House of Commons
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
1. What recent progress he has made towards securing the release of Shaker Aamer from Guantanamo Bay.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The British Government remain committed to securing Shaker Aamer’s release and return to the United Kingdom. I raised his case again with Secretary Clinton during my visit to Washington on 12 December. My officials are currently exploring the new US legislation on detainee transfers for the implications for this case.
Jane Ellison
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer and for the continued efforts of the Government on Mr Aamer’s behalf. Obviously, it has been 10 years so I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could say more to the House about what he considers to be the roadblocks to release and whether he has given any consideration to asking international bodies, such as the United Nations, to support the British Government in their efforts to release Mr Aamer.
Mr Hague
This is a matter for the United States, not for international authorities. My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties; there have been no transfers out from Guantanamo since the National Defence Authorisation Act, passed in 2010, all but precluded transfers from Guantanamo Bay. The Act has recently been renewed for 2012, with some amendments, which is why we are looking at its implications. We have asked about Mr Aamer’s health and welfare, and have been assured that he is in reasonable health, has access to medical treatment and is not held in solitary confinement.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the outcome of the International Conference on Afghanistan in Bonn; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Bonn conference, which I attended last month, reaffirmed the international community’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan after 2014, through economic support, a plan for funding the Afghan national security forces and a clear set of principles for reconciliation. The Afghan Government committed themselves to progressing their development priorities and upholding their human rights obligations.
Susan Elan Jones
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his response. Can he tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that women’s human rights are maintained when UK and US troops are drawn down?
Mr Hague
We gave a great deal of attention to that at the Bonn conference. The ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas attended the civil society events, and I am pleased to say that 50% of the Afghan delegation to the civil society forum were female and a leading female civil society representative presented views at the main conference. The importance of the rights of women and their involvement was centre stage at the Bonn conference, and we assisted in that process.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Government’s stated policy objective in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda and other extremists bases from which they can attack the UK and other British interests. In a letter to me of 6 December, copied to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, referring to the threat from al-Qaeda, said that
“while the threat is not on the scale it once was…it does nevertheless remain a serious concern.”
Does that, which can only be interpreted as a downgrading of the threat in Afghanistan, have any impact on the timetable for withdrawal?
Mr Hague
We hope all the time that we are making progress against the threat in Afghanistan, and there is no doubt that in recent times al-Qaeda has suffered very serious damage and setbacks in Afghanistan and its vicinity. That threat is not over, as my hon. Friend was saying, but our efforts to improve security in Afghanistan continue, and it is a combination of our assessment of that threat and the need for continued political progress in Afghanistan to stabilise its regions. It is our assessment of a combination of all those factors that leads to our decisions on troop levels, with a decision for 2012, which we recently announced.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The developmental teams that will remain after the British military ceases operations in Afghanistan are in danger of becoming top targets for insurgents. Did my right hon. Friend receive any indication from his American counterparts that they envisaged retaining some military capability in strategic bases in Afghanistan after 2014?
Mr Hague
The military position after 2014 is under discussion. Indeed, I discussed it this morning with General Allen, commander of the international security assistance force, and important decisions will be made at the NATO summit in Chicago in May next year. We do not envisage that development work in Afghanistan will be without security after 2014. As my hon. Friend knows, we are building up Afghan forces, which are several hundred thousand-strong, in addition to the potential for military co-operation from other states. The position on that will become clearer after the NATO meeting in Chicago.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The threat from al-Qaeda and the training that takes place in Pakistan is high. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Pakistani authorities to reduce the threat of al-Qaeda crossing the border into Afghanistan?
Mr Hague
We are always in discussion with Pakistan about that subject, and I have many discussions with the Pakistani Foreign Minister about it. We have regular contact at military level, as well as between the Prime Minister of our country and the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistan’s own long struggle against terrorism is always high on that agenda, and we should recognise the efforts that it has made in that regard: huge numbers—perhaps 30,000 people—have died as a result of terrorist activity in Pakistan over the past 10 years. We look to Pakistan to maintain those efforts.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
4. What his role would be in a national emergency.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would support the Prime Minister and the Government in their response, particularly in an international dimension.
Mr Bone
The Foreign Secretary might have a problem with that. Is it true that under Government contingency plans if the Prime Minister were killed in a terrorist attack it would be the Foreign Secretary who took charge of the Government until the Queen could choose a new Prime Minister?
Mr Hague
I can assure my hon. Friend that continuity of government plans are in place to deal with any catastrophic destabilising incident. I know that he has asked the same question of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and the answer is the same: we do not consider it appropriate to talk about these plans in public, but I can assure him that arrangements are in place for any such contingency. I cannot guarantee that there will be a place in the bunker for Mrs Bone, I am afraid.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect throughout Europe, which is why this Government are arguing vigorously within the European Union for action to promote growth by deepening the single market, boosting trade and cutting red tape.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that it is important that policies are enacted at EU level to encourage economic growth? Measures designed to help drive sustainable economic recovery, such as exempting micro-businesses from the burden of red tape, would have positive implications for all Government Departments across the 27 member states, including his own.
Mr Lidington
I agree completely with my hon. Friend, which is why the agreement at the December European Council for an exemption from European regulations for micro-business was particularly welcome, especially as that will apply not only to new European legislation but will prompt a review of the existing acquis in respect of micro-businesses.
Mr Spencer
Can the Minister assure the House that the principles of the Prime Minister’s veto will be followed through, and that any attempt by the EU to impose a tax on this country’s financial services will be vigorously resisted?
Mr Lidington
A financial transfer tax would require unanimous agreement by all 27 member states, which is something that the single market Commissioner, Monsieur Barnier, has confirmed to me. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we would not agree to the imposition of such a tax.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the EU economy of the recent behaviour of the Hungarian Government? Has he reminded that Government that there is an expectation that all EU members adhere to normal democratic norms?
Mr Lidington
We are certainly concerned about any developments in other EU member states which might lead to even greater economic instability than we currently see. I have talked about the concerns expressed in a number of quarters with regard to Hungarian legislation with my Hungarian opposite number and with the Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the Commission is due to release the results of its assessment about now. The Hungarian Government have said that they will consider carefully and constructively the comments that the Commission makes, whatever they are, and I believe that that is the right way forward.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It has been reported that the Foreign Secretary advised the Prime Minister before the European Union summit in December that if it is a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative party together, it is in the national interest to keep the Conservative party together. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary regards the unity of his party as more important to the national interest than the success or failure of our largest trading partner?
Mr Lidington
I really had hoped that the hon. Lady would have something a bit better to say than that. What the Government are determined to do is to support our allies and neighbours in the eurozone in their efforts to restore economic stability to their currency union, and also to press for the measures to promote job creation and economic growth which the whole of Europe desperately needs. We are not prepared to take lectures from the Labour party that signed away £7 billion of the British rebate and denied the people of this country the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which it had promised.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the gloom about the consequences of an early break-up of the euro has been greatly exaggerated, bearing in mind the very positive economic experience for eastern European countries from the break-up of the rouble zone—very similar to the euro—in the early 1990s?
Mr Lidington
I have to say that it is unusual to find my right hon. Friend looking to the example of the former Soviet Union for inspiration. We have looked across Government very carefully at what the consequences of a eurozone break-up might be, and one of the key differences between now and 20 years ago is that the economies and the financial systems of Europe are much more closely interlinked now than they were then. It is certainly our judgment that it would be damaging to the British national interest were a collapse of the eurozone or a prolonged recession in the eurozone to take place.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The credit ratings of a number of eurozone states have been downgraded this week. The bail-out fund is now considered to be far too small to do its job. Mario Monti, Italy’s unelected Prime Minister, said yesterday that there would be a backlash against austerity unless Germany provides more support to Italy. The crisis becomes deeper every day. Is it not the case that recovery for many of those countries can come only when they can recreate national currencies, devalue and start to grow again?
Mr Lidington
With respect to the hon. Gentleman—his views on the subject are utterly consistent and I respect them—that is a matter for the peoples and Governments of those sovereign countries. From our point of view, what is needed is for the eurozone countries to implement in full the deal that they agreed to in October last year, and for Europe collectively at 27 to move forward urgently with deepening the single market, boosting global trade and cutting red tape and regulation on our businesses. That is the way to growth and jobs.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on bilateral relations with Brazil of that country having overtaken the UK as the sixth largest economy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The continued rise and success of emerging powers like Brazil present a great opportunity for our bilateral relationship. This Government have already shifted resources there. The Foreign Secretary will be leaving this evening for a visit to Brazil. In November I opened a new consulate-general in Recife in Brazil’s fastest growing region.
Jo Swinson
With the world’s fifth largest population and sixth largest economy, Brazil is an important economic power and a key market for expanding British trade, so the Foreign Secretary’s visit is welcome. It is also an increasingly important diplomatic power, so what can the Government do to encourage Brazil to play a positive leadership role on global issues such as climate change, human rights and democracy?
Mr Browne
That precise point will be central to the Foreign Secretary’s talks with the Brazilian Foreign Secretary in Brasilia tomorrow, but as an illustration of the seriousness with which we treat this relationship, let me tell the House that last year there were 14 ministerial visits to Brazil, whereas in the previous three years combined there were just 10 ministerial visits. So we are affording Brazil four times the amount of ministerial attention that the previous Government did.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our trade at £5.2 billion in 2010 offers scope for considerable increase? What more can his Department do, particularly through UK Trade & Investment, to forge better links with the Brazilians in order to increase that trade?
Mr Browne
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The economies of Latin America and Asia are growing fast and becoming increasingly important, which is why the British Government are determined to double trade with Brazil in the lifetime of this Parliament and why we are expanding the network of diplomatic and trade staff across Brazil, including opening a new consulate-general in the north-east of the country in November.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Palestinian National Authority on rocket attacks on Israel.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I met the President of the Palestinian Authority yesterday. We are extremely concerned about the recent escalations of violence, including Israeli air strikes on Gaza and rocket attacks by Palestinian groups on Israel. We condemn any actions in which civilians are hurt or killed and have called on all sides to show restraint and avoid a spiral of retaliation.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that response. In order to move to a two-state solution in the region, did he stress in his conversations yesterday the importance for Palestinian unity of recognising the Israeli state and bringing an end to the rocket attacks?
Mr Hague
Of course, that is extremely important, particularly when one considers the number of rocket attacks—it is reported that 758 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel in 2011. We certainly discussed Palestinian reconciliation and the fact that any Palestinian Authority constituted as a result must be able to work with Israel towards a two-state solution. I strongly welcomed the initiative of His Majesty the King of Jordan in bringing Palestinians and Israelis together in recent weeks for discussions. That is a positive development that we want to see continue.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s reply to the previous question. With Hamas raining many hundreds of missiles upon Israel, can the Government do more to try to stop weaponry being smuggled through tunnels into Gaza, and does he agree that the more missiles come over, the harder it is to make peace?
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary met the Palestinian President yesterday. In my later discussions with the President, he was at pains to emphasise the urgent need to make substantive progress in the coming days in the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary mentioned are taking place in Jordan. In the light of this urgency, when did the Foreign Secretary last speak with his Israeli counterpart and what steps are the British Government taking to ensure that ongoing Israeli settlement expansion is not allowed to be a reason for these crucial talks to be derailed?
Mr Hague
I also spoke yesterday to the Israeli Government, to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Meridor—I speak sometimes to him and sometimes to my counterpart, Mr Lieberman. On this occasion I called Mr Meridor to stress the need for Israel to respond positively in the negotiations and put forward its own proposals, and I made the case, as I have often done in this House, that Israel needs to make a more decisive and generous offer than we have seen for some years in order to be able to make progress. The Israeli Government are in no doubt about our views and we urge both sides to continue with these talks and not to be so wedded to the 26 January deadline that the opportunity to continue the talks is lost.
Mr Alexander
I welcome the tenor of yesterday’s conversation with Deputy Prime Minister Meridor. In an earlier answer the Foreign Secretary mentioned the reconciliation process within the Palestinian community. Alongside the immediate prospects for the latest round of talks, will he give the Government’s assessment of the possible implications of a deal reached between Hamas and Fatah? Given Hamas’s stated position on Israel and the peace process, will he also give an undertaking that any internal political agreement reached within the Palestinian community needs to be assessed in terms of the external political implications on the prospects for peace in the wider region?
Mr Hague
I agree with that. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is very important that the Palestinian Authority are constituted in a way that allows them to conduct negotiations with Israel. That includes, importantly, recognising the previous agreements entered into by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and that is a key point, so we hope that that will be continue to be the position of the Palestinian Authority. Of course, reconciliation is meant to pave the way for elections among Palestinians, and we cannot at this stage pre-judge or predict the outcome of those elections.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is right to call for temperance on all sides, but does he agree that it is unacceptable for senior officials and members of the Palestinian Authority to continue to attend cultural events at which individuals call for the end of the state of Israel, and that it is wrong for those officials to support sporting events named after “martyrs”—people who have murdered innocent Israeli citizens?
Mr Hague
We do not support any delegitimisation of the state of Israel. We are friends of Israel, and we support the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but we believe that that peace and security is best served by urgent moves towards a two-state solution, and that always guides our policy.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
8. If he will make representations to the Government of Israel on the increase in demolition of Palestinian homes in the west bank in 2011.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I do make representations on the demolition of homes, and I will continue to do so. I was in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories last week, and it gave me an opportunity to see some of those who are subject to demolition orders, including the Bedouin community outside Jerusalem, and to visit such people in the Negev as well. I had the opportunity also to raise those issues directly with Israeli Ministers.
Mrs Riordan
Is the Minister aware that the number of Palestinian homes demolished by the Israelis last year rose by 38%, and that the number of displaced Palestinians doubled? Does he agree that that is hardly the sign of a Government intent on peace settlements on the basis of the 1967 borders, and that it would send a signal to the Israelis if the UK Government supported the Palestinian bid to join the United Nations?
Alistair Burt
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s remarks, I am very conscious of the numbers, as indeed are many Members because of the representations that have been made to us. It is a very serious issue, which we take up regularly with the Israeli authorities. The movement and settlement of people is a hugely divisive political issue, and it is one reason why we have pressed both sides to move towards a settlement, because that is the only thing that will ultimately ensure that all those who live in Israel and in the Palestinian territory can live in peace and security.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the demolition of Palestinian homes and the continued construction of settlements on the west bank, not to mention the construction of new houses in East Jerusalem, will make it increasingly difficult to establish a viable Palestinian state and, in turn, make it impossible to reach a two-state solution?
Alistair Burt
I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s concerns, and that is why we have repeatedly made clear to all our view that we regard illegal settlement building as contrary to the interests of peace building. It is a matter that must be addressed. It is vital to the division of land in the area, and that is why we constantly raise it.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
How many Israeli settlements does the Minister think need to be built on Palestinian land before the chance for peace is destroyed?
Alistair Burt
The numbers are not a matter for the United Kingdom. What we do say, and say very clearly, is that building on occupied Palestinian land is illegal in international law and has been held to be so in some cases by Israeli law. That is why we regard the issue as an obstacle to peace, unless it is dealt with. It is vital that it is part of the negotiations, and that is why we wish very well the current efforts being made in Amman.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Following the recent leaked internal EU report expressing concerns about the west bank, will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Israeli Government—and I understand that there is fault on both sides—that the construction of housing units in and around Jerusalem is counter-productive to the peace process?
Alistair Burt
The issue of East Jerusalem is particularly difficult. For there to be a viable two-state solution and a shared capital, it is essential that East Jerusalem retains its Arab character. That is why we are so concerned about the settlement building there. The Government of Israel are well aware of our concerns, which we make very clear. I repeat to the House that, as we all know, this matter must be included in the overall settlement, the basics of which we hope are being discussed by the parties with great intent in Amman at the moment.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Last week, Israeli forces cut off access to the village of Khan al-Ahmar, a Bedouin community just outside Jerusalem where a school was built using international donations. Is that an example of something that must be unacceptable? Given the international character of Khan al-Ahmar, what representations can the UK Government make to get the Israeli Government to change their mind on the matter?
Alistair Burt
By happenstance, I was at the village and saw the obstruction of access take place. It was an unannounced visit as far as the authorities were concerned. Effectively, an Armco barrier was built across the access road that leads to a major highway. It was not immediately clear where the alternative access could be, except via a hill with an extremely steep gradient behind the village. That very lunchtime, I was able to make representations to the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, about the circumstances. This is precisely the sort of thing that raises concerns among the international community and makes it difficult for the Bedouin in that area to feel secure.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
9. What steps he plans to take in response to recent reports of human rights abuses by the Government of Russia.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
We will continue to raise concerns about human rights with Russia at ministerial and official levels. We shall sponsor a number of observers at the forthcoming Russian presidential election that is due in March.
Mr Raab
I thank the Minister for that answer. With the US Senate due to approve the bipartisan Magnitsky Bill, which will impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on those responsible for gross human rights abuses, and with similar proposals in the Netherlands and Canada, will he look at the case for bringing forward an equivalent Bill in this House?
Mr Lidington
As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) in Westminster Hall the other day, if the American Bill, which I understand is at committee stage in the Senate, eventually becomes law, we will look closely to see whether there are lessons on which we might draw. My hon. Friend will know that we have powers in this country to ban any person from coming to the United Kingdom if there are grounds for concern about their character, conduct or associations.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
When the Minister is making representations in Moscow about human rights in Russia, will he raise with the Russians, who have a pivotal role at the United Nations, the human rights abuses in Syria, because if Russia unblocked its present position at the United Nations, it would allow real pressure to be brought on the Syrian regime?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We obviously talk a great deal to Russia about the situation in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, within the past few weeks, has talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov about Syria, including to pass on our great concern about the systematic abuse of human rights in that country.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Although the respect for human rights in Russia may be considerably greater than in it was in the Soviet Union, does not the terrible treatment of Mr Magnitsky, his death in custody and the refusal of the Russian authorities to recognise responsibility for what happened suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister should follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and not wait until the United States has reached its conclusion, but do everything in our power to follow a similar course of action?
Mr Lidington
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we have powers in existing law to ban people from coming to this country on the grounds that their presence would not be conducive to the public good. He also knows that successive Governments have followed a practice of not commenting on individual cases. His concerns about the abuse of human rights in Russia are, however, well made. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all Ministers, when they meet Russian counterparts, always make a point of raising human rights matters.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
10. What representations he has made to the President of Colombia on protection for trade unionists and human rights activists in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with President Santos during his visit to the United Kingdom in November. I chaired a discussion between the President and non-governmental organisations, which included the security of human rights defenders in Colombia, and the President reiterated his commitment to improving Colombia’s human rights situation.
Yvonne Fovargue
There is real concern that people are still being imprisoned in Colombia for trade union activity. What assessment has the Minister made of that situation, and what representations have been made?
Mr Browne
I share the hon. Lady’s observation that there are real concerns about human rights abuses in Colombia. We do not pretend otherwise, and we actually spend a lot of time and money on trying to improve the situation. The President has made that point, and he acknowledges our concerns. It is fair to recognise that improvements have been made in recent years, but many further improvements still need to be made and we are actively working to try to bring them about.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not the case that the greatest human right of all is the right to life and that under the Administration of President Uribe and now that of President Santos the demobilisation of the FARC guerrilla group, reducing it from tens of thousands to 9,000 today, has brought about a new era of peace and prosperity in Colombia that is good not only for Colombia but for Latin America and for our bilateral relations?
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The murder rate in Colombia has fallen dramatically. It is still very high by European standards, but it is nevertheless a lot lower than it previously was. I am delighted that the Colombian President signed a joint declaration on human rights when he was in London a couple of months ago, and we had the opportunity to talk about how we can enhance Colombia’s prosperity and trade opportunities, which are also important for its development.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
11. What support the Government are giving to the development of democracy in Tunisia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
Having delivered bilateral support in Tunisia during the election process through help on voter outreach and through the United Nations Development Programme generally, the United Kingdom continues through its Arab Partnership to support efforts to rebuild democracy and freedom of expression in Tunisia and strengthen economic reform.
Alistair Burt
It is a good line. The Arab Partnership is interested in working with the Tunisian authorities on what they are looking for by way of re-establishing government. It enables us to draw on resources right across the UK—for example, institutions, NGOs and organisations such as the Local Government Association —that have expertise to offer. The hon. Gentleman certainly makes an interesting suggestion. It has not been raised directly with me in my visits to Tunisia, but I will certainly take it back with me.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Anybody who has been to Tunisia recently will have been impressed by the enthusiasm for the new democracy and the ideals of the revolution, but many challenges remain, particularly in the economy. What material resources and assistance are the UK Government therefore giving the constituent assembly in the drafting of the new constitution?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to put the focus on the economy. When we talk about the changes that have taken place in the Arab world we concentrate on the political, but unless the economics are right they will undermine the political changes that have been made. The UK provides support multilaterally through the G8, the Deauville partnership and the European neighbourhood partnership, and we have offered support for capacity building right across the board, including on constitution drafting and issues affecting economic reform.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Loathing of corruption was the immediate catalyst of the Arab spring, but the Tunisian Association for Financial Transparency states that the British Government need to do more to assist the current Tunisian Government by providing information, particularly about finance in the British overseas territories and the transactions of the previous Tunisian Government. What discussions has the Minister had with the current Tunisian Government about access to the British overseas territories and their finances?
Alistair Burt
I have had no discussions in the terms that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I know that one part of the assistance that we are already actively providing is to the anti-corruption unit in the Tunisian Government. It has already taken advice and support from the UK on that matter. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman says specifically about the overseas territories, but so far that issue has not been raised with Ministers.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of political progress in Burma; and if he will make a statement.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
14. What assessment he has made of his recent visit to Burma; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I draw the House’s attention to the written statement on my visit to Burma, which was published yesterday. Last week, the Burmese Government and the Karen National Union signed a historic ceasefire. The following day, there was a significant release of political prisoners, which will contribute to greater democratic participation in the parliamentary by-elections. If that momentum can be maintained, we are clearly moving into a new phase in our relations with Burma.
Mr Gyimah
As my right hon. Friend says, the release of 651 political prisoners by the Myanmar Government is a major political statement and certainly one that is to be commended. What confidence does he have that all political prisoners will be released in time for the elections in April this year?
Mr Hague
The importance of the timing of last week’s announcement is that yesterday—16 January—was the date for any candidates to register to participate in the 1 April elections in Burma. The release of so many prisoners is therefore an important move ahead of those elections.
My hon. Friend is quite right to ask about other political prisoners. Our assessment is that of the 651 prisoners released on Friday, between 270 and 283 could be considered political prisoners. That means that political prisoners remain, although it must be said that there are definitional disputes over what a political prisoner is between the Burma Government and opposition groups. However, we of course look for the release of all political prisoners in Burma while welcoming that move as a major step forward.
Dr Huppert
All Members of the House support the release of the political prisoners and share the concern that there are still so many. However, I understand that the released prisoners have not been pardoned, but simply had their sentences suspended. What assurances has the Foreign Secretary had that they will be pardoned and kept out of prison rather than being re-arrested shortly?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right about the details, although that seems to be the effective way for the President of Burma to secure the release of the prisoners—the laws allowed him to act decisively to release a large number of prisoners. Of course, let me make it absolutely clear that the improvement in relations between Burma, our country and many other countries would come to a very rapid halt and go into reverse were those prisoners to be taken back into custody, but the President of Burma said to me when I was there 10 days ago that Burma’s progress to democracy is irreversible, and all the Ministers I met said that all political prisoners would be released.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I welcome the changes and developments with the Karen people, they are far from the only ethnic minority within Burma with which there have been a lot of tensions and difficulties, as the Foreign Secretary will know. Despite progress in some areas, there has been an increase in attacks on other peoples. What discussions did he have on other ethnic minorities and what pressure is he putting on Burma to ensure that every ethnic grouping is included in the democracy that we hope is developing there?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is quite right: although what has happened in relation to the Karen people is important, other ethnic conflicts continue. I held a meeting with ethnic representatives from around Burma in Rangoon on my visit there and raised this wider matter with the Government at all the meetings I had with them. I also announced an additional £2 million of humanitarian assistance for displaced people in Kachin state, where fighting continues. It is important for the Government of Burma to understand that resolving the conflicts more widely around the borders and ethnic areas remains important.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Opposition join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming the release of political prisoners in Burma although, as he has acknowledged, many hundreds of men and women remain in prison there for their political beliefs. Will he tell the House what he did to push the Burmese regime to allow greater access for the world’s media, particularly in the run-up to the elections in April, now that restrictions have started to be lifted?
Mr Hague
I made the point to Government Ministers there that part of the essential opening up to the rest of the world is access for media representatives. Indeed, on my visit I was able to facilitate that access for the first time and to ensure that BBC correspondents could go to places or get invited to press conferences to which they would not previously have been invited. Each international visit helps to prise open to a greater extent the media’s access to Burma. We will continue with those efforts.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary join me in extending continued support to the pro-democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi?
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
13. What steps he is taking to support the unlocking of Libyan assets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
The United Kingdom continues to play a leading part in working with the Libyan authorities on the recovery of assets through the alleviation of sanctions. On 16 December, the United Nations was able to lift the sanctions on the Central Bank of Libya and on the Libyan Arab Foreign bank, which released some £6.5 billion worth of assets in Britain alone for the use of the Libyan people.
Mr Reed
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In October last year, the Foreign Secretary noted in a letter that
“the countries of the Arab League will play an important part in providing the support the Libyan Government requires to rebuild the Libyan economy”.
Will the Minister tell us what recent assessment he and his Department have made of the contribution of the Arab League member countries to the economic recovery in Libya to date, and what form he expects it to take in the future?
Alistair Burt
The Arab League, in conjunction with the rest of the international community, played a vital part in ensuring the freedom of the people of Libya, and that support continues to be evident. The Libyan Government are establishing themselves and building their capacity to handle the recovery of assets and to determine the way in which they can be used. Accordingly, they are in discussions with ourselves and with Arab League partners, which are being effective. This is a process in which we are all engaged.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the problems with liberal imperialist wars is that once they are over, we lose interest in their victims. I have already drawn attention to the United Nations report on the plight of the 7,000 prisoners who are being held by the current Libyan Government in the most appalling conditions and undergoing torture and many other dreadful things. What are this Government doing about that?
Alistair Burt
This Government do not lose sight of the victims of this conflict. The conditions of those in detention have been raised by Ministers on visits, and directly with the Libyan Government. It is a matter for them to be able to create the processes to determine the future of those detainees. The commitment to human rights is absolute, regardless of how those in Libya were taken prisoner, captured or anything else. The United Kingdom stands four square behind that, and so does the national transitional council, which has made clear its own concerns, as well as its determination to deal with the issue of detainees through appropriate free and fair judicial processes as quickly as possible.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
This week, I am visiting Brazil as part of our efforts to transform our engagement with emerging powers in Latin America. I will also co-chair the UK-Caribbean ministerial forum, which will reinvigorate our historic ties with those countries.
Margot James
Islamic fundamentalist violence has been increasing in Nigeria for more than a decade, and has now erupted beyond the northern region. What does my right hon. Friend think can be done to counteract this threat to Nigeria and to sub-Saharan Africa as a whole?
Mr Hague
We are focusing on that threat. We are sharing with Nigeria our expertise on counter-terrorism policy and on legal frameworks. We are also providing assistance with specific capabilities such as managing the consequences of a terrorist attack. In all of this, we are in close touch with our partners in the European Union and the United States. We are also supporting programmes in the north of Nigeria to address the root causes of insecurity, such as poverty and social inequality.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary give the House his assessment of the calls by leading members of the Free Syrian army for the Arab League to refer the issue of Syria to the United Nations Security Council? In the light of the difficulties encountered by the Arab League observer mission, and on the basis of the aforementioned discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, does the Foreign Secretary believe that there is any realistic prospect of the Russian Government altering their stance on Syria?
Mr Hague
I think that it would be right for the Arab League to bring its concerns and any decision that it makes at its forthcoming meetings—it has two coming up, on the 19th and 22nd—to the UN Secretary-General and UN Security Council. Over recent weeks, I have encouraged the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Mr al-Arabi, to bring Arab concerns directly to the Security Council, because I believe that the time is long overdue for the Security Council to be able to speak on Syria with a united voice. The right hon. Gentleman will recall—his question partly referred to this—that when we last tried to do so, on 4 October, our resolution was vetoed by Russia and China. I am not optimistic that the situation with regard to Russia’s attitude would be different at the moment, but we will continue to discuss the matter with Russia. It would help if the Arab League were to come to the UN directly with its concerns.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
T2. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the patriotic Falkland Islands that any posturing by the Argentine Government will be met with a very firm response?
Mr Hague
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. The view across and in all parts of the House on the Falkland Islands is firm and consistent: we believe in the self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands, and it is their self-determination, of course, that they wish to remain British.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
T4. In line with the recent report by the UN rapporteur on torture, will the Minister condemn the practice by Israel of holding children in solitary confinement, and will he make representations for the release of the 106 children who remain detained within the Israeli military prison system?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
We welcome the fact that Israel has recently changed to 18 the age of majority in those territories for criminal jurisdiction, but we have made, and continue to make, representations in relation to children’s rights—the right of audience, the right to interpreters and the like—and from the Dispatch Box recently I said that the practice of shackling children was wrong.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T3. Under the Government’s excellent new human trafficking strategy, the Foreign Office is required to have country business plans obliging ambassadors and high commissioners to take appropriate local action against human trafficking. What action has been taken?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this matter. We have highlighted to our posts around the world the key commitments in the human trafficking strategy that they can help to deliver. Those include engaging with foreign Governments to ensure that common challenges are identified, and encouraging them to work with us to address those challenges. We have asked each of our posts to identify a single point of contact on human trafficking, and we are working in consultation with colleagues across government and with non-governmental organisations to bring together all the work that is already going on, including on the specific local challenges in each country. He can therefore be assured that our posts across the world are working hard on this.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. What assessment have the Government made of recent calls by the Qatari leadership for Arab states to intervene militarily to stop the bloodshed in Syria, and would the Foreign Secretary support such action?
Mr Hague
That is one view—and an important view, of course, coming from the leadership of a state such as Qatar. As I mentioned in reply to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the Arab League is meeting on the 19th and 22nd, so we should not presume that this is the view of the whole Arab League. Although we continue to increase the pressure on the Assad regime and strongly support the Arab League’s work, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not called for military intervention in Syria, the consequences of which would be far more difficult to foresee than in Libya and the legal authority for which does not exist. As things stand, therefore, this is a distinct case from that of Libya.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T8. The Foreign Secretary’s previously referred to visit to Brazil this week is welcome and continues his much-needed drive to make trade the cutting edge of British diplomacy. As the balance of world economic activity shifts to the east and the south, would he agree that a blinkered approach to trade inside the European Union is not only very last century but painfully lacking in ambition?
Mr Hague
We need both actually. Given the flat economies in the eurozone and the fact that exports to the eurozone have fallen over recent years, it is doubly important that we develop our export markets across the rest of the world. However, there is also a strong case for driving growth within Europe, through free trade agreements with the rest of the world, by pushing forward the single market in services and digital services and by removing regulatory barriers to growth. The Prime Minister will very much be pushing that agenda at the European Council on 30 January.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
T6. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps, if any, are being taken to prepare for the possible implications of Iran’s seeking to close the straits of Hormuz?
Mr Hague
As the Defence Secretary pointed out in his speech in Washington a short while ago, any such attempt to close the straits of Hormuz would be illegal and I believe that it would be unsuccessful. It would also be damaging to Iran—to its own economy and its own situation. I think it is important for Iran to desist from statements on this subject and to engage instead with the offer of negotiations with the E3 plus 3 countries. In the meantime, we are working ahead of next week’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels to extend sanctions on Iran, including an oil embargo on a phased basis. Work on that is going on now to increase the peaceful pressure on Iran to negotiate.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T9. What progress is being made on the forthcoming constitutional referendum in Zimbabwe, which will be a prerequisite for free and fair elections in a country that has had more than its fair share of violence and intimidation in elections in the past.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern about continuing persecution, particularly of Movement for Democratic Reform MPs. There was the dreadful case of the recent arrest of Lynette Karenyi allegedly for insulting the President. Obviously, the immediate priority for Zimbabwe is preparation for the referendum on the constitution and making sure that the road map to credible free and fair elections is in place.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
T7. What steps are the Government taking in the coming year further to strengthen the parliamentary systems in our overseas territories?
Mr Bellingham
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) for participating in the mission to observe the British Virgin Islands elections in November. We believe that having observers is good practice for open democracies like ours and the overseas territories. This is highly relevant to the Turks and Caicos Islands where we hope to have elections later this year if the milestones continue to be met.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
While my right hon. Friend strives to halt the tragic loss of life in Syria, will he also be mindful of Harold Macmillan’s advice that one should never underestimate the capacity of a middle eastern state to replace a bad Government by an even worse one—or, may I add, by no effective Government at all, which could create even greater bloodshed?
Mr Hague
It is not only middle eastern states that do this from time to time. I very much take what my right hon. Friend says, but I have to point out that there has been, I think, a better trend than that during the last year, which can be seen if we look at events in Libya and Tunisia and at democratic developments in Morocco and Jordan. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend’s warning is well taken: we always listen to the words of Harold Macmillan and to his.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to read the reports from the Carter Centre, the European Union, the United Nations and the Catholic Church of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the recent conduct of the presidential elections there and the barely credible reports of a 100% turnout in some areas, which led to President Kabila being declared the winner and the British ambassador attending his inauguration? What representations is the right hon. Gentleman making to the DRC Government concerning those elections and the future of democratic elections in that country?
Mr Bellingham
On the positive side, there was far less violence in these elections than there was in 2006. Furthermore, most voters who wanted to vote could and did vote. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman that there were a number of serious irregularities throughout the electoral process. That is why we called on the DRC authorities to investigate them properly and fairly. It is vital that lessons are learned.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
As we discovered during events surrounding the invasion of Iraq, it is essential for states to act only on hard evidence. In relation to Iran, will the Secretary of State encourage not only Iran itself but the whole international community to listen carefully to the International Atomic Energy Agency this time?
Mr Hague
Yes, it is very important to listen carefully to what is said by the International Atomic Energy Authority. As my hon. Friend will know, it was a report from the IAEA which, in November, referred to the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme and the concern that was felt about it. That has fortified our determination—the determination of countries throughout the European Union—to adopt the measures that we will be discussing next week although, as my hon. Friend has said, they must always be based on hard evidence.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the current crisis in Pakistan and its possible implications for our country?
Mr Hague
We have been making a continuous assessment of political events and tensions in Pakistan over recent weeks and days, and we are in close touch with a variety of Pakistani leaders. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi was in Pakistan for several days last week and met many of the leading figures there. We are friends of a democratic Pakistan—across the House we are friends of a democratic Pakistan—and we look to all concerned in both the political and the military leadership to work together to ensure a democratic and constitutional future for their country.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I know that the Foreign Secretary will share my disappointment at the news that the overseas territories have been refused permission to enter a vessel in the diamond jubilee river pageant in June. Will he assure the House that they will be granted full recognition and participation in the diamond jubilee celebrations?
Mr Bellingham
I want to praise my hon. Friend for his indefatigable support for the overseas territories. As he knows, we will shortly publish a White Paper which will discuss how we can reinvigorate our relationship with them, and obviously we want them to participate fully in Her Majesty’s jubilee celebrations.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations can play an important role in encouraging the Burmese to maintain the progress that he described earlier?
Mr Hague
Yes. That is particularly true given that Burma will have the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014. One of the points that we made to other ASEAN nations at the United Nations General Assembly last year, before Burma’s appointment, was that the country must be pushed in the right direction—the direction in which it is now moving—if it expected to have the chairmanship, and those nations seem to be working well together.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
What steps can be taken to limit the shipment of arms and munitions from Iran in particular to militant groups in Palestine?
Mr Hague
We are very concerned about the shipment of arms by Iran, and about Iran’s consistent support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, but there has been evidence over time of arms shipments from Iran to other parts of the region as well. We will always express our concern about those actions, and will always encourage other countries in the region to live up to their own legal responsibilities to intercept illicit armed shipments. That is certainly happens, but we will always encourage those countries to ensure that it continues.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
What assurances did the Foreign Secretary seek and secure from the Burmese Government that there would be free and fair elections in April?
Mr Hague
That main assurance I sought was that at least a large tranche of political prisoners, but preferably all of them, would be released before the date on which candidates should register for the elections. I warned the president directly that the elections would not be considered free and fair if most political prisoners were still in prison and unable to stand. That is why I am pleased that so many prisoners were released a few days before the deadline for registration. We will now have to judge the circumstances in which those elections take place—to judge whether there is free debate in the media and out in the country—but I can certainly say on the basis of my meeting with the committee of the Mutual League for Democracy that there is real enthusiasm and determination to ensure that such free debate does take place.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
At this sensitive time in relations with Iran, will the Government still do what they can to encourage Iran to improve its record on religious persecution—for instance, in the case of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, who apparently faces a death sentence unless he is prepared to give up his Christian beliefs?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend and many other Members have made representations about this matter, and there was a very good debate about it in Westminster Hall last week. We will continue our representations in relation to Pastor Nadarkhani. History tells us that efforts to make people of faith recant their faith are doomed to failure: the faith endures, and the name of the faithful is remembered long after the torturers are forgotten.
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise to any Members who may be disappointed, but the appetite for questioning the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues is invariably insatiable.
Mr Speaker
And unassuaged, as the hon. Gentleman helpfully points out from a sedentary position.
Point of Order
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 12 January, the Russian embassy published on its website a highly personal and inaccurate attack on me. The attack related to a debate the previous day on human rights in Russia and the treatment of Sergei Magnitsky, in which several Members of all parties spoke. I believe this is the first time that a foreign embassy accredited to Her Majesty’s Government has so attacked a Member for carrying out his parliamentary duties. Clearly, the Russian embassy is not covered by the rules of privilege or free expression in Parliament, but I hope, Mr Speaker, that you do not think this is a welcome development, and that Members must be able to say what they think about other countries without coming under pressure or intimidation from embassies and accredited diplomats.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. I certainly agree that no Member of the House should be intimidated in exercising his or her undoubted right to free expression in this House. I might add that although my own imagination is moderately vivid, the idea of the right hon. Gentleman being intimidated by the Russian embassy or anybody else is beyond it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
They send you bottles of vodka and take you to a Japanese restaurant.
Mr Speaker
If there are no further points of order, or sedentary heckles by the hon. Gentleman, we shall move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.
Sexual Offences (Amendment)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to create an offence of paying for sexual services of a person under the age of 21 years; and for connected purposes.
In talking about this subject, I shall turn directly to the issue of drugs, on which I have frequently spoken before in the House. It is a key issue in respect of the problem the Bill addresses, and I think the Bill will have a positive impact.
Legislation has many purposes, one of which is to change people’s behaviour. Many previous Governments have passed far too much criminal justice legislation that attempts to send messages and give signals to society. This Bill does not attempt to do that; rather, it attempts to change behaviour, which is a far more effective strategy.
There are three main ways in which teenagers, both boys and girls, get drawn into prostitution; one of them is trafficking. The Bill does not deal with that topic in detail, but it has been well aired in this House in recent times. As a result, there has been a flurry of legislation, but it needs to be used far more effectively—both the Government and the police must deliver.
This Bill’s measures would not have a major impact on trafficking, and they should not be considered as an answer to that problem. Instead, they should be seen merely as a minor assist. Trafficking is, however, one way in which teenagers get cajoled into prostitution.
Abuse and drugs are far more significant factors, however, especially with younger teenagers, and the Bill will make a greater impact in dealing with them. Those two factors—sometimes in combination—tend to lead to the dysfunctional behaviour of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds entering the world of prostitution. Sometimes that happens through coercion and sometimes it happens through desperation, although an element of both is often involved.
I wish to start by discussing the issue of abuse. Until the previous general election, I was the Member of Parliament representing Rampton, the largest secure hospital for women—the only secure hospital for women—in this country. I have visited it and talked to staff on numerous occasions, so I am aware that one incredible reality of the women there is that, of course, they are there because they acted in hugely abnormal and horrific ways, and they will often be there for life, but all the evidence suggests that they were abused as children. That is a fact and a reality; it is not an excuse.
In my work on tackling drugs—for better or for worse I have conducted a huge amount of field research, both with organisations and with constituents—I have found that, without question, 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who are getting addicted to drugs are doing so because of major trauma in their lives. A range of major traumas is involved, but the correlation we should always look at first is with abuse as a teenager, be it psychological, physical or sexual. The use of sex becomes a way of generating income within the drug community. It tends initially to be a way of buying or trading drugs, which becomes endemic and then spreads to become a way of obtaining cash, through sex with strangers; this predominantly affects women, but it also affects young boys, too. The problem for the 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who find prostitution to be an easier route to quick money than burglary or robbery and to be more profitable than the easier option of shoplifting is that this dysfunctional activity then traps the addict, much more so than those other behaviours, in a way of life that they cannot get out of.
I am not here to make a moral speech about prostitution. There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, but my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying. I wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21. In essence, that will take all the teenage years out of the real threshold and will change the behaviour of people who are paying. I am not making moral judgments about what people do as adults.
My Bill seeks solely and simply to raise that threshold. I think that doing so will have a huge impact because the age group involved—older teenagers—must be given the space in which to turn around their lives. Our current legislative framework makes them the victims as, in reality, the powers available to the police, even though they are often wisely and deliberately not used, are to arrest and criminalise young people, which worsens their life chances and their chances of turning around the situation.
Explicitly changing the threshold, as well as changing the behaviour of those who are paying, will create space to allow the various agencies to work and turn around the situation for those 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds. That situation can then be transformed, particularly for those who have a drug dependency or who have suffered abuse. Such input, as they develop into adults, will make a defining difference in many cases. We have all seen the kinds of people who are the victims in our constituencies; we all know that they can be anyone and that they can be concentrated in areas where there are particular problems. The correlation to major trauma, however, and to abuse and the provision of the support and ability to impact on those young kids—that is what those boys and girls are—are wholly missing from the process.
I propose this Bill as a small contribution that, for some of them, would have a significant impact. It would raise the threshold for those who choose to pay and remove a reasonable number of those teenagers from the industry, creating space so the agencies who wish to work with them can do so positively and allow them to turn around their lives.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I rise to speak about the motion on the Order Paper, although I have nothing specific to say about the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—[Interruption.] Let me explain, Mr Speaker—
Chris Bryant
I am opposing the motion on the Order Paper, because it reads:
“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend”
and all the other stuff that my hon. Friend mentioned. I do not think that we should be giving leave to bring in any more Bills, as there is absolutely no point in assenting to yet another Bill being brought in. If it is to be successful and to be brought into law, by Prorogation it will need to have gone through all its stages in this House and all its stages in the other House. We know perfectly well that the Deputy Leader of the House—who is in his seat and will, no doubt, assent to this—has absolutely no intention of ensuring that there will be time for the Bill to have its Second Reading, let alone to go into Committee. Consequently, I cannot see that there is any sense in it.
I merely point out that there are 109 private Members’ Bills on the Order Paper and only three are from—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Gentleman say that that this should be a point of order, but it is not. The motion on the Order Paper states that we should give the Bill the right to go forward, and if hon. Members are going to agree to its going forward, they should ensure that there is time for it to do so and for it to do something substantial. There is a means of doing that.
There are 109 private Members’ Bills on the Order Paper—several have come from Mrs Bone, it is true—and only three have come back from the Lords and therefore stand any chance of becoming law before Prorogation. They are the Live Music Bill, which has already been through all its stages in this House, the Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons) Bill and the Building Regulations (Review) Bill. Only two are in their remaining stages, which will take place this Friday, and could possibly become law, unless the Deputy Leader of the House were to say that the Government would give time in some of the next few days, when we are, frankly, slightly less busy with Government legislation. That would enable us to enact some of the private Members’ Bills.
Alternatively, I hope that, as a lot of Members want to legislate on specific matters that would be of significant advantage to our constituents, the Backbench Business Committee will consider making time available on Back-Bench business days for private Members’ Bills. As we discussed in last week’s debate, I do not believe that this House should just be representative—it is important that we do the representing. We cannot do the representing as Back-Benchers if private Members’ Bills just stack up on Fridays. There are 64 this Friday and I guess we might get to debate two of them in any kind of substance, and the rest of the Bills will not even be heard on a day when we are sitting.
If hon. Members want to agree to this going forward, I say to them sincerely that they should ensure that there is more time for private Members’ Bills, because sometimes they make some of the best legislation. [Interruption.] The Whip, who should be silent, is trying to accuse us of not having given enough time, but in my time as Deputy Leader of the House we got more private Members’ Bills on to the statute book in one year than this Government will in two full years in one Session. Frankly, he can go back to his silence.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Mann, Fiona Mactaggart, Natascha Engel, Mrs Louise Ellman, Gavin Shuker and Siobhain McDonagh present the Bill.
John Mann accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed (Bill 272).
Backbench Business
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Future of Town Centres and High Streets
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the future of town centres and high streets.
Let me begin by thanking the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and her fellow colleagues on the Committee for granting this debate. I thank also hon. Members and Friends who supported the request for this debate at that Committee.
We all have at least one if not several town centres or high streets in our constituencies. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members share my passion for our town centres. For me, that passion was developed during my time as a local councillor and council leader, when I had responsibility for town centres during the deepest and darkest period of the recession. Our town centres are focal points for shopping and meeting friends and colleagues, as well as for accessing entertainment, leisure, culture, public services and transport among other things.
The economic and social contribution that our town centres make cannot be understated. High streets make up 13% of UK economic value and 14% of total UK employment. Unfortunately, over many years the position of our high streets and town centres has been eroded to varying degrees. Many of the stronger retail chains have squeezed out the individual small businesses from many high streets but are now retrenching owing to the economic conditions. They are becoming dependent on fewer and fewer stores and consequently are withdrawing from many of our town centres.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, as well as on setting up the all-party group on town centres. Does he agree that one way of regenerating town centres is, as happens in my constituency, to give tax incentives to areas that are trying to regenerate themselves and to independent shops and small businesses so that they can set up, as opposed to only the chains coming into every high street across Britain?
Mr Jones
I certainly think that we at least need to put our town centres and high streets on a level playing field with other parts of the retail industry. We need to be as innovative as possible to make sure that taxes are as low as possible for people who want to operate on our high streets.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his success in securing the debate. Dudley town centre has seen better days; it is just a few miles up the road from the Merry Hill shopping centre. Does he agree that Dudley town centre would be ideal for one of the pilot studies resulting from Mary Portas’s review? Does he agree that the Minister should select Dudley for one of the pilots and that the Minister ought to come to Dudley so that I can take him around the town centre and he can see for himself the problems we face?
Mr Jones
Dudley is an important area and the hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for it, but I think it probably ranks somewhere behind my constituency in relation to this matter.
In the last few days alone, we have seen some long-standing store chains, such as Blacks Leisure, Peacocks and Barratts, all enter administration. In the words of Mary Portas,
“our high streets have reached a crisis point,”
a statement with which I am sure many people up and down the country will agree.
A number of factors have led to the decline of our high streets, although the main reasons are undoubtedly the steady rise of out-of-town retail shopping malls, together with the dramatic impact of the arrival of internet shopping, which has soared. Back in 2007, it accounted for 4.8% of retail sales, but last November it was found to account for 12.2%. That is a challenge to our town centres, and it will be greatly exacerbated by the increased use of mobile phone technology, which is broadening the internet spectrum.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. May I share with him the experience of my local town of Leek, where the totally locally Leek initiative has been developed by independent shopkeepers? The idea is that if everybody who lived in Leek spent £5 each week in a local shop rather than on the internet, it would be worth £4 million to the local economy. Does he agree that we need initiatives such as that to promote local high streets?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend eloquently lays out the reasons why many town centres are falling on hard times. Has he noted Mary Portas’s remarks about the motor car? In market towns, and in rural areas, a car is no luxury, and it is essential for the vibrancy of those towns that there is adequate parking. What does he feel about that and, in particular, Portas’s remarks about a league table for car parks?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an extremely sensible point. For far too long, we have not thought about the people who want to drive into our town centres and we have not considered the quality and availability of car parking. We have certainly not considered its cost, which I shall come to later. It is extremely prohibitive and is one reason why there is not a level playing field for our town centres in relation to their out-of-town competitors.
In my constituency, Nuneaton town centre has fared reasonably well, and better than many. There is a property vacancy rate of about 6% while the national average is 11.1%, although the factors I have mentioned account for a vacancy creep that is happening at different rates across the country. Many of the factors in my analysis of the reasons for decline may be a little simplistic, but what we do to arrest that terminal decline is far from simple.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Is he aware of a study by Transport for London showing that the average retail spend per month is £373 for people who walk to their high street but only £226 for those who take their car? Similar studies show that those who cycle or take the bus or train spend more than those who drive.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable suggestion, but there is a difference between travel in the London area and the situation in other regions of the UK. I can certainly say that far more people who shop in my local town centre in Nuneaton drive there than use local transport, so we have to be pragmatic.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people who do not go to the town centre at all because they cannot walk or drive spend nothing at all?
Mr Jones
That is a sensible if not obvious point, and it is important.
As for how we address that decline, I welcome the review that the Government have instigated and their decision to commission the Portas review, which has not just brought the views of Mary Portas, a recognised retail guru, to the high street but has served to stimulate much-needed debate on this crucial issue. I was delighted that Miss Portas took time when researching the report to hold a discussion with the all-party group which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) mentioned, I chair. The meeting was nearly as well attended as this debate, which highlights the importance of our town centres and high streets to parliamentarians and their constituents.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he welcome what is happening in Wellingborough and Rushton, where the Government’s economic policies are being enforced with great gusto? We have free car parking, and a new Marks and Spencer is opening in Wellingborough. A multi-billion pound project is hopefully about to open in the Rushton area providing jobs and local availability for shopping.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I agree that my hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the neighbourhood planning provisions in the Localism Act 2011 give local communities a greater say for the first time in helping to shape the sort of town centres that they need and want?
Mr Jones
That vision is certainly significant and, along with the national planning policy framework provisions such as the “town centre first” policy, it is extremely important. I shall come on to that in a moment.
I shall go through some of the Portas proposals in more detail but, before doing so, I should like to quote the final words of the review:
“Those are just my ideas. What are yours?”
I hope that it is in that spirit that right hon. and hon. Members will use the focus of today’s debate to feed into the work of the Portas review through their own constituency experience, which should serve to inform Ministers’ thinking before they make their response and implement any policies following that crucial review.
I will briefly mention one or two points from the five groups of recommendations in the Portas proposals. I very much welcome the idea of a town team. Many constituencies have town centre partnerships or business improvement districts, and I was personally involved in setting up a town centre partnership in the town of Bedworth in the neighbouring North Warwickshire constituency when I was council leader. The concept of the town team represents a shift in thinking.
Dan Byles
As my hon. Friend and neighbour has mentioned the town of Bedworth in my constituency, may I take the opportunity to thank him for doing that work when he was leader of the council? Bedworth is one of those towns that are linked to a larger town in the borough, and was sometimes considered, for want of a better word, the slightly poorer neighbour by the council.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. With regard to the local shopping on offer, Bedworth is an extremely important player, even if it is not as large or always as vibrant as Nuneaton.
Town centre teams would give more teeth and opportunity for more detailed public-private sector engagement, which could go beyond the operational, micro issues, that town centre partnerships and BIDs deal with, and cover strategic issues, helping to shape the vision for our town centres. The proposal would allow landlords to become investors in town teams or super-BIDs, and would seek to strengthen that vision for town centres with the possibility of leveraging in further private investment. The all-party group secretariat, the Association of Town Centre Management, very much advocates that approach and is convinced that there is real will on the part of the private sector to make a major contribution to this.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that if we are trying to attract investment, the proliferation of betting shops taking over premises from the closure of banks and building societies, which has happened in Deptford high street in my constituency, is a disincentive and spoils the diversity of our high streets, which is so important and which we need to hold on to or bring back?
Mr Jones
Betting shops are an important part of our town centres and high streets, as I am sure the right hon. Lady would acknowledge, and they offer valuable employment. However, the proliferation of betting shops has been caused to some extent by the provisions of the licensing legislation in relation to the number of machines that such businesses can have. That needs looking at and Mary Portas refers to it in her report.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
In addition to the proliferation of betting shops, there has been a proliferation of high-cost credit lenders on our high streets, which prey on some of the most vulnerable members of society. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Medway council, which has established a cross-party working group to look at how the council can get involved in ensuring that the licensing of those money-lending shops is controlled and reduces the possible damage to the most vulnerable members of society?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) responds, let me say, first, that he has been speaking for 14 minutes. I am sure many Members have been greatly enjoying his speech, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been enjoying it, but there are nearly 50 Members who wish to speak and to whom a time limit applies, so I hope he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion. Secondly, the frequency with which he gives way is a matter for him, but he might want to bear that in mind. Thirdly, interventions are too long.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. I will try to keep my remarks brief and to keep interventions to a minimum.
Starting new enterprise is crucial on our high streets, particularly with many of our chain stores retrenching. We need to reinvigorate our independent shopkeepers. Street markets and indoor markets are an important route to doing that. In my constituency we have an award-winning street market on Wednesdays and Saturdays which often has more than 150 stalls. As in the case of car parking, which I shall come to shortly, local authorities must be careful to make sure that markets are not just cash cows and income generators for the local authority, but are there for the benefit of the local community and the local town centre.
That brings me to ways of allowing businesses to flourish. Lower taxation and less regulation are the keys to unlocking that potential, although we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Through deregulation—for example, the deregulation of pedlars—we could end up with a situation where pedlars can turn up and trade alongside market traders, without paying any rent or rates. The market traders who have traditionally been on our high streets will find themselves at a disadvantage.
Car parking is a major issue. There is a case study in the Portas review that mentions Swindon, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) will probably elaborate on that. Although I acknowledge the restraint on both Government and local government budgets, further direct action on car parking charges must be explored. It would be fantastic if a pilot scheme could be run to see whether we could bring in free short-stay parking that would have the effect that we are looking for. The pilot should be run in a constituency, and I would make the argument for that to be my Nuneaton constituency, but other right hon. and hon. Members probably have other ideas on that.
There is also an inherent unfairness in how the business rates regime applies to town centre car parks and out-of-town-centre car parks, and we need to look at that carefully to ensure that we allow our town centres to operate on a level playing field. As Mary Portas rightly pointed out, we need to look carefully at planning in our town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned the national planning policy framework, and we must ensure that the “town centre first” policy and the sequential test are retained in the framework. I also think that it is important that office development is included, because although we must not deny out-of-town development, we must ensure that it is proportionate and meets the needs of a particular area.
I note your comments about time, Mr Speaker, and appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. By bringing the matter before the House, I sincerely hope that we will have a positive debate, that our views will prevail and that the Minister will go away loaded with positive ideas from Back-Bench Members that can be fed into the Government’s review. I firmly believe that the British people instinctively wish to see our high streets and town centres not only survive, but flourish and prosper, as they form one of the unique components that make up the UK.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Mayor of London, who today announced £177 million of targeted regeneration investment for town centres and local high streets, of which Brentford and Isleworth will receive £4.8 million?
Mr Jones
That is fantastic news, and just the sort of support that our town centres and high streets need. It is extremely important that we support our high streets and town centres not only as Members of Parliament, but as individuals, and that at all times we promote their cause so that they are there for hundreds of years to come, as they have been for us all thus far.
Mr Speaker
Order. In view of the level of interest, and as has been made clear on the Annunciator, I have imposed a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate. The state of our high streets and town centres is important not only for our local economies and for providing jobs, but for strengthening our local communities. I think that setting up the Portas review of the high street was an inspired decision by the Government, although Members will not be surprised to hear that I have concerns about how the Government are supporting the retail sector.
Retail is our country’s largest private sector employer and accounts for 20% of the UK’s gross domestic product. The sector accounts for 40% of employment for the under-20s and pays 28% of all business rates. Now that the Government have achieved a youth unemployment level of over 1 million and failed to replace the public sector jobs that have been cut with private sector jobs, we can see how important the sector is to the health of our economy.
The retail sector’s prospects for 2012 are not good. Hardly a day goes by without another high street brand going into administration; Peacocks has already been mentioned. Consumer confidence is exceptionally low. Although that is clearly impacting on the larger retail multiples, it is also having a devastating impact on independent retailers, a group of businesses that do not always have a voice—or rather, are not always heard—in debates about the economy. That is why I believe that commissioning the Portas review was an inspired decision. It inevitably shines light on the smaller retailers that provide the diversity and quality customer service that enhance our high streets.
There has been much press coverage of Rochdale’s town centre in recent months, not least because McDonald’s has decided to leave, and because we have a disproportionate number of charity shops. In reality, however, our town has a great retail offer. Businesses such as Chantilly, 25 Ten, Denis Hope, Bragg and the Number Ten Gallery are perfect examples of the high-quality independents that enhance Rochdale’s high street, but Rochdale, like towns throughout the country, needs the Government to act more quickly and responsibly.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is terribly important to point out that the issue is not just about retail, but about attracting people into town centres. Beckenham used to be a wonderful place to go, but it is getting shoddier and shoddier, and we need more funding to make such areas good places for people to go—even if they are going there not to spend any money, but just for social reasons.
Simon Danczuk
I agree, and the Portas review makes the point that town centres are not just about retail, but about being a community magnet that brings people in for a variety of reasons. One problem is that the Portas review was delayed for months, and came to us late, but it is also disappointing that the Minister has decided not to respond until the spring.
The review makes a host of recommendations, practically all of which I welcome, but it also pushes a disproportionate amount of responsibility on to local government. We all know that towns such as Rochdale have received devastating cuts from this Government, so it will not be easy for local authorities to implement some of the recommendations, such as discounted business rates. Local councils can help with national market day, and set up town teams, as Members have said, but it is for central Government to take responsibility for the major issues affecting our town centres.
On planning, as the review recommends, the Government must put the town centre first, and following their consultation on the national planning policy framework, I get the impression that they will. I believe that they will make that change to the draft NPPF.
But the Government need to go further than the review, and we would benefit from looking at how credit insurance works in the retail sector, and at how the lack of credit insurance for wholesalers and suppliers makes it difficult for businesses to manage cash flow and, ultimately, to survive. A Government scheme to assist suppliers with credit insurance would certainly help.
The review makes some welcome recommendations on business rates, and Mary Portas is right to highlight the adverse impact of business rate levels on our high streets. In Rochdale, retailers that are closing have cited high business rates, but the Government have just introduced the biggest hike in such rates for 20 years—an increase of 5.6%. That is just not sustainable for small businesses on our high street.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a problem with bank lending to enable high-street shops to invest and bring their businesses up to the standard that we all expect in this day and age?
Simon Danczuk
That is absolutely right. Bank lending is a real problem for small businesses, and one that the Government need to address in terms of the larger economic situation.
Returning to business rates, I also highlight the problem with the Valuation Office Agency. I recently had a Rochdale bar owner attend my surgery, describing how the VOA had told him that it assumed his takings would be about £179,000 per year—a figure that he could only dream of achieving. I know from my own dealings with the VOA that its performance leaves a lot to be desired. Not only is it difficult to deal with, it is also slow to act. Thousands of businesses in Greater Manchester have appealed against the new business rate valuations, yet the VOA admitted that in 2010 it could deal with only 3% of the appeals made, leaving a massive backlog that still needs clearing. The VOA is now refusing to publish what percentage of appeals are successful—presumably to discourage businesses from challenging its valuations. We should not underestimate the impact that business rates and the VOA are having on the high street. I urge the Government to give those issues more urgent attention.
I started by mentioning consumer confidence. We cannot underestimate the adverse impact that our country’s economy is having on our high streets. For all the tweaks and adaptations that can be made locally, it is the level of unemployment, the fear of becoming unemployed, the lack of credit for small businesses and high inflation that will make or break our high streets.
To conclude, the Portas review provides worthwhile recommendations on which the Government can act, but there needs to be urgent action, and the Government need to recognise the effect that their economic policies are having on our high streets.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate about the health of our high streets and town centres. I will risk making the passing comment that to see so many colleagues here to take part in a debate with a one-line Whip suggests that there is not a lot wrong with the health of our Parliament. It is an encouraging sight. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for triggering this debate, and Mary Portas for producing an excellent report on our high streets and town centres.
High streets and town centres have been under assault for many years from out-of-town shopping centres. Perhaps that horse has now bolted, but there is the new threat of internet purchasing. That is, in part, a generational thing. In the place where I live now there are four families, as three of our grown-up children and their spouses have joined us in our little community, which was described, when I became a Minister in 1996, as an evangelical community on the edge of Dartmoor. That sounds very alternative, but it is nothing like that. With three families of a younger generation, it seems that the delivery vans arrive several times a day as a result of their internet shopping. We grandparents are not really doing it, but the younger generation are. This is a very new assault on the high street.
That is why I strongly support what is perhaps the key recommendation of the report—that a new vision for the high street must recognise that it is not just about retail but about culture, community and leisure. We must make a visit to the high street or the town centre like a day out. It should be a pleasurable experience, and not just about retail.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those who make purchases on the internet take the trouble to visit the high street and look at the product that they wish to purchase, only to go home and buy it more cheaply on the internet? Without the high street, that market simply would not work.
Mr Streeter
I think that that is right, although my daughter and son-in-law spend most of their time browsing not in the shops but online, and make their purchasing decisions in that way. Either way, of course, is good. High streets will never compete with the internet or out-of-town shopping centres on retail alone. That is the important point that the report tells us.
My constituency of South West Devon has three shopping centres: Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge. Most of those communities will be well known to colleagues in this House. Over the nearly 20 years in which I have been privileged to represent those communities, I have seen the ebbs and flows of the high street. It is right to say that local people want to support their town centres, but it is important that the offer from them is right and attractive.
Mary Macleod
Does my hon. Friend agree that market days have a role to play in the high street to give shoppers something different? On Saturday, he is welcome to come to the Turnham Green terrace market day in Chiswick, in west London.
Mr Streeter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right. However, if I had a choice between being in Devon or Chiswick on a Saturday, I know which one I would choose. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I suspect that most of my colleagues would say exactly the same thing.
I thought that it would be helpful if, drawing on this excellent report and my experiences over the past 20 years, I came up with the five golden rules for regenerating our town centres and high streets. The first is to have local leadership. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke eloquently about what the Government should do, but let us talk about what the local community should do. Bottom-up local leadership is crucial in sparking the regeneration of our town centres and high streets. I give the example of Ivybridge town council, which already has in place a neighbourhood plan and has engaged the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment to come up with a brand new vision for the town centre.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Streeter
I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I have given way twice already, and I have an awful lot to say.
Ivybridge town council is very keen on the report that Mary Portas has produced and hopes that the Government will formulate a number of policies to make it a reality. Local leadership, particularly from the energetic town clerk of Ivybridge, Lesley Hughes, is a crucial part of taking forward the regeneration of our town centres. Two of the other areas that I have mentioned, Plympton and Plymstock, are suburbs of Plymouth and do not have their own town councils, and we can see a real difference in how they grip the need for a new vision.
My second point is about the buy-in of the other local authorities involved. Whether they are district councils, county councils or unitary authorities, it is very important that all the relevant authorities are involved in bringing forward new visions. They need to be brought together on issues such as land ownership, parking, highways and various other powers.
We have heard talk of the important part that business rates can play in town centre regeneration. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is listening to me right now, and I say to him that the Government need to encourage and incentivise local authorities to make more creative use of business rates collected locally to underpin and support local businesses and new economic development in their communities. Let us find ways of doing that.
Thirdly, I wish to mention car parking. I have been through 20 or 30 years of town planners, architects and academics telling us that we need to build sustainable communities with the car designed out of them. I am sorry, but it has not worked. Whether it is right or wrong, the people of this country have chosen the car. For most of us, in our rural communities, the car is absolutely essential. In many parts of my community there is not one bus a day but one bus a week, and if someone misses it by two minutes they are in for a long wait. It is essential to provide space for car parking in the regeneration of our town centres and high streets, and for that parking to be either free, very reasonably priced, or free for a certain period. We are all lazy.
I also support “pop and shop” schemes whereby people can park outside a shop for a few moments even in a pedestrianised or semi-pedestrianised area, to pick up their dry cleaning, get cash out of the bank, buy the grandchildren an ice cream or whatever. I am afraid that the idea of designing out the car is now old-fashioned and has to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Car parking must be at the heart of what happens.
Fourthly, we need flexible planning. In the west country we have a lot of rural areas and a lot of rural planning authorities that have done a great job of preserving our countryside for many generations. However, I say to them that we do not want our town centres or high streets to be museums. We need much more flexible planning laws. I agree with Mary Portas that we should change the law on use classes to make it much easier to change from one high street use to another. I suspect that planning officers in many parts of the world need a paradigm shift. In too many places, their default position is to say no and then try to justify it. I hope that our planning guidance, which has somehow got stuck somewhere in the system in the past few weeks, will be introduced early in this new year to encourage and incentivise local planning officers to allow new life to be breathed into our high streets. We need much more flexibility, because our high streets must not be left as a museum.
While I am on the subject of planning, it is worth saying that sometimes English Heritage does not help us. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) will agree that the decision to list Plymouth civic centre as some kind of historic and beautiful building, when it is probably the ugliest thing outside Dudley, is absolutely disgraceful. [Interruption.] Have I got myself in trouble there? I think I probably have.
Fifthly, landowners and developers need to be brought into the equation, and they need to be much more creative. I shall finish by returning to Ivybridge, where there is a development called Glanvilles Mill that is full of empty or half-empty shops. We need much more creativity in establishing a new development to bring Ivybridge into the 21st century.
I commend the report to the Government, and I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will tell us that he supports it completely and will bring in a lot of new policies to make it happen.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I am sorely tempted to throw my notes away and to join the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) in castigating English Heritage, but I shall resist.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and all those Members who approached the Committee, of whom I was one. The debate is a reflection of their wisdom, because this issue clearly excites interest on both sides of the House and across the country, largely because everybody has a local high street and a local town centre—not just Members of Parliament, but individual citizens. The importance of the welfare of high streets and town centres cannot be overestimated.
The issues around town centres and high streets are perennial. I join others in welcoming the Government’s commissioning of a report from Mary Portas and her work. The report introduces some new language, and anyone who reads it can tell that it has been written not by a planning professional or a civil servant, but by somebody whose main qualification is in the business about which they are speaking and whose enthusiasm is patently transparent. That runs through the whole report. I am not quite familiar with a few expressions in the report—I do not know what she means by a “three-dimensional retailing experience”—but we can forgive that kind of hyperbole when the essence of what she addresses is so critical to the health of so many of our communities.
I notice that the Government say they will have their response out by the spring, which I think means the day before the House rises in the summer, whatever date in July that might be. I hope the Minister takes into account what people say and how important this issue is. I sometimes worry about Ministers’ responses to Backbench Business Committee debates. They accept motions—although there are no specifics in today’s motion—but spend all their time during their speeches explaining why they do not agree with them. I hope that that will not be the case today.
High streets and town centres mean different things in different parts of the country—they mean different things in urban areas, semi-urban areas, towns and villages—but in both this country and around the world, the common denominator is that the local market, however we describe it, is a key ingredient of the local community. In many ways, it defines the local community. As others have said, it is not just a place of trade and exchange, but a place of social interaction and opportunity, a meeting place and a centre for all kinds of activity, not merely retail.
There are many different aspects of the high street debate. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Devon that the threat is no longer from new out-of-town developments. Time will tell whether we have sold the pass on that and whether we allowed too many developments in previous years with which the traditional local ribbon high streets must contend, but the threat is not from new developments.
Robert Halfon
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful speech. He says that local retail centres are not a threat, but all the retail centres in Harlow are very popular and have a huge advantage because they have free parking. People can park outside the door and go about their daily business at the retail centres, whereas many shopping precincts—not just in Harlow, but all around the country—are paved over and very difficult to park near, and many have parking charges. Does he agree that free parking would make a huge difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) suggested?
Jim Dowd
I shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I do not think that the threat comes from new developments, the construction of which seems largely to have abated, as the hon. Member for South West Devon pointed out. The fear is that we have already created too many of them, and that they will still have an effect on the traditional town centres and high streets.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our high streets have a wider role in supporting local supply chains and increasing local resilience? In some areas, there is still a threat not only from out-of-town developments but from large distribution depots, which are merely displacing jobs rather than creating new ones.
Jim Dowd
That is indeed true.
I was involved in producing a report a few years ago, and we discovered that, in the large retail sector, it takes £150,000 worth of turnover to support one job, whereas the comparable figure for small and independent retailers is £100,000. So, small and independent retailers are much more likely than large ones to produce employment. They are also much more likely to be used by people locally, and the value stays within the local community rather than being exported to a national centre elsewhere. They are also of much greater value to the community in terms of social cohesion as well as retailing.
Some 10 years ago, I was approached by the Independent Retailers Confederation at an event here in the House, and we had further discussions. I then tabled an early-day motion relating to retail crime and under-age purchasing, which highlighted the fact that although those issues apply to all retailers, they present a bigger challenge and have a greater effect on small retailers than they do on the large multiples. I know that some Members take a proprietorial—almost parental—interest in their early-day motions, e-mailing and writing to everyone to ask them to sign them. I take a much more hands-off approach, however; I table them and send them off to find their own place in the world. So, I submitted the EDM with only my name on it, but within a week, it had attracted about 88 signatures.
I spoke to some of the Members who had supported my motion, and it became clear that although there had been an all-party parliamentary retail group for many years, there was a strong feeling that its work did not reflect the interests of small and independent retailers. I am not criticising its work at all; I think that it is a valuable adjunct to the work of the House and the interests of its Members. It is fronted by the British Retail Consortium, which is an estimable organisation that does a good job of representing its interests. However, the consortium effectively represents large retail traders and multiples. That is perfectly legitimate, but the idea that it represents small and independent businesses is just plain wrong. We need only to look at its membership lists to discover that fact. It includes some online businesses that have no trading premises, but, apart from those, its idea of a small trader with only one outlet is Harrod’s or Fortnum and Mason. They are not small retailers, by anyone’s definition.
We then formed the all-party parliamentary small shops group. I am particularly indebted to the hon. Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), and to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), now the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, as well as to the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). We undertook to establish an inquiry, along the lines of that of a Select Committee, into the future of the high street. It was the first report of its kind, and it attracted a lot of attention. We made a number of recommendations, most of which were ignored. Some, however, were enacted, and some were partly enacted. There is, however, a wealth of information, material and advice on the future of the high street, of which Mary Portas’s report is just the latest. There is also the all-party small shops group’s report from seven years ago and reports from the Evening Standard and various community groups and academic organisations. I hope that the Government will take long-overdue action and relentlessly pursue a policy in the interests of retailers of all sizes and the communities that they serve.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on showing great leadership through his work on the all-party town centres group and in securing this debate. The group goes from strength to strength under his chairmanship. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to take place, because hardly a constituency in the country is not affected by this issue and there is hardly a high street not in need of improvement and enhancement.
Many Members have referred to their own high streets and constituencies, and I shall be no different because I represent the market town of Dartford, which, despite a planned regeneration project, has to contend with all the difficulties that every high street in the country has to deal with. However, I also represent Bluewater, which is one of the largest out-of-town shopping centres in Europe, so a special range of challenges affects the local area.
I have found that high streets do best when they adapt to changing times and offer something different from out-of-town centres, but that difference can be part of their strength. That is often overlooked by high street managers. Out-of-town shopping centres and high streets are not the same but offer alternative experiences. We should not lose sight of the differences between the two, and so we should not approach them and their needs in the same way.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the report written by Mary Portas, and there is much to commend in that report, but I disagree with some aspects of it. Sadly, Mary Portas is very disparaging about out-of-town centres, yet that negative approach is misplaced. She asserts that out-of-town centres have a negative social and environmental impact on the areas where they are situated. That is simply not my experience. I am not sure what negative impact they have on the environment in which they are situated. On the social impact, in my experience, they have a positive, not a negative, impact on the local area. When I visit Bluewater shopping centre, I see families enjoying meals out, cinema visits and socialising with others. This is a good thing for the local area and is part of the positive social impact that Bluewater, for example, has had on my local area.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am glad to hear about the families enjoying themselves at Bluewater, but does my hon. Friend not agree that if they are enjoying themselves there—or, indeed, at Cribbs Causeway or other out-of-town shopping centres—in the way that he described, it means that they are not doing so in the town centres?
Gareth Johnson
Yes, but I do not feel that it is an either/or situation. Many families can enjoy both the high streets and the out-of-town shopping centres, but in different ways. Very often, out-of-town shopping centres can be destinations that people enjoy.
Robert Halfon
I invite my hon. Friend to the Harvey shopping centre in Harlow. It is a wonderful shopping centre integrated with shops in the local town centre. Does he not agree, though, that the answer to his conundrum is to have a level playing field, as I mentioned earlier, so that high streets have the same rights as shopping malls and out-of-town centres?
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend extends a kind invitation but he need not have because I have visited Harlow shopping centre many times. It was a very pleasant experience, but I do not agree with the assertion made by some—not by him—that we can make high streets better by making out-of-town shopping centres worse. That is simply not the case. We need to ensure that both shopping destinations are vibrant.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member think that although the high streets might offer certain qualities and a particular type of shopping experience to shoppers, they also need the prices and the bargains? I do not do any of the shopping—my wife does that, and she always looks for the bargains, as I am sure is the case with every hon. Lady in the House.
Gareth Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. People will always be out bargain hunting when they are shopping. My wife is exactly the same, but there is also a place for quality in the marketplace.
Let me make some progress. Mary Portas has said that out-of-town shopping centres are responsible for job displacement. Bluewater shopping centre employs some 15,000 people. I simply do not accept that that number of people lost their jobs in the local high streets as a result of Bluewater opening. If these assertions are incorrect for Bluewater and north Kent, I presume that they do not apply elsewhere either.
In many ways, the success of many our out-of-town shopping centres helps to highlight what is needed in our high streets. In short, high streets can learn from out-of-town shopping centres. High streets need to become attractive, safe locations for people to spend their time, day or night; they need to be attractive to families and to people who will want to spend quality time there.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as much as anything else, town centres must remain accessible and that planning authorities have too much of a tendency to force change in transport systems, like imposing one-way systems or parking restrictions? In so doing, they are often limiting the town centre; they want to force a retailer to pay just because it has come into the town.
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course town centres need to be accessible. Perhaps the most popular way of achieving that is through car parking provisions. This is how shoppers want to do their shopping; if they have heavy shopping bags, they might not wish to use public transport, however good it is.
It is essential that high streets offer more than just shopping. Too many high streets look the same and offer the same as each other, so they need a diverse range of attractions. High streets are facing an increasing range of challenges. Yes, the economic downturn has hit the high street hard, and it continues to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, internet shopping has also had an impact. High streets that offer something different can often flourish. Farmers’ markets draw people into the high street and continental food markets are also extremely popular. Ensuring that there is a permanent residential population in the town centre is important, too, in order to avoid high streets looking like ghost towns after dark. Having an effective town centre forum or chamber of commerce working with local councillors and planners can help to ensure that ideas and plans are thought through before they are implemented.
What I welcome in Mary Portas’s report is her support for a team approach to high street planning. I also support her suggestion of tackling the number of empty shops we see in the high street. We should not single out banks, which she suggests we should, but should target all retailers on this issue. Her report suggests that councillors should be given the power to tackle situations where, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) pointed out, there is a problem with the number of betting shops in a particular area. I disagree with Mary Portas, as we should not single out betting shops; we should adopt the same approach to all retailers and prevent any one kind of retailer from monopolising a particular street or particular part of the high street.
In conclusion, the future prosperity of British high streets is one of the biggest challenges the country faces. There is no simple solution to the problem. It seems, however, that with innovation, team work and an understanding of the needs of the people, high streets could once again flourish in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Given that a number of Members wish to catch the eye of the Chair, I shall now reduce the time limit to five minutes. I want to ensure that everyone can contribute, so I ask Members to exercise some restraint in interventions. Members who wish both to intervene and to speak will be placed lower on the list. Let me reassure Members that I want to treat everyone as fairly as possible.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
We all want our town centres to be successful, and to provide employment and high-quality goods and services for the local community. In my constituency, more than 5,700 people are employed in the retail sector, but, like other town centres, Stockport is facing the challenges posed by changing shopping habits. One of the challenges is undoubtedly the growth in internet sales, which currently account for 12.2% of all sales. Some estimates suggest that e-commerce accounted for nearly half of the retail sales growth in the United Kingdom between 2003 and 2010, and we have seen a dramatic increase of more than 500% in “m-commerce”—sales over mobile devices—in the past two years.
In every town centre the well-known retail brands have a presence, and, together with independent retailers and markets, they have been the face of the high street in town after town. However, it is becoming clear that because of changes in shopping habits, retailers are going to need fewer shops. Some big names have announced that they are considering whether they have the right number and size of stores, including Arcadia, the owner of BHS, which is examining the future of 260 stores.
I believe that the challenge is for retailers to harness the power of the internet in ways that can benefit them and stop the decline of town centres accelerating as some well-known brands pull out. A growing school of thought believes that the internet, and specifically the evolution of multi-channel and social media, provides a significant opportunity for the future success of our towns and cities. The good news is that about a fifth of all internet transactions in the UK involve some in-store research, so internet shopping does not mean that people are abandoning the high street.
Analysis by Experian has revealed that one in 10 consumers use their mobile phones or “tablets” in stores to check the price of goods elsewhere before deciding whether to buy, and that nearly 31% of the UK population now fall into the category of multi-channel shoppers: those who use the internet, trips to stores, price checks on mobile devices, and advice from friends and their “virtual” networks to decide whether to make a purchase. It is clearly not as simple as shoppers deserting the high street for their computers or mobile devices. Indeed, a factor identified in the same report is the frustration with online shopping that is driving consumers back to the high street. The report states that 60% of online shoppers have expressed frustration about the arrival of deliveries while they were out, and that 50% have received products that they did not consider to match the online description.
It is for those reasons that many high street stores are offering more flexible “click and collect” purchasing, which enables customers to shop online and collect in stores. The number of non-food retail purchases to which that applies is expected to increase from a fifth to a third by 2020. Some companies are also encouraging customers to browse online in kiosks in their own stores, or are providing showrooms where customers can browse and receive specialist advice. All those factors are attracting shoppers back to the high street, and are providing opportunities for retailers who get their strategy right to survive.
Big names with collection points and web kiosks that have embraced the internet could in future provide an attractive anchor for town centres, and draw people into the high street. That in turn could increase investment in town centres, and enable each town to develop its own unique offer of, for instance, markets, independent specialist shops and cultural attractions. That, as Mary Portas says, is the key to high street success.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Last month Eastwood lost its only shoe shop because Jonathan James went into liquidation. Does my hon. Friend agree that a healthy economy is central to a healthy high street?
Ann Coffey
Absolutely, and the difficulty that retailers currently face is partly due to the consequences of the wider economic conditions. I also agree with Mary Portas that it is important for town centre partnerships to work together to meet the new challenges, and for councils to provide access to shopping and adequate parking. Innovative retailers can harness the power of the internet and e-commerce to change the way in which they do business.
Rehman Chishti
Does the hon. Lady agree that local authorities need show stronger leadership and come up with more innovative ideas, such as Medway council’s card that gives people discounts when they use local facilities such as restaurants and theatres?
Ann Coffey
I entirely agree. In a debate before Christmas, I talked about a unique offer in Stockport that combined discounts at cultural venues and in shops. Locally, there is a lot of similar innovative thinking about how we might attract people back into our town centres.
In October 2011 a well-known retailer opened a store without any stock. Customers select their product on iPads for delivery to the store or to their homes. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research published alongside the Portas review noted that this was
“an innovative use of bringing the internet to high street”.
Another big retailer has also reported “strong multi-channel” sales growth and plans to extend web kiosks in small stores to give access to a wider range of products, and a further influential company said that the success of its “click and collect” option had been so great that it planned to double the number of collection points in its stores. That is good news for town centres and it illustrates the fact that we should not see internet shopping as a threat—it can be harnessed to bring vibrancy and shoppers back to our high streets.
Like many people, I shop on the internet but also enjoy the social aspect of shopping in my local town centre and Stockport market. Like many of us, I do not want to lose the socialising opportunities that a vibrant town centre and market can offer or the sense of being part of a community that they provide, but nor do I want to lose the convenience of shopping online in the evening. We need to get the balance right for both to thrive nationally and locally. That is the challenge facing us all in reviving and developing our town centres.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. As so many Members are seeking to catch my eye, I shall reduce the time limit on speeches still further if there are frequent interventions. I hope colleagues will heed that warning and try to restrain themselves.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome today’s debate and the opportunity to discuss this most important issue. When thinking about my contribution today, I was reminded of the following headline in The Guardian in 2009: “Empty, unlet and unloved: the new British high street.” Over the past few years, we have become very aware of the demise of our high streets. Challenging economic circumstances, stretched consumers and a new breed of large out-of-town shopping centres and supermarkets are all part of the problem, but we in central and local government must also shoulder some of the blame. Above all, we must take the problems seriously and act now to halt the damage already done. I therefore welcome the independent Portas review and its recommendations on the future of our high streets. The findings seem sensible and offer a pragmatic, systematic way forward.
When choosing where to shop, many people become flippant about the struggle our high streets face. I, too, am guilty of that. We do not automatically associate our shopping transactions with the survival of the high street. We think someone else will shop there or use its services. That attitude needs to change.
My constituency of Edinburgh West is a collection of communities close to a major city centre. Corstorphine is at the heart of the constituency and has what would probably best be described as a traditional high street: linear in appearance and with all the usual amenities one would expect, including a butcher, a baker—but no candlestick maker—hairdressers, dentists, estate agents, charity shops and pubs.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another facility we would expect to find on our high streets is a branch of a bank? However, in my constituency Barclays has closed its branch in Rhayader high street and HSBC is going to close its branch in Presteigne. Such closures pull our high streets still further downwards. We should let banks know that we expect them to respect the communities they serve.
Mike Crockart
That is an important point, but we can hope that that problem will be addressed by the welcome widening of competition through Virgin Money, the Co-operative Bank and others opening on our high streets.
High street businesses and the services they provide would be missed if they were to go, but the majority of people still do their shopping at the Tesco Extra, or other superstore, down the road. It has parking, everything is under one roof and for some products it is more competitively priced. I fear that many high street shops do well because of an older generation for whom they provide a social amenity. That is worrying for their future.
The high streets in Kirkliston and in Davidson’s Mains, which are also in my constituency, are surviving but they are arguably not thriving. People can walk to the shops and businesses, which are friendly and provide a focal point for the community, but not many new businesses are moving in; growth has stalled, it would appear. But in another area, South Queensferry, the high street is bustling. Why is that? It is because it is a completely different entity. It is a tourist attraction, where small independent shops are found alongside well-respected one-off hotels and restaurants. It has a clear strength and is playing to it. In the other areas, it would be a positive step if the local communities, authorities, planners and business leaders were given the opportunity to talk frankly about the direction in which they should and could move.
The Portas review makes 28 recommendations, covering many things that I do not propose to discuss in any great detail. All of them are important parts of the solution, but the experience in Edinburgh shows that the solution for each area—each separate high street—will be different and will need different elements of all these suggestions and many others if there is to be success. Local involvement will be key to delivering that. In England, the focus will be on the national planning policy framework, but in Scotland I await the national planning framework 2 monitoring report from the Scottish Government to see whether progress will be made.
Finally, I wish briefly to discuss new technologies, which were mentioned by the previous speaker, and their role in the success or decline of our high streets and town centres. The growth of online shopping has often been associated with the decline of familiar high street names— Woolworths and HMV, to name but two—and I cannot argue wholly against that view. Indeed, Interactive Media in Retail Group forecasts from last year suggested that high street spending would drop by 2% over Christmas while online spending would increase by 16% and that 25% of seasonal shopping would take place online, with 12% being made via a mobile. Some 58% of large stores now have mobile websites; m-commerce is beginning to have a huge impact.
However, modern technology is not always the enemy. In the more rural part of my constituency, residents and business owners face cripplingly slow broadband connection speeds. I am campaigning for improvements, because not only do residents have a right to fast, reliable internet connections, but businesses need them in order to flourish and grow. I have been contacted by numerous business owners who say that the poor connection slows down card transactions in their restaurants, that without a website that they can update quickly and easily their business suffers and that any subsidiary online shopping facilities are limited because of the poor provision. If the connection could be improved, the online might not always lead to off-street sales.
The key to saving our high streets lies in allowing them to diversify to meet diverse demand. In some areas, such as South Queensferry, this will be achieved through tourism, whereas in others, such as Corstorphine, it will occur through meeting local needs. I believe that this Government are willing to work with local communities, authorities and businesses large and small to turn the tide. It is a refreshing and very welcome attitude.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I welcome the Portas review, which is well researched. It makes 28 excellent recommendations, many of which I agree with. Portas mentions out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres. My constituency has not had any of those for 15 years; it has had town centre supermarkets and town centre shopping centres, which are a lot better than those out of town. However, in Prestatyn, in my constitutency, Somerfield and Tesco each owned half of one such site, and I believe that some of the supermarkets have land banks. These are not so much about developing their own stores as about keeping other stores out, and that issue needs addressing if we are to develop town centres. Where town centre developments are coming, the time scale should not be 15 years; it should be a lot shorter. When these town centre shopping centres are built, the impact on the local community should also be assessed. While there is a lot of building, disruption and road works, the Valuation Office Agency should be proactive and should give businesses the forms to apply for a rate reduction. This should not be left to happenstance or accident.
Let me also pay tribute to Tesco. When it said it was going to establish stores in my constituency, in Prestatyn and at the Cathco site in Denbigh, I wrote and asked whether it would take 50% of its employees from the dole register, and it agreed. There can be some positive benefits. If companies are developing near the town centre, they need to be integrated as far as possible with the town centre, with lots of coach parking that will benefit not just the shopping centre but the high street, too.
My constituency is blessed with a long-established market in Prestatyn. A market has just been established in Rhyl by a man called Ray Worsnop without a penny from the public purse. He set it up, he made mistakes but it is now up to 50 stalls strong in the centre of Rhyl high street. When someone is trying to establish a new market there are often tensions in the community. As Mary Portas says, we should establish markets and even car boot sales in the town centre.
Jim Shannon
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Portas review is very important. It mentions America and France, but not good practice in Northern Ireland. One example of that is the chamber of trade working with the council to provide financial incentives, such as reduced car parking charges and a transport system that brings people from the edge of towns to the centre.
Chris Ruane
I absolutely agree. We should look not just to England but to England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and beyond. If best practice is out there, let us bring it back to our high streets. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Markets, as Mary Portas said, will be integral, but how do we establish new markets? What are the lessons to be learned? She also mentions the social aspect of town centres. In Rhyl, we are trying to bring the town alive. The piazzas and public performance areas are empty. Young children who have trained for the children’s eisteddfod go down to Cardiff to perform, but do not perform in their own high street. We have a folk club, a jazz club, a music club and an operatic society: they should be doing public performances. There should be dwell time within a town centre, so people can sit, listen and talk. That is what Mary Portas is saying and we should be listening to her. In Rhyl and Prestatyn, which are seaside towns, we have promenades. The word “promenade” means “to walk”. We do not do enough walking or socialising. We are all on this treadmill of work, work, work and work. We need time to relax and we should be relaxing in our high streets—[Interruption.] Especially in Rhyl.
Mary Portas also addresses the issue of empty shops, and a lot more can be done. Empty shops and derelict properties bring a bad image to a town. In my home town, Rhyl, about six or seven derelict properties were filmed by national TV crews over 20 years. A sign outside one of the properties had been altered so that it read that it was Rhyl’s biggest receiver of stolen goods—nothing had been sold there for 20 years, but the TV cameras would come along and pan across the sign. I went up a stepladder with some black paint and painted it out—two years later, the building was demolished. It should not be left to the antics of a maverick MP to blot such things out; it should be done by the local authority.
Agreements are already in place; councils have section 215 powers. I believe that Hastings council is one of the best in the country in this regard, and I urge other hon. Members to look into it. It sent me a full pack that said exactly what our councils could be doing. Section 215 action can be taken against derelict properties that bring the neighbouring properties into disrepute. Those measures are already available, but they are not being used. Compulsory purchase orders should be used and the whole procedure should be streamlined.
There are many excellent suggestions. Mary Portas also mentions providing a disincentive to landlords to leave premises empty, especially when children’s groups, local artists and voluntary groups are looking for places to use. It is much better to see a light on in a building and actors performing, painters painting or children gathering together, than to see windows shuttered and covered in Billy Smart’s circus posters, seagull faeces and all manner of detritus. Empty shops should be converted into something positive for the community.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I shall be brief because a large number of hon. Members are trying to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and because I suspect that a great many of them, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), want to say the same kind of thing and are generally in agreement with the excellent Mary Portas report, to which I shall not refer further except to say that I broadly support most of its 28 proposals.
Hon. Members with an idle moment or two might find it amusing to look at my first-class website jamesgray.org, which was done not by me but by others, where they will find among other things, very wickedly, a video clip of my maiden speech. If they watch that they will see a fresh-faced, dark-haired, slender and keen young fellow speaking from these very Benches some 15 years ago.
Mr Gray
This is what happens when someone represents North Wiltshire for 15 years. In that speech, I went to some lengths to address some of the issues that we are talking about, namely that my constituency had a number of small market towns surrounded by beautiful rural countryside, and how we could prevent that countryside from being built on. That shows both that nothing changes and, I hope, that I have done a reasonable job of living up to my promise and preventing developers from building all over my beautiful constituency.
My constituency provides a case study of these issues; indeed Mary Portas or others might want to use it as a case study or it could be part of one of her pilot studies. We have a variety of market towns, some of which have more flourishing high streets than others. The most famous of those high streets, internationally, at the moment is that of Royal Wootton Bassett, where we have a superb community spirit. Why do we have that spirit? Because Royal Wootton Bassett has a flourishing, vibrant high street and no out-of-town shopping. There is a very good Sainsbury’s, which is 100 yards away from the town hall at which we all stood in silent remembrance of our passing fallen soldiers until very recently.
Equally, in the town of Calne, we have a first-class supermarket right in the town centre. In Malmesbury so far we have no out-of-town shopping, but in the neighbouring town of Chippenham, which is just outside my constituency, there is a large number of out-of-town shopping centres and I am afraid that Chippenham high street is not as vibrant and great a place as it once was. I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who I think will be speaking in a moment or two, will seek to explain why that should be.
This is not just about shopping, it is also about housing. Chippenham is currently looking to expand by 4,000 or 5,000 houses. This very afternoon, people in Trowbridge at Wiltshire council’s headquarters are considering a strategic way forward for areas such as the Birds Marsh estate, which is just outside my hon. Friend’s constituency but in my constituency. I very much hope that they will listen to local people, some 600 or 700 of whom have said they want no further expansion of the town of Chippenham into my constituency. The same issues apply elsewhere. We have to keep our high streets vibrant by preventing developers from spreading out into the countryside.
That brings me finally to a very interesting case in point—the town of Malmesbury. At the moment, two applications are in place, one from Waitrose and one from Sainsbury’s, to build out-of-town shopping centres outside Malmesbury. They claim those centres would provide x hundred new jobs, and of course they might, but in reality they would be jobs that currently exist. They claim that Malmesbury would benefit under section 106 agreements because there would be buses from Sainsbury’s car park into the town centre and there would be a staircase from the Waitrose up to the town centre. They say, “There would be all sorts of benefits for the people of Malmesbury. Aren’t they lucky to have us, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose, coming to build in the town?” But, no, we are not lucky at all. Waitrose and Sainsbury’s are going there for one reason only: to make a profit for their shareholders out of selling groceries to passing trade. That is of no benefit whatever to the town of Malmesbury, and I very much hope that the local authority, when it considers this matter, will turn down both applications—from Waitrose and Sainsbury’s.
Malmesbury has a vibrant and superb high street with a great community, which is not dissimilar to that in neighbouring Royal Wootton Bassett. If we allow the building of two new supermarkets on the outskirts of the town or of housing, which has also been threatened around the outskirts of Malmesbury, we will land up with urban sprawl of the worst possible kind and with a reduction in the vibrancy of the high street, which would become similar to those in one or two other towns in our area. I appeal to the planners who are sitting in Trowbridge this very afternoon considering these matters to realise that if we allow developers to build on greenfield sites, that is precisely what they will do because they want to build on greenfield sites. Only by preventing them from doing so will we force them to build in our town centres, to redevelop brownfield sites and to redevelop and add vibrancy to our town centres.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on their work in securing this interesting debate.
Given the time available, I shall deal with just two or three issues, in particular what can be done generally. VAT is a big issue and Members have already talked about how we could improve business rates. We should consider how we can do more to encourage the private sector to invest in town centres and high streets, by being proactive with councils and in the local community. We also need to look at some of the laws and regulations in terms of what could be done better to streamline compulsory purchase and to promote fairer competition between small and large retailers. Although supermarkets get a lot of criticism, they provide many jobs, as the likes of Morrisons, Asda and Tesco do in my constituency. Indeed, Tesco is about to open a new superstore and we also have a major distribution centre. In Widnes, those companies are all in the town centre and add to it, although there is an impact on some other shops.
The situation is different in Runcorn.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about getting more private investment into town centres, with big and small retailers working together. Does he agree that business improvement districts, such as the one we have in Truro and Falmouth, are an excellent mechanism for doing that?
Derek Twigg
I completely agree that it is important to get small and larger retailers working with the local community and the local authority. I should also like reinforcement of the powers of councils to stop too many takeaway or betting shops setting up in town centres, which is a problem in many areas.
I want to compare two towns in my constituency: Runcorn and Widnes. With a chemical industry heritage, Widnes has done particularly well. The town centre has been turned around, and there are a number of large supermarkets; in fact, Asda moved from an out-of-town site to the town centre. There has been good development of land in the area to promote such initiatives, which involve leisure as well as retail. We have a cinema and a bowling alley and an ice rink is coming. Widnes has done well to attract retailers and other investors to the town centre.
A key factor in attracting people has been Halton borough council’s deliberate free car parking policy. It has also ensured that car parks were built. As other Members have said, it is nonsense to try to rule cars out of town centres; people want to use their cars and we should encourage them to do so, while of course improving public transport links to our town centres and high streets.
In Widnes, there has been some impact on local retailers and a number of the older businesses that were there when I was growing up are there no longer, although Geddes bicycle shop still provides the same excellent service for the community. However, other shops have been set up in the town centre to serve niche markets and that is an important factor.
On the other side of the river is Runcorn, whose town centre has not done so well, despite Halton borough council’s excellent investment in development. One of the problems, and perhaps a lesson for the future, is that when Runcorn new town was set up, some individuals decided that we needed a new town centre a mile or two away from the existing one. It is called Runcorn shopping city, and although it is not a great success it had an impact on the traditional town centre. That has been a major problem, so when new towns grow in future and there are developments with significant numbers of houses we should learn the lessons from what happened in Runcorn.
The council has not had the success it wanted, so a year or two ago I took the initiative and set up a working group involving local residents and retailers, the chamber of commerce and the local authority. We explored how we could work together to bring developers to Runcorn town centre to try to regenerate it with more shops and retail. That means, as has already been said, that we need more people living in the town centre.
In Runcorn, we are particularly blessed with waterways, such as the Bridgewater, Mersey and Ship canals, so there is an attractive area to be developed in the town centre. There is great desire for that among my constituents, but great frustration that nothing has happened. The town centre is typical in that it has been harmed by other developments that have taken place over the past 10 to 30 years. Supermarkets have not been built in the town centre, but away from it. The town has many attractions, and that is part of the issue. We have to build on a town centre’s strengths. We heard that town centres should not all be the same, and should not all look the same, and the way forward is niche shops and a different type of design, building on an area’s strengths. In Runcorn’s case, the waterways can make it an attractive place to live, shop and eat.
Those are the sort of things that we must explore for our town centres in future. Involving the local community is crucial, and if we can develop residency and housing, that will bring people to the town centre, so that it does not become a ghost town at certain times of the day or night. I believe strongly that the Mary Portas report introduces many good ideas. Some powers already exist for councils to use, but we should look at how we can further improve powers to level the playing field and make it easier to develop those areas and bring in extra investment.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I would like to speak about a modern, British high street success story, rare as that is. Despite the obvious challenges facing the retail industry, the proactive approach in Chester in the past few years has resulted in resounding success. Our high street is the epitome of what towns and cities across the country should aim to achieve.
As many Members will be aware, Chester is a beautiful, historic city with a long history as a market town. Like every other part of the country, we face a threat to our traditional economy as a result of increased competition, internet shopping and out-of-town retail parks. Over the past three years, however, Chester’s high street has beaten the recession, and the statistics speak for themselves. As the Portas review highlights, excluding central London, high street footfall has fallen nationally by about 10% in the past three years. In Chester, however, we have had three years of consecutive growth, and our high street vacancy rate is similarly outperforming the rest of the UK. Compared with the rest of the country, Chester has proved to be remarkably resilient.
In the foreword to her review, Mary Portas speaks of the complex web of interests and stakeholders involved in the health of a high street, noting that many of those parties simply fail to collaborate or compromise for the greater good. Her solution is to put in place a town team to provide vision, strategy and strong operational management for high streets.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that success and resilience are the result of empowering local people to make the decisions that will affect their local area, and in towns such as Romsey that is exactly what should happen when there is an out-of-town planning application for a Tesco store?
Stephen Mosley
I cannot speak for Romsey, but in Chester, that is exactly what we have done. That approach was identified by the Conservatives when we took over the council in 2007, and resulted in the creation of Chester City Management, a body of local stakeholders, independent of the local authority, whose sole focus is on bringing footfall to the city. Many of the areas highlighted in the Portas review were identified by Chester City Management as the key to future success.
I should like to focus on one of those areas to showcase the way in which a little ingenuity and flexibility can make a significant difference to footfall. Town centre car parking, as we have heard, is vital to the economy of any city or town centre. Car parking that is too expensive, or a lack of car parking, has just one effect: to discourage people from visiting town centres, encouraging them to travel to out-of-town shopping centres instead. In Chester, we had year after year of inflation-busting increases in parking charges. Car parking was treated as a cash cow rather than as a tool to help local business. When I took over as the executive member responsible for car parking on Chester city council in 2007, I was all too aware of the detrimental effect of limited, high-cost parking on our high street. Along with the city centre manager, Mr Stephen Wundke, I thought up and launched Chester’s free after three scheme, offering free parking after 3pm every day in three of the city’s major car parks. The scheme was specifically targeted at local residents to encourage them to visit the town centre after school pick-up or work. Unlike the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the local Labour party did not like it and claimed that the reduction in car parking income would mean higher council tax and that residents would end up subsidising visitors to the city.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
To give my hon. Friend a further example on the same point, this very day my own council, which we took control of from the Labour party last May and which introduced free car parking, has been criticised by the Labour group for daring to reduce its income from car parking. In our area free parking, as my hon. Friend described in Chester, has increased footfall substantially.
Stephen Mosley
Absolutely. My local Labour party complained not just about that, but about the extra cars that were coming to the city. But despite Labour’s objections the free after three scheme was launched. It was supported by a huge publicity campaign in the newspapers and adverts on local radio, backed and funded by local businesses, and it was a huge success, seeing a massive increase in footfall in the city after 3 o’clock. Three years later it is still free after 3 in Chester, and footfall is now up by 23%. Free after three has been copied in towns and cities across the country, and it has even made its way into the Portas review, on page 27, as a model of best practice for others to follow.
In Chester, we have worked harder and smarter than most to keep our city and our high street vibrant. It is a credit to the local authority and organisations such as Chester City Management that we have been able to beat the national trend. It just remains for me to extend an open invitation to all right hon. and hon. Members and people outside the Chamber: if they wish to see first hand a thriving and successful high street, they are all very welcome to come to Chester, put their hands in their pockets, spend their money and enjoy their visit.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing the debate. I warmly welcome his speech and the tone of it.
My constituency covers the towns of Hyde, Stalybridge and Mossley, as well as some smaller localities, all with their own high streets. The people in these towns care very much about the future of their town centres and high streets, and they are concerned about the decline that they have seen. I welcome the chance that we have today to discuss the Portas review.
Over the past year I have been working closely with local businesses, particularly in Stalybridge where the decline has been the fastest, to try to find ways of supporting our town centre. I welcome the support and inspiration that that report has provided. The review points to many of the concerns that have been highlighted by people I have spoken to in Stalybridge, such as fewer reasons to visit the high street and limited parking when they do. It presents a number of measures that could attract shoppers back to the high street in greater numbers. I want to say immediately that I support very many of the ideas contained in it.
Creating strong identities, providing greater strategic vision and ensuring that towns have a range of outlets and opening hours that match the needs of their customers are among the sensible measures that could be used to make a real difference. The acknowledgement that it is not just about retail is crucial. In addition, the review contains specific proposals, such as reclassifying the use category of betting shops, and suggesting measures that could rid our town centres of the blight of empty and derelict buildings—things that I very much support. However, it is important to recognise that a number of elements in the report would require significant investment, whether that is reduced business rates or free parking. It is difficult in the present climate to see where those resources might come from.
Today I want to share with the House some of the challenges faced by traders in my local towns. For those Members who have not yet been lucky enough to spend time in Stalybridge, I shall say a little about it. Stalybridge is a former mill town which has the Huddersfield narrow canal running through it. It has benefited in the past from regeneration to open up that canal and the area around Armentieres square. Many of the former mills have been transformed into loft-style apartments by companies such as Urban Splash. It has a population of over 20,000 with a range of incomes and housing, from social housing to properties currently on the market for more than £1 million, so it should be able to support a decent town centre.
In the past the focus has been on the night-time economy, leading some people to dub us “Staly Vegas”, but on its own the night-time economy is too limited a vision to sustain a thriving high street and town centre. Stalybridge has good transport links to Manchester and Leeds, and it could be an ideal choice for those seeking a leisurely cappuccino by the canal or an afternoon browsing in the shops.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency neighbours mine, agree that one of the problems is getting people into and out of town centres? I am sure that he does, as we are having a joint meeting on Friday to discuss roads. I have spent many hours on Mottram road trying to get into and out of Stalybridge. We have a joint problem with roads and access that is further cramping the town centres of Stalybridge and Glossop in my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with his comments. In this case it is not just about traffic going through Mottram and Hollingworth in my constituency, but about how we can open up the asset of the Peak District national park in his constituency, which would be very much to our benefit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you could spend a pleasant afternoon in Stalybridge, given its location and amenities, but unfortunately alongside our picturesque canal there is currently a burnt-out health club, which is an eyesore, and a once thriving pub that is now boarded up. Frankly, it looks a bit like a bomb site. There is an empty former police station and a former NHS clinic nearby, and an increasing number of shops on the high street are empty and shuttered up. As a result, few people now think of a visit to our town centre as an afternoon out.
Derelict buildings are a blot on our townscapes. Landlords are often reluctant to maintain their buildings or sell them, particularly if their value has fallen, and the powers to force those owners, who might not even live in this country, let alone the community, to take any action can be cumbersome and difficult to enforce. I have been working with my local authority to try to rectify the worst cases, particularly the burnt-out health club, but I recognise that it is very difficult, and that we are asking local authorities to incur significant liabilities at a difficult time, which they are not always in a position to do.
I am pleased that the Portas review recognises the detrimental impact that empty properties can have and calls for an exploration of further disincentives to prevent landlords from leaving units vacant. Removing empty property rate relief from landlords who fail to invest in their properties, or fining those who keep a significant proportion of their portfolios empty, are both measures that should be looked at. Dealing with derelict buildings would make a real difference in Stalybridge, and I would be keen for my town to pilot any scheme that would help. I suspect that I will not be the only Member making that request today. Indeed, this is such an important part of the review that I believe that it could have gone even further.
As has been mentioned, parking is a significant factor in the health of our town centres, particularly when supermarkets and out-of-town developments can offer free parking. The review’s solution is to suggest free parking schemes. Appealing as that might sound, we must recognise the reality that many local authorities are struggling for resources and, if they were simply forced down that route, might choose to sell off their car parks instead.
Our town centres could have a very strong future. The report recognises that retailers change but there is still a role for town centres if we get the offer right. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it today. I would like the Government to tell us how they will take forward and implement the report. I hope that it can be used as a springboard for communities such as mine to take a lead in designing their town centres in future.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I am grateful for being called to speak, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate. The number of Members present indicates how important this matter is, not only to us but to our constituents.
I shall start by outlining the situation in my constituency. Sherwood comprises a number of small former coalfield towns with high streets and market areas. They are all are under enormous pressure, but those individual towns face very different challenges and vary greatly in their approach to them. In summary, there is no silver bullet that will solve individual problems, which have to be sorted out at local level, and many different challenges have to be addressed. Some of those challenges affect all the towns and are similar wherever we go. Many Members have talked about the rateable value of properties once they become empty, and the challenge of how to put pressure on landlords to let them.
Landlords have a role to play, however, because when they are approached by individual retailers about empty properties, the rent that they want to charge and the length of the lease that they want to offer on shops can sometimes be an enormous challenge to anybody wanting to start a small business. Somebody who has not run a shop may want to dip their toe in the water, and then take the big leap and start their own business, but if they approach a landlord who wants an extraordinarily high rent and a very long lease, they can find it daunting to commit themselves to that process and sign on the dotted line, knowing that they might expose not only their business but their home and other assets. So landlords have a role to play.
Local authorities have a role to play as well. Members have mentioned parking schemes, and it is worth reiterating the impact on someone’s decision-making process of the cost of parking a vehicle. They may want to buy just a newspaper or a pint of milk and think, “Where am I going to do that?” If they have to pay 50p to park their car to buy milk, they will choose somewhere free of charge, rather than somewhere where they have to pay almost the price of the bottle of milk to park before they can buy it.
I compliment the councils local to me that have taken the trouble to abolish parking charges so that residents can make that choice, but we have to understand why charges are in place. In my constituency there are places where, once charges have been completely removed, other residents use the spaces to park and ride into the city of Nottingham, blocking up car parks and preventing shoppers from using them.
There is also an enormous emphasis on consumers. Many Members have mentioned supermarkets located close to a high street, but they will not be successful unless consumers make use of them by going in there and spending their money. Consumers are very good at saying, “We want our high street to be successful,” but sometimes they talk the talk and do not walk the walk: they use supermarkets rather than supporting their high street. Consumers cannot have it both ways, however. They have to make use of the high street and ensure that they support the shops in their community.
We also need to look at the physical size of the high street. In certain towns it may be possible to convert some properties from retail to residential use and thus shrink the high street, to make a more concentrated area of shops, where we can address their quality, fill the empty ones with shops from the periphery and allow for the residential use of the peripheral properties. That would have the knock-on effect of taking the pressure off the green belt around our towns, and we could include residential areas on our high streets.
I am grateful for having had this opportunity to speak, and I encourage my constituents to go out and make use of their high street. The strapline for this debate should be “Use it or lose it”.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate. The future of the town centre and the high street is a subject that probably affects every constituency in the country. I shall take this opportunity to describe my experience of town centre development, because ever since I became a Member at the 2007 Sedgefield by-election, the future of Newton Aycliffe town centre has been an ongoing issue. In fact, my first Adjournment debate was about the town centre and the problems that it was facing.
Newton Aycliffe was one of the first new towns established under the New Towns Act 1946, and work on it started on June 28 1948. William Beveridge was the first chair of the Newton Aycliffe development corporation, the first row of shops in the town was built in 1952 on Neville parade, and construction of the town centre itself began in 1957.
In those early years the town centre was seen as a bustling environment with thriving shops, and everybody of a particular age in Newton Aycliffe has fond memories of it, but then, in the 1960s, things began to stall. The planners could not make up their minds about the future direction of the town and its predicted population, and as a result hesitation stepped in. There were plans for a new town centre, which were eventually rejected.
In 1963 Lord Hailsham’s report on the future of the north-east predicted an increase in the town’s population, but because of hesitation and a poor decision-making process, it took 12 years from the Hailsham report and the consent of a Secretary of State before a few shops were built. In 1974 a leisure centre was built. By the 1980s the town’s biographer, Garry Philipson, said in his book “Aycliffe and Peterlee New Towns” that there was
“indecision and consequent lengthy delay regarding the new towns’ target population and, subsequently, the form of town centre redevelopment.”
The delays and setbacks have continued into this century, but I think that we have started to turn the corner over the past three years. About 10 years ago Tesco built a store about 500 yards from the town centre. Today that is taking £1 million a week out of the town, which has a population of about 28,000. People might comment on the superstore’s hold on the town centre, but everyone still seems to use the shop.
The town centre is still making progress. The old dilapidated health centre has been demolished, Wilkinson has opened a new store, and the row of shops in Dalton way has been demolished. That will make room for a new Aldi supermarket, which will be built and opened in the course of this year, adding welcome competition for Tesco. The leisure centre is to become the site of a community hub with a new library, newly configured health provision and a community space. The structural monstrosity known as “the ramp”, which links the centre’s two floors and the car park is to be dismantled, and a row of shops near the leisure centre is to be demolished, creating a thoroughfare. That will open up to the outside world a town centre that currently seems enclosed and uninviting to potential customers.
For the residents of Newton Aycliffe, the history of their town centre has been laced with a good dose of frustration. In the past few years I have experienced that frustration myself. To bring a halt to the delays and ensure that progress could be made, my predecessor arranged for the planners, developers and other stakeholders to sit down around the same table to thrash out their problems at the beginning of 2007. That was the first time that those people had sat down together in the same room to work out the problems.
There have still been frustrations. For example, before planning could be agreed for the Aldi store, a stopping-up order had to be in place on a footpath. That process could not run concurrently with other planning issues, but had to happen sequentially, which caused unnecessary delay, given that the path has not been missed and the process was holding up economic development and job creation. The planning regime does not need wholesale reform, but some common sense must be applied when implementing the existing planning regime.
Even with the best will of the developers, planners and stakeholders, the bureaucratic nightmare generated by the utility companies was a problem. The gas and electricity companies would arrange to sort out problems on the building site of the new supermarket and then knock back the date. They found pipes that they did not know were there. I have spent many phone calls to the utility companies trying to get them to stick to the plans. Some Members might argue that such incompetence is the preserve of the public sector, but I can guarantee that it is not.
I believe that we are now turning the corner in Newton Aycliffe. I say to my constituents in the town that although they might walk through the centre and think that things are not happening, they can rest assured that they are. We look forward to having a prosperous town centre in Newton Aycliffe.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this timely debate. It gives me an opportunity to speak about ongoing town developments in Bracknell, which I celebrate and support. I will talk about those developments, Bracknell itself and make some personal suggestions of what might enhance the town and make it more sustainable.
Bracknell is geographically at the heart of Berkshire. More than 100,000 people live in the Bracknell Forest borough. It is surrounded by some relatively affluent areas. Consequently, a town centre development is a viable proposition. The Work Foundation last year named Bracknell, jointly, the location likely to recover best during the economic recovery. It has a growth sector in technology, with 11 of the 15 biggest software companies in the world based in or near Bracknell. However, the town centre itself needs development. It is fair to say, and a widely shared view, that the centre of Bracknell does not look its best. It has long needed a development plan, and one has long been in the pipeline.
I am very pleased to say that although the majority of town development plans were being shelved because of the economic downturn at the time I was selected as a candidate in 2009, one of the four that were not was for the development of Bracknell. It is ongoing, and one has only to come to Bracknell to see the first stage of it: the Waitrose store that was opened recently. It is 36,000 square feet—a massive store—and we are extremely pleased with it. We have a long association with Waitrose, as its distribution hub for the entire country is in Bracknell. Indeed, it is the largest private employer in my constituency. There is widespread belief that the first store there will lead to others. I gather that a couple may be in the pipeline, to be announced soon, which would lead to further stores.
Of particular interest to the people of Bracknell is Winchester house, widely referred to as the old 3M building, although that great company has now relocated to another part of Bracknell. It is a big building in the middle of Bracknell and not particularly attractive, and I gather that a planning application will be put forward for its demolition and its replacement with new residential units and leisure and retail facilities. There is also planning permission for a £2 million transformation of the Princess square shopping centre frontage.
In the next couple of months there will be a presentation by the Bracknell regeneration partnership announcing the next stages of the town development. Originally it was going to be a £1 billion development to happen in one go, but economic reality means that it has been broken down into a series of developments. I have every confidence that it will be completed by the end of this decade.
I have my own suggestions. First, if there is one thing that we have learned in the past 10 or 15 years, I hope it is that consumption is not everything. I would very much like to see some culture in the Bracknell town development. I believe that feeding the soul is just as important as feeding the stomach, and I should like to see a theatre or cinema there. One has only to go a couple of miles to South Hill Park to see a wonderful arts centre. I am not suggesting for a second that it has not got wonderful grounds, but it is remarkable that a centre that is struggling for funds cannot be tied into the town centre development. I would certainly support that. There is also an absence of a museum celebrating Berkshire life. There is a long history of royal links and so on in Berkshire, and if a Berkshire museum were to be set up, I believe it should be centred in the county’s geographical heart, which is Bracknell.
Bracknell is going places. It has always been an economic hub, and I have every reason to believe that it will strengthen its position, particularly with such outstanding town development plans. The local borough council is to be congratulated on its leadership, as of course is Bracknell regeneration partnership, which is co-owned by Schroders and Legal and General, which own the great majority of the land. We need to ensure that the plans are sustainable, so we need to consider public transport, perhaps including links with Crossrail. The town’s sustainability and its contribution to the long-term health and happiness of all my constituents are of paramount importance to me.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The main high street in my constituency was rocked by the riots on 8 August, but the effects of the riots have not been the main problem for the high street. It was already struggling, and businesses now tell me that turnover is down by between 25% and 45%, and footfall down accordingly.
The impact of Westfield in Stratford has been dramatic. It has even affected the high street chains in Mare street, as they have bigger stores in Westfield to which people go for the wider choice of products that they can offer. Often, people use local shops for convenience during the week but tend to go to the bigger shopping centre at weekends when they have time to choose their retail centre.
The council and its partners in the town centre forum have been proactive in running events and activities to address that decline, such as ice rinks and personal appearances by celebrities and sports stars, but such things cannot be done on a weekly basis and do not help on their own. There are long-term plans, including for an outlet store offer to build on the success of the Burberry outlet store, which is a well visited international shopping space in Hackney—for those hon. Members who are keen to get a cheap mac, it is in Chatham place. Mare street also has the only Marks & Spencer in east London, so it is a shopping centre that has many things to offer, including independent stores such as Mermaid Fabrics, Argun Printers and Stationers, and others.
Some of the improvements that Mare street needs can be led or supported by the private sector, but local leadership, which takes many forms, is needed. Additionally, the council is looking into pedestrianisation and support for businesses to improve their retail offer very much along the lines of what Mary Portas outlined in her report. With the Hackney Gazette, I have launched an award scheme for local shops to encourage them to up their game. Local residents will vote for their favourite shops in a number of categories.
Planning powers, particularly in respect of bookmakers, are a big issue. Hackney has more bookmakers than any other London borough, and we need a change to the law.
Dame Joan Ruddock
My hon. Friend will know that I have a private Member’s Bill that establishes a separate use class for betting shops. It is due in the House on Friday. Does she agree that if the Minister chose to let that Bill through and provide it with time, we could solve the problem of the proliferation of betting shops on our high streets?
Meg Hillier
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope the Minister is listening to the debate and to the support on both sides of the House for that private Member’s Bill, which will make a difference.
I have focused on Mare street, but in the time remaining I want to touch on some of the other high streets in Hackney. Three main markets sum up Hackney: the Ridley road market, which is a traditional fruit and veg and general market, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); the Hoxton street market, where you can buy three pairs of knickers for £1, should you so wish, Mr Deputy Speaker; and Broadway market, which I also recommend, where a loaf of bread costs about £2.50, but is very nice. As hon. Members may gather, each market represents a different aspect of my constituency.
Broadway market, which is on a small street off London Fields, is an example of what can be achieved with local determination and drive. Traders and residents took matters into their own hands and established a Saturday street market in 2004. It has been a great success for local businesses and created an attraction for visitors. Andy Veitch of the traders and residents association told me recently that they like to think of the market as more friends, less frenzy. That pitch sums up some of today’s debate. We want Hackney shopping centres to be friendly and welcoming places to shop, which is a different offer from the out-of-town malls, particularly Westfield.
Broadway market began a customer survey at the end of last year because traders and residents there are aware that they need to keep up the best of what they are offering, particularly in this recession. They are also aware that they need to work together. They are fearful that a new Sainsbury’s Local will open nearby, but they are proud of what they have achieved, maintaining a mix of the low-cost, useful shop, and niche shopping with a thriving café culture. One local delicatessen employs 27 local people, which is quite different from some of the metro stores that open.
Hoxton street market is in the most southerly part of the constituency. It has not been thriving, but with a vibrant business man newly working with the council, we hope that that will change. It is early days, but I am hopeful. I put on record my respect for Councillor Philip Glanville of Hoxton ward, who has done an awful lot to get that moving.
Tesco has been mentioned a number of times, and I cannot speak about retail in Hackney without mentioning it for two reasons, the first of which is that it was in Hackney’s Well street that the young Jack Cohen started out in 1919 with a market stall, selling a few days later the first branded tea—Tesco tea. Secondly, Tesco now has stores across Hackney, including a large one in Morning lane and one in Well street. Not all residents are happy about the number of Tescos, but that makes it an important player, even in a borough that prides itself on its independent shops.
I was heartened when I spoke to the manager of the Well street store. He made it clear to Tesco headquarters that he did not want a fresh meat counter in his 2012 revamp because there is a good and well-used local butcher outside his door. Of course, the desire to support local businesses is not entirely selfless—Tesco and other big retailers will benefit from an environment that attracts shoppers—but it is important that businesses work together, which they often do not do enough.
I have not had enough time to mention Chatsworth road, but there has been great local innovation there too; or the Shoreditch Boxpark, which has become a shopping centre because of an innovative approach by the council—containers have small shops in them on short-term leases to allow retailers to experiment.
The Portas review is important, and I wish to highlight a few key points. Regeneration led by businesses works best. Too many of one type of shop is not good. In Hackney, we have too many bookies and money shops. We have quite a lot of Pound shops too, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has a 98p shop in her constituency—ever the discount in the recession. We need more local control, but that needs to be well thought through to avoid perverse outcomes, and we need to harness technology rather than see it is an enemy. We should encourage local websites and local linking of the internet with local shopping.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing today’s debate and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on her interesting contribution.
Before I entered the House, I spent 15 years working in the retail sector for three of the biggest names on the UK high street. I welcome the Portas review, for it contains many valuable points. It has taken us away from the traditional debate, in which it was said that the demise of the UK high street is down to out-of-town supercentres and supermarkets. The report identifies salient points, and it is a credit to the House that we have focused on them today.
In the time allowed, I do not want to go over ground that other right hon. and hon. Members have gone over—I want to move on to some fresh territory—but I wish to highlight the importance of landlords, particularly for small independent shops. Far too often, people who want to have a go and set up a shop face long-term leases of five or 10 years—added to the cost of rent, shop-fitting and staff, such leases become a deterrent. I appeal to the Minister and landlords: let us encourage flexibility and short-term lets.
In recent years, we have seen the trend of pop-up shops, where people are encouraged to take up a three or six-month lease agreement. Far too often, such shops sell fireworks or Christmas trees. I encourage landlords to be far more imaginative and to give people who want to have a go the opportunity to succeed or fail.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to hear that a scheme for young people was set up in a derelict shop in Hoxton street. In order to do that, the property needed a shop front. It is now the Monster Supplies shop, where people can buy jars of snot and eyeballs. It attracts a certain type of visitor—it is very popular at Halloween—but is that a good example of what he is talking about?
Mark Menzies
That is a very good example. I never thought that Fylde or Lytham St Annes would have anything to learn from Hackney, but perhaps in this case it does, and I suggest we do so.
When shops are left empty, they are far too often left in an appalling state. As the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who represents Rhyl, pointed out, they are left with posters on windows or boarded up. That does not make them good neighbours, so I encourage local authorities to use all the powers at their disposal—we perhaps need additional powers—to force landlords to leave empty properties in a state that makes them good neighbours and not an eyesore for the community.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as encouraging landlords, we need banks and finance houses to help small businesses? People who want to start small retail businesses cannot provide the security that banks require. We need to alleviate the difficulties with banks to encourage people into entrepreneurship.
Mark Menzies
Our friends the banks of course have a role to play, but I wanted to focus on landlords, because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, bank support for small businesses has been well covered in previous debates.
One sensitive item—I wish to be as non-controversial as possible—is the role of charity shops. Charity shops take up a disproportionate number of shop units in many high streets. I would not wish to decry the role that charity shops have to play—the income raised by them is important, particularly for small, independent, local charities—but perhaps now is the time to review some of the considerable benefits that are given to them.
Landlords often prefer to sign a lease with Oxfam than to take the risk with an independent retailer. The security of Oxfam versus the uncertainty of a start-up independent can distort the local market. Also, charity shops do not have the bigger costs that many retailers face. The biggest cost for any retailer is the one that walks through the door on two legs—namely, the staff. Charity shops often trade on the generous support that they receive from volunteers. Given that backdrop, I do not think that it would be wrong to put the support that we give to charity shops on to the table for a timely review, to see whether we need to move past that.
It is also worth pointing out that charity shops do not always sell stock that has been donated by members of the public. We often see items for sale such as books that look brand spanking new. They might have dropped out of a major retailer’s chart and, rather than being sent for pulping, they might be sold on at nominal cost or donated to the charity for resale. Oxfam has more shops selling books than Waterstones, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.
I want to mention briefly the importance of carrying out trials. Several Members have offered their high streets as hosts to trials today. I must advise the Minister that, when he picks towns in which to carry out trials, he should remember that no two high streets are the same. A seaside town is very different from the suburb of a city centre, which in turn is very different from a rural market town. It is therefore important to pick a wide cross-section of perhaps 20 or 30 town centres for the trials. The amount of money needed to be invested in such trials would be negligible, because, if they were done properly, the private sector could become involved. I urge the Minister to look at one of the recommendations in the Portas review, which relates to getting the major chains and supermarkets involved.
In 2007, I won one of the few awards that I have won in my life. It was the IGD/Unilever social innovation award for work that we had done in a town called Huntly in the north-east of Scotland. We were opening a supermarket there, and the independent butcher and baker in the high street were under threat, but if we can get the major retailers involved in the right way and at the right level, they can be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. That can also help to mitigate some of the costs.
Like other Members, I would like to offer up a town in my constituency to take part in a trial. It is the town of Kirkham. In it, there is a lady who runs a bookshop. She also sells ice cream and runs a tearoom in the shop. As the leader of the retailers in the town, she would be willing to lead a pilot scheme. If we want to send a signal that Britain is open for business, I cannot think of a better way of doing it than getting our high streets open for business.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
In common with Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Mary Portas review. I want to talk specifically about one of its recommendations, which pertains to betting shops and the planning regulations that apply to them. I want to talk about the scourge of betting shops, partly because I have campaigned on the issue for some time and partly because they are a particular issue in Hackney and other inner-city areas. Unless people live in an area such as Hackney, which has seven or eight betting shops on one high street, they cannot understand the scourge that the proliferation of those places represents.
We have seen a surge in the number of betting shops over the past decade, particularly in inner London. I think that there are now 90 in Hackney, which is three times the national average. That is why I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House on the subject. There are nine betting shops on Mare street alone. On that street, next to the historic St John’s church, we have a beautiful 19th century town hall, on which millions have been spent on renovation. It had been leased to the Midland bank since the 1930s, but in the 1990s the council sold the freehold to the bank—now HSBC—which promptly sold it on to Coral the bookmaker. That is the pitch that we have reached in the inner cities: that heritage building is now a bookmaker’s.
Let me say something about bookmakers for the benefit of Members who do not know much about them or who do not go into their premises. In many cases, they are the equivalent of casinos, with highly addictive fixed-odds betting terminals. Often, there are many of these in one shop. Members might say, “Well, it is people’s choice if they want to place a bet. Why is she being so prudish?” I have no moral objection to betting shops; my objection is to their proliferation. As I have said, there are between six and eight on our high streets, and children might have to pass four or five of them on the way from home to school in Hackney.
I also object to the predatory nature of the betting shops in the inner city. As I have said, there are eight or nine on Mare street, and nine on Green lanes in Harringay. Betting shops put nothing back into the community, and they add no vibrancy. The pattern of new betting shops opening within the M25 shows that they have targeted the poorest areas with the highest unemployment and poverty. There are three times the number of betting shops in Newham as there are in Richmond. What could be more predatory than that? The people who can least afford to bet are being tempted by four or five betting shops in a row. Furthermore, hundreds of public order offences are committed outside betting shops every week, contributing to low-level social disorder.
I have campaigned on this issue for many years. I have written to and met Ministers and council leaders, and I have tabled early-day motions. The problem is one of planning. Betting shops fall within use class code A2, which covers financial services. That means that it is possible to turn banks and building societies into betting shops. It is even possible to switch the use of restaurants and takeaways. The Gambling Act 2005 does not give local authorities any real scope to limit the number of betting shops. Year after year, my own Ministers wrote back to me saying that they believed that local planning authorities had strong planning powers available to them to control the development of betting shops. That was not true; it was clearly the line that officials took, but it was not true.
I very much welcome Mary Portas’s recommendation No. 13, which covers the planning regime for betting shops. It is headed: “Put betting shops into a separate ‘Use class’ of their own”, and I support her when she says:
“I also believe that the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets.”
After many years of campaigning by local residents, and of local authorities finding themselves caught between angry residents and a Government who claim that authorities already have the necessary powers, I suggest that now is the time, following the trigger of the Portas report, for Ministers to give local authorities the power, in this one respect, to give the high streets back to the local communities and to end the scourge of predatory betting shops in some of the poorest communities in our country.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing it. I do not think that I have ever taken part in a debate in which snot and knickers have been mentioned, so I look forward to reading Hansard tomorrow.
I welcome the Government’s review—it was long overdue. Let us face it, the problems of town centres are not a new thing: they have been occurring for some time. We need to create vibrant areas that are exciting to visit and in which social gatherings can be held. It is therefore important to deal with this issue. Mary Portas’s analysis is a good one. Shopping has changed, as have our habits. Where we go to do our shopping has also changed. There is much to think about in the report, and there is much in it that I support, although there are other bits with which I have a few issues.
I think that we are all in danger of simply repeating our maiden speeches today, because we are all, quite rightly, talking about our own constituencies. I shall do the same. The name of my constituency does not fully describe the area I represent, because I represent not only the town of Pudsey but the many other towns and villages around it. I want to talk about two examples today. In the Farsley and Calverley area of my constituency, there is a large out-of-town shopping centre, containing one of the biggest branches of Asda as well as one of the biggest branches of Marks & Spencer. It has had an impact on the towns of Pudsey and Farsley, because people travel out to the site.
Local enterprises are trying to get people back, however. Pudsey Business Forum, for example, has an excellent Shop Local campaign newspaper. It has also printed its own bags and held lots of events in the town. Recently, we were delighted to welcome back Pudsey bear at a Children in Need event, which was superb.
A local councillor in Farsley, Andrew Carter, should be congratulated on working closely with shopkeepers who are putting on street events to encourage people to come along. The church is also getting involved in the community. Many of the towns that I represent are old mill towns, and far too often mills have been knocked down and new houses built on them. In Farsley, encouragingly, two mills are renovating their buildings to attract businesses. One has all different types of businesses, including high-tech businesses, but the other is considering attracting retailers so that it can become an exciting place to visit. That is really good.
Another part of the constituency, in Guiseley, Horsforth and Yeadon, has been helped by the fact that the main supermarket, Morrisons, has built on the high street, which has encouraged people to go through the town centre on their way to do their weekly shopping. There are many lessons to be learned there, because we have changed our habits.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many supermarkets act as hubs within towns? For years, my area has had a Tesco in town, and people do their shopping in town and finish in Tesco. People now do weekly shopping, not daily shopping.
Stuart Andrew
I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. We can see the difference. The town centres are still struggling—these are difficult times—but the fact that there is a major supermarket on the high street encourages people to do their weekly shopping there and then have a look at the other shops.
In many constituencies, parking is the big problem. Far too often, in the towns that I represent, from early in the morning through to fairly late at night, commuters take up the parking spaces that would otherwise be available to shoppers. In fairness, councils are trying to deal with the problem by introducing shorter-stay parking.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Is there not a big issue with the loss of parking in certain areas because councils are looking to retail their assets and use parking assets to fund council projects? We are losing parking spaces, which is having a big impact on town centres.
Stuart Andrew
I concur. It is important that where there are limited parking opportunities, we do everything possible to ensure that the parking is right for the area. I am delighted that my areas are now introducing time limits. I have one problem with a supermarket in Guiseley, however, that has caused huge problems by not working with the council. I hope that I can use this debate to encourage it to do so.
Finally, I want to talk about empty shops. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) had a go at charity shops. As someone who used to work for a charity, I found them an invaluable source of income. In some cases, they can bring life and vibrancy to a town centre—it is important to say that—although it might not always be desirable. In Armley, people have used their shops as centres or beacons of art, as a result of which they have not remained empty and unattractive. That has encouraged people to go along and have a better shopping experience.
It is good that we are having this debate, because it shows that we are in touch. MPs get criticised all the time but we are in touch with what is going on and we care about our town centres. We were once described as a nation of shopkeepers, and long may that continue.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this timely debate. It is clear that there is concern about these issues across the House. The problem has come to a head recently because of the wider economic climate, but it is important to remember that this is not a new problem—it predates the recession by a number of years. There is evidence in my constituency of town centre decline stretching back at least 20 years. There is no single cause; instead, a malign constellation of circumstances combined to erode the viability of independent and family-run shops.
The trend towards larger supermarkets and out-of-town retail parks is undoubtedly the key underlining issue—others have alluded to it—but it is not the only one. As others have mentioned, there is the growth in online retail, changes in demography and working patterns in local economies, people commuting to work, less time to shop and changing tastes. I can also think of a range of long-standing family businesses where proprietors have reached retirement age and found no one else in the family willing to take it on. In the current climate, it is difficult for newcomers to get into the market or take on that kind of commitment, even if they can get the finance, which is a major challenge.
Turning that around is a challenge not just for national or local government; it also involves traders and, perhaps most importantly, our role as shoppers and citizens. If we want thriving town centres, Governments and local authorities need to work together to play their part. We should not, however, dodge the dominance of the large supermarkets and its consequences. There is no doubt that they are hard to beat on price and range and that they offer free parking and many other things that people have mentioned. Furthermore, those who think that supermarkets are the closest thing to Dante’s third circle of hell can now order all their shopping online and get it delivered.
That is all very well but small shops cannot compete on price and range of goods, or provide free parking. Those of us concerned about the demise of our town centres need to put our money where our mouths are, use our shops and not do all our shopping in one shop. If we do all our shopping in the large supermarkets, they will quickly become the only places where we can shop.
It is important to consider alternatives. People have come up with lots of good suggestions today, but in my constituency the small business bonus scheme, introduced by the Scottish Government, has provided a lifeline in recent years to smaller, independent shops. Shopkeepers in my constituency have told me in no uncertain terms that their business would not have survived the past three years had their rates bill not disappeared. Furthermore, the small business bonus is arguably a huge incentive for new businesses and entrants to the marketplace because it reduces start-up costs and mitigates some of the costs associated with a new retail business.
The £60 million town centre regeneration fund introduced in Scotland in 2009, with cross-party support, has also played a part. We have seen projects across every local authority area devised by local stakeholders. They have enabled communities across the country to improve the appearance of their facilities, make them more accessible and create more than 1,000 jobs. Local authorities have a particular responsibility to push forward regeneration, to take action on parking charges, which others have mentioned, and to ensure that planning decisions do not undermine town centre regeneration.
It is important that local authorities enforce the planning conditions that they place on big supermarkets outside town. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) mentioned Huntly. That was a great scheme in theory—it is not in my constituency— but in practice there has been much controversy because planning conditions placed on Tesco have not been enforced by the local authority.
Mr David Hamilton
May I point out what happens when local authorities try to challenge big companies, such as Tesco? We are talking about small local authorities taking on a multinational company, the legal department of which is often bigger than the local authority so it can take the local authority to court and win. That is part of the problem.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the challenges and pressures on local authority legal departments. As citizens and shoppers, we have a chance to address that.
Dr Whiteford
I would love to but I am conscious of the time and of the fact that lots of other Members want to speak.
Some towns in my constituency are doing well and managing to swim against the tide, largely because the supermarkets are in the town centre. However, it only takes one or two attractions in a town, whether civic or shopping attractions, to make it an attractive place to shop. That has a knock-on effect for everybody. Although many local trade associations feel that they are swimming against the tide, many are doing the right thing and trying to become more attractive to shoppers: many are selling online from their shops, trying to compete with other online retailers, and trying to develop niche markets. They are also working with other traders to raise the profile of a town and make it an attractive destination.
We must recognise that although shopping patterns have changed, retail might not be the only option for our town centres. Banff in my constituency has an exceptionally high concentration of listed buildings. Shopkeepers face eye-watering repair bills in maintaining such buildings. They often cannot perform the renovations they would like to do, and their signage can be limited. It is a bigger issue for the wider community when buildings fall into disrepair or disuse, so we need to look at how to turn businesses, residences and offices back into housing in some cases.
I have been encouraged by all the great ideas that have been suggested in today’s debate. I shall certainly take some of them back with me, but I do not think there is one magic solution or a one-stop shop on this issue.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As the 21st speaker and one of the motion’s proposers, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on the quality of his speech and on all his excellent work on the all-party group for town centres. I declare my interest as a member of Kettering borough council.
I know that I have fewer than five minutes to cover the four high streets in the Kettering constituency: Burton Latimer, Rothwell, Desborough and Kettering itself. The three A6 towns of Burton Latimer, Rothwell and Desborough are all small town centres, all different in their ways. Burton Latimer has a supermarket, a mini-supermarket, a variety of small shops and a successful farmers market once a month. Rothwell has a variety of small shops as well as a mini-supermarket and a growing reputation for niche and specialist shops as well as attractive places to eat. Desborough is a former Co-op town where the Co-op supermarket has been around for many years, but the Co-up itself has restrictive covenants on a large number of small shops in the high street, which I would contend has been to the detriment of the town centre. Two supermarket chains are now bidding to build supermarkets in and near to Desborough—Sainsbury’s on an edge-of-town site and Tesco on a town-centre site—and it is fair to say that the town is split on which of those should go ahead. Kettering borough council has the unenviable task of making the decision on that—next week, I believe.
That brings me to the town of Kettering itself. It is the No. 2 retail town in the county of Northamptonshire after Northampton. It is fair to say that Kettering town centre excites a lot of local comment, favourable and otherwise. In fact, Kettering town centre has weathered the recession extremely well. In August 2009, 88% of the town centre’s units were full, which has increased to 90% where the national average is 86%, so Kettering is bucking the trend.
It is also fair to say that there are many myths about Kettering town centre. Local people believe that Kettering borough council sets the rents on all the local shops, when it is really up to the local landlords. There is, of course, a big contrast between Kettering, where there are many local landlords of shop premises, and neighbouring Corby, where there is one landowner in the town centre. It is a lot easier to get things moving in Corby with its one owner than in Kettering with its many. A £5 million Government investment has gone into the new marketplace in Kettering, with new developments in Market street and the Horsemarket. With all this public sector investment, the prospects for the town centre are good.
Now for the bad news. Just down the road, outside Rushden, there is a proposal for a major out-of-town development. According to the local Evening Telegraph, this site, which is 224 acres, will be the location for 20 leading UK retail chains, including a large Marks & Spencer, a cinema, a leisure centre, a garden centre, a hotel and a new lake marina. One of the major investors in Kettering town centre has written to me to say:
“From the plans we have seen and negotiations that we understand they are having with traditional ‘High Street’ retailers, we are convinced that should a scheme of this nature go ahead it would seriously curtail our ability to invest in Kettering town centre and attract new vibrant retailers to the town…we are concerned that a development of this nature would have a seriously detrimental impact on town centres throughout North Northamptonshire”.
In my view, the Rushden Lakes development would be a disaster for Kettering. It is completely against policy 12 of the core spatial strategy for north Northamptonshire, to which all the local councils signed up. I would like to take the opportunity provided by this debate to urge the Government to call in this application once it is registered with East Northamptonshire district council and to turn it down. If the development goes ahead, it will have a seriously detrimental impact on Kettering town centre—as I said, the No. 2 retail centre in the county of Northamptonshire.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called to speak, and I want to cover supporting town centres and the important issue of parking. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on sponsoring today’s debate.
Too many valley town centres are in decline in south Wales. With the closure of Woolworth’s a while ago and Peacocks today, important cornerstones of the high street are fading away. Let us hope that Peacocks is quickly rescued.
On parking, as Mary Portas says, there are good environmental reasons why we should not use our cars, but if town centres do not accommodate the car at a reasonable price, shoppers will not be tempted to them. Furthermore, I have in recent weeks gained an insight into how a bad parking machine at a key town centre spot—at Ebbw Vale in Blaenau Gwent—can help to undermine shopping. Following a new private operator taking over the running of a car park there, I witnessed a large number of penalty notices being issued to blue badge holders, taxi drivers and others, which has swelled my postbag and prompted much anger. Good value and easy-to-use parking matter.
Bob Stewart
In my Beckenham constituency, it is not just parking that is the problem. It is the fact that trying to get into the car parks is made more difficult by road works that go up, go down, come again, go again and come again. It is sometimes just appalling. There should be much more planning of how road works are instituted and then stopped and controlled. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Nick Smith
I do. Local authorities and utility companies need to liaise much better.
If parking becomes a problem, there is a danger that shoppers will stay away. What does Portas say about car parking charges? She warns councils not to see parking as a soft touch for revenue raising in cash-strapped times. The bottom line is that if we want to rejuvenate our town centres, we have to be sensitive to the needs of car park users. I believe easy-to-use and easy-to-understand parking systems are important, too. People should do the right thing, and pay and display. My constituents are both intelligent and compliant. However, the problems some of them have faced are illustrated by one clear example.
Following the arrival of a new parking operator, Excel, 29 disabled blue badge holders were issued with multiple penalty notices. It became clear to me that they were not to blame. Indeed, when they saw a new sign saying “normal conditions apply” and saw no signage in disabled parking bays, they thought that they could continue to park for free. Well, they assumed wrong, and they received penalty notices of £60 a time. After much advocacy, some are starting to have them taken back.
My experience over these last few weeks suggests that signage is important. If the signage is right, people understand the rules and comply. When I identified the confusion and sought simplicity, I was not surprised to see that my request for a sign saying, “Everybody has to pay at this car park—24 hours a day, seven days a week” did not find favour. That makes me and many others think that some operators are using ambiguity rather than clarity to clobber motorists and boost their profits. If the signage is difficult to understand, the fine print is complex and the font is small, people will be confused—then penalty notices get issued and drivers stay away, so it is the high street that suffers.
Let me share some of the complaints I received. One local resident—I have plenty of similar anecdotes from others—said:
“The ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera is big brother at its worst, with the £60 fine…ridiculous for the ‘crime’ (this is how they make you feel)…These fines will put many people off going into town, as they will be too scared that they might get another if they make a mistake entering their registration number…I am not disputing the fact that you have to pay to park, just the way this company is bullying people who have innocently been caught out”.
Since the onset of the rash of penalty notices and local controversy, I have engaged in protracted correspondence in an attempt to secure fair play for local disabled drivers. As a result, I have learned that when penalty notices are issued—partly, in my view, as a result of poor signage—Excel profits considerably. That cannot be right. Last year a £100,000 bonus was paid to the company’s only director, Simon Renshaw-Smith, and in 2010 he paid himself a salary of £398,947—nearly £400,000. Nice work if you can get it.
All that has led me to conclude that independent regulation and appeal services are required to ensure that fairness for drivers is given the priority it deserves. I hope that I have made it clear in my focused contribution that parking is an important issue, and that getting it right will help to achieve our overarching objective: the creation of busy, dynamic and regenerated town centres.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate.
Two town centres define my constituency. Ealing and Acton are part of the same borough, linked by the Uxbridge road and sharing parts of the same community. They are very different in themselves, but a walk along either high street demonstrates that both are experiencing a noticeable decline. Both have been chilled by the effect of Westfield in Shepherd’s Bush. But we are lucky, because help is on the way: Crossrail trains will stop at both Ealing Broadway and Acton main line stations, which should kick-start a renewal. The potential is there, provided that we are ready to take advantage of it.
A regeneration programme continues apace in Acton, including work to completely revamp the town hall, a huge but empty building which has cast a long shadow over the high street for far too long. Work is also being done to refurbish the nearby South Acton estate. Encouragingly, just off the high street, Churchfield road is responding admirably. It has a parade of shops, cafés and restaurants that create a buzz and the incentive to shop locally for a new generation of residents.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of Acton high street. We do have a Morrisons right in the middle, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) that it provides an invaluable service, sitting at the heart of Acton and even providing car parking, but smaller shopkeepers along the high street complain of a toxic combination of rising rents, increased business rates and dwindling footfall. Clearly none of that is good for their business, although I believe that the local government funding proposals will help.
Ealing was once described as the queen of the suburbs, although the crown sits a little awkwardly these days. The town centre around Ealing Broadway is nothing like it once was: it feels tired. Yet there is much to build on. The centre retains its own distinctive character, which is appealing. It has a strong, mixed community, including young people who often choose to go on living there even when they have left the nearby parental home because it is a good place to be. It has great transport links, and also generous green spaces. Haven Green, Ealing Green and the common are just a few minutes away. Most interesting of all, it has a large vacant site up for sale right next to Ealing Broadway station. If properly developed in tandem with Crossrail, that could be the elusive silver bullet to get Ealing town centre back on track. However, it is a big “if”.
The Arcadia site has been the source of much friction and disappointment in the community. The last owners had their plans turned down by the inspectorate, and then went bust. We are all desperately keen for the site to be sold off as a single unit by the administrator, but so far no developers have turned up with the right money. We must hope that someone does soon, because otherwise it may be broken up, which would be a tragedy.
What are the magic ingredients for a successful town centre? A strong community who are prepared to support their local shops and play an active part locally; good shops providing everything that the community requires, and perhaps a decent department store as a magnet; decent pubs, cafés and restaurants to provide a buzz. Businesses are more likely to locate themselves in lively town centres where there are also good transport links. In Ealing, the Arcadia site could provide all that, but it should not be just about shopping, important though that is. Obviously housing is an inevitable component of a new development, but can we please ensure that it does not all consist of box-sized flats for singletons? Some at least must be decent-sized family housing which will help to build the community for the future.
Town centres should provide their communities with other activities as well, such as arts, fitness centres, libraries, street markets, and open spaces for socialising. There should also be a decent cinema. Ealing, of all places, does not even have a cinema, and has not had one for years. We have been hoping that the old cinema will be resurrected by its owners, Empire, but we are still waiting.
The Mary Portas report makes some interesting recommendations. It suggests that there should be more business improvement districts, plenty of convenient parking —especially at weekends—and a more flexible relationship between landlords and tenants. Perhaps most important is the suggestion that local people should become involved in neighbourhood plans. Obviously there are more such recommendations, but thank you, Mary Portas.
I welcome—at last—Government proposals to repatriate a large percentage of the business rates to local authorities. That is what we need if we are to redevelop the relationship between councillors and their local businesses and, hopefully, allow a new flexible relationship to flourish.
There is so much more that could be said. Our town centres, especially in constituencies such as Ealing Central and Acton, are essential to the life of the community. Governments can help, local authorities can enable and businesses will drive the regeneration, but local communities must be central to the vision.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I did not really intend to speak in the debate, but I have found it interesting to hear many of the views that have been expressed. I believe that we have been given a genuine opportunity to explore a number of different issues.
There is clearly a considerable amount of consensus about what needs to be done, but when I listened to some of the comments about cars and parking, it occurred to me that we ought to be careful what we wish for. I was slightly alarmed when a Member suggested that there should be no objection to people parking their cars in pedestrian zones in order to nip in and fetch their milk, bread and newspapers, because I think that that would be a hugely retrograde step. People do not buy things from shops when they are inside a car; on the whole, they buy things from shops when they walk past them and are interested in them. My constituency contains the historic Royal Mile, where shopkeepers have complained that if parking outside their shops is not allowed, they will lose business. In fact, that is the opposite of what actually happens. There are some fascinating shops in that stretch of road, but I never see them unless I am walking past them. It impossible to see what is on offer in their windows without having the opportunity to stroll past them.
Many Members have pointed out that people need to be able to park reasonably close to shopping centres. Of course we do not want to price people out of places, but we also do not want to prevent the kind of atmosphere that generates trade and business and makes a place pleasant to be in. I do not want to walk through a pedestrian zone knowing that the next minute someone is going to be up my backside with their car because they want to stop and buy something.
It is interesting that so many Members on both sides of the House have recognised the importance of public expenditure as a way of making town centres better places in which to be. However much people want the private sector to come up with all the money, it has not done so in the past. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—the other Scottish Member who has spoken today—when Governments invest money in improving the quality of town centres, they make them places to which people want to come. I do not think that it is good enough to say that a town centre will be improved if there is no good public investment to prime, and make possible, the kind of private investment that we want to see.
There is another point, which I do not think anyone else has mentioned today. In one part of my constituency, which is a regeneration area, members of a community group are setting up a community development trust. They want to open a local café, to be run on commercial lines. They do not want it to be a cut-price place—they want to make it a destination of choice—but they need capital, because without it the project will not work. Yes, it will be a social enterprise, and we hope that they will make a profit that they will be able to invest in their community, but they are finding it difficult to get it off the ground. Lots of warm words are uttered about how good such ideas are, but community trusts and social enterprise also need money behind them in order to get going. The public sector has an important role to play in supporting the private sector in that regard.
My next point may not be particularly consensual. The primary reason why so many shops are currently closing down is that there is simply not enough consumer demand. No matter how good an idea someone might have for a charming shop with high-quality goods, it will not work if people cannot buy them. Portobello is a seaside area of my constituency. Many interesting shops open there, but then close very quickly. Demand is key.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My local traders tell me that their biggest problem is getting our banks to lend to them. Does my hon. Friend hear that, too?
Sheila Gilmore
Lending is clearly one part of the problem, especially in relation to starting and then expanding a business, but there must also be a market for the goods; there must be people who can come along and buy things.
The current economic climate is very difficult. No matter how many interesting ideas there are for improving the physical environment of shopping areas, if people do not have the income—and for the first time the financial position of people in work is deteriorating—we will continue to see a decline. As I have said, economic growth is key.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government cuts will help stimulate consumer demand and support local shops?
Sheila Gilmore
May I welcome my hon. Friend to the House? I do not think that cutting back in the way that cuts are being made now has been a success. We can be accused of being over-reliant on public sector employment, but we must not take that away too quickly.
Recently, some constituents of mine came to see me because their small shop had experienced a sudden downturn. That was a result of private sector, not public sector, employment factors. They had relied on people in the financial sector in Edinburgh coming into their shop to buy a newspaper or some sweets, and they were going under because that market had gone; the people they had relied on were no longer there. No matter how hard they worked and how many hours they stayed open, they could not make that business work. As I have said, economic growth is the key factor.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. As has been said, our town centres provide more than a place to do business; in many ways they are the focal point of our local communities.
The community spirit and character of my constituency of Gosport is perhaps best represented by our bustling twice weekly market days in the town centre. The market offers an incredibly diverse range of goods, from sophisticated garden ornaments to truly enormous thermal underwear. It offers the chance to pick up a bargain, but it is also a great social event; people almost always see someone they know and have a chat. The retail shops are busy on market day as well, as it is almost the only time when shoppers are attracted over on the ferry from Portsmouth.
The contrast with normal days on our high street is stark, as it is suffering from a severe bout of depression at present. The number of vacant shops in Gosport now stands at 18. Fortunately, that is nowhere near the worst number of vacant premises in the country, but an inactive high street can demoralise a town and ward off potential investors. Gosport would make a perfect pilot town for the Mary Portas proposals. It has all the necessary components for a winning town centre: a world-class marina, a spectacular waterfront location, a thriving market and, above all, a dogged perseverance, which is so vital in the current economic climate.
Those advantages are, however, counteracted by the disadvantage of being on a peninsular surrounded on three sides by water. As a result, we do not have a particularly wide customer catchment area, and, sadly, a few rogue shops do not help the shopping experience either. For at least the last three years the post office on Gosport high street has been in a state of permanent refurbishment. With pipes and wires everywhere, it is more akin to a building site than a fully functional retail environment. That can only have a negative impact on the fortunes of the high street and undermine the overall perception of Gosport town centre as attractive and economically healthy.
The importance of regenerating the retail sector in Gosport cannot be overstated, as it accounts for almost 15% of total employment and is crucial to the resurgence of our local economy. The slow demise of the high street has occurred in stages over a number of years, with independent retailers being replaced by large chain stores, which then suffered a downturn in their own fortunes as a result of the growth of out-of-town shopping malls and the rise of internet shopping.
However, a British Council of Shopping Centres report has revealed that some internet shoppers are being driven back to the high street by frustration with delivery times and goods failing to live up to product descriptions. We often see successes when areas have come full circle, with independent traders offering a unique or more efficient service slowly resurrecting the high street, and often doing what the internet does but doing it better.
It is also crucial to learn lessons from shopping centres that are doing well. Stubbington in my constituency bucks the national trend, with unit occupancy rates of almost 100%. I put that success down to free parking, easy access to the shops and a large number of independent retailers offering goods and services that cannot be found locally anywhere else. Furthermore, business owners have engendered a real sense of community; I always love attending the annual carol concert organised by the local business community and voluntary groups. Such events help foster a sense of togetherness. However, the council has recently been consulting on introducing parking charges for the area. I hope that the 6,000-signature petition and strong campaigning by the local Conservative councillor—as well as my speech today—will encourage the council to ensure that that crazy idea is dropped.
I understand very well that business, like life, is not always plain sailing. Where businesses in my Gosport constituency are continuing to thrive, that is a testament to their hard work and the support of the entire community. Sadly however, for every success story there is always another business that is struggling to make ends meet or being forced under. I therefore welcome the work Mary Portas has done in looking at the future of our high streets. Without further intervention, we run the risk of undoing any progress we have already made.
I commend the Government on putting high streets at the heart of the new national planning policy framework, and I look forward to their response to the Portas review in the spring. If the recommendations are endorsed, I hope that they will go a long way towards improving the health of our high streets for many years to come.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Until recently, Chippenham council was at the forefront of a community-led plan to realise the potential of its town centre. The efforts were led by Chippenham Vision on behalf of Wiltshire council and were hailed by the chief executive of Action for Market Towns as
“beacons of localism in practice.”
Sadly however, I have to report that that progress has stalled following a council planning committee decision to approve the massive expansion of an edge-of-town Sainsbury’s, which prompted the resignation of the hugely committed Chippenham Vision chair, John Clark. The town has lost—albeit only temporarily, I hope—an impressive advocate.
Such supermarket developments can only be a drain on town centres—in this case not only in Chippenham, but in nearby Corsham too. That is in direct and stark contrast to the Government’s stated intentions. Last month I sought and received the backing of the decentralisation Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), for the “town centres first” policy. He clearly stated that the Government’s commitment to it
“with all the tests that it requires, is firm.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 15.]
The evidence from Chippenham suggests that the Minister’s words are not being heard.
We are not alone in facing the prospect of substantial out-of-town supermarket development. Property consultants CBRE reported last month that over 40 million square feet of new supermarkets are already planned for this year. It appears that “town centres first” simply is not happening out in our constituencies. We must address this in the national planning policy framework. There must also be a robust test in respect of qualifying for the presumption in favour of sustainable development; local councils must not adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to planning policies, as Wiltshire recently did.
That is what we face in Wiltshire’s draft core strategy, which my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), referred to in his speech. It is set to conform to the old unlamented south-west regional spatial strategy. Despite the fact that that never came into legal force, council planners choose to claim that it is necessary for their local plan to conform to it now. Their report to the council’s cabinet this week states:
“Until the full provisions of the Localism Act come into effect through secondary legislation, the Pre-submission Draft Wiltshire Core Strategy needs to be in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West unless new up-to-date evidence indicates otherwise.”
I had thought that this Government had done something about that, because as far back as July 2010, the decentralisation Minister was good enough to confirm to me on the Floor of the House that he had issued guidance to inspectors saying that they should consider unadopted regional spatial strategies as immaterial. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is welcome to intervene on me now to give Wiltshire councillors that guidance, ahead of their imminent decision, and confirm that their officers’ instructions on this matter are simply wrong. If he does not do that now, I hope that he will manage at least to cover the point in his speech.
The future of town centres lies not in rolling them back to the way they were decades ago, or even in maintaining them just the way they are today, but in giving them the freedom to redefine their role according to local strengths and opportunities, and then in ensuring that the public bodies in the local area co-operate with that ambition.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need something to shift the balance from edge-of-town and out-of-town retail to town centres? That could be some form of small business relief, which does help to tilt that balance. We have done some of that work in Northern Ireland and I am sure that other parts of the United Kingdom could benefit from tilting that balance, to give small business people and small retailers in town centres a bigger advantage. At the moment, they suffer because out-of-town shopping centres have an unfair advantage.
Duncan Hames
We do need to tilt that balance. That has been the thrust of my speech, and I think that the planning system has an opportunity to do that for us.
Melksham, in my constituency, is to benefit from a central community campus hosting a leisure centre, a library and a youth centre. The council’s original intention was to locate the campus out of town, but the decision was reversed as a result of vigorous campaigning by the local community, including local councillor Jon Hubbard, and Melksham Without parish council. Local people are not short of good ideas for the future of the communities that they make their home. One tool that people and their councils can use to help their towns is the bottom-up process established by the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, whereby residents, together with their councils, can put proposals to central Government for action to promote or protect thriving local communities. I note that a quarter of the recommendations in Ms Portas’s review are ideas that have come forward as proposals under that Act. Unfortunately, it would seem the process has been put on hold, and we are still awaiting the regulations that will get things going. They are required by the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Act 2010, and I hope very much that we shall see them soon, so that people and councils will be able to get involved.
As we have heard in this debate, pernicious parking charge hikes, along with people ignoring the “town centre first” policy, the insistence of councils on conforming to the old regional spatial strategies, and edge-of-town, edge-of-bypass development will guarantee that it is easier to move things out to the perimeter than to regenerate town centre locations. Over the longer term, reinvigorating town centres requires innovative ideas about what their future role should be. The future of our market towns should not lie in being dormitories with hollowed-out cores which send commuters out into large cities but have no life of their own. That is not sustainable socially, economically or environmentally. As we have heard, there is no shortage of ideas as to how we can approach this challenge, and Parliament must ensure that the planning system listens to and reflects the ideas of the communities who will have to live with its decisions.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
This debate is extremely timely, as many of the issues that have been raised are of great relevance to my constituency, where a potential large development on the outskirts of Carlisle is in the pipeline. We have a well-supported city centre, with a large number of shops, both national and local. The pedestrian city centre is very attractive and well used, and it often holds continental markets during the year. There is reasonable access to the centre for buses and cars, although that could be improved. In general, the city centre is considered to be vibrant and well-supported, and to have much going for it. Vacancies in the city centre are few at the moment, although I accept that there are a larger number of vacancies in respect of secondary shopping and that we may need to address associated issues. I, like many people in Carlisle, want to see the city grow and develop while retaining a vibrant and popular city centre.
The area does have a major development opportunity on the horizon. The local football club wants to relocate its stadium from the centre to the edge of the city, but to achieve that it needs to have an enabling development to make the move financially viable, and that undoubtedly means some sort of retail park. This is a major economic opportunity for the city: we would have new football facilities and supporting facilities, which would be very welcome; a large number of jobs would undoubtedly be created; and there would be a further and improved retail offer. However, there are potential consequences for the city centre that are in line with the thrust of this debate. We have to ensure that our city centre continues to survive and, indeed, thrive while not preventing other development elsewhere. Getting the balance right is crucial for Carlisle and, as has been made clear in this debate, for other parts of the country.
Before I put forward some ideas, I wish to make a few simple points. First, we must accept that we cannot fight against the tide; internet shopping is here to stay and it is likely to grow. Often we cannot prevent developments on the outskirts of cities and, again, we must accept that they will take place. We also have to recognise that no one size fits all; different parts of the country have different problems requiring different solutions. The Portas report raises a number of issues and I support many of her suggestions. I am less sure about others, but we should embrace those that are worth while.
We must fundamentally acknowledge that town centres and high streets cannot stay the same; they must change, innovate and develop new ideas. So what can be done? Many things can be done, but it is local leadership that will matter. I am talking about local leadership creating local solutions. Councils have to take an active and leading role. The development of business improvement districts is a real opportunity for councils. In many respects, councils should treat the city centre as a metro-centre or a shopping centre, and they should be proactive in managing their centre. Planning should be flexible and, crucially, councils should make sure that the city centre is an attractive place to which people want to come. Councils, as well as businesses, must also be investors in the city centre.
However, we have to accept that change will take place: we may have to encourage more residential property in and near the city centre; some parts of the country should embrace tourism—Carlisle should certainly do so; and we may have to accept that there will be fewer shops in the city centre, although there may be more cafés, restaurants and so on. Access is also crucial, and this relates not only to cars, which many hon. Members have mentioned, but to buses and other public transport. The overall goal must be to offer an improved experience, be it of tourism, shopping or something else in our city centres.
Many of the solutions lie with local government, but I wish to discuss one solution that central Government can be involved in, which is providing for standardised commercial leases for terms of up to five years. Basic lease clauses that are accepted across the industry would be enormously beneficial for traders. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that rent reviews should be “market rent only”, not “upwards only” and not retail prices index-related. That would give confidence to the traders in city centres and could improve our city centres. We already take that approach towards agricultural leases, so I see no reason why we cannot do the same for commercial leases. I believe that city centres do have a future and we just need to make it happen.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken eloquently about the strength of some of the local high streets in their constituencies across the country and about what those high streets and town centres contribute to the economies in the communities they represent.
In my constituency, there is a small town by the name of Yarm, which lies on the south bank of the River Tees. It is in the old north riding of Yorkshire and, by accident of local government reorganisations, it has found itself in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees. The town has a vibrant high street, a range of independent shops and a strong community. In 2007, the BBC Breakfast show voted it the best high street in Britain—an accolade of which it is very rightly proud. To the great concern of local residents, however, the borough council has decided to interfere in business that is rightly otherwise seen to be that of Yarm and its community.
There has been a long-running debate about parking and traffic through Yarm. That is a problem faced by the town and the solution, which is universally agreed on, must ultimately be one or more long-stay car parks, providing long-term parking provision for the town and freeing up spaces on the high street for trade and visitors. Despite that long-running discussion, however, the borough council has decided to push ahead not with a long-stay parking solution but with the introduction of parking charges—at this time of all times, when national reports specifically recommend free parking as a strong prerequisite driver for successful high streets. The borough council in Stockton risks choking off the growth and success of one of its most successful market towns and local economic drivers because it is failing to listen to what the community in that town says that it wants and needs.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
In my constituency, all the parking is free in all the villages and community centres, such as Wombourne, Codsall and many others, and that creates vibrant, thriving local areas. Does that not show the great contrast between a Tory-controlled council and Labour-controlled Stockton?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a Labour council is driving forward parking charging proposals against the wishes of local people and the community, to the detriment of the economy in the town of Yarm, which I am proud to represent.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
In that case, will the hon. Gentleman have a word in the ear of his fellow Conservatives on Gloucestershire county council, since they held a public consultation on imposing parking charges in the Montpellier shopping district of my constituency and, despite the fact that nobody supported the idea, imposed them anyway?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is very lucky, because his council has held a consultation. We have had promises of consultation from Stockton-on-Tees borough council, but what have we had in reality? An independent survey was commissioned, the results of which are clearly and demonstrably flawed. For example, it overestimated the value of the economy of the town by a factor of three. The flawed survey was then presented to the town council, which sat and listened to the findings and made its observations. It was told, “Thank you very much, but the report has already been written and this counts as consultation in our book.” Consultation for Stockton borough council, it seems, means deciding what to do and then telling people about it, not seeking their opinions and input to develop a policy that has local support.
Sadly, the proposals and the report went through Stockton borough council’s cabinet in December, just before Christmas. What is happening now? Good hard-working local councillors in Yarm and surrounding communities have signed the necessary forms to have that decision scrutinised. Andrew Sherris, Mark Chatburn and Ben Houchen, who are the borough councillors in Yarm, and Phil Dennis, a borough councillor for the neighbouring town of Eaglescliffe, joined forces to call in that decision so that Stockton borough council would have the chance to look at it again, to think again and to make a decision that better reflects the needs of the community that the council is supposed to serve.
In addition, a row has been running in the local paper; I am sure that everyone will be greatly surprised at the thought that the introduction of parking charges would excite a bit of a row in the local newspaper. Specifically, one of the borough councillors, Mark Chatburn, raised his concern at the lack of consultation before the proposals were pushed forward and Mike Smith, a cabinet member, came forward and attacked that idea, saying that there had been lots of consultation and that the council had consulted over an extended period of time. All I can say to that cabinet member, as someone who has followed this case closely and has talked to Yarm’s borough and town councillors, to traders and to residents, is that they do not feel that any meaningful consultation has taken place at all. Had it done so, I can guarantee that Councillor Smith would be getting the message loud and clear that the council’s proposals are not the right step for the future of that town.
Last Thursday, there was a public meeting in Yarm to discuss the proposed changes. About 250 members of the public came along on that cold night to attend the meeting, to make their concerns known and to discuss the proposals. I attended, and so did Yarm’s town councillors and borough councillors. Borough councillors from neighbouring communities also came along on a cross-party basis—well, on a coalition basis, I suppose, as the Liberal Democrats turned up, as did the Conservatives, but the Labour party did not send a representative—[Interruption.] And the same is the case in the Chamber right now. More significantly, despite a request from town and borough councillors and from me personally to the chief executive, Stockton borough council refused to send a representative to that public meeting. It refused to listen to the concerns of the people it is supposed to serve and represent.
You will have gathered, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a matter of great concern to my constituents, particularly those in Yarm and the surrounding communities, to which much traffic could be displaced if parking charges were introduced. It is a matter of concern not just because of the plans being proposed but because of the way in which this is being done, because of the high-handed and arrogant manner in which Stockton borough council is driving forward proposals without any consultation, against the will of local people, and because of the way in which officers on the council, such as Richard McGuckin, who heads the highways department, are listening solely to the cabinet members who control what they do and implementing those decisions against the will of local people. People in Yarm, a successful and vibrant market town in my constituency, are losing confidence in their borough council. They feel that they have not been listened to and that their views have not been properly taken into account and they are worried that the decisions being taken now by others who are not representing their views will have a long-term detrimental impact on the communities in which they live.
We have an opportunity, when the proposals go back to scrutiny on Thursday and are then, we hope, referred back to Stockton’s cabinet for the decision to be reconsidered, to change the situation and to put things right. In the light of Mary Portas’s report and of parking’s importance in securing the long-term success of our high streets and town centres, I want to take this opportunity to ask Stockton borough council to think again and to warn the cabinet members that if they do not, the people and traders of Yarm will not forgive them.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), on securing this very important debate. In my constituency, all three towns—Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—have faced challenges on the high street and, two years ago, before the last general election, I organised a local conference to discuss some of the issues. Conscious that such events are often attended primarily by councillors and local government officials, I walked through all the town centres and went into every single retail shop to discuss their concerns.
Let me outline the three key areas that repeatedly came up. The first was that the term “town centre regeneration” had very negative connotations for a large number of small retailers. The reason for that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) earlier, and it is the disruption that regeneration can cause, of which local authorities often do not take enough account, whether the regeneration involves pedestrianisation or the introduction of one-way systems. In Redruth, for example, the local authority was going to resurface the main car park in the town, but to keep down costs it decided to do so progressively in between other jobs. As a result, it took six months to sort out the main car park in the town, which had a hugely detrimental effect on footfall and trade. The town has struggled to recover. First, we must apply the precautionary principle of “do no harm” if an authority is going to embark on regeneration.
The second major issue to come up was car parking. I disagree with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said earlier: most small retailers recognise that the single biggest reason why they cannot compete with supermarkets is that supermarkets can offer free car parking. I always remember the managing director of one of our large retailers saying that if a survey is conducted of the public, they will say that they want a picture postcard high street with a fishmonger and a butcher, but when it comes to how they vote with their wallets, 97% do their grocery shopping at a supermarket because they want to open the boot, load everything in and go home. We need to consider the issue of parking and I want to see local authorities using their retained business rates to try to offer some free car parking.
The third issue was business rates. It is a crying shame to see small retailers with new businesses that have sometimes been set up for only six months—who take huge pride in their shops and did not need mentoring by other retail experts or training as they knew what they were doing—find that the rigidities of the business rate system means they go backwards, losing money month after month, which is not sustainable. I think we need to look at ways of making our business rate system more flexible so that we can give more breaks to new businesses that are doing a good job and that, given the time, could achieve so much more.
Much has been said about the report by Mary Portas. I want to pick up on an issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) regarding recommendation 20 about the problems caused by banks. I disagree with his comment that we should not pick on banks. I think we should, because the issue is not about the banking estate and their high street branches, but about properties that they have repossessed, often in a trigger-happy way. We need to look at ways of making it harder for banks to repossess businesses, perhaps by requiring them to get a possession order from the courts before being granted possession of those businesses. That would give the courts the ability to take into account any proposals that banks or receivers have to bring those businesses or shops back into use quickly.
The final issue I want to address concerns the Local Government Finance Bill, which will commence its Committee stage tomorrow. The Bill provides that in the hierarchy of liabilities, a mortgagee who takes possession of a residential property will become liable for the council tax. That is a very important policy, which we should consider extending to business rates on commercial properties. This is a grey area at the moment, but I understand that as a general rule once banks have crystallised their charge on a property and taken possession, they are no longer liable to pay the business rates on it. If we made them pay those business rates, it would create an incentive for them to rent out such properties or, indeed, not to foreclose on businesses in the first place. No doubt the Minister will take some of these suggestions on board and we might consider some of this in Committee.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I, too, begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing a very popular, as well as important, debate. [Hon. Members: “On this side.”] Indeed.
All too often, attention is given to our big urban centres, with insufficient attention being paid to the hundreds of towns across the country where most of our population lives. I represent three fantastic towns—Warwick, Royal Leamington Spa and Whitnash. The debate is very timely not least because I will be interviewed by BBC Coventry and Warwickshire tomorrow morning about what will take the place of the police station, the fire station and the courts in Warwick now that they have been lost. The excellent report we have been discussing will give us a basis for some answers.
Towns are smaller ecosystems than cities, and as a consequence they are more sensitive and require greater care and special consideration. I believe that all Members can agree with the main aim of the Portas report—to craft a “town centres first” policy approach to development. Town centres are key. They are at the heart of our communities and are the backbone of our local economies. Independent retailers, of which we are fortunate to have many excellent examples, find it difficult to compete with large out-of-town developments, and this can have a massive impact on other parts of our local economies.
This is not just about retail. When town centre businesses and shops leave or close owing to a lack of footfall, it can make towns look less attractive, which can reduce other income streams such as tourism. The cumulative effect can be that community amenities are significantly affected, creating a general sense of malaise. So this is not merely about keeping a few shops on the high street: it is about how we create vibrant, dynamic and sustainable town centres fit for the 21st century.
We need to remember that town centres and high streets are not the same thing. Town centres are more than just a selection of shops. They are centres for community organisations, public services and important local amenities. They require equally as much care and thought and should not be ignored. Town centres are like any natural habitat. When biodiversity falls, the ecosystem becomes weaker and more prone to collapse. Likewise, when we focus too much on purely retail issues in our town centres, we weaken rather than strengthen them. If we allow our town centres to continue to be too expensive for other sectors, we will limit their potential. People are not merely shoppers. They are sportspeople, music listeners, theatre-goers and seekers of new experiences. The Danish architect who is credited with transforming Copenhagen has said:
“If you asked people twenty years ago why they went to central Copenhagen, they would have said it was to shop…But if you asked them today, they would say, it was because they wanted to go to town.”
It is also worth remembering that town centres depend on the loyalty of local people, and we need to ensure that those people have as big a say as possible. I welcome the fact that the Portas review plans to campaign to get people involved in their neighbourhood plans so that we create town centres in which people feel they have a say.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I know that you will not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we return to Wales for a few moments. I want to deal with the twin issues of rates and planning, particularly as they apply to coastal towns, which depend heavily on tourism, and especially towns that fall under the national parks planning regime, which has a significant bearing on their ability to undertake economic activity.
Let me deal first with rates. Tenby has a population of about 5,000 in winter and about 50,000 in the summer, but the ability to negotiate the rates is extremely limited. As a consequence, in the winter shops close, businesses reduce their output, boards go up in windows and people are laid off. That is avoidable, and I make a plea to the Minister. Taken over a short period, the withdrawal of rate relief, albeit predicted and albeit that businesses know about it, can reach ridiculous heights. For example, in local towns such as Narberth in my constituency, figures have reached as high as about 250%, with the consequence that businesses are winding down, shops are closing and people are being put out of work. I suggest to the UK Government and, indeed, to the Welsh Assembly that there must be a neater way of deploying transitional rate relief and a better way of accounting for the fact that seasonal variations in seaside towns can be absolutely huge. Why not have a system whereby rate relief can be more carefully applied in the lower winter months and made up when cash flow might be better in the more buoyant summer months?
The second issue I want to address is planning in national parks. I know that my friends in the Pembrokeshire Coast national park will be suspicious about what I am about to say. I should like to quote one example from the town of Tenby, where a very viable local estate agent applied to take over high street premises that had previously been an unviable pizza parlour. For some strange reason to do with enhanced national park planning policy, the application was turned down. A boarded-up shop that employs nobody and engages in no economic activity remains in the centre of that important town, whereas the alternative would have been to have the lights on in those premises for 364 days a year with six or seven people working inside. There would have been a sense of life and energy returning to an otherwise dormant part of the street, but the only excuse that the national park planning authority could come up with was that the application was outside “policy”. Surely, in such circumstances the answer is to change the policy.
If we want towns such as Tenby to be regenerated, if we want economic activity and if we want people to be encouraged to go into town in the quieter winter months, organisations such as national park planning authorities have to be flexible. Their policies must reflect today’s economic climate and they must point in the direction of the restoration of prosperity rather than getting too hung up on outdated planning issues. I hope that there are two particular audiences to whom the Minister will address his responses—national park planning authorities, particularly in coastal areas, and the Welsh Assembly Government, who occasionally glance in the right direction when it comes to these issues. However, more often than not, particularly with a Labour Administration, the emphasis has been contrary to the interests of high street regeneration rather than complementary to it.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this important debate. I have to say in all sincerity that it is with great sadness that I rise to deliver my speech facing a sea of green Benches, which is particularly pertinent when we consider that the city of Wolverhampton is among the highest for the number of empty shops. If this is not a vital debate, I am not sure what is; but so be it.
The essential point has already been made. Town centres are not just about retail; the high street is at the very heart of any community. Many Members have referred to their constituencies. Following the riots, and in view of the fact that we have such a high number of empty shops in Wolverhampton, I conducted a survey of small shops and businesses in the city centre to find out why people do not shop there. I was surprised by the No.1 reason—chuggers: people who fundraise, perhaps aggressively. Again and again, shoppers said that the aggressive tactics used by some street fundraisers leave them feeling harassed and intimidated. I was disappointed to learn that people were being discouraged from visiting Wolverhampton city centre and I called for action to address the problem.
In Manchester, there is an agreement between the city centre management company, CityCo, and the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, a self-regulating body that monitors face-to-face fundraising. They have found a balance between fundraising and leaving people in peace to shop. It is important that that fine line is drawn.
Although I support the incorporation of local communities in decisions about their areas, efforts need to be made to facilitate the process, so I welcome the Government’s local initiatives because that is where the solutions to many of the problems will lie. I should also like to offer the Minister some guidance on trust and clarity over tax-incremental financing, which is an issue for the developers of city centres. We have to go back to basics. If we are to see regeneration, we cannot look at the old model whereby development was funded only by bank lending; we need to look at partnerships between local authorities and businesses.
The important word is trust. Be it a local authority or a business, they need to trust each other. If, as has happened in Wolverhampton in the past, a developer wants to take a city forward and a local authority is promising this, that or the other but they get to point X without delivering anything, there is a breakdown in trust. If we are to have effective development and management in these difficult economic circumstances, it is vital that trust is at the core.
Time is pressing and many colleagues have already spoken about parking. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) made a pertinent point about local communities when he spoke about Yarm. In all my travels, not just in my constituency but up and down the country, I have noticed that there are parts of our country where there are social issues and challenges. Southall high street, Soho road in Birmingham, Melton road in Leicester or even Dudley road in Wolverhampton are in areas where there is deprivation, but there are no empty shops on those high streets. I do not know why, but I believe it is because they are centres and hubs for their communities. We need to harness that in retail development and construction. We come back to the original point: town centres and high streets are at the very heart of our communities.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate.
Much has already been said so I shall concentrate on two issues, time permitting. The first is my constituency. Many Members know that the town of Enfield, which is at the heart of my constituency, has a recent history, sadly, of being caught up in the riots. It has been fraught with that difficulty and the current economic climate that faces so many of us.
The wonderful “I love Enfield” campaign, which was started by Fast Signs, one of our local businesses, immediately after the riots tore through the high street, is a prime example of how local businesses, close to their community, are entirely in touch with the individuals and locations for which they provide services. Subsequently, our local Labour council started a “Love your high street” campaign, which I was fully behind, to try to bring traffic to the high street. It is thus all the more baffling that the council has persisted in introducing a steep hike in parking charges, including for Sunday parking, that is causing economic distress to traders and frustration to residents and is penalising churchgoers. It is not acceptable. As one of the local businesses said:
“If the council…are serious about regenerating town centres…then they need to consider one of the most simple ways of encouraging people to stay and shop in their community.”
At the heart of that is parking.
Since its election, Enfield’s Labour council has sought to force through drastic changes to parking regulations throughout the borough. Its initial proposals to increase parking charges, in some cases by more than 100%, and to increase the number of charging days to include Sundays and bank holidays, have created a difficult climate for local businesses. The changes faced massive opposition from residents, traders and our local newspapers—The Enfield Advertiser, which has launched a campaign, and the Enfield Independent. Despite that, the cabinet member for environment, Councillor Chris Bond, still claims that “fairness” is “at the heart” of the decision. However, as the Emma Claire hair and beauty spa salon says:
“All we constantly hear from our clients is that they no longer wish to shop or use our facilities due to the excessive amount of parking charges that Enfield council has implemented.”
It is worrying that Enfield council has refused to explain where the extra income generated will be spent. The cabinet member for finance, Councillor Andrew Stafford, claims that it will be used “to gain additional revenue” for the council’s coffers. I question that judgment, because the guidance for the Traffic Management Act 2004 stipulates that merely raising revenue should not be an objective of parking charges. I support the campaigns by residents and newspapers to try to overturn the decision. The council must withdraw its plans, cancel Sunday parking charges, repeal the increases and help, not hinder, Enfield’s shops and businesses.
The issue is not all about parking, but we have heard consistently across the House that it is a problem that faces everyone. Our high streets will benefit in future from a long-term strategic view of how to take on our present-day challenges, but I fear that there is disconnect between landlords, retailers and local authorities in achieving a strategic view. To face the challenge for the future, a long-term, investment-led and holistic strategy will be needed that will drive people—with relief, I believe—away from their computer screens and internet shopping. If they see their high street become a destination of choice for social and cultural events, and not least for shopping, we can help to promote our town centres. In Enfield under the Conservatives, between 2002 and 2010, there was a commitment to expand the shopping precinct, and they moved the library and the museum. Now we can take things a stage further. Recently, even volunteer dance groups have appeared in the streets of Enfield, making it a good place to do business and I invite all Members to come and see what a great job our retailers are doing.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
My constituency town centres—I suspect like those of many Members—have been subject to the development of supermarkets without any real control or the involvement of local people. In Bishop’s Waltham, when Sainsbury’s recently gained permission to build a supermarket, there was enormous turmoil in the community, and a “them and us” situation was created: half the community was for the supermarket, half against. I thought that I should do some work on PPS4, the regulation that allows unplanned, out-of-town supermarkets and retail outlets to be constructed.
By luck, circular 02/2009 requires any proposal for an unplanned out-of-town supermarket to be reviewed by the Secretary of State, so that he can see if he wants to call it in formally. Records were available for two years, so I could see exactly how many unplanned supermarkets had been granted permission and how many had been called in by the Secretary of State. The answer was that 146 unplanned out-of-town or edge-of-town retail stores had been given permission, and one had been called in. The simple lesson, for me at least, is that supermarkets are extraordinarily well resourced, powerful and practised, and they get what they want. In short, the local plan is not really an effective tool to restrain that undue competition for many of our high streets.
It is time to put people back in charge. Not all high streets are equal, and the quality of high streets varies hugely. However, some are truly more than the sum of their parts. They are the hub of the community; they are a forum for social interaction and a draw for tourists; they are a marketplace for local products, and a safety net for vulnerable people, particularly the elderly. People notice when certain people are not there, and shopkeepers are aware of those who need looking after. High streets can be heritage centres, and the value of those externalities is simply not contained in models such as PPS4—the method previously used to grant those permissions.
If we consider the needs of social services and GPs, as well as the delivery costs to new markets of businesses that are displaced, those are all costs that the models do not price and do not see. We need to do something about that and let communities decide. Local plans and notional neighbourhood development plans do not allow communities to turn around and say, “We do not want a supermarket here.” I believe that they should be able to do so, but there must be a high hurdle. There must be overwhelming community buy-in for the proposal, and we must ensure that there is competitive pricing in that community so that the less well-off are not marginalised. We must demonstrate that the local jobs that would be created are strategically important. If we put all those hurdles in place, is it not right that local people should be able to say no? If they can convince their community that they do not want a supermarket and that they have something special, should they not be able to turn around and say, “Stay away—we’re happy as we are”? I think very much that they should be able to do so.
I propose to the Minister that that should be included in the new national planning policy framework. When the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government looked at the issue and wrote a report on the NPPF, it agreed that it was a reasonable idea and it is included in the recommendations. I hope very much indeed that Ministers will consider that carefully and, yes, with high hurdles, ensure that people who live in valuable communities that they do not want to change have the right to say no.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this important debate. I work closely with him on the all-party parliamentary group for town centres, and I value his input tremendously. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, too, for granting the debate.
Town centres mean a lot to me, because they should be a reflection of a town’s character. That has emerged powerfully today in many speeches. A town centre should be a place where families go to relax and be together, where people can pass the time of day and enjoy themselves, and where consumers can shop, eat, relax and be entertained. As many of my colleagues have debated, it is about so much more than shopping: that is how town centres should work. In short, town centres should be welcoming environments where we all want to go. That is what they should be, but are they? The answer, with a couple of exceptions that have been made clear, is no.
I said that town centres mean a lot to me, but I should have said, given that many of my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to discuss their own town centres, that Eastbourne town centre is particularly relevant. A few days before the general election, I talked to some independent traders in the town centre. As we have heard from many other Members, they had been fed up for a long time about the way in which the town centre was going, and how town centres generally were going. They were fed up, too, with politicians promising things and not delivering and so on. I spoke to the chap who chairs the Eastbourne independent traders group, and I said to him, “I give you my word, if I am elected, come what may, I will be down to see you the day after the election.” To this day, I remember a look in eyes of, “Oh yeah, I won’t see you for dust.” Sure enough, after the election, with only two hours’ sleep, I was down there at midday to say hello and to promise him that I was going to roll up my sleeves and get involved.
One of the first things I did in Parliament was to join the all-party parliamentary group. I am now vice-chair, and it is something to which I am strongly committed. I set to work on Eastbourne town centre. Unlike my hon. Friend, I did not have a great deal of expertise in that area. My background is in business development, not town centres, and I discovered the complexity of trying to get something done in town centres. It is really hard: one has to deal with planning, business rates, and byelaws. In Eastbourne, we have an astonishing number of byelaws that make it very hard to set up a street market—the sort of thing that would make a real difference.
Hopefully, the difference this time is the enthusiasm and commitment that I have shown, along with my local council. It was not always the case, but it is now a can-do council. I said that we had to get a good street market in the town centre, which would act as a catalyst or engine to get things going. The council said that there were a lot of byelaws but—and this is different—it said, “We will do something about it, Stephen.” Previous councils, whatever their political persuasion, would just say, “It’s too complicated. We’re not going to do it.”
It took a year and three quarters, but it has been through cabinet. In Eastbourne town centre, opposite the shop where I spoke to that independent trader, there will be a street market in late spring or early summer. It is a start, but as we have heard today, so much of this is about the drive and commitment shown by the Portas review, the coalition Government and the Prime Minister. As an Opposition Member said, this is an old issue that has been around 20 or 30 years but, finally, there is a chance that something will be done. I hope that that is the case because, to be honest, we all know about the state of town centres for the past 20 or 30 years. They have consistently become worse and, with some honourable exceptions, there has not been any real change or improvement.
We are all responsible—politicians, planners and the public—because everything has changed with the internet and the complexities of shopping today. This important debate—I really think that it is important—offers an opportunity so that, in a few years’ time, we will look back at 17 January 2012 as the day on which parliamentarians, the Government, the Minister and the public decided, “That’s it. We’ve had enough of our town centres simply deteriorating and going out of fashion. We’ve got to stop it.” We have to begin that fight. There are many reasons why it is important but, most important of all, town centres, when they work, are the heart of a town. I think that they are worth fighting for, and it has been a pleasure to speak in this debate.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I pay tribute to Mary Portas for the hard work, passion and imagination that she put into her report.
We have heard about the challenges that town centres face from out-of-town food stores, retail parks and the internet. Poor town planning has also played a role in the decline of town centres, whether in granting planning permission for out-of-town stores in the wrong places on inappropriate terms, by making town centres inaccessible and difficult to reach by car or public transport, or by doing little to prevent the rise of “same street” syndrome and clone towns throughout the country.
To halt that decline, town centres should be able to compete on a level playing field. We have heard about the importance of retaining the “town centre first” policy. Moreover, Mary Portas points out that the high street can be a hard place in which to trade. We need to make it easier, with fewer rules, regulations and restrictions, and a more balanced tax and rating system.
As for parking, in some towns, such as in Lowestoft in my constituency, the council, working with town centre shops, has put in place more customer-friendly car parking arrangements. However, the Government still need to do more.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what Gloucester city council has done, which is to reduce parking charges to £1 an hour, is exactly the sort of proactive work by local government that we need to help revitalise interest in our city centres?
Peter Aldous
I welcome that intervention, and I agree. Councils across the country are doing what they can, but the Government can do more. They should look at how parking at out-of-town stores is assessed for rating purposes. As a chartered surveyor, I do not believe that the current valuation approach truly reflects the value of that car parking to out-of-town retailers and the rateable values should be raised, with the additional funds generated being used to reduce car parking charges in town centres.
With rates, councils should be provided with more discretion over the discounts that they can offer, ratepayers should be able to spread their payments over 12 months rather than 10 months, and the anomaly whereby business rates are increased annually in line with the RPI, rather than the CPI, must be corrected as soon as possible.
Another challenge that needs to be addressed is the fact that there is a lot of unused space in town centres, both at ground and upper levels. We need to make it easier for that accommodation to be put to alternative uses, such as much-needed dwellings, doctors’ surgeries, gyms or other community uses. The use classes order, which for so long has acted as a straitjacket, should be relaxed and local councils liaising with local communities should have more discretion about what activities should be allowed.
In Kirkley in Lowestoft in my constituency, Desmond does not have a barrow in the marketplace; he has a superb coffee shop, with unique decor and a “Hancock’s Half-Hour” collection to rival the BBC’s. An episode is played at 10 am each day. Desmond wants to expand to provide hot food, but at present he cannot do so, as his use would be in the same use class as a kebab shop. That issue needs to be addressed.
Many town centres, including Lowestoft, are blighted by unkempt and dilapidated buildings that discourage people from going there. Councils should be given more compulsory purchase order powers to address such problem properties, and they should be able to serve empty shops management orders.
I agree with Mary Portas that markets should be encouraged. Markets were the procreators of town centres and they have an important role to play in their future. People like browsing around a marketplace. Markets bring people into a town, they provide an opportunity to showcase products or skills, and they give entrepreneurs the opportunity to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder that can lead to running their own business. Across the country, there are too many rules and regulations, too many hoops to jump through, before a market can be set up. Those need to be removed, and to be replaced with a presumption of favour of the right to trade.
Out-of-town parks have a major advantage over town centres in that they are in one ownership, subject to one management regime, with one common purpose. In the town centre there are many players and many stakeholders, with different goals and objectives. We need to help them come together to work as one to promote town centres, as they are doing in my constituency in Lowestoft, Beccles and Bungay. Business improvement districts, for which preparatory work is currently taking place in Lowestoft, can help as well, as can Mary Portas’s proposals for town teams.
In conclusion, Mary Portas’s report has highlighted a problem that is faced across the country, and this debate has helped move the discussion forward. I look forward to the Minister’s summing up and I urge the Government to respond to the report as a priority, so that we can all get on with the important task of bringing life and prosperity back to the country’s high streets.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I should declare an interest. I own commercial properties in Greater Manchester and I was a shopkeeper for 20 years. I had clothes shops and hairdressing outlets around the Greater Manchester area. For years I have been watching the decline of town centres, and I agree with more or less everything that I have heard from both sides of the House today about the state of our high streets and town centres.
Our shopping habits have changed, and we must recognise that. The internet has been a revolutionary step forward and, as we can all agree, it has good points and bad points. There is more choice on the internet, but the disadvantage is that people cannot hold, touch, see or experience the object unless it is in a showroom. Many town centre shop owners have said that they have become showrooms for the internet market. I know that many suppliers and manufacturers have taken measures to stop certain sales taking place over the internet, but the internet has had a large impact on town centres, as out-of-town shopping has on all our towns across the country.
The good points are that those huge shopping centres provide security, diversity and more choice—but most of all, they offer free parking. They are accessible from the motorways. More often than not they are on bypasses that have been created because every town centre in the land has been pedestrianised. Correct me if I am wrong, but most town centres in this country have been developed through the centuries, most of them in Victorian times, as thoroughfares or crossroads where traders met and markets, and later towns, developed. For the life of me I cannot understand why every major town centre in the UK has been pedestrianised. Cars have stopped going in. The whole infrastructure of a town centre was based on traffic going through, in and out. To compound things further, what did we get in some, if not most, councils? Parking wardens. Private parking wardens—a way of raising money.
Let me tell it like it is. Where I am from, I still have commercial properties. If I nip into the local town or go to visit my children, I park, and I then have 30 minutes. By the time I have walked into the town centre, which has now shrunk, it is time for me to go back. When I get back, more often than not I have a parking ticket. That discourages people from going into town centres.
Look at what has become of our town centres. As one hon. Member said, they have become the home of charity shops, fast-food outlets and betting shops. A plethora of shops service retail industries. The large high street clothing shops—the Nexts and the Marks & Spencers—will not set up in a small town any more because the units are too small. We now have to look at the planning system. Over the past few years many town planners, rightly or wrongly, have been planning on the outskirts of the town. A bypass road has been built round the pedestrianised town and the situation has been self-perpetuating.
We must start thinking about the future of town centres. The circumference of the town centre will shrink, and the outer shops will more than likely become housing. The town planners should recognise that if we are to attract larger businesses into the town centres again, we must redevelop and create units that will house their current requirements, instead of what happened when town centres were built up, in some cases hundreds of years ago and in other cases as recently as 50 years back.
To sum up, we should re-open some of the pedestrianised towns where applicable, and we should start looking seriously at how to attract businesses back into the centre of towns. More than anything, we should try to work out a better system of parking. Free parking areas would be preferable, but in this day and age I know that that would be almost impossible. Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me speak in this debate.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate.
I have the pleasure of representing a seat with three town centres, Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley, and there are various other high streets. I could go on all night and list them, but probably the three biggest are Codnor, Somercotes and Langley Mill. It will not surprise anyone who has heard the debate to hear that they all face the challenge, to varying degrees, of empty shops and an over-supply of charity shops, take-aways and betting shops. This seems to be true of the whole country.
I was slightly concerned by the local council’s report on the retail industry in Amber Valley. I first read the part about the most successful town in the constituency, Alfreton, which shows that in some parts footfall is below the national average. I thought, “That’s a bit of a problem, but hopefully we can find a way to fix it.” I then read the part about the weakest of the three towns, Heanor, which shows that footfall there is one third of that in Alfreton, which already has a problem. That shows the scale of the problem we face in that part of Derbyshire. Because of the history of old mining communities, there are many small town centres between one and five miles apart servicing 20,000 people, and the old diverse shopping mix, with people walking into town to use the shops, is history. That is no longer how we shop.
Before we look back to a golden age of town-centre shopping, we should think about what we do when we get back home on a Thursday evening at half-past 9 after leaving this place and find that there is no food in the fridge. We go down to the 24-hour Asda and do our shopping there. I am then busy all day Friday. What do I do at the weekend? I go to the supermarket. Those of us who know that that is wrong try to find the time to shop in local shops, for example by going to a local butcher rather than the supermarket. I have found that one of the privileges of being an MP is that I get to convince my girlfriend that we cannot go to the Meadowhall shopping centre, but we have to shop locally instead. According to the Portas review those huge shopping centres offer a great and enjoyable experience, but I am not sure that that is what I have found.
Understanding the problem is easy, but finding the fix is not. I do not think that the fix is for my local council to have to decide tomorrow night whether it wants to sell land on the edge of Ripley to another supermarket. I do not know who is bidding or how many bidders there are, but I do know that having a second supermarket will not help in a small town that is already struggling. The shopping centre might have a pharmacy, an optician, a mobile phone shop, an electrician —you name it, they have it these days—and the town centre already has vacant shops. It has three pharmacies, an optician, a Currys and other electrical shops, all of which will be under direct threat from a second supermarket, never mind the fact that there are already two supermarkets in the town centre that are themselves struggling.
We have to send out the message that if we are trying to save our town centres, we cannot add extra out-of-town shopping that reduces the footfall that town centres desperately need to attract. The council’s report states that we might need another supermarket in the Alfreton area in 2026. I look forward to catching HS2 to that supermarket in 16 years’ time, but in the meantime I am not convinced that we need it.
It would be remiss of me not to comment on parking, which is a long-running local issue. Our parking charges are actually quite low: 50p an hour is a typical rate. With the amount the petrol costs to get to the car park, I wonder why those charges are such a concern, but clearly they are, especially for the convenience store that has reopened in Heanor market place—I pay a huge tribute to Mr Patel for that. His problem is that there is a Tesco store down the road. If I want to buy a pint of milk I can park there for free, but if I want to buy it at his shop I have to find the change, find the machine and pay the 50p, and if I accidentally stay longer I get the privilege of a £25 fine. Finding a solution to that problem is key.
The most encouraging thing about Mary Portas’s review is that she did not try to take us back to the golden age of the 1950s or claim that this is just about getting all the shops back. She recognised that we have to do something different, and find different uses to get people using town centres again, whether that is a social use, a health use or something else. The challenge for all of us, and for our councils, is to find something that will work for each town centre, and find a way of making it happen. If that means shrinking the shopping area and moving shops to a viable area, rather than having them too spread out, or if that means finding other uses and allowing empty shops to become restaurants or café bars to try to get that footfall and find a viable use, that is the way forward, and that is what we need to do.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Liberal Democrats believe that community politics should be at the heart of what we do. Decisions that affect individuals should be made at the lowest practicable level and, when it comes to our high streets and town centres, local communities should be given as much power as possible. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting our high streets.
The independent Portas review, although not perfect, is a significant step towards undoing the centralising powers that were introduced by the previous Government. Key measures such as business rate reforms, town teams, the general power of competence and neighbourhood plans will enable local people, through their council, to make decisions about their own areas and that affect their own lives. There is much more that can and should be done. As the Portas review identified, the more powers local people have to control their own lives, the more likely they are to create a thriving community, and a thriving community is the bedrock of a successful economy.
In Cambridge, I am fortunate to have an extremely successful city council, headed by Councillor Sian Reid, who is fighting hard to protect our town centre, our local market and our local high streets. We have been doing this for years, so we are more than ready to identify where Government reforms are working and where they will not deliver as expected. However, the story is not all good. This year, Tesco is due to open its 13th store in Cambridge. Despite the best efforts of Sian Reid as council leader, Catherine Smart as deputy leader and myself as the local MP, we have simply not been able to find any legal means by which we can prevent supermarkets from opening ever more new stores on our high streets, even when there is significant opposition from local people. That means that supermarkets in general, and in our case Tesco in particular, will have a very large market share in one place.
The problem is not Tesco itself. It and other supermarkets play an important role and people do choose to shop in them. The problem is supermarket dominance. There are a number of problems. First, there is a stranglehold on competition. A successful economy, both locally and nationally, is based on diversity and people’s ability to innovate, adapt and provide the services that people want. What can be done about the supermarket monopolies? The answer is not very much. It is perfectly legitimate under existing rules for a supermarket to have a reasonable market share across the country but a complete monopoly in some towns and high streets. The result is lack of choice for consumers, which is bad for the community and the economy. Breaking these monopolies up is not anti-free market; it is fundamentally pro-fair market and pro-community.
Secondly, local areas retain more money when it is spent in independent and locally owned stores. Local owners are more likely to serve their communities because they live there too. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the need for the Government to support worker-owned enterprises. In the same vein, local planning powers should enable locally owned stores. When shops are opened by consent, with the support of local people and under the ownership of local residents, the economic and community benefits are huge and we should support that.
Many of these trends are likely to get worse. We have a housing problem in our country and need to build more housing, but as these new neighbourhoods are formed, we must ensure that developers, when they lease or sell their outlets, take into account independent retailers. I have been told that some developers will sell units only to companies that are prepared to buy 10 or more outlets, which squeezes independents out of new neighbourhoods entirely. For these reasons, I have been working closely with city councillors to see how we can better represent the interests of our constituents by supporting local stores. Local government must be able to influence whether new stores are chains or independents and whether they are small or large outlets, because that is want people want it to do.
One approach we tried was to see whether planning applications could take account of the diversity of shops in a town centre. The push by Cambridge city council became known as the “Cambridge amendment” to the Localism Bill in the House of Lords, and I spoke in favour of it in this place. The Government, however, did not accept that case, but they did suggest using local “use classes” to enable local people to control their high streets, which seems a perfectly reasonable proposal. It would mean that local people could determine that supermarkets are in a different category from small shops and that when shops merge, that would change the class. It would empower local councils, but we have not yet heard from the Government how those proposals would work and the details, despite letters from myself and the leader of the council. I ask the Minister to respond as soon as possible. It is not just about opposing supermarkets for the sake of it. We need to ensure that we have variety and diversity.
We also need to ensure that there is transport. I have been fascinated by the comments made about the need for more cars. There is lots of evidence that improving the walking environment increases retail footfall by 30%, as a study in Exeter has found. People who walk in shopping areas and cycle there or take the bus and train spend more money because they have access. We have to promote sustainable travel. I call on Ministers to look at how we can empower our local communities and give them the powers they need to ensure that we have vibrant centres.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I would like to join the long list of Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who has carried out an exceptional role in promoting our town centres and high streets. I was very proud to co-sponsor the call to get this debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and we have been proved right that this would be exceptionally popular and justify the full six hours.
I am particularly interested in the issue, both as shopper, when following my fiancé round and carrying the bags. I support my local town centre and am the vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for town centres, retail and small shops. I have set up a retail forum in my constituency; I support our excellent local bid company in Swindon; I invite retailers such as Lord Wolfson to visit and pass judgment on our town centre; and I grew up in a family of shopkeepers who modelled themselves on the “Open All Hours” sales technique.
Nationally, the last few years have been tough on high streets, with consumers wielding less disposable income, high-profile retail failures leading to large numbers of empty shops, the growth of out-of-town shopping centres and the continued boom in online shopping. For example, this December saw an 18% increase on last December in such shopping, and one in 10 consumers now uses their phone in-store to check the price of goods elsewhere.
For all those fans of Swindon—I know everybody loves Swindon—I must say that even we have had challenges. Over the past five years, there has been a 22% fall in footfall, and the number of empty units is up to 17%, but there is much hope on the horizon.
Turning to the excellent Mary Portas review, I, as her unofficial official No. 1 MP fan, am a great supporter of it, and for me the key recommendations included, very importantly, the need for a town team. We have the Forward Swindon company in Swindon, because developers and retailers want a single point of contact. Out-of-town shopping centres have a single point of contact, and that is what is needed on our high streets. It is important to empower bid schemes, which are essential for creating events, for marketing and for representing traders—for creating that reason to visit and for making the particular town a town centre. I wish the company in Swindon all the best in the referendum to get a second five-year term. I am sure it will.
It is very important to promote the national market days. We all say that we would like more markets in our constituencies, but the challenge is the lack of market traders, so I am delighted that today New college in my constituency and the Blunsdon indoor market have agreed to work with me to give business students the opportunity to man stalls on the market for free in order to get real-life experience.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend has drawn on several things happening in his town of Swindon. Does he agree that they demonstrate that town centres, high streets and markets are not just centres of economic activity, but the beating heart of many communities?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. That is right.
By giving young people the opportunity to get real-life experience on the market, we may find that they become the next generation of market traders or, even, shop retailers, and they create the independent retail outlets that give our town centres unique character.
Many hon. Members and hon. Friends have discussed the importance of business rates, and I welcome the fact that we are giving greater powers to local authorities. As with all things, there is a limited amount of money, but I hope that if they target anything, they will provide incentives for start-up businesses and, perhaps in particular, young people’s start-up businesses.
Parking has been mentioned several times, and I am delighted that Swindon has been praised in the Portas review, because its local council took a brave decision—opposed by Labour councillors who seemed hellbent on abandoning our town centre—to introduce a £2 flat fee for four hours’ parking. That reversed the fall in footfall, we had a 10% increase and, crucially, dwell time increased, too. In fact, one café reported a 30% increase in takings, so where, previously, people went into town just to do their banking, now they stop off in a café to refuel and, then, carry on to do some serious spending, which is a real boost for our local economy.
It is right to highlight the need for town centres to be accessible, attractive and safe, and I was delighted to see the £20 million parade redevelopment in Swindon, and that the council has invested £2.8 million in the public, open space in the town centre. It is also important to recognise the transition between the daytime and night-time economies, and with the plans to introduce a late-night levy I suggest that the units paying the levy have a say in how it is spent, as they understand the night-time economy.
The exceptional sign-off rule for all new out-of-town developments has also been highlighted, but we had a town centre Marks & Spencer, and the company planned to build another store on the northern orbital, at an out-of-town site. A deal was struck, however, whereby it would refurbish the town centre store first, so it remained the anchor, destination store.
On affordable shops, it is important to secure the next generation of independent retailers, and I fully support the need for several small units as the entry point for those new businesses.
I fully agree with the comments about doing everything we can to tackle the number of empty shops, and I am delighted that our Brunel shopping centre has reduced its vacancy rate to just 4%, partly on the back of cheaper parking and partly on the back of pushing landlords to make the units useful.
James Wharton
In the light of many comments that we have heard on the Floor of the House today, did my hon. Friend just say—did I hear him right?—that cheaper parking has helped to deliver success at his local shopping centres? It would be useful if he clarified that point.
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely, and I know that my hon. Friend highlighted a campaign on parking in his speech. Footfall had fallen by 22%, but following the reduction in car parking charges it has increased by 10%, and dwell time has increased significantly, benefiting local businesses.
For all those fans of the various Mary Portas TV programmes, page 43 of the report touches on another area—the need for retailers also to step up to the mark, particularly in customer service and by offering something different. We will not stop supermarkets or out-of-town shopping centres, and arguably we should not have to, because it is up to the market if people choose to go to them, but there is an opportunity for retailers to offer something better and different.
There are two examples in my constituency. The Bloomfields deli in Highworth opened when people said that it was absolutely mad to do so, but because it offered unique products and exceptional customer service it has thrived and opened a further two stores. The Forum clothes store has been trading for 17 years and seen off all sorts of national chains, which have come and gone as fashions have changed, but by building on customer service and offering products that are not immediately available elsewhere it has remained standing much longer than the main competition.
All is not lost, and there is much positive work to do. Members, the Government, local authorities and retailers have roles to play, and I very much hope that, with my promotion of Mary Portas at every opportunity, we in Swindon will have an opportunity to secure our status as one of the pilot schemes, because we are all behind it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I shall take a slightly less supportive position on the Portas report than my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who just made a very effective contribution to the debate.
I recognise that our local communities want to retain their high streets and town centres, and ultimately it is in their hands: they will determine where they shop. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) pointed out the attractions of supermarkets because of their all-embracing services at almost every hour of the day and night, but we certainly have to do something to restrict out-of-town developments and to retain the vibrancy of our town centres, because that is what the people we represent most certainly want.
My constituency boasts in Barton-upon-Humber a very good market town, and in Cleethorpes itself the main shopping centre on St Peter’s avenue boasts not only the MP’s constituency office, but a lively and excellent selection of shops. Another town in my constituency, Immingham, has a reasonable mix of shops, but it, like other places, is desperate. It wants Tesco as part of its regeneration, and I am pleased to say that it is almost about to happen, but we have to recognise that point.
I do not have time to touch on all the recommendations in the Portas report, so we can take it as read that I support most of them, but the town team recommendation envisages
“a visionary, strategic and strong operational management team”
and, having served on a town team as a council representative for many years, I have to say that we struggled because of over-regulation, difficulty and the lack of funding—even at that time, with lavish support from the regional development agency, which achieved almost nothing. Town teams are fine, but nothing will happen without the driving force of a local authority, because it controls planning, traffic movement and car parking.
Much has been said of car parking. Of course, we would all love to see zero charges, but the reality is that car parking provides a net income. I wrestled with this matter when I was a member of my local authority’s cabinet, where car parking had a net income of £1.25 million. Yes, that can be reduced. North Lincolnshire council, which is another authority in my constituency, has brought in some imaginative ideas and encouraged growth.
Nigel Mills
Does my hon. Friend agree that when councils get the power to keep any increase in their local business rates, we will soon see whether they are convinced that by reducing parking charges, they can generate extra business rates and therefore extra revenue? Cutting car parking charges might not be a lose-lose game, but rather a win-win game.
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend has made the point that I was just coming to, so I will skip a few points. However, we have to recognise the difficulties that local authorities face in this regard.
Recommendation 15 of the report talks about an “affordable shops” quota in large new developments. That idea sounds fine, but the businesses that would be drawn to such developments are probably those that are currently in secondary shopping areas, such as the long parades of shops that most towns have, where many of the shops are boarded up or are used as charity shops. The recommendation might lead to more decay and dereliction in those secondary areas. We must consider the knock-on effects.
Overall, the report is to be welcomed, if for no other reason than that it has generated a lively debate in the House today, with excellent contributions. That will feed through into our local communities, where the debate will continue.
While I have the opportunity, I will put one point to the Minister again. We hear much about the regeneration of our cities, which are indeed engines of economic growth. I ask him not to forget the provincial towns, many of which are a long way from a major city. There should not be too much concentration on cities at the expense of the many provincial towns in my region, such as Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Halifax and Huddersfield.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
How does my hon. Friend suggest we communicate politically the value of market towns as opposed to cities?
Martin Vickers
That is a challenging question. The reality is that we have been trying to revitalise our towns. As I have said, I served for a long time on my local authority. I was also a member of the Local Government Association’s urban commission. We had countless presentations from highly paid consultants on how this could be achieved, but many of the ideas fell flat because there was not the support of local communities.
The report mentions reinvigorating high streets with market traders. In principle, that is fine, but I remember being the councillor responsible for allowing that to happen and there was a mass uprising among existing shopkeepers, who immediately came to me saying, “I pay my rates and my dues and you are allowing these people to drift in, many of whom have no connection with the town and the community.” It is a difficult balance to achieve.
We have to recognise that the success or failure of our high streets and town centres relies ultimately on the customers. It will be determined by the market forces. I want to see our town centres and high streets thrive with imaginative ideas from local shopkeepers, but ultimately the customer is king. Past Times went into administration a day or two ago; we must hope that high streets do not belong to times past.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
That was a powerful concluding statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who laid out the complexity of the situation.
The truth is that over the past six decades our policy on market towns and high streets has been an astonishing failure. Government after Government have tried almost everything. They have played around with parking and with rates, and they have changed the planning regulations. The result has been a catastrophic disaster. We have gone from 43,000 butchers in 1950 to 10,000 in 2000. We have gone from 41,000 greengrocers to 10,000. The number of fishmongers is now a fifth of what it used to be and the number of bakers is a quarter of what it used to be.
The question is, what do we do? We first need to be tough and serious in recognising the problem. The problem is not simply that out-of-town retailers are large, muscular bullies. First, their growth reflects the fact that it is more convenient to locate a business out of town. It is, of course, cheaper and easier to set up out of town. A shop can have night time deliveries, the rates are much more transparent and it is easier to develop a retail space that suits the retailer. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes said, customers are selecting out-of-town retailers for their shopping. Thirdly, we need to acknowledge that although out-of-town retailers have had a disastrous impact on our high streets and market towns, they have had a very good impact on the products in our shops. When my neighbour first moved to Penrith in 1955 from the United States, the only way in which one could buy olive oil was to go to the chemist and buy it in a bottle of about 25 ml for medicinal purposes.
So what are we going to do? As everybody has said in this debate, we need clearly to define the value of towns and high streets.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to providing a broader range of products, the supermarkets that he refers to have brought the benefit of reducing the cost of living for many people by reducing the price of basic essentials and the general grocery bill?
Rory Stewart
I agree absolutely. That is why the argument that we have to make is not an easy one. We have to make it because everybody in this Chamber—indeed, everyone in this country—believes deeply in the value of our high streets and market towns. It is not an easy argument to make because in terms of price, market competition and, fundamentally, choice, it is difficult to continue to defend the high street. In order to do so, we need to reach for more imaginative arguments.
We need to explain, above all, the value of public space. The great thing about any high street or market town is that it offers somewhere that is different from the workplace and the home: a civic space in which one interacts with other people. The point of it is not simply a shopping or retail experience, but those innumerable miniature encounters and exchanges of advice and wisdom that create the warp and weft of a community. That is a huge capital resource that we rely on when we talk about the big society, when we look for voluntary activity or when we fight for our local assets, such as in Penrith where we are fighting to save our cinema. We need that local identity and it is conveyed primarily in our lives through the experience of a town or high street.
Mr Marcus Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ambience and experience of the town centre is extremely important? The town centre manager in Nuneaton has a strong track record of putting on entertainment such as Punch and Judy shows, theatre shows, mini opera companies and brass bands. Does my hon. Friend agree that such things add to the ambience and experience when people go to our town centres?
Rory Stewart
Absolutely. Of course, that is a central insight of this debate: a town centre is not simply about a shopping or retail experience, but about a much broader community experience that can range from puppets to the visual elements and even the aesthetics. One reason that Appleby in my constituency is such an appealing place is its architecture. The extraordinary asymmetry and symmetry of our red sand stone, the castle on the top of the hill, the Moot hall and the market cross create something that it would be impossible to replicate in a modern retail space. Those things are not about shopping.
The other important point from Nuneaton is local leadership, which is what we need to represent a town centre and compete with an incredibly able retail manager at a Tesco or Waitrose. That is why we should look again at local democracy and elected local mayors. If we ask why a French town is vibrant and able to say no to a local supermarket, whereas in Penrith a Sainsbury’s appeared even though I reckon 90% of the community opposed it, we realise that a great deal of that is due to the lack of a local leader and champion, the elected mayor, who can say no.
We can also do an enormous amount to support councils by getting rid of regulations and ensuring that if, for example, Penrith wished to challenge the supermarket, it could be confident in the judicial review process and confident that the planning laws would suit it. There could perhaps even be insurance if it were defeated, so that it did not feel horribly financially exposed.
Finally, and most importantly for Conservative Members, we must understand that this is a fundamentally conservative campaign in the best sense of the word. It is not about a grand vision of central planning and rationality, or a notion that some expert in a capital, or in Tesco’s headquarters, can define exactly what is required for every community. It is about taking what is already there—our historic inheritance. It is often an inconvenient inheritance for parking, rates or the space for shops, but we can make something of that history and tradition. Above all, we can have not simply shopping but a sense of the warp and weft, the interaction and the human spirit of community that once made us proud to be called a nation of shopkeepers, which will be difficult to retain without any shops at all.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing the debate and ensuring that the Backbench Business Committee listened to his remarks. The depth of the conversation that has taken place today has clearly indicated the leadership that he demonstrated.
Before I go any further, may I declare an interest? I still have shares in a company that I set up some five or six years ago, which deals in giving advice to property developers on how to manage public consultation and on ensuring that they get their political messages across. I suspect that in the next five minutes I will demonise myself as being responsible for an awful lot of the problems that have occurred. Some of the people with whom I ended up working were from supermarkets and food retailers, so I have some understanding of what they do.
First, I wish to talk about Plymouth, which is the largest urban conurbation west of Bristol. It is a low-skilled and low-wage economy, and as Members know it is the home—or I should say a home—of the Royal Navy. My constituency runs south of the A38 and from the River Plym to the River Tamar. It has a city centre in it, and I am uniquely a very strong urban Tory. I therefore hope that I can talk about the impact of what is happening.
We were badly bombed during the war, and a lot of the property in the constituency is now beginning to look a little shabby and needs work doing to it. However, we do have a university, which is a key part of ensuring that regeneration takes place. I would be grateful if the university considered how it could include some retail activity on its premises, because there are major implications for the city in July and August when the university has gone down.
There is a proposal by English Heritage to list the city centre, which I do not think is a very clever thing to do. All that will do is put the whole thing into aspic and discourage the growth of the retail sector.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I am interested by what my hon. Friend says about universities and students. In my constituency we have a large university in a town of 50,000 people. Does he agree that when councils and shop builders plan town centres and retail offerings, it is important that they think about not only the student market but, as he says, a year-round market? They have to appeal to both students and non-students for the whole 12 months.
Oliver Colvile
I fully agree, and licensed premises are also incredibly important. We now have more licensed premises in Plymouth city centre than there are in the whole of Liverpool, which is quite a striking fact given that the population of Plymouth is about 250,000 and Liverpool’s is significantly bigger. There has been a tendency for local authorities of all political parties in the area to move the culture of Union street, of which those who know Plymouth will be aware, out to Mutley Plain and the Barbican. That has had real implications, including for the local police’s work to maintain law and order. We need a much more balanced approach.
When I was working commercially—Members will be delighted to know that I am not any more, although I do have an interest in my own business—I was aware of how defensive some landowners could get about looking after their stakeholdings. They wanted to ensure that if there was development, it would not affect their commercial interests badly. There was one city in the south of England where we did a lot of work, and I had a client there who owned about £40 million of assets in the town centre. He had great difficulty in talking to the local authority and getting it to work with him to develop his part of the town. It became a very big problem, and it ended up with the local authority trying to get his land by compulsory purchase order, with all the implications that went with that. It is very important that local authorities should not try to be developers by proxy, because that is a disaster. It has delayed the regeneration of that town by a significant time.
Mr Marcus Jones
Will my hon. Friend comment, on the basis of the professional expertise that he has just outlined, on the suggestion that we heard earlier that the abolition of the upward-only rent review might benefit the regeneration of our town centres?
Oliver Colvile
We need to do everything we can to encourage as much footfall as possible in town centres. If I were a retailer, I would want people passing by to come into my shop. One thing that I learned at a very early stage when I got involved in the whole business of development was that planners liked to have one anchor store at one end of the town and another at the other end. I think that is quite a positive story, because people end up walking from one side of the town to the other and doing their shopping in the small shops in between.
I am very keen to ensure that town centres are the major places in which we encourage investment, but we must understand that in so doing we put up rents and some smaller shops cannot operate. We need to encourage people to set up niche businesses, such as bakers, butchers, fishmongers and so on.
We must ensure that we deliver a master plan approach. When development is taking place in our towns, we need to look at the sites and get the local community involved in making the decision on what they want there. There must be community benefits. When I gave advice to developers, including Sainsbury’s, I would always say, “When you are looking at your campaign, you have to consider what consumers and electorates will think is in it for them,” which means developing good community consultation. We have worked hard on that key aspect in my constituency.
Conservatives have a good story to tell. After all, Nicholas Ridley introduced the planning process in the first place, and John Gummer, as Secretary of State for the Environment, introduced the concept of planning policy statements—we are now on PPS 4, which is on ensuring that stuff goes into the town centre. We have a good story to tell, but there is further to go. I very much encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the Portas report is used and implemented.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate on this vital subject. It is an important day for town centres around the country, but it is also a very important evening for Macclesfield Town football club, who are playing a well-deserved replay at the Reebok against premier league Bolton. [Hon. Members: “What’s the latest score?”] Nil-nil. We will win yet.
I welcome the Government’s decision to set up the high street review and congratulate Mary Portas on her exceptional work and on producing an action-oriented set of recommendations. Most of all, I pass on my thanks to the shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, and business men and women around the country who work tirelessly day in, day out, to put our high streets at the heart of our communities. They do so very capably, particularly in Macclesfield.
Macclesfield is an historical and energetic town, nestled beneath the hills of the Peak district. It has real character and an independent spirit. In Georgian days, Macclesfield was the world’s biggest producer of finished silk, and the town continued to thrive in prosperity for centuries after, but in recent years the town centre has suffered from the opening of the Trafford centre and the Handforth Dean retail park, and the uncertainty of future plans for the town centre that were stalled by the credit crunch. By its own successful standards, the town centre felt tired, and in 2008 or 2009 there was a growing appreciation that something had to be done.
The response from the community was terrific—positive and action-oriented. I am particularly keen to share that experience and hope that it is of interest to colleagues and those who might be listening, just as we are keen in Macclesfield to learn from other communities.
We have learned through our efforts in regenerating and revitalising the town centre that the key ingredients are belief, confidence and building momentum. A critical milestone for us was re-establishing the Barnaby festival in June 2010. Barnaby was a centuries-old tradition that had fallen into decline, but it was completely reinvented and resurrected as an arts and culture-led festival by the community, for the community.
Barnaby was a huge success and led other community entrepreneurs to establish a monthly treacle market. That market, which again is run by the community, for the community, has gone from strength to strength.
As confidence has grown, more events have followed. There was a programme of events to celebrate the 750th anniversary of the Macclesfield town charter, and last December, as if from nowhere, a schedule of events called the “WinterFest” helped drive footfall across the whole month. That was vital at that critical time of year.
To build that momentum, it was vital that we sought to engage stakeholders more fully. We needed to get local businesses, community groups and the council together, so we created a business breakfast. It was not so much a “town team” as the Portas report describes, but more a good old-fashioned town hall meeting. In engaging those businesses and community groups—about 120 come out every couple of months—we have created a real agenda for progress.
We have created our own brand identity—by the community, for the community—and an economic forum. That really is our “town team” as defined by Mary Portas. However we define it, that partnership, and—dare I say it?—that coalition has helped to create and strengthen our initiatives to help to take the town forward.
The creation of the economic forum led to a whole-town vision, which has helped to create the confidence for local businesses to invest. Wilson Bowden is considering a town centre development in Macclesfield—one of the few being considered across the country—and Tesco has expressed an interest in dramatically increasing the size of its edge-of-town unit as well as its town centre Metro store. My message is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies): at these moments in the life of communities such as Macclesfield, it is vital that national retailers and developers show that they are going to be part of the solution, rather than exacerbating the problem. It is vital that they show commitment and energy in supporting the community, just as so many other stakeholders are doing, up and down the country.
In my remaining 10 seconds, I would like to say to the Minister and to Mary Portas that Macclesfield stands ready to take part in one of the pilots. We think that we would be a leading light in culture and heritage-led regeneration—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There is no injury time for football scores, I am afraid, and the hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I was born and brought up in Dudley. Dudley has been somewhat disparaged this evening, but I want to tell colleagues that it used to be the place to go. For me, Cranage’s coffee shop was the place to hang out. For my mum, it was Cook’s or Beattie’s department stores. However, following the closure of a huge local steelworks called Round Oak, Government subsidies were used to create a new shopping centre called Merry Hill on that site—with free car parking, of course. Merry Hill sucked the lifeblood out of Dudley. Cook’s was lost, but Beattie’s stubbornly hung on for many years. It was a family firm determined to buck the trend and keep the town together.
Today, as the MP for Solihull, I have fought, along with my party and local residents, against an Asda superstore being built on precious parkland on our high street—the Stratford road in Shirley. We lost. The Conservative-led council forced the decision through. We are about to find out whether we are right to believe that the Asda will suck the lifeblood out of the small independent shops on the high street, or whether the developers are right in saying that it will attract more people who will magically spill out on to the high street and create more footfall.
Now the Conservatives are planning to introduce car parking charges to Shirley for anything longer than a 30-minute stay. That is crazy. It will mean that the hard-working shopkeepers will be starved of business because people will be unwilling to pay the charges, especially when there is free parking down the road at an out-of-centre Sainsbury’s and Tesco. Councils should be looking for ways of encouraging people to use local shops, not discouraging them from doing so. I have big worries that this will be the last straw for Shirley.
That is what is happening now, but what of the future? Do we have to march inexorably down this road? Are the town centre and the high street doomed? Tonight we have heard many facts about the decline in trade and in the number of high street shops, but I do not think that they are doomed. There will always be a need for town centres. They are not just places to get commodities; they are venues in themselves, incorporating restaurants, entertainment and places to meet up with friends, to socialise, to browse and to be seen. Touchwood, in the centre of Solihull, is an excellent example; it demonstrates how a good shopping centre can thrive.
A recent Experian report identified that frustrations with online shopping are driving consumers back to the high street. Deliveries can be slow or even non-existent, and the goods often do not match the online descriptions. When we go shopping, we can see exactly what we are getting, and have the instant gratification of being able, in most cases, to take our purchases home with us.
The high street must respond to changing consumer expectations and offer a great experience to shoppers. On the whole, business improvement districts have done well in concentrating on that, and they can do more. I have been banging on for years about local communities’ need for empowerment in relation to the design and character of their shopping centres. Developers who come in with a “we know best” attitude could be in for a fight, as was the case in the Shirley development.
I support the Association of Convenience Stores’ sequential test to ensure that all sites close to a town centre are considered before out-of-town developments are allowed. Both the ACS and the Portas review support a presumption in favour of town centre development, and I totally agree we should have a “town centre first” principle in the national planning policy framework.
As for parking charges, out-of-town centres clearly have a competitive advantage, and I support the idea of councils being given new tools to raise revenue specifically to support access to, and the regeneration of, high streets. Given that business rates can now be repatriated to local authorities, I am sure that a way can be found for that to be done. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and we must find a way to even up the playing field so that all retailers have a fair chance to get a fair market share.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate, in which it is a great privilege to speak. I represent Llandudno, the second most popular shopping centre in north Wales—unfortunately, the most popular one was the subject of a hymn of praise from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). However, Llandudno is a very attractive shopping centre, mainly because it has retained its character as an old Victorian seaside resort. Llandudno is known as the queen of Welsh resorts, and that is still very much the case. The credit for that has to go to Mostyn Estates, which owns the freehold of a large percentage of the town.
That is why I am so concerned about certain aspects of the Portas report. There are many good things in it, but when a landlord is willing to work extremely hard to retain the retail centre in Llandudno—Mostyn Estates works extremely hard and constructively to do that—it is of concern to read comments in the report stating that landlords with vacant spaces must be further encouraged or possibly penalised. We have an issue with empty property rates relief lasting only three months for retail premises, and I would be loth to see Mostyn Estate’s ability to support the development of retail in Llandudno damaged by a further penalty for having empty properties. They are often empty not because of any failure by Mostyn Estates to market them properly, but because of economic circumstances.
I shall try to explain that in detail. I spoke recently to the chief executive of Mostyn Estates, and he made the important point that when a small business looks to locate in a retail centre, it will have a certain amount of money available for rent and rates. In Llandudno, the rates are so high that the rent paid to Mostyn Estates is often lower than the rates that the same businesses pay out. Time and again, Mostyn Estates has been willing to reduce its rents to keep a tenant in place even though the rates have not been reduced. I am concerned, therefore, about that proposition in the report.
I am also slightly concerned about the tendency in this debate to view the supermarket chains as a danger to the retail high street. Yes, that can be the case, especially if the development is out of town, but Llandudno has seen the development of retail parks and centres within walking distance of the high street, and some footfall has gone from the supermarkets to the high streets. Yes, the centre of gravity within the town has changed, but the town has retained its attraction to shoppers.
I was taken by the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who highlighted the fact that a town centre must be more than just a shopping centre; it must be a focus for public engagement and enjoyment of life. In Conwy, another small town in my constituency, that is exactly what we have seen. Some 10 or 15 years ago, Conwy was on its knees, yet an enterprising local butcher, as it happens, decided to invest significantly in developing his local shop, which resulted in the business going from strength to strength. Indeed, Edwards of Conwy, the maker of the finest sausages in the United Kingdom, recently won a major contract to export its produce to Malaysia, in addition to supplying all the supermarkets.
That investment is important. It created the feeling in Conwy that they could develop and revitalise the town as a shopping centre by highlighting the food offer. In Conwy, we now have wine shops, delicatessens, restaurants, high-quality hotels and, to crown it all, the food festival every October, which is a huge success. In other words, Conwy has decided to reinvent itself as a destination.
When we consider the future of the high street, it is important to recognise that we cannot fight the tide of history: we cannot fight the fact that people now buy from Amazon. Before Christmas, I went to the Llandudno post office and was struck by the number of parcels from Amazon. We cannot fight that type of development, but we can offer something completely different. We can say to people, “Come to Conwy. Come and shop in Conwy. You’ll see something completely different offered by small, independent retailers who will sell you something that you will not see anywhere else.”
So I have two examples in my constituency of where we have seen the ability of a good landlord, in Llandudno, and innovative local retailers, in Conwy, to make a real difference; and yes the supermarkets can contribute to footfall in high streets, but they can also be a danger. In Llanrwst, another small town in my constituency, there is a proposal for a Tesco store. The one comment made to me by a shopkeeper was: “Why can it offer to build a school or swimming pool for the local authority? If I did that, I would be accused of taking advantage of the system.”
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I add my name to the list of those congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging it. At this stage of the debate, there is little left to add to the excellent contributions of so many hon. Members, particularly of my hon. Friends. I want to highlight one or two of the concerns I share with others for my Mid Norfolk constituency, but as we move to the close I want to focus on some of the positives, as I believe there are a number of reasons for being positive about the future of our market towns, particularly our rural market towns.
Mid Norfolk is not an affluent constituency. We are not part of the celebrated Norfolk triangle, and we are not part of the “gold coast”; Burnham market is a long way from my constituency. Our average income is about £17,500 a year; we have four market towns and 114 villages. Many of the problems described today are all too evident as one travels in Dereham, my capital, the ancient heart of Norfolk. We have recently seen the closure of Chambers, the celebrated and historic store. I was recently delighted to receive a petition from the town’s residents to the Co-op, asking it to change its decision to close.
In Wymondham, home of the great abbey and the place of Robert Kett’s rebellion, I have the pleasure this Friday of chairing a meeting at which 400 residents are due to come to talk about the town’s plan, as it faces an application from Asda for a development in the middle of the town. There is a huge appetite to discuss issues around sustainable development, facilities for the young and the old, and ensuring that we have a genuine long-term plan that looks at the needs of Wymondham over the next 20 years—not just for Wymondham either, but for the surrounding villages that rely on it, too.
In Attleborough, zoned for development under Labour’s regional spatial strategy and to be doubled in size with 4,000 houses, the challenge is to come up with the right level of growth that can provide the infrastructure levy that will fund the bypass we need, while keeping Attleborough as the beautiful market town in which people want to live and work. In Watton, the heart of the Wayland valley, there are huge pressures on the high street, with closures of traditional stores and huge local concern that the town centre is losing its viability.
Why, then, am I optimistic? After several decades in which our town centres, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), have been “woefully badly catered for”, I believe that we have serious grounds to be optimistic. First, because people care—and such care has been demonstrated today in the level, strength and depth of opinion voiced in this debate, while our residents also care, as evidenced by the 300 or 400 people due to turn up on Wymondham on Friday evening.
Secondly, I am confident because around the country there are inspiring examples of enlightened local council leaders, town councils, residents associations and, indeed, of best practice, which have shown that it is possible to combine the one-stop shop convenience of an out-of-town supermarket that people with busy lives need with the heritage, community and authentic local community experience of a well run and well organised town centre. These things are not beyond the wit of man.
I am confident, thirdly, because of the Government’s measures, including the Localism Bill, community planning measures, the big society, the emphasis on the rebalanced economy, the localisation of business rates and the support for small business generally.
Fourthly, I am confident because the public themselves are showing in their retail habits a growing demand for the local, the artisanal, the authentic and for an increased interest and involvement in the retail experience seen as an authentic part of the community of which they are part. I am confident, fifthly, because of the measures on broadband.
In my Mid Norfolk constituency we might have been neglected by successive Governments for 30 or 40 years, but if we put all these measures together, along with the investment in the Cambridge-Norwich railway line, in the A11, in rural broadband and in science at the Norwich research park, I would submit that our area is on the cusp of a renaissance—a renaissance that we describe and seek to promote locally through a project called the Norfolk way, a renaissance of small businesses coming back to the countryside in converted barns and converted turkey sheds, empowered with globally competitive information technology and trading between the hubs of Cambridge and Norwich.
If we can have a vibrant rural economy, we will have a chance to have vibrant market towns. For no one are those market towns more important than for the people trading in the rural economy. I close with the suggestion that we can be optimistic provided that we take the energy of today and channel it into the enlightened policies of tomorrow.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing the debate.
The real added value of high streets is their importance to our communities. Our high streets are literally at the centre of town life, and are a vital part of our towns’ identities. One of my first campaigns after I was selected as the candidate for my seat was a fight against proposals to close local post offices. The loss, or downgrading, of local services such as post offices in our town centres has taken away many of the reasons for people to come into the high street rather than travelling to out-of-town shopping centres. That has had an impact on high street traders who were already facing significant challenges as a result of changing shopping habits.
Cradley Heath in my constituency has recently had direct experience of the difficulties faced by local high streets. Three years ago, a large supermarket was built on a bypass going past the town centre. It is almost as if everything, from the positioning of the store to the road layout, had been designed with the express intention of taking as many people as possible away from Cradley Heath high street, and the effect on local traders has been enormous. Had Sandwell council acted with more care, there could surely have been an alternative that would have kept trade from supermarket shoppers in the town helping high street traders. That is a lesson that must be learnt for future development.
We need to find ways of making town centres more attractive so that people want to be in them, and to take advantage of the things that they can offer and out-of-town centres and online stores cannot. We have seen that in the town centre of Halesowen, the largest town in my constituency, which grew from being a market town after the war to being a “border town” at the edge of the Birmingham and black country conurbations. That had an effect on the town centre, which found itself facing strong competition first from Birmingham city centre and then from the new Merry Hill shopping centre that was built in the 1980s. Familiar local names disappeared from the centre, to be replaced by chain stores and empty premises.
In recent years, however, Dudley council, the chamber of trade and other partners have worked to turn the town centre around. A new bus station has been built next to the main shopping area, there is an indoor market plaza to help small traders to set up in the town, and there have been initiatives such as Halesowen in bloom. None of those constitutes a “magic bullet”, but each helps to make shopping in Halesowen a more pleasant experience. The results can be seen in an increased footfall in the town, and in reports from local businesses that things really do seem to be picking up.
We need to find new ways of giving people a reason to come to the high street. We should consider initiatives such as town centre loyalty cards to retain business in our towns. We also need local authorities to exercise more flexibility to ensure that town centre premises do not remain empty for too long, and we need Government help to make that possible. In December, Halesowen police set up a “cop shop” in a vacant shop in the town centre, offering crime prevention help and advice to Christmas shoppers. It brought together other public services and agencies, and proved very popular.
More such initiatives would be possible if local authorities were able to offer business rate holidays, or similar support. Although councils have legal powers to do that in many instances, the financial cost prevents it from being a viable option. Councils that offer business rate relief in such circumstances still have to pay the money to the central fund although they are not receiving the revenue from the rates. The Government’s proposals to allow some or all of the revenue obtained from business rates to be retained locally could be used to allow more discretion in the way in which local authorities offer business rate holidays and other reliefs. I hope that the Government will consider that as they develop their proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill.
At their best, town centres such as Halesowen make shopping more than a purely commercial transaction. We should be proud of the work that is being done to enable high streets to compete in an age of Amazon and eBay, but we must also continue to look for new ways to make our town centres more attractive. That means a partnership between local and national Government, local businesses and the wider community that will enable local solutions to address local challenges.
I welcome the Government’s commissioning of the Portas review. I look forward to seeing its recommendations being put into practice and action being taken to help put our high streets at the very heart of our local communities.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), on stimulating a lively, interesting and largely well-attended debate. We must support our town centres. If we do not, we will witness their demise, and the economic, environmental, retail and community value of those centres will be lost. Anyone who has visited the United States, where there are fewer planning controls than we have had in the UK, will have seen many towns with holed-out centres where there is little life or activity, but also with a doughnut of development all around of large-scale retail shopping centres.
My constituency has fared rather better than most in relation to the recent changes in town centres. The Association of Convenience Stores states that the average level of vacant shop units is 14%. The situation in Rugby has improved, however. The vacancy rate was just 3% in 2007. It then rose to between 8% and 10% at the peak of the recession in 2008. Since then the proportion has fallen back to 6.25%. That compares very favourably with the national average.
As elsewhere, there have been recent shop closures in Rugby as a consequence of difficult Christmas trading, but I pay tribute to our progressive forward-thinking council. It is aware of the problem and has taken action to deal with it, including through adopting a flexible approach to planning and introducing “moving in” grants of up to about £5,000, which often go to smaller independent businesses. The total spend on that has been £70,000 over three or four years, and it has been an effective investment.
This is a national problem, however, and we all must consider what to do to halt the decline in high street retail. It is important to understand what is happening in retail. Many Members have referred to the influence of the internet and have rightly stated that we cannot fight the power of the internet. According to the House of Commons Library, just 3% of retail purchases were made on the internet in January 2007, but the internet now accounts for 12% of UK retail trade.
Local communities have two options. With a decline of 12% in retail trade, it is clear that the number of retail outlets and the amount of retail space must fall, not necessarily by the full 12% but certainly to some extent. Alternatively, the population in the local area must grow. I am delighted that Rugby is taking the latter approach, with a substantial development of 13,000 homes about to start on the Gateway site as well as development due for 6,200 homes on the Mast site.
There are many reasons why communities should embrace new housing. Our young people need homes, and the new homes bonus provides an income stream for local councils. New housing also supports our existing town centres. Communities should not complain about the decline of their town centres if they do not accept more housing where that is possible. In areas where new housing is not possible and town centres shrink, properties at the edge of the town centres should be able to be used for retail—indeed, many of them were originally developed for retail use. We must react fluidly in order to adapt to times of growth and decline.
Communities should also develop their independent stores. Rugby has a very successful independent sector in the Regent street and Albert street area, and The Rugby Observer report on Christmas 2011 trading highlighted the success of independents in Rugby that give great service and flexibility in the range of products they sell. As elsewhere, chain stores did badly. I believe that people are now bored by the uniformity of multiples, and independents offer something different. We need more support for independent retailers, especially as that would effectively be backing winners.
That was recognised in the Mary Portas review. She visited our town and said in her report that she had been very impressed with the “champions of change” she met in Rugby. They were not managers of national multiples, but independent entrepreneurial traders. They must be encouraged. There is much good news and much that can be done, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Colchester’s Daily Gazette today reported that the parent company of three shops in Colchester—Peacocks, Bon Marché and Past Times—had gone into administration. I know that they are national firms, and my hope is that buyers will be found and the businesses will continue, because they are an important part of the retail mix and they employ local people. Indeed, it was at Past Times that I bought a poster that said “Keep calm and carry on”, and I trust that that is what will happen. However, it is not all doom and gloom. I am told by those who know about these things that Colchester has fared better than most places for retail sales. Indeed, our department store, Williams & Griffin, one of those great local stores that is now part of an independent group, has plans to expand its floor space by 50%.
Colchester High street is the oldest high street in Britain. It is built along the Roman road, which goes back to the time when Colchester was the first capital of Roman Britain. I am anxious to ensure that Colchester does not become part of clone town Britain. National Government and local government have parts to play in that, along with local initiatives, both individual and collective. The Government need to be careful about expanding further out-of-town shops and other moves in that direction.
A local initiative that I wish to promote is one that I call “centurion’s walk”, which is to involve just over 100 small, mainly locally owned independent stores, all built on top of the Roman wall in the southern part of the original Roman city of Colchester. In addition, the East Anglian Daily Times has a “shop local” scheme and the East of England Co-operative Society sources from local suppliers; that is very successful and I certainly recommend it. One way in which the national Government could help is by having a scheme where the first 500 square feet of retail space is free of business rates; I would like the Portas report to be adapted here. The money could be reclaimed by a levy on out-of-town supermarket car parks. I do not see why that could not be done.
Park and ride is vital for Colchester and for many other regional shopping centres. Unfortunately, Essex county council, which is responsible for this, has not provided one single park and ride facility for Colchester, yet Chelmsford has two and Ipswich, over the border in Suffolk, has two. Our principal competitor towns, Ipswich and Chelmsford, have been provided with park and ride, but Essex county council has not provided the same for us. Colchester is the only part of Essex that is not Tory, and I suspect that that may be the reason why we are being discriminated against.
On localism and sustainable communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) quite properly drew attention to the number of empty floors above shops, and it is important that we try to use those wherever possible. I also pay tribute to the Essex chamber of commerce and the Association of Convenience Stores, which are battling in this area. This is not just about the high street, because our neighbourhoods, suburbs and community centres are involved.
The Federation of Small Businesses has drawn attention to the Portas review’s recommendation that the Government should consider whether the business rate system can support small businesses and independent retailers better. I invite the Minister to look at my suggestion that we can help smaller shops—community shops and village shops—by giving them a business rate holiday. I would also like to mention indoor markets, because they have a lot to commend them. Keep Britain Tidy, too, points out that its awards scheme is a way of encouraging local pride in our communities. Finally, I wish to mention our good friends at the British Retail Consortium, who say:
“it is essential that Local Authorities across the country work with retailers, cultural and heritage organisations, landlords and other local stakeholders to maximise the inherent advantage of an individual area’s local heritage”.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we are about to have—and are having—a very important debate. In my constituency a number of small towns are all demonstrating the importance of localism. Stroud, Dursley, Berkeley, Painswick and others are all effectively manifesting what is necessary through the provision of strong local leadership and the delivery of sophisticated outcomes, because people know and understand what happens in their local areas. That is one of the strengths of localism, which is reinforced by the activities of chambers of trade, which should also be saluted in this project. A good chamber, it seems to me, is one that knows and understands the shops and so on in its high street and works hard to generate collective activity in generating business and in interfacing with the local authorities and other agencies. I salute such chambers.
We need to drill down on several issues, one of which is the night-time economy. It seems to me that it is really important to recognise that there are different phases in the high street timetable, one of which involves what happens after the shops close. The restaurants, pubs and cafés generate more activity, which is linked to what happens in the shops. It is important for all our smallish communities—that is what I am talking about from the vantage point of my constituency—to think in terms of the night-time economy. Some years ago we had a seminar about that subject in Stroud, at which pub closures, the impact of night clubs and the absence of restaurants were all mentioned, but over the last few years all those factors have begun to point in the right direction for a lively night-time economy in Stroud. I pay tribute to people who think in those terms.
Another aspect of the question that has come across quite forcefully in the debate, and rightly so, is the fact that we are not just talking about shops, although they are very important. We are talking about, for example, the cultural life of a high street. In Stroud, Dursley and Nailsworth, farmers markets generate a lot of business and activity. They have made an impact in my constituency in delivering extra verve in high street life. It is valuable for such activities not just to be started but to be seen to thrive. It is vital that we think beyond the normal expectations of people who think about high streets and go into new areas and new opportunities. Farmers markets definitely fall within that category.
I also want to talk about unused houses and flats above shops in our high streets—an important matter in terms of our attitudes to housing. If we can get people to participate in and live in their community, that is great, and we should consider how we can encourage shop owners and owners of general commercial properties on our high streets to make better use of the properties, and the floors above the shops that we all walk past. If all of a community—shop owners, shoppers, residents, café and pub owners and so on—is part of a multi-dimensional high street, we can start to get a strong nucleus of useful influence that can work towards developing the high street.
I welcome the report we have discussed tonight, and the Government’s enthusiasm for promoting high street activity. I salute the very strong work in my constituency, in the towns I have mentioned and in others, which demonstrates that some really good results can be produced in high street and town activity.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I particularly relish the opportunity to speak in this debate because it really is the hot topic in my constituency at the moment, and it is nice to see that it is also such a hot topic in so many other constituencies. There are two reasons for that in my constituency, the first of which is that we have a very successful high street in Lindley, north of Huddersfield, which I shall talk about in a moment. Secondly, like many other colleagues in the Chamber, we have worries about a proposed out-of-town supermarket superstore.
My constituency is one of the biggest in the country. I have 81,000 constituents, but only one major supermarket —a Morrisons in Meltham, which heavily overtrades. It is incredibly busy, particularly at 5 o’clock on a Saturday evening. It is just up the road from where I live. There are a couple of medium-sized Co-ops and a sort of Sainsbury’s Express in Salendine Nook. The supermarket companies have identified that situation and both Tesco and Lidl are looking to come into the outskirts of Holmfirth.
Holmfirth is the “Last of the Summer Wine” town from the BBC television series, which is home to Compo, Foggy and Cleggy—not that Cleggy of course, but the one from the television. It is a very popular tourist destination and a lovely market town, but Tesco is looking to situate a big new store 0.7 miles from the outskirts of Holmfirth and has put in a planning application to do so. Many people are very concerned about that and there was a protest by traders in Holmfirth over the weekend when they boarded up their shops to show what the place could look like if Tesco arrives. There are also big transport issues to consider. However, there could be positives if Tesco comes, such as 175 jobs and greater accessibility to goods at a reasonable price. At the moment, a lot of people go to superstores on the other side of Huddersfield.
There are big concerns about having an out-of-town supermarket, but on the other hand, as Mary Portas noted in her review, local shops can be successful if they specialise in specialism, experience and service. That is shown particularly well on a very successful high street in Lindley in the north of my constituency, which is a lovely little community and is very busy because the big hospital, Huddersfield royal infirmary, is in that area. I would like to name some of the different types of business on a little street called Lidget street which really demonstrate Mary Portas’s point about service, experience and specialism. We have Concepts Beauty and the Forget Me Not Trust children’s hospice charity shop, which is a local charity shop to which people feel very close emotionally. We have Garry Butler’s top quality butchers, Hartley’s confectioners, Branch One food emporium, the Bubble and Squeak deli, Lindley Fine Wines, Pure Occasions of Lindley, the Hair Room, Soor’s of Lindley, the Saddle pub, the Caspian gallery, Wagstaff’s Shoes and Eric’s restaurant and bar, which uses local produce. There is also a pharmacy, the local library, Sugarcraft Creations’ wonderful sugar craft to go on the top of cakes, Cosy Kitchens, an opticians, the Dress for Less discount store, Lindley Spice, Carl Livesey’s butchers, the Children’s Book Shop, Lindley’s café and deli, and the Number 10 bar and kitchen—how appropriate is that? That is a fantastic range of local shops that are locally owned and offer that kind of service, experience and specialism.
Linked to that area is a wonderful community spirit because people organise a superb Lindley carnival in the summer and there is the Lindley Christmas market in the first of week of December when the thoroughfare is closed, everyone comes out on to the street and all the shops are open, offering mulled wine and mince pies. Those local shops really engage with the local community and are something to behold. There is also two hours-worth of free parking—something that has been mentioned very much in this debate—in a major car park at the end of the street. People can also park up and down the street in bays and quickly pop into one of those wonderful local shops to make quick purchases. That is exactly what a community needs. High streets can be successful if they follow that kind of model and I think that all hon. Members, including myself, need to encourage our constituents, ourselves and our families to shop locally and support these wonderful local shops.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The whole debate so far has reminded me of when I was waiting to make my maiden speech, listening to potted descriptions of every town and city in the country, learning a lot about geography as well as politics. I shall now do roughly the same thing, talking from a city perspective about my Bristol West constituency, which covers the whole city centre and the shopping centres of Broadmead and Cabot Circus in the regional capital of the south-west of England. The constituency is also a patchwork of distinct neighbourhood shopping centres and high streets, bookended by Clifton village and Stapleton road, with the unique areas of Park street, Whiteladies road and Gloucester road running through the middle. Gloucester road may not be the oldest high street in England but it is certainly the longest. It has been argued in many media outlets that it is the greatest high street in England, with 2 miles of independent shops.
In the 1990s, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a fellow Bristol Member, our city centre faced great challenges from out of town, but it has fought back. Bristol city council worked in partnership with the private sector and we have a new shopping centre, but more important, thousands of people now live in the heart of the city of Bristol. I do not think it has been mentioned in the debate that we need more residents in town and city centres. I certainly endorse the recommendations in the Portas report for town centre teams and for a presumption in favour of town and city centres in the planning regime.
High streets, whether in cities or towns, certainly face multiple challenges; indeed, as has been said, they are at crisis point. Rationing of parking spaces has been referred to. Control of crime is another issue, as is the switch to online retailing. Every time I make my traditional Christmas visit to the Montpelier Royal Mail sorting centre, I am struck by the sheer number of Amazon parcels of the books and DVDs my constituents are buying.
The other major threat to all our high streets and locally owned businesses comes from the large national chains and multiples. Supermarkets have been mentioned many times during the debate so I shall not say too much more about them, but I am probably the only Member in the Chamber who has experienced a riot in his constituency caused by the opening of a branch of Tesco. It took place over the Easter and royal wedding bank holidays in April last year. I certainly do not condone the antics of those constituents, but I very much share their frustration. Large businesses do not work with the grain of local opinion. It was not that people did not want a Tesco; they just did not want another Tesco in an area where the brand was already at saturation point.
There are also national chains of bars, restaurants and cafés. They use their lawyers and large planning departments to circumvent local authority planning decisions. In my constituency, we have an example involving Costa Coffee—a brand owned by Whitbread, the brewers—which has opened three outlets in Bristol; in Gloucester road in my constituency, in Clifton Down and in Westbury village in the neighbouring constituency of Bristol North West. The company has flouted the decisions of Bristol city council; Costa’s managing director wrote to me to say that Costa was “re-energising and revitalising” high streets and
“regularly complements independent retailers…to offer a wider range of choice.”
That sort of banality infuriates local residents when they think they cannot work with the system to get what they want. We certainly need to reform the planning system to combat uniformity and promote diversity.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
As a fellow Bristol MP, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I hope we might work together to share our experiences of local high streets. Kingswood high street is a valuable part of my constituency. Does he agree that if a planning application for a major store is rejected, there should be a breathing space and the large store should not be allowed to re-enter the system straight away?
Stephen Williams
Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman—an MP for Greater Bristol—for that intervention.
The other flaw in the planning system is that when permission is refused by a committee of local councillors, the applicant goes ahead and opens the business because they know that an appeal will take a long time. That is a loophole that Costa has certainly exploited and it needs to be blocked. We need to reform the planning process, but we must also reform local government finance.
The use classes have been mentioned many times. Surely, it is common sense that the A1 retail use class cannot apply equally to Tesco, Sainsbury’s and all the other retail multiples and to Mrs Smith’s corner shop; none the less, that is how our planning system works.
What we need is to let go so that we have more localism, so that local councils, whether Bristol or South Gloucestershire, are sufficiently granular at the local level to micro-manage what they want in their high streets. If they do not want any more supermarkets or chains, they should be able to say so emphatically, and there should be no ambiguity in the classes of use to allow the large companies to drive a coach and horses through local opinion and local democratic decision making. Local communities could then promote the shops that they want, and democratically elected councillors could block the sharp practices of the large multiples.
Finally, finance has been mentioned a couple of times. The uniform business rate needs to be reformed so that local councils can offer waivers to businesses that they wish to attract to an area. Gloucester road has shops with most uses, but it does not have a book shop, so perhaps a rate incentive would attract a book retailer to the area. Business improvement districts have made a huge improvement to Bristol city centre, but I would argue that any shopping centre would benefit from a BID in which landlords are incentivised to take part as well. That is a key recommendation of the Portas report, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and which I have thoroughly enjoyed endorsing in this debate.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on introducing this debate. I have decided to make a speech because, having heard many colleagues wax lyrical about their shopping centres, I have to tell the House quite firmly that the finest shopping centre in the country is in my constituency of Southend West at Leigh-on-Sea.
There have been many, many reports before, and all hon. Members know what the problems are: it is the solutions that challenge us. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and I were at the Olympic stadium. Indeed, we both ran round the stadium and did the 100 metres in under nine seconds, so Usain Bolt should be worried. We then went to Westfield shopping centre. Having been born in the area, I found it all very impressive, and we were told that Stratford has a better Westfield than west London. I looked around for elderly people, and thought, “Where do they go?”
When I was Member of Parliament for Basildon, we had the biggest covered shopping centre in the country. I have enough enemies without naming a particular supermarket, but in Basildon, we started off with one giant store. We ended up with another giant store, and a third one at the other end of the town. I had a terrible row with the then chairman of that supermarket, because not only did it sell groceries but white goods, and it then decided to have a post office in-store: it was completely out of control.
We were told that we had the so-called biggest covered shopping centre in the country, but we were then told that Gateshead had the biggest covered shopping centre. Then the honour went to Lakeside, then Bluewater. It goes on and on and on. As the former chairman of the small shops group, I want to make a plea for small shops and for older people. I worry where older people, who do not shop online at Amazon and so on, are going to shop. They cannot go round the supermarket; they cannot go to the big covered shopping centres. In Leigh-on-Sea, we have an absolutely brilliant range of small shops. Indeed, my predecessor, Paul Channon, used to take Princess Margaret to shop in the local shops, which are still there today. It is a wonderful village atmosphere.
It is all very well and good Members coming to the House saying how marvellous small shops are, but this is the toughest time that I have ever known for businesses, let alone small shops. If we do not use them, we will lose them. We must all be realistic: in this day and age, it is down to price. For older people, it is great that we still have these little shops, where the shop owner has the time to swap stories and listen to people talk about their aches and pains and the rest of it. I worry that with the increasing Americanisation of the UK, if we are not careful, the whole country will be run by one rampant supermarket, and we will end up with all these covered shopping centres.
Having represented two constituencies, I am in a good position to judge what happens. Given the lead that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has taken today, I am sure the Opposition spokesman and our excellent Minister who will respond to the debate will have all the solutions. I hope we will not just park the issue and leave it at that one report. Each Member of Parliament who has local stores should lead by example and shop locally. We must remember that if we do not use it, we lose it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We have changed the way we shop. Fifty years ago mothers in Beckenham and other towns in my constituency went to the shops daily to get the food that they needed for their families. Many more people lived in town centres. Today mothers and fathers normally get their week’s food at one time. Supermarkets provide the family living essentials. They do so at the lowest price possible and they are open all hours. Internet shopping offers unbeatable value.
High streets cannot compete with that, so all our high streets must think about how they change. I am slightly disappointed that the Mayor of London’s outer London fund has not given additional funding to my constituency, but I am very pleased that Bromley has been given another £5 million to help redevelop its town centre, as it is the major shopping centre that many of my constituents use weekly. Beckenham high street caters for local people from Copers Cope, Kelsey and Eden Park, Shortlands and Clockhouse. Our high streets must be designed with that in mind.
I shall end by making a few points, many of which have been made earlier. We need to make town centres places where people want to go, not just to shop, but to socialise and simply be there. I agree that parking and parking charges are a problem that needs to be addressed, but in my constituency people sometimes drive 30 minutes to Bluewater because of the free parking there, and it costs them a tenner in petrol.
Pedestrianisation is a two-edged weapon. I like the idea of shared space for vehicles and people together, and I want buses to go down Beckenham, West Wickham and Hayes high streets, bringing people in and out of the town centres. I like the idea of calming traffic but not stopping it, but pedestrianised town centres and high streets can be lonely and dangerous places at night. Cars passing sometimes help to mitigate the threat.
Beckenham, West Wickham and Hayes are ideal places for niche shopping. Everyone wants a mixed retail experience but now much of what we shop for is in supermarkets. I want to see reduced business rates and rents, if possible. These will help small businesses make a decent offering. I am glad that the Government are considering keeping back a portion of business rates for the local community.
As a society we must have decent and vibrant town centres. They are under threat and of course we are trying to do something about that. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate this matter today and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing an important debate. Finally, I must place on record a personal lack of interest. As hon. Members might expect, shopping does not float my boat very much. In fact, I detest it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate. I must say that I am in completely the opposite category to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), because I am an avid shopper, which is why I am particularly interested in the debate. Unfortunately, I seem to have passed the shopping gene on to my daughter, who occasionally seems to think that she is personally responsible for keeping some of the retail sector in Durham afloat—something I am sure many parents recognise.
The huge number of hon. Members who took part in the debate—54 in total—shows that the topic is relevant to many constituencies. I will not be able to mention every contribution, as just listing the Members’ constituencies would probably use up most of my time, but I will comment on some of the points that were made. I think that all hon. Members who spoke, right across the Chamber, were tremendous advocates for their town centres and high streets, whether they were celebrating their successes, particularly in these difficult times, or arguing strongly that the challenges they face need to be addressed.
A few issues stood out in particular. Almost all Members who spoke mentioned parking and the need for a level playing field with out-of-town developments. That was sometimes coupled with a concern that out-of-town shopping centres had perhaps expanded too much in recent times, with an adverse effect on town centres, although I think that there was more debate about that. There was also some unanimity on the need to amend use class orders, particularly so that there is more flexibility on change of use. A number of hon. Members were keen to see more community involvement in shaping town centres and high streets, particularly in order to get greater diversity and to have an offer that goes beyond retail and includes leisure and social facilities. Many Members celebrated the advantages of markets, including indoor markets, and wanted them to increase in a number of towns and cities.
Several Members mentioned the need for more flexibility in rents and rent setting and business rates. In particular, they stressed the need to give local authorities more of a say in the level of business rate that should be applied and even to give a business rate holiday if that seems appropriate, as part of a package of measures, for regenerating particular areas. We know that changes to the business rate regime are coming, and the Minister might comment on that when he sums up.
There was a great deal of consensus about the fact that the Portas review is a very good thing and that the Government need to respond to it more quickly. I congratulate the Government on commissioning the Portas review and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report on understanding high street performance, carried out by Genecon, which went alongside it and provided us all with a lot of valuable information for our contributions to the debate.
There has been much consensus throughout the Chamber, but I am perhaps going to break it for a few moments, because, although I acknowledge that many of our high streets have struggled for several years, there is no doubt in my mind that the actions of this Government are making things much worse, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The downturn has hit our high streets hard, and, although thousands of jobs have already been lost in the retail sector, many more are at risk. We heard yesterday of yet more job losses in the sector throughout the country, and every day and every week more retailers seem to be going out of business.
Let us be clear about how serious the situation is. The latest shop vacancy report, compiled by the Local Data Company, found that town centre vacancy rates in Great Britain stand at 14.3%.
Derek Twigg
My constituent Liz Howard, of the Curiosity Bookshop in Runcorn, has raised several issues with me, not least those of unfair competition with supermarkets and of parking, but one issue in particular is derelict and unused buildings—some that have to be knocked down and others that are still unused. That is an area of real concern, so I hope that the Government will act upon it to improve the situation.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will turn to empty shops in a moment.
Void rates are another real issue, especially in secondary shopping areas, but the most recent wave of closures and the downsizing and retrenching of the retail sector are clearly causing a problem even in primary shopping areas.
There is a set of challenges for the high street, and that is not to mention the difficulties caused by the rise in internet shopping and by out-of-town centres.
Rory Stewart
Does the shadow Minister acknowledge, however, that internet shopping can be immensely beneficial to small, high-street shops? For example, in our constituency, the John Norris fishing supplies shop makes £12 million of sales over the internet but only £1 million through the door—and that allows it to keep going.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I do accept that point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) made very well earlier. Nevertheless, the internet is, I think, an additional challenge for high streets and town centres.
I say all that not to talk down our high streets, however, because, as several hon. Members have said, the town centre or high street in their constituency is weathering the economic storm. I say it to demonstrate the extent of the problem, because not all town centres are thriving and we have to be clear about the action that needs to be taken.
In government, we had a strong “town centre first” policy, but even with that policy there was recognition that more needed to be done to revitalise high streets, so there is a particular challenge for this Government. They need to do more to bolster consumer confidence, as their austerity programme—cutting too far and too fast—coupled with their VAT hike last January has squeezed incomes, reduced consumer confidence and led to further job losses on the high street. In a YouGov poll last year, four fifths of retailers said that the VAT increase would undermine sales.
The Government have so far also ignored the recommendations for a stronger “town centre first” policy, and they need to think about amending the draft national planning policy framework to reintroduce the sequential tests for town centres, because we really need that to encourage more town centre development.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady not acknowledge that the recently passed Localism Act 2011 gives real power to local communities and councils, such as Crawley borough council, to make town centre policies a priority where they think it is important?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
That is not the case if offices are taken out. Of course we all want more localism, but the Government also have to attend to their economic policies, which are damaging our high streets and town centres.
There are other issues that the Government need to address, such as business rates, the need for local flexibility to tackle unemployment, the lack of credit for small businesses and whether property values are artificially inflated in some areas. The big challenge is to respond positively and quickly to the Portas review. We welcome the review, not least because it champions high streets and town centres as community hubs where social, leisure and retail activities can take place. People are passionate about their town centres and want them to thrive.
I hope that we hear from the Minister how he will strengthen the “town centre first” policy. He will know that a number of large retailers, including the John Lewis Partnership, have said that the sequential test as it stands simply is not strong enough.
I am pleased that the Portas review touched on use class orders, which have been raised by many Members. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for campaigning on this issue, in particular for a separate category for betting shops. I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) well with her private Member’s Bill, which is trying to put a change in use class orders into legislation as quickly as possible. We must be careful to ensure that if use class orders are changed, they are accompanied by safeguards, so that there is not abuse and misuse of the new guidance. For example, local communities do not want a change in use class orders that makes it easier for fast food outlets to be set up.
Empty shops are a particular issue. We urge the Government to follow through with the recommendations of the Portas review, many of which reflect the policies that Labour championed and carried out in government. We introduced the empty shops initiative, which enabled councils to pursue innovative uses for empty shops and reinvigorate high streets. For example, vacant units could be used for cultural, community or learning services, rather than be left empty. We hope that the Government will introduce such a policy as soon as possible.
It is important that we spend a bit of time thinking about how we redevelop high streets. We need to give councils more tools to do that. We want a more proactive use of compulsory purchase orders. That is mentioned specifically in the Portas review and it needs serious consideration. We also think that her suggestion of an empty shop management order could be pursued.
We are keen to see the town teams that Mary Portas recommends. We hope that they are active and vibrant local partnerships that work closely with business improvement districts. They should also work closely with the local community to make neighbourhood planning a reality. It is important that neighbourhood plans cover town centres and that every effort is made to involve local people in drawing them up. A number of hon. Members have made the point that if life is to be put back into town centres, particularly those that are failing, the involvement of the local community in shaping them is really important.
I finish by saying that in addition to following through with the Portas recommendations, we want the Government to pay some attention to our four-point plan to save our high streets—cutting VAT, giving local people the power to put the heart back into the high street, repeating Labour’s empty shops initiative and promoting a fair playing field for our high streets.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I join virtually every colleague who has spoken in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing the debate—a truly inspired move—and the Backbench Business Committee on ensuring that it happened.
I have had the pleasure of sitting through most of the debate and hearing the many by and large excellent contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have enjoyed it tremendously in the run-up to the Government’s response to the Portas review. Of course, the debate has very much been spurred by the Mary Portas report, which was undertaken after the Prime Minister personally asked her to go out, look at what was happening in our town centres and high streets and make a series of proposals to make things better. There are 28 proposals in all, many of them quite detailed and many of which Members have touched on.
It has been fascinating to weigh up Members’ representations. As one Member suggested, it has been like an afternoon and evening of sitting through maiden speeches, because every Member mentioned every town and village in their constituency. It made the debate much more enjoyable.
I should, as everyone else seems to have done, declare an interest—one Member declared a disinterest—by saying that 21 years ago last month, I started my own retail shop, a print business, so I have had some experience in retail and found out how tough it can be on the high street. Among the many significant problems that retailers have to overcome can be intransigence from local authorities, which, it has to be said, have until now had almost no interest in business in their area, and particularly in the retail sector. Why? Well, retail businesses do not vote, and the local authority does not get to keep their money. One of the most important reforms, therefore, which Mary Portas mentions in the report, must be the localisation of business rates. I am delighted that that legislation is now going through the House. Speaking as that small shop owner, I know that it will be of considerable help to many people. Alongside that, of course, local authorities will have the ability to provide a discount on business rates if they choose to. The legislation will make that all the more easy.
As I am speaking in this debate, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the wonderful town of Hatfield suffers greatly from the same problems that many Members have described. It was a new town, and so bright was its future when it was set up. Unfortunately, partly because of the situation that has been mentioned—the road and the cars were taken out of the town centre, and the life was sucked out of it—it has struggled to have a renaissance. As the Minister taking the response to the Portas review forward, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that I have personal experience of a failing town centre that needs to be rescued. That is why I take many of the measures suggested in the review so much to heart.
Car parking was the No. 1 concern mentioned by Members in the 54 contributions. It is absolutely right, and in fact quite obvious, to say that in today’s society, when people either do not need to get into their car at all because they can simply click on something with a mouse to buy it or, if the option is available, as it now is in most parts of the country, drive to a shopping mall or shopping centre, an uncompetitive high street with high parking charges will always make a retail district suffer. It is absolutely essential, even in these incredibly tough times, for local authorities to appreciate that hammering the motorist visiting the local shops will not be the solution to the area’s problems, and certainly not to those of retailers. Everything comes back to the fact that in future, under the localisation of business rates, for the first time it will matter to local councillors that businesses survive and thrive, because the local business rates will be retained.
The second most-mentioned item in the debate was the Mary Portas concept of town teams. That is the idea that if people want to promote their town, they need to get together. That involves not just the usual suspects—the town centre manager and perhaps an interested local councillor—but everyone, from the retailers and landlords to the council, and most notably Members of Parliament, forming a town team and leading the debate. If I am enormously enthused about one thing in the debate, it is that so many Members—it must be said that I am referring mostly to Government Members, who have largely filled the House—spoke with enormous passion and made it clear that they intend to lead the debate in their local areas. That will do an awful lot of good.
Members, and particularly the shadow Minister, mentioned the “town centre first” policy. Government Members would be far more tempted to take lectures on different solutions for the town centre—or whatever this week’s soundbite is from Her Majesty’s Opposition—if Opposition Members actually attended the debate. There were significant periods when but one person—the shadow Secretary of State—sat on the Opposition Benches. I felt so sorry for him—he seemed so lonely—that I was tempted to join him. People in the country and retailers would take Opposition Members’ comments all the more seriously if they were expressed in this House.
Mary Portas has made many different recommendations and the Government have made a number of significant moves, including, for example, doubling the small business rate relief for two and half years to help small businesses through the Localism Act 2011; scrapping Whitehall planning guidance, which forced up parking charges in the past; changing the planning rules to allow councils to provide more parking spaces; and updating the licensing laws to give councils more power to tackle antisocial behaviour and, of course, the problems that came in with the 24-hour drinking laws.
I said that I would respond on the “town centre first” policy. We have focused on retail development in town centres. The national planning policy framework will be released by the spring. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) was quite wrong to say that it does not put town centres first, because it absolutely does. It is very clearly written, so I suggest she looks at the text again. We believe that town centres should be considered very strongly when making decisions. To reinforce that, the 2011 Act and the move towards giving local people the ability to make decisions, which was mentioned by more than one of my hon. Friends, mean that it will be much easier in future for local areas to prioritise in the way that they would wish to ensure that developments happen in the right way.
Duncan Hames
My right hon. Friend speaks with enthusiasm about the policies that the Government are introducing, but will he touch on the question I raised on the progress they are making to get rid of the regional spatial strategies and the old planning policies, which were forced on local areas by the previous Government?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. Nothing did more damage to local areas than those hated regional spatial strategies. As everyone knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already written to local authority leaders and the Planning Inspectorate confirming that we will abolish those regional planning strategies. That letter was immediately material consideration, but we now intend to lay the orders from the 2011 Act, which will mean that they will finally be gone. I can therefore tell my hon. Friend that policies and proposals from the once-emerging regional spatial strategies should carry very little weight indeed in the minds of anybody involved in our planning system today.
Meg Hillier
I hope the Minister gets to the betting shops issue, which is not a party political one—I lobbied the previous Labour Government on it. Will he answer the question asked in the debate? Will the Government give fair wind this Friday to the private Member’s Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), which would radically change our high streets?
Grant Shapps
There were many detailed recommendations in the report, and I am looking with great interest at the one on betting shops. I sense the impatience that has been expressed today for a response to Mary Portas’s recommendations, and I can assure hon. Members that they will not have to wait terribly long to find out what our response will be. We have promised to deliver it by the spring, and we absolutely intend to do so; the hon. Lady will not have to wait very long at all—and I can confirm that I mean spring 2012.
We intend to provide a very energetic response to the Portas review. The Government like what she has said, and we have already started to implement a number of her recommendations. I will be coming back to give greater detail on the other items that we have not so far covered, but we have a generally positive attitude towards the report. It is also true to say, however, that in order for her recommendations to work, it would not be sufficient for us simply to put in place all 28 of them. Hon. Members and others should not expect a universal recovery in the high street simply as a result of such action. Retail is much more complex than that, and we need to get to the heart of the reasons that it has suffered so badly.
Hon. Members mentioned the fact that there are two essential factors. The first is the growth of the internet, as recognised by Mary Portas. The second is the growth of the out-of-town shopping stores; again, the report recognises that factor. Both those factors are here to stay, no matter what we do. No one can legislate to get rid of the internet, or to do away with the out-of-town stores. The advantages of the existing high streets therefore need to be played up. The first is the ability of people shopping in the high street to touch and feel products does not exist when they are shopping online, although they could still do that in an out-of-town store.
The second advantage is perhaps more significant. It is the ability to meet, communicate and enjoy a coffee with friends, and to go to other facilities that are based in the same location. Such facilities could include a local library or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, a theatre. The high street provides a sense of community and well-being that I will wager could never be provided by the out-of-town stores. They simply do not provide that sense of community and belonging that has been so vividly described by Members across the House today. I have visited many of their constituencies in my role as Housing Minister, and I look forward to visiting many of them again. We have been given a wonderful tour of the country today, and we look forward to seeing those high streets revived. The one pledge that will go out from the Government is that, in addition to implementing as much of the Mary Portas review as possible, we will ask Members from across the House to lead the debate and the renaissance in their constituencies in the months to come just as passionately as they have done in the Chamber today.
Mr Marcus Jones
When I originally thought about applying to the Backbench Business Committee to hold this debate, I considered applying for a three-hour debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) persuaded me to request a six-hour debate instead. I was persuaded, but I was concerned that we might not be able to fill up the time. I must have underestimated the concern and support of hon. Members for their town centres. It has been wonderful to hear some 50 colleagues make such profound and important contributions about their town centres. For once, I am glad to have been proved wrong. I am pleased that I managed to secure a full-day debate.
I must admit—this has been mentioned by several hon. colleagues—that I enjoyed travelling the length and breadth of the country with them, hearing the trials, tribulations and triumphs of hon. Members and their constituencies, town centres and high streets. Among all the comments, however, what really struck me was the passion of many hon. colleagues for their town centres. It is important now that we put that passion into meaningful action. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister listened intently to much of the debate, as did his colleagues, and I am convinced that he will—
Business without Debate
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Midwife and Maternity Services
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to hold this debate on midwife and maternity services. It is particularly important because, as I speak, there is a baby boom in the UK. Last year, a baby was born every 40 seconds—the highest number in 20 years—and in certain areas of the country maternity units are under considerable pressure and midwives are working harder than ever. England has seen a 22% increase in the number of births, compared to Wales at 17%, Northern Ireland at 15%, and Scotland at 12%. The number of live births in England in 2010—the latest year for which figures are available—was well over two thirds of a million, representing an increase of 22% since 2001.
The Royal College of Midwives recently published its “State of Maternity Services” report, and I was pleased to be at its launch in Westminster Hall. The report looks at a number of indicators of the pressures on maternity care and the resources available to cope, and for the first time it does so for all four nations of the Union. The report finds that a significant increase in the number of births in each of the UK’s constituent parts and a trend towards older mothers are increasing the pressures on maternity services significantly. The extra work load placed on midwives by more older women giving birth has been exacerbated by an increased complexity in their work load.
The number of births to women aged 40 or over rose by more than 70% between 2001 and 2010—a level not seen since 1948. In England that has led to a substantial deficit in the work force needed to provide a safe level of care to women and their babies. Furthermore, the existing midwifery work force in England is ageing. We can therefore anticipate an even greater strain on services over the next 15 years, if the situation is not properly addressed. One region of England actually cut midwife numbers between 2001 and 2010. Between those years, the north-west experienced a 19% increase in the number of live births, but a reduced number of full-time equivalent midwives.
The only way to get large numbers of new midwives into the profession is through training student midwives, yet the record on student midwife numbers is patchy. In the 2005-06 academic year, for example, there was even a 16% cut in student midwife numbers, and it took five years for those numbers to climb back up to their 2004-05 level. With an ageing profession, a substantial and consistent rise in student midwife numbers is the only way of rectifying the enduring problem that there are too few midwives working in the NHS in England.
I very much welcome the increased number of midwives and trainee midwives introduced by the Government. That is fundamental. I also very much welcome the increase in NHS funding over each and every year of this Parliament, including the greater investment in maternity care as part of the solution. However, the financial limits resulting from the historically high debts that the previous Administration left us mean that innovative ways to address the work force shortages need to be considered.
I know that the Royal College of Midwives, for its part, is realistic about the financial challenges facing the NHS. The “State of Maternity Services” report recommends, for example, providing more midwife-led units and appropriately integrating maternity support workers as two ways to make better use of the limited financial resources available. The report also recommends at least maintaining, and in some regions increasing, the number of student midwives to ensure that more midwives are available to meet future needs.
Maternity services in England are approaching a critical point. London, along with many parts of the south and east, is particularly overstretched, with some maternity units currently having a midwife vacancy rate of over 20%. Maternity services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in better shape. According to the Royal College of Midwives, an average ratio of one midwife to 28 births is a safe level. At the moment the figures for the UK are as follows: in England there is one midwife for every 33 births, in Wales there is one for every 30 births, in Northern Ireland one for every 28 births, and in Scotland one for every 26 births. There are clear variations in care across the UK that need to be addressed. It is clear that with adequate midwife numbers to match the birth rate, mothers and babies receive a higher standard of care.
The situation in England is a concern, but it is certainly not hopeless. The midwifery shortage can be solved; it is simply a matter of policy will and using resources innovatively. For example, giving expectant mothers real choice when deciding where to give birth could alleviate the shortage problem in England. In essence, a mother has three main choices when choosing the location of birth: a midwife-led unit, a consultant-led unit or at home. Most women choose a local hospital, usually for convenience and because of the perception of safety and security. Encouraging more births at midwife-led units, however, would help with NHS work force planning. Births at home or in midwife-led units require fewer interventions and are less demanding on midwife time. According to calculations, for every 10,000 births moved from a consultant-led to a midwife-led unit or to the home, the required midwifery work force would be reduced by the equivalent of 71 full-time midwives.
There are significant variations in home birth take-up, which suggests that the message of choice is not getting through to all mothers. For example, in Somerset 11.4% of births are at home. At the other end of the scale, however, in Wansbeck, just 0.1% of births are at home. By encouraging real choice we could enable mothers across the country to receive higher levels of care during and after their pregnancy.
Choice of location of birth—that is, of course, a specific coalition policy set out in the NHS White Paper—is far too important to be denied to mothers, particularly when it is readily available in other parts of the country. According to the Office for National Statistics the percentage of home births decreased to 2.5% in 2010 compared with 2.7% the previous year.
Research by Oxford University’s national perinatal epidemiology unit has given further weight to the evidence that suggests women at a low risk of complications should be given full and frank options when it comes to choosing where to give birth. The general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, Professor Cathy Warwick, welcomed the research, saying:
“This ground-breaking research makes a very important contribution to the evidence base for women and health professionals about the safety of childbirth planned in different settings for women at a low risk of complications. The RCM hopes that its findings will be widely used and will help health professionals support women to make informed choices about their options when considering where to give birth. It should also influence the planning of high-quality maternity services across the UK.”
Maternity support workers who have been adequately trained, and are appropriately supervised and suitably deployed, can also provide a significant reduction of the pressure on midwife time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. He will be aware that some 70% of midwives oversee the birth of a child without a doctor’s support. He has not mentioned that it can cost up to £45,000 to train a midwife. Some of our midwives, certainly some from Northern Ireland, are going to Australia to gain experience. Does the hon. Gentleman see some way of retaining midwives here in England, where, as he has said, there seems to be a shortage? Might there not be some way for the regions to help each other in this respect?
Henry Smith
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which reinforces my view that there must be proper investment—the Government are already making a good start—to ensure that student midwives learn how to help mothers give birth in a safe environment so that in most cases there are no complications. It should be emphasised that consultant-led maternity units, although obviously vital, do not represent the full picture, and that midwife-led units play an important role in increasing capacity. Midwife training in each part of the United Kingdom should be at least maintained, and in some regions increased. It is necessary to maintain the numbers who begin training to ensure that an adequate supply emerges at the other end, and I repeat my commendation of the Government in that regard.
Let me end by referring to a matter related to my constituency. Yesterday evening, during the Opposition day debate on the NHS, I mentioned that 10 years ago, in 2001, the maternity unit at Crawley hospital had regrettably been closed and moved nearly 10 miles up the road to East Surrey hospital. The move has created extra pressure at that hospital, and mothers and their families have a more difficult journey to attend the unit at for check-ups and for births.
I am personally very grateful to East Surrey hospital. It is where my children were born. My daughter Georgia was born there in 2003, my son Isaac was born there in 2006, and I feel that it is important also to mention that my son Ethan was stillborn there in 2005. The care that the hospital provided for us was second to none. Nevertheless, I think it important for mothers and families to have access to midwife-led services that are closer to their communities. It is certainly one of my hopes and desires that we may be able to establish a midwife-led unit for Crawley—and, indeed, many more such units throughout the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Let me begin by not only congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate, but thanking him for raising the high-profile issue of midwife and maternity services. Those services, and the midwives who work in them, are extremely important to women, and the provision of high-quality maternity care is non-negotiable for a Government and a health service. I want to outline some of the measures that we are taking to improve the quality of that care, but let me first pay my own tribute to the midwives throughout the country who do such a fantastic job.
I hope that you will allow me a brief personal comment, Mr Speaker. My four children were delivered in four different hospitals, but in each of those instances the midwife had a profound impact on the experience, and a profound impact on the start that we made with a new little family member. I know that it will have been the same for many other families. The importance of midwives and maternity services cannot be overestimated.
We want to ensure that all pregnant women and new mothers receive the best care that it is possible to give. As my hon. Friend has said, and as other Members will know only too well, maternity services face increasing challenges, and they will have to evolve to meet those challenges. Over the last few years the birth rate has been rising, and the number of complex pregnancies is rising as well. There are also more high-risk births. Women are having babies when they are older, heart disease and obesity are increasing, and more mothers born outside the United Kingdom are giving birth here.
Impressive improvements have been made in many services. The Care Quality Commission’s 2010 survey of women’s experiences of maternity services found that 92% of the women surveyed rated their care during pregnancy as excellent, very good or good, 94% rated their care during labour and birth as excellent, very good or good, and 89% rated their care after birth as excellent, very good or good. I hate statistics as they can seem meaningless and dry. It is important to congratulate the midwives who achieved those satisfaction figures, but we should never forget that if 94% of women rated their care during birth as good or better, then 6% thought they did not get care that was good enough. That might not seem like a large proportion, but for the women concerned it is all that matters.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I have written to the Minister about the high-profile problems at the Furness General maternity unit, triggered by personal tragedies. What reassurances can she give on the future of that unit? More generally, what can she do to ensure that trusts with poor performing services in need of investment get the resources they need to deliver the first-class care people in my constituency and the whole country rightly expect?
Anne Milton
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about those issues, and I will come on to discuss the measures we want to put in place to ensure such past tragedies do not happen again. CQC reviews have corroborated that there are problems. It raises concerns about the safety and quality of maternity care in some areas. They are small but significant areas of concern, and they must be of note to all involved in this area of care, especially as sometimes they involve personal and family tragedies.
Media and public attention on maternity services has picked up pace over the last year. In particular, there is anxiety about safety, capacity and changes to services. In many respects, there is a “perfect storm” of circumstances, which makes things difficult. The issue is how well we react, and how well services evolve and the work force are equipped to react positively.
We have put extending maternity choice as a key priority in the NHS operating framework. To help communities achieve the desired outcomes in the most individually suitable ways, when services change, that change will be led by clinicians, midwives, and women—the very people who run and use those services.
To make sure the maternity infrastructure is being put to best use, I want there to be maternity provider networks across the country, bringing together all the different elements of maternity services, so there are no gaps or hidden corners where mothers might get substandard care. The incident that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) raised involves precisely such hidden corners and gaps, and such incidents often result in a personal tragedy. Hospitals, GP surgeries, charities and community groups can all be linked up to share information, expertise and services.
We also want more efficient use of skills in maternity wards themselves. Obstetricians and gynaecologists, maternity support workers and, of course, midwives can come together and use their complementary skills and expertise to get the best results for mothers, with appropriately trained support workers providing valuable assistance, for example with breastfeeding, leaving midwives to concentrate on the more specialist areas. This is not just a numbers game; it is about getting the skills, expertise and team mix exactly right. That will mean the talents of all 27,000 midwives can be put to the best, most efficient, use. That number shows that more midwives are working in the NHS now than ever before. The picture looks good for the future, too, because it is backed up by a record number of midwives entering training. Subject to the number of forecast births, that will be maintained.
In July, we published “Supporting Families in the Foundation Years”. That report does not have the catchiest of titles, but it is important because it sets out how everyone who commissions, delivers or leads on something can work to support parents and families. We cannot overstate the importance of the health and well-being of women before, during and after pregnancy; it is a critical factor in giving children a good start and in continuing that good health and well-being as they get older. The latest data show that more than 90% of women who gave birth in the third quarter of 2010-11 saw a maternity health professional within 12 and a half weeks. That is another dry statistic, but it is crucial. Early intervention and early contact with a maternity health professional is crucial to the well-being of not only the mother, but the child. Those meetings are about more than just basic maternity care. Work will have been done on, and discussions will have been had about, things such as diet, exercise, smoking and drinking. This is about improving the health of the baby, the mother and the whole family, and decreasing the kind of health inequalities that remain and are so persistent in our society. All those things affect the outcome for those women and their babies, and the lasting impact of those things cannot be underestimated.
To back all that work up, from April a maternity experience indicator will be introduced as part of the NHS outcomes framework. That will be an important part of identifying those gaps, as it will allow us to chart a woman’s experience of care throughout antenatal care, labour, delivery and post-natal care. It will also allow women and their partners to compare people’s experience of care and make choices about what they want to do. It will be a valuable tool for midwives as well, as they will be able to see how they are doing in relation to peer organisations. If they are doing well, this will drive them on to maintain their level and if there are weaknesses, the experience indicator will show specific areas to improve. As I say, this is not about the numbers; it is about getting the team mix right. In one busy maternity unit that I visited, it was simply about moving women around the labour facilities effectively and efficiently.
The Department of Health funded the “Birthplace in England” study, which was published in November last year. It provided evidence about the expected outcomes for women and their babies at “low risk” of complications. It was the first study of its type in this country, and the findings will be a very important part in shaping maternity services, as well as other, linked parts of the NHS, such as ambulance services, so that every part of the system is working together. It is an extremely important body of evidence. In addition, we have asked the Centre for Workforce Intelligence to carry out an in-depth study of the nursing and maternity work force to determine whether we have the right skill mix and professional teams, and whether they are able to deliver what is needed. That will start this year and will inform the future commissioning of training places.
I hope that what I have said reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and other hon. Members in the Chamber that we are continuing to improve maternity services to women, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their circumstance; it is not good enough to give excellent care in one place and for services to be patchy elsewhere. We want consistently high-quality care and we will carry on with that process, making sure maternity services and midwives are fully prepared for the demands of the modern maternity landscape.
I know that my hon. Friend has had specific issues to deal with in his local area and that they have been ongoing for many years. I am also aware that the picture is complex in terms of the circumstances of the women who end up using the local services. I hope that I have reassured him, to some extent, that we have taken note of what is going on. There is no doubt that the birth of a baby is a very special moment and we want it to be a positive experience that shapes the future of not only the child and their mother, but the whole family.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deloitte: Government Departments
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Robertson
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the answer of 14 November 2011, Official Report, columns 537-8W, on Government departments: Deloitte, what the (a) net value and (b) individual value was of each of the Government contracts awarded to (i) Deloitte and (ii) associates of Deloitte since May 2010.
[Official Report, 10 January 2012, Vol. 538, c. 249-52W.]
Letter of correction from Francis Maude:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on 10 January 2012. The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Maude
The following table summarises contracts that are listed on Contract Finder. The total potential value of these contracts exceeds £1.47 billion; actual net value will depend on usage, particularly of framework agreements. Further information is held by individual Departments.
Supplier | Procuring authority | Contract | Value (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA8 Scotland—Ingeus Deloitte | 141,761,075 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | English Work Programme—CPA16 West Yorkshire—Ingeus Deloitte | 75,893,060 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA5 North East—Ingeus Deloitte | 111,509,095 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA1 East of England—Ingeus Deloitte | 117,887,335 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA3 West London—Ingeus Deloitte | 102,846,725 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA2 East Midlands—Ingeus Deloitte | 116,576,495 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA6 North West—Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire—Ingeus Deloitte | 107,089,660 |
Deloitte LLP | Northern Ireland Audit Office | Financial auditing services | 264,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Skills Funding Agency | Cloud Readiness | 120,000 |
Deloitte | Humber NHS Foundation Trust | Auditing services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust | Internal audit services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Fabrick Housing Group | Auditing services | 16,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | One Vision Housing Ltd | Auditing services | 25,000,000 |
Deloitte | National Audit Office | Accounting and auditing services | 2,450,000 |
Deloitte MCS Ltd. | Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 400,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP (local authorities) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 2,439,000 |
Deloitte LLP (health bodies) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 1,896,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Coventry City Council | Financial consultancy services2 | 20,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | University of Leeds | Statutory audit services | 1— |
Deloitte and Touche Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd | North Devon District Council | Internal audit services | 33,000,000 |
Deloitte | Herefordshire Council | Auditing services2 | 3,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | NHS Shared Business Services Ltd | Property management services of real estate on a fee or contract basis2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Pension services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | Swan Housing Association Ltd | Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services2 | 1— |
1 No data 2 Framework agreements rather than individual contracts. |
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Maude
The following table summarises contracts that are listed on Contract Finder. The net value will depend on usage, particularly of framework agreements. Further information is held by individual Departments.
Supplier | Procuring authority | Contract | Value (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA8 Scotland—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 141,761,075 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | English Work Programme—CPA16 West Yorkshire—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 75,893,060 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA5 North East—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 111,509,095 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA1 East of England—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 117,887,335 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA3 West London—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 102,846,725 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA2 East Midlands—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 116,576,495 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA6 North West—Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 107,089,660 |
Deloitte LLP | Northern Ireland Audit Office | Financial auditing services | 264,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Skills Funding Agency | Cloud Readiness | 120,000 |
Deloitte | Humber NHS Foundation Trust | Auditing services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust | Internal audit services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Fabrick Housing Group | Auditing services | 160,000 |
Deloitte LLP | One Vision Housing Ltd | Auditing services2 | 250,000 |
Deloitte | National Audit Office | Accounting and auditing services | 2,450,000 |
Deloitte MCS Ltd. | Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 4,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP (local authorities) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 2,439,000 |
Deloitte LLP (health bodies) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 1,896,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Coventry City Council | Financial consultancy services2 | 20,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | University of Leeds | Statutory audit services | 1— |
Deloitte and Touche Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd | North Devon District Council | Internal audit services | 330,000 |
Deloitte | Herefordshire Council | Auditing services2 | 3,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | NHS Shared Business Services Ltd | Property management services of real estate on a fee or contract basis2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Pension services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 1)2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 2)2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 3)2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 5)2 | 50,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | Swan Housing Association Ltd | Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services2 | 1— |
1 No data 2These are framework agreements or contracts split into lots, under which Deloitte is one of several successful companies; the contract value represents the total potential value across all successful bidders. |
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Care of the Dying
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It will not have escaped your notice that a considerable number of hon. Members are present, and a significant number have indicated in writing that they wish to speak. Who gets called, other than in what order, is beyond my control. We have an hour and a half for this debate. The Front Benchers will traditionally want not less than 10 minutes each, so, if you do the math, as they say, it is up to you. If hon. Members confine their remarks to three minutes a head, we will get everybody in; that is, of course, other than the person who initiates the debate. If hon. Members take an inordinate amount of time, I have no power to curtail the length for which they speak, other than to say that they may not get called again in the near future. Please try to exercise some control, and we will endeavour to ensure that everybody gets heard. Those with less experience might like to pay attention to the fact that it is sometimes possible to make a point in an intervention, rather than in a formal speech.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to talk about care of the dying. It is marked that so many hon. Members are attending the debate on a subject that so many people in our constituencies would rather not talk about.
Last year, a ComRes poll found that 67% of people are scared of being told that they are dying. More significantly, 83% are scared of dying in pain. As a nation, we need to get better at talking about dying, death and bereavement, but Parliament can take a lead in breaking the cycle that can result in a lack of care. With the public reluctant to discuss end-of-life care, many professionals do not feel confident to deliver it. Services are not available to everyone who needs them. The aptly named Dying Matters coalition, across the public, voluntary and private sector, should be commended and supported when it has its annual awareness week in May.
Too often in health care, dying equals failure rather than a normal process. This attitude ignores those who will not respond to treatment, but who can still be cared for significantly. Although death may be a tragic inevitability, palliative and hospice care can ensure that the remainder of life is still worth living. We have an opportunity today to show the mark of a civilised society and care for the vulnerable and largely forgotten—the dying.
The growth of palliative care, not legalisation for assisted suicide, should form the central debate about care for the dying. As a country, we must do all that we can to allow the terminally ill to live a dignified life until death, to make the intolerable tolerable and to replace hopelessness with hope and desperation with serenity. Too often, this essential part of health care is forgotten, or simply shrouded by the more high-profile issue of assisted suicide. Reading media reports this year, one could be forgiven for thinking that that is the only option for those suffering with terminal illness. Rather than legislating for an abrupt end to life, we need to find better ways to help care for the dying.
The good practice of palliative care, which hon. Members will no doubt illustrate this morning with constituency examples, makes the point that we in this country believe that life should be treated with dignity at every stage through to death. Some 50 years ago, Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, said:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
What a refreshing contrast from what we have heard recently from those advocating assisted suicide. Take the chilling words of Baroness Warnock, who said:
“If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives—your family’s lives—and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”
Suggesting that we have a “duty to die”, she said:
“I think that’s the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you’d be licensing people to put others down.”
Well, that is not a future I want to be a part of, and I am sure many of those present today agree. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If we adopted the law of Oregon, the trickle of people wanting to be killed in places such as Dignitas would become a flow—some estimate that more than 1,000 people a year would take that path.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying things is that, if what he is talking about is introduced, many older people may feel that they are a burden and that they should bring an end to their lives?
Mr Burrowes
Indeed. We need to retain the present law, which continues to provide a strong deterrent to the exploitation of vulnerable people, while giving prosecutors discretion in hard cases. Parliament has agreed, through a detailed Select Committee inquiry and three votes in the past six years, to retain that protection. We have to recognise that it is easy, in the comfort of Parliament, to make fine-sounding points about terminal illness. I recognise that there are no easy answers for those who feel they are not valued and who may feel that they may be wasting resources or are a burden on their family or society. However, they are the very people who most need the protection of the law and the provision of good-quality palliative care. How do we best safeguard their dignity and autonomy?
When we talk about dignity in the context of a health debate, it can all too often be restricted to privacy and physical care, but palliative care recognises a wider, proper understanding of dignity. Good palliative care recognises the social, emotional, spiritual and psychological needs that put an embrace around a terminally ill patient, rather than the proposed arbitrary, so-called safeguards that put a straitjacket around patients and doctors. For example, the prognosis for a terminally ill patient is notoriously difficult to determine. The best safeguard is through specialist palliative care that helps a patient live with uncertainty. Take the case of a motor neurone disease sufferer who wants to end his life but, unknown to his GP, has developed fronto-temporal dementia and whose thinking has become distorted. Such a condition could only be noticeable if someone knew that patient very well before the illness. The best safeguard to help the patient live with those fluctuating moods and thoughts is specialist palliative care. The proper way to empower patients’ choice and protect the vulnerable is through driving up palliative care standards, not new legislation.
In 2010, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Britain, rightly, as top of the league of countries for the provision of end-of-life care. Much of the credit is no doubt due to the expansion of local charitable hospices that provide more than £700 million of care, the majority of which is donated by the communities that they serve. Additionally, more than 100,000 people donate their time to local hospices each year.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The fact that there are so many hon. Members here at 9.30 on a Tuesday morning shows what an important subject this is. He talks about local hospices. The Rainbows children’s hospice, which is in my constituency, now looks after young adults with life-limiting conditions as well. In this debate, we will perhaps focus on older people, but we should not forget children with life-limiting conditions. One point that the hospice has made to me—I think that my hon. Friend is coming on to this—is the fact that we need to integrate both health care and social care. Rainbows children’s hospice would like to see more of that from the Minister.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful for that point. Integration is needed, and we see that in the context of hospices and palliative care. We hope for that future in the reforms that are going through Parliament.
Although we should be proud, rightly, of individual examples in our constituencies, we should not rest on our laurels. We need to build on that solid foundation, because far more can be done. End-of-life care is not available to everyone who needs it. In fact, the palliative care funding review found that 92,000 people die in England every year without access to the services that they need. That figure equates to nearly 500,000 people during the term of this Parliament, and 700 people in each of our constituencies dying without the good palliative care services that they deserve.
Nationally, hospices receive about a third of their funding from the NHS, but that can vary substantially across the country. Indeed, in my constituency in Enfield, the NHS contributes less than 20% of what the hospice spends on care for Enfield patients. One of the biggest issues facing the terminally ill is where they will die. Currently, more than half the people who die in England do so in hospitals and just 20% die at home, although various studies have shown that two thirds of people would choose to die at home.
In Enfield, there are excellent palliative care services. I pay tribute to Nightingale Cancer Support Centre and North London hospice, which provides a community service providing care in people’s homes alongside an in-patient unit. In Enfield, the North London hospice community team are able to ensure that only 28% of people cared for by the hospice die in hospital.
According to the Minister, the Government should consider allocating national resources to continue to promote and extend palliative care. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress in implementing the new per-patient funding system for hospice and palliative care providers, which will provide incentives to enhance services within community settings.
Mr Burrowes
I will conclude in a moment, because a large number of colleagues want to contribute.
Jean Rostand, the French biologist, said:
“For my part I believe that there is no life so degraded, debased, deteriorated, or impoverished that it does not deserve respect and is not worth defending with zeal and conviction. I have the weakness to believe that it is an honour for our society to desire the expensive luxury of sustaining life for its useless, incompetent and incurably ill members. I would almost measure society’s degree of civilisation by the amount of effort and vigilance it imposes on itself out of pure respect for life.
I look forward to hearing hon. Members demonstrate that respect for life, for the dying, today.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)on obtaining this debate? I agree with the bulk of what he said. There is something drastically wrong with a society that can contemplate legalising something that is, to my mind, murder. A change in the law would inevitably define the value of a life as dependent upon physical or mental capacity.
One of the greatest regrets of my life is that I was not present when either of my parents died. They did not die at the same time: both died in hospital and there was a period between each of them dying. One of the greatest privileges that can be afforded to a caring person—to us as human beings—is to be present at that moment when the last great adventure begins, when life slips away. A great strength of the Marie Curie hospice in my constituency is not that it exclusively treats the individual who is facing that last great adventure, but that it offers care and concern for the family, so that they can be included in that process.
Surely, we all deserve dignity in our death, whether or not that happens, as I think most of us would like to experience it, in our own home. Certainly, hospices provide the most extraordinary care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, regrettably, neither this Government nor the previous one took on board sufficiently the importance of hospices by financing them to the degree they warrant and deserve. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said, we are not simply discussing those who are elderly and facing death: this also applies to children and young people. The particular approach that hospices and palliative care can provide is of paramount importance.
I am somewhat shocked at the idea that hospices are somehow irrelevant, which is argued by some who seem to believe that advances made in medical science have, during our period on Earth, ground to a halt. I remember, because I am quite old—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I am sorry, but I am. The most frightening diseases when I was a child were cancer, and consumption—tuberculosis—which was deemed an absolutely incurable illness leading inevitably to death. We hear that its incidence has increased, but we do not hear much about it being an absolute death sentence.
We should all support the advances being made in medical science and research, not only in curing illnesses but in preventing their onset. In this instance, it is paramount that our society turn its face away from what could become legalised murder, and argue and press the case for increased funding, increased support for palliative care and, most markedly, support for hospices.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on the strength and spirit of his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) and very much agree with what she said. I was privileged to be present at my father’s death. My mother will, hopefully, shortly celebrate her 100th birthday.
All hon. Members came into politics because we care about life. We did not come into it to legislate about death. This is a sensitive and serious issue. One of our former colleagues is not in great shape at the moment. If he were able to attend he would support what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said.
When I was Member of Parliament for Basildon I was privileged to lay the foundation stone for St Luke’s hospice. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned hospices in her constituency. In the area that I represent there is Fair Havens hospice and Little Havens hospice for children. I agree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate on what Dame Cicely Saunders said.
Britain is the world’s leading provider of end-of-life care. We are the only nation to offer palliative care as a specialist, medical discipline in its own right.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when Government budgets are under a great deal of stress and the amount of assistance received from the NHS by hospices such as his and the Pilgrims hospice in my constituency is being decided, it would send exactly the wrong message to those splendid hospices and to those making budgetary decisions in the NHS if the House decided to allow assisted suicide?
Mr Amess
I agree with my hon. Friend. His local hospice does splendid work.
Hospice workers require four years’ intensive training in order to practise. As a result, our hospitals and hospices are staffed by teams able to offer first rate end-of-life care when it is needed—all hon. Members will be familiar with the wonderful quality of care in our hospices—which puts Britain at the scientific forefront of palliative medicine, meaning that the care we can offer will only improve as advances are made. If we can offer this world-leading end-of-life care, why are we looking to euthanasia as an alternative solution?
We can do even more with end-of-life care than we are doing at the moment. We should seek to provide appropriate care to everyone who needs it, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, no matter who they are or where they are. Figures suggest that 700 people in every constituency die without access to the appropriate services they need. Of course, this needs to change.
We need to help more with planning difficult situations. Understandably, thinking ahead can be traumatic for patients and families. None of us—I am the world’s biggest coward—wants to face the consequences of death. We must therefore do all we can to ensure that the end-of-life support received runs as smoothly as possible. We should focus on personalisation and integration.
Care needs to be developed throughout the community, so that the dying can spend those precious last moments in their local area, not in hospital.
We have already heard about the difficulties of legalisation in Oregon.
I could say much more, but I will not. I simply applaud the words of Dame Cicely, who said,
“Hospices are places where people come to live, not to die.”
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate on providing the opportunity for us to debate this important issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall; the number of Members present is an indication of its importance. Perhaps not coincidentally, we are about to recognise a memorial to the holocaust, to the 6 million Jews killed, as well as to all those people who were “socially unacceptable” or “mentally unstable”, according to the Nazis, who way back in that time took a decision to murder people whom they felt were not capable of contributing to society. I want to make some comments about that in the short time I have.
Cancer is a big killer. I can remember clearly what it meant for my own family when my father had it, on three occasions. He survived it, which I believe was because of his faith in God, as well as the medical profession and what it can do. Not everyone survives, however, and nor is cancer the only condition that can be terminal and need extensive care. Numerous other horrific illnesses include multiple sclerosis, lupus and HIV/AIDS. Some people classify those with such conditions as on the dying pathway, but, along with other speakers, I congratulate the UK on being top in the world for good palliative care, which is something to be incredibly proud of. However, sometimes palliative care is not the next step, and some steps might well be missed by those who are looking to make a diagnosis rather than to treat an illness long term. Some suffer from incurable illnesses, but others are simply elderly and infirm and need care, dignity and a programme tailored to their requirements. The word “dignity” has been mentioned by every speaker so far, and that underlines the issue clearly for me. People need dignity when they are not well.
I recently visited an occupational therapist whom I had met during my 26 years as a councillor. I got to know her well, and she was diagnosed with cancer. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) commented on the work of the Marie Curie centre, and I had the opportunity to visit that lady at such a centre in Belfast. She had an aggressive strain of cancer, with six weeks between her initial diagnosis and the end of her life—the disease struck quickly and hard. I and her family could not but appreciate the good work done by the Marie Curie people. At a time when she needed help most, they made her life that wee bit more comfortable—if that is the word to use—and helped her family.
No one living in the UK can be unaware of the need for efficiency savings, but in some areas we cannot afford to cut, and palliative care is one of those. Health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and the health service has said in its palliative care strategy:
“The vision of this Strategy is that any person, from diagnosis to the advanced non-curative stage of disease, lives well and dies well irrespective of their condition or care setting. This requires a philosophy of palliative and end of life care that is person-centred and which takes a holistic approach to planning, co-ordinating and delivering high quality reliable care enabling patients to retain control, dignity and crucially, choice in how and where their care is delivered to the end of their life.”
It is about the people who are ill and who need care at the right time and in the right way. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned personal beliefs, cultures, the practices of patients and so on, and I would hold to what he said in his introduction. It is about the practices of patients and their families and carers, and recognising the contribution that good palliative and end-of-life care can make to the quality of their lives and the lives of the people around them who have to sit back and watch their loved ones die.
The NHS is supported by many charities, and one is the Northern Ireland hospice. It was established in 1981 and provides palliative care for adults—the majority of whom have had a cancer diagnosis—although there are young people there as well. The service began in Somerton house for in-patients but developed to provide specialist community nursing services, a day hospice and hospice at home—the point is that the service can be at hospital or at home, and it supports the family. Everyone knows of the tremendous work of the Macmillan nurses—personally, in many cases, and as elected representatives—and although the people of Northern Ireland continue to give generously, that is not enough to sustain the high level of care and training.
It is important for us to remain top of the world in palliative care, not because we want to show off or show our prowess, but because we want those who are dying before their time to have the best care in order to ease their way, and to ease the pain of their families. We can show what sort of a society we are by the way we treat our vulnerable people. Along with everyone else present, I support the intention behind the debate, and I hope we can assist the people who need it most: the elderly, the infirm and those who are ill and dying.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I do not intend to refer to the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide or to the report of the Commission on Assisted Dying because I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has been given a debate by the Backbench Business Committee. Hopefully that debate, in which I suspect that many hon. Members present today will seek to catch Mr Speaker’s eye, will give us the opportunity to make our views known on those matters.
I fully endorse everything said so far today in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), so I hope not to repeat anything. However, it is important for us to recognise that we will all die. As a society, we need to talk much more about dying and the care of the dying. As the psalmist says:
“The days of our age are threescore years and ten; and though men be so strong, that they come to fourscore years: yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow; so soon passeth it away, and we are gone.”
All too often in modern medicine death is seen as a failure in some way, but supporting those who are dying is an important part of modern medicine.
Three crucial things, therefore, ought to happen for anyone who is dying. They should be informed and fully know and understand, as far as possible, what is happening with their medical treatment. So far as is possible, they should be relieved of pain and should be able to die where they would most like to die. Most people, when asked, say that they would like to die at home, yet home hospice services in this country are pretty noticeable by their absence. I agree with the comments of hon. Members so far: we do have exceptionally good palliative care in this country—where it is good it is very good—but all too often it is mediocre.
Guy Opperman
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. A lot of people present are passionate Christians and see the subject from a religious standpoint. I speak as someone who was given warning of death on 26 April, before my operation last year, and with respect I take the view that, of the choices faced by individuals, one is the choice of their death—when they would choose to go. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) accept, as a matter of both law and faith, that that choice belongs to us?
Tony Baldry
I want to resist the temptation to be drawn into a debate on assisted dying, because many people present want to talk about palliative care, but I state simply that the only person who should determine when we die is the Almighty—it is not us. If we get into a situation in which we pick and choose who dies and who lives, it is a slippery slope. However, I will wait until the debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South before I develop those arguments.
On the need to enhance palliative care, I hope that much more emphasis can be given to junior doctors in particular. I understand that at present they get comparatively little training on palliative care and, given the pressures that junior doctors are under, they often feel that if a patient dies they have somehow failed that patient. They might not have: patients die, and it is a fact of life that people will die. Every hospital trust should have a clear policy on palliative care and on how to enhance it. We should never forget the role of hospital chaplains. People approaching death often need spiritual support as well as medical assistance. Spiritual support is no less worthy and necessary.
We should never underestimate the role of hospices. Hon. Members have referred to hospices in their constituencies, and I have the excellent Katharine House hospice in mine. However, we must try to ensure that they are better integrated in support of NHS palliative care services. Many moons ago, in the mid-1980s, Jack Ashley and I set up the all-party group on hospice support, which is now the all-party group on hospice and palliative care. Even then, we were concerned about the varying amount of support from the NHS to local hospices. I hope very much that NHS commissioners will, whenever possible, see local hospices not just as a resource in developing excellence in palliative care, but as an invaluable resource to help those who are dying and those who are terminally ill. I suspect that the voluntary hospice movement still needs to be much better integrated in supporting the NHS and those who are terminally ill. I hope that the introduction of new forms of commissioning will enable that to be done much better. How we support those who are dying is a measure not just of the NHS, but of us as a society, and we should be judged by how we care for those who are bereaved.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I support all that has been said by those hon. Members who have spoken today. I want to touch particularly on the importance of how we can develop the excellent hospice care that already exists in our country today. Dame Cecily Saunders has been quoted. She said that the hospice movement should have three components: care, research into good care and education of professionals and the community in care and end-of-life issues. Communities today need hospices to operate at that level not just within their buildings, but outside. Fantastic care is given in hospices, but to a relatively small number of people.
In Cheshire, for example, St. Luke’s hospice, which serves my constituency, has just 14 beds, but through various initiatives, it has a far greater beneficial impact on the wider community. I should like to share some of the initiatives that St. Luke’s is developing. It has recently been invited to share those initiatives with the all-party group on dying well. To give confidence and skills to others to share well the care of family members, it has a community outreach programme, and I will refer to one of those programmes in my constituency.
The village hall in a village near Alsager opened its doors one day a week, but that is now being extended, so that those who are not within the hospice may come for day care. Nurses from the hospice spend a day at the village hall, and a group of volunteers cook lunch for the community’s elderly residents, who are often in some difficulty with their physical and mental capabilities. They can have counselling in a private room, a massage, treatments such as manicures and pedicures and engage in hobbies. I saw some wonderful art work that they had done over a period of months. They are provided with an excellent lunch, preceded by a small glass of sherry if they want it. There is much laughter and much support, and that enables the people who visit the centre not only to remain in their communities, but to have their lives enhanced and supported by the work of the hospice, augmented by a substantial number of local volunteers. In turn, those volunteers go into those people’s homes.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for describing the innovative care that hospices in our local communities provide. In my constituency, Katharine House hospice does the same. I want to draw her attention to the community lodges that the Douglas Macmillan hospice has set up in an area near her constituency. They allow families to come together and to support their loved ones in a lodge as they are dying.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Siobhan Horton, the director of St. Luke’s hospice said:
“Hospices need to actively transfer their enormous expertise in health and social care more broadly to ensure more benefit from high quality care”
for more people. St. Luke’s also provides education for all those in the Cheshire area who are involved in hospice work. I have visited the hospice. The ground floor contains 14 beds, and the first floor is a resource centre with a library, and advisers to inform and enable carers and professionals to extend their expertise throughout the Cheshire community and beyond. Hospices can do that excellently, because of their unique expertise, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
Another project that St. Luke’s is undertaking is to develop a public health approach to end-of-life issues, so that ageing well and dying well are part of living well. It is working with the local community to improve communication with family members who are coming to the end of their lives, to resolve outstanding issues, to reduce regrets, to open up conversations that others may be reluctant to engage in, to work with family members and to encourage the engagement of their wider community in supporting the family and individuals who are struggling to support themselves towards the end of a life in the family. The aim for all who are supported in that way is a good death. I think that we all have that aspiration: a death within the loving embrace of our family and local community. St. Luke’s is undertaking serious research into that, and I look forward to hearing more about its developing public health approach to end-of-life issues.
I want to touch on the work that St. Luke’s is doing in connection with care homes. It has been involved in care home education for many years, and although it believes that some care home care is excellent, it also believes that much expertise can be shared both ways. It is considering how to have a closer, more supportive relationship with care homes locally and is commissioning a report on strategic planning and what sort of relationship and support would make a positive difference to care home delivery of end-of-life care. Let us support such innovations and others throughout the country to develop the excellent work of the hospice movement here, of which we can all be proud. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the country and the Government can continue to support and promote the extension of the excellent palliative care in this nation.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate. I have known him as a good friend for nearly 30 years and his values have remained the same over that time.
I welcome this debate because I feel that we need to move the focus of the discussion away from assisted dying and towards quality of life. I became involved with this issue not by accident but through involvement with my local hospice, St Clare. It is one of the most wonderful community organisations with which I have ever had the privilege to be involved, both as a parliamentary candidate in Harlow for many years, and as its MP. St Clare is dedicated to promoting quality of life and care, and it has taught me much about the important role of palliative care and how it needs our support.
I should like to make several brief points, the first of which concerns equity of funding. St Clare hospice in Harlow receives 24% of its funding from the local primary care trust, although other nearby hospices in other PCTs, such as Farleigh hospice or St Francis hospice, receive around 40% of their funding from the PCTs. I welcome the figure of 40% and do not deride it, but it is important to have greater equity of funding. There is also a cliff-edge issue: 70% of charitable hospices have agreements with their local PCT that last for just one year. We need longer-term agreements, so that hospices can plan ahead.
Although we often talk about the big society, the hospice movement existed before that was even mentioned. It has pioneered the big society for many years, and 157 charitable hospices in the United Kingdom receive the bulk of their funding from private and community sources. More than 100,000 people donate their time to local hospices. St Clare hospice has 500 volunteers, and on one occasion, I was pleased to work there as a receptionist. Given what the Government are trying to accomplish in many parts of the public sector, hospices deserve more recognition for their role as part of the big society. They are models of how charitable institutions can raise extra funds, invest in services and train the community, without resources coming simply from higher taxes.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I support everything that has been said so far about doing whatever we can to preserve life. Funding has been mentioned, as have the community and voluntary sectors. Medway contains the Wisdom hospice, where £539,000 is raised annually by the voluntary and charitable sectors. That is a great example of how communities want to preserve and support palliative care.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes a good point that is exactly right; his constituency is lucky to have him serving it so well.
I want to highlight bereavement counselling services. St Clare offers such a service, and about 40% of families that become involved with it receive bereavement counselling. That is a huge extra cost for something that the hospice does not have to provide but nevertheless offers as an extra service. Hospices receive little recognition for their work on bereavement care, and a UK study has shown that such care is often overlooked. In 2010, more than half of hospital maternity units still lacked dedicated bereavement support, thus leading families to turn to their local hospices. In 2007, an Oxford university survey of bereavement care in 10 Marie Curie hospices around the country showed that, although there are some great services, such care is patchy or non-existent in other areas. That is why hospices such as St Clare that go above and beyond the call of duty in the bereavement services that they offer deserve recognition and extra financial support.
To conclude, I should like to comment on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who is no longer in his place. I have huge respect for him, but he mentioned choice in death. The problem with assisted dying and the move towards euthanasia is that people will be pressured into making choices. That is why I am passionately against any move towards assisted dying.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate, and I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Is not part of the problem the fact that if this House eventually—sadly—legislates in favour of assisted dying, that would normalise the situation and mean that people and families who are vulnerable or in desperate straits may think, “That is normality; we will go down that route”? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a dangerous route down which to go?
Robert Halfon
I agree passionately with the hon. Gentleman; we would be taking a hugely dangerous step were we to go down the road of assisted dying. We as a society devalue human life, whether through fiction, computer games or television, or in real life. I often wonder whether Harold Shipman would have got away with killing one patient after another if we as a society had not devalued human life in such a way. We need to move away from that in a big way and back towards dignity for the dying and strong support for palliative care.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
This is a complex subject about which one could probably speak for around half an hour. I will try to confine myself to three minutes and make an important point that I do not think has been made previously. I do not want to repeat points already made by other hon. Members.
I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a board member of Living and Dying Well, which is an active and committed organisation that examines and publishes evidence-based research into assisted dying. There are many aspects to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) not only on his speech but on the measured tone in which it was delivered.
I have probably received more communication from constituents about assisted dying than on any other subject. Most of those who have contacted me disagree with my point of view; I am totally opposed to any change in the law. All those people, however, approached me on the basis of compassion, usually for an individual whom they know—I am sure that many hon. Members present, and others, know of people whose lives are coming to an end and who are living in such difficult circumstances that it is almost a blessing when that happens. Such circumstances have led people to feel that there should be a change in the law. We, however, are parliamentarians, and although I feel compassion for the individual and understand and respect the views of those who disagree with me, we as legislators have a duty of compassion to society as a whole. In my view, we cannot introduce laws that are geared towards individual cases and are dangerous and could lead to situations such as those already mentioned where pressure is put on individuals and suicide is normalised.
In a perfect world, every terminally ill person would be clear thinking and not suffering from a mental illness from which they might recover; every doctor would be professional and competent to make a judgment about the end of life; and every relative would be full of compassion and motivated by nothing else. Our society, however, is not like that. We live in an imperfect society, and our laws must allow for those imperfections.
A debate to be held next spring will consider assisted dying, and we will all be able to make a huge number of points and provide evidence. I would be deeply sorry if we move towards legalising assisted dying and I think that it would be a dreadful mistake, but we should leave that discussion until that debate. Let us recognise that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty first to make a huge commitment to social and palliative care—which as a society we have never done—and to help people at the most vulnerable stage in their lives. We should not go down the road of making things convenient by simply removing those who are most vulnerable and most need our care away from our society altogether.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Six hon. Members still wish to speak. I intend to call the Front Benchers from 10.40 am. Again, please do the sums.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I became interested in end-of-life care in part from having been a hospital visitor at my local hospital for eight years, largely attending those who had no advocate, friends or family and who were nearing the end of their life. I continue to work on these issues with a number of organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing, Age UK and the NHS Confederation.
We have known for some time that older people, in particular, are poorly served in both a hospital and a community setting. To give a recent example, a constituent of mine, who had no continence problems but was bedbound following an operation in hospital, repeatedly asked for a bedpan and at the sixth time of asking was told to wet herself because it was nearly suppertime and no one was around to fetch the pan for her. By that time, she was so desperate for the loo that she did just that, despite how unnatural and unpleasant it felt, and she then had to sit in wet sheets until the meal was over. Only then did the nursing team come and change her whole bed—a procedure that took more staff and time than the simple act of fetching her a bedpan in the first place.
We have had a succession of reports, including from the Care Quality Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, calling for the Government to act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will today update us on progress. With my hospital visitor hat on, I would particularly like to know whether she believes that there are opportunities with the Centre for Social Justice “End Loneliness” campaign, which is focused on befriending and visiting, to consider the support and advocacy services that could be developed to support those who have no one else as they near the end of their life.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. I am pleased that it has been focused on good-quality end-of-life care, rather than assisted dying, as that is the immediate issue. I am sorry that those two issues are often conflated or painted as an either/or. The Commission on Assisted Dying added its voice to the previous reports in relation to the patchy nature of good end-of-life care. It was highly critical of the practices at Dignitas and elsewhere, including Oregon. It highlighted the lack of research in the area that we are discussing. One of its key conclusions was that the Government must step up their drive to improve care in this area as a priority.
Poor-quality end-of-life care cannot be a reason for an assisted death. Indeed, one of the safeguards required by the commission’s model for assisted death in the UK would be verification that a terminally ill patient who requested an assisted death was receiving good care. However, the view that, if there were universal provision of good-quality care, there would be no demand for an assisted death is a false one. It assumes two things: good-quality end-of-life care can alleviate all pain and suffering, and the overriding motivation for seeking an assisted death is poor-quality care. Neither is true. Those who request an assisted death are often doing so because of issues about control and their identity, and we must recognise that even with very good care and advances in pain management, there will still be patients who are in considerable discomfort at the end of their life.
All in this place have great sympathy for those who wish to have an assisted death, whether or not we believe that they should be granted one. We have sympathy for the 400 people who commit suicide every year because of a terminal or chronic illness. We all know about the sale of suicide kits—those appalling suffocation devices, which often fail to kill and instead result in brain damage. I would like the Minister’s comments on whether we should be doing more to end that trade on the internet. We also know about the 160 people from the UK who have travelled to Dignitas. In my view and the view of the commission, that is a very unpleasant experience, and such people are often ending their lives very prematurely.
All of us have sympathy and compassion for the people to whom I have referred. Where we differ is in whether we think that measures to enable those people to have a good death, at the time of their choosing, come at too high a price for the rest of us. There are issues that are often discussed—safeguards, for example, are deemed too difficult and have not been thought through—and issues that are just as pressing but are not so often discussed, such as equality of access to such a death. Indeed, certain issues are barely debated at all. This is a difficult subject, but we should, as a Parliament, continue to discuss the plight of those people and their families, as their suffering is profound. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies); we should do that in the tone that he outlined.
Such suicides occur once or twice a day in the UK. These are a tiny minority of patients, a minuscale minority of Britons, but each of them, in my view, is entitled to a good and peaceful death.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. Bearing in mind your request for brevity, Sir Roger, I will be as brief as possible. I can only agree with much if not all of what has been said.
In considering what to contribute to the debate, I looked up a definition of palliative care. We tend to know what that means, but the definition that I came across last night is from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence:
“Palliative care is the active holistic care of patients with advanced progressive illness. Management of pain and other symptoms and provision of psychological, social and spiritual support is paramount. The goal of palliative care is achievement of the best quality of life for patients and their families. Many aspects of palliative care are also applicable earlier in the course of the illness in conjunction with other treatments.”
That seems to sum it up. Who could not support that statement?
One reason for my participation in the debate is to pay tribute to the hospices that serve my constituency, as many other hon. Members have paid tribute to the hospices that serve their constituencies. My Cleethorpes constituency is served by St Andrew’s hospice, based in Grimsby, and the Lindsey Lodge hospice in Scunthorpe. Both are wonderful organisations that rely on the work of their dedicated and skilled staff and volunteers. I have visited both hospices in the past 18 months; indeed, I visited St Andrew’s only a couple of weeks ago. St Andrew’s also has a children’s unit that serves the whole of the county of Lincolnshire.
I am more familiar with St Andrew’s hospice because my father spent his last weeks in its care and my mother died on the day on which she was due to be transferred to St Andrew’s. My father received care and attention that can only be described as superb. He suffered greatly in the time until he arrived at the hospice, but he seemed to be pain-free during those last few weeks in the hospice. He was in surroundings that allowed me, my mother and other family members to feel reassured that everything possible was being done to give him all the support that was necessary. That was as long ago as 1988. St Andrew’s has progressed enormously since then. It is now in a modern purpose-built building. The drugs and methods of care available have evolved beyond anything that we could have imagined 24 years ago. The advances that are likely to be made in the next 24 years will improve the lives of people who are in their last days beyond measure.
Human life is to be valued. Anything that denies that diminishes society as a whole. I shall conclude by noting one of the contributions made to Lord Mackay’s Select Committee in 2004. It states:
“I would rather die in a country where euthanasia is forbidden but where doctors do know how to look after a dying patient in a humane manner than I would in a country where palliative medicine is ignored but euthanasia can be easily arranged”.
That is the sort of country that I want to preserve.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on obtaining this very important debate. We have heard a lot about palliative care and the hospice movement and we recognise what a patchwork of provision there is in different parts of the country. I take on board the warnings from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) that that should not be used as an excuse to make assisted dying easier. I will concentrate my brief comments on assisted dying. In doing so, I will be taking up the challenge offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who talked about whose choice this was. It perhaps was inevitable that, in answering that question, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, took the view that the Almighty should make the determination. I recognise that many hon. Members present are strongly Christian, but I think that we have to face the fact that we live in a secular society. I do not think that that answer—perhaps slightly tongue-in-cheek—will do as we go forward. My own view—this is perhaps strange, given that I am a legislator and a former lawyer—is that the law is not the right place to make these changes. The empire of the law should not necessarily stretch into this area, and that takes on board elements of ethics and the fact that I have some belief.
I have a great concern that a right to die will rapidly become a duty to die for elderly folk and disabled people. The way in which a society looks after its most vulnerable says much about it, and if we fail to look after such people, and allow the law to change, even in a relatively subtle way, whatever the so-called safeguards, that will be a dangerous step.
The reality is that much of this debate is happening in the context of tremendous funding problems in not only the national health service, but care for the elderly—an issue that has appeared across our newspapers in recent weeks. In a way, those funding problems and the issue of assisted dying are almost two sides of the same coin, with people looking at assisted dying as somehow being an easy way forward on those funding issues.
My concern about the law is that it is simply not the right instrument. It will not give anything like the safeguards we need; indeed, it might make life even more difficult for members of the medical profession and the police, who will be reluctant to do the right thing if the laws that are put in place notionally to provide safeguards simply regulate their lives more stringently in reality.
I speak slightly from my own experience. It is 21 years ago almost to the month that my father died. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer seven or eight months before he died. I was his next of kin, and I must confess that I was very happy that we had a long-standing family doctor. My instructions, and indeed my father’s instructions, to our doctor were that my father did not want to die in pain, and that probably meant that he had more morphine, which might well have accelerated his death by a matter of days or perhaps even weeks. Such decisions should be made by the medical profession, but my worry is that any change we make in the law will make that right decision much more difficult, because it will be a regulated legal decision.
Above all, the problem is that, if we try to introduce such changes in the law, which is natural for us as legislators, we will end up introducing a charter for those who think there are elderly, disabled and other people whose lives have less value than those of the rest of us. That is a very dangerous way forward.
Going forward, we will all have to fight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly said, there is a vocal group that is keen to change the law. All of us must now get ready for a battle to stand up for the silent majority, who think, very much as we do, that the importance of life should not be underestimated at all.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
There is a famous saying that only two things in life are certain: death and taxes. In the short time I have been in this place, it seems we have talked a lot about taxes, but very little about dying. I worked in the hospice movement for more than 12 years, and the hospices have a wonderful saying that they cannot add days to people’s lives, but they can add life to people’s days. That is the fundamental point to make.
I want to talk about children’s hospices. I spent most of my time working for Martin House, which is a children’s hospice in Yorkshire. Children’s hospices are very different from adult hospices. Having also worked in an adult hospice, I have been able to see the differences between the two. Caring for a child with a life-limiting and terminal illness is incredibly difficult. The whole family need support, not just the patient. One father I spoke to said that, if he got up eight times in the night to go to his child, he considered he had had a good night’s sleep.
Many people are frightened of using a hospice, because the view is that that is where we go to die. In my experience, however, things really are much better than that, because hospices are about living and making the best of difficult lives. I want to give two examples, although I will try to be as brief as possible. Two parents came to see me after their six-week-old baby suddenly died. They had spent five weeks in hospital unable to touch the baby, but when they went to Martin House, they were allowed to hold the child. As they put it, they were allowed to be parents, rather than carers. That really shows the wonderful work that the hospice did.
Another thing also made me realise that, for many people suffering from terminal illnesses, the important thing is life and the issues surrounding it. I and other staff from the hospice were interviewing a young man who used it as part of a promotional video, for want of a better term, to help raise funds. The head of care asked him what the most difficult thing was about having a life-limiting illness. In my naivety, I thought he would say it was the fear of dying and the fact that his life would be short, but he said it was falling in love. I could not quite understand that at first, but he said, “Who is going to love me if I have a muscle-wasting disease?” I suddenly realised that the hospice movement was about helping young people who face not only a difficult disease, but the emotional difficulty of not being able to live their life in the way we do. Hospices do so much work to make the very best of difficult lives. The holistic approach they offer—the respite care, the emergency care, the terminal support and the bereavement support we have heard about—is vital to the families that need them.
While I was working at the hospice, it needed to raise £4 million a year. We got only 6% of that from the PCTs, which, frankly, is not good enough. We really should spend a lot more on providing excellent care to ensure that those who are coming to the end of their lives have the very best death possible. When the Minister looks at providing money for hospices, I urge her to recognise that children’s hospices provide very different care from adult hospices.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is no doubt in my mind that, if we allow assisted dying, it will eventually become encouraged exit. G. K. Chesterton wrote that, when orthodoxy becomes voluntary, it will be prohibited, and we could be on a dangerous, slippery slope. One of the witnesses to the Falconer inquiry said:
“I think we can only go for terminal illness at the moment, so this doesn’t actually apply to the people who are probably about to go into care homes. But, you know, baby steps.”
That is a chilling statement.
There is a lot I could say about this issue, but time is short. We all know that it is virtually impossible to predict how long someone has to live—we know that even from the famous case of the Lockerbie bomber. We also know how people suffer from depression in their last months of life. We know what has gone on in Oregon and in the Netherlands, where 8% of all deaths are the result of euthanasia. We also know about the experience in the Northern Territory, in Australia.
However, I just want to make one simple point, and I apologise, because I suppose it is a moral point. I visited St Andrew’s hospice with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). To us, this is a moral issue; we believe that the body is simply the mirror of the soul, and however old, crippled or useless someone might seem to society—our society seems to be dominated by the worship of youth and beauty—they are of immense value to society and should be sustained by society to the very end of their lives.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If more hon. Members who support assisted suicide had participated in the debate, one word would have been heard above all others: safeguards. The only hon. Member who seemed to make the case for assisted suicide talked, in a brief intervention, about some people viewing these issues on a religious basis, by which I think he meant that we should judge them on a rational basis. I judge this issue entirely on the basis of rationality, rather than religion, and according to that rationality, it is impossible that the safeguards can be practical or reliable. Safeguards could not be applied to people choosing to end their lives, because the people who would try to apply them could not get into the minds of those people whose future was in question.
The case for assisted dying has been made by a small number of strong-minded and articulate people who have made up their minds that they want to die, but who cannot end their lives without help. If everyone relevant to the question were like that, there would be much less of a problem; but the real reason why safeguards are thought to be necessary is twofold. One is to prevent people from being subjected to subtle pressure, which no outside person could detect. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said early in the debate, even without outside pressure, there would be a danger that people would feel they had to end their lives in a spirit of self-denial, so as not to be a burden on others. There is no way to erect safeguards to prevent subtle pressure from being applied undetectably; still less is there any way for such safeguards to prevent people from genuinely deciding, although they might want to continue with their lives, that they want still more to end them so that they will not be a burden to others. We cannot apply safeguards to those cases, and that is why the case for assisted dying based on the application of safeguards is fundamentally flawed.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. We have lived through an era when MPs have been seen as irrelevant, not to say venal, and when Parliament has been seen as remote. However, increasingly, in this Parliament, we have found that we are seriously debating issues at the centre of current political debate. The present debate is one of them. I want to touch on policy issues that relate to palliative care and to say a little about assisted dying, but I will begin by saying that in a busy, urban 21st century society people seem increasingly reluctant to talk about death or even to face the possibility of death.
At the risk of generalising, I will mention that, as many hon. Members know, my family come from rural Jamaica. In such rural communities, people make a point of talking about death. People stay up all night with bereaved families, night after night. That may seem strange to some, but it is a way of saying, “Death is a reality, and we will support you through it. Your community is here for you.” In a way, the rather hurried, perfunctory and frightened way that we deal with death in modern urban Britain is not necessarily an advance on the way people deal with it in rural communities around the world.
End-of-life care is of course an important issue, not just because death will come to us all, but because it is a major issue for the NHS. It represents billions of pounds of NHS spending—a fifth of NHS costs and a total of £20 billion altogether. Yet, as hon. Members have said, whereas most people would prefer to die at home, most do not have that privilege. It has been a concern of successive Governments to find out how we can give people the range of choice that they want for end-of-life care and how we can improve the level and type of care that is available.
Among the published reports on the issue, the King’s Fund report identified improving the primary care management of end-of-life care as one of the top 10 priorities for new commissioners. We have heard about the unevenness of funding of hospices and end-of-life care, even within the same part of the country, so I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the Department of Health’s view that end-of-life care should be a national priority and how she proposes to deal with the considerable variation in quality, efficiency and funding. What is the Department doing to ensure that the NHS can support the voluntary sector hospices and other specialist palliative care providers? Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the Government’s proposed commissioning arrangements in the Health and Social Care Bill, which is being considered in the other place, will ensure that there is planned 24/7 provision of community support, including care co-ordination, nursing and symptom control?
As I have said, we know that most people would prefer to end their life at home, but most cannot. We also know that half of all complaints to the NHS involve criticism of the circumstances in which someone died. Often the time when a relative is dying is one of the rare occasions when a whole family come together and perhaps watch the process minute by minute. Therefore, a focus on and concern with end-of-life care comes to us all, and we will all have a view on it. The Minister will be aware of the Demos report, “Dying for Change”. Demos made a number of recommendations and said:
“Unless we can devise ways to get people to talk about how they want to live while they are dying, our efforts to improve services will be like groping in the dark.”
That is a reminder of the need to talk about and face death and to say, while still well enough to give an unconstrained opinion, how we want things to happen. Demos referred to training in palliative care and the important question of linking hospices to groups of care homes, so that hospice skills and values can migrate to care homes. It said that services need to be commissioned in an integrated way. The Minister will also be aware of Age UK’s public policy proposals on those issues.
The House would expect me to say a word about Labour’s record. Under the previous Labour Government, the NHS end-of-life care strategy was launched in 2008. It covered all adults with advanced progressive illnesses and care in all settings. The 10-year strategy was backed by an extra £268 million. There is no question but that progress was made, as I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge. The number of staff using models of care specifically designed for the end of life rose. Those models are now used by 75% of GP practices and hospices and 85% of acute hospitals.
Is the Minister aware that the King’s Fund has warned of the dangers of losing momentum in the drive to improve end-of-life care? Is she also aware of the report of Dr Rachael Addicott, “Implementing the End of Life Care Strategy: lessons for good practice”? Dr Addicott expresses concern
“that the decision not to hold a review until 2013 risks losing momentum and missing the opportunity to build on the progress already made.”
I have been fortunate, as a Hackney MP, to have a close relationship with St Joseph’s hospice, which was set up in 1900 by five Sisters of Charity and is the place where, in the 1950s, Cicely Saunders developed the principles of modern hospice care. My respect for the men and women who run hospices cannot be bettered by anyone in the Chamber today.
As for assisted suicide, I do not want to take a position one way or another. I have great respect for colleagues who advance the case for it and for people in the media who earnestly want to be able to decide how and where they end their lives. However, I have represented a busy, kaleidoscopic urban constituency for 25 years. In Hackney, the best of life and the worst of life can be seen—and the best and the worst of people. I have seen what fantastic support families can give, even when the state lets people down; but in a tiny fraction of cases, I have seen how venal families can be.
My concern about assisted dying would be for that tiny handful of cases involving elderly people who did not want to be a burden—and how many times have hon. Members sat in advice sessions and heard elderly people say that? I would worry about the cases—tiny in number, but still representing the lives of actual people—in which, if we were to provide a legal framework to make assisted dying possible, such people might feel almost an obligation to move forward. I stress to the House that that is a personal view. It comes, as I have said, from seeing the best of people, but also the worst of people, in more than 20 years of being a Member of Parliament.
End-of-life care is one of those issues that is at the centre of people’s debate and concern, because death comes to us all. Advances have been made in recent times, partly through what has happened in the voluntary sector—in hospices all over the country, such as St Joseph’s, which is a wonderful hospice—and partly through conscious Government policy. I am interested in what the Minister has to say on policy going forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Thank you very much, Sir Roger. May I say what a pleasure it is to be able to say “Sir Roger”? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate. It is timely that the House is reminded of the excellent work that goes on, and we have had tributes from all parts of the House this morning for individual hospices and the work of individuals. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his comments on the fears that surround death. Death is an inevitable consequence of life, albeit for some it is tragically premature. We do not find death and dying a comfortable subject. It is thought frightening and mysterious. If nothing else, debates such as this may demystify some of the issues around death.
I also want to mention in particular the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) and her comments on the privilege it is to be present at a member of one’s family’s death. The hospice movement, as she rightly said, has enabled that to be possible for so many more people today.
Services in some parts of the country are excellent and in some parts of the country they are patchy at best. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) pointed out, the quality of care does not always live up to what we expect. It also does not live up to what we expect in the treatment of certain conditions and in end-of-life care.
The Department of Health’s end-of-life care strategy was published in 2008 under the previous Government. I want to pay tribute to the progress that they made. It remains the blueprint for improving this area. Last September we published the third annual progress report on implementing the strategy. It is on the Department of Health’s website and I urge hon. Members to have a look at that.
Anne Milton
I will not for the moment, because I have so little time.
Our plans for the NHS mean that we want people to have as much choice as possible in treatment in life but also in death. We want commissioners and providers to ensure that the right services, which include 24/7 community-based services, are available to support people at home.
Progress is frustratingly slow, but the examples around the country where it is working well are of note. We will review progress regularly to ensure that this becomes a reality for people. It is much overdue.
One development is the electronic palliative care co-ordination systems. I hate these names, but they can be effective tools. Through those, care providers can instantly share care plans and express preferences for care. We piloted that approach successfully in eight sites across the country and it is now being adopted more widely. We are also working to make sure care planning is a routine part of care for people who are dying. It is dreadful that care planning is not a routine part of care for all people. That has not been the case for some years, but it should be.
In November, NICE published its quality standard for end-of-life care of adults. That is an important contribution to this issue. It covers the whole of the end-of-care pathway, not just the medical bit. The 16 statements include social, practical, emotional and spiritual and religious support. We have also developed a national survey of bereaved relatives to get first-hand experiences of people’s care. The first survey should be completed by March. That will inform a new indicator on end-of-life care in the NHS outcomes framework.
To provide quality services, where and how people want them, hospices and other palliative care providers need support and funding. We will introduce a new per-patient funding system for all providers of palliative care, covering both adults’ and children’s services. We set up the independent palliative care funding review to help take that forward. The final report was published last year. It came up with some significant proposals, which we will consider in detail to ensure that we get that right. It is the first major step in local palliative care funding. We will have pilots to collect data and test the review’s recommendations, which will be established from April this year. The aim is to have the new funding system in place by 2015, which is a year earlier than was anticipated.
I also want to pay tribute to the voluntary sector. Palliative care was first developed in the voluntary sector and it still provides us with those beacons of best practice. Dame Cicely Saunders has already been mentioned and had tributes paid to her. She founded St Christopher’s hospice in 1967 and I want to associate myself with those tributes. I also pay tribute to people such as Dr Colin Murray Parkes, who has done so much in the area of bereavement and grief. That has been mentioned, but it possibly did not get the mention that it should.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Mr Amess), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Portsmouth North all paid similar tributes. I would love to mention every contribution in detail, but they all surrounded the same issues: this is about dignity; this is about choice; this is about life. It is also about bereavement and the care of the relatives who live beyond the death.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) specifically mentioned assisted suicide, as have other hon. Members. This is a matter for Parliament as a whole to decide, not the Government. He talked about the perception of failure when someone dies. On a personal level, to be present at a good death is a privilege and an opportunity, not a failure. We need to right that balance a bit and see the success in someone dying well. As I have said, it is such an important part of the bereavement process.
We have a comparatively smaller number of people who die in a hospice, but so many more benefit from their services and expertise. We want to see hospices flourish and develop. In particular, we want to see them continuing to expand the care they give to those with illnesses other than cancer, as well as expanding into community-based support for patients, their families and their carers. That is where the work that we are doing on palliative care funding is so important. It will be key to moving us towards a fairer funding system for all providers, including hospices.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the one issue that has not been mentioned. In accepting that death is part of life, we also need to consider those who can be given the chance of life through another’s death. As I have ministerial responsibility for organ transplants, I have to mention that we need to make organ donation a normal part of end-of-life care. We need to recognise that through a sensitive approach to the family, we can, in death, give life to many others.
In conclusion, we come to this place to give our constituents and this country a better life, because we believe that everybody deserves a good life.
Robert Flello
I just want to touch on the point that in my constituency, the Donna Louise Children’s Hospice Trust does some fantastic work. There is this difference between it and the work of the Douglas Macmillan hospice just outside the constituency. There is a mishmash and I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that in the future.
Anne Milton
We want to end any mishmash. We want a consistently high quality of care for everybody. Everybody deserves a good life and that is why we came to this place. This debate has allowed us to debate, discuss and share the opportunities that exist for Parliament to allow people a good death too, with dignity, without pain, in the company of those we love and at peace in death with the lives that we have led.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Just before we move to the next debate and while I am awaiting the arrival of the Minister, who is not late, may I thank all hon. Members for the tone and the self-restraint that has been exercised this morning? As a result of that, we have managed to accommodate the views of 21 Back Benchers, in addition to those on the Front Bench. I regard that as exceptional. I hope that many people outside the Chamber will have heard the quality of the House of Commons at its absolute best. Thank you.
Carbon Capture and Storage (Scotland)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship again. It is the first time that I have done so since your well deserved recognition in the new year’s honours list.
For the sake of clarity, I should draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and point out that at the last election I received a donation from the union Unison, which has a small number of members at Longannet power station in my constituency.
As Members will be aware, Longannet power station sits at the most westerly point of my constituency. It has been generating electricity since 1970 and it has the capacity to put some 2,000 MW into the national grid. Scottish Power, or its parent company Iberdrola, has been the owner of Longannet power station for a number of years.
Members will be aware that the previous Labour Government established the carbon capture and storage competition, and I will say some more about that shortly. At the tail-end of last year, the current UK Government took the decision to end Longannet’s bidding for the £1 billion pot of money and today I hope to tease out from the Minister exactly where that decision leaves the future of carbon capture and storage, both in Scotland and more generally.
As I said, Longannet power station has been successfully putting up to 2,000 MW into the national grid in Scotland for more than four decades. Several years ago, it had a significant upgrade, which will give it a life through most of this decade. As is the case with all fine pieces of engineering, however, there is only a limited life span left for the power station and of course there are serious questions about how we will keep the lights on in Scotland.
Being a grown-up, I do not think that the Scottish National party’s rather ludicrous plan for 100% of Scotland’s electricity to come from wind turbines and other renewables is at all sensible or deliverable. If someone is a grown-up and has a real energy policy, they have to look at the alternatives to that plan. I firmly believe, as I have done for a number of years, that clean coal technology must be part of an energy mix including nuclear power stations. There should be some role for renewables and fossil fuels, mainly coal, although I accept that there is a limited role for gas. However, I was disturbed to learn from a much esteemed source this morning that 80% of the gas that we now use in the UK comes not from UK shores but from overseas. Security of supply is an important concept. For the benefit of the SNP, which clearly does not understand the concept, let me explain it. If we are dependent on overseas sources of energy, we must have comfort that those sources of energy are reliable, can be delivered safely and are not prone to outside threat.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Given recent events in Japan, does the hon. Gentleman think that nuclear power is reliable and safe?
Thomas Docherty
Clearly, the hon. Lady was not listening two minutes ago when I said that nuclear power was part of a balanced energy policy. In the UK, nuclear power has been delivering electricity safely and securely for nearly six decades now. When she speaks in the debate later, I would be grateful if she could say whether she thinks that having a policy of 100% renewables is a saner option than having a balanced energy policy that does not put all the eggs in one basket. Moreover, perhaps she would like to tell me how many wind farms she has supported in her own constituency. I say that because one of the things that we often see is that certain politicians make great proclamations about their support for certain types of energy but the moment that anyone tries to put those types of energy in their own backyard they suddenly seem—bizarrely enough—to oppose that particular scheme. Unlike the SNP, I have always been consistent: I have always argued that we should have a balanced energy policy; I have always argued that we should keep the lights on; and I have always spelled out how and where I would do that.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a very important issue. Does he agree that it is important to have carbon capture and storage not only for energy security but for environmental reasons? Even if Scotland, with its renewable potential, were able to have a much greater percentage of its energy supplied by renewables, that would not be the case in the rest of the UK and in other countries around the world. Consequently, if we are to tackle carbon dioxide emissions, clean coal and carbon capture and storage have to be a part of any solution we find.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She is entirely correct that this issue is not only about security of supply, although that is the single most important aspect.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an economic and industrial factor to carbon capture and storage, and that the decisions taken in Holyrood and Westminster do nothing to create the momentum for the UK to be a leader in carbon capture and storage?
Thomas Docherty
Yet again, I find myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend, who, as my neighbouring MP, has taken a close interest in Longannet power station. I hope that he will be able to make further points in the debate shortly. As I was saying, security of supply must be the biggest single priority, but as colleagues have just mentioned there are other issues and I will turn to each of them in due course.
Where do we go from here on the issue of security of supply? We have two choices. We can have a balanced energy policy that has clean coal technology, nuclear power, some renewables and, regrettably, a limited proportion of gas, or we can put all the eggs into one basket, as the SNP has said in its manifesto that it will do. As I said earlier, I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) will spell out exactly why we should have 100% windmills and hydro, and how she will achieve that goal during the next decade.
As I have mentioned, a very regrettable decision was taken by the Government on 19 October last year that, for obvious reasons, was very disappointing for my constituents and indeed for the whole of Scotland. That decision was that the Longannet scheme was not going to go ahead. However, there is a recognition that that decision was a pragmatic one and that the Government have a duty to the taxpayer. The problem with carbon capture and storage is that it is an unproven technology. No Government or private company have yet come up with a viable, large-scale carbon capture and storage scheme. I must say that successive Governments have been very late to understand that there comes a point when people have to push back from the metaphorical table and say, “We could throw billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at something and we still have no guarantee that that is going to work”.
Regrettably, successive Labour and Conservative Governments have had a very poor track record of backing winners when it comes to new technologies and there is a genuine debate about whether Governments should try to back winners or whether they have a duty simply to put in place a market for private companies to come up with winners. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say more about the Government’s thinking on that issue.
I make no criticism of Iberdrola or of Ministers for the decision that they ultimately made. Building on the excellent work of the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the current UK Government offered a £1 billion fund for carbon capture and storage. The only observation that I would make—as I say, it is not particularly a criticism but more a general observation—is that many colleagues misunderstood the nature of the competition. The competition was not a case of “last man standing wins the prize”; it was a marathon, and to qualify for the funding one had to reach the finish line. Regrettably, but for obvious reasons because Longannet was the last entrant in the competition, there was an assumption that it would receive the £1 billion. The UK Government and Iberdrola, the Spanish energy giant that owns Longannet, were clearly in the region of £500 million apart on the start-up and ongoing costs of Longannet. That is regrettable, particularly for my constituents, but I do not think this was doable for the UK Government.
What was bizarre was the intervention by our blustering First Minister, who outrageously leaked the confidential commercial information to a Scottish newspaper, showing, again, that he really is not a grown-up. Also, while he was pandering to the galleries and attacking the UK Government, I noticed from answers I received from UK Ministers that he did not offer a single penny of Scottish Government money to fill the gap. If the First Minister had been prepared to offer £500 million, we could have taken Longannet forward but, as ever with the SNP, all we get is bluster, grudge and grievance, with no solution. Perhaps when she speaks, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will spell out what the SNP Government would have done, because all they have done is their usual trick of having a pop at someone else and not offering any solutions.
As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, there are some genuine issues here about not just security of supply, but the environment. I firmly believe that carbon capture and storage is a technology worth pursuing, and my preference remains for a coal station for the simple reason I have spelt out already: that I would be reluctant to go down the route of investing in a gas technology over the next 30 years, because gas is not an indigenous supply. I recognise that there is a strong case for Peterhead, which has been championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). I hope the Minister will be able to outline in some detail where we are with that.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Part of the problem with the Longannet development was that it was coal-fired. It would have had better energy returns, because a large proportion of the UK’s energy still comes from coal-fired stations, but has not experimentation with carbon capture and storage for gas been more successful than the Longannet trial was proving to be?
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s observations. She is indeed correct. There have been some positive signs. My note of caution, however, is that there is a danger that we will go down the route of that classic British tradition, whereby Europe and the United States pursue one path and the UK does its own thing. One need only look back at the nuclear programme. While the rest of the western world was going down the water reactor route, the British, in our own quaint way, went down the gas reactor route, meaning that we had wonderful technology—what I would call the Betamax technology of nuclear power stations—but technology that was not compatible with anyone else’s.
Gordon Banks
I will certainly not make any comments about Betamax or VHS. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, given the number of coal-fired power stations in the UK and the world, and the number of new ones coming on line in the developing world, the holy grail is carbon capture and storage for such stations? If we do not get our skates on, we will be left behind, economically and industrially, and will have to watch others develop the technology and create jobs in their economies, while having to import the technology and ability ourselves.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the holy grail. I am not sure if that makes my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West the Sean Connery or the Indiana Jones of the analogy, but it is the holy grail that we should be pursuing, and it can be achieved. My point about Betamax is that it was a fine piece of technology, and our advanced gas-cooled reactors in particular were, and still are, superb engineering kit. I see that the SNP is now a convert to the case for AGRs, championing Hunterston and Torness having life extensions in the years ahead, but when the rest of the world is going down the VHS road, it is slightly disturbing to think that we are going to pursue gas at the expense of coal. Coal is the long-term priority, and there is a significant market, if we can get the technology to work: we can export it not just to developing countries, although that would be a big market, but to many western and European countries that are also very coal reliant.
I should perhaps say a little about the technology itself, and its benefits for Scotland. As Members are undoubtedly aware, the trick with the technology is not just to capture the carbon but to store it. The Peterhead scheme is, as I understand it, very similar to that for Longannet, in that it would seek to push the captured carbon up into the North sea, into land owned by the Crown Estate. It is important to recognise the Crown Estate’s role, and perhaps the Minister can outline how that will work. Reuse of the now extinguished gas and oil fields off our UK shores is also provided for. Interestingly, the Longannet scheme was a tri-party approach, involving National Grid, Iberdrola and one of the largest oil and gas companies, which had an extinguished field. I hope the Minister can say more about how he will encourage the private sector to do more such partnership work.
It is worth saying that no short-term danger is posed to the Longannet power station by the current carbon capture and storage project not getting the go-ahead. The lights will not be turned off at the station tomorrow morning, but there is a question about its medium-term future. There is a genuine debate to be had about whether it would be the right decision to build another coal power station, whether Iberdrola should be encouraged to seek a further life extension, and if so what Government support could be offered, or whether, as at Cockenzie in East Lothian, a decision is made to shift the type of fuel. Whatever the options, I sincerely hope that the UK Government will do all they can to offer genuine support to Iberdrola as it seeks to take this forward, and I would be grateful if the Minister found time—for either himself or his colleague Lord Marland, who has, to be fair, been a big supporter of CCS—to meet with me. Whatever decision is made about Longannet, I hope, ultimately, that when we get successful CCS we can either retrofit the station or, if we do persuade Iberdrola to go for a new build, that we can get it included. For the benefit of my constituents, I would be grateful if the Minister spelt out what support the Government will be able to give to any new build fossil fuel plant that might be needed to keep the lights on.
I am conscious that other Members wish to speak, so I will draw my speech to a close.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened very careful to his arguments about coal and gas. It seems that this technology is a long way from being proven, and it would be a big win if we could get it to work for either gas or coal. I want to address the point about Longannet. The Government’s most recent publication, “The Carbon Plan”, which came out about a month ago, states that the first decision about an operational plant for CCS will be made in 2018. That is a long time after the current generation of coal is scheduled to be switched off, so there is an issue there if we expect this technology to save some of the coal stations that are planned to be switched off in the next five years.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me of an important issue. If the project had gone ahead at Longannet, the full 2,000 MW would not have been converted to a CCS scheme. Forgive me if my figures are slightly out, but roughly only 20% of the capacity would have moved across. He is entirely correct to say that it is a long-term technology. The problem with energy and its supply is that by its very nature it requires long-term decisions, which is what makes the SNP’s ludicrous plan for 100% renewables so unachievable. They have no “plan McB”—to use the First Minister’s slogan. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan addresses the Chamber, I would be grateful if she spelt out how an SNP plan McB would work, given that it is so clearly failing on its plan McA.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Congratulations, Sir Roger, on your ennoblement—that is not the right word, but congratulations on your award. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. It is an extremely important issue for the long-term future of our country from the point of view of both power and industry.
I have more than 25 years’ experience in the electricity and heavy process industries. The delay in carbon capture and storage implementation at Longannet is disappointing. The UK is in a great position to exploit CCS. As Lord Oxburgh, president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association recently put it:
“Experience gained in the North Sea oil and gas industry, and the abundance of offshore geological sites where CO2 may be stored underground have allowed the UK to become one of the global leaders in CCS. Capitalising on this early leadership is vital”.
We certainly can be leaders. The same technology that has been so successful in the complicated job of extracting, storing and processing oil and gas from the North sea can be modified to put carbon dioxide back under the North sea. There is a skilled work force, and academia is already doing important support work. Professional bodies such as the Institute of Mechanical Engineers are very clear that the technology is perfectly practical, and there is a great future here if we move quickly. The global market in the technology alone is conservatively estimated at $10 billion.
A similar story could have been written some years ago about wind technology. We are one of the windiest countries in the world, but thanks to Government dithering and lack of public and private investment, we are playing catch-up and importing most of the technology and equipment. Having worked mainly in the private sector until May 2010, I am baffled at the interminable time scales I see in this job. When someone says something will take six months, my questions are: so what will happen tomorrow and the next day, and how can we shorten the critical path? I am then met by blank looks. I am sure that the giant new Tesco store being built in my constituency would not have gone from a green field to a functioning supermarket in six months with politicians and civil servants running the project. My challenge to the Minister is: how fast can we go and what is getting in the way?
We should be ambitious about CCS in the UK. It is needed to decarbonise our power production and our heavy industry. The areas that get CCS infrastructure will become magnets for new power and industrial investment. That means that we can protect energy-intensive industries, which are currently being challenged by European Union and United Kingdom climate measures, and help to reverse the decline in our manufacturing sector. Failure to act will lead to more announcements like the recent one on the closure of the UK’s last aluminium smelter. Ironically, it is in Northumberland next to the North sea, and the owners had considered using CCS to keep the plant going. It is now too late.
Where should CCS investment take place? Again, we should be ambitious. There are four obvious prime locations: the Aberdeen area, the Forth, the Tees and the Humber-south Yorkshire area. They all have merits, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change should kick-start development in them all. A long-term strategy should be developed for CCS infrastructure.
Thomas Docherty
I have listened carefully, and disturbingly I find that I must agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. On his point about funding all the schemes, surely the great challenge is that there is a finite pot of money. How should that problem be addressed?
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that challenge. I do not necessarily see it as my job to represent the Treasury, but £1 billion for less than a quarter of the Longannet power station was not a good use of money. Having talked to people in the industry, I think that there are better ways. Conglomerates of private sector companies want to get into the sector, and we need to be more imaginative about how we make that happen.
Dame Anne Begg
One problem is that at the moment, the private sector cannot see that it is a worthwhile business proposition. One of the difficulties faced by CSS in this country is that the economic arguments do not yet stack up.
Ian Swales
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and that is where we must challenge the private sector and be imaginative about the schemes. I will come on to a scheme I am familiar with that is not in Scotland, but for which there is already a conglomerate of companies ready to roll—household names in the gas and pipeline industries and lots of different companies. It can be done.
To those who say that such development is highly expensive, I say that we need to look more at the overall longer-term finances for the Government, industry and energy generation. For example, it has been estimated that the CCS project proposed for Teesside can generate a peak of £1 billion a year in extra petroleum revenue tax for the Government, through oil companies using CO2 to get more oil from their North sea wells. That possible extra oil recovery from the North sea is estimated at 4 billion barrels. The use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is already widely practised in the United States.
The debate is about Scotland, but a project is ready to go in Teesside, and the necessary list of major players in pipelines, processing and so on are ready to start. More than 30 large CO2 emitters in the power and industrial sectors can be connected to the system. Interestingly, a few of those are using biomass, which raises the prospect of net carbon-negative power—sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. By generating clean power and running clean industry, CCS can make a huge contribution to UK climate change targets. A clear and ambitious UK-wide strategy, action to remove roadblocks to progress and a sense of urgency are needed from DECC, so that the UK can genuinely lead in this exciting new industry.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. I am rather disappointed that he chose to squander his opportunity today; instead of asking the Government about progress on the plans for carbon capture and storage in the UK, he preferred to take pot shots at the First Minister, who not only is not here but does not have the power to make decisions on CCS that will be made under the current constitutional arrangements.
I want to focus on CCS in Scotland. I share the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment and frustration over the abandonment of the Longannet project. It promised job security for the folk involved, offered technological innovation and would have brought significant investment to Fife. I regret that it hit the buffers, but it is not only the people of west Fife who have been frustrated by the slow progress of carbon capture projects in Scotland. Peterhead, in my constituency, has long been recognised as having leading potential as a site for CCS. Indeed, Scottish and Southern Energy asserted that Peterhead represents the best site in the UK for a gas demonstrator CCS project. By no means is that a new plan. The previous CCS plan for Peterhead was abandoned in 2007, after expectations were raised and then dashed. Frankly, delays and indecisiveness on the part of Government led BP to scrap its plans and turn its attention to projects overseas. The problem was that the previous Government were not decisive enough.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Lady has commented on two decisions, but will she clarify whether a Scottish Government, if they had the powers, would have gone ahead with both those schemes? Would they have put up the £1.5 billion to £2 billion needed for Longannet and the sum needed for Peterhead?
Dr Whiteford
I do not deal in hypotheticals. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to where we are now and how we are going to progress, because important questions need to be answered.
Dr Whiteford
No, it is not. The Scottish Government’s commitment to carbon capture and their involvement in discussions about Longannet and Peterhead have been constructive throughout the process. I hope the Minister will comment on how he has worked with the Scottish Government on the carbon capture and storage projects.
The Peterhead project was resurrected in 2010 when Scottish and Southern Energy Group revived the idea, and last November it joined forces with Shell to make progress on the plans. Those companies are committed to a gas demonstrator at Peterhead, using storage in the Goldeneye field and the existing North sea infrastructure going out from St Fergus. The Goldeneye field is available and has the right pressure and capacity to make the project viable in technical terms.
I do not think there is much argument any more with the view that we need to mitigate the environmental impact of fossil fuels if we are to have any hope of meeting our international commitments and obligations in tackling climate change. We need to continue using fossil fuels, but we also need to make them cleaner. It is also evident—I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s comments on this—that gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix. What are the Minister’s views on the role of gas in the UK’s energy supply? It is important to understand the role that CCS might play, not just from the perspective of energy security, but from that of the sustainability of our planet.
Dr Whiteford
I will, and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will be better than his previous one.
Thomas Docherty
I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Lady correctly, so will she clarify whether she thinks it a good thing that we would import 80% of our gas not from Norway, but from Kazakhstan, the middle east and other slightly insecure regions?
Dr Whiteford
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that energy security is crucial, but the point about gas is that I do not think we have a choice any more, and the reason why we will have to use gas, wherever it comes from, is the previous Government’s indecisiveness. They refused to make decisions, for example, on whether to have new coal at Kingsnorth. After 13 years in government, it is very easy for the previous Government to put pressure on the new Government, but they need to take some responsibility for their own decisions when they were in office and their failures, which have made us very dependent on external gas at present.
That, however, does not negate the argument for a CCS gas demonstrator project at Peterhead. We are where we are and we are dependent on gas, but the proposed Peterhead site fits in extremely well with both the UK’s strategic objectives and the EU’s strategic priorities. It is also very well located for old oilfields in the North sea. We are in a good position to use them—it is probably a better position than that of anywhere else in Europe at present.
David Mowat
I agree with the hon. Lady that gas is the default solution to energy where decisions have not been made. On gas from overseas, I think I am right in saying that the majority of our coal also comes from overseas at the moment, but we can rest assured that, from 2015, Europe is likely to be flooded with cheap shale gas from the US, so I think our concerns about that particular fuel source are misplaced.
Dr Whiteford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable expertise in this area, for making the important point that it is not just gas but coal that comes from overseas. The point about CCS technology is that it is extremely marketable and the UK has a comparative advantage in that market. A number of coal demonstrator projects are taking place elsewhere in Europe, whereas gas is not being explored to anything like the same extent internationally. That could give us a proper comparative advantage in gas CCS technology. It is about not just our domestic markets but international marketability.
The key issue is funding. There is no doubt that the collapse of the Longannet project and the Treasury’s announcement that it would reallocate the underspend has created a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty. However, Shell and SSE have made it clear that they would require funding in the next two to three years to make the project viable, and revenue support during the operational period. In that respect, the energy companies have argued that spreading the finance too thinly over too many projects risks jeopardising all of them.
What proportion of the funding will the Government make available during this Parliament? What discussions have been had about the prospects of levering in further investment from sources other than those in the public sector? What is the Government’s response to the argument that the UK needs to focus its efforts on funding and risk management? The Government have published a timeline for implementation. How likely is that timeline to be met and how is it progressing?
We have to recognise that this is a demonstrator plant. It carries investment risks and might not go smoothly and completely according to plan, but that is why it is so important for it to have Government backing. I hope the Peterhead project will progress apace.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this debate, which is extremely important to Fife and central Scotland, as well as to the UK in general. I am disappointed with the Longannet decision. It affects my constituency, which borders that of my hon. Friend more or less at Longannet, very much. Many of my constituents work at Longannet and I would have had high hopes of many more of them finding employment in a successful carbon and capture storage plant there, but we are where we are.
It is vital that we have a balanced energy policy. We have to embrace renewables of all natures and there has to be a role for fossil fuels and, indeed, nuclear. We have to have a guarantee that, when we press the light switch, the light comes on. Unless we embrace all available technologies to ensure that that happens, we will find ourselves socially and economically challenged.
We need to determine—we can only do this through full-scale trials—whether carbon capture and storage is a real option for future economic prosperity, as well as for dealing with the knock-on environmental issues, which are the driving factor. It is equally important to determine what a successful CCS programme—developed and branded in the UK—could deliver to the UK economy in terms of revenue and the skills of our constituents.
The Scottish Government did not do anything in relation to the Longannet decision. There was a lot of hot air from the First Minister, and it is hot air that we are trying to stop. It would have been much more constructive for the Scottish Government to have done something to facilitate the development of Longannet. Did the Minister have any discussions of that nature with the First Minister?
In an intervention, I made the point that, with coal-fired power stations in the UK and throughout the world—an increasing number are coming online in countries such as China—CCS is the real gain and the holy grail. We need to focus our minds on it in the UK, while bearing it in mind that both the public and private sectors have limited resources to invest. I will come to that in a moment.
Can the Minister confirm the expected release date of the CCS roadmap, because that is absolutely vital for the private sector embracing the challenge of this technology and seeing the Government as a partner in this? Unless the Government play their part, we cannot expect the private sector to play its part. That in itself will create jobs, technology and developmental skills that I hope we can build on and in some way export. CCS could create 13,000 jobs in Scotland and 14,000 jobs elsewhere in the UK. By 2025, the sector could be worth more than £10 billion a year to the economy, which, in addition to the environmental impact, makes CCS a bit of a no-brainer. We have touched on how many times we have been left behind.
Ian Swales
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if CCS is worth £10 billion to the economy, those who will benefit have an incentive to help to get things going? It does not seem to make sense to rely only on Government funding.
Gordon Banks
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, but what the private sector needs is for the Government to show a willing lead. What happened at Longannet could be construed as not demonstrating that. The Government need to step up to the plate here and throw the gauntlet down to the private sector.
As I was saying, how many times have we been left behind and missed the boat in the UK in terms of various different technologies? The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) talked about wind technology. It is a crying shame that we are where we are with wind technology. We are largely importing the technology and the equipment to build turbines. That really has been a missed opportunity. Although CCS may be costly—I will come back to that matter—it is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.
We need something from the Government to show that they are embracing CCS and that demonstrates to the private sector how serious they are. The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) raised the point about CCS being expensive. Yes, it is. There are no cheap or quick fixes to our energy position, but we have to consider what the fixes are and CCS is potentially one of them. Governments in Holyrood and Westminster need to step up to the plate, and I am not sure they are doing that.
Thomas Docherty
Does my hon. Friend have any views on what Governments can do in terms of the planning system, because it strikes me that one of the great challenges we face, particularly given the long lead-in time on a new-build plant, is ensuring that that type of decision is not held up unnecessarily through the planning process?
Gordon Banks
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We must determine what becomes a priority in the United Kingdom and ensure that people’s lives are not blighted by decisions that are trying to make things better. There is a real need to recognise that we must have security on a core range of issues, one of which is energy. I embrace the possibility of ensuring that future CCS opportunities and, indeed, new build with carbon capture get the relevant scrutiny and are of benefit to the UK, Scotland and the immediate community. Future CCS opportunities need to be fully valued and evaluated in that process.
In conclusion, the Longannet decision was extremely disappointing. It did not send the right message to the energy sector or to the people working in it. Today, the Minister has an opportunity to try to undo some of that damage and I look forward to his comments with bated breath. I hope that he will take that opportunity on board.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Thank you for letting me speak, Sir Roger—I had not intended to do so. I want to make two points in relation to some of the comments I have heard: one in favour of CCS and one expressing some reservations. I will mention the latter one first, which relates to cost.
Many hon. Members have talked about the benefits of CCS technology. Of course, we live in a country where energy is still 90% fossil fuel generated, and anything that can enable us to make the transition from that in a carbon-free way, such as CCS, is attractive. Yet there seems to be something wrong. What the Government should be doing is setting a price for carbon and then letting the private sector do the work. We do not know the details about Longannet but, for whatever reason, that approach is not enough. People are saying that we have to invest a further £1 billion here and have a further pilot scheme there. What the Government’s role ought to be—this is the energy market reform—is, as it is with nuclear, to set a price for carbon, give industry that stability and let it make the investment. For example, let us consider Iberdrola.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the pressure I feel in my constituency is essentially coming from industry, not from power generators, because industry can very much see what is happening to it competitively and so on through carbon pricing. Does he agree that there may be a carbon pricing method that can incentivise the power sector to play its part in bringing this new technology on board faster?
David Mowat
I do not, no. If this technology is to work, it has to be done on the same playing field as everything else. I mentioned the price of carbon. The other thing about CCS technology that is not in doubt is that it requires an injection of power over and above what a power station is currently using—in the order of 25% for coal. That is an immediate increase in emissions and everything else just to make CCS work.
Gordon Banks
I want to press the hon. Gentleman and ask him whether he is advocating that the Government should not be spending this £1 billion.
David Mowat
I am willing to accept that this technology is new and that the Minister might therefore say it is a bet to try to get it to work in our country. I agree that our country is uniquely well suited for CCS because of the offshore gas fields. In places such as Germany, people have been resistant to CCS because the fields are onshore and they do not want CO2 under them. Our country is in a uniquely good position for CCS, as it is for wind, and I do not necessarily begrudge the Government spending the money. However, I repeat the point that, structurally, the energy market reform sets the price for carbon and we should let the market decide. We will watch with interest whether the market does decide that this technology is worth pursuing. That is my negative point. I shall now make my positive point.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is certainly bringing a different perspective to the debate. Does he not accept that Governments have given subsidies and financial support to both nuclear and renewables for a decade-plus and that CCS pump-priming would be no different from the support that those industries already get?
David Mowat
That is a fair point. In the energy market reform that has been published, the Government are very proud of the fact that they are giving no subsidies to nuclear in going forward—[Interruption.] Well, that is a different argument. The Government have subsidised and continue to subsidise renewables. That takes me to my next point.
Dame Anne Begg
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not simply about the economic argument because if we leave the market to decide, it will always go for the cheapest option? There is also an environmental argument and the Government need to be involved on that basis because this is still a new technology with demonstrator projects. Until the technology can be proven, the market and the industry will not make the investment. The Government may therefore need to make that investment to pump-prime and ensure that we get the environmental benefits.
David Mowat
Just to be clear, I completely buy into the Climate Change Act 2008 and its requirements. However, the way that the Government have chosen to meet their environmental obligation is by setting a price to carbon. That is what makes CCS viable because, obviously, the companies will save the money from burning the carbon at whatever the rate is—£30 or £50 a tonne—and so on. That is my point. The level playing field that the Government are trying to obtain through the energy market reforms is being achieved over the medium term by the price of carbon.
Let me now make my point about CCS from a more positive point of view. What worries me a little about the Government’s position on CCS is a little similar to what worries me about the Government’s position on nuclear. Both CCS and nuclear have one thing in common: they are extremely good at reducing carbon, but they are not renewables. The Government have an issue to work through, and I have said this in other forums. The Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to reduce our carbon emissions by 80%—a huge and difficult target, but it is right that we are trying. My concern is that, in 2009, the EU 20-20-20 directive required us to increase our use of renewables by a factor of five over a decade or so. That objective is not necessarily consistent with the objective of reducing carbon.
It is possible that CCS may lose out, like nuclear, through a little bit more ambivalence on the part of Government. I looked at the Government’s carbon plan. It estimates how much of our electricity will be produced from CCS by 2030 and how much will be produced from renewables. I am not anti-renewable at all, if it can be made to work in a cost-effective way. The Government’s estimate for 2030 is a factor of five difference between renewables and CCS. I do not know whether CCS will be made to work or not. We should try, and it would be great if it did, but I am worried that the emphasis of policy is not on carbon reduction. The emphasis of policy is on renewables, and that might take us to, or down, a sub-optimal path.
Ian Swales
Just one point of clarification: those two things are not necessarily entirely separate. A new 300 MW biomass power station has been announced for Teesport. A CCS network in the area could actually feed into that. As I said earlier, we could end up with carbon negative power as a result of doing that, so they are not entirely separate. While 300 MW is not a huge amount, it is worth noting that the Longannet project was only 400 MW.
David Mowat
I agree. I mentioned CCS and nuclear as opportunities. Biomass is also an opportunity. In common with the first two, it is also not a renewable. As I said, I am concerned that the emphasis of policy is in the wrong place. The 2008 Act was a hugely ambitious plan to try to achieve. We should not be diverted from doing so and we should look very hard at optimising that.
[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]
Finally, we have not really covered nuclear in any detail, other than an exchange at the start between two hon. Members from north of the border—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). People say to me that there is no cost-effective option. On the facts, it would appear that nuclear is cheaper than some of the other options, but of course the market needs to determine that. I agree with that. The carbon price will allow that to happen. That needs to be the case with CCS.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on CCS in Scotland and other related factors. It is not a surprise that the debate has sometimes ranged beyond CCS projects in Scotland, because so many aspects of energy policy and energy considerations are tied up with the potential—the potential projects and the success, or otherwise—of CCS. I am sure there are many other issues, from the contributions we have heard, that the Minister will wish to reflect on. He missed the very start of the debate, but what is gratifyingly clear from the whole of the debate is that—despite one comment from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—nobody taking part in the debate fails to see the potential of CCS and its impact. From time to time there is a view that, because CCS is unproven and has not been demonstrated on a commercial basis, it is a distraction. I do not believe it is a distraction. It is integral to achieving the right, balanced energy policy and the right mix of energy sources, and to reducing carbon emissions at the same time. It is interesting and positive, therefore, that that view has not been expressed during the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. He touched on many issues from the perspective of representing the Longannet power station. Everybody felt disappointed with the announcement that Iberdrola and the Government had concluded that the Longannet project was not able to go any further without significant additional funds. In fact, even with the significant addition of funds, there may well have been other technical issues that made it impossible to go further. That decision was not necessarily a party political issue. It is, I think, a deep disappointment to everybody who is interested and committed to energy policy.
Some of the commentary around the issue was unhelpful. I had the pleasure—it was not that much of a pleasure—of rereading some of the comments made by the First Minister and other members of the SNP immediately after that decision. While I understand that the predecessor of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was caught up in the moment at his party conference shortly afterwards, his description of the Government turning their back on a world-leading technology and £1 billion of investment not being there was perhaps going further than the facts allowed. That was disappointing in many ways, but not necessarily that surprising.
Thomas Docherty
Does my hon. Friend think it is interesting that, for all the bluff, bluster and ranting from the SNP, when push comes to shove they would not have put a single penny into the scheme? We have heard nothing today about how much it is prepared to fund.
Tom Greatrex
I think my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into one aspect of a constitutional debate that we will have, and I am sure we will have plenty of opportunities. I join other hon. Members in seeking clarification from the Minister on what offers of funding for CCS were made, if any, from the Scottish Government. It would be interesting to learn more about that issue if he has the opportunity to address it in his winding-up speech.
I want to reflect on some of the contributions to the debate, because so many aspects of energy policy are tied up in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife touched on security of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) touched on the importance of the industrial and technological potential that undoubtedly exists in the UK. The clock is ticking, however, and he gave an apposite warning about the potential for missing out on that, as indeed did the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who has experience in the industry and related industries. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made the important point that this is also about reducing carbon emissions, which is fundamental to our energy future.
Scotland has had a relatively long, and sometimes chequered, past—and present—with CCS: from Peterhead to Longannet, and back to Peterhead again. There is also the potential of the Hunterston project, which is currently caught up in the planning process. Other hon. Members referred to the difficulties that can arise with the planning process.
At various points, there has been lots of excitement about the potential of all those projects in Scotland. There is a real opportunity for Scotland to be a world leader in this low-carbon technology. Much of the academic expertise is in the UK, particularly in Scotland, notably Edinburgh. It would be a shame if that potential was not realised first in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire made clear, we should not overlook the potential for jobs and the value to the economy. Many hon. Members have touched on Scotland’s potential, particularly within the UK. It has access to geological formations off the North sea that are ideally suited to carbon storage, and we have heard about the issues in Germany and elsewhere regarding under-land storage.
All those things make it important that the Government remain committed to CCS, including, potentially, in Scotland. That does not mean that the decision on Longannet was not disappointing, as I have said: it was bad news for the plant, for the local economy and for Scotland. My two hon. Friends here today with local connections made that point eloquently. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, we are where we are and we have to deal with the realities. The important thing now is that the potential demonstrated in the work at Longannet is not lost, so that we do not have to start from scratch.
I am pleased to have found out in my discussions with Scottish and Southern Energy—or SSE as it is now formally known—that some work undertaken at Longannet is being used to help inform current work in relation to Peterhead. It is important that we do not have to start from scratch each time, because then our ability to get ahead of the game would almost certainly be lost.
It is important and significant that we understand the difference between CCS being encouraged through other aspects of energy policy, including carbon pricing, in the longer term—as the hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned—and where we are now, because this technology has not yet been proved commercially on a significant scale. The real potential has been demonstrated, but it is reasonably widely accepted, if not universally, that to get that benefit Government intervention and support is needed in the initial stages.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan touched on the Peterhead project, and many hon. Members who are not here have commented on the decisions made in 2007. I am tying this issue into Longannet because sometimes, as I have said, party politics gets in the way of the realities of projects that have potential but, for whatever reason, cannot be taken further forward.
The predecessor of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked about the Peterhead project being lost to Abu Dhabi. He is a frequent traveller, at the moment, to that part of the world. I wonder whether he would, either through the hon. Lady or at some other point, inform us what happened in Abu Dhabi, because I understand that BP’s hydrogen power project has still yet to get the go-ahead there. Sometimes the simplistic sloganising around this issue does a disservice to the technological, practical and engineering hurdles that we still need to get over. Sometimes, the degeneration of this important matter into an “England versus Scotland” or a “Scotland being done down” debate does it a disservice.
Funding is important and I am sure the Minister will have expected me to mention that, given that I have used many opportunities in the past few months to seek answers on this issue. It is important that we get clarity from the Minister today, including about the funding that is available going forward. At the time of the Longannet decision, the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said at Energy questions that there would be no backsliding from the Treasury, that the £1 billion would be available for CCS funding, and that that was an absolute commitment. Yet the day before the autumn statement—I am sure the Minister recalls the radio interview—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that the £1 billion for CCS would be subsumed within the £5 billion infrastructure plan, although he was not clear about what would then be available for CCS. The ramifications of the interview on 5 Live that morning were pretty significant and have caused a degree of concern in the industry that has not yet abated. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and say what that means for the timeline for the development of CCS.
The subject of the debate is projects in Scotland. The Minister will be aware of SSE’s projections regarding when it expects such projects to be up and running: that is, before the end of current comprehensive spending review period. There is a degree of doubt and concern about that, because the Government are saying that the £1 billion will be available, but not necessarily in this Parliament. How can they make that commitment ahead of the next CSR? The industry is concerned about certainty and stability in relation to that funding; it is important that it know exactly where it stands.
Again, will the Minister make clear how much of the £1 billion that his boss said there would be no backsliding on will be available during the current CSR period? How much of the £1 billion previously set aside for CCS will now be used for other infrastructure projects? Will those other infrastructure projects in the Treasury infrastructure fund exclude CCS, and is the money being double-counted? What form will the remaining funding take? Will it be up-front capital, or fixed or variable payments over time?
I am asking the Minister these questions again because on 29 November 2011, I asked the Chancellor during his autumn statement to provide some clarity, but he was not able to do so. On 1 December I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to provide some clarity, but I am afraid his answer was not clear. On 6 December I asked the Chief Secretary again to provide further clarity, but, again, he was unable to do so. On 15 December I even asked the Leader of the House to provide some clarity, and he said that he thought the issue had been dealt with with the appropriate degree of clarity beforehand.
Four Cabinet Ministers were, in the space of 11 sitting days, given an opportunity on the Floor of the House to spell out clearly and without ambiguity exactly how much money was available for CCS in this Parliament, what the impact would be on the timeline for distributing that funding and whether the funding was, potentially, being spread far too thinly to have a positive impact. On each occasion the Government were found wanting: rather than providing potential investors with the clarity they were asking for, they preferred to provide further confusion.
The Energy Minister even claimed, in a written answer to me, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had not made any announcement on CCS funding. People who heard the interview I have mentioned would beg to differ: although it may not have been a formal announcement to Parliament, that statement by the Chief Secretary has caused such a degree of concern that it is incumbent on the Government to provide the clarity we need now.
I should like to touch on the European NER300 funding package. The lack of clarity about Government funding for CCS projects has a knock-on effect on other sources of funding, which hon. Members have mentioned, whether private or public. One such source is the European Union NER300 programme. The six CCS projects competing for funding from the UK are also doing so at European level.
The Peterhead project is seeking funding. The chief executive of SSE, Ian Marchant, has made it clear that the development of the commercial-scale CCS demonstration is dependent, to some extent, on levels of support from both the EU and the UK Government. The criteria for accessing EU funding are clear. Before any allocation of EU money for a CCS project that is seeking both member state and EU funding:
“Member States will be asked to confirm the value and structure of the total financing of the projects concerned, and any project for which confirmation is not forthcoming will be replaced by the next highest-ranked project.”
Those words are chilling, and unless that criterion has changed, they highlight the urgent need for the Government to get in place their plan in relation to CCS, so that that opportunity is not missed.
The Government held an industry day just before Christmas, which many people were hoping would answer some questions. Given the questions and answers published on the Minister’s website and the views of people who attended that event, I do not think it answered many questions, other than to say that at some point questions would be answered. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to answer those important questions.
Scotland is at the forefront of this pioneering low-carbon technology, which could hugely benefit our energy security and how energy policy is taken forward across the UK and more widely around the world. However, as hon. Members have highlighted, the right support from the Government is needed to get that opportunity up and running. It is time for the Minister and the Government to bring the uncertainty to an end, to provide clarity and to come clean on CCS.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Howarth. I begin with an abject apology to you and to the House for my late arrival. I am afraid that there was confusion in my office about the time at which the debate started; I therefore turned up slightly late. I apologise profusely and will write to Mr Speaker to make my apologies known to the House.
In particular, I had wanted to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). He has shown a strong personal commitment to the issue that goes way beyond the interests of his constituency alone, to look much more broadly at the interests of carbon capture and storage and future energy development in the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland. I am profoundly grateful to him for his interest and the expertise that he has shown, and I was keen to hear his remarks in full—I will read them—but of course I accept his request for a meeting. If he and other hon. Members wish to talk to me about their concerns in more detail at any point, they are more than welcome to do so.
We have had an extremely valuable debate, characterised by the extent to which hon. Members have spoken with both commitment and expertise. It reinforces why we all desire the issue to be seen as outside politics, and there is an enormous prize for our whole country. People looking to invest want to see as much clarity and agreement between the parties as possible, to which the tone of the debate has been conducive. We are all frustrated about the pace of progress and we are all disappointed that the Longannet project could not be made to work within the budgetary framework, but we are all equally committed to taking the issues forward, to ensure that the United Kingdom is one of the most attractive places in the world in which to invest in CCS. The UK has unique facilities, which should put it at the forefront of developing CCS, and Scotland is at the forefront in the United Kingdom. The industry’s potential for Scotland, for existing industry and for new industries that want to support CCS and to provide part of the supply chain is extremely comprehensive.
The frustration was outlined before the general election by Paddy Tipping, then the Member of Parliament for Sherwood and a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, who said it was a competition without end—the competition for CCS seems to have gone on for ever. Given that we must now proceed with new urgency on setting a new competition, it is not lost on any of us that we wasted the chance over a number of years to take the opportunity forward, and we must now do so with extra vigour.
Thomas Docherty
Does the Minister share my observation that part of the problem with the previous competition was people’s apparent belief that it was a case of the last bidder standing, rather than of having technology that worked? Can he ensure therefore that much more robust criteria are set down at the start, so that everyone understands what the competition is?
Charles Hendry
My concern was always that the competition was too narrowly focused. Given the requirement for post-combustion technology, the interest in pre-combustion technologies, such as the BP project at Peterhead, could not qualify. The assumption at the time was that the technology could then be sold to China and elsewhere to retrofit old plants, but the Chinese are now clearly quickly developing their own technology that they want to sell to the rest of the world, so we need to look at a wider range of technologies. An added complication, which I will come to later, is retrofitting an old technology to an old plant, with the significant extra costs inevitably occurred in bringing that plant up to scratch, to give it decades of future life, on top of the cost of the CCS alone.
We all agree that CCS can play a fundamental part in delivering our secure, low-carbon energy needs. It provides us with a generation option that other technologies do not: its flexibility can provide a balance between the intermittency associated with renewables and the base-load nature of nuclear. It allows fossil fuels to play a full part in our low-carbon future and allows the decarbonisation of industrial emissions. We—the whole of the United Kingdom and the Government—remain firmly committed to working with industry to achieve that.
We have made available £1 billion of capital funding to support early CCS projects, and I will say more on that in a moment, in response to the questions. We are establishing a market for CCS electricity through our reforms to the electricity market. We are continuing to lead the world in putting in place the regulatory framework to support CCS, including legislation on third-party access to pipelines. We are supporting essential research and development, including opening the UK’s first carbon capture demo at the Ferrybridge power station. We have also established the CCS development forum, which has drawn together around 40 members from the industry to be directly involved in delivering CCS in the United Kingdom, together with representatives from the international academic and non-governmental organisation communities.
There are many different ways to achieve the decarbonisation of the power sector. At this stage, it is not possible to predict which will be the most cost-effective route or what exactly the power sector will look like in 2030. Nevertheless, we can use economic models to produce projections, using the best evidence currently available. Analysis undertaken for the carbon plan of the Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that around 40 to 70 GW of new low-carbon electricity generating capacity will be needed by 2030, depending on demand and the mix of generation built. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), a strong continuing role for gas is envisaged in that mix.
Ian Swales
The Minister mentioned economic modelling. Do the Government have any wider modelling that takes into account the whole picture, not only carbon capture and the grants that might be required to get it going, but—my earlier point—petroleum revenue tax resulting from enhanced oil recovery?
Charles Hendry
My hon. Friend makes an interesting and valuable point. Our focus so far has been on how to advance the technology and to make it commercially viable and on how to bring down the cost. Our focus therefore has been on the energy sector, but he is absolutely right about a range of other benefits, not least in PRT or revenue that might come through enhanced oil recovery, which I will come back to, as well the supply-chain opportunities, the wealth that that creates for the economy and the tax revenues that will come into play.
Our analysis shows that CCS could contribute 10 GW of capacity to the UK electricity market by 2030 and up to 40 GW by 2050. I want to be absolutely clear that we are not setting targets for separate technologies. The industry’s ambition for CCS, as set out by the Carbon Capture and Storage Association strategy paper last year, is significantly higher than in our modelling, seeking 20 to 30 GW by 2030. We would be happy with such deployment, provided that it is the most cost-effective way to meet our decarbonisation targets—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). We must do three things to make that possible: provide incentives for investment, bring down the costs of the technology and tackle barriers to deployment.
The key to delivering the investment that we need in the UK electricity sector is confidence, for both technology developers and investors in the long-term future for their technology, and in the certainty of opportunity for those who want to take forward CCS and other low-carbon technologies. That is why the Government are implementing the biggest reforms to the electricity market for a generation, to provide the certainty that investors require and to create an industry for CCS, rather than only a few pilot projects. We are committed to reforming the electricity market to incentivise the deployment of low-carbon generating capacity.
Electricity market reform is a game changer for CCS. The reforms that we have announced offer the prospect of a future market for CCS electricity that will drive investment in commercial CCS plants. We are considering reforms that offer a range of benefits: longer-term contracts to provide stable financial incentives; support for early CCS projects, with contracts designed to recognise the associated uncertainties; an emissions performance standard set at the equivalent of 450 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh; and a carbon price floor that will further incentivise investment in low-carbon generation. With such incentives in place, the deployment rate for CCS will be dependent on the costs of the technology and how they stack up against nuclear and renewables.
If CCS is to be competitive with other low-carbon technologies, we and the industry must work together to understand the costs and how they can be reduced. There are two elements: technical discovery, through both research and development and learning by doing, and reducing the perceived risk of investing in a new technology, which leads to higher premiums for investment. We are tackling these issues in two main ways: through our £125 million research and development programme, which will continue to provide support for projects such as the UK’s first carbon capture pilot at Ferrybridge, which was opened by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change last year; and through our new CCS delivery programme, which will support larger-scale projects, delivering learning by doing, moving the technology forward and reducing risk premiums. The programme will focus on achieving the overall outcome of cost-competitive, low-carbon electricity from fossil fuel power stations in the 2020s, thus achieving exactly what we want, which is a long-term industry in the sector.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister will recall that I previously met him to discuss transmission charging. At that time, we referred to the fact that fossil fuels that come up and down are charged on their capacity rather than what goes to the grid. Will he set out briefly the Government’s thinking on that and how we can change the system?
Charles Hendry
The hon. Gentleman’s point is critical to the whole Scottish electricity sector. The work is being taken forward by Ofgem through Project TransmiT, which is considering the appropriate regime for charging when electricity is transmitted over long distances. It will set out its thoughts during the next few weeks, and that can be discussed in more detail. I am very encouraged by the progress that I understand is being made to find a formula that will work for those who are developing projects north of the border and in other parts of the country. More detail will be available shortly, but it is critical to the development not just of CCS in Scotland, but to the whole electricity generating sector north of the border.
We are putting in place a strong financial offer for early CCS projects, and it is one of the best offers anywhere in the world. It includes the £1 billion that is available for the up-front capital costs of projects, the potential for low-carbon contracts for difference to support operational costs and the potential for European new entrant reserve funding, which we fully support.
In response to the point made by the shadow Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that, realistically, because the programme is being put back, the money that we had anticipated being spent in this spending round is unlikely to be spent, and it cannot be spent in the time scale originally intended. If Longannet had gone ahead, it could have started to be drawn down this year and certainly into 2013. With new projects coming through, that will happen at the very end of this spending round and primarily into the next one. However, there is a clear commitment, and the £1 billion remains.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, good progress is also being made on finding additional sources of funding to bring into the process. Discussion is taking place with sovereign wealth funds overseas to trap their investment in this area. We are seeing a greater appetite from industrial investors to put in their own funding, instead of the Government providing funding. Projects involving enhanced oil recovery might also make a significant financial contribution.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to the Minister for his partial answer to one of my questions. May I press him on how much of that £1 billion will be available during the current CSR period and the current Parliament if demand is present and whether the projects are advanced enough for the money to be available to spend? How much of that £1 billion could be spent on CCS during this time, or has it been subsumed into a wider infrastructure pot?
Charles Hendry
Certainly, the funding that was assumed would be spent on CCS in the middle of this spending round and that will not now be spent and cannot be spent is being made available to other infrastructure projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that, because it will help to drive forward our economic recovery. Until we have seen the scale and type of the projects and the extent to which they will co-operate and collaborate, we cannot set out exactly what the funding will be. Some of them will access the new entrant reserve fund; some will be more dependent on a predictable income stream through the contracts for difference; and some will need more up-front funding. Until we know exactly what the projects will be, we cannot say exactly how they need to be financed. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants clarity now, but until we understand the nature of the front-runner projects, we cannot say with certainty exactly how that funding should come forward.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. How much money would be available if those projects were advanced to a stage where they would be considered to be appropriate for that funding? How much of that funding would be available for projects in this comprehensive spending review period if they were in that position? Would the figure be up to £500 million, £200 million or £300 million? How much would be available from that £1 billion during this CSR period if the projects had the applicable framework for that money?
Charles Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go out of line, but I am reluctant to pursue that approach. Until we understand the nature of the projects, I cannot explain to him how they will be funded. They will all have a different funding requirement for longer-term running costs or up-front capital, which may come from one or two sources. We want to make it clear that we want projects to try to find other investors to enter the process. There will inevitably be a process of discovery and of trying to find out exactly what the best projects are, but we have made it absolutely clear that that £1 billion remains available. The hon. Gentleman understands that the time scale has been moved backwards because of the decision on Longannet, but the £1 billion remains ring-fenced.
Dr Whiteford
I appreciate the Minister’s candour in outlining how he is trying to find alternative sources of funding, but Shell and Scottish and Southern Energy hope to begin a full-scale field study of the Peterhead project in the second half of this year. They have made it clear that they will need funding in years 2 and 3, and it would be helpful if the Minister indicated what the funding prospects were for that time scale.
Charles Hendry
The hon. Lady makes exactly the point that I am keen to focus on: there are investors who might want to come into the project—international investors who want to be part of the early development of this game-changing technology because of its global potential. We are encouraging them to try to talk to other potential investors, and we are looking at a range of projects. We are discussing one that could come through the new competition, but it is not the only one. Other projects are viable and would have greater scope for accessing the new entrant reserve fund, but until we have seen their scope and the collaboration and co-operation between different industrial players, it is hard to come to a final decision. However, I give the hon. Lady the commitment that we have a real desire to take the competition forward much more rapidly than the previous competition, and during the next few weeks, we will provide the details.
We had an industry day in December, and during the next month we will have a further industry day to provide more detail on how the competition will work. We will then open up the competition shortly afterwards with a tight time scale to encourage firms to come back. Having lost time, we want to make up for that and to see the full range of projects that can benefit from funding and find out how we can take that forward.
Gordon Banks
While the Minister is winding up, will he respond to a point that I made that fits in with the one that he is making about new competition and external funding? What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government about them playing a financial role? Did the First Minister approach the Minister’s Department on Longannet or any future projects?
Charles Hendry
I was not remotely close to winding up until I took so many interventions, but I must now do so swiftly. On Longannet, the Scottish Government did not offer funding but, to be fair, they were not asked for funding. The project is seen to be a UK energy policy with funding from the UK Exchequer. We had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government ahead of it. I think that we all share the disappointment at the reaction, and perhaps the lesson is not to announce decisions just before the Scottish National party’s annual conference. We must try to move forward in a way that takes such issues out of politics. The gain from what can be achieved to the United Kingdom is so substantial that we all need to pull together and to work together.
The hon. Gentleman said that the decision on Longannet did not send out the right message, but it was the only decision we could have made, because at the end of the day there was so much difference between what it was going to cost and what was available. We want to take the technology forward, but we cannot do so at any price. Even if funding had been available from the Scottish Government, it could not have made up the difference to enable the project to go ahead.
Much more work needs to be done, and we are taking it forward urgently on regulatory reform, storage, the supply chain, transport and storage infrastructure and planning. In England, we can certainly make it clear through national policy statements and the infrastructure planning commission that that process will work much more smoothly and without the time delays about which people have expressed concern, although planning in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. More details will come forward very shortly—
Music Venues (Disabled Access)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I am glad that the Minister responsible for culture, communications and creative industries is able to attend the debate.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on access to live music for deaf and disabled people both because it is an issue close to my heart, and because I believe that there is a strong and principled business case for the proposals that I shall set out. I can personally attest to the importance of this subject, and to the difference that equal access for disabled people makes to those passionate about music. My involvement in this issue is due to a close friend of mine, Dom Pardey, who had a love of life and of music but who without warning at the age of 28 suffered a serious stroke and is now confined to a wheelchair. Although life became more difficult, his passion for music has never wavered. It is what keeps him going, and I regularly travel with him and take him to music venues, and comedy or theatre productions, along with a wide network of friends. He is one representative of many people across the country whose passion for music is their reason to live. From that experience, I know what a difference good access can make. It is not only about ramps but about toilet facilities and hearing loops, and just one step can make the difference between an inspirational event watched by somebody in a wheelchair, and a sad disappointment.
I am proud to be patron of the charity Attitude is Everything, which exists to improve the accessibility of music venues for deaf and disabled people. It began as an idea by Suzanne Ball 20 years ago. She was attending a major festival and almost died in the crowd because of the pressure on the disabled listeners who were sitting at the front. Attitude is Everything became a pilot project in September 2000 in direct response to deaf and disabled people’s calls for fair treatment at music venues, clubs and festivals, and it set out to address the music industry’s apparent lack of awareness about its responsibilities, obligations and duties under disability discrimination legislation.
Last December, Attitude is Everything released a report entitled “State of Access”, which I launched in Portcullis house. It is the first piece of systematic research into access to live music for disabled people, and it examines approaches to access across the industry. The report was compiled by 100 deaf and disabled music lovers who acted as mystery shoppers, just as a food critic may act in a restaurant. Those people are directly affected by issues of access, and their extensive input made the report valuable and powerful. I would like publicly to thank all the mystery shoppers who took part in that exercise and volunteered their time to ensure that the report was so strong. The report examines views and approaches to access across the live music industry, promotes best practice, and suggests solutions to improve the current situation. I thoroughly recommend it to any hon. Members who are interested in improving access for disabled people.
The research carried out by Attitude is Everything led to two key recommendations. The first looks at the business case for taking action while the second argues for the enforcement of existing legislation, and I shall address those points in turn. There is a strong commercial argument for venues to adopt the Attitude is Everything charter of best practice. Charter venues and festivals, such as the Latitude festival in Suffolk which I highly recommend, and local authorities that follow the charter’s principles, such as Kent county council and Tower Hamlets, vouch for the scheme and demonstrate the benefits of good access. Some of the most powerful advocates for improving access are venues and festivals that have already improved access and seen the improvement in business that followed.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I would not have been aware of this debate had I not attended the previous discussion, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue because it is obviously something close to my heart. He is absolutely right about the business case. Disabled people do not go to music festivals or the theatre on their own; they go with friends or in groups of friends, and by barring one member of the group, venues are often effectively barring everybody in it. That is why there is a good economic argument for making all venues fully wheelchair accessible.
Matthew Hancock
I am extremely grateful for that intervention; the hon. Lady has taken a page of my speech by expressing that point more strongly than I could have done. The annual spending power of deaf and disabled customers is estimated at around £80 billion per year—a serious market. For example, estimates suggest that hearing loss currently affects more than 10 million people in the UK. That is about one in six of the population, and rising.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this worthy debate. He mentions larger music festivals, but does he agree that it is equally important to have the access that he describes in some of the smaller venues? Is he aware of my “Rock the House” competition that asks people to nominate their favourite live venue in their constituencies? We would encourage all disadvantaged groups to nominate their favourite pub and so on.
Matthew Hancock
I certainly join my hon. Friend in encouraging disabled groups and disabled music lovers—whether in a group or not—to nominate their favourite live venue, and I hope that his work in live music will take into account improved access for disabled people. Given his interest in this area, I am grateful that he is attending the debate today.
About 2 million people in the UK use hearing aids, which is a huge potential customer base. In a major survey by Action on Hearing Loss, more than two fifths of respondents said that they would go out of their way to visit a shop or service with a hearing loop, and almost three quarters said that deaf-aware staff would make them more likely to use a particular service. The potential is there, but all too often loops are not turned on or do not function properly. It is critical to be both aware of the issue and to put the technology in place.
I do not want to pretend that things are not moving in the right direction. For example, over the past few years, the number of disabled people attending the Reading and Leeds festivals increased by 25% each year, demonstrating the impact of Attitude is Everything and other such groups. I also pay tribute to Festival Republic which is involved in and enthusiastic about the agenda.
We have all seen the photographs that were taken at the Glastonbury festival last summer in the pouring rain, of people signing on stage in order to ensure that deaf people at the festival could fully participate in what was going on. Once Glastonbury began to improve its access facilities, attendance by disabled customers increased threefold in three years.
The Sage Gateshead, a venue that reached the gold level of the charter, said about its experience:
“We have numerous customers who specifically visit our venue, regularly…because of its excellent access. Many of them bring their families who appreciate a stress free outing.”
I know very well what a stress-free outing feels like and how different it is from an outing that is not stress free.
The success that I have described can be repeated at large and small venues throughout the industry. The truth is that doing that does not have to be very expensive. The report shows that progress can be made in three key areas. First, the cheapest and easiest adjustment is simply providing information—on how people can access the venue, where they can park and so on. Detailed information provided in advance on the internet can allow people to make informed decisions and know before they arrive at a venue exactly how they can get the most out of their visit.
The second adjustment, which is also cheap, is to improve staff understanding. It is highlighted again and again that simply understanding the needs of people who are in wheelchairs or have other disabilities improves access and the experience of disabled people and their friends and families who go with them to the venues.
The third issue is small changes to infrastructure—for instance, step-free access and the induction loops that I have already talked about. Those often simple measures are at the heart of the charter of best practice. I encourage all venues to sign up to the charter. I hope that the charter will become the minimum standard for access and that in time it can be expanded to include things such as standards for disabled toilets and disabled hotel rooms.
The report’s second recommendation is a call for enforcement of existing legislation. Businesses have an obligation under law to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled people to access their goods, facilities and services. Unfortunately, access requirements are seldom enforced and often only under the heavy hand of the courts when a disabled person sues a venue under disability discrimination legislation. I am here today to call not for new legislation, but merely for the enforcement of what is already in place.
Supportive music venues, key festival organisers, local authorities and licensing officers should work together, with organisations such as Attitude is Everything, to make access normally a condition for entertainment licences. Scotland made such a change last October, and I hope that the Minister can consider it today. It would be an ideal tool with which to ensure that, incrementally, we move towards improved standards throughout the industry, with all the benefits that that could bring.
The list of venues and festivals that support the proposals is long and growing. Make no mistake: there has been progress. I am delighted to say that the festival at which Suzanne nearly died 20 years ago now has a regular clientele of more than 700 disabled customers, an accessible campsite and viewing platforms at nearly all the stages. That is good progress, but there is much more to do. We should do all that we reasonably can to ensure that being disabled does not mean that one has to live a life less rich, less varied or less full. Music is a central part of our shared cultural experience, and nothing compares to the live performance. For some, it is a lifeline. It should, wherever this is realistically possible, be accessible to all.
If adopted, the proposals would make an immense difference to the lives of deaf and disabled music lovers. It is vital that we move towards a situation in which good disabled access is the norm, not the exception. Such a goal is morally right, legally required already and commercially viable. This debate is a small step on the road to achieving that ambition. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great honour to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on calling for the debate. He has already asked me about this issue during questions in the House. This cause has no better advocate than him, because he comes to it with a genuine passion, having been engaged with the issue for many years before he came into the House. He also brings his considerable skills to bear to highlight the campaign.
I thank the hon. Members who have made a contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) has made the cause of music one of his passions in the House and has advanced it very strongly, particularly with his highly successful “Rock the House” campaign. I noted his intervention calling for disabled users to nominate their favourite live venue. Perhaps I may make a suggestion in return—that the judging criteria for the best live venue could include accessibility criteria, because that would certainly increase awareness of this important aspect of the debate.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who needs no introduction because she has long been campaigning on these important issues, made a crucial point that we must all take on board: if we bar one disabled user, we in effect bar many more—those who would be accompanying the disabled user to the venue. What has emerged from the debate is that, if a venue provides the appropriate facilities for disabled users, it will end up having no more loyal customers than those people, who come not only to enjoy the music, but to enjoy as hassle-free an experience as possible. All those points apply. One may say that providing those facilities is simply the right thing to do, but one may also appeal to self-interest. Music venues up and down the country should realise that making themselves more accessible is not a burden to be complied with, but a huge opportunity to gain a loyal following of fans.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about the charity Attitude is Everything. The charity is lucky to have such a formidable advocate, and he is lucky to have found a stand-out charity such as Attitude is Everything, which has campaigned for so long on these important issues. As he rightly pointed out, the campaign began in September 2000, and Attitude is Everything now has a comprehensive programme of activity. That includes the charter of best practice, which has already been mentioned and involves working with live venues, festivals, clubs and promoters. It includes Club Attitude, showcasing deaf, disabled and non-disabled musicians in fully accessible venues. It includes the disabled people stewarding programme, which involves helping festivals and other events to include deaf and disabled people as stewards; running information tents; and creating employment for deaf and disabled people. It includes disability equality training, access audits and consultancy; that involves creating practice strategies for venues to tackle access issues. Of course, it also includes advocacy and campaigning.
I am delighted that Attitude is Everything receives funding via the Arts Council and, through its new national portfolio funding programme, has received an increase to some £170,000 a year from this financial year, starting in April. We enjoy—well, we do not enjoy but when it comes to media attention we often focus on cuts and restrictions in funding or perhaps some of the more high-profile organisations that the Arts Council funds. It is worth the media focusing on the fact that the Arts Council supports important organisations such as Attitude is Everything. The reason I describe it as a stand-out charity is that its attitude is entirely right. It is an attitude of encouragement, rather than lambasting, and of providing solutions, rather than simply highlighting problems.
Dame Anne Begg
Perhaps the worst venues that exist are not music venues, but comedy venues. They always seem to be in the basement for some reason. The Minister might want to encourage comedy venues in particular to take up the issue with regard to their accessibility, because they are still absolutely appalling.
Mr Vaizey
At the end of the debate, I was going to sum up some of the things I have learned in preparing for it. One thing I would like to take from the debate is the opportunity not only to meet properly with Attitude is Everything, but, potentially, to expand the Department’s work on leading the debate on these issues.
At the moment, the Department has an e-inclusion accessibility forum, which I have been closely involved with since I became a Minister. The forum works with charities to ensure that people in a digital age have access to the internet and to phone technology, but I have been struck by the lack of engagement from business and telecoms companies, which is unbelievably frustrating. In that respect, we would, for example, like to have video technology that enables deaf people to use sign language, and I have told all the telecoms operators, “Please come to me with a cost-effective solution,” but they have not done that. Eventually, of course, I will have to regulate through Ofcom to make them do that, but it would be so much simpler if they came to me and did it.
Similarly, if we bring a group of disabled charities together, we can work to move this agenda forward in respect of not only live music venues, but comedy clubs, as the hon. Lady said. During the debate, I was also thinking about cinemas. We have just published a film policy review consultation, which does not cover disability access issues, but when the Government respond to it in the middle of March, we will address those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk gave a comprehensive summary of Attitude is Everything’s report. He mentioned the Sage Gateshead, an organisation I have got to know extremely well over the years. It is fantastically well led by Anthony Sargent, and it is a great example of a national venue with strong support from a local authority. It is excellent in a whole range of different areas, but I am delighted that it is also a stand-out venue in terms of providing access to people with disabilities. Likewise, it was good to read that KOKO, a commercial venue, has picked up silver status for accessibility. The vast majority of UK music venues are privately run, and it is important to build a good dialogue with such organisations.
I join everyone in the Chamber in congratulating Attitude is Everything on an excellent report. Now, of course, comes the difficult bit, when I have to respond to my hon. Friend’s call for action. He mentioned the recommendations at the end of the report, and specifically the one that disabled access become a condition of music venues receiving entertainment licences. As he will be aware, we have recently consulted on our plans to deregulate licensing, and that process, which is very much in line with the coalition Government’s aim of reducing red tape and, therefore, costs, aims to make it much easier for venues of all shapes and sizes to put on live music, theatre and dance events.
The good thing about deregulation is that more venues will provide live music, but the unintended consequence might be that more venues are under scrutiny for not providing access for people with disabilities. The measures will cover community halls, amateur theatres, circuses and other arts organisations that have found the licensing requirements expensive and restrictive. Of course, other venues, such as schools and village halls, which are used regularly by fundraisers, face the same requirements as commercial operators. Low-risk community events have been cancelled because of the onerous burden of licensing requirements, and we are seeking to put an end to that so that schools and community groups in the third sector have more opportunities to put on such events. That will increase revenues and the money raised for good causes.
Obviously, we start with the attitude that we are not keen to place further conditions on venues that wish to put on events. I do not simply want to say no to my hon. Friend, so let me put the Government’s perspective. As he said, access issues are covered by different legislation. The Equality Act 2010 ensures that organisations that provide goods, facilities and services are required to make a “reasonable adjustment” where a disabled person would be at a “substantial disadvantage” to a person who is not disabled in carrying out a particular job or—this is relevant to today’s debate—in accessing a particular service.
The idea of a “reasonable adjustment” is important, because it makes the judgment dependent on the size of the organisation and the resources available to it. I am delighted that a number of venues offer services such as multiple hearing induction loop systems, but I am not sure everyone would agree that it is fair that every venue of every kind, including small village halls, should have to offer such things as a matter of course.
We are confident that the 2010 Act, which subsumed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, provides reasonable assurance for disabled attendees. My hon. Friend mentioned the change made in Scotland, and I will take away a commitment to examine it and to write to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is responsible for licensing issues, to ask whether it should be a factor in his deliberations.
Matthew Hancock
Nobody would want venues to close or not to offer music as a result of our pursuing this agenda. However, the question is not whether the law is in place, which it is, as my hon. Friend says, but whether there is enforcement. Nobody wants the law to exist, but to be unenforced. In Scotland, the live question is about the improved enforcement of whatever legislation is in place. In that respect, the reasonableness test is important. If we have a rule, however, it is important that we make sure it is enforced.
Mr Vaizey
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Again, to a certain extent, and perhaps unintentionally, he issues a challenge to different parts of the Government to join up. It is worth my taking away the tone of the debate and communicating with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has responsibility for the disabled, about the measures the Government are taking on enforcement across the board under the 2010 Act. If we have a meeting with a group of disabled charities to discuss what is happening on the ground, we can certainly talk about enforcement.
To return to my point about Attitude is Everything being a stand-out charity, one of the good things it does, besides providing encouragement, is to provide training so that people do not have an excuse for not understanding what the law requires of them. That would be one subject for discussion in relation to how we increase training opportunities for venues and how we work with the music industry and some of the big players to ensure that adequate training programmes are in place for their staff and that there is an adequate understanding at all levels of the requirements of the 2010 Act.
Earlier, I picked up on the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South about the economic self-interest of making changes to attract more customers and, more importantly, more loyal customers. The music industry faces radical changes in a digital age, and it is having to change its business model for selling music, but it is also having to look at live music as a potentially important income stream for the future. That is an important point.
Time is running out, and I want to end by saying that the debate is very timely, because this is the year of the Olympics and, more importantly, the Paralympics. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk that the London 2012 festival, the cultural festival that will run alongside the Olympics, takes these issues very seriously. It is working with all its partners to ensure that disability access is at the forefront of their minds. Some redevelopment will be undertaken on the south bank, and although its primary purpose is to redevelop the site, disability access will be an additional benefit. We also have a number of programmes in the cultural Olympiad. For example, Film Nation: Shorts actively targets disabled film makers.
This has been a good and useful debate, and I hope I can take forward some of the issues that have been raised.
Parking (Westminster)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament the issue of Westminster council’s parking controls, and particularly the most recent round of proposals, which have generated more controversy than almost any local government matter in recent years. Although I am conscious that much of what is proposed and under discussion relates to the west end—it is good to see the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) here today—I make no apology for introducing the debate. I have no wish to step on the hon. Gentleman’s toes, but Westminster council’s parking policies have an impact far wider than that specific local dimension.
There are two reasons for that: one—and this is one of the themes on which I look forward to the Minister’s response—is that the issue of parking income, and how it is generated and distributed, has a wider context in relation to the agenda of revenue-raising and local taxation. Therefore, everyone in the local authority of the London borough of Westminster has a legitimate interest in how that income is generated and used. Indeed, the wider issues of congestion, displacement and road management are for everyone in the community. Secondly, what happens to the economy of central London is a legitimate matter of concern for us all, since millions of Londoners are affected in their capacity as employees, workers, shoppers, business men and women, worshippers and people who enjoy the cultural and recreational opportunities that central London offers. It is in that context that the Westminster parking proposals have generated such an exceptional level of media interest, particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the Evening Standard. The Evening Standard has, I think, grasped what the majority party on Westminster council seems not to have grasped—that Westminster’s financial problems cannot be solved by any means to hand, without a proper recognition of the impact on the wider economy of London.
To put my cards on the table, I entirely accept that parking income is a legitimate source of revenue-raising for local government, particularly given the severe constraints on the raising of income by other means, and the critical importance of maintaining services for residents. However, the law is clear on the issue, and the law, common sense and political calculation all demand honesty and transparency in the process, as well as that the charges should be fair and proportionate. There has not been adequate honesty and transparency about Westminster council’s financial pressures, and councillors have been found out. They have not told it straight to local people, but instead have given the impression that they have discovered the philosopher’s stone—a way to provide comprehensive, quality services without an adequate tax base.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Lady recognises, I think, the fact that there were considerable legal constraints on the making of the proposed—now shelved—parking changes on the grounds of the finances that were required. There was a big campaign to make a case, which I think was legitimate, about congestion; but no one was fooled about an important element of the proposals being driven by the desire to raise more money in times of financial constraint. Would the hon. Lady prefer a much more transparent approach, not just in Westminster but across local government, which would allow an open debate about precisely those problems—the issue of going down the route of increased parking costs, which would affect everyone in the vicinity, or potential cuts in adult and child services, which are the sorts of things she and I know all too well affect many providers in the City of Westminster today?
Ms Buck
There are several issues there, and I shall return to one or two of them, but, yes, we need a broader debate about the role of charging income, property taxation and other forms of income generation by local government. There is no question but that charging has a role to play; but, as the Minister will no doubt confirm, there are particular constraints on the way parking income can be used for revenue generation. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has confirmed what the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier about the suspicion that the charges are being used for revenue generation, rather than parking and traffic management. That is not what parking revenue is supposed to be about.
Mark Field
I think that a perfectly legitimate case was made for traffic management, and concerns about congestion. However, had there not been the big financial constraints, there might not have been such a desire to proceed so quickly. The trouble was, the legislation is so prescriptive that to make the case on financial grounds would have killed it off at the outset. Therefore, much more emphasis was placed on the issue of congestion.
Ms Buck
The hon. Gentleman is almost making my argument for me. We should have a debate about charging income, which could include the proper role of parking income in a local authority’s tax base. That would be fine; but within the present legal constraints we are where we are, and however we approach the matter we need a mature, transparent and honest debate about services and income. That has been spectacularly missing. As I have said, the political fallout from what has happened has been catastrophic for Westminster council. Whether or not the current leader has, as I believe, been the first victim of that miscalculation—it remains to be seen whether he will be the last—a great deal of collateral damage has none the less been done to the council.
To recap on the facts, Westminster council’s plans to ban free evening and Sunday parking on single yellow lines in the west end for more than 8,400 cars have provoked an unprecedented coalition of opposition. They have united the Churches and casinos and the trade unions and big business. They have brought together local residents, visitors to the west end, and those who earn their living there, and united all the major political parties. Indeed, Westminster council has achieved the near impossible—it has found the one thing that Boris Johnson, Brian Paddick and Ken Livingstone all agree on.
The council said that the new charges and the single yellow line parking ban are designed to increase the turnover of cars parking in the area, and to make it easier for those driving into the heart of London to find a parking space; but everyone knows that the real reason is to raise the expected £7 million a year that the charges will raise for a council whose cash reserves have fallen by £60 million in the past two years, as Government cuts have bitten and reduced its room for manoeuvre. As Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has said:
“It’s completely mad what Westminster are doing. It will be damaging to business. I’m afraid, as far as I understand the matter, there is a financial issue here for Westminster. In other words, they need the revenue.”
As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Transport has said—and I should be interested to have the Minister’s clarification of this—
“I’m sure when Westminster thought about what they were going to do with those parking charges they had a sense they might be able to put some extra money in their coffers that they could probably use on public services”.
As I understand that quotation, the Transport Secretary clearly accepts that the local authority was acting at least at the borders, and possibly beyond the borders, of legality. Does the Minister agree with the Mayor of London and the Transport Secretary about Westminster’s true motives, and, in view of that, what is the Department’s line on how to respond, and on what constraints there should be on the proper use of parking revenue?
Mark Field
I confess I look forward to the fulsome praise that the hon. Lady will give to the words of the Mayor of London in the next 107 days, in the run-up to the mayoral election. I do not think there is any suggestion of illegality. Surely the primary purpose of the changes was related to traffic management and congestion, but the hon. Lady and the Transport Secretary are right to suggest that there was also a secondary purpose. That would not make the proposals illegal or illegitimate, but the public at large were not going to be fooled, and they felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes when the latter priority was denied entirely.
Ms Buck
I will let that pass; those are the hon. Gentleman’s views.
In addition to the question about the proper role of parking income as a source of revenue, the issue that has probably generated the greatest controversy is the risk that the parking charges would present to the central London economy. The independent City forecaster, the Centre for Economics and Business Research, has estimated that the parking charges would cost the west end £800 million a year and threaten more than 5,000 jobs. It is suggested that 9% of the £9.2 billion central London night-time and Sunday economy could disappear as customers and workers are put off by the new charges. The research found that the biggest losses of turnover would be felt by restaurants, bars, pubs and cafes at £330 million, followed by theatres, cinemas, casinos and other places of entertainment at £314 million, and then retailers at £145 million. Recent research by the Society of London Theatre revealed that 16% of London theatregoers used cars to visit the theatre. For those over 55, it was more than 20%, with the reasons being more about access and security than the availability of public transport. Some 90% of London’s theatre ticket revenue was generated within the borough of Westminster. Westminster’s proposals would still, although delayed, continue to put at risk some 14.5% of total theatre income, or approximately £72 million a year.
Baroness Valentine, the chief executive of the business group London First, said:
“At a time when the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors are all suffering from the protracted slowdown and reduced consumer confidence and spending, introducing measures that will further discourage customers from coming into central London seems perverse. Westminster’s businesses should not be the unwilling guinea pigs in an experiment of which the outcome could be highly damaging to their viability.”
Mary Portas, appointed by the Government as a high street adviser, as well as being a local resident, said:
“Parking is just one of the issues that comes up time and time again. It’s one of the biggest things that stops flow, and for retailers and restaurants it stops their trade. This is just sheer madness”.
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s high street adviser?
There are of course a great many individuals, too, who are low-income employees working in the night-time economy and who have raised concerns about the impact on them at a time when night transport is by no means always available. That raises real concerns about safety, particularly for women travelling at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning.
In addition to the impact on business, the Minister will know that some 15,000 people attend churches of all denominations on a Sunday in Westminster, many of whose families used to live in the west end. They see it as part of the family tradition to worship in a west end church. Major Ray Brown of the Salvation Army in Oxford street made the case in clear and unambiguous terms. He said that
“Westminster Council have taken a very short-sighted decision to seriously damage hundreds of years of church community action and spiritual activity for the sake of a quick financial gain. For some members and volunteers at The Salvation Army, this means having to face the terrible decision of having to leave the church they have been involved in all their lives”.
Does the Minister believe that curtailing the Church’s community action is in line with the Prime Minister’s big society vision?
These new charges were originally due to be introduced in early December 2011, just weeks before Christmas, but thanks to pressure from west end retailers and Labour councillors, Westminster reluctantly agreed to postpone implementation until January. Meanwhile, west end restaurateurs, retailers, residents and Churches came together to fund legal action against the council. On 14 December, the High Court ordered Westminster council to halt plans to introduce west end parking charges until the judicial review application is heard in March. In a scathing decision, Mr Justice Collins highlighted
“substantial damage to businesses and churches”
and “far too limited” consultation as reasons why the council should not be allowed to introduce the new charges until the judicial review has been heard.
Sensing it was losing the argument, Westminster council leader Colin Barrow promised to listen more in the future and to delay implementation of the new charges until after the 2012 Olympics and the diamond jubilee celebrations. However, just nine days later, at 3.30 pm on 23 December, Councillor Barrow stopped listening and the council announced that it would be axing 1,200 single yellow line parking spaces under the guise of helping the elderly and the disabled cross the road more easily. Of course, everybody supports double yellow lines at dropped kerbs in order to make crossing the road safer for the disabled, the elderly and parents, but Westminster council’s proposals go way beyond just protecting dropped kerbs from parked cars. They were used as an excuse to remove 5 miles of safe evening parking from the west end, and were a deliberate attempt to get round the High Court ban on implementing plans to remove more than 8,400 free parking spaces on single yellow lines.
Then, just last week, Westminster council dropped another bombshell when it became clear that figures on the number of parking spaces that would be lost through the council’s plans were not accurate. Originally we were given to understand that 1,700 yellow line parking spaces would be lost through the council’s proposals, when the real figure was actually more than 8,400. That is a 500% difference. The significance of this monumental blunder is fundamental. The council had no idea how many parking spaces would be lost when it took the decision in August 2011 to ban parking on single yellow lines in the evening and on Sundays. Nor did the council have the correct figures when it consulted residents and businesses before and after the decision.
The leader of the Westminster Labour group, Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, has written to the council’s director of legal services to point out the obvious implications of this admission. He said:
“At the time the Cabinet agreed the proposals in August 2011 Members were not provided with any information on the number of single yellow line parking spaces that would be lost. Cabinet members were therefore unable to give proper consideration to all the material facts. Members were not informed of a figure for lost parking spaces until nearly 2 months later…The Council’s further public consultation that ran up until early December 2011 did not provide any figures on the number of single yellow line parking places to be lost and the only figure in the public domain during the consultation period was the incorrect figure of 1,700 provided by the Council”.
Whatever happens next—it is hard to see how the proposed charges can survive the leadership contest that Councillor Barrow has unleashed—Westminster’s problems are not over. Either the highest profile charging row in recent memory will lead to reinstatement, or a financial crisis looms, to be dealt with by a council weakened in trust and credibility. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I believe that the policy disaster that has befallen Westminster has much wider ramifications for local government finance, and those need to be addressed too.
We all believe that parking and car use in inner cities has to be controlled and managed, but any changes with impacts and ramifications such as these need to be handled on the basis of accurate data, and with effective consultation. The changes need to take with them public trust and confidence. I am sorry to say that Westminster council has lost that trust and confidence, with major implications for the wider economy, and is in danger of undermining this Government’s and future Governments’ more thoughtful approaches to traffic management and parking. If the council will not act effectively to get itself out of the hole it has dug, I look to the Minister to assure us that the Government will step in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Howarth. I apologise that the Minister responsible for local government is not here. I am stepping in on his behalf. He is in Newcastle, although I know that he would have liked to have been at this debate. Some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) may need to be dealt with by letter.
As the hon. Lady knows as a former Under-Secretary of State for Transport, it would be wrong and improper for me to get drawn into the decisions of the judicial review. I stress that some of the comments she made seemed to pre-empt what the judges at the judicial review will look into. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in his place.
Very unusually for me, I am going to read. I normally know my brief well enough not to need to do so.
The Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling surrounding the proposed changes by Westminster council. It is difficult not to be, given what is in the local press and on the local news. The strong views expressed, and the concerns raised by residents and businesses in Westminster, show just how important issues such as this are, not just for Westminster, but across the country as a whole. It is essential that local authorities do all they can to get the balance right and to develop and maintain an effective parking and traffic management strategy that serves the interests of all stakeholders in as fair and equitable a way as possible.
There will be a little repetition, for which I apologise, but it is important that the Government set out their position. Among other things, Westminster has to strive to understand the needs of industry, shops, restaurants, clubs, theatres and Churches, as the hon. Lady alluded to, as well as the needs of the employees, customers and residents in the area affected.
Mark Field
It is also worth stressing, and this point perhaps relates to something that the hon. Lady said, that the west end and the centre of London seem to belong to more than just one or two constituencies. It is fair to say that relatively few of my constituents—my residential constituents—wrote to me about this scheme and of those who did a number were in favour of it. However, it is also the case that a lot of businesses, particularly independent businesses, are implacably opposed to the scheme. There are specific issues in Westminster because of the nature of our local authority, which means that this scheme has become a higher-profile issue and aspects of it would not necessarily be transferrable to other local authorities throughout the country; I disagree with the hon. Lady that they would be transferrable.
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The character of this part of town—a town in which I was born and brought up—is unique in the country. However, I will come on to the issues relating to parking and parking spaces, and revenues that are surplus to the cost of creating those parking spaces. They are important issues, and they were the issues that the hon. Lady was referring to.
Many people choose to travel by public transport, but many others usually use their car or van. Also, parking spaces are clearly limited, both on and off the street, and there is considerable demand for road space in one of the busiest areas not only in London but in the country. Without doubt, congestion—one of the areas covered in my portfolio—is a real problem. I can understand the competing concerns that the local authority in Westminster has to address. There are very difficult issues that need to be addressed when developing appropriate parking strategies in such circumstances.
The hon. Lady referred to the fact that Mary Portas produced a report for the Government on high streets, recommending that local areas should implement free controlled parking schemes in their town centres wherever possible. However, I am not certain that such a scheme would work brilliantly within Westminster, for obvious reasons.
The Portas review points out that the high street is in serious threat of decline. No matter where we look around the country we can see that, and Westminster is no exception. Town centre shopping is affected by the internet and out-of-town stores. The number of shops in the country as a whole has gone down by 25,000 during the past 10 years, so it is not something that has just suddenly happened, and Opposition parties cannot blame everything on the current Government; that decline has been going on for some considerable time. The case that Mary Portas makes in her report is that a range of measures—not just parking measures—should be used to encourage people to use secondary and main high streets, and it is an absolutely important case.
However, as the hon. Lady said, the report by Mary Portas indicates the crucial role of parking in making an area vibrant, and I think that that is the biggest point that we have heard today. The Government agree with the report by Mary Portas on that. I am not saying whether the Government fully agree with the comments that the hon. Lady said that Mary Portas had made, because I have not actually seen those comments, but I am sure that Mary Portas is more than capable of standing up for her own comments. So we are encouraging local authorities to look closely at how parking provision and charges work.
The Government understand that these issues have a massive effect. So, in January 2011, we amended the national planning guidance to remove Whitehall restrictions that imposed maximum numbers of parking places in new residential developments; to change a policy that inhibited competition between council areas, so that one parking charge would be imposed and another would not, which related to in and out of town centre developments; to introduce a policy that parking enforcement should be proportionate, and I stress proportionate; to remove the policy that encouraged councils to set car parking charges to discourage the use of cars; and to increase support for electric car power-charging infrastructure in parking areas.
The Government’s draft national planning policy framework follows through on those changes by removing the restrictions that impose maximum numbers of parking spaces in new non-residential developments. That will also relieve pressure on on-street parking.
As we know, Westminster council has now postponed its plans until beyond the Olympics and the jubilee celebrations. The Government welcome that decision, but we will wait—I think everyone will wait—for the judicial review to reach its own conclusions. It is up to Westminster council—if we believe in localism, we must leave it to the council—to come forward and make its decisions, based on the guidance that it has.
We appreciate Westminster council keeping Department for Transport Ministers fully informed, and council representatives have had several meetings and conversations with Ministers; I myself had a phone conversation yesterday with Westminster’s chief whip, Mr Caplan, about this debate. I understand that Westminster council has agreed to use the intervening period to discuss its policy and to continue to listen to the concerns of residents, visitors and businesses, who I am sure also want to find solutions to the ongoing pressures that the hon. Lady alluded to in her speech. The key is achieving a sustainable economy for the residents and the businesses together, and that is something that we all want to achieve.
It would perhaps be useful if I provided some context and said where Westminster is in the legal framework; the hon. Lady referred to the legal framework. The Department issues operational guidance to local authorities on parking policy and enforcement. That guidance was revised in November 2010, and it supports and complements the statutory guidance published under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to which local authorities must have regard—I stress the word “must”.
Local authorities have long been responsible for managing all on-street parking and some off-street parking, and their relevant powers were first laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes an explicit duty on local authorities when they are carrying out these functions to manage their network so as to reduce congestion and disruption, and to appoint a traffic manager.
Following the provisions for authorities to manage parking that are laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1991 significantly changed the way that on-street parking restrictions are enforced. Before the 1991 Act, the police and traffic wardens were responsible for enforcement, and income from fixed penalty notices specifically went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the police found that the impact of parking enforcement on the resources of a number of forces supported the idea that another agency should take responsibility for such enforcement.
The potential road safety and congestion implications of a lack of enforcement were unacceptable, so the 1991 Act made it mandatory for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of non-endorsable parking contraventions; in other words, parking fines where a driver does not receive points on their licence. In London, boroughs were responsible for enforcement of such fines and some other authorities also enforced such fines. The legal framework for enforcement authorities is now contained in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Now you know, Mr Howarth, why I am reading it and not trying to do this from memory.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to his notes.
Mike Penning
Correct, Mr Howarth. And noted.
The legislation clearly places the responsibility for managing and enforcing parking on local authorities, and it is a mandatory requirement in London, including in Westminster.
The Department for Transport supports local authorities by issuing both statutory and operational guidance on parking policy and enforcement. The guidance makes it clear that each local authority should have a clear idea of what its parking policy is and what it intends to achieve by having that policy. Then the local authority needs to make traffic regulation orders to put parking arrangements in place, displaying appropriate traffic signs to show the public what the restrictions mean.
The parking strategy needs to take account of planning policies and transport powers; the needs of the many and various road users, businesses and residents in the area; the appropriate scale and type of provision that it will undertake; the balance between short and long-term provision; and the level of charges, which must be formally addressed.
On the issue of charges, I should add that both the statutory and operational guidance make it clear that parking charges are a tool to manage the demand for parking and should not be used as a revenue-raising measure. I will return to that point in a few moments if I can. The Department also recommends that authorities should consult the public on parking policies as they formulate or appraise them, before coming to a decision.
What I think the hon. Member for Westminster North was asking about earlier, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster alluded to it too, is what happens if a council tries to reduce congestion and address the parking issues—as set out in the guidance—and there is a surplus. In my constituency, there is a surplus. We have looked very carefully at how we fix the charges, and there were lots of discussions about whether there should be a charge of £1, £1.50 or £1.75, and there were all the arguments about the change and so on. The figure ended up being, say, £2, and then the surplus comes.
I do not think that there is any doubt that Westminster council knew—I think that it has been very open about it—that there would be a surplus and that that surplus would be used. However, it is quite specifically set out in the regulations and the guidance how that money—the surplus—should be used within the community. So I think what the Secretary of State for Transport was alluding to in her comments was that there was a knowledge that there would be a surplus, but the main reason Westminster council was introducing this scheme was to reduce congestion and to ensure that it is possible for the local community, businesses and people—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. We must now move on to the next debate.
Noise Reduction (M54)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I compliment the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), on his management of the previous debate, and I hope that he feels a lot more comfortable with this one, which is far more firmly within his brief. It is a great privilege to have secured this debate in Westminster Hall, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who inspired me to request it, by pointing out what the Government could do to reduce the negative impact of road noise in many constituencies, including mine.
Often, when we talk about new developments such as motorways and railways, people who object to them are accused of being nimbys—not in my back yard—and of not wanting the developments because they are not concerned about the national interest. However, the fact is that they are often concerned because they are not fully confident that the Government, of whatever political colour, will do all that they can to mitigate the effects of noise from roads, railways or other major infrastructure projects.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on securing this debate. I completely agree with him, and I re-emphasise how much the Government can do. In my constituency, the resurfacing four to five years ago of the M6 between junctions 12 and 13 greatly improved the lives of people living round and about who were plagued by the noise from the old surface.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is not that the Government are unable to act or incapable of doing anything to improve the lives of people who live close or adjacent to motorways; they can have an enormous effect and make enormous improvements in people’s lives.
One of the key reasons for requesting this debate was the fact that road noise had once again been highlighted in my constituency, on the back of some very good and positive news: the announcement by Jaguar Land Rover that it is to build a major new engine factory on the i54 South Staffordshire industrial estate. That is fantastic news, because the new factory will bring many jobs and great prosperity, not just to my constituency, but to my hon. Friend’s constituency of Stafford and many others right across the west midlands. However, to secure the development, our local authorities—South Staffordshire district council and Staffordshire county council, working in conjunction with Wolverhampton city council—had to put money forward for a direct link between the i54 site and the M54.
Any such major construction project will have an effect on local residents, and in this case the residents of Coven Heath village adjacent to the motorway are particularly affected. Residents of not just Coven Heath but neighbouring villages up and down the M54 have raised many concerns about the impact a Jaguar Land Rover plant will have, with increased traffic movement from heavy goods vehicles and from the many people who will visit the site every day. That has focused many people’s minds on the inadequacies of the M54 and on the failure of many Governments in the past to take action to reduce the impact of noise on local communities.
I am not sure whether hon. Members have had the pleasure of driving along the M54 regularly, but perhaps I can tell them a bit about it. The Minister will probably correct me if I make a mistake, but I believe that the motorway was one of the first to use the construction method of concrete slabs. That was a revolutionary idea, and it became incredibly fashionable in motorway construction throughout the country, but unfortunately, as with many things that were fashionable in the 1970s, with the benefit of hindsight, the idea was not such a good one. Concrete construction causes excessive road noise, much more than the tarmacadam system used on many motorways, and the problem has been recognised often, including by the 1994 royal commission and the 1997 addition to that.
Road noise has a very detrimental effect on many people’s lives, and the Government have recognised both that and the need to reduce its impact on people living near motorways, as outlined in the Hansard list back in, I think, 2000 or 2001. It is my firm belief that the M54 meets the criteria of that list because the noise coming off it causes sufficient disturbance to the many communities not just in South Staffordshire but in Wolverhampton and across the county boundary into Shropshire.
When people leave the M6 and turn on to the M54, they immediately drive on a tarmacadam road until junction 2. Unfortunately, it is not a low-noise-impact surface, and as soon as they pass junction 2, there is a concrete slab construction all the way to Telford. We all know that rather than absorbing noise, concrete sends it out, causing local residents great concern.
I appreciate that finances are tight, and I do not imagine that the Minister has a bottomless pit of money—if he does, I am keen to hear about it—but I urge him to look at the issues on the M54, not just in connection with the Jaguar Land Rover development on the i54 site, which, I emphasise, all my constituents welcome. We do not stand in the way of progress in South Staffordshire; we embrace it and make it happen, as we have been doing with the development on the i54. However, we look to the Government to reduce the impact of such developments, and I ask the Minister to look very closely at junction 2 and the flyover that will be constructed from the i54 to the M54 and to reassure my constituents that the Government will do all they can to reduce the impact of noise, light and other pollution, including by ensuring that sound barriers are constructed.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way again. Does he agree that when the M6 managed motorway scheme that the Government recently announced, for which I am extremely grateful—I thank the Minister for his part in that—is being progressed, improving sound insulation, in particular between junctions 13 and 14, as the M6 passes right through the middle of Stafford, could be looked at, for the benefit of my residents who live right up against the motorway?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Where motorways cut through urban areas or pass close to communities, the Government should be duty bound to do everything within their power to reduce the impact. If they wish to cultivate a positive image of infrastructure improvements—that they need not have a detrimental effect on people’s lives—they should take every step to ensure that the effects are minimised at every level. I must confess that I would like the barriers, which my hon. Friend mentioned, to be in place from the start of the M6 all the way past Manchester, but I am unsure whether the Minister will give so generously of sound barriers. Local communities often demand them, and the Government should always do everything within their power to ensure that local communities get them. I particularly ask the Minister to ensure that such measures are put in place for junction 2 and the flyover, along with noise-reducing or whisper tarmac.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is so important to his constituents. It is typical of his approach that, having been at the forefront of the campaign to deliver the Jaguar Land Rover investment for his constituency, with colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), he now follows through to ensure that it happens in a way that benefits his constituents most effectively. In the Department for Transport’s forward spending plan, £310 million was taken out of resource funding for road resurfacing and management, but £150 million is being invested in capital spending. Is that capital spending not exactly the sort of spending that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) is calling for to improve the road and deliver a better quality of life for the constituency he so ably represents?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He makes a valid point; there is a danger that the Department for Transport wants to spend all its money in the Chilterns, and we do not want that. We want to ensure that it goes to the west midlands and further afield. I hope that the Minister will assure us that some money will be spent on the M54 and many other such schemes in the west midlands.
I ask that the Minister assures my constituents that everything will be done to protect residents during the construction phase of the flyover, not only in Coven Heath, but much further afield, so that the impact of the Jaguar Land Rover plant and the i54 is minimised at all costs. Will he urgently look at the whole motorway, from the M6 to junction 2 onwards, to assure my constituents that low-noise, low-impact whisper tarmac will be used when the road surface is replaced, to ensure that they do not have to hear the roar of the M54? Will he ensure that we do not have the travesty of a concrete slab motorway surface all the way from junction 2 to Telford? Will it be properly surfaced with low-noise, low-impact tarmac, thus enhancing and improving the lives of many people, not only in my constituency, but along the length of the M54?
I hope that the Minister can assure me that the use of silent or low-noise tarmac along the whole motorway will be considered in the maintenance schedule. When will that be planned over the next few years? Those assurances will give my constituents hope that the Government will act to improve their quality of life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) will be pleased to know that roads are part of my portfolio, so I should be able to handle the debate slightly better than the previous one. I congratulate him on securing the debate and giving me the first opportunity to congratulate him on his work in getting Jaguar Land Rover to invest in his constituency. It is the sort of investment we desperately need.
With investment comes infrastructure issues, particularly in my Department. I am sure that all my hon. Friend’s constituents welcome the investment and the new jobs, but, interestingly, with that often comes enhancement—we could call that 106s, “planning bribes” or whatever we call them these days. As he knows better than me, there will be a lot of work on junction 2, which I will come on to in a moment. We have already moved in the debate from the whole length of the M6 to the Chilterns, so it is a shame that we have only another 15 minutes or so.
I assure my hon. Friends that investment in High Speed 2 has no effect on the money secured from the Treasury for road improvement and infrastructure. I had about £1.4 billion to spend on capital road infrastructure over the three years of the spending round and was then given just over £1 billion in the autumn statement, which is about £2.5 billion, give or take, over three years. We would not have dreamed of such investment when we entered coalition Government and inherited the financial mess 18 months ago, but the money has been found for good reasons—the biggest of which is that without infrastructure, we cannot have growth, and without growth we cannot get out of the financial mess we inherited.
My hon. Friend has done his homework correctly. There have been fads in construction over the years, and I say “fads”, because one minute something is the greatest piece of design technology we have ever seen and needs to be protected, and the next minute it is out of fashion and out of the way. There are two sides to concrete road construction. The upside is that such roads last for a very long time and do not wear out like flexible coverings—that is a technical term for tarmac. The bad news is that the concrete part of the M54 is unlikely to need resurfacing for 10 years. We will keep a close eye on it and ensure that, if it starts to deteriorate more quickly than that, we will address it immediately.
The downside to concrete is noise, and I freely admit that. It often depends on the type of tyre used on the vehicle. We have so far—touch wood—not had the worst winter, and my stockpiles of salt are doing remarkably well at the moment, but this time last year we had had a severe winter already. People—lorry drivers and hauliers—are starting to think about switching to the tyres that they use at other times of the year. That has a massive effect on noise. If people address the type of tyre they need for the environment they are working in, we will have fewer breakdowns and blockages, so it is a positive step. There have been fantastic developments in the tyre industry. In the old days, there would be a town tyre and a town and country tyre. There are much better developments now, but noise is an issue. No matter where I go in this great country of ours, road noise is an issue in every constituency, including mine.
Gavin Williamson
I would like clarification of the Minister’s remarks about when concrete-topped surfaces need repair. Will he confirm that when the road needs repair, it will not be repaired with more concrete but with a low-noise surface?
Mike Penning
There is a difference between repair and replacement. I cannot guarantee that that will be the case when the road is repaired—in other words, when potholes and so on are fixed—but what is needed to repair it will be done. I will come on to replacement in a moment.
We do not have a huge amount of concrete road, but a lot of local authority roads are concrete, and for maintenance, the longevity of the investment is an issue. My hon. Friend is right about the rest of the tarmac on the M54; low-noise surfacing, which reduces noise by about 50%, is not on that part of the motorway. I have never heard it called “whisper” tarmac, but developing that would be fantastic for everybody. The i54 development, with which he was involved, will lead to significant changes to junction 2 and the slip road, which I know the local authority has planned carefully. We will work with it to ensure that the project works for the local community and Jaguar Land Rover. I can categorically say that all the new parts of it will be low-noise.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was told by the European Commission—not many good things have come out of the Commission over the past few years, but this is one good thing—that it should do a noise survey of the whole country, including the road network. I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that this particular part of the M54 does not fit the criteria for being excessively noisy. That offers no comfort or solace to residents in his constituency, but think about how bad the problem is on the road network in other parts of the country. Interestingly, the A449 going north from junction 2 meets the criteria and will be resurfaced imminently with low-noise tarmac. It already needs replacing, but it is deemed to have a significant problem with noise.
That is nearly all the bad news. The tarmac on the M54 where the concrete stops is also in good condition. We do not predict that we will need to replace the tarmac on the M54 for approximately four years. Although there will be new tarmac on the new roads—new, low-noise tarmac on the A449—it will be a considerable time before the M54 concrete-tarmac is resurfaced. However, I assure my hon. Friend that, when that is done, low-noise tarmac will be used on the concrete as well as on the existing tarmac.
The solution might seem simple—as I have asked my officials, surely we can lay the tarmac on the concrete, because it provides a strong sub-base—but that is not the case. It will have to be broken up and created as a sub-base, and the tarmac will then have to be re-laid in great depth on top, because the product is flexible, not rigid. Wear can cause so many problems.
My hon. Friend has alluded to the debate that is taking place, rightly, in all our constituencies throughout the country. I hold up my hand—it is happening in my constituency, where I have had exactly the same discussions. I have to look at the money available for maintenance and for capital projects that will keep the country going, and I must spend that as wisely as possible. I do not have the bottomless pit of money to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and in many ways I am pleased that I do not, because it gives me the opportunity to study carefully where our money is being spent. That makes me popular in certain parts of the country. I am pleased that the M6 widening project will be popular. It will give us capacity, and road safety will be significantly enhanced.
As an ex-fireman, I was very sceptical about managed motorways, because they were taking away the hard shoulders. Then I thought back to my time in service. Where did I see the major, serious fatalities on a motorway? It was on the hard shoulder. One of the first incidents that I ever went to involved an ice cream van parked on the hard shoulder. It is not the most robust of vehicles, because of the chassis, engine and fibreglass on top. It had broken down, pulled over to the hard shoulder and been hit by a lorry. The driver thought he was safe. Fortunately, he had left the vehicle to walk to an SOS phone. The vehicle resembled a skateboard—we would never have known that it was an ice cream van. It had been completely wiped out. If people’s vehicles break down on the motorway, they should pull over to the hard shoulder and then get out and on to the other side of the barriers, which is where they will be safest. Modern technology on the motorways means that assistance should get to them quickly. SOS phones are available and mobile phones have enhanced safety enormously on our roads.
Managed motorways have rescue areas and sanctuaries that allow us to sweat the existing assets. We do not have to go through planning all over again, because the motorway has already been built and the hard shoulder is up to road standard. It is interesting that, while hard shoulders were built to road standard all those years ago, we are only starting to use them now. The M42 pilot project showed that it works and road safety on such roads has been enhanced. We can get more vehicles on and it is much easier to control the flow of congestion. If we look at the M42, we see that there are far fewer traffic jams and stationary traffic. I would much rather see traffic running at 40 or 50 mph than it being stationary before rushing off at 70 mph and having to stop again later.
I cannot promise to put up sound barriers all along the motorway. I have made a note—and my officials are present—to look specifically at junctions 13 and 14, as my hon. Friend has asked me to do, and I will write to him about that.
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being so generous in giving way again. I welcome his reassurance that low-noise, low-impact tar will be used across the whole stretch of the M54 when it is resurfaced. He has pointed out that the road between the M6 and junction 2 already has a tarmacadam, or flexible, surface. Can he give my constituents and me an idea of when the resurfacing will realistically happen? Will it happen in my lifetime or in my daughter’s lifetime? My top priority as a constituency Member of Parliament—I am being selfish; there are no Members from Shropshire present—would be from junction 2 to Telford and on to junction 3. When could that happen?
Mike Penning
It will be during my hon. Friend’s time as a constituency MP for his area—he is going to be there for a long time, because he is such a hard-working constituency MP. The time scale for the expected replacement of the tarmacadam part is four years from now. It may wear out slightly earlier than that, or—I am crossing my fingers—it may last a little longer. The longer it lasts, the more money we will have in the pot. I fully understand that that would be good news for my hon. Friend, and it would be good news for me regarding the budget. The faster it is replaced, the faster the low-noise tarmac will come in.
Sound screens will also be used and some are already up. They help, but they are not, under any circumstances, the answer to the problem. Mounding or bunding is another option—I know that that has been done in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Trees help, but they have to be placed at such depth. They have to be at about 10-plus metres before they can provide any tangible benefits. They look pretty, but if people stand on the other side of them—as I have done on many an occasion—they will see that they do not really help. We will put in sound-proofing, particularly wood-panel sound-proofing, where we can, but it is not feasible to do so across the motorway network and the A-road network.
We are looking at specific areas. On areas where we are doing new works in particular—this is why I touched on the M6—it is built into the project that we look at the issue. I am sure that that has happened with junctions 13 and 14, but please do not think that that is not also true of the A15, A16 and A17—we probably have done it. It is a massive advantage that, if we can sweat the assets, it leaves us some money elsewhere to do the sort of advanced projects to which my hon. Friend has alluded.
On the concept itself, the i54 project is so important not just to my hon. Friend’s constituency—I fully understand that—but to the country as a whole. It sends a message that this country is open for trading and investment. I was lucky to be on the Thames estuary when DP World announced a £1.5 billion investment in the newest port—it is huge—in the United Kingdom, just at the time when people were saying how difficult the situation was. Yes, the situation is difficult, but there are people who are willing to invest, and that will lock straight into the M25 and give us an opportunity.
Even though I have not said that this issue will be resolved imminently, works will be done soon in relation not only to the local authority and the i54 development, but to the A449. When the roads wear out, we will resurface them with low-noise tarmac. The estimated time is four years for the tarmac and 10 years for the concrete. I stress that the concrete is a major job and not something that can be done overnight, because the expense will be huge.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Regional Development Agencies (Closure)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Public Bodies Act received Royal Assent on 14 December 2011, and includes parliamentary approval of powers to abolish eight regional development agencies (RDAs). The RDAs are expected to achieve operational closure by 31 March 2012 with formal abolition expected to occur at the end of June 2012.
Most of the RDA assets and projects which were not sold or closed have transferred to receiving bodies during 2011. This includes the majority of land and property assets to the Homes and Communities Agency, grants for research and development to the Technology Strategy Board and venture capital funds to be managed by Capital for Enterprise on behalf of BIS.
BIS issued individual transfer schemes for each RDA under the Public Bodies Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2012 and transferred the majority of the remaining projects and contracts as well as 13 staff from RDAs to BIS so that they can be managed to completion. The schemes and associated transfer schedules are available in the Libraries of both Houses.
I expect that there will be two further transfer schemes to move the last remaining assets, liabilities and obligations out of the RDAs prior to abolition. The first of these is expected in March with the second taking effect at the time of abolition.
The RDAs will produce accounts for the financial year 2011-12 and these will be laid in the Houses in the summer of 2012 in the usual way. The accounts for the period from 1 April 2012 to the date of abolition will be laid in due course.
Disabled Facilities Grant
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Today the Department for Communities and Local Government is announcing the local authority allocations of the £20 million additional funding for the disabled facilities grant in England.
Local authorities are being informed of their individual allocations. Details of the amount awarded to each authority will be available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website and a table detailing the funds provided to individual authorities has been placed in the Library of the House.
The disabled facilities grant was protected within the spending review and additional funding is now being provided to help more people live as comfortably and independently as possible in their own homes through the provision of adaptations. This additional £20 million has been allocated to local authorities using a relative needs weighted index and all local authorities will receive some additional funding.
The grant provides financial assistance for a wide range of housing adaptations ranging from stair lifts, to level-access showers and home extensions. The disabled facilities grant is improving the lives of many disabled people and this additional funding is a further demonstration of our commitment to helping older and disabled people continue living in their homes for longer.
Armed Forces Redundancy Programme
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government announced in the outcome of the strategic defence and security review in October 2010 that, as part of moving to Future Force 2020, we would reduce the size of the Regular Army by 7,000 personnel, and both the naval service and Royal Air Force by 5,000 personnel. In addition, in order to balance the British Army’s regular and reserve forces, further reductions were subsequently identified to deliver a Regular Army of around 82,000 by 2020. We also made clear that, in order to maintain balanced force structures for the future, an element of these reductions would need to be made through a redundancy programme.
Our statement of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 21WS, set out the process and timetable for the armed forces redundancy programme. Consequently, in September 2011, 2,860 service personnel were notified of their redundancy in the first tranche; 1,020 service personnel from the naval service, 920 from the Army and 920 from the Royal Air Force. Of those made redundant in tranche 1, some 1,770 (62%) had applied for selection.
Today the services are announcing the fields from which they will select personnel to be made redundant in the second tranche of the programme. This will comprise up to 300 members of the naval service, up to 2,900 members of the Army and up to 900 members of the Royal Air Force. This will be the last major tranche for the Navy and the Royal Air Force, who will be able to achieve the majority of the remaining draw-down by other means.
The same selection principles as used in the first tranche will be applied. The services will seek applicants, but will also consider all personnel that meet the published criteria. The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on the current operations in Afghanistan, and no one who is preparing for, deployed on, or recovering from specified operations on the day that redundancy notices are issued will be made redundant unless they have applied. Personnel who are assessed as being permanently below the level of fitness required to remain in the forces will not be considered for redundancy, and will instead leave through the medical discharge route at the appropriate stage in their recovery.
Throughout the redundancy process, we will ensure that we retain the capabilities that our armed forces require in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Puma ZA934 (Findings of Service Inquiry)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I wish to inform the House today of the findings of the service inquiry into the incident involving Puma ZA934 on 8 August 2007 at Catterick in which three service personnel tragically lost their lives and others on board were injured.
A service inquiry was convened to examine the cause of this incident and to make recommendations to prevent recurrence and this is now complete. The purpose of the service inquiry is to establish the circumstances of the loss and to learn lessons from it; it does not seek to apportion blame.
Puma ZA934 from 33 Squadron RAF Benson was conducting training at the Catterick training area. The Puma was carrying 12 personnel: three RAF crew, an Army officer and eight recruits undergoing basic training at the infantry training centre, Catterick.
The service inquiry found that at approximately 20.50 local time during the day’s final sortie, the Puma failed to recover from a tight turn and crashed into land to the west of the Catterick training area. Detailed analysis by the Royal Navy Flight Safety Incident and Investigation Centre suggests that the aircraft’s tail rotor guard that protrudes below the tail hit the ground first as the pilot attempted to regain height. This initial impact resulted in the tail being severed. The aircraft then lost rotational stability as the rotor blades made ground contact, causing the fuselage to rotate and flip several times, finally coming to rest having broken up considerably.
Following extensive investigation, the service inquiry concluded that the cause of the incident was an incorrectly executed manoeuvre which caused the aircraft to crash. Contributory factors that led to the incident included: the crew’s combined relative inexperience; the lack of robust crew supervision; human factors; manning shortfalls; the high operational task load placed upon 33 Squadron; and the reduced opportunity, because of this task load, for supervised consolidation and reinforcement training.
In addition to these findings, the then Commander Joint Helicopter Command (Rear Admiral Johnstone-Burt) also identified three additional contributory factors: the crew’s lack of adherence to checks; operating procedures; and their flight at below the authorised minimum level. In total, 29 recommendations were made covering aircraft handling, training, supervision, manning, organisation and equipment. Of these, 25 have already been implemented and the residual recommendations are in hand.
A copy of the service inquiry, redacted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, is being placed in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Defence website.
Devolution
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The coalition programme for government includes a commitment to establish a commission to consider the “West Lothian question”. In my statement of 8 September 2011, Official Report, column 27WS, I gave some details of the forthcoming commission and undertook to return to the House with further detail including the terms of reference for the commission. This statement sets out the further detail.
The “Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons” will consist of a panel of six independent, non-partisan experts, chaired by Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of this House. The other five commission members, whose backgrounds are in law, academia and constitutional development in the UK and the EU, are: Sir Stephen Laws, Sir Geoffrey Bowman, Professor Charlie Jeffery, Professor Yvonne Galligan and Sir Emyr Jones Parry.
As I stated previously, the commission will focus on parliamentary business and procedure. The commission’s terms of reference are:
“To consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of tine United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.”
The commission will commence in February 2012 and will make its recommendations to the Government in the course of the next parliamentary session. This reporting time scale is necessary to ensure that the commission has time for proper scrutiny of all relevant options.
Late Night Drinking (Late Night Levy and Early Morning Restriction Orders)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Antisocial Behaviour Reduction (Lord Henley) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
A consultation on the secondary legislation for the late-night levy and early morning restriction orders has been launched today.
The late-night levy and early morning restriction orders (EMROs) are two alcohol measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The extension of EMROs will allow local councils to restrict the sale of alcohol in their local area flexibly between 12 am and 6 am. This is a tool that licensing authorities can use to prevent problems in the night-time economy in either a part or the whole of their area. The late-night levy will fulfil our commitment to allow councils to levy a charge from those selling alcohol late at night in their area to help contribute towards high policing costs in the late-night economy. Again, it can be applied flexibly between 12 am and 6 am. These measures will empower local communities to act to achieve a more viable night-time economy.
The “Dealing with the Problems of Late Night Drinking” consultation is an opportunity for licensing authorities, the licensed trade and its representatives, police officers and the public to share their views on the details of the regulations that will implement these policies. In particular, it asks for views on what categories of premises should benefit from exemptions and reductions under the measures, with the intention to avoid penalising premises that are not part of the wider late-night economy.
Copies of the consultation will be placed in the House Library and it is also available on the Home Office website.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (UK Delegation)
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) have been appointed as full members of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who become substitute members.
Lord Anderson has been appointed as a full member in place of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who becomes a substitute member.
Lord Ahmad and Baroness Eaton have been appointed as substitute members in place of Lord Glentoran and Lord Inglewood.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has been appointed as a substitute member in place of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).
Civil Aviation Authority Environmental Objectives
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
When the CAA is exercising its air navigation functions it is required under the Transport Act 2000 to take account of environmental guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. The current guidance was issued in 2002 by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
The CAA has been able to take account of the guidance to make decisions on over 70 proposals for airspace change over the last nine years. The guidance recommends that the CAA keeps abreast of current Government policy including on planning, sustainable development and noise as well as guidance issued by the devolved Administrations.
Given the length of time since the guidance was published, and the recommendations of Sir Joseph Pilling in his July 2008 strategic review of the CAA and the Transport Select Committee in its 2009 report on the use of airspace, the Government recognise the need to update the guidance to reflect current Government policy, including on issues such as noise and climate change. This will be done next year following development of the “Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation” and will include a public consultation so that all views can be heard on this important subject.
In the interim the Department for Transport is publishing today a technical addendum to the guidance. The addendum updates references and lists relevant policy documents and legislation published since 2002 that the CAA takes into account when considering airspace change proposals.
Plug-In Car Grant Review
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am pleased to announce the launch of a plug-in van grant alongside the continuation of the existing plug-in car grant to help stimulate the market for ultra-low emission vehicles. The plug-in van grant, available to both private and business buyers across the UK, will provide a point of purchase discount of 20%, up to a maximum value of £8,000, for the purchase of eligible new ultra-low emission vans1.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and I have reviewed the existing plug-in car grant, which provides a discount of 25%, up to £5,000 off the price of eligible ultra-low emission cars. We examined the need for and value of the grant, as well as its scope. We have concluded that there remains a strong case for the grant. We have therefore decided to continue with the plug-in car grant at the current level, with provision out to 2015.
In addition, we are persuaded that there is a strong case for supporting ultra-low emission technology in vans—which often have fixed duty cycles and return to base regularly where they can easily recharge. An up-front purchase grant, when combined with the lower running costs and tax benefits, can make switching to an ultra-low emission van an attractive choice for businesses. The plug-in van grant, alongside the existing plug-in car grant, is designed to help private individuals and businesses adopt new, cleaner technology. Businesses, especially those with fleets, will be a key driver in increasing the market share of ultra-low emission vehicles.
The shift towards clean technology is an opportunity to reinvigorate further the UK automotive industry, where many van manufacturers are based, alongside helping to increase our energy security. The plug-in van grant will help to improve local air quality in our cities, reduce carbon emissions and meet Government targets. The technology fits well with a large portion of the van market that relies on short urban trips to and from base.
Only vans which meet strict performance criteria for range, tail-pipe emissions and safety will be eligible for the plug-in van grant. We are today opening the application process and inviting van manufacturers to apply for their vehicles to become part of the scheme. To be considered in the first tranche, applications will need to be received by 31 January. I look forward to confirming very shortly thereafter the first vans to join the scheme.
1 Subject to state aid approval from the European Commission.