House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Jun 1996 (pt 11)

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Why does the Secretary of State propose to clog up the centres of towns with car parks and cars, rather than pursuing a policy of regular, cheap, if not free, public transport--the very policy that the Government destroyed in South Yorkshire?

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever gone shopping with small children and large numbers of bags. He ought to live in the real world of real people. If we want people, especially women, to shop in city centres, we must provide safe, clear places nearby where they can park their cars, so that they can do their shopping with their children and then get back into their cars and drive. If the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he has not gone shopping himself. I wonder who in his house does the shopping.

Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, West): The Secretary of State will be aware that the Merry Hill centre is located in my constituency. I appreciate that he cannot comment on the current planning inquiry, but can he tell the House whether, and if so how, the revised guidance will affect consideration of proposals to extend existing out-of-town developments?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge that I cannot refer to the particular case, but in general the position is as follows. I have already said that, if there are to be extensions of out-of-town shopping for one reason or another, it is best if that happens where there is already such a development, and that it should be associated with good public transport and the like. I have made it clear that there is no question of a moratorium on out-of-town shopping, as has taken place in France. We have much to learn from the rest of the continent. If only we had followed more closely some of the good ideas from the rest of Europe, instead of some of the American attitudes, we would have done better.

We accept that there will be some approvals, and I shall examine each case as carefully as I can. But that sometimes takes rather longer than the hon. Member for Leicester, East, with his "quick, tick, tick, tick and out" approach, would want. We want to get the right answer, not simply a quick answer.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): I find it hard to recognise the picture that the Secretary of State paints of the responsibility for some of the disasters that have been inflicted on us in the past. In the north-east, our town centres have been seriously damaged by the dreaded Metro centre which, as the Secretary of State knows, was built by Sir John Hall, who is not a Labour voter. May I ask about another point that has been referred to but not

20 Jun 1996 : Column 1019

answered? How many planning applications have been granted for further out-of-town centres? Can anything be done about them, or is it too late?

Mr. Gummer: The Metro centre was so successful because Newcastle city council pushed up the rates in the centre of Newcastle until nobody could make money there. That was one of the good examples of how Labour local government works, and how a Labour Government would work, if there were one. Labour taxes people until they cannot make money, and then complains because somebody else tries to allow them to make money "offshore"--in this case, just over the boundary in the Metro centre. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know the history of the area that he has represented for some time. As for the second part of his question, I shall give him an up-to-date figure. What I said to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, applies to the hon. Gentleman's question, too.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Has not this policy U-turn come years too late? It is not only the inner cities that have suffered, but towns such as Tewkesbury, and Barnoldswick in my constituency. Barnoldswick--a town of some 10,000 people--has lost its jobcentre and its gas and electricity showrooms, and the centre of that small town is a wasteland. Business rates have gone sky-high and traders do not know where to turn. Has not the Secretary of State been criminally negligent in the way in which he has allowed our small towns to deteriorate?

Mr. Gummer: First, the rates in the north of England have been significantly and proportionately reduced following the introduction of the uniform business rate. At the time of its introduction, some £800 million moved from the south to the north as a result of Conservative changes after the high rates placed on businesses by Labour local authorities. Such authorities used to take money from businesses--because those businesses did not have enough votes to vote the council down--and spend it on silly schemes that helped no one and were paid for by local people. The hon. Gentleman wants to know why that has happened in the north of England--it is because of Labour councils and Labour rating.

As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on town centres, planning permission arrangements will not make people open shops if they will not be profitable. Town centres will be given as big a chance as possible to compete, but the public want proper competition and decent prices. If they are provided in city centres, the people will go there. If they are not--Labour councils have stopped them in many cities--people will go elsewhere.

Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley) rose--

20 Jun 1996 : Column 1020

Madam Speaker: Mr. Booth, it is my impression that you came in after the statement had started. Is that correct?

Mr. Booth: That is correct, Madam Speaker, and I apologise. As I have a special interest, I was watching my monitor and heard every word from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). Had I come away, I would not have done so.

Madam Speaker: That is a story which I have heard many times before. The entire House knows my attitude--Members must be in the Chamber to hear the statement if they wish to question the Minister.

BILLS PRESENTED

4.37 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I welcome this opportunity to report to the House on matters concerning the forthcoming Florence summit and other matters affecting the European Union. However, I must begin with an apology to the House. As I must accompany the Prime Minister to Florence later this evening, I will have to leave the Chamber just after 6 pm. I hope that the House will understand. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) hopes to reply to the debate and to deal with the matters raised in it.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on his appointment to the Privy Council, which I believe to be a well-deserved recognition.

One of the advantages of this debate is that we can discuss the forthcoming Florence summit. I want to use part of my remarks to comment on the beef crisis and how the Government see the likely developments during the next few days. Before I do so, I shall refer to some of the other important matters likely to be discussed during the weekend. Clearly there are important issues and we hope that, if the beef problem can be resolved, the EU will be able to address more long-term problems that command attention. I shall highlight three issues briefly.

First, there is to be a report on the intergovernmental conference to the Heads of Government. The conference has now been proceeding for two or three months. As one would expect, the deliberations have been mainly general. It is unlikely that the Heads of Government will be expected to reach even provisional conclusions. We would certainly oppose that. It would clearly be premature, and I do not think that anyone else will take a different view.

However, the Heads of Government might wish to indicate priorities for the conference to look at in the next few months. When Foreign Ministers met in Rome earlier this week, we said that flexibility, defence, employment and third pillar issues might well be deserving of some form of priority.

Employment is another major issue that the conference is likely to consider. We are all conscious that unemployment in Europe is far too high. It is likely that there will be a lively debate based on a number of papers

20 Jun 1996 : Column 1022

that have been prepared. Certain proposals from President Chirac, and Jacques Santer's own ideas, will determine the nature of the discussion. The United Kingdom will want to point to our experience as the country of western Europe that has relatively low and falling unemployment. We have a much better record in that respect than any other major European economy at the present time.

Next Section

Index

Home Page

BILLS PRESENTED

Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale)

Social Security (Overpayments)

Data Protection and Privacy

4.37 pm