Several
hon. Members
rose—
The
Chairman: Order. I must appeal for brevity. More than 10
hon. Members wish to catch my eye, and there are 32 minutes left. Hon.
Members can do the maths for
themselves. 12.28
pm Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr.
Key. It
was the view of the Select Committee that we should, as our first
investigation, look at the economy of the south-west. We felt that it
would be helpful to consider also the economic background to our region
to enable us to understand the challenges that stem from the
present economic crisis. It is important to remember where we started
from as a region and to acknowledge the underlying strengths of our
regional economy, and also to look at the areas where we have been hit
hardest. The
south-west has historically been one of the strongest areas of growth
in the nation, with lower than average unemployment and rapidly
increasing rates of productivity. There is a lot to be proud of across
the region, and the evidence that the Committee heard supported that.
Between 2001 and 2006, the economy in the south-west grew at a rate of
5.7 per cent. per annum, which is well above the national average. Job
growth has also been above average, with an increase of 19 per cent.
between 1993 and 2007 against a national increase of 15 per cent.
Clearly, that position has changed, and I will come on to that later in
my speech.
There is a
perception that the region can be broadly split into two sub-regions in
economic terms—a sub-debate, if I can reuse the term that we
have already had today. Historically, we have a prosperous north,
including Swindon, which is 50 per cent. more productive than the UK
average—or it was until the recent recession—and a
southern half, which includes Cornwall and the Isles
of Scilly, in which the economic development has been aided through
European Union objective 1 funding. The south-west is one of the
regions in which benefits of European Union membership can be most
clearly seen. Central
Government support has been focused through the South West Regional
Development Agency, which has, according to a report issued this March
by the then Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,
created and safeguarded 25,000 jobs and assisted 22,500 businesses, as
well as supporting entrepreneurial growth of small businesses, which is
something that the region has not been particularly good at.
However, all
of us here are only too aware, and we are reminded of this at our
constituency surgeries, that the economy is not as healthy as
it once was, and the progress that I have just described is under
threat. Unemployment in the south-west has increased and, while still
lower than in some regions, what we have seen—and what the
Select Committee report highlighted—is the well-above average
percentage increases in the numbers of unemployed. Regionally, we have
seen an increase of 139 per cent. of those on jobseeker’s
allowance, compared with 89 per cent. nationally. Swindon has the
dubious record of a 227 per cent. increase in people going through
Jobcentre Plus. The problems posed by the downturn have been
highlighted by a number of support networks in their evidence to the
Committee. The citizens advice bureau indicated that the average number
of inquiries relating to redundancy were up by 118 per cent.
The whole
issue of the capacity of those support networks was raised by the hon.
Member for Northavon. We also listened to evidence from trade unions,
which confirmed concerns about job losses but highlighted the benefits
of the ongoing training programme, working with employers and the
support given by the Government, particularly through Train to Gain.
The Committee felt that there were concerns, however, that the Train to
Gain programme needed to be continually funded in order to retain its
capacity.
During the
course of our inquiry we also heard from leaders of local authorities,
representatives from the SWRDA, the TUC, the CBI and the Federation of
Small Businesses on the impact of the economic crisis in the
south-west. Those sessions were tremendously useful to help build up an
overview of the region and to hear, in a way that is not always
possible when looking at each constituency individually, just how the
downturn was affecting the wider south-west. I would urge Opposition
Members to make representations to their party leaders so that they can
take part in the meetings and so that their constituents and region are
better represented. I would like to put on record my thanks to my
Labour party colleagues who contributed objectively, in a wholly
unbiased way, towards the production of the report. I commend them for
their hard work. I would also like to express concern that the hon.
Member for North Wiltshire and others seem to know nothing about this,
when in fact I have written to every single MP in the south-west, as
Chair of the Select Committee, inviting them to
participate—perhaps not in a party political way, but on behalf
of constituents—and contribute to the Committee’s
evidence sessions.
Mr.
Gray: I entirely apologise for not having read the report.
I will make sure that I read it with great care immediately after this
meeting. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the trouble with her
Select Committee is that because her Whips Office insisted that each
regional Select Committee should have a majority of Labour Members on
it, the Conservative party would have to have Members from outside the
south-west sitting on the SWRSC? This is a regional Select Committee.
Surely it is right that a regional Select Committee should be
represented by MPs in the region and not MPs outside
it.
Alison
Seabeck: The role of the Select Committee, as the hon.
Gentleman with his long experience in Parliament will know, is to
scrutinise in a wholly unbiased way. That is exactly what my colleagues
did and it is a great pity that other parties are not choosing to carry
out that scrutiny role. However, we digress. I will return to the issue
of the economy.
When taking
evidence in June, I was quite surprised to hear from witnesses who
spoke with great conviction that the downturn in the south-west had
bottomed-out, and that for some businesses it was starting to improve
again. We heard, as I said, from representatives of the CBI and the
Federation of Small Businesses who were cautiously optimistic about the
coming months and thought that the worst seemed to be behind them. I am
cautious about that too. I would certainly like to see a few more
months in which the signs continue in a positive vein before suggesting
that the worst is behind us. It was quite clear that certain sectors
within the region had been particularly badly hit: manufacturing,
construction, retail and finance. However, there was also
evidence—it cuts across a little bit of what we have already
heard—that at the time of the report agriculture and tourism
were bucking the trend, although the worse than forecast weather will
have had a knock-on effect on both of them. The tourism industry is
also not uniform, as the hon. Member for Cotswold pointed out. Elements
of the hospitality industry are really struggling—conference
venues, for example. Business tourism was the area
highlighted. Mr.
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): Will the
hon. Lady give
way?
Alison
Seabeck: Yes, but we are very short of
time.
Mr.
Cox: Did the hon. Lady, in the course of conducting her
Select Committee scrutiny, receive any representations—given the
fact that we are in the midst of this appalling economic
crisis—on the wisdom or otherwise of a local government
reorganisation in Devon at a time when we should be concentrating on
much greater priorities? Does she agree with me that it is finally time
to give the quietus to the twitching corpse of the Devon unitary, and
the even greater absurdity of the Frankenstein of an Exeter unitary, so
that we can concentrate on those
priorities?
Alison
Seabeck: That subject would have been a distraction to my
Committee, as it is
now. If
indeed we are looking at a slow return to growth—we can only
hope that we are—we must start looking at the future and at how
the south-west economy can move past this crisis and build on its many
inherent strengths. I mentioned at the start of my speech about growing
the
prosperity of the region and ensuring that growth returns remain a
priority. We must do that with our eyes firmly set on the long
term. We
must address the problems with connectivity— already
touched on today—ensuring that businesses in the south-west are
well connected to London, the rest of the UK and the rest of the world,
both via conventional transport—road, rail, air and
sea—and along the digital highways. We must have a connection to
that pipeline along the Cornwall and Devon coastline. It is ridiculous
that a globally recognised company, such as Twofour in my constituency,
should have to send data to London for dispatch because it is quicker
and significantly cheaper—a tenth of the cost. That has huge
implications for businesses considering relocation. Why would they come
to the south-west for the fantastic quality of life alone, when they
cannot connect quickly to the outside world? They would go to the
south-east or perhaps the north-west, where those links are already in
place. In Plymouth there are proposals with businesses and the local
authority four-square behind them, but we need central Government
support. I am glad that the Minister has already indicated his interest
in supporting us in
that. Peripherality
is also an issue with conventional transport. I do not want to prejudge
the next Select Committee inquiry on transport—all Members are
welcome to offer thoughts on that—but no doubt we shall hear
from a significant number of people in our region who will express the
view that investment in our region’s transport has been
inadequate and that nobody really understands, certainly nobody in
Westminster, just how large and long a region we are. There is a
bizarre view that the journey from Plymouth to Penzance should take
about an hour. It probably should, but it does not. The distance down
to the far south-west has always been misunderstood, and across our
constituencies we can all see the problems that that produces. We need
faster and more reliable links, and that might involve looking at an
inland route for the railway around Dawlish, and more secure slots for
regional airports in London. Those are all views that have been
expressed to me in recent weeks, and they deserve consideration. I
welcome the announcement of the electrification proposal for Bristol
and south Wales, but that does not immediately help the far
south-west. In
addition to connectivity issues, we must continue to support the work
of local employers and agencies in upskilling our work force and facing
the challenges of the new economy, especially the green economy. In the
south-west, we are blessed with a wealth of potential for being at the
forefront of the green economy. As the Government rightly aim to reduce
carbon emissions from energy production, they should certainly look at
the south-west as a major contributor, with its abundance of tidal and
wind power, which can be harnessed to help not only to combat climate
change but significantly to diversify local economies, which are still
predominantly service-based. It can provide highly skilled, secure jobs
for local people, which is something we can all support. Investment in
the wave hub is welcome, but media stories today suggest that support
for UK firms is inadequate, and the Government clearly need to look at
that. Companies such as Babcock in my constituency, with all its
engineering skills, ought to be spoken to. Such companies’
expertise should be sought when it comes to producing the sort of
equipment we need to
make green energy generation more efficient and effective. Babcock
already does a great deal of work in the new nuclear sector. I am sure
that others across the region have expertise in other sectors that
could be imaginatively realigned or expanded to work in the green
economy. In
addition, in the Plymouth area alone, there are examples of innovating
local companies. The hon. Member for South-West Devon and I have been
talking to a number of them that cross our boundaries. They feel that
they are being stifled at birth by “the
establishment”—their words. Ideas are out there, but
people are not being encouraged to develop them. There are interests
whose standards could and should be challenged, but one feels that they
are being protective of their status. I want to see opportunities for
those ideas to be taken forward. The university of Plymouth is working
with local businesses and others to encourage that type of enterprise,
but we need to see other bodies, such as the Energy Saving Trust and
the Government, through building regulations and research
establishments, opening their doors to some of those people and not
seeing them as having the next wacky idea. Some of the ideas may not be
realistic, but there is a sense that they have potential and that
potential is being lost. I am not sure that we have the right gateways
to support them. Business Link is not quite the right body to do this
work and the Government should be exploring how universities in
particular could be more helpful in this
area.
I will close
now, Mr. Key, because more Members want to speak. In
closing, I want to say that if we seriously believe that the south-west
can compete with the other UK regions, we need to fight for a level
playing field. Since the late 1940s, the south-west has consistently
underperformed and connectivity has been the key issue. Successive
Governments have failed to understand that only by reducing travel
times and making journeys to London from Cornwall, Plymouth and
Gloucester comparable with journeys from Newcastle, Birmingham and
Scotland can competition be more equal.
The same
applies to digital highways, and I know that my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my
right hon. Friend the Minister understand that. I ask them to continue
to ensure that it is also understood across the big-spending
Departments. Only when that message sinks in will the UK economy truly
benefit from all that the south-west can
offer.
Mr.
Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Key. These
proceedings are extremely unsatisfactory, in that we now have less than
20 minutes for a large number of Members who have travelled
considerable distances to be here in Exeter to be able to contribute to
this debate. The timetable for this debate, including the 1
o’clock finish, was determined by the Labour Government in
Westminster and not by this body. Is there any means by which we can
procedurally extend our proceedings to enable Members who have
travelled here from Somerset, Gloucestershire and Cornwall to be able
to speak in this debate? [Interruption.] I forgot
to mention Dorset; I apologise for that.
The
Chairman: No, there is not, in short. We are restricted
entirely by the motion passed by the House of Commons; I think that it
was passed on 25 June. Therefore, we have no option and we have to
finish precisely at 1 o’clock.
Linda
Gilroy: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Key. Did the Chairman or any person in a position to say so receive any
such representations in advance of this meeting? We have been told that
we are just a talking shop, but there seems to be a great demand for
continuing the debate.
The
Chairman: With respect, that is not a point of order for
the Chair.
12.43
pm
Andrew
George: Thank you, Mr. Key. In view of the
time, I will try to run through the issues that I want to mention as
quickly as possible. Of course, I will do so in the spirit of trying to
make the best of what we all recognise is a body of questionable
legitimacy, in terms of its purpose and also, of course, because of the
truncated time in which we are operating.
First, I have
to say that I am rather troubled by the Minister’s opening
remarks, particularly with regard to his view that in effect accepted
the position that the Government have perpetually held to, which is
that they see the process of devolution as holding on for dear life
rather than letting go. After all, it is up to communities to come
together to decide for themselves what region and regional identity
they particularly want to bring forward, rather than having those
decisions made in a back room in Whitehall and then foisted on them. So
we must question the legitimacy of the bodies that the Government have
created, and of course they have created them for administrative
convenience. Hence my use of the expression, “the Government
zone of the south-west”, rather than “region”,
because “region” implies internal integrity and community
of interest.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Northavon quite rightly raised a question with the
Minister earlier which is relevant to the future economy of the
Government zone of the south-west. That question was about the
legitimacy of the regional spatial strategy, which is currently
logjammed as a result of a legal challenge in the east of England.
However, if the Minister has any impact at all on Government policy, it
would be helpful to have some reassurance that he is speaking to other
Ministers about this issue and ensuring that, in fact, the purpose of
the RSS is maintained. After all, that purpose is to deliver what the
Government want to deliver, which I think we would all agree is to
address the housing needs of the United Kingdom as a whole and those
local communities served by local plans. In fact, he must not confuse
means with ends. The Government have decided that the way to meet local
housing needs is to set unfeasible targets.
In Cornwall,
for example, we have doubled the housing stock in the past 40 years and
yet the housing problems of local people have got dramatically worse.
Simply heaping thousands more houses on a local community does not
necessarily address housing need. I hope that the Minister will allow
greater devolution so that local authorities can determine for
themselves how best to meet that need.
I mentioned
the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the grocery sector,
and I hope that the Minister will come back to me on the issue, as well
as taking it up with the relevant Secretaries of State. If he wishes to
have an effect—I mention this just so that he can give
me a nod rather than make an intervention in support—he will, I
hope, help me to ensure that the freight and ferry link from Penzance
to the Isles of Scilly is re-timetabled, because the timetable may well
be constraining its ability to proceed. There has been
a lot of talk about a low-carbon economy in the south-west, and
today’s Western Morning News mentions the wave hub off
the north coast of my constituency. However, the paper notes that one
of the companies involved—Orecon from Bodmin—has reported
that it will now manufacture the necessary products not in the UK but
in Portugal, because the Portuguese have been much more aggressive in
seeking the business. Government intervention to support businesses
engaged in the wave hub will be very important.
Many issues
have been raised in the debate, and I hope that the Minister will be
able to come back to hon. Members to demonstrate the effectiveness of
his role.
12.47
pm Mr.
Streeter: I want to make four or five quick points.
The first is about the legitimacy and accountability of this body.
Drawing on my own ministerial experience—admittedly it was a
thousand years ago—I know that the crucial thing about question
times and debates is that when Ministers are roasted as the Minister
has been today by Members who have asked questions or made points in
the debate, they should go back to their civil servants on those issues
over which they have authority and control and say,
“Let’s do something about this.” However, that is
precisely what this Minister cannot do: he cannot take the points that
have been raised today back to his civil servants, unless those points
came within the territory of the Department for Work and Pensions,
which some did. However, what can he do about transport, the
environment or bovine TB? He has already told us: not much. That is why
this is not a particularly effective forum. If we are going to make it
work, he will have to bring the relevant Ministers from the relevant
Departments.
Secondly, the
south-west is not one region. We have sat here politely and we have
heard all about Swindon and the M4, which is
interesting—
| 
