| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): That was not a statement--it was an apology. This is the Secretary of State's apology for years of neglect by the Government of Britain's town and city centres. Every hon. Member will know as they walk down any high street that the Government's legacy on town centre policy is obvious to anybody--the empty shops, the lack of amenities and the fear of crime.
The Secretary of State has sole responsibility for the Government's abdication of their role of providing leadership to the private and public sectors in retail and other development. Will he explain to the House why it has taken him so long to publish the proposals? Does he realise that that delay has caused enormous uncertainty? Does he accept that the only reason why retail development looks elsewhere is the Government's failure to make proposals to revitalise town and city centres?
In what way is the Secretary of State proposing to target regeneration funds in support of the renaissance of our town centres? Will he accept responsibility for the appalling time scale in dealing with planning issues? Will he explain to the House why it is he who takes so long to deal with call-ins on retail development, knowing full well that delay causes additional economic burdens and is an unnecessary interference in the diversity of local policy?
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Government, through legislation, have directly hampered the ability of local councils to support their local town centres? What does he propose to do with the hundreds of extant planning permissions for developments outside town and city centres?
Labour Members are serious about protecting Britain's town and city centres. They are part of our heritage and a vibrant part of our economy. They are our future. Over the years, we in the Labour party have warned time and again that the pursuit of the Government's planning policies would destroy town centres. They have ignored our concern and the pleas of the private and public sectors.
British retailing is among the most sophisticated and technologically advanced in the world. We have witnessed a retail revolution that has obviously passed this Government by. Over the years, there has been tremendous innovation in retailing, which the private sector has ably demonstrated in its evidence to the Labour party's review of planning policy. Never mind about Istanbul; it is Labour councils that have led the way in city centre management. They are initiating impressive schemes, working in partnership with the private sector, and bringing people back into our town centres so that they are vibrant and exciting places in which to live and work and for our children to play in. They are challenging the fortress approach that has been imposed on them over the past 17 years.
Labour in Coventry has innovative car parking schemes, York has its city centre housing policies, Leeds has proposals for a 24-hour city and there is Birmingham's dynamic use of culture and the arts. There is no need for citizens to retreat to the suburbs after dark.
Every town and city centre in Britain is different, but they all have one thing in common. It was interesting to hear what the Secretary of State said about the heart of Britain being our town and city centres. They have been left with a hole in their heart because of the Government's policies. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker
of middle England, so beloved by the Secretary of State, are being driven away by the twin burdens of economic recession and an absence of Government strategy, including a totally non-existent transport policy. Up and down the country, family businesses with a history spanning generations have closed.
Every town and city centre that has suffered over the past 17 years should erect a suitable monument to the Secretary of State to which the local pigeons have access. It should bear the legend, "He did too little, too late, and when he did something, it was not enough." The Labour party believes in making the high street work, not in letting the high street down, which is what the Government have done.
Mr. Gummer:
No one would know from that that almost every one of those cities has a Labour council that has driven out of the centre time and again every shop that tried to make money. Let us talk about Newcastle, where John Lewis used to pay three times as much in rates per square foot as it did in Westminster, because Newcastle city council used to tax people out of the city. Leicester, from which the hon. Gentleman comes, has a notorious city council, pushing businesses out of the city centre into the surrounding county. Fosse park in Blaby district has prospered directly because of the city's appalling attitude to business.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Leeds. That city did not start to think about partnership until the Government forced it to do so because of the Leeds urban development corporation. We had to take over areas of our great cities to rejuvenate them, because of the appalling history of Labour councils that did not care about business, never cared about the city and drove people out into huge soulless estates.
When I appeared before a Select Committee in the other place, one of the questioners was an ex-Labour councillor who was still defending the destruction of the centre of Liverpool by building outside it towns without amenities, without decent public transport and without any of the things that make a town work.
The hon. Gentleman has no right to come to the House and talk about those matters in the way that he did, because we know from reports in The Independent that he is busy telling people that, if there were ever a Labour Government, they would be much softer on out-of-town developers. There has been no direct denial of that. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is precisely why the Opposition had a nice cosy little meeting with various representatives of business whom they thought they could cajole on to their side.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was an attempt to cover up the fact that, from Newcastle in the north right the way down to the great cities of the midlands and the south, where Labour has been in charge, city centres have increasingly died. The new programme that we have now put into operation and the partnership in which we have led the way have driven even the city of Sheffield--with two of its worst leaders now sitting in the House--to join the partnership. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself and he should support our proposals.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that for anyone who has the remotest remembrance of Labour party policies when it
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with encouraging high street shopping is that it demands unpopular decisions, perhaps relating to new bus routes going through streets unaccustomed to such traffic, or the provision of more car parking? If there is to be success in this area and if retail outlets are to return to our high streets, it is absolutely essential that there is the utmost co-operation between local authorities, local traders and local residents.
Mr. Gummer:
My hon. Friend is right. He may have noted that in my statement I made no reference to anything that could not be supported by the Opposition if they had chosen to take a bipartisan approach--such as I have done--rather than the extremist view adopted by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) as a fig leaf to cover up a very sad history. The truth is that we need to ensure that the city centres live--and that costs. We also need to take unpopular decisions, and that is what we have done. I note that the Labour party has even criticised me for calling in some of the developments and thinking about them carefully before making a decision.
Mr. Vaz:
The right hon. Gentleman takes too long.
Mr. Gummer:
The hon. Gentleman says that I take too long--that is because he is used to making decisions and speeches without thought.
Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth):
Does the Secretary of State accept that much in the document should be welcomed by all hon. Members, and that it gives some real substance to the sentiments that he has expressed for some years? The tragedy is that the document should have been published 17 years ago, when some of the Secretary of State's less environmentally conscious predecessors allowed the stable door to be opened, to the great detriment of traders across the country. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although the document will help in the long term to alter the planning policies that have so changed our towns over the past few years, it is not good enough to think merely of the long term, given the number of developments already in the pipeline for which planning permission has already been granted?
Does the Secretary of State agree that a moratorium should be introduced until developers can demonstrate firmly and convincingly that their projects will not harm the vitality and viability of existing town centres? Does he accept that there are still some unenlightened local authorities that seem to believe that out-of-town developments are beneficial? Does he accept that once such authorities give approval to a development, there is little that retailers can do to prevent it, whatever harm they believe it may do? Does he agree that there should be a simple appeals system, so that the guidelines he now supports can be put into practice by traders?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |