minister will put skills and education investment at the top. A number of references have been made to that, and I hope that he will take it forward and deal with the issue of apprenticeships, interns and those young people who are missing out on the tertiary education at colleges and universities, and who risk being another lost generation.

That brings me to jobs and employment. I had a little go at it in the House yesterday. We need green employment. I will give a couple of figures. Some 750,000 homes in the North West have cavity walls and no insulation and 25,000 people in the building industry are on the unemployment register. Is there not a way of joining up

those two things and helping people in the North West to have lower household bills, more comfortable living conditions and, of course, carbon reduction as well as a reduction in unemployment?

Beyond that issue, there is scope for comprehensively upgrading our building stock throughout the North West—not just homes, but buildings in general. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that, when we do have more projects under Building Schools for the Future, they will be to the highest environmental standards? Will he urge his colleagues to see the introduction of the provisions of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004? That legislation gave the Government the powers to take such action back then, yet it is now sitting unused on the shelf.

As well as the practical re-employment issues of cavity wall insulation, the basics and the upgrading and refurbishment programme, there is the need to create a market for higher-tech green goods. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, plenty of technology is accessible to us. We have the scientists, the engineers and the capacity to deliver such goods, but we do not have the market—and that market must be triggered and fired up primarily by the Government and their legislative framework.

The Liberal Democrats in the North West want a strong green economy. We want strong and cohesive communities. Nothing has been said about community cohesion, but it is vital and there is work to be done in such areas. We want strong democratic institutions. Nice and interesting as this event has been, it is not a strong, democratic institution. I welcome today’s debate. I welcome the report before us, but I want to make it clear that it is not a good enough mechanism for us to control and monitor, and have accountability for the money that is spent in the region on the services that our constituents need.

4.2 pm

Mr. Edward O'Hara (Knowsley, South) (Lab): If those who are not familiar with Liverpool looked around them when they arrived here today, they would have seen that, although we might be down in this area, we are not bound. We have spirit and resilience. Considerable regeneration is visible around us in this city and region, much of it on the back of Liverpool’s term as Europe’s capital of culture. It is worth noting something that has not been mentioned in the debate so far, which is that culture itself is a big economic generator and should not be neglected.

I welcome the array of initiatives that the Minister mentioned in his address at the beginning of the debate, but we need to remember the global recession that we are in at the moment. The answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border about why this area got such a proportion of the ERDF funding is because the global recession is hitting a region that is just emerging from its knees from the recessions of the ’80s and ’90s. We need to remember that.

Going back into history, when I was in local government—the hon. Member for St. Helens, North will remember this—we joined a European organisation called RETI, which represents European regions of traditional industry. That is why we joined RETI and

we made our bid for objective 1 funding. The legacy meant that we had a problem of reproviding jobs and training, restoring decaying infrastructure, and the greening and redevelopment of brownfield sites, which meant that we needed our fair share of ERDF funding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan mentioned the importance of the health economy in the regeneration of the region. The Minister mentioned longevity and what the Government are doing to improve it in his reply. Longevity is a matter not only of lifestyle but of that legacy of occupational-related disease, which derives from the dirty industries that we used to have. But look around—objective 1 worked. It meant not that we became a rich region but that we climbed up to the European economic average. That was our starting point when the region was hit by the global recession. In the early days, we paid a price for that. When we got objective 1 funding, we paid for it in loss of subsidy from central Government. But since 1997 there has been good co-operation between Government and my council in Knowsley with regard to the health economy. We seem to have a primary walk-in centre on every corner in Knowsley. It is dramatically evident how the health economy impacts on the local economy.

The hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned apprenticeships. It is possible for local councils to do something about that. We have the Knowsley local apprenticeship scheme, and Knowsley set its own target for getting 100 apprentices. It set an example to local industry, which followed suit, and the apprenticeships are a success story.

We have Knowsley college, which works closely with the local authority and has a national profile for its provision of training for young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East and I had a conference in Knowsley, with the co-operation of the local council, of stakeholders in local businesses to find out how this recession is impacting on them, what the council could do to help them, and what it could ask the Government to do to help them. Various measures were suggested, and I shall give two examples: a temporary abatement on payment of business rates, and the simplification of the forms to be filled in for tendering, which are not only onerous, but off-putting for small firms without the bureaucratic infrastructure to deal with that.

My right hon. Friend and I offer that paradigm in Knowsley of how local government can assist the local economy, sometimes alone, and sometimes with the assistance of central Government, to obtain judicious leverage of funding for the benefit of businesses and the people we represent. Local government cannot do everything, and the Minister and, entertainingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), gave a tour d’horizon of the big industries in the area. Mention was made of aerospace and BAE Systems, which is not just a world leader, but is among the top three or four defence companies in the United States market. That is what world leadership means. If a company is not in there, it is nowhere in the world’s defence industry.

There is an interesting success story in Merseyside. Everyone knows about improvised explosive devices, which are causing such catastrophic carnage in Afghanistan. A device has been developed, which, sadly, is not much use in Afghanistan, because IEDs there are triggered

manually by line, but in Iraq they are triggered by radio waves. On Merseyside, Selex on Edge lane, which most people pass down when coming into Liverpool, has developed a device that can jam radio-controlled electronic devices. That is a small success story among the bigger success stories of the defence industry in the area. The Minister mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, which again is a leader with a large base on Merseyside.

I am drawing my remarks to a close, Mr. Chope, because I know that you want as many people as possible to make a contribution. The automotive industry is crucial to Merseyside and my constituency, and includes Halewood, the home of Jaguar Land Rover. Fortunately, we have a success story there. We were concerned when the X-type Jaguar, which had reached the end of its productive life, was to be phased out—it takes time to phase out a luxury car model—that we did not have a replacement for it, which made the factory rather vulnerable. It is a world-class factory, and has won world-class awards. When it was in the Ford empire, it was No. 1 in the world in the Ford factory empire. It also won a gold standard from the industry. That, of course, was thanks to the excellent staff, work force and management there, and one of the best production lines in the world. We were concerned that that world-class factory was vulnerable when the X-type was phased out, but now we have a good-news story. The new baby LXR Land Rover will be built in Halewood, and that secures the future of the factory for a decade, which is about as far ahead as one may look in the automotive industry, but we are grateful for that.

There was a nail-biting period before we got that when we were concerned about Jaguar Land Rover and the support that the Government were giving to it. They were giving encouragement but there was a bit of a stand-off between the Government and the management of Jaguar Land Rover for high stakes. We are grateful for what the Government did, but we want continued practical support from the Government for Jaguar Land Rover.

Finally, there is a more perilous situation, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned, of Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. That also is important to Merseyside. Both these factories are important to Merseyside because we are not just talking about the 200 or so jobs in Halewood but of the 3,000 or 4,000 jobs down the line that those jobs support. I ask the Minister to ensure that in all his deliberations and contacts with his colleagues in Government about the economy of this area, he pays due attention to the need to support the automotive industry too.

4.13 pm

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): This debate is extremely important. It gives us the opportunity to consider what is being done on a regional basis and also, slightly parochially, on a local level too. Some of the contributions so far have been incredibly compelling about the needs of individual local areas whether Chorley, Cumbria or Merseyside.

I want to take the opportunity to highlight an initiative linking neatly into the aims of Building Britain’s Future which is taking place in one of the two boroughs that

make up my constituency in Tameside. It is a partnership with major local businesses and public sector partners called Tameside Works First. It is a project to support local businesses through this economic downturn. It offers help for traders and small businesses in the borough and is at the core of a £12 million support package. The money is being used to increase spending across a range of projects and it is aimed at boosting the borough’s economy and safeguarding jobs. The Labour council is also keen to help and support small to medium-sized businesses. This is done by making the most effective possible use of the council’s commissioning and procurement activity to support the local economy. But, the real benefit of this scheme is that Tameside companies and contractors will be used wherever possible. Some £10 million is being spread over a range of capital funding initiatives. That will include things such as refurbishment and safety work at Tameside’s eight municipal cemeteries, school repairs, and the maintenance of the council’s public buildings.

The other £2 million is targeted towards revenue funding, including schemes such as allowing free parking at specific times in our town centres to help retailers and measures to improve access to business rate relief for small firms. Tameside Works First does not stop with the designated programme of works. It also asks all council managers to consult the list of Tameside Works First companies whenever they are procuring services or supplies, with the result that a further £2 million of capital funding has been directed to listed companies so far.

David Heyes (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab): I am pleased that my hon. Friend whose constituency, like mine, covers part of Tameside has chosen to draw attention to this marvellous initiative. Just to back up what he is saying, I give the example of a small metal manufacturing firm. The managing director came to me anxious that his firm might fold because of the difficulty with its order book. I was able to direct him to Tameside Works First and as a result his firm secured a very valuable contract with the local authority which has ensured its future in the medium and probably in the longer term.

Andrew Gwynne: I agree with my hon. Friend. One further example is a company called Anvil Masters in Denton. This well established local business has been renewing and replacing the railings in parks throughout the borough, including at Granada park recently, which is also in Denton. It probably would not have got the contract but for Tameside Works First and the breaking up of a much larger programme of works into smaller parts so that the council could get round the competitive tendering rules. The imaginative approach that Tameside has taken to support local business is such a good example that I want to bring it to the attention of the Committee.

The priorities of Tameside Works First are about supporting our own community wherever possible first and foremost, focusing on helping small businesses, such as Anvil Masters and the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned. It is also increasing the number of high-quality local companies on the approved contractors list and, therefore, bringing them to a wider audience, so it is not just about public sector works but about making local businesses aware

of the services that other Tameside firms can provide. Similar to what the Minister said, a key initiative is about speeding up the payment of invoices to small and medium enterprises in the borough to 10 days rather than the usual 28 days. That is making a huge difference, with better cash flow for small businesses.

The council is working with partners and major businesses to increase the impact of Tameside Works First regionally. A series of business summits have been held, attended by MPs, major local employers, executive councillors, senior managers, and other key public sector and private sector partners. By working closely with the Tameside Business Family, it has provided a series of workshops and events to help local companies become more competitive. The impact has been very impressive so far, as over £7.1 million has been spent on companies listed with Tameside Works First to date on around 830 jobs with 100 companies. Several Tameside companies have said that the programme has been a lifeline for them during the economic downturn.

The scheme has been so successful that tomorrow there will be a further business summit meeting, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will attend. It will look at developing the initiative into areas such as a Tameside apprenticeship company and establishing a Tameside Works First charter. The charter will outline the aims of the initiative: we want more and better jobs for everyone in Tameside and we want local people, particularly, to be able to access those jobs and new and established businesses to be able to flourish. In developing skills and tackling worklessness, the charter will aim to encourage apprenticeships and skills among workers and encourage local employment agreements where new job opportunities are created.

Tameside Works First is a Labour council initiative that fits well into our Labour Government’s Building Britain’s Future strategy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North has been making a similar case to her local council to get them to take a similar lead, although I understand that it is perhaps a little more reluctant than Tameside.

I am pleased to have been able to highlight the scheme. As the Minister said at the start, the North West is a major powerhouse in the UK economy. It is only right that we have a stronger regional voice, which, I hope, the Committee provides, to highlight the good work being done at a very local level, such as Tameside Works First, to help our communities through some tough economic challenges. I hope that we will welcome the Grand Committee to Denton Festival Hall; the surroundings are slightly less grand but the Committee would be more than welcome on my home patch.

4.21 pm

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Like him and the earlier speakers, I welcome the opportunity to question the regional Minister and to hold to account some of the regional bodies that have such a great influence and effect on our local communities. I especially welcome the report that we are considering. It raises serious issues, some of which I will touch on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove earlier talked about the rise in regional unemployment in the past 12 months. In my constituency, unemployment in

2008-09 rose by 1,612. According to the overall statistics that I got from the Library this week, we are fifty-second in terms of the highest rate of unemployment, not just in the north-west but in the country. It is clearly a serious issue that needs to be addressed. We received figures last week of the number of people with degrees. Our constituency was number 513 on the list. A lot of work needs to be done.

I want to talk about some of the issues raised in this report and in particular the activities of the Learning and Skills Council. The report rather glosses over some of the glaring mistakes and huge damage which the LSC has done over the past few months, such as the debacle of the college rebuilding programme and other programmes, for which the college in my constituency had been promised funding that has not been received. I hope that the regional Minister will take up those points.

This time last year Rochdale borough was promised a new sixth-form college and at least a total rebuild of Hopwood Hall college in the centre of Rochdale. The new sixth-form college is thankfully being built on land donated by Hopwood Hall college. However, we have been left with a college with no money, no plans or prospects and £2.2 million in outstanding fees, which the LSC promised would be repaid but has not been. In the Government’s response to the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee report published this week there is a clear commitment that those colleges encouraged by the LSC to engage in pre-emptive work in preparing for building will be reimbursed. I hope that the Minister will pursue that because that £2.2 million is having a severe effect on Hopwood Hall’s capacity and ability to respond to the recession.

The report also covers Train to Gain. It quotes the director of the LSC as saying that it is very much a demand-led course. I appreciate that. We should applaud the fact that local companies have been making increased use of it during the recession. Nevertheless, Hopwood Hall college tells me that because some people on the Train to Gain courses finished early—in June rather than October this year—the LSC is refusing to pay Hopwood Hall college that money. That is costing Hopwood Hall college £250,000. That is disgraceful. I can show the Minister the figures. I expect and hope that he will chase that up because it is vital.

I asked the Minister earlier about youth unemployment, particularly with regard to apprenticeships. He said that we would have an opportunity during this debate to discuss that. The report makes the very clear point—for which I am grateful to members of the Select Committee—that the Government need to set out how those apprenticeships are going to be created. Where those apprenticeships will come from remains a major concern in areas like mine, which rely largely on manufacturing and have a higher than average rise in unemployment. It is vital that we do not allow another generation to fail, and that we give all young people aged 18 to 24 an opportunity. In that context, on Monday I questioned the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the funding that will be available for increased student numbers, particularly those staying on at college and in further education. One concern, which she did not address, is that it is clear that colleges will get the increased funding only if their numbers rise by more than 10 per cent. In other words, they have to deal first

with the 10 per cent. rise. For Hopwood Hall college that is an extra 300 students, and it is not acceptable. Considering the £2.2 million that the college has not been paid by the LSC, the £250,000 that it has not received for Train to Gain, and the fact it may not be funded for extra students unless there is a 10 per cent. rise, the Government’s commitment to tackling the recession in the way that they should is seriously in doubt.

Manufacturing is clearly important, and I want to support the report’s recommendation about the lack of availability of short-term support for employees. That support has operated in France and Germany and also not so far from here, in Wales, where the Welsh Assembly has applied such a scheme. I have talked to companies in my constituency about their experience. Many have high, tight manufacturing and have had their workforces pared to the bone, and that sort of scheme would do an awful lot to assist them through this period. One company in my constituency has only one competitor, in Germany, and that German company is able to use short-term working subsidies. Not being able to do that puts the UK company at a severe disadvantage.

My second point on manufacturing is about the amount of regulation and red tape that still exists. The Government are committed to reducing red tape, but when I talk to local companies, that appears not to be happening. A small company in Littleborough employs 35 people in manufacturing specialist equipment. One of the directors went on a north-west sponsored trip to China to increase employment, and the company is starting to do business with China. The company makes pipes and valves for chemical and pharmaceutical plants, and every time it sells a part it needs an export licence. I have been in long conversations with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about that. Since the company is only building up business volume at the moment, it has to have a SIEL—a standard individual export licence—every time. As the products could presumably be used in chemical warfare, as well as in the pharmaceutical industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have to be involved, and the company is not winning business because it cannot get the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to gain their approval.

I make a strong plea: let us at least say that companies that export to certain countries get a once-only licence, rather than having to go through the process every time they want to manufacture a pipe that has a different diameter. That is stifling initiative, preventing companies from taking on their competitors, and is not successful. It is a clear example of Government red tape. I understand the need and the desire to prevent the export of certain high-tech and sensitive parts to undesirable countries, but that is not the case here.

Mr. Hoyle: I think that part of the problem is that we have the European agreement that we will not supply China with any defence-related components. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that that ban be lifted.

Paul Rowen: No, I am suggesting that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills needs to look at that company on a one-off basis for a whole range of

products. The company is expected to give a 10-day turnaround, because if a chemical or pharmaceutical plant cannot work because its valve is gone and the company cannot supply it in 10 days, the plant will go to an American competitor and buy it from there. We need an open individual export licence, which is an overall approval. But the current rules do not allow the company to have an OIEL because of export volume. Each part is taken individually, rather than the sequence of parts that are produced being taken as a whole. That is a positive example of how the Government can help to deliver for north-west businesses.

The third and final element that I want to raise was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, and is not covered by the report. It is the positive efforts that local councils are making in dealing with the recession. I certainly support what Rochdale is doing in terms of “free after three” and the whole range of other activities. We also have a “shop local” scheme in Rochdale, which attempts to ensure that local businesses are supported on the ground. It would have been be useful for the Committee to look at the effect of those sorts of initiatives, as there is a great deal of good practice across a range of local councils. It would have been good if that were shared.

4.34 pm

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South, who made the point about culture here in Liverpool—we have many museums here. I would like to invite my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central and for Oldham, East and Saddleworth to visit the Anfield football museum, where the European cup is on display. The cup is held here permanently because the club has won five times—maybe they want to see that. I will be talking about beach balls again, some time.

It is a great pleasure to be here—it is a fantastic city. I represent Halton, which is near the towns of Widnes, Runcorn and Hale. We sit in a particularly strategic position because we are bordered by Liverpool, Knowsley, St. Helens, Warrington and Cheshire.

The point that I particularly want to discuss today in my short contribution is the second Mersey crossing, which I believe is vital for not just Cheshire, Merseyside and my constituency, but the North West. It will also be an iconic feature—a massive structure, costing over £400 million. It is needed because the Silver Jubilee bridge is now congested, and has been for many years. My constituents and constituents of other hon. Members here have had to suffer for many years. Of course, it also causes pollution—we talked about the environment before. The new bridge is essential and has been accepted in the main schemes. We have just had the public inquiries. As I said earlier, the Transport Minister announced today that he expects the report from the inspector to be in by December and a decision will be made as soon as possible in the new year. It is important that we get on with that, and that is why I made the point about the cross-Government issue, regarding the Treasury and the Department for Transport, to make sure that there is no further delay—the bridge is badly needed.

In the context of jobs, which again is important, the economic report done on the proposed bridge said that more than 4,000 new jobs will be created. But in the

shorter term, when the bridge starts to be constructed, there will be hundreds of construction jobs. In the current economic climate, which will take a number of years to get out of in terms of increased jobs and getting rid of unemployment, those construction and associated jobs will be crucial. That is why we need to get the decision early, to make sure we can get on with it.

In terms of the environmental benefits, as I have said, there was congestion, but also, there will be bus ways, cycle ways and walk ways on the new bridge, which is not possible on the current, single bridge. So there will be major benefits there. I urge the Government to make a decision as soon as the report is received from the inspector in December.

As I mentioned before, I was able to get here after asking a question in the House of Commons at 10.37 this morning, and to get back into Runcorn at just after 1 pm. The Government have invested £8 billion in ensuring that the west coast line is improved. I can get to Runcorn now in less than two hours. Manchester, the rest of the North West and Cumbria have benefited from it, not just Merseyside and my constituency.

The railway is important. As a former railway Minister, I know that probably as well as anybody else. I came here from Widnes station. Again, the Association of Train Operating Companies is talking of electrifying that line as well at some point in the next 20 years. The other famous thing about Widnes station, of course, is that Paul Simon wrote “Homeward Bound” on it in 1963. It is a fine example of a Victorian station and provides a good service into Liverpool. It is important to the economy, not least in my constituency, that investment in the railway continues.

There are many issues in my constituency. I cannot go into them in detail due to time, but we have had the second largest increase in unemployment during this recession. Having recovered from the massive unemployment of the ’80s and ’90s, it is a real blow, particularly to young people, who are crucial. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to provide training, apprenticeship and college places, but it will be a difficult task. Of course, education is crucial to that. It was great that this year in Halton, more than 70 per cent. of secondary schools got five A to C GCSEs, but we must continue to improve education. That is the key to providing the talent and skills that we need and industry needs, manufacturing in particular.

I welcome the initiatives, but there is a long way to go. The Government are providing more help with a lot of things that my constituents have difficulties with, not least in terms of home ownership, mortgage arrears and so on, but it still is a great worry to them, with effects on their health and all the rest of it.

There are a number of important developments that I want to relate. The Daresbury science park was mentioned in reference to the synchrotron point. We in the North West region got together and demanded that Daresbury be saved, even though we were losing it, and built on. It has been a great way forward in terms of co-operation within the region among Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster universities, local authorities and businesses. Co-operation has been great. Daresbury has got to the point where it has great potential to create thousands of jobs in the science and engineering sector. It is one of only two schemes designated by the Government as

science parks; the other is in Oxford. Great things are still taking place at Daresbury. It is important that we ensure that it continues to develop its potential.

The other thing that we have is Stobart, a Cumbrian company that has moved into my constituency in a big way and is making a number of important economic developments by the banks of the river Mersey. That could create hundreds of jobs. It is important as well. Heath business park in Runcorn is also a key area for developments with jobs, and it needs support as well.

There are many areas that could come together to make a difference. Finally—I will be brief, as time is going on—the importance of councils in economic development has been referred two by one or two Members. Halton borough council has done an outstanding job in bringing business into Halton, supporting businesses and providing help and advice. It is often praised by business within the area. There is a partnership not just with business but throughout the public and voluntary sectors, which the council works hard to develop. That is why improvement continues in Halton after the chemical industry, which left a legacy for us to deal with. We still have an important chemical industry today, but it is a much greener and more pleasant place than it was many years ago. That industry is still important for us.

Halton council has been key to that, particularly in land reclamation. Good relationships with the Northwest Development Agency and the Government office have been important; those agencies have been helpful on a number of issues. I just wanted to say that, because sometimes they are criticised, but they have been exceptionally helpful on many issues.

It is key to the region—certainly to the sub-region, and definitely to my constituency—that the decision about the bridge is taken as soon as possible. It will provide thousands of jobs in the future and during its construction, and will be helpful in easing congestion in my constituency. It is the single most important transport scheme at the moment.

4.42 pm

Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): The Government have been particularly successful during the past 10 years in regenerating cities as the drivers of economic change. Those include Liverpool and Manchester, and I have to say that Liverpool was unrecognisable from the city it was in 1997.

While everyone welcomes those efforts and the commitment and investment that have been made, today I want to talk particularly about the forgotten areas of the region, such as West Lancashire, which I represent. When I was first elected, people would ask me where it was and I would try to describe it geographically. The truth is I am now always reduced to saying, “Draw a big circle around Preston, draw a big circle around Liverpool and a big circle around Manchester—the bit in the middle is West Lancashire.” The area is not important to any of the major cities.

I recognised many of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border when he described the problems of rural economies, so I will not rehearse all that again. There are many schemes that the Minister and the agencies here know that we need—we need the investment to drive the economy. One big one is the Ormskirk bypass, second in priority in Lancashire.

We can get up and down Lancashire, but we cannot get across Lancashire—we certainly cannot get across easily, but need a day or two spare in order to do it. The vicar of a local parish church is standing there while it is almost falling down because juggernauts and heavy good vehicles are trying to get through a tiny market town. It is an incredible pinch point, but no one is doing anything about it. It is absolutely necessary that we do that.

We have lots of other things, such as the Burscough walk, which the Northwest Development Agency is looking at, and we have a huge number of transport issues, from reinstating the Burscough curves to trying to get a bus service that meets the needs of a rural community. I could talk about how a town of 40,000 people, Skelmersdale, does not have a railway station, but I shall come to that in a few minutes.

I would particularly like to focus, because of all that, on one of the region’s forgotten towns; ironically, one that was developed back in the ’60s to deal with what was described at the time as Liverpool’s overspill. I particularly want to talk about it because decisions are about to be made that will greatly affect that town, for good or ill. Ever since its birth as a new town, Skelmersdale, which forms a major part of my constituency, along with Ormskirk, has suffered from fly-by-night employers in the ’70s—they came along, they took their grant and they ran. There is some appalling architecture and, I have to say it, absolutely awful planning, with some substandard housing and a road network that would leave the most proficient “Krypton Factor” contestant baffled and bewildered. To add to that, we make sure that there are not enough signs and we do not tell anyone where they are, we just let them go. Furthermore, high levels of unemployment, much of it long term, and the lack of a town centre mean that Skelmersdale has been failed, and it has failed to live up to the visions and ambitions that people in our place made 40 or 50 years ago. The decision makers made those decisions all that time ago, promising people the earth and delivering little.

Most of my constituents, when I talk to them about Skelmersdale and how it is today, 50 years on, say that a lot of the little fabric that is there is decaying—it absolutely needs investment. They feel that they have been abandoned. I shall never forget what one lady said, when I first became an MP, talking about how bad it is and what needs to be done. She said, “Skelmersdale has had more visions than Saint Bernadette.” When we say that we are going to do stuff for the people of Skelmersdale, they do not believe it at all—on the track record that I have seen, I agree with them.

What about Skelmersdale? As a town, it can boast superb access to the motorway network via the M58. We can get to any major part of the North West in three quarters of an hour from Skelmersdale. Unfortunately for business investment, it loses its attraction. Why? It is a town of 40,000 people that does not have a railway station. Yet the plans for a railway station are there; a railway station was promised 40-odd years ago. But it is still not there today.

Estates were built as part of the new promised land for exiled scousers—and make no mistake, most of the residents of Skelmersdale are exiled scousers. I often

look at those estates and wonder how to describe the experimental housing that was built there in the 1960s. Those estates might have looked clever and trendy back in those psychedelic days of the 1960s, but now they look shabby, run-down and, quite frankly, not fit for the 21st century.

I referred earlier to the fact that the town does not have a centre. Indeed, my constituents believe that Asda—that one shop—is their town centre. It is seen as where they go to meet others. The hope of developing a vibrant, dynamic Skelmersdale town centre has been in abeyance for a number of years, latterly because of the Everton-Tesco plan to construct a stadium and retail park in Kirkby. I understand that that plan is controversial, but the truth is that the preferred developer of the Skelmersdale town centre is clear that, if the Everton-Tesco proposal gets the green light, it will not have the appetite to proceed with the planned regeneration of Skem town centre.

If we look here at the Liverpool One centre, Grosvenor, which built that fantastic scheme, is also worried about the impact of the Everton-Tesco plan for Kirkby, not on Skelmersdale but on the Liverpool One centre. That shows just how big the Kirkby plan would be. I believe that I have firmly made a case, over a long period, so that those who will make the final decision on the Everton-Tesco plan will know that this planning matter will affect so many people. That plan requires a footfall of something like 300,000 and yet Kirkby has a population of 40,000. Skelmersdale also has 40,000 people. The Everton-Tesco plan is so big that it would decimate the rest of the local area.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East quite rightly wants the maximum investment in his area that he can get. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, I fully support the regeneration of Kirkby, but in a way that is sustainable and that does not prohibit the future development of neighbouring town centres. The Minister must acknowledge that development needs to be symbiotic; we all need to share the benefit and we all need to be able to grow. It cannot be parasitic, whereby one survives and others die. We cannot sentence places such as Skelmersdale to death, because that is what we are going to do.

Having witnessed too many of these false dawns, I am absolutely determined that I will not be part of a process that allows Skelmersdale residents to be let down again. I implore everyone who is going to make that decision on the Everton-Tesco plan and the regional agencies to understand what their decision will mean to Skelmersdale and the people who were put there 40 or 50 years ago. They must understand that they cannot just write a town off.

In saying that, I also have some criticisms of my local Tory council, as I am dismayed by its actions. Why? Because in this situation, it does not have a plan B. It has failed to recognise the dangers that the existing blueprint for Skelmersdale will create if there is no plan B—and believe me, there is no plan B. Because of that, I hope to facilitate a gathering of the main agencies to ask them to contribute and participate in a debate that is about the town’s future. Where do we go from here? I will host that summit tomorrow in Skelmersdale and the agencies will go there and see exactly what we are talking about. I will be joined by the chief executives

of West Lancashire borough council, Lancashire county council, the regional development agency, the Government office for the north-west, the Homes and Community Agency—all the people who can and will make a difference to Skelmersdale.

My objective at that meeting is to establish an agenda for change that will transform not only Skem centre but address the problems that I spoke about before. We need to be ambitious for the people of Skelmersdale and the estates that have been so poorly maintained in the last 40 years. We need to be as ambitious for the people and the homes of Skelmersdale as we are for the town centre.

I hope that that meeting tomorrow will produce a strategy that will identify key actions that will help to address those deep-seated, long-term problems that the town has suffered, as well as putting in place some building blocks that will enable Skelmersdale to flourish and grow in the future.

When the Prime Minister visited the constituency last Thursday, he backed Skelmersdale Vision. Having visited Skelmersdale previously, he knows the challenge of regeneration. We are also committed to invest a great deal in the regeneration of the whole area, and he promised us that he was committed to that, too. I look at the agencies and say that we have had one major success in West Lancashire. We have convinced the LSC and the Government that we should go ahead with the commitment to build the multi-million pound Skelmersdale college. That is the first building block of the regeneration. Without that, the process would just be stopped. We cannot allow development in another town centre to completely stop us now.

I say to the Minister, as he knows from his visit to West Lancashire, that there is exceptional work being done locally to offer young people and residents opportunities and hope for the future. He is also aware of the specific issues and challenges facing the town. I hope that he will support the various efforts of stakeholders and agencies, which will be working in partnership, to deliver an agenda for change that will finally give the people of Skelmersdale the facilities, the infrastructure, the investment and the jobs that they not only need, but deserve.

4.54 pm

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire referred to the Tesco-Everton proposal for my constituency. I do not expect the Minister to comment any further on that development. It is a difficult issue, and Ministers must make up their minds over the next few days—or weeks, at any rate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire presents a false dichotomy between Skelmersdale and Kirkby, as though anything that happens in the one must be to the detriment of the other. However, the world does not work like that. A £400-million investment in Kirkby is of major significance, not just to Kirkby but to Knowsley, Merseyside and the wider sub-region, and beyond that, to the North West region itself. What if that investment did not go ahead because my hon. Friend or others objected to it? She does not have anything in its place. She freely admits that there is no plan B, and no alternative to the scheme, which is not funded, and which people are starting to

walk away from. The net effect would be that nothing would happen in Skelmersdale, Knowsley, or Kirkby, and nobody would get anything. That is why I say that it is a false dichotomy.

I do not think it appropriate to tie up the first meeting of this Grand Committee with a debate about the Tesco and Everton proposals for Kirkby. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South, and for Liverpool, Walton—I point out that Walton is in the city of Liverpool, not the borough of Knowsley—are strong advocates and supporters of that inward investment in our area, as am I.

I briefly want to touch on two further points. I want to look to the future in the Liverpool city region. A few weeks ago, the Mersey Partnership and I co-hosted a seminar on the things that are important for the future as our economy comes out of recession. A number of issues arose, but I will not go through all of them. However, it is worth mentioning three, which I know that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with. It is important that we try to work together to bring those issues forward. The first, which was referred to in the report, is the low-carbon economy. Clearly, as we come out of the recession, new jobs will not come from the old smoke-stack industries that closed down years ago. Those industries that are left are probably closing because of greater environmental controls. In the future, the highly skilled, highly technical jobs will be in the low-carbon industry. We believe that the Liverpool city region is well placed for some of that investment and development, not least because we have such a good higher education network to provide a lot of the necessary research to take the low-carbon economy forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South, referred to the automotive industry. I do not intend to dwell on the subject because a great deal has already been said on it. However, it is important to note that if it had not been for the action of central Government, it is quite conceivable that Vauxhall would have disappeared from the face of the earth. It would certainly have disappeared from Ellesmere Port, and probably from the UK. If it had not been for the support behind the Jaguar Land Rover decision to put the LRX in the Halewood factory, it could well have disappeared altogether.

Mr. O'Hara: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to correct any misapprehension that I might have given rise to. The Government played an important part in getting the LRX into Halewood by funding the development costs for that model and tying that funding to the production of that model in Halewood. I am grateful to the Government for that.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point clear; it is no longer necessary for me to make it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley referred to the automotive industry in Lancashire, too. However, we are not just talking about major firms. There are firms such as Delphi, in my constituency, which makes on-board electronics for the automotive industry. Without Vauxhall, Jaguar Land Rover and other major brands in the UK, a lot more jobs would disappear in companies not normally associated with the automotive industry, although Delphi is in precisely that industry.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that Merseytram is not on the back burner. Recently, the impression might have been created—possibly by the Government office for the north-west, possibly by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan)—that if it was not on the back burner, it was not “on our radar”; I think that was the phrase used. I am glad that the situation is perhaps not as bleak as that picture painted it.

I would like to put four points to the Minister—points with which I believe Labour politicians in Merseyside or the city region would agree—in support of the proposed tram. I would like him, and Transport Ministers, to give serious consideration to the formula that I think could bring the scheme forward. The first point may seem oblique, but my hon. Friend the Member for Halton knows where I am coming from. It is that we do not believe that we are talking about an either/or situation. We do not believe that if the second crossing goes ahead, which everybody in the city region strongly supports, it means saying goodbye to any other project in the pipeline. We all strongly support the second crossing, and we do not want the tram at the cost of the second crossing.

Secondly, there would be no implication for tunnel tolls or the levy for the passenger transport authority if the tram scheme went ahead. A new bid—there is nothing in the current regional funding allocation—would be put forward on that basis in 2011. Thirdly, we would seek to move forward on the same basis as the deal that was done for Greater Manchester, which involved borrowing against future allocations. If it is fair for Manchester to do that, it ought to be fair for the Liverpool city region.

Finally, the Merseyside passenger transport authority will bring a report before the Liverpool city region cabinet in November, and I hope that it will make a convincing business case. If it can convince the Government, I hope that they will still feel that they can consider moving ahead with the project. It is hugely important for Kirkby in my constituency, but it is also important for Liverpool city centre, because it links the two together. If we have to move a large number of football supporters around, the scheme will help with that process.

5.3 pm

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I am delighted, Mr. Chope, that I was able to catch your eye before we ran out of time. This is an important venture. It is the first meeting in the history of our Parliament of the North West Regional Grand Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that this in itself still leaves us with a democratic deficit in the North West, but I say to him and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Rochdale, that I was conscious of their praise for the regional Select Committee’s report. I hope that they will go back to their party leader and say that it was a mistake to play party politics with the Select Committee process and decide not to take part.

The report praised by both hon. Gentlemen was a good report and was not partisan. Had the hon. Member for Rochdale been a member of the Committee, the report would have been improved, as he would have been able to make the contribution that he made today

in urging members of the Committee to take that report a little further. I am sure that the Committee would have been pleased to do that. I urge hon. Members to get the party politics out of this, and come back into the Select Committee process and join us.

Andrew Stunell: Had I made the full-length speech that I intended to make, I would have dwelt on that point more fully. There are wide issues of accountability, and although I fully acknowledge the hard work and effectiveness of the report, that does not legitimise a process that we believe to be fundamentally flawed.

Tony Lloyd: I regret the party political position that is being taken. Instead of seeking to be members of a Select Committee that looks at the good of the region, party politics is placed ahead of regional advantage. That is a shame, but perhaps we will leave it there because I want to make some other comments about the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

The thing I found fascinating about the debate—perhaps this is not unique to the North West, it was one of the things that the Minister was right to tease out in his opening remarks and earlier answers—is the subject of the high dependency between the private sector and the public sector. There is an efficient, high-quality private sector in the North West, but the relationship between the private and public sector has been strained by the recession. There is no doubt that the recession has placed pressure on both the private and public sectors. Nevertheless, all those who have spoken or prayed in aid the need for public spending as part of the remedy for recovery, know that that is vital for our future.

That is why it is almost inconceivable that political leaders should talk the language of “savage cuts” when their Back Benchers are praying in aid the need for public spending as the motor of recovery. I agree with those Back Benchers—public spending is part of the motor of recovery. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go back and ask the leader of the Liberal Democrats to move away from the rhetoric of savage cuts. It is damaging for the country, and particularly damaging for a region such as ours. Let us take party politics out of this and rise above it. Let us ensure that we put regional advantage ahead of narrow political advantage.

There are a number of things that I want to say in the context of this discussion, and there are three major themes. One is education and training, another is investment, and I also want to talk about transport. The Minister used the word “connectivity” a number of times. Anybody who travels from Liverpool to Manchester, or vice versa, in the morning or evening will see the huge numbers of people who travel between the conurbations. It is a myth that two competing city regions vie for dominance in the North West. That is not true, and it is massively unhelpful.

Perhaps that idea is built on our mutual interest in football. I say kindly to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton that the overwhelming majority of the European cups that have come to England have come to the North West. I will not go much beyond that. [ Interruption. ] No, I was going to say that that is also the case with the majority of premiership titles. As a matter of statistical fact, this is the region of football. We should be proud

of that. However, rivalry on the football field should not delude us about our common interest in interconnectivity.

My hon. Friends have talked about Ford Halewood and Vauxhall. The reality is that jobs in my constituency depend on work continuing in the automotive industry on Merseyside, on the future of British Aerospace in Lancashire and on work in places such as Barrow in Cumbria. We must emphasise among ourselves that connectivity is in our economic interest.

Mr. Howarth: My last visit to Manchester was a very enjoyable occasion. It was when our teams last met. Four Liverpool balls went into the net, none of which were beach balls.

Tony Lloyd: It is fair of my right hon. Friend to point that out. It is equally fair for me to point out that we won the premiership at the end of the season, but that is a mere detail.

Mr. Crausby: Only one part of Manchester won the premiership. We should not forget the other Greater Manchester teams that do so well.

Tony Lloyd: Before I am diverted too far, I agree that there are other good teams. Bury, Rochdale, Stockport and many other places in Greater Manchester have excellent teams. I must mention Manchester City, which is in my constituency.

I will move beyond football, because it often bedevils the way in which the North West presents itself. I am passionate about football, but I am also passionate about the need for areas of the North West to get together economically. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and I discussed earlier the need for improvements in our transport system. The announcement on the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester line was hugely welcome. However, my hon. Friend is right that the Preston-Manchester-Liverpool triangle must also be completed. That is vital for trains coming into Liverpool and Manchester.

The quickest way to boost the economy in the greater north would be to improve the railway system. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred rightly to the misnomer of the Manchester hub. Although that is a narrow part of the railway system, improving it would improve rail transport across north England. We have to move on these issues quickly because such investment would generate economic activity and jobs. It would improve the capacity for our industry and allow our work force to be in work and to upskill.

The Select Committee report refers to the need for access to different types of finance for industry. The Government have rightly been putting pressure on the banking system to improve that, but not enough has happened yet. There is a gap—as there always has been—in access to finance and capital for small firms. In particular, those involved in venture capital and innovative industries must be able to access capital. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East said the future was in relatively high-tech areas. The smokestack industries are going—have gone. They are not coming back, and we know that. Whether it is automotive parts or the green industries of the future, industries will require innovation, some of which will be from quite small firms.

I know of firms in my constituency, including some incredibly hi-tech ones—there is one formed by venture capital companies out of Manchester university—that are having a real struggle obtaining capital funding. That company in Manchester is already in production and has a world-class product, and it is high science. However, they were told by someone involved in the finance industry that, for a company like that to operate in Manchester was a non-starter, and that they needed to get back into the golden triangle of Oxford, London or Cambridge. It is unacceptable that the finance industry should tell people in the north of England that that type of capital will not be available, even though this company is already at the apex of scientific achievement. Greater emphasis must be placed on the need to access different types of capital for small firms, particularly where science is at the centre. Those are the industries of the future.

That leads me on to my final point, about the upskilling of the work force. A number of my hon. Friends have rightly made important points about the Government’s training guarantee. At the moment, that is desperately important. Hon. Members from different parts of the region made points about unemployment in their own constituencies In the North West, it is a matter of statistical fact that historically, Liverpool, Riverside and my constituency of Manchester, Central have had the highest levels of unemployment and of poverty, which rides on the back of unemployment. We do not want to see the type of unemployment—persistent unemployment—that we saw in the 1980s return once again. That is why the jobs and training guarantee for our young people is so fundamental and why the need to move on apprenticeships is so central to everything we do.

We also have to recognise that although those intermediate skills are vital to the industries of the future, the hi-tech and the very high sciences are also important. I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister to look at something that is important to the North West. We have now higher education throughout the whole of our region, from Cumbria university, about which I was talking to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, to the universities in Lancashire, Merseyside and Manchester—all great institutions. We find it difficult—this has happened time after time—when the competition for research funding is unfairly tipped, once again, towards that golden triangle of Oxbridge and London. We are told, time and again, even though we have world-class researchers and scientists, that they will not get access to the funding that they need.

I say to the Minister that it is in our regional interest to fight hard to say to our Government—a Government whom I support—that we have to begin to rethink this. It is not in the national interest to have a concentration of research and science in such a narrow part of the country. We have to open that up and make sure that we get our fair share in the North West, as everywhere else does.

I welcome this debate, because it has given us the chance to debate some important issues. I also welcome the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister earlier. This is a world-class region. We have got world-class football in different parts of the region: we have more premiership clubs in this one region than in any other

part of the country. In fact, we have a great infrastructure of people, history and the future. We can beat the world, but we need help from our Government.

Mr. Watts: On a point of order, Mr. Chope, would it be in order to have a two-minute comfort break?

Chairman: Bearing in mind that, to keep the quorum, everybody has had to stay in, that might be sensible. Then the Minister will have time to respond to the debate.

5.16 pm

Sitting suspended.

5.22 pm

On resuming—

Mr. Woolas: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to what has been a superb debate that has highlighted the variety of issues in the North West. Some of the issues raised are related to national policy and some are related to local policy. As regional Minister, I can attempt to influence some of those issues. I echo the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to all members of the Committee to join the process, because it is good for the region. My hon. Friend made an important point about connectivity, and I strongly endorse his view that, whatever the rivalries, the fact of the matter is that our economic prosperity as a region is tied together. The strength of Greater London’s economy is its interconnectivity. It takes less time to travel between Manchester, Liverpool and Preston than it does to travel across the central London boroughs, yet London never lets rivalry get in the way, and neither should we.

My hon. Friend is right about the access to finance. The venture capital loan fund of £90 million and the €200 million in total from the European regional development fund and the European Investment Bank are on stream and will address the point that has been made.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton about the Mersey gateway, the scheme was granted programme entry in 2006 with proposed Department for Transport contributions of £86 million from the regional funding allowance and £123 million in private finance initiative credits. The scheme has strong backing from the Merseyside sub-region. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until the outcome of the public inquiry is known, but my hon. Friend has made a strong point. The public inquiry has been held and the inspector is working on the report, which is expected to go to Ministers before Christmas. The scheme is privatised within the regional funding advice and all of the funding is in place. I hope that that information is beneficial.

I want to be clear about the Government’s policy in relation to the Merseyside tram. The Department for Transport would be happy to receive a fresh proposal for the Merseyside tram, but only once it has been prioritised for funding within the North West regional funding allowance. We also wish it to have the full

support of all the Merseyside districts. Merseytravel would also need to provide 25 per cent. of the scheme’s costs, which may come from a number of sources. I hope that that answers the question. The scheme is certainly something that I wish to devote my resources to promote.

The point about the Anfield museum is very important. With 450,000 visitors, it is the major visitor attraction to the north and west of Liverpool. We need to build on the tremendous success of the city of culture activities, which saw 17.5 million people visit Liverpool for the first time.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made important points about her constituency. I have visited it twice—the second time with the Prime Minister—and we now have a much better understanding of her points about the 50 years. Many of our new towns suffer from investment needs, because their infrastructure is now out of date. I was pleased that she was able to acknowledge the work on the college.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East mentioned Tesco-Everton and he is right; I can say nothing further on that. His point about green jobs and the automotive industry is absolutely right. Let me remind colleagues that not only do we make hundreds of thousands of cars and lorries—I visited the plants that do that recently—but we also make more engines than anywhere else. We make more engines than vehicles in our region and it is the engine—the green technology—that will lead that revolution in Leyland DAF trucks, in Ellesmere Port and in Jaguar Land Rover. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, it is also a matter of the supply chain that goes with that—he is absolutely right. That is where our green jobs revolution can be particularly beneficial to our region.

The hon. Member for Rochdale made a number of important points on his apprenticeship fears, and training. I refer him to the support that we are giving through the north-west future jobs fund—£13 million—which will create 20,000 jobs, at least 13,200 of which will be for young people. I understand that Rochdale council is offering a minimum of 217 such jobs, 152 of which are for young people. He mentioned the support available across the border in Wales, which is, in fact, very similar to the support available here in the North West through the rapid response service, local employment partnerships and the other substantial packages of support. I encourage hon. Members to make contact with their Jobcentre Plus district managers on the support packages that have been made available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South spoke of his support for training and apprenticeships. One of the strengths of the Select Committee report was that it gave a kick up the backside to Ministers better to put in place the National Apprenticeship Service. That is now in place as a direct consequence of that Regional Select Committee—it would have happened, but it has happened better and faster. I am grateful to the NAS and Jobcentre Plus colleagues, who have helped us to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made the important point about Thameside Works First, with which I am familiar, where the reality of procurement as a sustainable policy that is to the benefit of local jobs is put into practice. It is pleasing to see that

example. Thameside is, of course, the home of the north-west centre of excellence on procurement. Putting such policies into practice is extremely valuable.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made 12 different points. I will not be able to answer all of them, but he made important points about the benefit of retrofitting homes and buildings from the point of view of jobs, tackling poverty—particularly pensioner poverty—and the green revolution. Of course, the schemes that we have in place through the carbon emissions reduction target and Warm Front have gone a long way. He is urging more, but there is a consensus that we are moving in the right direction on that. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about diesel motor units, I was trying to say that there is a knock-on benefit, but I will not push the point because I fear I will lose. He also expressed his support for the regional assembly, which I endorse.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley that we have written to Chorley council on his behalf. A copy of that letter—or a specific letter—has been sent, but I will, of course, pursue the point about the section 106 money that the council holds. He also made strong points about the forensic science labs, and it is incumbent upon me to answer his fears, particularly about the distance.

A number of points were made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. We accept the point about connectivity on broadband in his area. In fact, I am told that the village of Alston has 96 per cent. digital connectivity, but it is an important matter. He

started his remarks by talking about the nuclear industry and the benefit that can cascade from that industry for jobs and engineering. That is a priority for all our constituents and for the issue of clean energy provision. The connectivity of the Atlantic gateway between Merseyside and Liverpool is also a priority, alongside the sub-regional priorities that we have. We have strong plans, and I am keen to build a consensus for them, while recognising the critical point about policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central made: public sector finance in an investment is required to help us to get out of the recession and build on that prosperity.

David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I am conscious that the sitting may conclude in about five or 10 seconds’ time, so before the Minister sits down, although I remain sceptical about the parliamentary benefits of this occasion, I would like to ask him, on behalf of the Committee and through the Chair, to pass on our thanks to the officials who have made today possible. Perhaps, more importantly, I would like to thank the superb staff of this wonderful town hall for their kindness and courtesy to all of us today. They have made the logistics of this event entirely acceptable in these wonderful surroundings—I thought I was in the House of Lords when I came in.

5.30 pm

    The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put and the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 117A(6) and Order of the House, 25 June).

Questions Not Answered Orally

Youth Opportunities

2. Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of a job, training place, apprenticeship or education place for those in the North West aged between 16 and 24. [294832]

Mr. Woolas: My predecessor and I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on these key issues, through forums such as the Council of Regional Ministers. Indeed, I attended a meeting of the Ministerial Champions for Apprenticeships from across Whitehall on 13 October. The group has a remit to drive up the number of public sector apprenticeships by an extra 21,000 in 2009-10.