Future of Town Centres and High Streets

Debate between Stephen Mosley and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Mosley and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the Minister for that.

The question of the appeals process is not quite as simple or clear-cut as has been presented. Despite referring to the appeals process when I moved my amendment a few weeks ago, it was not one of the main drivers behind my joining the campaign. The fact that under the previous legislation it was accepted that the process would not start for some time demonstrates the difficulties that arise. There is the perception or concern that some people might use the appeals process almost to continue the grieving process. Members have talked about getting closure, but actually the appeals process can postpone that closure, which can be difficult for families.

I understand, therefore, that this is a difficult issue. The Opposition spokesperson made a sensible proposal—about having a trial—but that is not necessarily the answer, because, as the Minister said, those decisions can be judicially reviewed. The key point about the chief coroner was his role in driving the necessary reforms, which can continue with or without the appeals process.

[Stephen Mosley]

Is not one of the key points about the chief coroner, as envisaged by the Minister, that he will be responsible for training and monitoring? My hon. Friend mentioned constituents who have had disagreements with the coronial system. Those problems would be solved if we had a chief coroner to look at training and monitoring.

[Andrew Percy]

Of course, the position was created precisely to drive that top-down change and to ensure that people’s experience of the coronial system was even and equal across the country. That is the element that we have to focus on. We have to accept that we are where we are—the other place has determined the matter—and that there will be no changes to the appeals process, although I hope that the Minister will not take that possibility off the table permanently. Perhaps we could reconsider that matter further down the line.

We now need to focus on getting the position filled and driving forward that change. I welcome the position that we are in, and I join the Opposition Front-Bench team in paying tribute to the role of the Royal British Legion, as well as organisations such as INQUEST and, interestingly, the British Medical Association, which supported, and continues to support, the post of chief coroner. The Royal British Legion has done an exceptional amount of work in raising the matter and doggedly fighting for it.

This is also a question of our commitment to the covenant. Obviously it is not just service personnel families who are affected, but they are uppermost in our minds when we think about the post.

I welcome the fact that we have this position again. I hope that the appointment will be made as quickly as possible and that the genuine change that all of us, in all parts of the House, have agreed needs to be made, is indeed made. Finally, let me again make a plea to the Minister to consider the appeals process in due course, although I fully accept the complex nature of such appeals.