Manston Airport
Laura Sandys Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Before I go any further, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, on taking through this evening a measure that my hon. Friend described in his peroration as being of national importance, as indeed it is. I think that the matter I am about to raise with the House, although it has perhaps not attracted the same attention as the previous business, is also of national importance.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of importance not only to my constituents in North Thanet, but to those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who has been so loyal and staunch a parliamentary neighbour and who has joined me here in the Chamber tonight.
There has been an airfield at Manston in east Kent for getting on for 100 years. Manston served with distinction, and took a great deal of punishment, as a front-line airfield throughout world war two; as an RAF base post-war, it hosted American fast-jet squadrons; and to this day part of the original Ministry of Defence base remains the home of one of the country’s foremost RAF firefighting training schools. Post-war holidaymakers, with their cars, flew on Silver City from Manston to Jersey, and the dual military-commercial role became established. Manston was leased by the MOD to Seabourne Aviation in the 1980s, when the modern and friendly air terminal was built, and the freehold was sold during the 1990s. Throughout this time, and until the RAF transferred its flight to Wattisham, Manston was the home of Sea King search and rescue helicopters covering the strait of Dover. PlaneStation, EUjet and more recently Infratil, a New Zealand based company, in turn flew from or operated from Manston.
The airport was acquired at the end November 2013 by the present owner, Mrs Anne Gloag, one of the shareholders of the Stagecoach company. With strong links to transport and with the promise of a commitment to two years’ of development, that transfer of ownership was welcomed. Sadly, after less than four months, on Budget day in March, consultation on closure, following losses that were regarded by the new owner as unsustainable, was announced at the very moment that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was informing the House of the help for regional airports that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and I had been pressing for.
That was, as one may imagine, rather unwelcome news; however, it quickly became apparent that there is now serious and funded interest in taking over Manston, to maintain the site, which would be extremely difficult and costly to transform for other purposes, as an airport to develop and broaden the aviation, airport-related and ancillary businesses. As we speak, that interest is the subject of talks. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet nor I can properly become involved in negotiations that clearly are a matter for legal and commercial agreement, and I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to become involved either at that level, but I was heartened, in a meeting with Mrs Gloag here at the House before Easter, to be assured that she was willing to discuss propositions. I naturally hope that those discussions will prove fruitful in the interests of all concerned. I would like to be able to return positively to that in a future debate.
As I have said, I believe there is not only a local, but a national interest that has to be taken into account. Locally, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet will know, there are immediately about 150 jobs at issue. Each and every one represents a family breadwinner. That is of overriding importance to my hon. Friend and me. There is also the job-creating potential of an airport that is crucial to the economy of east Kent. That potential has already helped to contribute, by its very existence, to the success of Discovery Park, which my hon. Friend has been so instrumental in promoting, following the withdrawal of a significant part of the Pfizer company from her constituency. As an important aside and visitor attraction, the Manston RAF and the Spitfire and Hurricane museums, together with the memorial to the unknown overseas airman, unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen Mother shortly before she died, represent a significant contribution to our local heritage and one that cannot be discarded.
In the national interest, Manston occupies a literally unique location. It offers proximity to the channel ports and mainland Europe, a largely over-water take-off and landing facility and, partly as a consequence, a safe diversion location. Indeed, I am advised that since the start of the consultation period, two aircraft have taken advantage of Manston as a safe haven, and I know that the airport is able to receive inbound traffic at times when London’s other airfields, within the central London traffic control zone, have been compelled to close or restrict services. With its expanded responsibility for maritime search and rescue and firefighting services, Bristow Helicopters still wishes to return to Manston to provide cover once again for the strait of Dover, one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. With its very long and abnormally wide runway, Manston has been able to accommodate Concorde in the past and more recently—in fact, very recently—the British Airways Dreamliner during her trials.
We also believe that Manston can and must be allowed to make a significant contribution to the immediate demands for additional runway capacity in the south-east. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the following. When, as Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) published his airports Green Paper in 1990s, he omitted Manston from his plan. When I questioned him at that time on the Floor of the House, he said that Manston was too far from London. In the interim report on capacity in the south-east published shortly before Christmas, Sir Howard Davies also omitted Manston for the same reason. He has made the same error in measuring distance in miles from London, rather than in time.
It is a fact that east Kent is indeed 76 miles from the House of Commons, but we are now served with a good road network and, with the proposed extension of High Speed 1 from Ashford to Thanet—a project that will commence in autumn this year with the upgrading of track and signals—we are looking at a realistic under-one-hour journey. In real terms, and allowing for check-in congestion and related time-wasting activities at airports, that means that, from central London to a backside on a plane taking off, Manston will actually be closer than Heathrow.
I am not suggesting that Manston can or should be an alternative to a Boris island, an additional runway at Heathrow or any other suggestion that Sir Howard puts forward that may meet our needs in 15 or 20 years’ time. I am, however, suggesting that, alongside Luton and Stansted, Manston can help to relieve a pressure that has already seen London fall into second place behind Dubai as a major hub airport, which is costing UK Ltd business lost to Frankfurt, Schiphol and Paris Charles de Gaulle, and which we do not have the luxury of time to address. I understand that Sir Howard is reconsidering the opportunities afforded by regional airports. Manston is available immediately and it must be included in that equation.
Nor am I proposing that interlining passengers currently using London Heathrow or Gatwick should be routed through Manston, although we might well be able to take some holiday traffic to free up space at London’s two major airports. I note, however, that London Heathrow capacity that might otherwise permit passenger business is currently being used for long-haul freight from the far east.
I know that 82% of goods transported by air come into Heathrow as belly cargo in passenger aircraft, but that still leaves 18% of dedicated freight movements occupying slots that could be used for much needed additional long-haul passenger traffic if the cargo was moved to, for example, Manston airport, where we have a skilled and dedicated cargo handling team and facilities that can have goods off an aircraft and on to road or rail in short order. There are those who say that Manston’s freight handling is second to none. I therefore have a specific request. Will my hon. Friend the Minister instigate an immediate review of cargo traffic with a view to promoting, in the national interest, the release of prime slots with passenger potential from London’s airports? It has to be in the national interest to do that.
This morning the inaugural meeting of a Manston taskforce was held here in Portcullis House. In addition to the chairman of the company that owns Manston, that meeting was attended by representatives from the Departments for Transport, Work and Pensions, Communities and Local Government, and Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as the Home Office, the Skills Funding Agency, UK Trade & Investment, the local enterprise partnership, Locate in Kent, Kent county council, Thanet district council and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and myself. The meeting followed discussions with relevant Ministers, all of whom have been supportive.
There is good will and political cross-party unanimity at local, county, trade union and parliamentary level. There is also huge and growing local support. Last Saturday my hon. Friend and I received a petition from the Save Manston group and Why Not Manston? containing 15,000 signatures that had been gathered in just three weeks.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his leadership across Thanet and all the different Government agencies pulling together the huge opportunities Manston offers. We need to highlight that this is not just about the straightforward passenger and freight opportunities; there is a wide range of business opportunities around aviation that my hon. Friend has identified as an opportunity for Manston itself. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on the opportunity that Manston specifically can offer due to its location and its potential capacity.
Sir Roger Gale
I return the compliment. My hon. Friend has been instrumental in the revitalisation of the Pfizer site as Discovery Park, and she has a proven track record in demonstrating how it is possible to attract ancillary business. We both are absolutely convinced that Manston has a viable future and that it will attract new cargo traffic and, as she says, other businesses—aviation engineering and other aviation-related businesses. We really do have to capitalise on that if we are going to make Manston work. In the local and national interest, we want to get Manston working and succeeding in the role for which it was designed and is best suited—as an airport.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his encouragement to date. I hope and still believe that, with a further shove and with the participation of a willing seller and a willing buyer, we can get to where we want to be. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and I remain absolutely committed to this project and wish to state once again that we will use our best political endeavours in support of anyone who is ready and able to realise the new potential of one of the great assets of British aviation.
Cost of Living
Laura Sandys Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint
This Government have now been in office for nearly two years. The truth is that—
Caroline Flint
Could I first answer the question from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray)?
The truth is that the leader of the Labour party, when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, did start to tackle the discussion about the energy market. He said that we should have a pool, and that was in our manifesto. He also undertook to look at better ways in which we could provide for energy efficiency, and I will come to those shortly. In government, we had a good record of helping people with their bills. Millions of people were helped by Warm Front and millions of pensioners were helped by the winter fuel payments. What are this Government doing to help people with that? [Interruption.]
Caroline Flint
All fine words, but obviously the excuse for not sharing is changing as the debate continues. What is very clear from that answer is that it is all flannel, all rhetoric. There is no sense of what demands the Government have put on the energy companies, or of whether the companies will have to meet those demands by the set deadline, a few months hence, or of whether the number of families helped will increase from 30,000 to the 90,000 the companies are supposed to be helping. There is no sense of clarity, and no practical suggestions or effort by this Government to get a grip. On delivery, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, has previous in so many other areas that it is becoming rather a pattern.
The truth is that the Government have not defined what action they will take. They hold private meetings in which they are not willing even to share some practical explanation of what will happen next. Is it impossible to understand why the public are feeling so let down and why organisations that support families in difficult circumstances are worried about whether this Government have the gumption to get on top of this issue, when they are failing in so many other areas? If there is a choice between the interests of the big energy companies and those of people who are struggling to make ends meet, it seems that under this Government the energy companies win every time. That is the real problem with the Government: not only are they out of touch, but they stand up for the wrong people.
Laura Sandys
Having got quite a lot of exercise in the last few minutes trying to intervene, I welcome the opportunity to point out a few facts. In 13 years of Labour Government there were six or seven energy White Papers, I think, but only one Bill. In two years of this coalition Government, we have got retail market reform coming through from Ofgem; one piece of energy legislation has been passed, and there is a second in this Queen’s Speech. That shows that the Government are absolutely committed to delivering a competitive and fair market to a greatly squeezed consumer.
Caroline Flint
The truth is that the Labour Government left in place—[Hon. Members: “A recession.”]
Dr Huppert
I am flattered by the shadow Secretary of State’s faith that I have the power to control the ministerial team. She can certainly control when she responds to letters, and I think that a delay of over a month is rather poor. I am sure that she thinks she has better things to do, but I would still love to hear how Labour would fund the rest of its budget on this area.
If the Opposition are truly concerned about the cost of living, surely one way of addressing that is to let people keep more of the money they earn. Raising the income tax threshold puts money back into people’s pockets and lets them spend it on whatever they want: rail fares, fuel for their car, a new bike, bus tickets, training, or whatever it is that they would like to do with that money. Of course, that is something that Liberal Democrats campaigned for and it was on the first page of our manifesto, and it is exactly what Liberal Democrats in government are doing and which, for reasons I simply do not understand, the Opposition voted against. I simply fail to understand why they are against giving money back to people who earn £10,000 a year. It makes no sense to me. I assume it was some sort of error, like the fact that they failed to vote on various aspects of the Budget which they said they would vote on.
In my view, this tax cut, combined with the uprating of unemployment benefits and the triple lock in pensions so that pensioners get a better deal than the 75p that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) offered them, is exactly the right mix of measures. It allows people to keep their money and spend it as they please when times are tight. It is a responsible, liberal approach, and one that we need to take further, as I am sure we will do during the rest of the Parliament, but it is there—[Interruption]—and it has been supported by the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) reminds me.
But let me return to rail fares. I passionately believe that rail fares are too high and need to be lower, and, unlike Labour and the Conservatives, both of which have argued for above-inflation increases, we in the Liberal Democrats believe that they are too high and should not be made any higher. I am delighted that we managed to persuade our coalition colleagues to reduce the most recent rise by 2%, and I have to say that Conservative Transport Ministers supported it.
I hope that we can do the same or better in the years to come, but it cannot be a one-off measure; it has to be part of the kind of serious structural reform that the McNulty review will bring. If it is true that the McNulty changes will save £1 billion a year, half of it should be used to reduce rail fares and half to invest further in rail infrastructure, although this Government are already investing massively in our railways—more than any Government since Victorian times.
We have committed to electrifying more than 800 miles of track. How much did Labour manage? The answer is less than 10 miles, in 13 years: less than 1 mile per year. The Victorians would not have been impressed by that rate. The Liberal Democrats in government are firmly committed to getting people and freight on to our railways so that they do not take up space on our roads, and that applies to my local road, the A14, where we have to ensure that as much freight as possible is put on to railways in order to avoid the congestion that we see. We need to invest in services to make them cheaper, more affordable and more attractive. That is the right thing to do.
What about buses? We believe firmly that the way forward is devolution, community involvement and more effective funding. Services have to be local for them to be popular and effective, and communities must have their say in the governance of local buses. I believe, from what the shadow Secretary of State says, that the Labour party is finally looking at ways of devolving bus services. We have argued for that measure for decades, so I am delighted that Labour agrees, and I hope that we will be able to deliver it. We have had less than two years with very little money to spend; Labour had 13 years, so I am delighted that it is finally coming around to the idea and I hope that we will be able to deliver it. Indeed, I hope that Labour supports the reforms that we are implementing, such as the local sustainable transport fund, which is delivering £500 million to local communities. Just before the Queen’s Speech my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced new funds for better bus areas and green buses: a £120 million boost for buses which will enable people to take affordable buses more easily.
By trusting communities to do what is best for themselves, we are revolutionising bus travel. Already since 2010 we have seen bus patronage rise outside London and throughout the country, and seen funding for 439 low-carbon buses, helping us to be a much greener Government. That is a fantastic achievement after a decade of decline and without spare money to slosh around.
Of course, if we really want to reduce the cost of living, we will find that there are even cheaper forms of transport. A huge number of journeys could be taken on foot or by bike, and that really would save people money. More people should do that. This Government have invested millions of pounds in promoting cycling, from the local sustainable transport fund, to Sustrans funding for new routes, bikeability training and new cycle-rail links, and they have also taken other steps to promote safe cycling by, for example, making it easier to introduce 20 mph zones.
We have heard much from the Opposition about the lack of a Bill in the Queen’s Speech to deal specifically with the cost of living, but we have heard also from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about the steps being taken with the Bills that are in the Queen’s Speech, and in any case the Opposition should know that it is not necessary to announce a Bill in a Queen’s Speech in order to help with the cost of living. Not everything needs legislation.
Laura Sandys
This Queen’s Speech is very much directed at the consumer and at consumer prices. We have a draft water Bill, which is looking at supporting water prices; the grocery adjudicator measure, which is looking to develop a much more effective supply chain and to deliver better prices to consumers; and we have an energy Bill, which will make the market more responsive to the consumer. This is a consumers’ Queen’s Speech.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments—and I will leave out the next paragraph of my speech. She is absolutely correct to highlight the importance of all those issues, which will make a real difference to consumers, as will a range of other activities, such as breaking up the banks so that they can focus more on consumers and less on the casino capitalism that we saw in the previous decade.
We do not need to legislate to make a difference. We gave money back to millions of working people without any new Bill; it did not take a Bill to make that happen. After reams and reams of failed legislation, one would have thought that Labour would have learned one simple fact: we cannot just legislate our way out of a problem. But I am not surprised that Labour’s response to a Queen’s Speech that, as well as the items mentioned earlier, finally tackles defamation law and Lords reform is that we need more legislation. It is certainly true that if the test of a successful Government was the volume of laws they introduced, 13 years of Labour would have been an unmitigated success, because the sheer volume of legislation was a record, but that is not what government is about.
I am deeply proud to be a Liberal Democrat in government, standing up to vested interests to ensure that every citizen, no matter how poor, will be able to protect their reputation from defamation—and that we will not see the chills that we have seen from the threat of action. I am proud that we are tackling constitutional reform, because I am sure that all honest politicians know that the Government are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once, and of course we are cleaning up the mess that this country was left in by Labour and continues to be left in by what is happening in the eurozone.
There is much more to do on fares, and I should like to see a more efficient local transport system with greater support for community services, which is something we are already working on, but we have achieved a lot with what we have got—much more than can be said for the squandered Blair-Brown years. In 1997 a Liberal Democrat majority Government, enjoying an unprecedented period of global growth, would not have jacked up fares year after year. We would not have let transport services decay in the dead hand of Whitehall, and we would certainly not have introduced tuition fees in the way the Labour party did.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not always vote with my party, and if he checks the record, he will see that I have voted for several SNP measures. If they are sensible, I will vote for them, but not many are. [Interruption.] I cannot speak for the rest of Labour, but I can speak for myself very comfortably in this House, and have done from both the Government and Opposition Benches.
It was wrong to increase VAT. It took money out of the economy at a time when we needed a fiscal stimulus. That is what business is telling me. That is why it is disappointing that the Budget increased VAT instead of addressing the situation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, VAT is a regressive tax which most hurts the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. The Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats said as much before the general election, yet when they entered government, they increased it. That is what turned small economic growth into a double-dip recession. That is what business tells me. I am willing to stand up and speak for businesses, especially hard-working businesses. It is a disgrace for senior Ministers to say that businesses should simply work harder, given that the Government are increasing taxation and taking money out of the economy, as a result of which people are not spending on their businesses.
Laura Sandys
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), wrote in his published memoirs that he, too, was going to increase VAT.
Albert Owen
I had many debates with my right hon. Friend when he was in office. I did not shirk that responsibility. He felt that increasing VAT was the best thing to do but was outvoted in Cabinet. It was not a Government decision. He wanted to increase VAT, but he was wrong. He also wanted to increase vehicle excise duty, but I argued and voted against that measure because it, too, was wrong. On those issues, he was wrong. He did many brave things. For instance, he introduced the 50p rate at the end of our time in office. [Laughter.] Government Members laugh. He did it at the end, but he did it because we were in a crisis and needed extra revenue. That was supported by a lot of people at that time, yet this Government have managed to reduce the taxation for the richest while putting VAT on businesses and as a result a tax on jobs.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for cutting me off in my prime.
When Her Majesty read the Gracious Speech, I picked up immediately on a couple of things that I felt were extremely important for my constituents, but when I read the newspapers over the next few days, I did not recognise the speech I had heard in the commentary about it. I know exactly what my constituents are concerned about: the cost of living and the bills that come through the door.
I heard that there was to be a draft water Bill and that we would be focusing on electricity market reform, on which the Energy and Climate Change Committee has done a lot of examination, and as a member, I am particularly interested in that. The draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill has also been announced. Those measures represent the three biggest bills regularly faced by my constituents, and where the Government can actually have an impact, so they have decided to focus on them in their second Queen’s Speech.
I felt that it was very much a consumer’s Queen’s Speech, but there is a backdrop. Costs are increasing for water—a resource where we face particular pressure at the moment—for energy in the international wholesale markets and for food, which consumes energy and is subject to global pressures. It is crucial that we put consumers at the heart of the proposed legislation to ensure that we develop greater resilience for them, while making sure that their rights are protected and secured.
The water Bill is in draft form, but I was pleased to hear during the Budget debates that the south-west is to have a dispensation on water bills. There will be an obligation on the regulator to secure social tariffs. The water system will be under more stress. We have had drought alerts over the past couple of months, and those problems will not go away. I find it extraordinary that, as I understand it, the regulator cannot take into account issues of climate change when a water company puts forward a proposal to build a reservoir. We need a total review of what Ofwat believes its priorities are, and we must make sure that the water Bill ensures that the overall water system delivers sustainability and good pricing, plus a strong responsibility to work with consumers to protect and conserve water.
Earlier there was discussion of the proposed energy legislation. Members of the Energy and Climate Change Committee from all parties have been persistent in pursuing consumer issues in relation to the energy market, such as the retail market review that Ofgem is putting in place, which is crucial for consumers. We have doggedly pursued the issue of mis-selling. Doorstep mis-selling has been going on for years and it is only in the past year or 18 months that the public have received recompense from the companies that were putting many of my constituents under pressure.
One thing that the Secretary of State mentioned which I think is an exciting dynamic and an exciting new level of engagement is consumer activism. Consumers are starting to find their voice. Because they are under financial pressure, they are starting to look, for example, at energy switching. Which? came down to my constituency and we signed up about 3,000 consumers who are under considerable pressure financially. They have switched energy supplier, we have got a better deal for them, and we are in a much stronger position because consumers are exercising their voice. I urge our Government on every level to support consumers to have a voice, to exercise their choice and to make sure they are getting the best deal for water or energy or in the food sector.
The green deal is a fundamental part of creating a more resilient consumer. I am honoured to be the chairman of a commission that has been set up to look at hard-to-reach homes when it comes to the green deal roll-out. We should not deceive customers about energy prices. We need to put in place measures to ensure that consumers use less energy and are more resilient.
The third key piece of consumer legislation relates to the grocery adjudicator. I have concerns about the legislation, because I do not believe that it necessarily drills down far enough into the supply chain. It is an important step in relation to the large retailers, but we have to understand how the agricultural supply chain works. Often the producer—the farmer—does not have a direct relationship with the retailer. Sometimes wholesalers and intermediaries have that relationship with the producer. It is crucial that the grocery code is open and that it is offered to all parts of the supply chain, and that the market is much more transparent and effective and does not allow the market power of the retailers to distort it.
Let us be frank with the consumer. Food prices are going in only one direction, and that is up. There will be a doubling of the global calorific intake in the next five years. Energy prices will increase. We must redesign our food system to ensure that it is not that food prices are going up and costing our constituents money, but that our constituents have the ability to feed their families at a cheaper price. That will include much more work on food education, which has already been mentioned, which I think is crucial. We need to ensure that we waste less within the system and value food more across the whole supply chain.
One other thing I urge the Government to do is look at where consumers are, in my view, being ripped off. On Friday I had a meeting with a group of young mothers at a Sure Start centre. I brought along a range of different products that I had bought in a supermarket, including a packet of corn flakes, a third of which was empty, and other products in packaging that, in many ways, was meant to deceive consumers—for example, a full packet of biscuits in which a large chunk was filled with plastic padding. We must not allow the consumer to be unable to make the smart choices. I used to work for the Consumers Association and know how smart consumers are, but they must be given transparent information and must not be deceived by presentation or packaging. We must ensure that we protect them so that they can make the smart decisions and ensure that they get the best value for their food, water and energy.
Tim Farron
There is a bunch of things that we can do. I thank my hon. Friend for asking the question. We can ensure that there is a fair and decent referee in the groceries code adjudicator. Through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our other missions, we can help our farmers to have an export market, because they will get a much better deal from the supermarkets if the supermarkets know that there is someone else who the farmers can sell to and who will compete. We also need to invest in research and development to help people improve their effectiveness and efficiency. I will come back to that point if I have time.
Laura Sandys
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of contracts is also important? The relationship between supermarkets and producers is extraordinary in that they often have no contracts whatsoever.
Tim Farron
Yes, farmers need to be encouraged and enabled to co-operate. I always thought that it was peculiar that the milk marketing board was got rid of because it was a monopoly—what the heck is a supermarket, for pity’s sake? It is important that there is balance in the market.
The reality is that unregulated markets do not work. I believe in a free market, but markets are not free when there are powerful entities that control them. Markets do not always work in the interests of the people who are being exploitative. It is not in the interests of Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda or Morrisons to exploit their farmers, even though they often do so. I acknowledge that they do good things too. As John Maynard Keynes once said, among the many other wise things that he said,
“The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
The supermarkets are putting people out of business, despite the fact that it is not in their long-term interests, just because it is in their short-term interests.
That highlights something that this Government and all Governments have failed to do—set out a coherent food production strategy for the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet said earlier, over the next 40 years the population of planet Earth will increase by about 50%, but the demand for food will roughly double. If we as a country preside over a 25% drop in our ability to feed ourselves, as we have over the past 30 years, it is completely witless and massively damaging. The food crisis—I say that with no exaggeration at all—that the planet faces and that this country will face is at least as big a concern as climate change and, dare I say it, is a bigger concern than the economic crisis.
That challenge must be met. It must be met by having regulation of our market, with a referee to make sure the market is fair and effective, and the groceries code adjudicator will do that. We also need to have an integrated strategy, so that our approach to common agricultural policy reform is focused primarily on maximising sustainable food production; we have a science policy that has food production at the top of the agenda—research and development is crucial to ensuring that we maximise the amount of food we produce in this country—and we have a planning policy that is fit for purpose and allows rural areas and rural businesses to develop, so that they can meet the needs of this country. The reality is that people’s ability to enter the farming industry and to provide the food that this country desperately needs also depends on young people being able to afford a home of their own for their family in a rural area.
Oral Answers to Questions
Laura Sandys Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hammond
If the hon. Lady would like to see the business case analysis for electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, I am happy to make it available to her. I can tell her that it will not reinforce her case.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
13. What assessment he has made of the potential for satellite navigation systems to increase the proportion of journeys undertaken by haulage companies using major routes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
No such assessment has been made by the Department. It is for hauliers to plan their routes and for satellite navigation system providers to provide the technology that ensures that hauliers use the appropriate routeing.
Laura Sandys
Last weekend I came bonnet to bonnet with a huge articulated lorry in the village of Wingham on a very small rural A road. What can we do through the sat-nav system to distinguish rural A roads from the dual carriageways that lorries should be using?
Mike Penning
I am very aware of that problem, because it happens in my constituency as well, but there are new satellite navigation systems specifically for hauliers, which include software to ensure that hauliers stay on their routes. There is no benefit to hauliers in going down side roads, and local authorities have the powers to make weight restrictions if necessary. I will look into the problem in my hon. Friend’s constituency.