§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
2.30 pm§ Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth)Change is usually so gradual that we hardly notice it taking place—until one day someone points out that it has not been for the better, whereupon we join together to criticise those who were so lacking in foresight at the time that they stood by and allowed these adverse things to happen. For once, however, we can see a change taking place before our very eyes. We cannot pretend that we have not been warned of the dangers which the growth of out-of-centre retail developments poses to our town centres.
It is now 20 months since the Select Committee on the Environment warned that many small town centres were vulnerable to lasting damage. I fear that the Committee underestimated the effect that such developments can have even on large towns and cities.
Across the country the story is all too common and all too familiar. Once-vibrant town centres are dying on their feet and the hearts of our communities are left bleeding.
This is not the first time that the Minister has responded to a debate on these very points. He did so in March last year, when he told the House that
we are all agreed on the correct way forward.We want, he said,vital and viable town centres that are attractive … and desirable to everyone to shop in."—[Official Report, 15 March 1995; Vol. 256. c. 998.]Amen to that—but if the Chair will excuse the expression at a time when the subject is so tender: where is the beef?The Minister told the House 14 months ago that he recognised hon. Members' concern that a quick response was needed by way of new planning policy guidance paper 6, which deals with this matter. It has yet to be published. A draft was circulated many months ago, and a very weak document it appeared to be. I hope that the final version—I anticipate its publication in the next few weeks—will have far more teeth.
The Minister told the House then that policies would have to be monitored continually to ensure that they were effective. I am afraid that monitoring is about all that seems to have been done—any sign of effectiveness is sadly lacking. Yet the pace of expansion of out-of-centre retail developments shows no signs of slacking.
The Government fiddle while Rome burns. If we are to save our town centres, firm and decisive action is needed now. Let me highlight the extent of the problem. Almost 30 per cent. of all retail sales are made out of town, and projects in the pipeline will shortly increase that to about 50 per cent. The retail economy of small market towns can be destroyed by the construction of a large single supermarket on their outskirts. Even bigger towns and cities are left reeling from the effects of some of the huge mega-developments that have been built. Dudley, of course, has gained a place in history for being the first town in Britain to lose 70 per cent. of its trade to one such development—the Merry Hill complex.
In addition to the new retail space already opened, millions of square metres are still in the pipeline. Close to my constituency, the huge new Trafford centre at 1248 Dumplington will devastate the towns of Greater Manchester, while the effects of the White Rose centre in west Yorkshire will be felt mostly in Batley and Dewsbury. I suspect that even Leeds and Wakefield will not escape the consequences. For the present, Oldham and Rochdale are holding their own. Indeed, the centre of Oldham is thriving thanks to much new investment, but the edges are fraying badly. In terms of travel times, Oldham and Rochdale will be equidistant, along the motorway, between the new Trafford centre and the new White Rose centre and that is not an encouraging prospect.
Last summer, I visited nearly every shop in my constituency and I spoke to some 200 shopkeepers in Littleborough and Milnrow, in Shaw and Uppermill, in Lees and in my village of Greenfield. Only a handful of the people to whom I spoke were optimistic about their long-term future. One of the first meetings that I attended as a new Member of Parliament was called by concerned local traders in Delph who were anxious about the future of shopping in their village.
The question is whether Parliament sees that there is a problem to be addressed at all. Perhaps it is right that old town centres are killed off by the new retailing palaces. I do not think it is right because I do not want to see our town centres decaying gradually and I do not believe that Members of Parliament want that. There is a general consensus on both sides of the House that town centres should survive and prosper as the vibrant hearts of their communities.
It may be argued that the big retailers and the property developers are simply responding to consumer demand, but I believe that they are shaping consumer demand. That may be good for their businesses, but it is bad for the health and well-being of the community as a whole. Environmentally, the new developments are a disaster. The motor car is now the single biggest producer of carbon dioxide, which is one of the main greenhouse gases, and the new developments are a driving force behind car dependency. Even the Government have recognised that in planning policy guidance paper 13. Those without cars, the poor and the elderly, cannot reach the new developments. They are left isolated and they cannot enjoy the benefits. The development of mega-shopping complexes results in the destruction of jobs, not their creation. They destroy full-time jobs and replace them with part-time work.
I do not believe that the developments are necessary. Let us take, for example, the new Trafford centre at Dumplington. No doubt, when it is opened, people from across the north-west will be enticed to get in their cars and drive to it. They will travel there in great numbers and they will desert our existing towns and city centres to do so. But not one of my constituents has told me that he is looking forward to the opening of a new mega-shopping complex at Dumplington. The only people who want it are the property developers and it would not be missed if it were never opened and matters were simply left as they are. No one would miss it.
What is to be done? What could a Government do if they wished to do something about the problem? What the Government should not do is give the House yet another complacent response, with the Minister expressing his sincere concern but in practice delivering nothing. Instead, the Minister should show some real strength and announce today that the Government will take immediate 1249 steps to impose a moratorium on all planning consents for out-of-centre developments not yet implemented. That would be a decisive move which would buy breathing space for the Government while they prepared a long-term strategy. It would also give much relief to town centre shops that are threatened by the new schemes.
Next, the Government should make it clear in their new planning policy guidance paper 6 that no out-of-centre developments will be given planning permission unless the applicants can prove that the development will not affect the vitality and viability of existing town centres. That would be a reversal of the existing situation, because at present the burden of proof lies with local authorities. They must prove, to ensure that their objection carries weight, that a development will have an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of town centres. That means that developers have to make only minimal commitments. They take no risks and go laughing to the bank.
From experience as a member of the Oldham planning committee over the years, I can tell the House that it is extremely difficult to prove that a new supermarket or a new non-food retailing business being built on the edge of town will cause immense harm. Each applicant and each application may be so small as not to require an environmental impact study. However, danger lies in the cumulative impact of such developments. One application follows another, applications are considered at separate meetings and before councillors know where they are they are giving their approval to millions of square feet of new retailing space away from established town centres.
Even if planning officers recommend and gain the support of councillors to impose conditions on the range of items that can be sold in out-of-town developments to try to prevent damage being too severe, such conditions are easily eroded over a short period. In an average large supermarket, about 40 per cent. of all sales are of non-food items. A shop might be called a food store but in practice the nature of what goes on underneath its roof is changing rapidly. Does that have an effect on the vitality and viability of our towns? The answer is simple: of course it does.
The Government could win many friends among small shopkeepers if they would turn their attention to adjusting the rate valuations of shops in town centres. I suspect that the burden that town centre shopkeepers bear is out of proportion to the volume of their sales. If town centre shopkeepers are paying more than their fair share, that must be stopped.
We cannot ignore the need to make town centres more convenient and attractive for those who wish to use them. With the appointment of town centre managers, many local authorities, including Oldham and Rochdale, are doing their best with minimal resources. I would like to see the same attention paid to smaller towns in my constituency such as Shaw and Milnrow. But I suspect that in reality some of the mega-shopping complexes are able to spend more on the purchase of their Christmas trees each year than the average local authority is able to spend on a town centre during an entire year.
I am interested in the initiative that has been taken in Coventry, where a private company has been created to manage the city centre. It has responsibility for maintaining, managing and marketing the town centre, 1250 thereby encouraging people to use local shops and other facilities. It has responsibility also for street cleaning and patrolling car parks. It provides everything from security systems to Christmas decorations, which bring people into town at the tail end of each year.
I understand that the private company in Coventry has only one local councillor among its directors. Such an arrangement would not be acceptable to my party. But the idea of concentrating on the single goal of encouraging activity in the town centre and paying for that through a combination of public and private finance is attractive.
It is essential too that we fill the hole in the doughnut. For too long British town centres have suffered from the obvious defect that no one lives in them. Encouragement should be given to provide accommodation and to bring people back to live over the shop or in new homes. I welcome the Government's initiatives in that respect. I am sure that the Minister would admit, however, that as yet they are hardly on a scale that is likely to make much impression nationally.
Town centre improvements will cost money. The Minister recognised that when he spoke to the House a year or so ago. He said that the Government were actively considering how such projects would be funded. Perhaps the Government's interpretation of the word "actively" differs from mine. I do not yet see the money pouring forth.
Let me suggest to the Minister how substantial sums could be raised to improve town centres in a way that would establish a more level playing field between out-of-centre developments and town centre shops. It is simply the imposition of a levy on car parking spaces at out-of-centre developments and devoting the money raised entirely to improving public transport and to measures to improve town centres and help them adjust to the massive changes that are taking place. The out-of-centre stores would pay the bill and pass the cost on to customers. In so doing, the huge price advantage which their buying power gives them over smaller shops in town centres would be reduced.
I am sure that the Minister will note with amusement the headlines in some newspapers this morning which announced that it would be part of the new Labour party's transport policy to ensure that car parking charges were levied at out-of-centre developments. In the last couple of hours a statement has emerged from Labour party headquarters that that was an error and the Labour party would not dream of imposing any such charges. That is all too familiar behaviour from the new Labour party. It makes promises but does not suggest how they would be paid for. That is not the case in this instance with the Liberal Democrats. We make it clear that such a commitment should be made and that if people have to pay to use town centre car parks they should also have to pay to use out-of-centre car parks.
Why should people be discouraged by the cost of using town centres and enticed instead to out-of-centre locations by the differential in car parking charges? That happens simply because developers take advantage of the Government's failure to provide effective planning controls.
I hope that I have made it clear to the House that a host of positive and practical steps could be taken to protect and stimulate our town centres. There is no excuse for doing nothing. I ask the Minister to think of the long term, 1251 tell the House what sort of town centres he wants to see and explain what steps he will take to ensure that they are brought about.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)Although I agree with the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats can make promises knowing that they will never be in a position to fulfil them. It is probably fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has not been with us long and will not be with us very long. I am afraid that that showed in some of the comments that he made. He did not seem to be aware of what was going on. He talked about regulations and pushing down on business, rather than of using the techniques available to the Government to encourage business.
The hon. Gentleman focused mainly on planning issues and it is probably worth dealing with them first. We have set out our aims for the town centres. They are to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres, to focus development—especially retail development—in locations which allow all consumers to benefit, and to maximise the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car, while recognising the importance of the car. The hon. Gentleman is married and I presume that his wife does the weekly shop in the supermarket. I am sure that she would thank him very much if she had to traipse home with the 80 or 90 lb of weekly shopping on the bus. She would have arms as long as an orang-utan's.
We also aim to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment, services and facilities to which people have easy access by a choice of means of transport. Those objectives were set out in planning policy guidance note 13. It advises local authorities that town and district centres should be the preferred locations for developments that attract many trips and that they should adopt planning polices to locate major developments which generate a lot of travel in existing centres, where access by a choice of transport—not only the car—is easy and convenient.
PPG13 further advises local authorities to adopt policies to enable town, district and local centres to meet the needs of residents in their area; to safeguard and strengthen existing local centres in both urban and rural communities, which offer a range of day-to-day community, shopping and employment opportunities; to maintain and improve opportunities for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport; and to ensure an appropriate supply of attractive, convenient and safe parking for shopping and leisure trips.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned PPG6, which we published in revised form in July 1993. That refocused development towards town centres. It was introduced in the light of the effect of out-of-town shopping centres and was reviewed almost immediately by the Select Committee on the Environment.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, before he came into the House, there was a debate that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), speaking on behalf of the Labour party, called a love-in. That was a slight exaggeration, but what he meant was that there was considerable agreement. The Government agreed with the points that were made as well.
1252 That debate, in effect, set the sequential approach: developers and local authorities should look, first, for town centre sites and, only if those sites are unavailable, for edge-of-centre sites. Only when sites in existing centres, including district centres, have been exhausted should out-of-centre sites be considered, and those would have to be accessed by a choice of means of transport.
We expect flexibility and realism. Local authorities must be realistic about the sites that they suggest. Developers need to be more flexible about the format and scale of development and parking and servicing arrangements. Developments need to fit in with local circumstances. I must stress again, however, that the plan-led and sequential approach applies not just to shopping, but to other key town centre uses. We want town centres again to be the focus for development and to take advantage not only of their accessibility, but of the synergy that can be achieved. Our policies on out-of-centre development apply as much to shopping as to offices and to leisure and other facilities that attract many people, including housing.
Of course, there is much more to it than just planning. We have touched on transport. The Government's approach on transport involves bus deregulation, privatisation, the provision especially of light rail and trams and tube investment, which has come from both Government and the private sector. The private finance initiative is the in-phrase.
We have also improved and encouraged, especially in London, local control of parking and its enforcement. That has had an effect in persuading people to use public transport. We have promoted, pushed and backed financially the development of local town centre management. That has been supported by the Government and by councils and businesses together, because businesses recognise its importance. Businesses are now coming in. Many businesses that were promoting out-of-town shopping centres are now working in towns. Particular tribute should be paid to Boots and Marks and Spencer, which have been joined by Sainsbury, Esso, Brown and Root and many others.
The Government understand the difficulties faced by some urban, rural, town and city centres. Especially where long-established traditional industries have declined, the economies have suffered and, in some cases, more affluent residents have moved out. Change is a fact of modern life, but it is the root of our wealth as well, so we must seek a sense of continuity. That is the source of our confidence and well-being.
We need to help towns and cities adapt to the changing demands of the modern economy, an economy which must compete internationally. We have specifically targeted those areas. In the past five years, we have invested almost £1.8 billion through urban development corporations alone, £300 million through housing action trusts, £1.7 billion through estate action and almost £800 million through city challenge. Much of that money has been backed by even greater investment from the private sector. In relation to the single regeneration budget, £1 of public sector money generates between £3 and £4 from the private sector. When the private sector is there, it is there for keeps and because it knows that our inner cities are working.
Many other projects have been undertaken or are in hand. They include the urban programme, task forces, business start-up schemes, local initiative funds, 1253 compacts, funds for teacher placements, education business partnerships, the training and enterprise challenge, programme development funds, regional enterprise grants, section 11 grants, ethnic minority grants, safer city projects and ethnic minority business initiative and city action teams. Almost £2 billion has been invested in those projects in the last five years.
Those projects are catalytic. They are drawing in the private sector and drawing people back into cities, which have been rejuvenated and rationalised under the single regeneration budget. In the next few years, a further £2 billion of SRB challenge fund money will lever in £5 billion of private sector finance. That encourages people to bring business back into inner cities and to live and to look for their leisure there—that is the right way to do it. We should not apply regulations on the outside.
Most, but not all, of the target schemes have been run by my Department. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department for Education and Employment delivers extensive training and enterprise and enterprise and vocational training initiatives through the training and enterprise councils. Next year alone, the TECs will have access to £1.2 billion. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Department of Trade and Industry is active in business sponsorship at local level. This year it will provide, again through the TECs, almost £50 million for the establishment of business link networks and more than £80 million for business support services.
Of course money can help, but the source of initiative and enterprise lies in the encouragement of people. It is proper for the Government to give a helping hand, not a hindering hand, and then to get out of the way. The biggest factor is the national economy. Low inflation, low interest rates and high investment are the reasons why this country is doing better than any country in Europe.
Contrary to the Liberal Democrat approach, we have undertaken a programme of cutting red tape, of removing unnecessary burdens on small and big business and of getting rid of the bureaucratic silliness that occupies time and inhibits enterprise. Already, 640 regulations have been repealed or amended and another 400 are in the pipeline. For example, 500,000 of the smallest businesses no longer need to have their accounts audited. We have simplified the trade mark legislation, thus saving businesses £30 million a year, and we have implemented new systems in government to ensure that cost 1254 compliance and risk assessments are undertaken before new legislation is presented. Those are simple, important and effective measures that particularly help inner cities. They cut costs and save time. Perhaps above all, they remove unnecessary sources of irritation for the men and women who work in business and in small businesses in inner cities.
The Government are striving to improve education standards, especially in the inner cities. We want to lift the schools so that they become attractive and people will want to place their children there in anticipation of a decent education. There is local choice in those schools and competition. The local management scheme is but one example, and there are grant-maintained schools offering new opportunities and nursery vouchers.
The Liberal Democrat response to nursery vouchers was "ridiculous". The Liberals are behind the times and damage many places. Let us look at one that is not far from here. Leatherhead is being strangled by the Liberals who are on the county council and the district council. In the inner-city sphere, Tower Hamlets is in a mess and the Liberals had power there for four years. All we got was the whiff of incompetence and local corruption. Local government has a huge role to play. It can frequently be damaging and enormous council taxes are a trade mark of the Liberal and Labour parties, as are poor services and obstructive, slow, bureaucratic procedures.
§ Mr. Chris Daviesrose—
§ Sir Paul BeresfordI shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will not be here for long and he may as well learn.
The Liberals' obstructive, slow, bureaucratic performance and their resistance to compulsory competitive tendering and to working with the private sector are notorious. They are backing Labour in areas such as Liverpool. That beautiful city is struggling. I met a deputation from there yesterday. It has strikes, and poor performance, and every time the council touches CCT, it fails. Its workers have voted to strike. My teenage daughter has a saying that she throws at anyone who gets things really wrong. With a snarl and a curl of her lip that only a teenage young lady can show she says, "Get real." The hon. Gentleman ought to do that.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.