| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 July 2009 : Column 234WH—continued
It is good formally to confirm on behalf of those of us in the Chamber that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham is a Polish icon. He is much respected in
the House-I mean this seriously-for many of the issues that he raises and for his relationship with Poland. There are not many fluent Polish speakers in the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman also speaks Swedish. Hon. Members who come here from many different parts of the world with their own family history often add something to the way in which we do our business.
The hon. Gentleman will know that our relationship with Poland is a strong and historic one. That is particularly true as regards the second world war, but it was also the case before. As he will know, we have just opened a new embassy in Warsaw at a cost of £35 million, and we are very much committed to our strong relationship with Poland. Polish and British troops often fight together, in places around the world, and there is a strong link. It is a delight to see that shopping habits in Britain have changed-that there are Polish sausages on our supermarket shelves. In 2007, Poland imported £47 million of British food-an increase of 54 per cent. I am told that a large amount of that is Marmite.
One thing rather let down the hon. Gentleman's speech. He accused the Labour Government of arrogance, but he presumed on the British public on about five occasions, talking about when someone would be the Minister, and when there would be a Conservative Government. That shows the arrogance lying beneath. He may not want to own up, but it is a matter of motes and beams.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Department for International Development aid to north Africa, and said that it is wrong that we do not provide aid in the way that Italy is providing it to Libya. We do not agree with tied aid of that kind. It is inappropriate, and we shall lobby throughout the European Union to ensure that that does not happen. Likewise, one of the things of which I am most proud is that when Labour came to power we said we would not tie the aid that we provided to other countries to contracts secured by British companies. Instead we would tie it to two things, and the first of those was good governance; we would not simply put money into the pockets of corrupt Governments, even though they might represent very poor areas. Secondly, we said that we would target our aid at the poorest countries in the world. If anything, one of our criticisms of other European countries has been that they have tended merely to provide aid to countries with which they have a historic link. That is inappropriate because if we are to meet the millennium development goals we must target our money at the poorest countries.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Iceland and its continuing process of trying to join the European Union. Obviously, we are delighted that Iceland will submit an application for membership. We do not think that it should be linked, directly or indirectly, to banking and the crisis earlier in the year. The Government are working to try to overcome the difficulties that charities and individuals have had because of the collapse of Icelandic banks.
Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant: I am very hesitant to, because I have a very short time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can raise things with me after the debate; I have to deal with about 20 other things that he has already raised with me.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of ratification, and so did other hon. Members. That is, of course, an issue in Germany: in the Bundestag on 26 August there will be the First Reading of the changes to the law that it believes it needs to proceed with ratification. The Second and Third Readings will be on 8 September in the Bundestag and on 18 September in the Bundesrat. We hope that the Czech Republic and Poland will proceed to ratification, notwithstanding the charming letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to the Polish President.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of Gibraltar, as did the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I do not know whether he is aware that there are trilateral meetings today between the Spanish Government, the UK Foreign Ministers and Peter Caruana, on behalf of Gibraltar. There are several issues, and the process is a serious one, which can only redound to the benefit of the people of Gibraltar. We are engaging on issues to do with financial services and taxation, customs, police co-operation, education and so on. The self-determination of the people in Gibraltar must obviously be at the heart of the trilateral relationship. The British Government have no intention of changing that.
Mr. Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that in those meetings Her Majesty's Government will raise the important issue of Spanish vessels making incursions into Gibraltar's territorial waters?
Chris Bryant: Those issues have already been raised, and we shall continue to raise them, as well as environmental issues that have come up in the past few months, on which we believe the Spanish Government have not acted appropriately, and on which we disagree with them. We can have disagreements with strong allies.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham raised the issue of renegotiation of Britain's membership of the European Union. I want to say to him and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is immensely charming but always wrong-on these issues anyway-that renegotiation can happen only if we persuade all the other members of the European Union that they want to renegotiate. Talks of bargaining chips, referendums, post-ratification referendums and the rest of it are cloud cuckoo land unless another single country, to start with, and, in the end, all the other countries in the EU, can be persuaded that they want to go through the process of treaty renegotiation. In my view, the European Union has been too obsessed in the past five or 10 years with treaties and institutional arrangements and it would be better if it were more focused on the real needs of the peoples of our countries. That means an appropriate level of subsidiarity so that member states can make the decisions that are important for them. However, it also means that on key areas of co-operation we must all bind together.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to work that was done by the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and he is right that there are major areas in which we still have to develop further levels of co-operation. In defence areas the basis of that would always be unanimity-it would have to mean member states taking clear decisions about whether
they wanted to take part in military intervention. However, there must surely be a greater opportunity for us in greater, enhanced co-operation.
The hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Rayleigh raised the issue of Turkey. We are fully committed to Turkey's membership of the European Union; it is important. Of course, many issues must be resolved. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to migration. He is right that one of the focuses of the concept of the European Union was the freedom for people to live and work where they chose within it. That is essential to a free, open and single market. However, we must ensure that migration patterns across the European Union are not so intense that any one country feels overburdened, or, for that matter, over-denuded, with respect to the working population. Of course that is right. One of the many reasons for our support for a very important round of talks in Copenhagen, at which we must get a clear resolution on climate change issues, is that the danger of climate change, in particular if sea levels rise because of the increased temperature of the globe, is that because some of the poorest people in the world live in the lowest-lying areas, they may be pushed into patterns of significant migration. We do not believe that that would be sustainable, and that is why we want to fight climate change.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised issues about enlargement and Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia, and I do not know that I can cover all of those now, but I want to return, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman thought I might, to the question of the Conservative grouping in the European Parliament. Is it not fascinating that the Conservatives decided to eschew the most important and significant Members of
the European Parliament, with whom they might have had historic associations, in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and decided instead, out of an ideological obsession, to work not in the British interest but in that of their ideology, and to stitch up a new grouping on the sidelines of the European Parliament? Fascinatingly, of course, we now know that part of that stitch-up was making sure that Mr. Kaminski would be one of the vice-presidents of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, so incompetent was the negotiation waged by the hon. Member for Rayleigh that those involved knew Mr. Kaminski would not get anywhere near the vice-presidency; consequently, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, one of the wisest members of the Conservative party, decided he had to stand. He secured the vice-presidency, in the British interest, I would suggest. That meant greater influence, because the vice-presidents play an important role in the way the European Parliament does its business.
There are major issues about Mr. Kaminski. Only this weekend, Rabbi Barry Marcus, of the Central synagogue in London, condemned the Conservatives' association with Mr. Kaminski, who is now, of course, their leader in the European Parliament. They organise a new group and cannot even sort out making sure that one of their own Members is the leader. What does that suggest about what a future Conservative Government might get up to?
Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant: No; there are barely seconds left. Rabbi Barry Marcus of the Central synagogue-
Mr. Eric Martlew (in the Chair): Order.
Gloucester (Regeneration Funding)
12.30 pm
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr. Martlew; I was just beginning to enjoy the exchanges at the end of the previous debate. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the last time in this Session, before we all retreat to what the newspapers say will be an 82-day holiday. I know that it will not be an 82-day holiday for you, Mr. Martlew, nor will it be for the Minister or myself. In my case, that will be not least because of some of the issues that I will outline in the coming minutes. I am pleased to say, though, that I will not have to go at this debate with as much gusto as I thought I might have to a few weeks ago, when I requested it, because some good progress has been made since then. I am very pleased about that progress and I will talk about it in a moment.
In the past eight years, since I have been the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, there has been a very good story to tell about regeneration in the city of Gloucester. Since I was elected as the MP for Gloucester in 2001, we have seen £35 million spent on a new Gloucester Royal hospital and about £20 million spent on a university campus at Oxstalls in my constituency, with the university of Gloucestershire being given university status for the first time. In addition, we have seen about £20 million spent on creating a state-of-the-art new police headquarters in Quedgeley in my constituency. As part of the urban regeneration in Gloucester, we have seen a £35 million further education college-Gloucestershire college-built on the shores of the Sharpness canal, which was a project that I was intimately involved in. I think that that project has been one of the catalysts for the wider regeneration of the Gloucester docks.
Since 2001, we have also had a very good relationship with the regional development agency. In the past 10 years, we have had about £35 million in capital and revenue expenditure, which certainly would not have happened if we had had a Conservative Government. The Conservatives do not believe in RDAs. That sum of £35 million has made a huge difference, not only because of what one can do with £35 million but because it has acted as a stimulus, working alongside an urban regeneration company that has been set up in recent years to lever in other moneys, not least private sector finance, of which we have had about £300 million. In total, as a consequence of all that investment, we are looking towards a £1 billion regeneration of Gloucester.
We have had our ups and downs in recent years. At a time when the Government are talking about a fiscal stimulus, I would urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to see what we have done in Gloucester. That is one of the biggest ups. The Minister may bring the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with her, by all means. I think he would be delighted to see the work that has gone on in Gloucester, in terms of keeping jobs in the construction industry, by building a £140 million designer outlet centre, with 100 new designer outlet shops, in the Gloucester docks. The jobs in that centre and those associated with it probably equate to about 1,000 jobs in total.
In May this year, unemployment actually went down in the city of Gloucester. It was up again slightly in June, but the work that has taken place in and around the regeneration area, including a new Sainsbury's store that has opened on the other side of the Sharpness canal, has created, as I said, a very significant number of jobs. The designer outlet centre was opened, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, by Gok Wan. She will be very aware of his talents, as I am sure you are, Mr. Martlew; I can see that you are wearing one of your finer suits today, which I am sure that Gok Wan would approve of.
On the downside, however, we know that RDA budgets have been raided by the Government. I understand why that has happened. At a time of recession, it is only right and proper that Governments want to keep people in their homes and want to keep people in work. So we have seen tens of millions of pounds taken from RDA budgets and used in projects based around housing and employment. We in Gloucester have benefited from some of those projects too, so I entirely understand why that has happened.
We have been through a process with the South West of England Regional Development Agency in which it wanted us, with our urban regeneration company, to make a pitch for the key projects that we need to keep money coming into. Today's debate is actually the second part of a debate that I initiated in Westminster Hall on 13 May, which was with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who was acting as the Minister then. I offer my congratulations to her; she did so well that she is now a Minister in her own right. I am sure that the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who is here today, and I will work so well together, not least with officials at the central project review group within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, that it will only mean good news for her, and she will be in the Cabinet in no time at all after this debate, if the precedent of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford is anything to go by.
We made the case in that debate on 13 May and to the RDA a few months ago for keeping four key projects going, because we know that, especially in the midst of a recession, they will make a huge difference. One of them, which I will come back to and speak about in some detail, is the linkages project, which deals with linkages between the Gloucester docks and the conventional and well-known town centre of Gloucester, which includes the cathedral and the shopping centres. It is also where the Four Gates meet; it is the actual town centre. It is important to have a strong linkage between those two areas-the docks and the town centre-because there has always been a fear factor in the town centre, understandably, among small and medium-sized businesses that we would lose jobs and businesses if we regenerate the docks and leave the town centre as it is. Those linkages are absolutely crucial and we made a case for them. I am pleased to say that the RDA board liked the case that we made and approved the linkages project.
We also made a case for Kings square, a 1960s monolith or "carbuncle", as I think I described it in the debate on 13 May. That project was approved and I am glad that the Department for Communities and Local
Government approved of that too. The same was true of a heritage quarter in the town centre, known as Blackfriars. It houses the Dominican priory, which I am told is the most historic Dominican priory anywhere in the country.
I also made a case for the Four Gates centre in the deprived Westgate ward, but I was less successful in that respect. The Four Gates centre was important to me and to many of my constituents, because I think that regeneration should not only be about steel and glass but about social regeneration; it needs to be about child care, community facilities and health provision. Unfortunately, the RDA board did not approve the sum that we were looking for-I think it was a sum of about £2 million-in that particular case. I am still hopeful that that project can go ahead with the support of the primary care trust and I will be working with local community groups to try to ensure that it does happen.
So we heard good news from the RDA board. We had not thought that we would get absolutely everything that we hoped for; we accepted that. We also accept the issue around the Four Gates centre and we will try to find other ways of funding that project. However, we had some bad news when the central policy review group of the DCLG did not approve the linkages scheme. That scheme was No. 1 on my priority list, as it was on the priority list of the urban regeneration company and the city council.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State are concerned about this process, because we have talked about it, and I know that other Ministers in the DCLG are interested in it, but I am really pleased, especially at a time of recession, that my right hon. Friend the Minister has got hands-on involved with it and engaged her officials with the RDA to take a closer look at these linkages. I hope that we are now making some good progress. From what I have heard, there is a much better level of dialogue between the local urban regeneration company, the RDA and the Department on getting this money in and doing the work. Especially during a recession, we need those linkages and to complete the public realm work done between the Gloucester docks and the town centre. Many businesses-not to mention shopping centres such as the Eastgate and Kings Walk shopping centres-and the Federation of Small Businesses are lobbying very hard for this money, because they think that we will lose a lot of jobs. We already have an issue, as do many town centres, with boarded-up shops, but that will get much worse if we cannot find the resource to do the public realm work.
I understand that part of that work has involved an evaluation by the Department of what can be achieved over three years. I say to my right hon. Friend and departmental officials that, especially during a recession, we need to be more flexible and sometimes look at a longer period. The public realm work will make a difference over a much longer period than three years. During a recession, the RDA, which feels very strongly about this, thinks that we have to be more flexible. A decision approved by its board has never been overturned before, and it has made it clear to all of us locally that this is an important scheme for it and one that it wishes to continue to support.
I am very confident that, within six weeks, we can clear up the detail between the CPRG and the RDA so that the former can formulate the detailed criteria and tell the latter what else needs to be done locally to secure the money. We then need a quick decision. Ministers are right when they talk about fiscal stimuli and bringing forward funding and projects, and I do not believe for a second that they want to be held back by officials. We understand the need to go through due process, but if we can get through this in six weeks, we can ensure that the money is spent, that the work on the ground is done, that the construction jobs are in place and that the town centre remains confident that the project will make a difference, not in isolation in the docks area, but in perpetuity in the rest of the town centre.
This is a very important project for us, and I am pleased with the way in which my right hon. Friend has engaged her Department since my initial concerns were raised. I know that she will not be having an 82-day break or anything like that, although I hope that she gets away and recharges her batteries over the summer-we all need to do that. However, it is really important that her officials, the RDA, the urban regeneration company, myself and her Department continue to engage on this matter. I hope that we can secure a positive solution and return, certainly before October but hopefully quite a bit earlier, so that we can get on with delivering the project and returns and with demonstrating not only that we have started a decade-long regeneration project, but that we are here for the long term, and that we will complete what was started in my constituency by this Labour Government, the RDA and the urban regeneration company.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |