§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
10.21 pm§ Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)I think that the whole House recognises that Southend is the finest seaside resort in the country. Any hon. Member who saw the exhibition that we held in the Upper Waiting Room before the general election will have been truly impressed by the quality of the different facilities that Southend has to offer. It is a remarkable seaside resort. How could anyone not enjoy Rossi' s glorious ice cream, a trip to the end of the longest pier in the world or the magnificent plants and shrubs that adorn the cliffs at the side of the Thames estuary?
We recently had a magnificent air show, which attracted people from all over the country. I am very proud of the town of Southend, but, like so many seaside resorts, it faces a number of challenges. It is recognised, for instance, that holidays in this country are not as popular as they used to be. Air fares are much cheaper than they used to be, and our weather can be rather unpredictable, so it is clear that Southend and other resorts have lost much of the domestic business that they used to enjoy.
For those and other reasons, Southend has found that it has had to reposition itself in the market. The House will know that, for two or three years, I urged the Government to support our bid for funding from the European Union, and the Government gave that support. I welcome the new Minister to her post, and I know that she will want to do her best to support my constituents in Southend, West.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is present, as is the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who takes a great interest in these matters. When we first tried to secure European funding some considerable time ago, we had meetings with Ministers at which it was well understood that five wards in Southend would be supported. Two of the wards to benefit were in my constituency, and the other three were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
I shall not bore the House with details of what went on, but without any warning I suddenly discovered that the two wards in my constituency would not receive any support because we had initially applied for funding under the fisheries strand. I was not involved in the process whereby that bid collapsed. All of a sudden, we found out that we qualified only under the urban strand. All five wards that qualified turned out to be those in the constituency of my hon. Friend. That was a huge disappointment to my constituents and to me.
We had a debate in Westminster Hall about the bid. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), was gallant and recognised that the matter could have been handled differently. That said, I felt that as we qualified under the urban strand, one of the wards in my constituency—Westborough—certainly would have met the criteria: but there we are, it was done and dusted. I hope that everything that I intend to put before the Minister will persuade her that the fishermen and women who were disappointed by what happened can take some encouragement from what we may be able to secure for them.
265 The council has a good working relationship with regional organisations and the east of England objective 2 partnership. A number of projects in Southend are being developed with access to EU funding. Southend has recently been awarded £5.4 million of EU objective 2 funding, about which we are truly delighted. It will go towards a major £17 million project, to be known as Southend seafront high street and pier enhancement. Again, none of the wards falls in the constituency that I represent, but there is no doubt that the development will have a great impact on the whole of Southend and will attract more businesses and visitors to the town.
The local authority welcomes the project and the financial support from Europe. We thank the Government for their backing, but in the midst of all this good news the fishing community is experiencing difficulties in obtaining financial support for a project that has great potential for innovation and diversity within the industry.
I pay a warm tribute to two council officers, Philomena Kettlewell and Vivian Byczynski. They have worked hard to try to secure EU funding for the project, but it is a private project led by Mr. Michael King and Mr. Paul Gilson, who have done a splendid job in developing it. It is a remarkable scheme that everyone praises.
The fishing grounds of the Thames estuary are under considerable pressure as a result of various EU restrictions, as Essex Members know. The number of fishermen has declined, and the retail price of fish has increased, to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fish farming and, more recently, genetically modified fish, have affected consumer confidence in the product. The programme would increase the number of harvestable fish in the area and the opportunity for fishermen to make a living in a manner that does not involve GM fish or fish farming. The project will also enable complementary industries such as marine engineering and transport to prosper. Scientific research associated with the project has educational and tourist potential and will enhance the image of the town, not that it needs too much of that, but I admit that I am biased.
Dover sole, as most Essex Members know, is the most important fish caught in the Thames estuary. It is a high-value item, but stocks have decreased despite conservation measures. That species will form the thrust of the initial project. Adult fish caught in the wild in spawning conditions will be retained on board fishing vessels in special holding tanks and transferred ashore to fertilisation tanks on the same day. Once fertilised, the larvae will be grown in tanks—half will grow to 5 cm long and half to 10 cm—and then returned to the sea. They will be separately identified to compare survival of the different-sized released juveniles.
Following the success of the Dover sole scheme and in order to utilise the facility throughout the year, the project leaders believe that the same procedure could be used with turbot and lobster. Lobsters, I am advised, have the advantage of not straying far, so they can be harvested locally. As major growth would take place in the sea, the image associated with fish farming would be avoided. They will be "wild fish".
Hatcheries are already being run successfully in Canada and Japan, and some have recently been started in the British Isles. There is the Padstow lobster hatchery in 266 Cornwall as well as the Wexford lobster co-op and the Dingle aquarium and flatfish hatchery, both in the Republic of Ireland. Members of the committee working on the project have visited all those sites. As far as they are concerned, the two hatcheries could be run in conjunction with an aquarium and would be well supported by local fishing industries and the local authority.
The hatcheries in Dingle and Padstow are both adjacent to, and reliant on, aquariums. The equipment and expertise needed to operate an efficient aquarium are similar to those for a hatchery, so co-location is desirable. At present, the idea is that the Southend Sea Life centre, which has substantial advantages for the scheme, would be used as a main base, but a number of other possibilities are being explored.
I hope that the Minister recognises that this project is very important for employment. Fishing has steadily declined in recent years—we are down to about 60 fishermen working in the area. The project would protect these jobs and we believe that there would be an increase in such employment. Members of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee support it, as do others. Research is also crucial.
Some might say that Mike King, the chairman of the project, has been using intemperate language about his disappointment. That is unfair, but he is somewhat frustrated about how the scheme has been handled. The committee first met in February 2000; the scheme was prepared for objective 2 funding, only to be told nine months later that fishing was excluded. The committee checked with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the latest funding became known. It was advised that it was okay, only to be told later that it was excluded because it was aquaculture. We do not have the time to go into detail in this short debate, and I will send the information to the Minister's office, but advice from Brussels seems to contradict that. I am not criticising civil servants or others; I am simply asking the Minister to ensure that we receive the correct information.
Mike King believes that there are two issues. He believes that the scheme would be widely supported and that it is unable to proceed after 18 months owing to bureaucracy. He has found getting a straight answer about whether the scheme is viable to be a frustrating exercise. I shall not name names, but he is adamant that we were given the wrong information about the scheme at the start.
From the local authority perspective, I pay tribute to Councillor David Garston and his vice-chairman, Mrs. Anna Whaite, who have done a magnificent job. They have asked me to draw to the Minister's attention a number of points in conclusion.
We ask the Minister and her officials—I know that she will have to talk to those in other Departments—to see whether there is a way to help the fishermen through the difficulties from which their industry is suffering at the moment. Why are the funding restrictions such that the project faces so many obstacles, even though everyone seems to agree its merit and potential? I would like Government advice on how barriers can be broken down so that the most up to date and appropriate advice can be given to fishermen to support their initiative. I ask the Minister to assure the fishermen of Southend that every effort will be made to find a solution before the next bidding round, which I am advised will start in 267 September. I therefore hope that, during the long summer recess, the new Minister will use her very best endeavours to bring some joy and hope to Southend fishermen.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble)I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. He has eloquently explained the problems of Southend and even more eloquently set out its attractions. He has tread that very careful line between praising an area and recognising its problems.
It is widely recognised that, despite its many attractions, Southend has a number of very long-standing problems. The district ranks among the most deprived in the east of England in terms of income and employment. Southend's unemployment rate stands at 4.2 per cent, which compares unfavourably with the east of England average of 2.1 per cent. and a United Kingdom average of 3.2 per cent.
The problems, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, are rooted in structural weaknesses in the Southend economy—principally its overdependence on tourism, fishing and certain types of financial and business services, which are all in decline. Recent plans to redevelop Southend's former gasworks site by building a 15-bedroom hotel and houses have been axed, and a local manufacturer has announced the redundancies of 33 people.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Southend-on-Sea council and other local and regional agencies—the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the individuals involved who deserve credit—for tackling the problems with exemplary vigour and imagination. I congratulate the council on its successful campaigns for some Southend wards to be included in the east of England objective 2 programme—I recognise the resentment that some feel when their wards are not included in a funding area—and for the whole of Southend to be included in the Thames gateway, which has been extended to include south-east Essex and which will be an important driver for the regeneration of the area.
The objective 2 programme provides a tremendous opportunity for Southend and other needy areas in east England. Over the seven years from January 2000 to December 2006, almost £100 million of European grants will be available to objective 2 areas in the east of England, supporting projects to the value of more than £260 million.
Southend-on-Sea council and its partners have come together in a local area group for the Southend-on-Sea objective 2 area, which will oversee the preparation and submission of bids. The partnership's vision is that, by the end of the objective 2 programme, Southend-on-Sea will be known throughout the east of England and beyond as a vibrant and different area that is an attractive place in which to live, work, shop and spend time and—hopefully—money.
The partnership has already bid successfully for its first major objective 2 project: a £17 million Southend sea front, high street and pier-enhancement project. That will be supported by a £5.4 million grant from the European regional development fund. The project will transform the 268 appearance of the town's central corridor, from the gateway entrance in Prittlewell through the high street and along the 2 km pier, which is being restored following the disastrous fire of a few years ago.
Works to be undertaken as part of the project include a heritage trail, cycle paths, the creation of a series of themed quarters in the high street and the removal and replacement of unsightly and out-dated features. Southend is already visited by 1.6 million people a year. The aim of the project is to increase that number substantially, and I am sure that it will have the hon. Gentleman's strong support.
Two other major bids are at an advanced stage of preparation. The first is the Milton "investment in learning" project, which will provide community facilities on the new South East Essex college campus in Milton, with the aim of stimulating demand for learning and skills development and delivering business support to local enterprises. The second is the "advance, learn and live" project of the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, which will provide additional facilities for the association's centre in Alexandra street, offering volunteering and training opportunities to people who feel disengaged and marginalised, including the long-term unemployed. As the hon. Gentleman said, Southend also benefits from objective 3 funding which has made a significant contribution to the local economy in a number of ways, through projects totalling £812,151.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the problems of the fishing industry. I shall now address that and discuss the details of the project about which he is particularly concerned. The coastal area around Southend was designated as a PESCA area under the previous European Union community initiative programme—the hon. Gentleman might be familiar with PESCA, which I am told is not an acronym. In addition to the nationally acclaimed cockling industry based in Leigh-on-Sea, the area is known for its stocks of a wide range of fish and shellfish subject to the EU quota system. Local fish merchants, supermarkets and restaurants purchase some of the catch, but the vast majority of locally caught fish is exported.
The fishing grounds of the Thames estuary are under considerable pressure as a result of EU restrictions. Within the area, the number of fishermen has declined and the retail price of fish has increased, to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fish farming and, more recently, genetically modified fish have affected consumer confidence. I am aware that the fishing industry has been suffering serious decline. One positive outcome, however, is the way in which fishermen have pooled their resources and expertise in a partnership approach to tackling the issues that they face and the challenges facing the industry. The fishing community has considered how to embrace new technology, new ideas and innovative ways to diversify and compete in today's market, and to maintain the skills that have been passed down the generations.
The fish restocking project is a good example of that. It has been discussed and developed during the past 18 months, with the support of the hon. Gentleman. It is regarded as an innovative project that would address the issues of fish stocks. It involves removing the eggs from caught fish, allowing the larvae to grow in controlled conditions and releasing the juveniles back into the water, so helping to provide adequate fish stocks for local 269 fishermen to catch. The project also offers an opportunity for scientific research into the development of fish larvae, tagging of young fish and measuring their rate of growth, the distance they travel and the number that are subsequently caught in local waters.
The fish restocking project will increase the number of harvestable fish in the area and enhance opportunities for fishermen to make a living in a way that does not involve GM fish or fish farming. It will also enable complementary industries to prosper, including marine engineering and transportation. In addition, the scientific research associated with the project has educational and tourism potential, and it will enhance the town's image. Once the immediate target of increasing stocks of Dover sole has been met, there is a prospect of turning to turbot and lobster.
Discussions have taken place between the fish restocking project partnership and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They have identified a question about the project's eligibility for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance scheme: the nub of the issue is whether the project constitutes aquaculture, which is excluded from the scheme. DEFRA officials understand the issues and are working hard to resolve them in the near future. I know that they have been supportive in pointing out issues relating to eligibility and have identified areas where more information is needed for a bid. I understand that the project partners decided not to submit a bid in June as a result of those problems, but I strongly encourage them to continue discussions with DEFRA and to explore fully flexibilities in the scheme. The next round of bidding will close at the end of September this year, which allows time for partners to discuss issues and to submit a formal bid. I assure the hon. Gentleman that DEFRA will do all that it can to help them in the bid process. It is also sensible for those concerned with the project to consider alternative avenues and sources of funding by, for example, talking to the East of England development agency.
Despite the problems with that project, there is good news about the regeneration of Southend. Plans to renovate and improve Southend pier were unveiled in May and a new pier entrance should be ready in June 2002. A £2 million programme to re-deck the fire-damaged pier head should be finished by December 2002. There are two major developments at Shoeburyness, which is at the eastern periphery of the borough, both of which are former Ministry of Defence ranges and are considered crucial to the regeneration of the area. One development, at Shoeburyness garrison, will result in 600 jobs as the result of the creation of a mini-town comprising 465 new homes, a school, shops, leisure centre and health centre. Moreover, 150 new jobs were created by London Clubs International, which opened a new Casino at the Kursal building earlier this year.
270 We are taking action to improve local transport for Southend. Communications are good; the A 127 and A 13 trunk roads link Southend to the national motorway network via the M25, which is 20 minutes' drive from the town. However, both trunk roads are overloaded and we are contributing £14.5 million to the borough council's scheme to improve passenger transport and reduce congestion on the A13 and A127. In addition, Southend received an increase in transport block funding of £4.6 million for 2001–02, against funding of £2.3 million in the previous financial year.
Southend is now receiving funding under the fifth and sixth rounds of the singe regeneration budget programme. In the fifth round, Southend received more than £1.8 million of SRB money for a £3.758 million seven-year scheme that is aimed at identifying and developing solutions for the deprived wards of Milton, Victoria and St. Luke's. Projects include a community information and learning centre; improving educational attainment and health awareness; and addressing the needs of minority and vulnerable groups. In the sixth round, Southend received £3.75 million of SRB money for a £27 million seven-year scheme aimed at providing information on learning, education and skills through community capacity building and community renewal projects and a mental health project.
Those were substantial amounts of money from a wide variety of sources, both from the Government and Europe. I am sure that they will greatly enhance the regeneration of all of Southend which, of course, will benefit all its constituents. The hon. Gentleman can take much comfort from the fact that his constituents are getting a large slice of regeneration funds, even though there are difficulties with the project in which he has a particular interest. Clearly, it is an emotive subject because of the area's traditional connections with the fishing industry.
However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of his comments on the problems for the fishermen at Southend, specifically the fish restocking project. I know that Southend is in receipt of large amounts of regeneration funding, which should have a huge impact on the area. Once again, I should like to take the opportunity to encourage the project partners to work with DEFRA officials on a bid for September. I assure the House that the Government office for the east of England is well aware of the difficulties surrounding the project and of the hon. Gentleman's interest in it; it will work with partners to ensure that all of Southend can make best use of the opportunities offered it by the funding and initiatives that I have mentioned.
In conclusion, I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this subject. I am sure that, with his skilled advocacy on behalf of his constituency and town, Southend will truly realise its full potential.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o 'clock.