| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Jun 2007 : Column 153WH—continued
I do not want to stir things up too much, but I still regard Southend as the finest seaside resort in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it has some real challenges, among which is the fact that 20,000 people were left off
the census. I had meetings with the census organisation and the Minister, and was given tea and sympathy, but has anything changed? Absolutely not. It will not change until the next census when some of my constituents, and even I, may have passed on to another place. Who knows? The impact of losing funding for 20,000 people has devastated the community.
It was wonderful that the Chancellor could give everyone free bus passes. Sadly, in Southend that is of no use because we do not have too many buses. As a result of unitary authority status we had cuts of £7 million one year and £5 million the next.
Mr. Sanders: A very peculiar issue about bus travel that seems to worry several seaside resort local authorities is that when the concession is extended nationwide, areas with an influx of visitors will result in a charge for the council tax payer, because of paying for the concessionary fare, unless government properly compensates them. There is no indication that that will happen.
Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman has made a wonderful point. We were not given anything, and an even greater burden has been placed on us.
We have lost our buses. We had the longest pier in the world, which burnt down for the third time, and on which huge amounts of money will have to be spent, through nobody’s fault. Our beautiful cliffs started to slide into the sea, which will cost a huge amount to repair. The estuary at Leigh-on-Sea needs dredging, because it is becoming silted up and the cocklers can no longer harvest as efficiently as they used to. There are a huge number of problems. How right the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was to bring up matters concerning children. In my constituency such issues have been a particular challenge for the local authority. Southend—and Southend, West in particular—has not only the problems of all other coastal resorts, but its own special problems, which we could do without.
We celebrate the fact that we have the most concentrated gathering of senior citizens in the country, including the most centenarians. I shall not fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) over numbers of senior citizens, but we shall be in the “Guinness Book of Records” for bringing together the most centenarians in the country. That itself presents huge challenges.
The Government’s response tells us that they have been helping all Britain’s towns and cities to address the issues that they face, through various programmes and initiatives, over the past 10 years, which is splendid. The initiatives have been developed by organisations such as the European Union, development agencies and urban regeneration companies. As to the European Union, I make regular visits, when I meet the appropriate commissioner and try to get money in relation to green initiatives or disability, for example. Whatever the criteria, we will meet them, but we do not really get much money from the European Union in Southend. I ask the House to consider how on earth the European Union will know the detail of the challenges faced by a constituency such as mine.
I understand the good intentions behind the establishment of organisations such as the regional development agencies, but I, and many of my
constituents, are fed up with unelected, unaccountable quangos trying to dictate to towns what is best for them. In the 24 years that I have been a Member of this House, Parliament has gradually lost a great many powers, and the balance has now finally tipped so that the mother of all Parliaments is in truth no longer running the country. Quangos—unelected bodies—are. The point about them is this: when I represented a new town the money was there, but all those quangos are unable to deliver. Privately their representatives come to see me, asking, “David, can you raise this issue in the House of Commons, and get us taken a bit more seriously and given more money?”
I know, Mrs. Anderson, that I am probably talking to myself. It will not do much good in the long run, but I am heartened by the prospect of a change of Government, without a general election. I particularly welcome the proposals in the Sustainable Communities Bill, which is sponsored by some of my hon. Friends and which will make the action of the relevant organisations more transparent, and, it is to be hoped, more responsive to the needs of specific communities. [Interruption.] I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West wanted to intervene, but he was obviously just terribly interested—or hoping that I was about to finish; I am not going to quite yet.
A common characteristic of coastal towns on which the Select Committee reported was the nature of the coastal economy. Southend became a popular seaside resort during the Victorian era, owing to its proximity to London, and easy access. It has many similarities to Brighton, but we are not in Brighton’s fortunate position. We face many challenges that are different from those faced by Brighton, which of course now has city status. You, Mrs. Anderson, were once the Tourism Minister, and a splendid one. I recall your responding to a debate that I secured in this Chamber some years ago. I thank you for what you were able to do for my constituency and the difference that you made.
To return to the report, it recommended that the Government
“conducts an immediate study on coastal tourism, including evaluating the levels and spend of domestic and inbound visitors to the coast in comparison to non coastal areas.”
The Government, however, have stated in response that their investment of £50 million a year in VisitBritain has already taken that task in hand. However, VisitBritain has been getting £50 million every year. Without pretending to be a mathematician, I do not think that it is worth as much as it was 10 years ago.
Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con): As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful case. Is he aware that rumours are circulating in coastal towns, such as Skegness, which I represent, that the funding to VisitBritain will be cut by the relevant Department?
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend has his ear closer to the ground than I do. However, I think that the Chamber has heard him. The battle must now be joined.
Many coastal towns with aspirations, such as Southend, cannot afford to promote themselves through the
VisitBritain scheme or to appear in its brochure, in which the towns that pay the most money get the best slot and pictures. Now that we have a global market, I hardly need to illustrate the enterprise of various countries, such as Qatar, which has realised that its oil resources will not last for ever and recently has invested £40 billion in tourism. I think that despite having so much to offer, Britain cannot be a lead competitor in the tourism market without increased funding. Indeed, if we are going to talk about wasting money, we must highlight the logo for the Olympic games. I am one of the lead enthusiasts for the games, but I do not think that the logo is worth while.
The report considered diversification, with which I agree entirely, and touched on employment opportunities in Southend. This was another blow to Southend: we were called to a meeting with colleagues at the Treasury and found out that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be sized down. Where will cuts be made? In Southend!
Mr. Amess: Sorry, I mean downsized.
We are fighting those changes, but I do not know whether we will get anywhere. I agree also with the points made by the Select Committee about the demography of coastal towns.
I end with the point about coastal management and, specifically, the Select Committee’s recommendation. The report pointed out that
“some communities face significant and increasing risks from coastal erosion and flooding”.
I do not want to over-egg the situation in Southend, but many years ago there was a very serious flood on Canvey island, which is very near to us, and many people lost their lives. I agree with the Committee’s conclusion that investment in sea defences is linked with the regeneration of costal areas. However, again, the obstacle is the lack of Government funding for sea defences. I understand that the Environment Agency no longer provides funding for sea defences because it is not allocated sufficient funds by central Government.
That brings me to the point that I made at the start of my speech regarding the commonality of coastal towns. Many coastal towns suffer from the same problems, but I think that Southend’s problems are worse than those of others—for instance, the local authority must bear the huge cost of tackling coastal erosion, if it is going to deal with it. On top of that, coastal towns suffer from the outward migration of the young, which may mean that the particular problems of the coastal economy are more serious even than any of us realise.
The Government must develop a national strategy to help with the serious problems that coastal towns face, the cumulative effects of which put many such towns in a very serious situation. The huge numbers of elderly people in coastal towns do not have the time to wait for action some time in the future.
3.35 pm
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab):
Like other Members who have spoken today, I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South
(Mr. Marsden) who has over the years lobbied Ministers along with other Labour MPs representing coastal towns and seaside resorts.
I shall try to start with the positives. Cleethorpes itself is a small part of my constituency, but the name conjures up an image of saucy seaside postcards and end-of-the-pier shows. Blackpool, Southend and other coastal towns and resorts also have that image, which is still stuck in many people’s minds. That perception is detrimental to the development of our economies. Nevertheless, coastal towns have a lot going for them, and I do not think that we talk them up enough. Cleethorpes has about four and a half miles of sandy beach, although unlike Southend, we probably have the stumpiest, shortest pier on the east coast. It used to be considerably longer, but for some reason, after the second world war, the War Office decided to blow up most of it—I think that the office thought that that was a matter of national security. So we were left with the pavilion, but no pier attached to it. The timbers were then sent to Leicester, I think, to rebuild its bomb-damaged football ground. At least we managed to help out there.
On any sunny Sunday bank holiday, Cleethorpes remains the playground of South Yorkshire. People from Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster all head to Cleethorpes, so it remains vital to day trippers. People still spend holidays there. We have the wonderful, listed Humberstone Fitties chalet park, which is enormously popular, as well as some very large caravan sites. However, the core of the tourism economy is now day trippers from South Yorkshire.
As others have said, there is a lot of entrepreneurship in coastal town resorts, and there have been new developments on our seafront—restaurants, coffee bars and other such facilities. We even have our own boutique hotel. The coastal light railway has been expanding; in the 10 years in which I have represented the area, the railway has expanded year on year—it is probably the only railway in Britain about which that could be said during that time—run on time and been very cheap. The track is being extended into the theme park in Cleethorpes. A new cinema was opened recently as well. Until a few years ago, there was no cinema. Given British weather, it is absolutely outrageous that the resort had nowhere inside where visitors could go if it rained. Good things are happening, but they are happening in spite of the Government. We are seeing this development only because of action taken by some very determined, single-minded visionary people in the area.
Cleethorpes has another wonderful attraction: the meridian line runs straight through the resort. Cleethorpes is 9,919 miles from the south pole and 143 miles from London, but frankly London might as well be 9,000 miles away given the understanding of some Departments of what is going on in seaside resorts. The last calculations that I looked at estimated that about 2,000 people work in the tourism economy in Cleethorpes. However, as the Select Committee and others have mentioned, there are serious problems. There is physical and social isolation in the area—it is true to say that we are at the end of the line. The railway stops there. The A180 stops at the outskirts of Grimsby, and from there to Cleethorpes there is one huge traffic jam as people try to get into the resort. The A46, which comes up from Nottinghamshire, is a dual
carriageway to Lincoln and from there it is an ordinary road. That creates further problems. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) will understand those problems; some of those who go to Boston and Skegness travel the same route. Those transport problems are quite serious.
On the question of the skewed demographics, as in other coastal areas, young people want to move out—particularly talented young people. They do not see a future for themselves there, so if they are bright, they move. There is therefore a much lower than average number of 18 to 44-year-olds. There is also a larger number of elderly people in the constituency, and as other hon. Members have mentioned, many of them do not have family and social networks there, whether because they moved to the area to retire as it is by the seaside or because younger members of the family, seeing no future in the area, have moved out. We therefore need to consider loneliness and social isolation as well, which naturally impact on the Department for Work and Pensions.
Apart from the outward migration of young people, most residents who remain in the area are manual workers. The number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers is much higher than the national average. In the 2001 census, Cleethorpes came fifth in the UK for people in lower supervisory jobs and 37th for semi-routine jobs—routine is the term now used for unskilled jobs. As for professional, managerial and technical jobs, the numbers were negligible. That skewed demographic profile impacts across the board in an area, including politically. In the part of Lincolnshire to which I am referring, there has never been Government investment in a Government agency to bring white-collar jobs to the area. I would love to see that; other areas such as Blackpool have it.
Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech and echoing many of the points that have been made already. Does she agree—this point was touched on by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who has left his place—that one of the problems when it comes to acquiring grants for seaside and coastal towns is that often the area that needs the sustained investment and support has been regarded not only by the Government but by the EU and others as too small to fit into the category, and that a pepper-pot approach, which is desperately needed by seaside and coastal towns, does not always get through?
Shona McIsaac: I certainly agree. I intended to touch on some of the problems in that regard later in my speech.
One point about employment in seaside and coastal towns that has not been made is that much of the work is part-time. Cleethorpes is third in the UK for the proportion of people in part-time work. People will be getting the sense that it is low-skilled work, but it is also part-time work, with quite low wages as well. Interestingly, Great Grimsby—Grimsby and Cleethorpes form the North East Lincolnshire unitary authority area—comes in seventh for part-time work. That has a big impact on our area. In fact, I do not think that any other seaside or coastal town has a higher percentage of residents in part-time work: in Cleethorpes, 23 per cent. of the
working population works part-time. If action could be taken on that, the area would benefit.
Also owing to the skewed demographics, the burden placed on social services is extraordinary. Others delivering services in the area have difficulties because of the skewed demographics, but also because of visitors coming into the area. The police argue that they are funded based on population but not on the number of people coming into the area, which increases the burden on policing in terms of antisocial behaviour and law and order. I would love the formula for police or local government funding somehow to reflect the fact that seaside and coastal areas often have a huge influx of people. They do not necessarily stay overnight, but there are certainly day-trippers. I would like that to be examined.
Points have been made about deprivation and poverty. Yes, I have created a lovely picture of the seafront, the promenade and the 4.5 miles of sandy beach. I love the fact that within a few minutes’ walk of my front door is that wonderful beach, but as we go further back from the prom, behind the seafront, the poverty grows, and the areas with the most poverty are those closest to the seafront. The commuter villages and suburbs and the new-build estates do not have that poverty.
Of the nine electoral wards in my constituency, three use Cleethorpes in their postal address, and two of those three wards—Sidney Sussex and Croft Baker—are among the most deprived in Britain, but trying to get any grants is very difficult, because we are talking about only two of nine wards in the constituency. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South. The Lincolnshire wolds, on the fringes of my constituency, are not deprived, which has an impact. Overall, the area is quite average. Those pockets of deprivation are hidden by relative affluence in the Lincolnshire wolds and in the suburbs, so whatever we do to tackle this problem, we must recognise the hidden deprivation, which is centred on the quite transient population that other hon. Members have mentioned.
Unlike in many other coastal towns, house prices in Cleethorpes are relatively low. That is the case compared with the regional average and the national average. However, that has led to particular problems, which have increased transience and some of the deprivation. No disrespect to the people involved, but there is a lot of buy-to-let, which in our area does not involve people with one or two properties. Because house prices have been relatively cheap, people are buying a lot of them and they are renting them out, putting many people into them. The condition of many of those properties is very poor. People on a low income are moving into Cleethorpes because the money goes further there, but that is increasing deprivation and social isolation. People move into the area from somewhere such as Leeds, Sheffield or Rotherham, thinking, “Well, things will be much nicer by the seaside. The rents are low.” That is creating problems.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |