Objective 2 Funding (Southend)

HC Deb 09 February 2000 vol 344 cc91-7WH 12.30 pm

Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)

The hopes and aspirations of thousands of my constituents depend on the outcome of this debate—such is the responsibility that has been placed on the shoulders of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).

I shall state what I am trying to achieve at the outset of my remarks, because there is a chance that, as I continue, the purpose may be lost. On behalf of my constituents, I want to obtain a plain answer as to why their Member of Parliament was not given the courtesy of being told by the Government, at any stage, that Leigh and Chalkwell would be removed from objective 2 status. Later on, I shall give more details of the circumstances of my inquiry. However, my constituents need to know why their MP was treated so discourteously.

I hope that the Minister will be able to explain who—precisely which body or individuals—decided to take Chalkwell and Leigh out of that bid. Only six wards were removed; hey presto, that included the only two that were in my constituency. Someone must have been responsible for that decision. Was it the Government, the council or Members of the European Parliament?

Finally, I hope that the Minister will tell me whether anything can be done to change that original decision. If that is impossible, can something be done to help my constituents in Leigh and Chalkwell?

This is my maiden speech in Westminster Hall—this dreadful poor relation to the Chamber. I thoroughly disapprove of this arena, but I have been trying to secure a debate on the Floor of the House for such a long time that I decided to accept its being held in Westminster Hall. However, I do not aspire to some consensual, European style of diluted government.

I want to share with the Minister the background to the bid. It was never my idea to get involved in any bid for objective 2 status. The local authority is controlled by 12 Liberal and 8 Labour councillors, against 19 Conservative councillors. Through its officers, the council asked me to support its bid for objective 2 status. I did so enthusiastically.

Given that the UK is such a huge contributor to the EU budget, although I voted "no" in the referendum on Europe in the 1970s, I was only too delighted to try to secure some of that money to help my constituents. My goodness, they need help.

In the larger world, there is an impression that Southend, West is a well-heeled community. When the Guinness family represented the area—as they did for 100 years—that may have been so, but it certainly is no longer true. I live in the heart of the community and I know only too well the challenges faced by my constituents. That is why I secured an Adjournment debate in the Chamber on 30 April last year. The then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), replied to the debate and we had a useful exchange of views.

After the debate, he suggested that I arranged for a group to meet him to set out in greater details the reasons why Southend was entitled to objective 2 status. That meeting took place on 28 June at the Department of Trade and Industry and was most agreeable. At the end, I looked the then Under-Secretary straight in the eye and said, "If we are successful, I will thank you; if we are unsuccessful, I will blame your boss."

There was some delay before an announcement was made. I have had a great deal of correspondence on the matter. The deadline kept being pushed back; I do not know whether that was because our officials could not agree with European officials. There was some difficulty in drawing up the map for objective 2 funding.

The subject is complicated and technical. I have yet to meet anyone who has a real grasp of all the details—we are only human beings. However, I deduce from the map that there was much double-speak before it was finalised—I shall explain that in due course. After much correspondence, we heard the wonderful announcement that Southend was to be promoted. I have the document in front of me; it was published in October 1999. It gives the names of the successful areas, with the joyous news that Southend was to be proposed as qualifying for objective 2 status—two of the wards were in my constituency, and we were delighted that Leigh and Chalkwell were to qualify for that status.

I am sure that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs understands that the local community worked extremely hard to draw up various proposals as to how to spend £15 million over 10 years. I pay tribute to Daryl Godbald, who leads the local fishermen, and to Steven Dell, who leads the local cocklers. They drew up a wish list of different proposals.

For instance, we have been hoping for some time that Leigh creek would be dredged—for various reasons. It would enable fishermen and yachtsmen to keep their craft afloat, with access to a lock. It would attract considerable income and employment to the town from permanent moorings and visiting UK and continental craft. It would be an ideal stopping-off point for continental yachtsmen visiting London.

Other large schemes were proposed; for example, cockle sheds at Leigh straight wharf, with improved road access. We planned to extend Bell wharf by 100 m—the list went on and on. The bottom line is that those proposals would have transformed our area.

Sometimes a false impression is given of Southend. Anyone who knows Southend knows that the fishing and cockling community is extremely important. Many families in the town have been involved with that industry for many years. The community gave magnificent support to this country at Dunkirk.

It is sad to see what has happened to that community over several years. I have had several discussions with the former Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry, who has done his best to help. The proposals to which I referred would have transformed the area; there can be no doubt of that.

There are arguments to be made about the facts and figures that were considered during the bidding process—the amounts may seem small to some people, but they are important to my constituents. However, to underpin our qualification under the fisheries strand, it should be borne in mind that 10 years ago there were seven boats in Leigh; at present, only three work full time. There were five boats in Chalkwell; currently only one works full time. By and large, the area is supported only by the cockling industry. For instance, the firm of Gilson's used to employ 23 people, but that number is now down to eight. I therefore found it extraordinary when I received a letter from a Minister telling me that we did not qualify under the fisheries strand because there had not been a reduction in jobs.

So seriously did I take the local authority's call to support the bid that I not only had meetings with Ministers but went to Brussels. I met two of our European Members of Parliament, Mr. Robert Sturdy and Mr. Geoffrey Van Orden, and the lady responsible for working up the east of England bid. We made sure that Europe was made well aware of the position.

I now come to what has incensed me most. On 26 November last year, I was at the switch-on of the Leigh lights with the chairman of Leigh town council. He asked me whether I had seen the local newspapers and I said that I had not. A huge group of people attended that day, but the chairman of the council told me that, if I read the local newspapers, I would see that Leigh and Chalkwell were no longer going to obtain objective 2 status. I could not believe it. Such is the style of politics these days that elected representatives count for nothing. The media are much more important and they get news three weeks before elected representatives. It is an absolute disgrace that a democratically elected Member of Parliament should find out from local newspapers what is going to happen to a project that would have meant a great deal for his constituents.

I can do no better than to quote the letter written to me by the clerk of the council: The Town Council was very seriously concerned to hear last Friday (26th November) that Leigh and Chalkwell Wards may be excluded from support through Objective Two, and replaced by two other Wards. This means that the two Wards originally planned for this support which are in the Town Council's area will not receive any support whatever. He adds: Leigh is the registered Port for the area, and the centre of the fishing and cockling industry … These two activities have been severely hit over recent years by a variety of problems and directives, which limit the times at which they can operate and also the levels of catches they can make … There are also problems in relation to Leigh Creek". The letter describes the consequences of that and continues: In addition to these industries, the whole of the foreshore needs attention … Attention to a part of this area only would lead to a marginalisation of the West of the town; unemployment in Chalkwell is currently 6.4 per cent., against an average for Southend of 5.8 per cent. and for Essex of 3.7 per cent. I blew a gasket when I learned the news. I was elected to the House on the same day as the Prime Minister. In the years I have been a Member of the House, I have not thought that party allegiances determined whether letters were replied to. Ever since we have had a Labour Prime Minister I have never received a single letter back when I have written to him personally. Someone in his office has presumably told his staff, "If you get anything from a Conservative Member of Parliament, bung it on to the Minister." That is a disgrace. Unless we are called in the House—and that is a lottery—how can we make our points? How on earth can we speak on behalf of our constituents? What is the point of being a Member of Parliament any more? Let us not bother with elections; let the media and the civil servants run the show.

Since I received the news on 26 November 1999, I have done everything to raise the matter in the House, so here I am in the new Westminster Hall to do just that. I shall not make personal remarks against the Minister, but it seems that I have not even got the right Minister to answer the debate. He and I have had no contact on this issue. All the letters are from different people. What does that say to my constituents? Does it say, "You've got a Conservative Member of Parliament and they are a lot of old rubbish. They are down to 164 and we have are not going to have an Opposition. It is only Labour Members and Labour areas that count"? If that is the game, I am not putting up with it. The sooner the general public become wise to it, the better. Such an attitude would be a disgrace. However, I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is not what happens.

The town council wrote directly to the Minister for Trade to raise several points. It wanted to know why the decision had been made, on what basis it had been taken and what he was going to do about it. I have seen the exchange of correspondence and the Minister for Trade has written most courteously to the town council. However, I do not agree with the contents of his reply. We seem to be at an impasse. We are told that when the UK case was put to Europe, it did not quite fit and that changes had to be made. Throughout the United Kingdom, six wards were taken off the list and it was my bad luck that two of them happened to be in my constituency. It would be interesting to know whether any other Member's constituency lost help as a result of the ward changes. I bet my bottom dollar that I am the only Member of Parliament in that position.

We were then told that we qualified under the urban strand. I have examined the criteria for that, and what has gone on is barking mad. I am delighted that the other constituency has qualified for the money; I do not want to take money from it. However, it is extraordinary that one of the wards included in the urban strand is regarded as the most affluent in the whole of Southend.

I have not even mentioned Westborough ward in my constituency. It is the most challenging area, with the highest crime rate in the whole of Essex. It faces huge pressures from asylum seekers; it has the largest primary school in Essex; and it has high unemployment. However, Westborough ward does not even get a look-in. I am expected to accept that we do not qualify under the fisheries strand, but that we qualify under the urban strand. However, when I consider one element that has been included in the urban strand, there is no way that at least one of the wards in Southend, West should not have been included. That is an absolute disgrace.

I pay tribute to the councillors who have continued to make the case for Leigh and Chalkwell. They are Councillor Mike Dolby, the chairman of Leigh-on-Sea town council, Councillor John Lamb, a Leigh councillor, and Mr. Richard Brown, Mr. Charles Latham and Mrs. Leslie Salter, who are all in the Chalkwell ward and continue to raise this matter with me. However, it is desperately disappointing that, despite the fact that we have tried diligently to engage the Government in dialogue, we have not got anywhere. I know that officials talk to each other, so how was it that UK and European officials did not talk on the telephone or exchange letters to agree things in the first place? It is extraordinary that they did not.

Why were we told that we would have objective 2 status when I read in the local newspapers that we could not? The whole thing stinks. It is an absolute disgrace that my constituents have lost out.

I am delighted that the Government have secured objective 2 status for Southend and supported the local authority's bid for that status. I pay tribute to the Southend council officials who spent about two years drawing up those proposals. However, it is a shabby outcome for my constituents. Southend, West is a tiny constituency of seven wards, and if two of them had benefited from the decision, that would have been marvellous.

I know that when the Minister responds he can do only as he has been advised, and he will say that Southend is getting the money, so my constituency will benefit. I invite anyone to come to Southend. They will find that people in Leigh and Chalkwell do not feel an affinity with people in other parts of the town. They seem to live in individual communities, and the fishing community will not feel any benefit from what is going on in another part of town.

I represent a tight-knit community who were overjoyed that they were to get help via objective 2 status. I know that the Minister will not have time to respond in detail to the points that I have made, but will he and his officials reflect carefully on my remarks? The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, was able, in the Christmas Adjournment debate, to give me some hope, although I think that the facts were not as he had understood them. If the Under-Secretary is unable to say anything positive today, I hope that he will at least reflect on the matter, whether to see there is any way in which he could possibly help us in future. I ask only for fair treatment for Southend, West, and we have not received it so far.

12.52 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells)

I thank the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for raising this important issue. There is a great misconception throughout the islands that if a town is situated in the south-east of England, it must be wealthy. I know that Southend is not wealthy and that it shares many of the problems of coastal towns, especially those in Kent.

To put forward a forceful case, the hon. Gentleman should have been much better informed than he was about the ways in which structural fund decisions are made. I shall not try to defend those methods. An MP should be consulted about any changes that are to be made. During the negotiations for reallocations, some Members made representations and were part of the process, but I know that it is very easy to miss those stages, and the hon. Gentleman has told us how he fell into that trap. There is nothing worse than finding out about an important decision affecting one's constituency by reading it in the press.

I want to concentrate on the basis of the change. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there are several criteria, or strands, that determine whether a particular part of a city or region can qualify for structural funding under the objective 2 changes. Those strands are industrial, urban, rural and fisheries. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the information on what each of those four criteria comprises, I will gladly send it to him.

When the wards were first considered, they were included in the fisheries strand because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there have been big changes to the pattern of the supply of sea products along the Thames estuary and elsewhere. The fisheries strand areas have been identified as ports showing a decline in fisheries jobs between 1992 and 1997, or between 1995 and 1997, whichever is available. However, the Commission also required a minimum programming area of 50,000 population for urban and fisheries areas and 100,000 population for industrial and rural areas, so we have had to build up programming areas.

If the hon. Gentleman will set aside for a moment the problems that he has had in communicating with Ministers—he made a fair point when he said that we have never before communicated about this subject—I will try to explain the criteria by which structural funding decisions are made. The programming area criteria meant that we had to include some non-qualifying wards and exclude some isolated qualifying wards, which is an unavoidable consequence of the rules.

While the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I asked my officials about the loss of jobs in his area. EU regulation 1260/1999, which governs the structural fund, says in article 4, paragraph 8: The areas dependent on fisheries … shall mean coastal areas in which the number of jobs in the fisheries industry as a percentage of total employment is significant and which are facing structural socio-economic problems relating to the restructuring of the fisheries sector which result in a significant reduction in the number of jobs in that sector. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that the number of boats involved is very small. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who is also present, has witnessed a decline in his constituency in the numbers of people who earning their living, not necessarily from deep sea fishing, but from working the waters of the Severn estuary. There is no question but that there have been great changes in fishing. The European Commission did not accept that the loss of fisheries jobs between 1992 and 1997 or between 1995 and 1997 in the wards mentioned by the hon. Member for Southend, West was sufficiently significant, and that is indisputable.

As the hon. Gentleman said, there was then an effort to include those two isolated wards in the urban strand, and link them with the most problematic wards with the greatest unemployment and social deprivation. The Commission would not accept the inclusion of those "islands", even though they are very deprived. As the hon. Gentleman and others know, there are many such cases throughout the country; for example, a troubled council estate may lie on the edge of a town that has a population of fewer than 50,000 but has severe problems.

It must be exceptionally irksome for the hon. Gentleman to see his constituency deprived of a couple of wards and that money shifted to other wards not far away. I imagine that that would generate a great deal of anger and debate. For the first time, Southend will benefit from objective 2 funding. It is the only place in Essex that will receive that extra money. I trust that, despite his disappointment about his own wards, the hon. Gentleman will devote his remarkable energy and forthrightness to ensuring that the jobs that are created in Southend, East will benefit his own constituents in the deprived wards of Southend, West.

I can offer no other explanation. It is always problematic when someone else sets criteria about how money can be distributed. The hon. Gentleman has clearly expressed his disappointment with that process. If we are to ensure that the fine-tuning of objective status allocations is not to happen in future, I hope that the Government and the European Union and the Commission will look carefully—

Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair)

Order.