Public Health: County Durham

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Right honourable.

[Phil Wilson]

He is my right hon. Friend, as he reminds me. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this timely debate. He has been a real campaigner on this issue in County Durham for many years, and I know he takes a real interest in the public health issues we face in Durham.

The backdrop to the debate is this: we face cuts to public health provision in the north-east of England, primarily in County Durham, at the same time as we see a parade of candidates to be leader of the Conservative party, virtually all of whom want to cut taxes by billions of pounds. I am beginning to wonder where exactly the money will come from for any kind of public sector provision. Those claims of future tax cuts will probably end up being unfunded after Brexit, considering that the pot of tax money for the public sector will be reduced anyway.

As my right hon. Friend said, we may face cuts to public health services of around £18 million in Durham. I reiterate what he said about Surrey and Hertfordshire: under the new formula, there will be a £14.4 million increase for Surrey and a £12.6 million increase for Hertfordshire. That cannot be right when we consider the problems we have with health and healthcare provision in Durham. Sedgefield grew up, as a community, on coal. The number of men who worked down the collieries and are still alive today but have ailments related to that industry, such as lung disease and arthritis, just goes to prove that there is a requirement not to cut funding but to increase it.

If we look at random at some areas of health, we see that the figures for Sedgefield are worse than the national average in all of them. It has higher than the national average cases of dementia, patients on antidepressant drugs, patients on painkillers, asthma sufferers, people with high blood pressure, people with depression—the list goes on and on. We are talking about a formula devised by algorithm rather than by listening to what healthcare professionals say the county needs. People in Durham can expect to live a decent life in good health for seven years less than people in Surrey and nine years less than people in Hertfordshire.

Great strides have been made over the years in the use of the public health grant in County Durham. For example, the smoking rate has reduced from 22% to 14%. However, smoking during pregnancy is still an issue and still above the national average. About 20% of the people who live in Durham—I think that is about 114,000 people—are under 19. They should all be due some kind of safeguarding provision. If the cuts go ahead, will we have the health visitors to provide that? The cuts will affect the safeguarding of young people. If drug and alcohol services are reduced, the police will have to deal with an even greater problem of rising crime.

The chief executive of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS mental health trust came to see me about the cuts a couple of weeks ago. Because of cuts to public health, fewer and fewer health visitors and school nurses are going to schools and people’s homes. Because that provision is not there, the trust has to see people it would not otherwise have seen because they would have been seen at home or school. Its provision for people with mental health problems is being put under more and more stress. The cuts are impacting on services other than those provided through public health funding.

One thing for which public health services have mandatory responsibility is health visiting services for those under the age of five. The breastfeeding initiation rate in County Durham is 59%, compared with 74% in England as a whole. Health visitors play a pivotal role in helping and encouraging women to continue to breastfeed their babies until they are at least six months old. Public Health England guidance acknowledges:

“Mothers who are young, white, from routine and manual professionals and who left education early are least likely to breastfeed.”

Cutting the public health grant to an area in which many women fit that profile and which is already way behind on breastfeeding rates would once again penalise an area with real need.

Then we have obesity. In the fight to keep the population healthy and active, healthy weight is of core importance to the public health agenda. An estimated 14% of adults on GP registers across the Sedgefield constituency are obese, with the figure in some areas as high as 19%. Five of the 15 neighbourhoods with the highest rates of obesity are in County Durham. In the south-east, which may end up with increased public health provision, those rates are in single digits—around 8%, if not less. In Richmond Park, the figure is 3.6%.

The common theme in all this is that if we cut public health provision in our communities, other providers will be affected. Those providers, which otherwise would not have had to provide those services, will end up doing more and more. The mental health trust told me that case loads are skyrocketing for some of its workers. How, for example, will they be able to look after young people with mental health issues that are not picked up at school or in the home? Those young people will be passed along the road to mental health trusts, which will not be able to cope because they, too, face cuts. That needs to be addressed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, especially in mental health, the outcomes for an individual are better if we intervene early, at a young age, rather than leaving problems untreated for many years?

[Phil Wilson]

That is absolutely right, and that is an issue that the mental health trust raised. If those issues are picked up in the early years or when someone is still at school, they can be resolved. Leaving them just puts extra strain on the mental health trusts in the area.

I want to end on a positive note. I had some schoolchildren in Parliament yesterday from the primary schools in Ferryhill and Chilton. Cleves Cross Primary School in Ferryhill has a whole host of initiatives around mental health, eating properly and so on. Around the village, it is setting up edible walkways: instead of flower beds, it is planting vegetables, which people can pick when they mature. It is great that schools are coming up with those great initiatives, but if the same thing is to happen in schools across Country Durham, there needs to be central provision from public health services.

For wellbeing, there are initiatives to make sure that children have meals together with their families, and to ensure that if there are problems, other children and friends from school are invited along to share those meals. Such initiatives for those aged seven to 10 bode well for the future, and the public health service in Durham needs to look at them, but they must be funded.

We also need to think about how we develop best practice, so that we see such initiatives not just in Ferryhill and Chilton but in Consett, Barnard Castle, Durham city, Esh Winning and Easington—all over County Durham. There needs to be some strategy. As my right hon. Friend said, we need some kind of audit or impact assessment of what cuts to public health mean to areas like ours. What is the reasoning behind making cuts in Durham, where services are needed, and increasing funding in places such as Surrey and Hertfordshire, where they will not be?

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

History shows what happens when this country turns its back and stops engaging with Europe. That is why most of the world and many experts are asking us to remain where we are. Those who say that we must look to the world as well as to the EU are correct and I agree with them, but we should do that as part of the biggest and richest single market in the world. If the rest of the world is telling us that we can best deal with the rest of the world by being in the EU, we should listen. The USA, China, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the whole Commonwealth have said that we should remain where we are. Not one country has come out and asked us to leave the EU. Only Russia and North Korea might want us to do that.

World economic forums such as the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all say the same. Unite, the GMB, the CBI and the National Farmers Union say we should remain where we are. NATO says we should remain where we are, as do universities and 90% of scientists. The Royal College of Midwives says the same thing. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says, “Stay where you are.” If the coalition telling us to remain where we are stretches from the world’s superpowers to the local birdwatcher, we should listen to what they have to say.

I want to say a few words about the north-east of England and the con that the leave campaign is perpetrating on people not just in the north-east, but across the country. The north-east is a net beneficiary of EU grants and subsidies that help to train our young people for work and fund small businesses, our universities and agriculture, helping our economy to grow. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Monday that leaving the EU would put the northern powerhouse at risk. Between now and 2020 the north-east is due to receive about £800 million from the European Union.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east of England has benefited tremendously from inward investment, of which the most successful recent example is Hitachi in County Durham? I pay tribute to him for his role in securing 700 well-paid jobs building trains not just for the UK market, but for Europe.

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend is right. Hitachi has come to the north-east of England for two reasons: it has an excellent workforce and is the gateway to Europe. We know that its business model for that investment— £82 million in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency—was predicated on the fact that we are part of the EU. Those who support the leave campaign say that we should not worry about losing the £800 million that we would get from the EU because they will find the money themselves.

County Durham Plan

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to debate this important issue under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

At the outset, I want to inform the Minister of the two main questions I want to ask this afternoon so she has plenty of time to think about her response. First, the planning inspector’s interim report into the County Durham plan states that one of the council’s options is to suspend further deliberation of the plan for up to six months so the fundamental issues in the report can be resolved in a positive and constructive manner. Will the Minister work with Durham county council to find a solution? It is in the Government’s interest to do so, because if a resolution cannot be found, the Treasury’s plans for economic growth in the region and in County Durham will be undermined.

Secondly, last Friday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wants 50,000 jobs to be created in the north-east of England by 2020. The North East local enterprise partnership envisages the creation of 100,000 jobs in the north-east by 2024-25. The County Durham plan lays down a firm foundation for the creation of 30,000 jobs in the county by 2030, so if the plan were followed 10,000 additional jobs could be created by 2020, which is 20% of the Chancellor’s target. The planning inspector said that the figure of 30,000 is unachievable, but where does that leave the job growth plans of the Government and the LEP, which are based on the same formula? Durham county council’s plans—wrongly, in my view—have been called into question.

The interim report supports the plan’s population and job growth projections, about which I will say a few things. The inspector endorses the council’s population projections, but questions the assumptions of the forecast. There is a difference between a projection and a forecast. A population projection establishes a baseline position for population growth and assumes that past trends will be carried forward into the future. A population forecast points to an alternative future based on a series of policy changes. The County Durham plan offers a series of policy changes. Durham county council’s population forecast was based on achieving economic success through two measures: first, increasing participation within the economy and achieving an employment rate of 73% in County Durham; and, secondly, increasing the size of the economy by 30,000 jobs in County Durham, 23,000 of which will be located in the county and 7,000 of which will be held by people who live in the county but cross the border to work elsewhere in the region.

The inspector endorsed the county council’s approach to the population projection in his interim report. He accepted the council’s methodology for developing population projections in paragraphs 29 and 30, and he accepted the council’s projection in paragraph 31, noting the trend-based outcome. Here, the inspector accepted the council’s projection and methodology as a basis for developing objectively assessed need for housing. He supported only the population modelling undertaken by Durham county council and rejected other approaches. In paragraph 43, he states:

“I have considered the alternative models and approaches to calculating OAN”—

objectively assessed need—

“put forward by other parties. These produce either significantly lower or higher estimates which I consider to be less robust than the work undertaken by the Council. For example, the FDGB’s”—

the Friends of Durham Green Belt—

“proposals do not use a recognised methodology whilst the house builders use unrealistic data inputs and assumptions.”

The inspector questioned the plan’s economic aspirations and concluded that there will be a low population in the county. He ultimately disagreed with Durham county council’s economic aspirations, which is why he proposed a lower number of houses.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is talking about the growth of the economy in County Durham, which is very important. On a point related to the lack of extra housing, the existing population is getting older and less economically active, so it will not only have less economic impact on Durham but will require more services from the health service and local government.

[Phil Wilson]

I agree. My hon. Friend anticipates my next point, which is about job growth in the area. It is about not only attaining a 73% activity rate among people of working age, because if that continues and there is no jobs growth, the local economy will ultimately stagnate.

The inspector accepts the council’s methodology for developing population projections. The council wants to increase the participation rate in the economy, achieve an employment rate of 73% in County Durham by 2030 and create an additional 30,000 jobs. However, the inspector has come out against that. He predicted a lower rate of economic growth and the creation of only 18,000 jobs by 2030. However, Experian, which has done a lot of work on this issue for the county council, predicted the creation of something like 22,900 jobs, so the county council’s figure of 23,000 additional jobs is in line with that prediction. There is independent evidence to suggest that the county council is going in the right direction.

The one thing that the report misses out completely is Newton Aycliffe business park, which is now the biggest business park in the north-east of England and employs 8,000 or 9,000 people. There is no mention of it in the interim report. Hitachi is going to build a factory there, which will create 730 additional jobs. The county council has allocated something like 130 acres there for the anticipated job growth. The developers expect thousands of jobs to come to the business park, because Hitachi is acting as a catalyst and attracting manufacturers in other industries to the area. However, Newton Aycliffe was completely missed out of the interim report, which I find bizarre in the extreme.

What is Durham county council’s ambition? The County Durham plan is ambitious, inspirational and optimistic. It is full of confidence not only in the county council but in the people of County Durham. The history of Durham shows that the network of settlements in County Durham exists today because of the industrial revolution and the coal industry. We now need to diversify industry to sustain those local communities. That is why the county council wants an additional 31,000 houses to be built by 2030. It wants to set aside 399 acres of employment land and a further 41.5 acres of specific-use employment land. It wants a spatial strategy that seeks to fulfil the ambition of a thriving Durham city. Economic success will be delivered through the creation of jobs.

Let me give some background about why this issue is so fundamental to the people of County Durham and to industry in the area. Following the local government review several years ago, Durham county council made improving the economy its top priority. The local government review was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together all partners to adopt an economic strategy to reverse Durham’s economic decline. The county has suffered from a decline in traditional industries, and the resulting increase in unemployment and lower skilled jobs has caused our brightest and best to move away to find economic prosperity elsewhere. To address that problem, the unitary council and its partners made the economy their top priority from day one. The council’s overarching priority is to improve the economic performance of County Durham. Through the County Durham partnership and the sustainable community strategy, it has recognised that better opportunities for employment mean better health and more choice in housing. To achieve that, it has recognised that a significant step change will be required. In the absence of economic investment, the size of the county’s working-age population will decline over the next 20 years, which is not in line with either the County Durham plan or the north-east’s aspirations. The focus on a thriving economy is not at the expense of other matters; indeed, developing a thriving economy will address many of the social issues present in the county.

County Durham’s pre-recession employment rate had been rising and was very close to the national average. Since the recession, the rate has been below the regional and national averages, although it has recovered significantly in recent months. To continue to close the employment rate gap and improve the county’s economic performance, the plan takes an approach that seeks to deal with the shrinking working-age population while trying to balance the needs of the economy and businesses in the county and wider region.

The targets are for 30,000 jobs and a 73% employment rate among people of working age. We also need to identify how many houses we need and how many acres of land need to be set aside for industry. Creating more and better jobs within the north-east economy is at the heart of the agenda for the North East combined authority and the North East local enterprise partnership, as well as for wider partners and investors, and—we believe—in line with the Government’s aspirations as laid out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last week.

The inspector rejects the challenge presented by an ageing population and the associated implications for the prosperity of the county and the north-east. Addressing the job creation target is fundamental in the light of the projected reduction in the working-age population. The inspector’s report acknowledges that County Durham’s growth aspirations accord with regional economic aspirations. However, the inspector suggests that we are not working collaboratively to deliver these targets, which conflicts with the stated aim of the strategic plans in the area and the North East LEP, and the duty to co-operate, which is the Government’s recognised tool for cross-boundary discussions.

The inspector suggests, although without evidence, that the majority of the neighbouring authorities in the north-east are seeking similar aspirations to meet their objectively assessed needs, rather than seeking economic growth as suggested. We can draw out the inspector’s view of the county’s future from the assumptions outlined and observations made. Although none of those elements was articulated during the examination, the inspector’s vision becomes clear from a detailed reading of his report.

First, the inspector casts doubts on the shared economic ambitions of the local authorities within the North East LEP area, as agreed by the Government and outlined in the strategic economic plan. That is why it is fundamental for the Government to address this issue.

Secondly, the inspector’s vision for County Durham seeks to limit the county’s role within the wider regional economy. As someone from County Durham, I find that very hard to accept. He seeks to underplay Durham city’s established role and status within the wider region, in my view, and the council is clear that Durham residents will contribute towards the economic prosperity in the region. Durham residents will bring skills to our neighbours, working as part of a successful regional economy.

I turn to the economic impact of the alternative vision. In the absence of economic investment, the size of the county’s working-age population will decline over the next 20 years. The council’s approach seeks to deal with a shrinking working-age population, while trying to balance the needs of the economy and businesses in the county. The two measures of employment rate and labour force target work in tandem to support economic prosperity in Durham. In the context of an ageing population, an increase to a 73% participation rate would not in itself support economic growth in the economy. A participation rate of 73% as a single measure of success could be achieved in a stagnating or declining economy, as the size of the working-age population declines.

Although the inspector rejects the council’s approach, in his report, he goes some way towards setting out his own alternative economic vision. The inspector acknowledges that a 73% employment rate is within the realms of possibility but takes issue with the labour force target of 30,000 jobs. The preferred scenario that the inspector has come up with implies that only 18,500 jobs would be created over the plan period in County Durham. That is clearly not in line with the ambitions of either County Durham or the north-east and is contrary to most recent trends. The independent Experian forecast identifies that 22,900 jobs could be created in the county.

The inspector’s vision runs contrary to the region’s ambitions for growth. The labour force target is an established target for County Durham and addresses growth not only in the county, but in the wider region, recognising County Durham’s role in the wider economy, which is complementary to the role of other regional centres. For example, 40% of people who work at Nissan in Sunderland live in County Durham. The scenario suggested by the inspector implies only that some 18,000 jobs will be created, but the independent Experian forecast showed that 23,000 jobs can be created.

The report has implications for my constituency. For example, there would be a reduction in housing allocation in the village of Sedgefield. I know that there are issues there. There have been applications to increase the number of houses by 2,000. There is talk at the moment of housing developments of between 300 and 470 dwellings. Although at the moment, the County Durham plan seems to have been rejected by the planning inspector, it just leaves the door open for speculators to come along and start talking about developments in Sedgefield village that are not suitable. We could go back to a position in which developers who have thought of applications to increase the size of the village by 2,000 houses over a given time could come back in the absence of a strategic housing policy for the whole of the county.

The other issue is employment. The report neglects to mention the region’s biggest business park, which has been the generator and motivator for jobs. It also does not say very much about NETpark—the North East Technology Park—which is a science and innovation park that has recently received grants from the Government and the local growth fund. It has great potential, and I have seen the science park develop over the past 10 years. It now employs between 300 and 400 people and is based on a model in Durham-Raleigh, North Carolina. The business park there was set up in the 1950s and now employs tens of thousands of people. I am not suggesting that NETPark will get as big as that, but the model proves that that acts as a catalyst to attract high-value jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

County Durham is a beautiful county and a great place to live, but it is not a delicate flower, to be protected in a glass case. Its history is one of economic development and change, going back to the early Normans who built Durham cathedral, and including the expansion of coal mining, and steel making at Consett, in the 18th and 19th centuries. Another example is the development, at Barnard Castle in Bishop Auckland, of the Bowes museum under the inspirational leadership of John Bowes. I wonder what would have happened if Harold Stephens had been around at those times in history. Would he have told the Normans that they were being too ambitious in building a beautiful cathedral that would stand for 1,000 years? Would he have told John Bowes that his idea of a French chateau in the Durham countryside, to celebrate his fantastic collection of art, would impinge on the green belt and be too ambitious for a county such as Durham?

The leader of the council, Simon Henig, summed things up well last week when he said that we do not want to live in a museum. I am proud of my constituency, which includes the fantastic Beamish open-air museum—but I do not want to live in the museum. It is important to remind us of our past, but we cannot live in the past. County Durham has never lived in its past; it has always moved forward. The county council’s ambitious economic plan is part of that tradition of trying to drive industry forward and making sure that the county grows. One of the most ambitious projects in county Durham’s recent history was the development of the new towns at Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe. It was a bold vision at the time, but we now acknowledge the foresight of those who brought it about. I see the county council’s current plan in that context.

I do not think that we could have achieved such a plan before the county’s unitary status. A unique aspect of County Durham as a unitary county is the way it has got everyone together behind its ambitious plan—not just the business community but people in politics, and communities. That could never have worked at the time of the district councils, because the two tiers would have fought one another. That is something unique about the plan.

Is the plan too ambitious? I do not think it is. It fits quite well with what is proposed in Tyne and Wear, and Teesside. We have had a little bit of a problem in County Durham in the past few years, in that Teesside and Tyneside have been seen as the region’s powerhouses. I am not for a minute under the illusion that we will emulate those regional powerhouses, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) said, we can make a huge contribution to the growth of the economy of the north-east as a whole. To say that County Durham should be a rural backwater for those conurbations is not the way forward. It would not be good for the people who live there, and it would create generational problems. There was a huge problem in the 1980s—and earlier, in my part of the Durham coalfield, in the 1960s—when coal mining left. The economic reason for some communities went away overnight. We cannot recreate such industries in communities as they were then; but County Durham has put forward a plan on which it should be congratulated. It would at least try to develop industries and attract businesses, not necessarily directly to those same locations, but within striking distance—in the A1 corridor, for example.

As to the ambitions of County Durham, if someone had said five years ago that through the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield it would attract Hitachi to invest as it has in Newton Aycliffe, most people would have wondered whether it was possible, but it happened, and that was down to the drive of my hon. Friend, the county council and local businesses.

[Phil Wilson]

Hitachi first came to the UK to look for a site to build a factory. It looked at 42 locations, and Newton Aycliffe was not one of them. Much of the reason it selected it was Durham county council.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. It has a can-do attitude—and that is what is behind the plan. To say that it is too ambitious is wrong. We cannot let our constituents down and think we can go along somehow, just tinkering at the edges, with time passing us by. There are communities in my constituency, as I have said, whose economic life blood went years ago. We need to provide them with industry, jobs and opportunities, within striking distance. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is right; things have changed. Instead of heavy industry there will be tourism, high tech and educational opportunities. The work atmosphere is very different from what it was, but the plan was at least going to deliver those things.

I want to mention two things that directly affect my constituency. One is the inspector’s removal from the plan of the development of housing at Lambton park. Lambton park is a result of County Durham’s history. It was built with wealth and proceeds from the coal mining industries, but it has been shut away for the past few years and has not really been accessible. The plan would provide executive housing on the site, but it would also open the parkland to public access. Cleverly, the development of executive housing, which is needed in County Durham, would be linked to providing affordable housing in the town of Chester-le-Street, but the inspector put a line through that and took it out completely. That creates a housing supply problem in Chester-le-Street, because with one fell swoop it knocked out 740 housing units from the 1,230 proposed for the Chester-le-Street area, which were identified in the strategic housing land availability assessment. That proposal was taken out, so we already have a shortfall. From my constituency surgeries I know the demand for affordable housing in Chester-le-Street. It also misses the point that the estate, which has sat idle for many generations, could be brought back into economic use, and not just for housing. There were also proposals to build offices and other developments in the area, but those proposals were taken out.

The other issue is the failure to agree the extension to the Drum industrial estate. I have two major industrial estates in my constituency: Drum and Stella Gill. The Drum industrial estate is important because it is located near the A1. To be fair, the county council has improved access to the A1, which has made the industrial estate more attractive to business. The extension would have allowed for growth, but it has been taken out. The Stella Gill industrial estate has been designated as the place where we need growth—it is the only industrial estate in the north of the county to be designated. Stella Gill is a small industrial estate that is not accessible to the A1, and it is not attractive to business. The decision will basically stifle job creation in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) mentioned the inspector’s arrogant attitude to housing allocation. I accept that there are people in the city of Durham who want to preserve the city the way they see it, and therefore they cannot have any housing at all, but the inspector basically said, “Well, if we are going to provide this housing, we can provide it elsewhere.” The inspector took no account whatever in his report of the strategic housing land availability assessment, because sites are not available in my constituency to take up that slack. If we do not agree the plan, there will be speculative development, as my hon. Friend said. People reacted in triumph last week, saying that they had saved the green belt, but they have done far from that. Without a plan in place, they have actually opened up parts of County Durham to speculation.

This is an ambitious plan, and it is a plan that is right for County Durham not only today, but for the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, the plan links into our wider ambitions for our region. County Durham cannot be kept out of those plans; it is an important part of the region. If we are to say to our constituents that we are doing our best to ensure that not only work but good quality housing is available locally, this plan must be implemented. Is there anything the Minister can do to get this moving? The report has been a slap in the face for County Durham as a whole and for the county council. I give credit to the county council—some people have not given the county council credit over the past few days—for its leadership on this issue, but we need the plan to proceed. We cannot stall the plan for several years to come, because there would otherwise be speculation and missed opportunities. There are businesses and housing developers out there that should come to my constituency and other parts of County Durham, but they will not come without the plan.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I want to speak to amendments 68 and 70 and new schedule 2. Before we have a referendum on whether to stay in or come out of the EU, it is important that we consult bodies and organisations. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) should have undertaken such a consultation before assembling a Bill that was designed more to keep his own party together than to better the prospects of his Stockton South constituents in the north-east of England. Let me explain why consultation is so important.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I know that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has spoken a great deal in the north-east on television and to the newspapers. Does my hon. Friend not find it odd that, despite championing a Bill around the newsrooms and the newspapers of the north-east, he has been completely silent throughout this entire debate?

[Phil Wilson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman intends to speak later. I know how vocal he has been in the region on this issue, but not in the Chamber.

One area that we could consult on is foreign direct investment in the north-east, which is important to the region. Let me explain why we should consult those organisations that promote such investment. Since 1992, inward foreign direct investment flows to the EU have doubled and the UK has become an attractive investment, with the second largest stock of foreign direct investment in the world, although it has fallen since 2010. I will come on to that later and explain why this Bill undermines future investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

I do not agree with a referendum in four years’ time given that nobody knows what the question will be. That will create a lot of uncertainty which will threaten jobs not just in my constituency but everywhere else in the country. Those are the issues that I believe the hon. Gentleman should recognise.

The hon. Member for Stockton South turned up to the launch on 1 November. As The Northern Echo said the next day:

“Mr Wharton is the Conservative MP for Stockton South, whose private member’s Bill will see MPs vote this Friday on whether to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership with the EU.”

The report went on:

“It’s ironic that the Tory backbencher was happy to celebrate the investment Hitachi is making in the North-East, while championing a cause that jeopardises the region’s chances of securing similar job boosts in the future.”

I could not agree more.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of what The Northern Echo said. Would it not be greatly advantageous not only to the House but to his constituents, the people of the north-east and The Northern Echo if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) at least made a contribution to the debate? This is yet another occasion on which he has remained silent.

[Phil Wilson]

There is certainly a deafening silence from the hon. Member for Stockton South.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

I would like to make some progress.

Total exports from the north-east to the EU last year were worth £6.5 billion, which was nearly half the region’s total. In a survey for Business for Britain, 6% of businesses said that they would close if we left the EU. That would mean the loss of 1.5 million jobs in Britain, including 40,000 in the north-east, at an average of 1,300 per north-east constituency. I am pleased that I am not jeopardising those jobs by supporting the Bill.

Foreign direct investment is important to the UK economy and the north-east. FDI has fallen in the north-east since 2010, but let me explain why the Bill, given the lack of consultation on its creation, would make matters worse. A recent Ernst and Young report on FDI called “No room for complacency” said:

“The number of FDI projects secured by most English regions, excluding London, declined in 2012. Investments in England outside of London were 24% below their level in 2010—a decline that has coincided with the closure of the Regional Development Agencies…and the switch to Local Enterprise Partnerships…If it continues, the weakness of the English regions could damage the UK’s overall ability to attract FDI in comparison to countries such as France and Germany”.

It states:

“56% of investors in Western Europe feel that if the UK were less integrated into the EU it would become less attractive for FDI”.

It also says:

“the position of London is now so pronounced that if the UK were to be considered without London, it would be placed joint third alongside Spain in attracting new investment.”

All that underlines my basic point that at a time of difficulties in attracting foreign investment, it is absolutely ridiculous to create even more uncertainty by proceeding with the Bill.

Perhaps there are other people whom the hon. Member for Stockton South should have heard from, because if he had consulted more widely than just the various factions of the Conservative party for whom coming out of Europe is an anecdote for the loss of empire, he would not have touched this Bill with a bargepole. He should have spoken to people such as Paul Everitt, the chief executive of the ADS group, who says:

“UK exports are crucial to rebalancing the economy and last year alone, aerospace sales to Europe were worth £7.5 billion. But the EU is more than just a large market for ADS’s sectors. It’s also a significant source of additional funding for R&D investment in the UK and plays an integral role in shaping the regulatory environment for the sector’s key customers and suppliers...The priority must be to maintain these opportunities for exports, investment and influence in Europe in order to support the UK’s growth and global competitiveness.”

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one European success story has been Airbus? This week’s announcement by the Emirates airline of its order of 50 A380 aircraft is a good sign that Britain benefits from EU membership, but such benefits could be jeopardised if we were not part of a single market.

[Phil Wilson]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That proves the importance of our role in Europe now and in the future.

Benefits and Food Banks (County Durham)

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson]

That is a valid point, and we should pay tribute to the churches up and down the country that are now providing food to half a million of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

I would also like to mention the growth of independent food banks. One is run by the Excel church in Newton Aycliffe—known as Excel Local—and it has fed over 1,000 people in the area over the past year or so. In September 2011, the Durham Christian Partnership distributed 42 kg of food, helping 18 people. The latest figures for May this year show that the network of 12 food banks in County Durham has fed 934 people, providing 300-plus meals a day. This figure is increasing month on month. In total, the partnership has distributed in the region of 70,000 kg of food.

Lord Freud, the Work and Pensions Minister has made headlines today when he said that the demand for food banks

“has nothing to do with benefits squeeze”.

I rebut those comments by quoting from an e-mail I received from Peter MacLellan who runs the Durham Christian Partnership food bank network. He says that

“from the distribution points and also from calls received in the office that the changes to crisis loans and the other welfare changes have a major impact. Looking at the reasons why people are referred to the food bank up to the end of March 2013 out of 6620 people 18% came because of benefit changes and 34% due benefit delays. For April and May together, of 1,800 fed 22% came because of benefit changes and 40% due to benefit delays. So combining benefit issues the percentage has grown from 52% to 62% which I would regard as a significant rise.”

He goes on:

“I am especially concerned that there seems to be an issue with delays in claim processing and I’m not sure whether this is a local issue or national one or how the benefit claim processing centres are performing against their targets.”

Can the Minister say why there seems to be an issue with delays to benefits?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he think it an absolute disgrace that in 2013 not only are people relying on food banks, but in County Durham children are turning up at school hungry?

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend—a fellow Durham MP—and I both know what is happening in our schools now. Children are turning up hungry, and we know of cases where teachers have paid for food for the children out of their own pockets. That is a crucial issue in areas such as ours.

Will the Minister tell the House whether there are problems with benefit claim processing centres hitting their targets? If there are not, why do data from food banks prove there is a problem? There seems to be a huge difference between what independent charities are saying and what the Government are saying. Other worrying statistics show that just under 20% of those using food banks are in work and use them because their income does not cover the cost of electricity, rent and food, and something has to give. More significantly, a third of recipients are children. Food banks now claim that demand is outstripping supply, and the welfare reforms have yet to be implemented.

Durham county council estimates that 119,600 households in County Durham— just over half of all households in the county—will be affected by universal credit when it is introduced. The council also estimates that changes to benefits and tax credits will see each household lose £680 a year, and that £151 million will be taken out of the local economy. Around 8,500 people in so-called under-occupied properties will be affected by the bedroom tax. That is an insidious measure which, anecdotally, is starting to be seen as another reason people are using food banks.

Housing Benefit Entitlement

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Bayley. I wanted to select the rules on the under-occupancy of social housing and housing benefit entitlement, which start this April, for this debate today because the Government’s proposal is divisive legislation. In fact, it is not only divisive but arbitrary, spiteful and deeply cynical. It has been devised either by those who have no understanding, knowledge or experience of social housing and do not care, or by those who have understanding, knowledge and experience of social housing and should know better.

The under-occupancy rules say all that anyone needs to know about this Government—tax cuts for the rich and a bedroom tax for the poor. The bedroom tax is being created by a mindset that believes only those who own their own homes can live in a community and those who rent with Government support, even though many of them are in work, are deemed to be a burden on that community and not entitled to, or deserving of a home and that they should be moved at the behest of others and not themselves.

What do the under-occupancy rules mean for social housing and council tenants? If a household rents from a social landlord and is in receipt of housing benefit, and it is deemed to have one spare bedroom, the property is seen to be under-occupied. The tenant’s housing benefit is reduced by 14% for one bedroom and by 25% for two bedrooms. It has been estimated that about 660,000 tenants will lose an average of £728 a year, starting from April.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these proposals will also affect those who are in work? I had a constituent in my surgery a couple of Saturdays ago who had been made unemployed. He had gone out and got a part-time job in a filling station. His wife is a local carer as well, and because they live in a three-bedroom house—they have lived there for 30 years—and their family have left, they will be affected by the bedroom tax. Is that fair for striving people like that?

[Phil Wilson]

It is obviously not fair, but the bedroom tax is hitting people whether or not they are in work. This regulation is just plain wrong. The reality is that if a married couple have lived in a three-bedroom house for many years and had two children who have grown up and left home, the two children’s bedrooms are now deemed to be spare. The house is seen as under-occupied and the couple’s housing benefit entitlement is cut accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point with which I do not think any Opposition Member would disagree.

The gentleman who came into my constituency office is an example that exposes the modern Conservative party and, indeed, the coalition. Conservatives like to see themselves as the party of the family, but they are not the party of poor people who need support to keep their family together.

To address those issues, the Government have offered additional discretionary housing payments to help people with disabilities remain in properties adapted for their needs. As those payments are often limited to just a few months, however, they are not a viable long-term solution, because they fail to give people with disabilities the assurance that their housing needs are secure. Also, the payments are made from budget-limited discretionary funds. The payment budget distributed by local authorities will come under significant pressure, following major cuts to local housing allowance for private sector tenants, and local authorities might choose to prioritise those who are at risk of homelessness, rather than social tenants with disabilities.

The Fostering Network—the voice of foster carers throughout the country—successfully campaigned for a £5 million addition to the discretionary housing fund to compensate foster carers who may have their housing benefit cut from April. The network is hearing from foster carers who have received under-occupancy letters. Some housing departments either do not know about the fund or will not use the money for foster carers. The network reports that 9,000 foster families are needed to meet the foster carer shortfall in 2013. There is already a recruitment crisis, and the network is concerned that the situation will worsen as a result of housing benefit reform.

The Minister will no doubt say that the under-occupancy rules will bring the social housing sector into line with the private sector, but the new rules are retrospective and penalise people who brought up their families in a council house in which they may have lived for years—the average tenancy for social housing is some seven years. The bedroom tax penalises couples who have done the right thing and who over the years may have spent their own money on decorating and maintaining the property. The property is not theirs to keep, but they have respect for what is their home anyway.

No doubt the Minister will also say that the change is required to help to pay off the deficit, because the Government expect the bedroom tax to save £450 million to £500 million. The Government’s plans are spiteful and cynical, because the only way that the £500 million will be saved is if those who live in under-occupied properties cut their standard of living still further by trying to remain in their home, by not downsizing and by paying the additional rent. The Government are trying to get tenants to pay their own housing benefit out of money that they do not have.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend’s constituency, like mine, is a recruitment area for the British armed forces. Is he aware of the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop)? A mother, whose son has joined the armed forces and is fighting in Afghanistan, will be hit by the tax because her son is not at home and she has an extra bedroom. Is that fair from a Government who say they are standing up for our armed forces?

[Phil Wilson]

That is not the way to treat the armed forces, especially when they are on active service in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Government say that they are trying to save money, but that is impossible for the great majority, who will be forced to choose between their home and a basic standard of living. There is a shortage of one-bedroom properties. If people choose to move into the private sector, rents and housing benefit claims might be higher. The changes hit right across the board, including members of the armed forces, the disabled, the vulnerable and sick people who sometimes, but not always, need a carer.

Wind Farm Development (Sedgefield)

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although the landscape in the area has begun to be reindustrialised, we are not getting any of the benefits.

We are getting energy from other renewable sources such as hydro, landfill, and biomass, and now our constituents are beginning to wonder whether we are all in this together. They look at Hampshire, which is using three times as much energy as Durham but taking only about 4% of it from renewables. Moreover, there is not one on-shore wind farm in the area, despite the fact that it is the county in which the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change has his constituency.

Only five members of the Cabinet have wind farms in their constituency. Some have a lot. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has 259 in his constituency of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but his constituency covers l,911 square miles—almost as many as there are amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. The Scottish Secretary has 226 turbines in a constituency covering almost 1,500 square miles. The Foreign Secretary, whose constituency is adjacent to mine, has 24 turbines in an area covering 739 square miles. Sedgefield covers 151 square miles. If the developers get their way and all 87 turbines get the go-ahead, we could see one turbine for every 1.7 square miles. Does the Minister not agree that the planning system for such huge structures is chaotic?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concerns of Newcastle airport about the concentration of wind farms and of the Ministry of Defence over the effects that such a concentration will have on using parts of the north-east for low flying?

[Phil Wilson]

That is an important point. Durham and Tees Valley airport, which is in my constituency, occasionally raises important issues about radar. I have seen the wind farms on its radar scopes. Pilots have to navigate their way round the wind farms to avoid hitting them. Moreover smaller aircraft have to cope with the turbulence that these turbines generate.

What we are facing in County Durham is the reindustrialisation of the landscape, but without the jobs. Durham county council has done tremendous work over the past 30 or 40 years in reclaiming the pit heaps that scarred the landscape for generations. At the height of the coal mining era, thousands of jobs were created in the area. Wind turbines are not bringing that kind of benefit to the region. Reindustrialisation with jobs is one thing; without jobs, both the land and the people are being taken for granted. Their good nature is being abused and that is simply not good enough.

According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, if the Isles wind farm goes ahead with 45 turbines, E.ON will see a revenue stream of more than £570 million over 25 years, some 54% of which is subsidised through our utility bills. E.ON has said that the Isles wind farm could generate enough electricity for 53,000 households. The subsidy would equate to £235 per household per year. The community benefit that it proposes is £460,000 a year or £8.60 per household. The company is taking with one hand and giving us back peanuts with the other. What plans do the Government have to reform or review the subsidy system for wind farms and for renewable energy in the round?

Only a handful of landowners on the Isles will benefit from the rental income from the turbines on their land. One developer said that the income from each turbine is, on average, between £10,000 and £15,000. I do not know the rental figure for the Isles, but even at £10,000, 45 turbines will bring in some £450,000 income for a handful of landlords—the equivalent in community gain for a population in the area of between 40,000 and 50,000.

The Government are looking at the business rates that would be generated if the wind turbines stayed with the local authority. According to the House of Commons Library, business rates income from the Isles would be less than £1 million. That may seem a lot of money, but it is not when we consider the plans of the Department for Communities and Local Government for business rates retention, which could see tens of millions of pounds removed from Durham county council’s budget. Again, this is about taking with one hand and giving back peanuts with the other.

The designs for the Isles place the turbines on either side of the A1 and the east coast main line—the main transport arteries through the north-east. If someone enters County Durham by road or rail from the south, they have to go through my constituency. I do not want the first thing that they see to be a massive wind farm of between 25 and 45 wind turbines, each four times the height of the Angel of the North, each a clone of its neighbour and each working only intermittently. Durham county council has informed me that the average capacity factor for a wind turbine nationally between 2004 and 2008 was 27%. Recently, the average for wind turbines in County Durham has been almost 20%. That belies the claim of many developers, especially E.ON, who say that the Tees valley plain is appropriate for wind farm development. They would not develop wind farms if it were not for the subsidy. Does the Minister not agree that it is time for that process to be reviewed and changed?

E.ON’s imposition on the landscape will affect tourism and the willingness of housing developers to build in the area. I want to see new industry come into the area, Hitachi is to build a train factory at Newton Aycliffe and I want that to be followed by more industry, which means that we need further housing in the area—not just affordable but executive as well—and leisure facilities. This massive wind farm could have a negative impact on such developments.

The Duke of Northumberland has said he will not allow wind farm development on his land. In The Daily Telegraph, he said:

“I have come to the personal conclusion that wind farms divide communities, ruin landscapes, affect tourism, and make minimal contribution to our energy needs and a negligible contribution towards reducing C02 emissions. The landowner and developer are enriched while the consumer is impoverished by higher energy costs. Turbines are ugly, noisy and completely out of place in our beautiful, historic landscape.”

Will the Minister look closely at wind farm development in County Durham, as it has caused a great deal of anxiety in the community? I believe he will see that the cumulative impact is not just a threat but is already with us. He will find that developers are targeting the county because of the good nature of its people. Low incomes will provide the incentive for local people to accept the small amount of money from community gain and ensure that they will find it difficult to raise sufficient funds to campaign against the wind farms.

Local people feel as if they are involved in a David versus Goliath contest in taking on E.ON. Campaigners against the Isles have come together. The following towns and parish councils are against the development: Bradbury, Brafferton, Bishop Middleham, Bishopton, Bolam, Chilton, Coatham Mundeville, Elstob, Ferryhill, Fishburn, Foxton, Great Stainston, Little Stainton, Mordon, Newton Aycliffe, Nunstainston, Preston Le Skerne, Rushyford, Sedgefield, Trimdon, Windlestone and Woodham. The campaign group against the E.ON wind farm can be found on the web at www. theislescommunities.com.

It is now time to look at a planning system and an energy policy that fight climate change by taking people with them, rather than taking them for granted or making them feel helpless. We need a strategic view that ensures that all parts of the country share the burden as well as the benefit of renewable energy. My constituents are united in opposition to the massive imposition of the E.ON wind farm for the Isles. Durham County is known as the land of the prince bishops. I will not stand by to watch County Durham become the land of the wind turbine.

Hospital Services (North-East)

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson]

Actually, it is being abolished—that is what is happening.

I want to make two points about the RDA. First, it invested £2 million last year in attracting inward investment. On the basis of that money, it attracted £720 million of inward investment into the north-east—82% of inward investment into the region comes through the RDA, so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Secondly, in preparation for the hospital development, the RDA organised meetings between the foundation hospital and overseas firms to see whether those firms would come on to the site.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the person who had the vision for the Wynyard site was John Hall? He saw the benefits of working with the RDA and others to develop it, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was a big supporter of his during the election.

[Phil Wilson]

That is absolutely right. I heard John Hall speak last Friday, and he also has a lot to say about the abolition of the RDA.

Finance Bill

Debate between Phil Wilson and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. No one is suggesting that we do not need to reduce the debt: the Labour Government did reduce the debt. I know that during the election the stock in-phrase was “Labour didn’t mend the roof while the sun was shining”. Well, I am sorry, but we did. We actually paid off debt. For example, the 3G licences for mobile phones raised in excess of £20 billion, which went directly to paying off debt. However, we are now in danger of doing what happened in the 1980s with the Thatcher Government: borrowing money not to invest, which we were doing, but to pay unemployment and other benefits. The Government are going to slash welfare benefits, exactly as happened in Canada, and blame the poor. It was not the poor, unemployed or disabled in my constituency who got the debt this high; it was the international bankers and the people who are now to be rewarded by the Budget proposals on corporation tax as part of this stimulus.

[Phil Wilson]

On the 3G licences, is my hon. Friend also aware that we paid back more debt then than all the Governments since 1945 put together?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, we did, and that was the responsible thing to do. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out what our Government reductions were going to be.

On the recession, if anyone says we are out of the woods, they should look at the provisional gross domestic product figures: 0.3% growth in the first quarter of this year, and 0.4% growth in the final quarter of 2009. The new Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that the economy will grow by 1.2% in 2010, and by 2.3% in 2011. So the Budget is a great gamble. However, this is not just about what is in the Budget and the Finance Bill, which will take money out of the economy at this crucial time when we need to put money in; the Government are also gambling on the complete and utter nonsense that there are two different economies in the country—the private sector, which is good and which we look up to and say, “It’s a wonderful thing,” and the public sector, which is bad and which we boo whenever we talk about it—and that somehow we can separate the two. I shall return to that point in a minute.

On the proposed deficit reduction, the Government’s fox has been shot by their own Office for Budget Responsibility. Its independent analysis is that Labour’s deficit reduction plan would have more than achieved the target of halving the deficit over four years, from 11.1% in 2009-10 to 5% in 2013-14. The OBR also said that the Labour plan would reduce the structural deficit by nearly three quarters, from 5.2% of GDP in 2010-11 to 1.6% in 2014. The plan as outlined to halve the budget deficit within four years would have met the timetable set out at the recent G20 summit on 27 June 2010. Government Members and commentators say that the previous Government did not have a plan, but they did, and even the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility recognise that. That plan, however, is now being crammed into two years, which cannot be done without a cost to jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right as usual: the Government’s plan has nothing to do with that, but is being used as an excuse for an ideological attack, because what they actually want is a smaller state in this country. I return to the point that the Government’s plan is about saying, “Private sector good; public sector to be sneered at, public sector workers to be denigrated and not valued,” and that if we reduce the size of the state, that will somehow lead to nirvana, at which point we can all go off into the sunset and live happily ever after. However, the Government suddenly announced yesterday that they were basically going to shelve the Building Schools for the Future programme, affecting exactly those jobs that the local construction industry—I met the Civil Engineering Contractors Association a few weeks ago—was relying on to ensure that the recovery continues. Therefore, to argue that we can somehow cut back the public sector without having any effect whatever on the private sector is complete nonsense.

We all know that in regions such as mine in the north-east, as well as those in Northern Ireland and others that have a larger public sector dependency than other areas, the effect of what is outlined in the Budget will be even worse. However, I give hon. Members this warning: we ain’t seen nothing yet, because the Finance Bill will work by salami slicing, which is a technique that the Government are using to slip the news out. The biggest crackdown will come—we all know this—with the public sector spending round in October. That is when the real cuts in both capital budgets and other investments will be made.

[Phil Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again, and he is absolutely right. The Government have an objective of trying to create a big society, but does he agree that if we continue down this road, what they will produce is a little Britain?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, they will, and there is something else that they will do. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Ipswich, who made an excellent maiden speech, talked about prison reform, saying things that he really meant, on an issue to which he is committed. However, he will soon be disabused of that, when he finds that the prison reforms being put through the Ministry of Justice have nothing at all to do with the penal system, and everything to do with budget restraint.

As for the other measures , the VAT increase will have a disproportionate effect on my constituents and those in regions such as mine, because it is, in part, one of the poorest communities. As for the Liberal Democrats—we saw a half-hearted attempt earlier to defend the increase in VAT—the measure will indeed affect the poorest.