Housing Supply
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Leech
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I have explained that interventions must be short. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he has to help us to get other speakers in. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman got the gist of the question.
Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Leech(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Leech
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. However, I will take no lectures from anyone on either side of the House about political donations.
To be fair to the Labour party, some of its Members have accepted that they made a mistake on FOBTs. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State has admitted that Labour made a mistake. However, Labour’s motion fails to address the problem of the £100-a-spin stakes that are still allowed on our high streets. I am happy to reject the motion not only on the basis that it would not solve the problems that are created by FOBTs, but because the timing of the debate is ill judged, given that the coalition Government are undertaking research into the impact of FOBTs.
The Government have challenged the betting industry to implement enhanced player protection measures by March this year or face precautionary measures. If the industry fails to deliver on its commitments, or if at any time the balance of evidence suggests that action is required, the Government must not hesitate in imposing a precautionary reduction in stakes and prizes.
It is no secret that there is disagreement between the coalition parties. Liberal Democrats believe that there is clear evidence that harm is caused by FOBTs. I am confident that the research will prove that there is a need for action. GamCare’s figures for last year show that 39% of the calls to its helpline came from people who specifically cited B2 machines. The Salvation Army estimates that the number of people with a problem increased by 30,000 between 2007 and 2010. Research conducted by Professor Gerda Reith at the university of Glasgow suggests that B2 machines pose a particular risk to problem gamblers because of their rapid rate of play that offers addicts the quick fix that they are looking for. A 2010 study in the European Journal of Public Health found:
“Virtual gaming machines had the strongest association with gambling-related problems”
of all the activities it studied, which included horse race betting, football betting, the lottery, online gambling, casino—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have to drop the time limit to three minutes to get in as many Members as possible. If we could have fewer interventions, it would be helpful.
Arts and Creative Industries
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Leech(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Leech
If the hon. Lady gives me a little more time, I will talk about that.
The Department has protected the future of our museums at a time when it would have been far easier for the Government to have cut deeper into the DCMS budget, so I will certainly be supporting the amendment.
Concerns had been raised that museums in Manchester, York and Bradford were under threat of closure. Ian Blatchford, head of the Science Museum Group, warned about the possible need to close one or more of the museums in the north if the spending review resulted in a 10% cut in the budget, or at least to start charging to make up the predicted increase in the deficit from £2 million to £6 million. That resulted in huge campaigns to protect our museums, including the Save MOSI campaign led by the Manchester Evening News, which received over 30,000 signatures in the first 24 hours.
It is always difficult to gauge how real a threat of closure there actually was, but the Department could not have been clearer in showing its commitment to our national museums in the north, and in fighting its corner in budget negotiations. We must recognise, however, that there is still a lot of work to do to ensure that museums are put on a secure financial footing for the long term.
What I am certain about is that we must not go down the road of charging for entry. The previous Government should be applauded for ending charging at state-funded museums in 2001. In Manchester that resulted in an increase in patronage from 288,000 in the last 12 months of charging to over 833,000 last year. MOSI is Manchester’s No. 1 attraction, but it is more than that: it is a science and industry museum located at the heart of the industrial revolution, and it is a destination for learning. Most children across Greater Manchester will visit the museum at some point in their school career.
Overall, there were 5 million visitors to the group’s four museums in the last 12 months. Even with the “doomsday” scenario mooted by Ian Blatchford, that means the SMG would need to generate only £1.20 extra from visitors coming through the doors to wipe out the £6 million deficit.
Charging an entry fee is not the answer. We know what charging does to visitor numbers. Currently eight of the top 10 UK visitor attractions are free DCMS-sponsored national museums, and there are about 18 million annual visits to museums and galleries that used to charge an entrance fee. It would also have an impact on foreign tourism. According to VisitBritain, Britain’s major museums and galleries earn the country £1 billion a year in revenue from overseas tourists. A recent report on Britain’s culture and heritage showed that museums and galleries are a key motivator for many international visitors to Britain, with free world-class national museums and art galleries a particular draw. Given the importance of the tourism industry to the UK economy, charging must be ruled out.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee intends to carry out an inquiry on the future and funding of the national museums. The two Front-Bench teams could do worse than to follow the example set by the Committee, as the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and I all supported having an inquiry into how we could secure the future of our museums. We took a proper cross-party approach. Rather than playing party politics, the Committee will take a proper look at ways in which additional sources of income can be found, at a time when state funding will, obviously, remain under pressure for years to come.
The Opposition motion also rightly recognises the importance of the creative industries to the economy; they make up in excess of 7% of the economy and continue to show strong growth at a time when many sectors have stagnated or retracted. One great example is the UK games development sector, which is the largest in Europe. However, there has been disagreement recently on whether or not high-tech creative companies, such as those in the games industry, should be included in the measurement of the creative industries.
Transport and the Economy
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Leech(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Leech
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is fair to say that the Government have prioritised some schemes in London and the south-east—the Crossrail project, for instance, which has received an enormous amount of money. Other parts of the country have certainly received significantly less funding over a long period.
There are some encouraging signs, however. In Manchester, rail capacity and journey times will benefit greatly from the additional electrification work, including that of the TransPennine Express, and the funding for the Ordsall chord. Congestion will be eased with the completion of the airport link road—a scheme for which my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) have been campaigning for many years. Metrolink extensions have also been given the green light and are under construction, including within my constituency.
From a Manchester perspective, two projects hold the key to whether the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy will be followed through to its conclusion. The first is high-speed rail, and the second and more urgent is the funding for the northern hub, which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be sick of me raising with him on so many occasions.
The debate about high-speed rail will drag on, with supporters and opponents making arguments and counter-arguments about whether the real economic benefits are predominantly for London and the south-east. However, what cannot be disputed is the fact that the north will see the greatest possible level of benefit only once high-speed rail reaches Manchester and Leeds. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the next phase of the high-speed rail network, but I want to know what the Government are doing about bringing forward the timetable, so that we do not have to wait another 20 years before we reap the full benefits.
I recognise that for once the Government are looking towards our transport needs for the next 100 years rather than for the next 10 years, but we need to do more to bring forward the time scale so that the regions can benefit as soon as humanly possible.
From Manchester’s perspective, however, the real test for the Government will be whether or not funding will be forthcoming for the northern hub. With £80 million already secured for the Ordsall chord, the complete hub scheme will cost only £560 million in total—and possibly less, given that some elements of the project are already included in other committed individual schemes. We should compare this to the billions of pounds that the Government have committed for Crossrail.
In a Westminster Hall debate in January, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is not in his place this afternoon, calculated that three months of Crossrail payments would pay for the whole of the northern hub. I am not sure how accurate the hon. Gentleman’s maths is, but it certainly puts into perspective the difference in funding levels for the two schemes. At a cost-benefit ratio of 4:1, with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs and a £4 billion boost to the economy, the northern hub is the opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to rebalancing the economy.
I questioned the Minister of State, Department for Transport during the Select Committee inquiry, and she said that the northern hub
“must be a really strong contender for support in the next railway funding settlement control period.”
She went on to confirm the Government’s intention to try to close the prosperity gap between the regions, saying:
“One of the ways in which we could do that is by targeting our transport spending on projects which will generate growth in different regions.”
Well, I could not agree more. If the Government are serious about economic rebalancing, they need to confirm the funding for the northern hub, and not just in a piecemeal way. The Government need to come up with all the cash in control period 5.
In the short time left, I should like briefly to raise two other issues mentioned in our report. The first relates to the dependence of transport priorities on local circumstances. A one-size-fits-all or a Government-know-best approach will not work. In line with the coalition Government’s localism agenda, there needs to be more local determination of what works in each local area. National Government is not well placed to decide what is best for an individual area and what will best support economic growth. Metrolink has been a massive success in Manchester, driving economic growth and stimulating regeneration to areas such as Salford Quays and Eccles, as well as encouraging modal shift in areas such as my constituency.
The need for local decision making was reflected in the report’s conclusions—
Public Forest Estate (England)
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Leech(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Carmichael, I have tried to tell everybody recently that we want short interventions, because we want to get as many people in as possible. Indeed, people who are speaking do not have to take the full six minutes or interventions.
Mr Leech
Guaranteeing the future of the woodland is important, but so, too, is the guardianship of that land in the meantime. There is a real fear that the trend to improve the forests will fade over time. What assurances can the Minister give that the woodland will not just be maintained as it is and that the new owners will be compelled to improve both access and the natural habitat? The public estate enjoys 40 million visits a year, a quarter of it is dedicated as a site of special scientific interest and it hosts a wealth of biodiversity. None of those things should be under threat, and they must flourish under this coalition Government.
One of the big unanswered questions is whether or not the private ownership or leasing of forest land will make the savings that the Government anticipate. I am not convinced that these proposals will save any money; they may end up leaving the Government with a bigger bill to maintain the forests, because the sale or lease of commercially attractive forests will mean that their revenue is no longer available to subsidise the running of heritage and other loss-making forests. That was the only sensible point made by the shadow Secretary of State.