7 Jun 2011 : Column 1WH
Westminster Hall
Tuesday 7 June 2011
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
Dairy Farming
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—( Bill Wiggin. )
9.30 am
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con): I am pleased to see that, despite the recess, a number of colleagues are arriving, and more will join us later.
It is important that we debate the future of British dairy farming. It is an important matter throughout the country, but especially so for East Anglia, and particularly for Suffolk and south Norfolk and for Waveney valley in my constituency. All Members here today would like to see the re-establishment of a thriving, profitable and sustainable agriculture sector in the United Kingdom. About 15 or 17 years ago, the country produced 70% of its own food, but we now produce only 40%. There is a strong case for supporting the development of much greater food security and food sustainability, and the dairy sector has an important part to play in that.
Milk prices affect dairy farmers from time to time, but the dairy industry has faced a particular crisis over the past few months and, as a result, at least eight farms in East Anglia close to my constituency are no longer in business. The key factor is the price that dairy farmers receive for their milk. There is a tension between the price paid by the consumer, particularly given the current economic climate, and the price that retailers pay milk producers. Nevertheless, if we want to maintain a profitable and thriving agricultural sector, we need to ensure that milk producers receive a fair price. At the moment, Britain is third from bottom in the European league table for the price that our milk producers receive, which is unacceptable.
I know that the Minister is familiar with a number of these factors as they affect Suffolk, having originally been with AtlasFram farmers, but the point of this debate is to focus on what the Government can do to support the British dairy industry over the next few years, particularly in the current crisis.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. The future of dairy farming is important to people throughout the country, as we need greater food security and must produce more of our own food. Does he agree that it is about not only the supply of milk, but the products that are made from it? Those products are important to the economy of Cornwall. They include not only our famous clotted cream but our ice cream, cheese and yoghurt, which all depend on healthy supplies of milk. Many dairy farmers in my constituency, like those in my hon. Friend’s, face the prospect of having to give up that important part of their livelihood, along with their farming traditions.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 2WH
Dr Poulter: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I want to focus on milk, but others may wish to discuss other milk commodities and derivatives. Many retailers do not pay our dairy farmers a proper price for the commodities that they produce, as she has said so eloquently, but I shall focus on milk because, for producers throughout the UK, milk is the main produce of the dairy farm. None the less, I accept that the price that those farmers receive for yoghurts, cheeses and other milk-based products is a problem.
There has been increasing coverage of dairy farming issues over recent months, and I am sure that the Minister is aware that a key problem is the contracts that dairy farmers are tied into with the retailers. Before going into that aspect, however, it is worth setting out the background to the problem.
There is increasing concern that the milk industry is in crisis. Milk is a perishable product, as we all know, and farmers have little choice but to enter into contracts that often feature exploitative terms and conditions. These contracts contain no certainty about the price that will be paid from month to month, and producers are locked into contracts with notice periods of 12 or 18 months and with penalty clauses from the moment that they announce that they wish to move to another retailer. Such penalty clauses often include a section on price, which adversely affects the farmer.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Both he and the Minister know that this matter is close to my heart, and I hope that my private Member’s Bill will receive his support on Friday—I am sure that it will.
My hon. Friend has mentioned contracts. Does he agree that the major problem faced by the dairy industry is that retailers regard milk as a loss-leading product, and that they use their superior position in the market to drive down the price in a way that has made dairy farming unsustainable for many producers? The Government need to tackle that issue.
Dr Poulter: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. The point is that the framework around those contracts has helped to keep the market subdued. As I have indicated, Britain is third from bottom in the league table of what farmers are paid for their milk in Europe.
The average European Union milk price in March 2011 was 29.72p per litre, but it was only 26.59p in the UK. For most farmers, over an average year that 1p a litre amounts to between £80,000 and £100,000. On average, British farmers are being paid £300,000 less than the European average, which is unacceptable if we wish to support a thriving dairy industry. We need to drill down into why British farmers are not paid a fair price for milk, whereas a much higher price is paid by European retailers to their milk producers.
Various narratives are put forward by retailers and suppliers on what they pay our dairy farmers. They say that they pay a fair price, but according to the European average they do not. They say that consumers are under financial pressure and that they need to keep the cost of milk down, and there is some truth in that. Yes, we are in difficult economic times, consumers are under financial pressure, and we want the cost for consumers to be as
7 Jun 2011 : Column 3WH
low as possible. However, although the price of milk in the shops over the past few years has risen considerably—by 70% or 80%—the increase paid to the farmer has been disproportionately lower. There has not been the necessary knock-on for farmers, so although retailers and suppliers are benefiting from a rise in the price of milk in the shops, our milk farmers are not. That is not fair, and it is not beneficial to the dairy industry. If we do not support our dairy producers, more farms will go out of business, which will be bad because it will impact adversely on consumers given the perishable nature of milk.
The other argument often put forward by retailers and suppliers is that milk must be resourced exclusively from the UK. We all want to see retailers supporting British farmers, backing honest food labelling and buying from them whenever they can. However, given the perishable nature of the product, and given that unlike many European countries we have a particular market for fresh milk, British retailers and suppliers have no option but to buy from British producers. That is another spurious argument put forward by many retailers and suppliers, and it is not a good reason for them not to pay our British farmers a fair price for their milk.
I am pleased that the European Commission has identified the significant imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and dairies and the lack of certainty and control over the price that farmers receive for their milk. It has recognised that the problem lies with the contracts and has proposed a number of ways in which national Governments can address it.
As the Minister will be aware, the Commission’s proposals to improve the position of dairy farming include allowing member states to introduce minimum legal standards for milk contracts, which would include the price to be paid for the duration of the agreement and a proper arrangement for the termination of those contracts. At the moment, when a farmer seeks to end a contract, they have to wait 12 or even 18 months before it can be terminated, but the penalty clause kicks in immediately, which means a lower price for the milk that they produce. That does not seem to be a fair contract, and it should be investigated.
The EU has talked about permitting producer organisations to be established, which would allow dairy farmers to come together to improve their negotiating power with dairy companies, and that would be a good thing. It has also discussed introducing greater market transparency into the dairy supply chain.
The EU has identified a number of issues with the contracts, which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) has said, are at the crux of this matter. The majority of milk contracts offer dairy farmers no certainty or clarity about the price they will be paid from month to month. They allow the milk buyer to make unilateral changes to milk prices, which often take place at very short notice. Dairy farmers have great difficulty exiting such contracts. All those issues imbalance the contractual relationship between the dairy farmer and the milk buyer.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government support a fair code of practice and that they will give us a little more clarity over the role of the ombudsman.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 4WH
Unless we improve the current situation between milk producers, milk suppliers and retailers, more and more of our dairy farms will go out of business.
It has been a pleasure to flag up these key issues, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister and my colleagues.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way just as he is ending his speech. Is he convinced that Government-led contracts are the way ahead, or does he see the potential for a halfway house, where there is a greater focus on transparency and a greater use of nudging for all parts of the industry? In other words, does he think that we need to legislate to address the contract issue?
Dr Poulter: Instinctively, I do not like unnecessary red tape. However, given that the National Farmers Union has already been involved in some considerable nudging and given that there is a considerable imbalance between the power of the dairy producers and of the retailers, perhaps the Government have a role to play. I agree that it would be good to see a mutually agreed solution that supports the code of conduct and the role of the ombudsman. However, if that does not work, I hope that the Government will intervene. To start with, I would like to see things being resolved without using unnecessary red tape. Hopefully, we will see many organisations taking corporate responsibility and backing British suppliers. We have seen that in the pork and meat sectors of the industry, with many British retailers beginning to show greater corporate responsibility in buying British meat and putting it on their shelves. In the dairy industry, we need to see our retailers taking a similarly robust attitude and showing such corporate responsibility as well. I want to see that first and then, if necessary, further action and intervention from the Government.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for having secured this important debate. Does he not acknowledge that there are a number of retailers who are showing greater corporate responsibility? Waitrose, for example, operates a partnership of dairy farmers, one of which is based in Leckford in my constituency. Can we not encourage a greater use of that model in the rest of the country?
Dr Poulter: That is a good point. Marks and Spencer provides us with another good example. Like Waitrose, it has already shown a high level of corporate responsibility. Indeed, Waitrose has a good attitude to supporting British farming in general. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a need for a number of companies to support a profitable and sustainable agricultural sector. The crisis in the dairy industry at the moment highlights such a need.
A number of dairy farms are being forced out of business. The prices of commodities and fuel are making it difficult for farms to be as successful as they once were. My hon. Friend is right to say that retailers should show some support, and we hope to see the model that she has mentioned rolled out across the country. However, it is important for us to trust the retailers to show that greater corporate responsibility before the Government intervene.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 5WH
In conclusion, the number of dairy producers in the UK is plummeting, and the price paid for milk is consistently low. At the moment, we are 25th out of 27 in the EU league table. Input costs have soared for producers in recent years, especially over the past few months. In 2009-10, milk production was at an all-time low in the United Kingdom.
The crux of the matter lies in the fact that contracts between suppliers and producers are skewed against the producer, so that prices can be changed arbitrarily while notice periods are often 18 months or more. Most contracts are exclusive, which means that a producer can be tied to one supplier for a long period. The penalty clauses in many contracts are detrimental to the producer and favour the retailer.
The Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill will help to address some of the imbalances, and I am sure that the Minister will discuss it. None the less, retailers need to show greater corporate responsibility. The Government must be prepared to intervene if retailers do not support the industry in such a way and if the current nudges in our regulations do not work.
I thank the Minister for attending the debate and look forward to hearing his remarks. Some colleagues may wish to add some remarks on bovine TB.
9.49 am
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on his informed and interesting presentation of the problems affecting the dairy industry. I do not propose, as the Minister would almost certainly have predicted when I rose to my feet, to tackle the problems, serious though they are and requiring pressing and urgent attention as they do, of the unfairness of the contractual situation between dairy producers and the processing and retail industry. It is manifest that the situation is crying out for action and I hope that after the 13 months of careful reflection that the Minister, who has responsibility for agriculture, has given the problems, ably assisted by those who sit behind him, we will see a courageous and powerful response from the Government to the legitimate interests and concerns of the vital industry that those of us who are in Westminster Hall today represent.
In standing up to speak today, I do so, as I have done many times in the past six years, to raise the subject of bovine tuberculosis in the House. I represent Torridge and West Devon, a constituency in the south-west that is probably the area of the country most densely affected and infected by bovine TV; it is certainly one of the three worst affected areas. I do not propose that the solution that I have long advocated for my own constituency should apply across the board to each area of the country where bovine TB is found. Manifestly, a solution that is appropriate to a densely infected hot-spot area will not be appropriate to an area where bovine TB is only found in widely scattered parts.
However, the Minister will know that I rise to speak with a sense of real concern. He, probably more than anybody else in the Government and possibly more than anybody else in the House, knows well the corrosive, attritional, distressing and unhappy effects of bovine TB. They not only affect the infected animals—the cattle that are slaughtered and the badgers that die
7 Jun 2011 : Column 6WH
appalling deaths as their lungs literally liquefy as a result of being infected by TB—but the farming families and communities who daily have to endure the strain, stress, upset and sheer unhappiness of watching their herds being destroyed, their livelihoods threatened and their farms placed under the sterilising restrictions required by the bovine TB regulations.
I know that the Minister appreciates the situation because he has visited my constituency on many occasions. I have seen him sit down in farm kitchens and I have seen him address larger audiences of farmers, doing so with an empathy and instinctive understanding that does him credit and wins the trust of those who listen to him. For the six years that I have been in the House, I have been intensely grateful to him—first while he was in opposition and now that he is in government—for those visits to my constituency and for the words of reassurance and the empathy that he has offered to the farming community that I have the privilege to represent.
Nevertheless, the Minister knows what I am about to say next; it is time to deliver. For six years, we have told farming communities in the UK that if the Conservative party reached the corridors of Government we would take hold of the situation and tackle this dire emergency that, like a flame slow burning, is consuming farm upon farm throughout the south-west. We have told farmers that we would not fail to have the moral courage to bring the only solution that will deal with the problem for the areas I represent.
The Minister knows what I mean. We cannot rule out a policy of limited, targeted culling; indeed, we must urgently embrace such a policy. It is the only way to tackle the issue in Torridge and West Devon and it is vital that the Government now firmly embrace that policy, as it is the only one that will yield results.
As the Minister knows, I was a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the last Parliament and consequently I do not propose for a moment that we apply a simplistic solution; nor do I suggest that culling alone is the only prescription that will bring success. As he also knows, I have long advocated, and I long criticised the last Government for not implementing, a full package of measures on the cattle side, biosecurity and all the areas of animal husbandry that need to be improved, including vaccination when we can see it. However, we cannot have a package of measures that does not include culling where it is necessary, such as those densely infected hot-spot areas where the risk assessment concludes that it is a necessary part of any prescription or solution. We cannot exclude a cull.
The Minister has sat with me and listened to farmers in Torridge and West Devon as they explained why they feel so strongly that a cull is necessary, how they have taken steps to prepare for it and how they feel it could be carried out. I know that he has been looking at the problem of bovine TB and that it has preoccupied him; it is probably one of the major priorities that he has been dealing with. Consequently, I hope that he will forgive me for expressing the real anxiety and apprehension of farming communities in the south-west that the Government may be losing their nerve.
I very much hope that that is not the case. I was at the Devon county show a couple of weeks ago, and, as ever, the exchange of views was frank and robust. The Minister had recently appeared on television and had apparently said that we may not even have a cull. I appreciate that
7 Jun 2011 : Column 7WH
at this stage he must be considering a policy that is based on evidence and that is carefully fashioned to the reflect the existing scientific knowledge of the subject, but there is growing concern among the farming community that the Government may not be living up to the height of expectations on this question.
I urge the Minister to take the opportunity this morning to deal with the subject by at least giving encouragement to the people I represent and those who are listening to this debate that he fully appreciates the importance of the problem, and that he understands the need to find a way to ensure that the policies that the Government implement to deal with this disease that is raging throughout the countryside of the south-west will include all necessary instruments.
Of course I understand that the Minister will have a judge looking over his shoulder and that any policy that is subsequently introduced will almost certainly be challenged in the courts by those who wish to suggest that it offends judicial review principles. The Welsh case, which is the only example that we have to go on at the moment, demonstrated that if one did not attach great importance to fashioning a policy that would pass the test of administrative and legal scrutiny, matters could be delayed even further. I have spent the past 13 months patiently explaining to farmers down farm lanes and at cattle markets that that is so. After 13 months, it is to be hoped that the Minister is close to a solution.
The Welsh case did not for a moment propose, nor did the judges ever say, that to make culling an instrument of policy was unlawful. As the Minister knows well, the Welsh case simply criticised a logical flaw in the way that the Welsh Assembly and its Executive had gone about consultation on that specific matter and that specific formation of policy. It would be relatively simply avoided with care and preparation by this Government.
I cannot be privy to the private discussions, the policy formations and the preparations that the Minister is involved in. Perhaps all the things I have said today are entirely redundant and superfluous—I very much hope that they are—because the Minister is about to cause a sigh of relief throughout the south-west by announcing a new policy on the control and eradication of bovine TB. When he does so, the feeling across the countryside—in Devonshire, in Cornwall and in all the parts so badly affected by this pernicious disease—will be of intense gratitude and admiration for the moral courage and consistency that the Minister will have shown. During my six years as an MP, the Minister has been a friend to the farming communities that I have the privilege of representing, and by announcing the policy that I urgently press upon him, he will prove himself, once and for all, to have been a friend who stood by them at a time of crisis and emergency.
I hope that the Minister will rise to his feet to deal, of course with the matters that my hon. Friends raise on the importance of fair contracts, but with bovine TB, which is probably even more important to the dairy farmers listening this morning in the places that I represent, waiting anxiously for what the Minister is to say. So deeply afflicted is the south-west—specifically the areas that I represent—that I urge him, when he rises this morning, to have in the front of his mind the families he has met, the farms he has visited, the herds
7 Jun 2011 : Column 8WH
he has seen and the pride in the eyes of those who look after them, and to reach out to them and give them the courage and encouragement that it is our duty to permit them—saying to them that the Government understand the problem and are coming forward with the solution that those families so fervently and expectantly await.
10.1 am
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on securing the debate and on articulating the concerns of many people in the dairy industry about the operation of the UK milk and dairy market sectors. I commend the interventions made by hon. Members and the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) who spoke very movingly about the impact of bovine TB on small farming communities in the south-west.
In the past six months, we have had several debates on this subject, both in this Chamber and in European Committee A. What has emerged from those debates and from the speeches this morning is the need for good intentions on the part of the Government to be turned quickly into firm action, and the Opposition believe that such action is needed in three areas. First, the Government need to signify their support for the EU’s adoption of standard contracts for the dairy sector—should member states wish them to apply in their territories—to ensure greater parity in bargaining power between producers, processors and retailers. Secondly, there needs to be a grocery code adjudicator with greater powers of market intervention and greater independence from the Executive than is proposed in the Dairy Farming Bill, with the adjudicator being allowed to impose fines and other sanctions on those operating anti-competitively in dairy supply chains. Thirdly, further incentives in innovation and in research and development are needed to ensure that the British dairy industry has a financially viable future in delivering the highest-quality products both for domestic consumption and export, while cutting its share of greenhouse gas emissions, as indicated in the “Dairy Roadmap” report published this year.
There is evidence that dairy farmers in Britain face problems because of the operation of milk supply contracts in the marketplace. Current milk contracts deny milk producers real stability in pricing and stifle competition and innovation. The National Farmers Union has established that average EU milk prices this March were 14% higher than they were a year ago, at 29.72p per litre, but in the UK the price was 26.59p per litre, which, at 10.2%, is the fourth-lowest increase among the five highest EU milk-producing member states.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich has pointed out that the UK has the third-lowest milk price per litre in the EU, beaten only by Slovenia and Romania. The “NFU Cost of Milk Production Report” states that the average cost of milk production was 29.1p per litre between April 2010 and March 2011, which represents a shortfall of 2.76p per litre between the cost of producing milk and the price that the farmer receives. Added to that, dairy farmers in the UK face rising input prices, and the greater demand for dairy products is leading to increased imports.
The European Commission proposals to introduce standardised contracts for milk producers across the EU offer the opportunity for greater stability, alongside
7 Jun 2011 : Column 9WH
an equalising of contractual bargaining power for milk producers. The plans would allow the establishment of collective producer organisations, which have proven successful in other parts of the world in securing fairer farm-gate prices for milk, and member states could create greater transparency in the terms of milk contracts by regulating duration and price, as well as rights of termination should member states see fit. Importantly, the plans would also require milk processors to declare information on milk deliveries. It is vital that the Government indicate—I hope, this morning—whether they will accept the Commission’s proposal to permit national Governments to introduce contracts across all milk supply and delivery chains and whether they will be prepared to enter into further collaborative work with the industry on the wider reform of contractual arrangements, including price variation and exclusivity of supply.
Another important point to address is the competition that the EU dairy industry faces from China and other dairy producers in south-east Asia and from some of the developing economies, as that will become increasingly important in the coming years. The annualised annual growth in the Chinese dairy sector between 1998 and 2008 was 10%, and the increasing demand for dairy, specifically milk, products in south-east Asia will further drive global demand.
On the environmental impacts of dairy farming, the Opposition’s view is that we need to further incentivise farmers who are doing the right thing—for example, recycling water from the milk cooling processes and harvesting rainwater. We know from the Foresight report published earlier this year that an increase in sustainable food production to feed 9 billion people across the world by 2050 will mean producing more food with less water and making better use of soil, so we ought to give fiscal and other incentives to farmers in this country who already do the right thing and simply need additional Government support to continue to do so. Energy efficiency across the dairy sector has increased by more than 27% over the past decade, thus leading to a reduction in emissions equivalent to 270,000 tonnes of CO2.
We therefore face a number of challenges. First, on contracts, the retail sector might not be willing to make changes to give farmers a fairer price.
Julian Smith: May I ask for clarification about the Opposition policy? Is the shadow Minister saying that he now believes that we should have contracts in the UK, or does he agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that we should begin by exerting significant pressure and by nudging the industry much more strongly in the first instance?
Mr Bain:
I am not a great fan of nudge theory, but I believe that the Government could do a great deal by indicating that they support the broad thrust of the Commission’s recommendations. That could lead to changes in practice by the supermarket sector and other processors. The Opposition’s position is one of agreement between producers and retailers where possible and regulation where necessary. If it is established that even the most profound of nudges from the Minister has not brought greater fairness in the prices that the retail sector offers our producers, regulation may well have to
7 Jun 2011 : Column 10WH
be the answer. There is a great deal more consensus across the House than might have been immediately apparent.
On the future of the dairy sector, we must sort out the problem of contracts, because they are driving unfair prices. We must also continue to consider the environmental impact of the dairy sector. Some people want far less meat and dairy to be consumed in this country. I believe that one of the best ways to counter that argument is to show and deepen the dairy sector’s environmental sustainability and reduce its greenhouse gas imprint. The Government should work hard with the industry on that front. We must be aware of competition from overseas. We hope that the Doha round of World Trade Organisation talks can be resuscitated to end damaging subsidies and open the issue of animal welfare standards, to the benefit of milk producers in the United Kingdom and across the EU.
If the Government take those three steps and make great progress over the next four years, it will lead to a better, fairer and more financially viable dairy sector than we have at the moment. I hope that, in his remarks, the Minister will outline how he will deliver that.
10.12 am
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on securing this debate. It was widely discussed when I was at the Suffolk show last week, so I was given plenty of notice that I would be grilled on these issues. I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). I am not sure whether he was appearing for the prosecution or the defence, but his speech not only contained the gravitas that we expect but correctly conveyed the huge importance that the dairy and beef sectors attach to the issue of bovine TB, to which I will refer in a few moments. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). As he has said, there is probably agreement among the parties about where we need to go.
I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. He said that our food production is 40% of our total food supplies; it is actually well over 50%, and we could produce more than 70% of our food indigenously. I do not want him to think that things are worse than they are, although I want to improve both positions.
It is worth making the point that we are the EU’s third largest milk producer, well ahead of the only country that we might reasonably say could do better than us, Ireland, which has the temperate climate and conditions to grow grass for more of the year and more effectively. With the exception of Ireland, we should be competing effectively with every other country in the EU.
My hon. Friend and others are entirely right that the industry is under huge pressure. Members who watched “Countryfile” on Sunday evening will have seen yet another auction of a large dairy herd by a farmer going out of business. However, we have a slight conundrum. Although the number of dairy farmers is decreasing significantly, by an average of 5% a year over the past decade, there has been no such dramatic reduction in
7 Jun 2011 : Column 11WH
the number of cows or in the amount of milk that we produce. In fact, milk production in the UK increased by 500 million litres last year, and it is now almost back to the level of three years ago. That is due to the expansion of herds by many farmers, as well as to genetics, better feed and so on, which cause individual cows to produce more milk. From the Government’s perspective, we are faced with a dilemma. Are we interested in supporting individual dairy farmers or the industry and this country’s ability—to return to the issue of self-sufficiency—to produce the milk that we need at home? It is a conundrum, and I do not pretend to have the answer.
The state of the UK market is easily clarified in some round figures. Roughly 50% of UK consumption of milk and dairy products is liquid milk, almost all of which is domestically produced—as my hon. Friend has said, carting liquid milk overseas is not common. Another 25% of the market is milk products such as cheese, yoghurt and so on processed from British milk. The other 25% is processed products imported from abroad. It is fairly easy to divide the market into those three.
To return to my point about the European market and competition from elsewhere, there is no doubt in my mind that we should be able to compete much more effectively with other countries, with the possible exception of Ireland, in the 25% of the market that consists of imported processed products. My hon. Friend made a great deal of the prices being paid by our supermarkets. I am not saying that supermarkets are without fault, but the real issue is the price being paid lower down the chain at the processed end.
The latest milk prices—they are published weekly, so this is open information—say that the highest price being paid for milk is 29.01p in the dedicated supply chain for Marks and Spencer through Dairycrest. The second highest is in another dedicated pool, for Sainsbury’s, through Arla. The lowest, at 23.8p, or more than 6p a litre less, is paid by North Milk Co-op. A little above that, the supplier First Milk pays 24.2p. The table that appears in the farming press each week simplifies things slightly, but the top half of prices mainly go to the liquid trade, while the bottom half go to the processed trade. There are exceptions, but that is a general point. Increasing the price paid for processed milk would improve the overall situation for everyone.
As my hon. Friend has said, the retail market is important. The average farm-gate price in March was 26.57p a litre, which is 10% higher than the year before, although, as several people have said, costs have rocketed proportionately or by even more. However, the retail price of a 4-litre carton of milk is about 55p a litre, which means that the processor and retailer take 28.5p a litre—that is more than the dairy producer, the guy who keeps the cow for 365 days a year, takes—just to bottle, distribute and retail the milk. There is no doubt, as the Dairy Council and others have shown, that the share of the overall retail price taken by the farmer has stayed the same or even fallen, the share taken by the processor has stayed roughly the same and the share taken by the retailer has rocketed. There are questions to be asked about that, and I will come back to them in a moment.
I will discuss the shape of the industry to demonstrate to my hon. Friends that the issue is not only about liquid milk or about supermarkets. Much has been said
7 Jun 2011 : Column 12WH
about the European package, particularly about contracts. The first thing to say in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East is that we are a long way from any decision, because we do not have the European Parliament’s decision yet. That is a post-Lisbon treaty event that involves the European Parliament. I will come back to the other points, but we support the issue of contracts as presented by the Commission. We support the proposal that individual member states should be able to make contracts compulsory in their own country, if they so wish. As far as England is concerned, I have already said publicly that, if that is what the end version looks like, we will consult the industry about whether to have compulsory contracts, but I have not hidden my view that I do not think that they will achieve what people believe they will.
That is the point that I want to address, because my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich paid great attention to the issue of contracts. Let me make it clear that, in the UK, virtually all farmers have contracts, which takes us back to what is in them. The main reason why this matter features so highly in the European dairy package is that most dairy producers in other countries do not have contracts, so for them it would be a great innovation. Although this is a devolved issue, it is relevant to the UK and, as far as England is concerned, it is clear that the proposal as it stands—we do not know how it will end up—does not allow individual member states to lay down minimum standards or terms in the contract. It says that the contract must address the issue of price, either by setting a price or a formula, but it does not allow the member state to set it. It will be open to negotiation between the producer and processor to decide the price or formula by which the price is arrived at.
Similarly, the contract must address the issue of duration, but it does not allow the member state to lay down a minimum duration. Some, including the National Farmers Union, seem to think that the contract should include a lot more. We can argue about whether it should, but it does not. The proposition from the European Union does not allow member states to lay down detail on standards, which some seem to believe that it should. That is why I do not think that it is the panacea that some have made it out to be.
Stephen Phillips: Given that, as the Minister has said, the package is not the solution to the problem, and given that he has identified the discrepancy between what is paid for liquid milk to, on the one hand, those who supply it as liquid milk and, on the other, those who process it, is the solution not for the Government to bite the bullet and set a minimum price for dairy products, at least in England? Will the Government therefore support my private Member’s Bill, which will receive its Second Reading on Friday?
Mr Paice:
My hon. and learned Friend must be aware that it would be contrary to EU law for us to set a minimum price. The whole common agricultural policy has—with, I think, cross-party support—moved away from the idea of Government setting prices, whether at a member-state or EU level. That has been the big reform of the CAP over the past 15 to 20 years, and it is right that we move in that way. I do not think that the answer is to set a minimum price. The Government’s
7 Jun 2011 : Column 13WH
role—I will return to this in a moment—is to try to make sure that the market is working properly. There is parity of power, wherever possible.
Let me turn to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. We fully support the proposition in the European dairy package that producer organisations should be allowed, although we are concerned about a point of detail regarding how big they will be allowed to get. However, the only two significant co-operatives in this country—Milk Link has about 13% of the market and First Milk has about 10%—are light years away from what we believe should be the maximum, namely 25%, or the EU proposal of 33%. To be honest, that upper limit is relatively hypothetical at the moment, because we are nowhere near it. Even if the two merged—it was once proposed that they should merge; the merger was approved by the Office of Fair Trading; but they decided not to—they would still not be up to the maximum. I need to make it clear, therefore, that nothing today prevents groups of dairy producers from getting together to become a producer organisation. Indeed, the Secretary of State, in her speech in Oxford, and I have frequently said that we strongly encourage them to do so. However, Government cannot force farmers to work together, and it is for them to do so.
The final point on the package concerns transparency, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We strongly support a transparent marketplace. Obviously, there is a limit in terms of regulation and bureaucracy on how much information it is sensible to demand, but we support the principles of transparency in the package.
I am in the unusual position of having a bit of time to respond to the debate, so let me now address some other issues. The supermarket adjudicator takes us back to my point about parity of power. The Government have published their Bill, and I was interested to hear the Opposition’s concerns. I am not too clear on all of them, but one related to the adjudicator’s powers to impose fines and other sanctions, although I am not sure what they are. Let us be clear that the Bill provides the option for the Secretary of State to give the power to provide fines. In other words, if we find the adjudicator’s initial power, which might be described as the name-and-shame approach, to be inadequate, the Secretary of State can provide it with the power to impose fines. I do not think that we in this Chamber necessarily understand the relative import of that. The big retailers assure us that that is totally unnecessary, that they do not break the code, that there is no need for an adjudicator and that they are all doing the job properly. I am sure that they have assured everyone present of that. They all pay a huge amount of attention to their reputations. They want their good name to be known and seen. If we say, “We’re going to fine you instead,” what level of fine would make any difference to one of our big retailers? That is the question. The level would not be £10,000. I do not even want to guess what would actually influence their behaviour, but it would be many times that. We therefore have to consider whether that is really a sensible way forward, commensurate with all the other issues of fines, levels of fines and penalties throughout the country. I think that we underestimate the power of damaging somebody’s reputation in that way.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to incentives for innovation and development, particularly in relation to energy saving. He referred to the industry road map. I
7 Jun 2011 : Column 14WH
am not sure whether he or any other colleagues were present when I launched the industry road map a few weeks ago, but one of the most telling charts in the document—I do not take any credit for this, but it is worth making the point—shows that the dairy producers who had the highest margins also had the lowest carbon footprint. Fiscal incentive, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is therefore built into the system. Of course, we can provide fiscal incentives from the rural development plan for England, but the real incentive is that it is profitable to conserve energy, which the report clearly shows
We are putting in place other things and taking action on them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon is looking at me with beady eyes—I have not forgotten his remarks. We hope that the Government buying standards will be published shortly. They will lay down particular criteria, so that the Government will lead by example. The Macdonald taskforce on regulation made a number of proposals about nitrate vulnerable zones, which are hugely important to the dairy sector. We are taking those forward as fast as we can. Indeed, at the outset, I was able to announce that we could accept one or two areas relating to NVZs immediately. I am looking across the whole of that issue and am considering how we can reduce its impact and cost.
I am trying to reinvigorate and revitalise the dairy supply chain forum, which was set up by the previous Government. I want to ensure that the only people who come to that forum are chief executives or board member equivalents and that it has an important role because, at the end of the day, the real future of our dairy industry lies not in the hands of the Government, but in the hands of the industry. I am trying to ensure that the retailers, the processors—whether they are bottlers or processors into commodities—and the producers are all around the table and that they are working together to iron out the problems and take things forward. Price is important and I wholly understand the dairy farmer who says, “I need more for my milk.” However, the Government’s job is to ensure that the whole chain is working. If we can do things to take costs out of the system, it would be equivalent to a price rise, although it may not be so readily seen as that.
On income other than that derived from price, let me refer to the two big groups that I have mentioned, First Milk and Milk Link. They are nothing in European terms but, in UK terms, they are pretty substantial producer-owned organisations. They got off to a rocky start, and there were big problems with paying low prices and members having to put up large sums of money. Of course, the third group—Dairy Farmers of Britain—fell by the wayside a couple of years ago. However, those two organisations are now making progress and have chief executives who understand the new world in which we are operating. For example, the chief executive of First Milk has opened up a global pool, whereby when the price of skimmed milk powder on the world market is equivalent to 33p a litre, farmers can say, “Why aren’t we getting it?” They can get that price, although perhaps it will not be quite as much as that. There will be a pool of milk targeted at global price commodities. Of course, there is a downside, because if global commodities collapse—they have done so in the
7 Jun 2011 : Column 15WH
past—so will the pool price. However, such an initiative allows that issue to be addressed and is an ingenious and innovative approach.
Milk Link—I hope First Milk will follow—is paying dividends to its farmer members, which is important. People who have invested in shares and through their commitment to a farmer-owned business are entitled to receive a dividend—a share of the profit. That is just as important to them as the price of their milk, and it is part of the return to their business. From what I have been saying, colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I am an enthusiast for farmer-owned businesses and think that they are the way forward. However, there is a limit to what the Government can do. We will exhort all we can, and if there are any barriers in the way we will do our very best to lift them, but we cannot force farmers to work together.
Finally, I come to the issue of tuberculosis. I am grateful for the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon about my personal commitment to the matter, which is completely and utterly undiminished. However, as he has said, we must get things right. A number of his presumptions about why we have not yet been able to make any final decision were accurate. We launched our consultation in September, and it concluded before Christmas. As I have said repeatedly in public, that consultation threw up some serious issues that must be dealt with because, as he rightly presumes, we would almost inevitably be faced with judicial review if we were to decide to go ahead with the badger cull. Several of those issues have taken some tackling. We are working with our own lawyers, and we have retained QCs to advise us. As he will know from his own eminent career, they have raised all sorts of issues to which we must have answers in the courtroom if the situation arises.
I can tell hon. Members that we are getting to the position whereby a decision can be announced and, as my hon. and learned Friend has rightly said, there will be an overall package of measures. This has been a good debate and I do not want to raise the politics of the matter too much but, apart from the issue of badgers, my other big criticism of the previous Government is the piecemeal approach that they adopted to tackling
7 Jun 2011 : Column 16WH
TB. They should have grasped the issue by introducing a comprehensive package and used every available tool in the toolbox, as many people in the industry have said.
I can tell hon. Members—this is not what my hon. and learned Friend wants to hear at this stage—that we hope to make a full announcement before the House rises in July. That will comprise a decision on the issue of badger culling as well as a wider package of measures. He picked up the point that I have been reported as implying that we might not be going ahead with a cull. As a lawyer, I am sure that he fully understands that if one has not made a decision, there has to be a question mark in both directions over what that decision might be. I say to him and hon. Members that, as I expect is blatantly obvious, that decision is not just for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Cabinet to make. Such a major decision is hugely important, and we must get it right. We need to ensure that the whole Government support the final decision, whatever it may be. As I have said, I assure hon. Members that the decision will be announced before the House rises in July.
As you have rightly said, Mr Hollobone, this has been a tremendously good and very important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to take a little longer than usual to elaborate on some of the issues. I hope that I have impressed on hon. Members the Government’s determination to tackle a number of these issues and to move forward. As I have said, it is not all in the Government’s hands, but what we can do, we will do. I pay respect to my hon. Friends’ commitment—those who are here now and those who have been in and out of this Chamber during the debate—and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is sitting behind me. He was the founding member of the all-party group on dairy farmers, but now he cannot discuss the matter, because he is acting in another guise. Many hon. Members rightly feel very strongly about the importance of our dairy sector. It is the biggest sector of British agriculture and long may it remain so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair): I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich on securing the debate and thank all those who have taken part. The sitting is suspended until 11 o’clock.
10.37 am
7 Jun 2011 : Column 17WH
Heritage Assets
11 am
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
Local communities throughout the country face the challenge of joining up the powers that we give to them to act in their local areas with their ambitions for those areas. Many people are concerned about that situation, and many levels of frustration are experienced by a lot of people—in particular, by those charged with protecting our heritage, as they cannot do as much as they would like to support communities. Today, I hope to interest the Minister in some possible courses of action that would help to support the passion of such communities throughout the country.
This debate is not about planning policy per se, but about heritage and how we could revise the way in which heritage is defined and enacted to better ensure that our nation is not simply preserving its heritage but can enjoy and experience it. We have a large amount of time, for which I am grateful, to talk about what we mean by heritage, what that means for policy at present, the difficulties facing some of those who seek to use current powers and what can be done to address those difficulties.
It will not surprise any hon. Member in the Chamber, especially the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), that someone from Walthamstow is concerned about heritage. My part of the country has a long tradition, especially with the influence of William Morris, who founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Founder members back in the 1800s were deeply concerned that well-meaning architects were scraping away the historic fabric of too many buildings in their zealous restoration. Morris was worried about the danger of restoration. The Victorians plastered over beautiful interiors of mediaeval architecture, and he wanted policies to repair, rather than to reproduce, that fabric. He might have approved of the flowery way that modern policy has defined the concept of heritage, because it speaks to the feeling that it is more than physical infrastructure.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s policy paper on the listing process says:
“In its broadest sense, the historic environment embraces all those aspects of the country that reflect the shaping hand of human history.
Today, I am concerned about the concept of heritage in that broader sense. We want a vision of heritage and history that is not just about the preservation and physical existence of buildings alone, but one that provides a progressive concept of heritage, involving the experience and enjoyment of all assets by all people. There is a lot of support for that vision of heritage among the British public.
Interestingly, in an era when the public will not join us in political parties, millions of them join organisations that campaign on and protect our heritage. The National Trust has a membership of nearly 3.8 million, and English Heritage has nearly 700,000 members. Many organisations that work with communities to try to protect heritage are reporting a stronger than ever passion for involvement in the preservation of buildings and
7 Jun 2011 : Column 18WH
restoring them to public use. The Heritage Lottery Fund has reported that, and it is not hard to see why. Countless surveys on the role of heritage in our cultural identity and sense of place reveal how important people believe those assets are. They help us to create a distinct sense of place and to know where we come from, and perhaps also where we are going.
People’s vision of heritage is not narrow. It is not just about buildings that are centuries old—75% of us believe that the best of our post-war buildings should be preserved, and that rises to nearly 95% of people aged 16 to 24. The concept of what is important, what markers help us to define the areas that we live in and why they matter to us is not confined to a small number of buildings, but includes a sense of place. When one talks to people about heritage, they say that local buildings are equally important as the grand sites that we might traditionally associate with heritage debates. A survey in 2000 found that, for most people, the concept of the historic environment was the places where they live, not heritage sites such as castles, churches and stately homes, and that reflects current heritage policy. Two thirds of all heritage assets are privately owned, which reflects the fact that they are often small houses and local sites, instead of just big public buildings.
We define buildings as our heritage, but turning our ambitions for what happens to them has always been a challenge. We make a comparison between campaigning in poetry and governing in prose, and there is a comparison between the poetry of our history—how we talk and think about our environment, and the passions and emotions that that evokes—and the practicality of how we act to preserve those buildings and assets.
At present, there are two ways of preserving our heritage through legislation—the element of prose rather than poetry. The primary way is through the planning process—30% of planning applications have heritage implications—particularly the role of development frameworks. I shall return to that, but they were most recently set out in planning policy statement 5 on planning for the historic environment. That very good document has been helpful to many of us who campaign on heritage in our local communities because of its breadth and specificity about what heritage is. It states that a heritage asset is a
“building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions”
“valued components of the historic environment”.
The concept of value and significance gives strong powers to local authorities when determining planning applications about the value of an asset to a community in that broader sense of heritage as not simply preservation, but enjoyment and experience.
The second power is the listing process, and I want to talk about that today because it falls into the Minister’s purview. In this country, we differentiate types of buildings and their status and stature through that process. The guidance states:
“Many buildings are interesting architecturally or historically, but, in order to be listed, a building must have ‘special’ interest”.
I call that the Marks and Spencer approach to buildings, which needs a voice-over saying that they are not just any old building; they have a special role in a community.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 19WH
With my constituency hat on, I point out that the listing process was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 under the auspices of one of my predecessors. Clement Attlee, the former MP for Walthamstow, found time to introduce some important measures that we still support today. Walthamstow has a strong claim to being an area that promotes heritage in many different ways. The listing process has a range of grades covering 374,000 buildings in the country, whether grade I, grade II* or grade II.
The variation in what is listed reflects the sense that heritage is about more than simply the physical fabric of a building and includes its interest and contribution to our cultural identity and history. A wide variety of buildings are therefore listed, including the Birmingham New Street signal box, the Park Hill flats in Sheffield, and even some toilets in north London and the Elephant and Castle in south London. A wide variety of buildings and places are seen as significant, and we value them accordingly. What matters is not just the craftsmanship in the nave of a church or the detail on an architrave, but the way in which places have been a focus for activity for citizens for decades, if not centuries.
It is important that listing does not mean, as Morris might have wished, that a building is set in stone—pardon the pun; it is not a preservation order preventing change, but an identification stage when buildings are marked and celebrated as having exceptional architecture or historic special interest before planning decides their future. I strongly agree with that principle, and I want to make it clear that I am not talking about preventing progress and change in such buildings, particularly when that might lead to a greater ability to achieve our vision of heritage—the experience and enjoyment of a building. That raises an interesting question about which other areas of public policy have such wide potential to cover such a range of buildings, institutions and ideals, as revealed in the mystery of the listing process.
The criteria that can be used to make a claim include not just the architectural interest of a building, but its historical interest. A classic example is the Walthamstow dog track in my constituency—a listed building that has
“special historic interest as the best surviving and most celebrated inter-war greyhound stadium”
“nationally loved building type expressive of developments in inter-war mass culture and entertainment.”
That building, and its place in Walthamstow’s history, tells us everything about Walthamstow’s position in east London. As the local MP, “What’s happening to the dog track?” is often the first question that I am asked when I state which constituency I represent. People often regale me with stories about nights out at the dog track, or the things that they have heard about it such as when Brad Pitt visited, or the time that Winston Churchill was heckled. The best stories that I have heard come from a gentleman named Norman Roach, who still lives in Walthamstow and is now 88. Norman went to the dog track as a young boy and attended the opening ceremony when Amy Johnson was there. He carried on working at the track and met Lana Turner and George Raft.
For me, the dog track is not about heritage as nostalgia. The passion that I share with Norman comes from the idea that such buildings can be anchors around which
7 Jun 2011 : Column 20WH
our future is shaped, not just in Walthamstow but across the country. At present, Walthamstow dog track lies derelict. It is currently owned by London and Quadrant housing association, which bought it in a private sale in 2008, before the local community had time to offer an alternative plan when the site was put up for sale. London and Quadrant wants to turn the dog track into flats, and it has resisted proposals that have widespread community backing to sell back the track so that it can be restored. The proposal currently on the table, supported by a business man called Bob Morton, would bring 500 jobs to the local area at the London living wage. It would be run as a co-operative and the League Against Cruel Sports is working with campaigners on the animal welfare principles that would underpin the running of the track. That is the best experience that a heritage building could provide, and it would celebrate not only the culture of Walthamstow in the past, but that of Walthamstow in the future. It is an area that desperately needs regeneration, investment and local jobs.
Although London and Quadrant clings to the land and claims that it could develop the site in the face of local opposition, local people feel frustrated that they cannot make progress on the alternative proposal and the good that would come from that. I secured this debate because I wanted to look at ways in which we, as national representatives, can make progress on such issues, not only so that they involve people like Norman who remember the good times, but so that local communities can benefit from such heritage sites in the future.
There are countless examples of heritage assets that have been a focus not only for the local community but for the regeneration of a wider area. Stockport Plaza Trust has regenerated a listed cinema and been a motor for regeneration in the Stockport area. The Phoenix cinema in Finchley is another example of such an initiative. On a grander scale, many of us will have seen the developments at King’s Cross and the role played by English Heritage, which worked with the local council and local developers to use heritage assets to drive the regeneration of the local area.
The idea that heritage is not simply about preservation but about the experience and the enjoyment of assets can benefit local communities. Such benefits are not simply about tourism, important though that is. The heritage and tourism industry generates about £7.4 billion in the country—not an inconsiderable sum—and 80% of people who come to the country want to see British heritage. Heritage is also, however, about helping communities to change their localities for the better, perhaps through sustainable development. William Morris would find much in modern policy to commend; he understood the environmental implications of a heritage policy and that it is better to repair than to rebuild.
There is a social impact in using heritage sites as community anchors, and 90% of people who live in areas with historic environmental regeneration plans say that such projects have fundamentally improved the quality of their lives, whether by creating jobs, or bringing pride back to the local area. Public support for assets being used in that way reflects a sense that heritage is about the experience as much as the physical appearance of the building.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 21WH
Nevertheless, despite the best efforts of planners and conservationists, such examples are often the exception rather than the rule. I know that English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are keen to do more in the area, which is what I would like to test today. Too often, heritage is defined in a certain way and change is secured only through the planning process and formal applications. Although planning policy statement 5 has many well thought-out powers and directions, the powers for intervention and what happens next need further work.
Currently, our only mechanism for intervention is for buildings that are on the at-risk register because they are in a poor condition or are not being made best use of. We highlight those deteriorating sites through the at-risk register, but as the law stands, and as the guidelines are interpreted, there is no sense of escalation and the register is not used as a stepping stone towards more intervention. There are just under 1,000 grade I and grade II* listed buildings on the at-risk register, half of which have been on it since 1999. They represent about 3% of all grade I and grade II* listed buildings, but about 45% of them could benefit their local communities. About 80 buildings a year are added to the list, and a slightly lower number are removed. There is, therefore, stagnation regarding the at-risk register and what it means.
Over the past 10 years, the powers available for the protection of heritage sites have been used on only two buildings on the at-risk register; the Minister will be aware of my parliamentary questions on that matter. An urgent works notice can be issued for emergency works to be carried out on a listed site, but it amounts to little more than forcing owners to put tarpaulin over leaking roofs. An urgent repairs notice is often the first step towards a compulsory purchase order.
Over the past 10 years, six urgent works notices have been issued, five of them for one building—Apethorpe Hall in Northamptonshire—and one for Harmondsworth barn in Hillingdon. Over the same period, only one urgent repairs notice has been issued, again on Apethorpe Hall. Crucially, both buildings remain on the at-risk register. Local authorities often try to prevent a building getting to the stage at which an urgent repairs notice or an urgent works notice is required. Nevertheless, the fact that those powers are enacted so rarely calls into question whether they are working properly and are appropriate.
A second example from my constituency and a cause that is close to me concerns a building on the at-risk register—the EMD cinema in Walthamstow. It is listed as the ABC cinema, but known locally as the EMD. It is a grade II* listed building and
“the oldest surviving of the cinemas designed by Komisarjevsky”
“one of the very few cinemas (in fact buildings of any type) designed in the Moorish style in Britain.”
It has a unique console; it contains the only organ outside Leicester square that is in situ in a cinema and can be played. The cinema has played a tremendous role in the history of Walthamstow. The Rolling Stones played there; again, we can lay claim to heritage because Keith Richard’s granny was the mayor of Waltham Forest, and I am proud to say that I followed in her footsteps. We in Walthamstow lay claim to many forms
7 Jun 2011 : Column 22WH
of heritage, including rock music. The Who played at the EMD when it was a centre for cultural activity in the local community.
The EMD was sold in 2003 to the United Church of the Kingdom of God, and has been on the at-risk register since 2004. Since then, the UCKG has sought planning permission to convert the building—the only cinema operating in Waltham Forest, the home of Alfred Hitchcock—into a church. Permission has been refused twice, including once by the Secretary of State.
In February this year, squatters gained access to the building for the second time since it closed. As the local MP, I spent a long, cold Saturday night trying to negotiate with them, asking them to leave the building and ensure that it was not damaged by any of their activities. During that process, I gained access to the building, and to my horror I saw the condition it was in. The cinema had been flooded because the pump that manages the underwater stream was not working properly. The central heating system was broken and water was dripping down the walls and coming through the roof.
Time and again, the UCKG has done the bare minimum to protect the building while the question of its future remains unresolved. Following the second planning application, which was refused a few weeks ago, the UCKG told the local community that the building belonged to the Church, and that it would continue to hold on to it until it gets its way.
The Waltham Forest cinema trust is a community-led project that seeks to bring the building back to its former glory. It hopes to ensure that we are able to capitalise on Walthamstow’s heritage in the British film industry, to bring the cinema back to Alfred Hitchcock’s borough, and provide a resource for the local community that will generate jobs, tourism and commerce for an area of east London that desperately needs that support.
The example of the EMD cinema flags up the problems with the listing and at-risk processes, because the rave there was not the first time that there had been concerns about the condition of the building and English Heritage had been asked to visit. Each time, the Church puts up tarpaulin, and that is enough; that is what it is currently asked to do. Many of us in the local community, including Norman Roach, who was also a regular visitor to the cinema and has spoken to me at length of his concerns about it, ask how much more damage must happen to the building before something can be done.
Determining what can be done is often a very difficult process for local authorities and English Heritage. Clearly, the financial risks associated with an urgent repairs notice and possibly a compulsory purchase order make councils wary of pursuing that course. In relation to the use of powers at national level, we are also seeing hesitancy about whether powers can be justified, and in which conditions.
That shows the disconnect between some of the ambitions set out in planning policy statement 5 and broader heritage policy that we need to address. Planning policy calls on councils to consider viable alternatives when deciding whether to reject a planning application at a heritage site. If an alternative is on offer that conforms more closely to the use for which a site was originally designed, that can be taken into consideration in rejecting an application. That is a very welcome step, because it reflects the belief that heritage is about the enjoyment and experience of a site as well.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 23WH
However, what we are seeing with the two examples that I have given, and, indeed, across the country, is that even if an application for planning permission is rejected because the heritage importance of an asset is upheld, owners can hold on to a site in any case, which leads to stalemate and, ultimately, the deterioration of heritage assets. The assize court in Devizes has been on the at-risk register since the late 1990s, but its Dubai-based owners refuse to budge. As with the EMD cinema and perhaps the Walthamstow dog track, the property continues to deteriorate. I note that planning policy statement 5 talks about that problem. It recognises that the active deterioration of a site in order to challenge, perhaps, the listed status of a building should not be part of the consideration of planning permission. How we deal with that in heritage policy is a key concern and an open question.
I suspect that at this point the Minister might point me in the direction of the Localism Bill. However, I am slightly concerned that, if anything, some of the current proposals on planning guidance may inadvertently take away the existing protections set out in PPS5. I recognise that some of the earlier unintended consequences of the Localism Bill in this area have been resolved, but there is strong concern among heritage professionals about national planning guidance proposals and the consolidation of guidance. I recognise that that is not necessarily within the purview of the Minister, but I hope that he will take the opportunity of this debate to reassure us about it and the need to retain the clarity of guidance in PPS5 in the streamlining process. That would be welcomed by the National Trust, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
The Minister has written to me suggesting that the community right-to-buy provisions in the Localism Bill will allow local residents to act, but in situations such as those that I have outlined, the deadlock whereby developers sit on a building means that we cannot use the community right-to-buy provisions, because they exist only at the point of sale or the potential point of sale.
As the Minister has raised the Localism Bill with me in relation to this issue before, I would welcome his thoughts on whether the community right to challenge might be applicable in some of these circumstances. I am thinking not least of the conduct of a registered social landlord and whether, perhaps as in the case of the Walthamstow dog track, the community would have the right to challenge its actions as a publicly funded institution, given its behaviour towards our local heritage assets.
Above all, these instances suggest that we may be more dependent on case law and precedent than policy in order to make real our ambitions on heritage. I recognise that there has been a discussion about reinstating the measures that had cross-party support in the draft Heritage Protection Bill. I certainly agree that streamlining the process of listing will make it easier to start the process of protection and I await the Government’s next steps following the Penfold review. However, the challenge is to ensure that that does not just mean more buildings sitting on a list with no follow-up. It would be useful if the Minister outlined whether such proposals are being brought forward or, if they are not, what else we could do.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 24WH
My concern is that if we do not act and nothing changes, there will be three consequences, not least of which will be the loss of such gems as the Walthamstow dog track; I think we all agree that that would be a travesty. It will also give a green light to developers who think long term and buy heritage assets with a view to waiting for them to decay so that they can be either demolished entirely or renovated in a way that destroys their original condition but ups the profit margin.
I certainly note with interest the suggestion that London and Quadrant might be looking to knock down the southern entrance to the Walthamstow dog stadium. That is listed, but frankly, it is unclear to me what difference it would make if it was star listed or on the at-risk register if the local community faced such a threat. That is only a suggestion at the moment; it has not been confirmed, as far as we know.
More important, the potential of heritage assets to do more than be mothballed will be missed. The contribution that a restored dog track or EMD cinema could make to my community will be lost. The ambition that many in the heritage world have for those assets to form part of the future of a locality as well as its past will never be realised.
With that in mind, I have three suggestions for the Minister about how policy could move forward. First, I think that the current powers around preservation need greater clarity. Planning offers a parallel process that is about use, not preservation. The heritage policy context would benefit from that. The Government should set out clear guidelines for existing policies. They should include a definition of heritage that can be tested in planning guidance, regeneration policy and the heritage world. They should encompass the concept of enjoyment and experience, as well as preservation. That might mean that fewer buildings pass the test, but it could be the foundation for being tougher about dealing with those that are on the list—that are covered by those guidelines. It could provide the ability to join up the aspirations that many people have about heritage buildings playing a role in regeneration, because grants and other forms of support could be offered that were more closely linked to such proposals, especially for tackling the relationship between deprivation and the restoration of the buildings. That is not just about planning, but about the role of development and the role that many businesses want to play in using those assets positively.
Secondly, we need to tackle what “at risk” means. If we need more clarity about what listing does for a building, we certainly need more explicit criteria for intervention when a building is at risk. I wrote to the Minister about the cinema in Walthamstow, and he wrote back to say that he felt that there was not such a case at this point in time. I disagree very strongly, as do thousands of residents of Walthamstow, and I will continue to petition for stronger measures to be taken than accepting that tarpaulin is an adequate response to the fortunes of a grade II* listed building. As I have said, the real concern for many of us in Walthamstow is what more the UCKG has to do to the EMD before English Heritage and the local authority have the confidence to intervene.
Many heritage groups want councils to have access to greater heritage expertise, which would give them the confidence to pursue compulsory purchase order processes with less fear of financial or legal risk. Surely there is a
7 Jun 2011 : Column 25WH
case for English Heritage not only to provide that expertise, but to be given more power to make these types of intervention. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will commit to a review of the powers and to further research on how and why local authorities have and have not used them and what lessons can be drawn from that. The inequality in use, which reflects social deprivation, suggests that it is not just the quality of the guidance as interpreted by conservation officers that is at issue, but the support and many different types of resources needed to be able do this work so that poorer communities are not at greater risk of losing heritage assets.
I also hope that the Minister will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to publish criteria for intervention in cases when communities either suspect deliberate damage or recognise that stalemate over the future of a building would have such consequences, so that we can all have more confidence that intervention will occur—and will mean more than tarpaulin. I hope that the Minister will commit to considering whether the proposal could include owners who damage the historical interest of a building, as well as those who let the fabric of a building deteriorate.
I hope that the Minister will consider whether there are parallels in the power to call in a planning decision that could be reversed, so that on sites of special interest the decision of a local authority not to issue an urgent repairs notice could be contested. The Mayor of London has told me of his concerns for the Walthamstow dog track, but says that at present his powers to act are limited. I know that he would certainly be interested in looking at whether he could do more.
In addition to the question about current powers and processes, there is one about whether further powers are required. That is my third suggestion. The promises that Ministers have made about community empowerment in local planning need to extend to heritage policy and should not depend on a building being run down, or an owner being generous enough to sell, in order to be active. We know that people want access to heritage sites and that planning has already identified the concept of a viable alternative as a factor that can be brought into play in the management of a decision about the use of a building. If the Government are serious about localism and giving communities the ability not only to plan for but to actively achieve the locality that they want, they should consider how that concept of viability can be built into heritage policy.
If we are not to have a heritage protection Bill, the Minister may face an uphill battle getting time for new heritage protection powers. However, it is not too late to be creative about the Localism Bill and to make meaningful the talk of community participation and the principle of listing buildings. Two thirds of heritage assets are privately owned, but approximately half of those on the at-risk register are publicly owned. If the Localism Bill has teeth, there may be more opportunities for community ownership as local authorities seek to dispose of assets to balance their books. Such measures would, however, need to work for buildings that are not in the public domain as well as for those that are.
It cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to explore the idea of a trigger process to extend a community right to bid to all assets with a specific listed status. That would force private owners to respond seriously to
7 Jun 2011 : Column 26WH
community-led bids if an asset was deemed to be unoccupied and to require adjudication—perhaps at Secretary of State level—as to whether the refusal to accept a bid constituted intention to encourage disrepair. At the very least, the Government could set out criteria for offering a subsidy for a community right to compulsory purchase in instances where heritage is a factor. They could also use that possibility as a precursor to a heritage partnership agreement between the owner and the local community.
Such measures may be difficult and sensitive, but if listing can take place in the national interest, this cannot be only at a single point in time. The Minister could seek stronger powers to determine when such measures could be used in the public interest. Indeed, there is a parallel in the planning appeals process. When Ministers are so minded, there could be provision in extreme cases, such as those that I have set out, and when all other avenues have been exhausted, for the Secretary of State to have a direct appeal and direct involvement.
Furthermore, we could explore the guidelines on funding for heritage grants, which at present preclude any activity until a building is definitely committed for sale, and the conditions under which such grants could be used to further actions to restore buildings if there was substantial community support from thousands of local people. There is certainly public support for that, and MORI found that 87% of people think that it is right that there should be public funding to preserve the historic environment.
Of course, I recognise that the call for such changes would require heritage bodies that do not face substantial cuts in their budgets. The mass disposal of heritage assets may cause problems in terms of our ability to make real these proposals. The introduction of buildings-at-risk officers in London has made a real difference to dealing with some of the challenges, but it requires funding.
Critically, if we are to help communities to access their local environment, they will need more resources than just legal expertise. They will need financial support, and I pay tribute to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is trying to help many communities, but it is hampered, as I explained, by some of the restrictions that it faces, which are preventing it from making real some of its ambitions.
Even if the existing powers were clearer, and the proposals being discussed in the Localism Bill were enacted, the time they will take to have meaning will be a barrier. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider applying a schedule of escalation, including a much tighter time scale for the exercise of urgent repair notices and for any community right to introduce a compulsory purchase order.
Not all those ideas require legislation, but they do require thought and, dare I say it, joined-up government. I hope that I have convinced the Minister that we need to turn warm words on preservation into something more meaningful for the benefit of our local communities. We must have a heritage policy that is about not simply mothballing buildings for future generations, but ensuring that future generations can experience those buildings.
Norman Roach is 88, and if we do not act to improve the way the Government, English Heritage and local authorities can support communities that want to protect
7 Jun 2011 : Column 27WH
buildings, Norman will become the sole record of our local community’s heritage in Walthamstow, telling stories of the old days and giving us just a glimpse of what those assets could have offered our local area.
I refer again to our famous son, William Morris, who said:
“I love art, and I love history, but it is living art and living history that I love. It is in the interest of living art and living history that I oppose so-called restoration. What history can there be in a building bedaubed with ornament, which cannot at the best be anything but a hopeless and lifeless imitation of the hope and vigour of the earlier world?”
People in Walthamstow share William Morris’s ambition. We want to live our history, not just to look at it, and we want our dog track and our cinema back. I hope that I have convinced the Minister that he should help us to realise that ambition, and I look forward to his response.
11.34 am
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing it. We can all agree that we have heard a wonderful history of Walthamstow’s inter-war cultural heritage, stretching from Clement Attlee to Keith Richards’s granny, via the dog track and the cinema. I can add to that oral history, because it is almost seven years to the day that I went to Walthamstow dog track in celebration of my forthcoming nuptials. I won successively and consecutively throughout the evening, so it was a very happy event.
It is good to have the Minister here. Over the past year, he has proved himself very open to the worlds of heritage and history. I pay tribute to the Government’s policy of returning to the lottery’s original causes and increasing funding to the Heritage Lottery Fund. Sadly, the Heritage Lottery Fund is now the only major funder in our heritage community, and although its resources are increasing, other resources are being cut. The achievement of putting money into the Heritage Lottery Fund is being undone by the terrible cuts to English Heritage, among others.
The Minister will travel south to Dover castle on Thursday to see the brilliant new installation exploring its role in the evacuation of the British expeditionary force from Dunkirk. Having had the privilege of seeing the installation yesterday, I can tell hon. Members that that work of scholarship, interaction and interpretation, which has been produced by Anna Keay and her team, is truly awe-inspiring. That shows what this country can do to manage its history and heritage.
However, English Heritage has had a 32% cut to its grant, which is higher than the cuts imposed on UK Sport, the Arts Council and Visit Britain. That leads Labour Members to question whether the Government share the enthusiasm and admiration that the Labour party has always shown for heritage. The Heritage Lottery Fund thinks that if we combine the cuts to English Heritage with the front-loaded cuts to local authorities, which often trickle down to conservation officers and heritage officers, we will see upwards of £600 million in funding extracted from the heritage sector, which could be very damaging.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 28WH
However, we are here to talk about heritage assets. As my hon. Friend beautifully explained, it is important to recognise that buildings matter. There has been an interesting shift in heritage thinking over the past 15 to 20 years, with an extraordinary opening-up of the heritage vista and a reconceptualisation of what our past means, as we look beyond cathedrals, country houses and abbeys to the houses of the Beatles and even to public toilets in north London, although I might draw the line there.
As Britain has become a more complicated and diverse community, and with the success of television programmes such as “Who Do You Think You Are?”, the compulsion to look into our genealogy has accelerated. We have sought to explore ourselves, our histories and our identities. Although that is, in part, not connected to the built environment, I would suggest that it is often best explained through it.
As my hon. Friend said, the built environment is important for those of us on the left. We can point back to Hugh Dalton’s work with the national land fund, to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and, of course, to William Morris, who lived in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As has been explained, he set up the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in response to what happened to Tewkesbury abbey.
For Morris, as for John Ruskin, progress meant going beyond the money-wage economy, spurning mass production and specialisation and rejecting some of the ethos of the industrial revolution. For Morris, old buildings—heritage—were signs of what freely given, unalienated labour could achieve. As Ruskin explained in “The Stones of Venice”, his wonderful account of the meaning of the buildings in Venice—you will remember, Mr Hollobone, his description of St Mark’s palace, which he compared to the Book Of Common Prayer—he was exploring history through the stones. Buildings were celebrations of work, faith and meaning—the very antithesis of a modern commodity—and protection was an act of defiance against commodification and capitalism; it was a defence of pleasure and humanity, a gesture of hope and possibly something of real, practical value for generations to come.
The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), will explain how, in our socialist future, historic buildings will be the germs from which socialist art will spring. In 1889, William Morris argued:
“It is degradation and not progress to destroy and lose these powerful aids to the happiness of human life for the sake of a whim or the greed of the passing hour.”
All of which makes the defence of our heritage assets so important. You will know, Mr Hollobone, that that is particularly the case in Stoke-on-Trent.
We have been greatly privileged to have had the publication of a wonderful book, which the Minister has no doubt thumbed conscientiously, entitled “The Lost City of Stoke-on-Trent” by Matthew Rice, partner of the celebrated potter, Emma Bridgewater, and owner of the wonderful Meakin factory in Litchfield street, which, in case the Minister has forgotten, is in south Hanley. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow explored, it is a celebration of the sense of place—what Matthew Rice calls “cultural anchors”—to defend the urban environment and continue our connection with place and history. The work brings to mind the history
7 Jun 2011 : Column 29WH
written in the 1960s and 1970s as the city of Bath was being destroyed. Even as the heritage of Bath was being knocked down, people were crying out that it was a destruction of our link to the past and to history. What has changed since then is the understanding of our industrial heritage. Cities such as Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham have begun to lead the way.
Our hope in Stoke-on-Trent is that, having seen a swathe of devastation in the pottery industry—the loss of bottle kiln oven after bottle kiln oven—we are now beginning to think about the economic, social and cultural value of such heritage assets. If I may, I shall take a little bit of time to explore a few buildings—heritage assets—that illustrate the argument. The old Goss bottle ovens at the Falcon works are in Stoke town above the Portmeirion works, which now controls the Spode line of pottery. They are also known as the eagle works and have beautiful bottle oven brick kilns in front of a huge pot bank, which are falling into an advanced state of disrepair. They were sold by Portmeirion to a company called Connexa—no doubt, we shall not get to the bottom of how many companies are called Connex—in Crewe, which seems to have little connection with the commerce or history of Stoke-on-Trent or an understanding of the value of the asset to the area.
I have been in touch with Stoke-on-Trent city council to explore the possibility of an urgent repairs notice. As my hon. Friend suggested, such developments are expensive, but luckily we have a very good English Heritage team in the west midlands and there is some suggestion that the city council could apply for funding from English Heritage to support an application for a notice, but it is wary of going down that road, which is why my hon. Friend’s explanation of the reticence with which the laws are used is important. We need the laws to be used more regularly and more effectively, to make people unafraid of using them and to make them cheaper and more accessible, so that they become part of the armoury of defence for our heritage assets. We have lost so many kilns in Stoke-on-Trent; it would be a great crime to lose more. I hope that there will be action on that front. There are now trees growing out of them.
The old Spode site, which the city council has bought, is also in Stoke town. You, Mr Hollobone, will know the history of the kingdom of Spode and the great competition that it had with the Wedgwood family. Its huge, wonderful site, which went out of business only a few years ago, is in the middle of Stoke town. In one sense, it is not an at-risk site, in that to make such heritage assets work we must have a successful commercial model. The challenge in Stoke-on-Trent now is not simply about enveloping the buildings for their protection, but about working out how to use them. We are hopeful that with innovative thinking we will develop an economic model for the site, which will involve artists’ workshops, studios and second-hand shops. When the Minister comes to see the site, which I am convinced is only a matter of time, he will be excited by its new prospects.
What gives us hope is the recent success—we hope—of the Middleport pottery works, which are north of the city outside my constituency. If recent suggestions are to be believed, they may come within my constituency in future months, which would be a great boon, as we can imagine. The Middleport pottery works have received funding from the regional growth fund, the Prince’s Trust and the Heritage Lottery Fund to revive the site
7 Jun 2011 : Column 30WH
and lease it back to a functioning ceramics company, Burleigh. That is a model of co-operation, local leadership and Government and quango action, all of which have come together to save an historic site. I am not enemy of quangos; indeed, I declare an interest as having served as a trustee of the Heritage Lottery Fund. The results are absolutely vital for the economic regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent. As we build an economy based on our engineering businesses and ceramics sector, but also on tourism and heritage assets, having such cultural anchors and significant sites is important.
It would be remiss of me to stand here as an MP for Stoke-on-Trent talking about heritage assets and not mention the threat posed to the extraordinary asset that is the Wedgwood museum. A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that the collection inside the building was now UNESCO designated and part of the Memory of World register. That shows an understanding that the extraordinary collection is of world-class significance. The Minister knows that the complicated issue of whether the collection is a permanent endowment held in trust comes to court on 13 September. There remains intense concern in north Staffordshire about its future. I hope that his Department is working night and day to have plans at the ready in case the judgment goes against us.
We need a sea change in thinking to begin to think about heritage assets not as obstacles to economic regeneration that need, in that great Glaswegian parlance, “to go on fire”, but as cultural anchors, vehicles for meaning and identity and economic assets for the community, which is why Matthew Rice’s book is so important. I agree 100% with my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who set out the policy options for the DCMS plan for the next four years on improvements to the at-risk register, the community right-to-challenge, local usage and restoration.
I shall end with the point that taking action on heritage assets should be more accessible and usable. We need to change the culture of use of heritage assets in the business world and in the community. We are enormously privileged to work in this environment. It is a make-believe environment, with which William Morris had certain problems because it was conjured up in the 1830s and 40s. Many of our constituents have had their connection to history, the past and their local communities taken away, sometimes for understandable reasons of economic growth, but we need to box slightly more clever when considering the value of heritage assets and what Government, business and communities can do collectively to preserve those things that matter to people.
11.49 am
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab): It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to respond for the Opposition under your chairmanship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this important debate, and I commend the work that she is doing on both fronts for her constituents in relation to heritage. My hon. Friend spoke passionately, and it is clear how important the matter is for her constituents. It is obvious that I am not Brad Pitt, Winston Churchill or Norman Roach, but I once had an extremely good night at Walthamstow dog track, and I can see how important it is to the community that my hon. Friend represents.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 31WH
The Labour party has a proud tradition of standing up for heritage, a tradition that I am determined to continue in my role as shadow Culture Minister. Since the end of world war two, Labour has recognised not only the historical importance of heritage sites, but the economic benefits that such sites can yield. Heritage is central for so many reasons. It goes beyond class boundaries. From Giant’s Causeway to Canterbury cathedral, it is central to our local and national identity. It is crucial in regeneration projects in towns and cities across the United Kingdom.
The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was the first step on the road to establishing the system of listing buildings. Now, 64 years on, we are continuing the debate to reform and refine it, and my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) have important contributions to make to that debate. Labour then passed the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which helped to bring about the first 10 national parks. Our commitment to heritage continued in the late 1960s with the Civic Amenities Act 1967, which introduced conservation areas and allowed local authorities to administer loans and grants for the restoration of historic buildings and sites. Soon afterwards, Labour introduced legislation stipulating that anyone who is found to have destroyed a historic building can be imprisoned.
I am proud of Labour’s history in standing up for heritage, and I want a new and reinvigorated debate on the subject. We have clearly made a good start today, and the contributions to this debate focused on the ability of heritage to galvanise and organise local communities. Its importance in defining our cultural, moral, political, theological and social values cannot be underestimated. It incorporates the most special and valued remains and structures. These landscapes physically mark moments in history. Most importantly, people can relive them on a day-to-day basis, and they help to shape our beliefs and our passions. They have lived through the ages, and all elected to this place have an obligation to ensure that they are preserved for the next generation to be enjoyed and to be used as a tool for learning.
For each of us, there are treasured personal objects—a pair of spectacles or a particular chair—that instantly bring back the memory of a loved one. The physical remains from generations past—homes, schools, factories, and churches—are the equivalent for society, for entire communities and for the nation. Historic places are the repositories of our communal memory and identity, and as a result they are deserving of special respect and care. A society that ignores its past cannot embrace the future. We owe it to the next generation to preserve the best achievements of past generations.
A poll conducted last year revealed that 70% of Britons attend one or more UK heritage sites every year, many more than those who visit football games or art galleries. The sector provides work for just less than 500,000 paid staff and 500,000 volunteers. That is as many staff as are employed in the NHS.
In a recent speech to English Heritage, the Minister highlighted the fact that the industry has captured the nation’s imagination. Membership of the National Trust has risen by 33%, and membership of English Heritage
7 Jun 2011 : Column 32WH
has risen by a staggering 62%. The Minister has said in recent speeches that tourism is one of the nation’s fastest growing industries. The sector is set to increase by 3.5% between 2009 and 2018.
A central reason for tourists being attracted to the British isles is our heritage sites. In Yorkshire, for example, local councils were told a few years ago that they were taking a massive risk in pumping money into the tourism industry. However, they believed in the power of their local history and their heritage sites—sites such as Ripley castle and Harewood house, Roche abbey and the York cold war bunker. The “Welcome to Yorkshire” television campaign has heritage at its very core, and the county attracts more than 200 million visitors a year. In fact, a large percentage of heritage tourism in the UK is domestic, especially in recent years given the rise of the staycation.
Heritage is an industry, and Brits spend money on it as much as people from overseas, especially outside London. That is an important and positive aspect, because Government investment in our heritage can support other key agendas, such as quality of life, healthy living, lifelong learning and families spending time together. I am minded to ask the Minister what impact the heritage industry had on the Prime Minister’s inquiry into what makes the nation happy. I shall wait eagerly to see whether it features in his closing remarks. Of course, there are more advantages to the staycation. If Brits are spending their money on domestic tourism and in shops and restaurants near heritage sites, rather than abroad, that is of benefit to the Treasury.
[Mr Mike Hancock in the Chair]
We learned over the weekend that leading economists believe that we are on the road to ruin with the Government’s programme of cuts. Surely the Minister realises that schemes such as “Welcome to Yorkshire” are vital for local economies across Britain. These initiatives are having a positive impact on the region, but they are at risk because of the 32% cut to English Heritage and the overall 25% cut to the Minister’s Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central explained the consequences of such cuts in his wonderfully entertaining speech. He pointed out that without professional staff to care for, to open and to interpret historic places, the huge rises in visitor numbers we have seen over recent years would fall.
I know all too well the dangers that these heritage sites face. Eastwood in my constituency is the birthplace of D.H. Lawrence, something of which we are very proud. However, the D.H. Lawrence heritage centre, which contains exhibits of the life and times of Lawrence and the original court copies of Lawrence’s most controversial novel, “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”, was under threat of closure earlier in the year as the local council was seeking to make cuts. Looking through the visitor book, it is clear that the centre is a resource not only for the people of Eastwood but for people across the country and from all over the world—people who otherwise might never come to our area.
It was vital to save the centre so that we could preserve an essential source of tourist income for the area. The campaign to save Durban house was backed, at my suggestion, by a host of famous faces, including Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, the Nottinghamshire writer Billy Ivory, Michael Parkinson, Lord Puttnam,
7 Jun 2011 : Column 33WH
Glenda Jackson and Ken Russell, as well as countless ordinary people. I am sure that the Minister will agree that celebrating local culture and heritage is a vital part of the regeneration of the ex-coalfields of north Nottinghamshire. I was thrilled that the centre was saved thanks to an eleventh-hour agreement with Nottingham university. I suspect that that may be news to the Minister who, of course, rejected my invitation to visit it.
The cut to English Heritage funding equates to roughly £51 million over the next four years, but the true consequence of the loss is not yet calculable. Rolling the dice with the UK’s most special treasures is not the action of a responsible Government. Thirteen years of Labour Governments saw an increase in the number of visitors to historic sites, a broadening of knowledge about our heritage culture and an increase in profits. The last Labour Government did some fantastic work, and although I accept that we may have done more, our heritage sites were safe in our hands.
The Minister has said that we tend to underestimate just how great the UK is. I disagree. Britons from across the country and around the world are rightly proud of our heritage sites, and they show their support with their feet and with their purses. It is the Government who have underestimated the true value of such sites, and it seems that they are content to put the future of such sites at risk.
What we know today is radically different from what we knew a century ago. Britain’s fascination with what went before will long outlive this Government’s reckless cuts. There is a real risk that our historic public buildings—built with taxpayer’s money with the sort of craftsmanship and materials that we cannot afford today—will simply be sold to the highest bidder. That will have two results. In prosperous areas, public buildings such as Victorian schools will become unaffordable, exclusive private apartments, yet in less well-off places such buildings will sit derelict and empty, blighting the town centre or the high street.
Some aspects of the historic environment are already worse off. The extent of Labour’s grant scheme to return to congregations the VAT paid on the repair of historic places of worship has been reduced under the coalition Government. What could be a better example of the big society than congregations coming together to raise funds to restore their buildings and open them to wider community use? Yet donations to these funds to pay for all church fittings and architects’ fees will now go straight to the Treasury.
Does the Minister truly appreciate his responsibility to protect the heritage industry? Does he appreciate the strain that local authority cuts are putting on the authorities’ ability to protect heritage sites, to offer grants to historic buildings at risk and to ensure that changes to listed buildings take place with the advice of expert conservation staff? Given his recognition of how far the tourism industry is set to go in the next few years, why was there no mention of the heritage industry in the tourism strategy?
Will the Government’s emphasis on localism undermine our tried and tested ways of protecting our heritage at a national level through organisations such as English Heritage? As local authorities begin to sell off their historic buildings, libraries, schools, swimming baths and town halls to make ends meet, how will the Government
7 Jun 2011 : Column 34WH
support community groups that want to preserve their public services in the beautiful and historic buildings that have served them well for centuries?
12 noon
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose): Thank you, Mr Hancock, for taking over the Chair from Mr Hollobone in mid-debate. I am looking forward to completing this debate under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this vitally important debate. Although some hon. Members have been unable to resist making some party political points, there is, none the less, a great degree of cross-party agreement on the importance of heritage and on the generalised approach to it.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow is right to say that heritage amounts to a great deal more than just buildings. I can attest to that as I am the Minister who has just listed, among other things, a zebra crossing in Abbey road. As she said, heritage goes far wider than just structures. It encompasses all sorts of things from pre-historic archaeological sites right the way through to bang up-to-date modern pieces of architecture, which are tomorrow’s heritage.
The hon. Lady is also right to say that heritage is important not just for the undoubted tourism benefits that it brings, but for its own sake. It is about not just place making for those of us who are the current occupants of each community and each built environment, but a local and a national story. One reason why we have a listing system is to ensure that the crucial marks, illustrations or buildings along that national story are preserved for current and future generations. That applies to not just the grand sweep of history—the national story of kings and queens and grand social movements—but local communities.
The hon. Lady was right to say that in any local community there are people who take huge pride in a local building that may be listed at grade II or only listed on a local scheme—if I can call a conservation area that—but which is, none the less, an important piece of that local community’s past. Such a building can make a community feel special, and it explains to people who live there where they came from and why their surroundings are the way that they are. That is an essential part of our understanding of our roots. Britain is not a new country but an old one. We are a modern country, but we have a history and a heritage to be proud of and we lose that at our peril. Let me acknowledge in passing the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) that pride in one’s heritage is an essential component of happiness—a nebulous but very important concept that the Prime Minister is currently trying to grapple with.
Incidentally, for future speeches, I will plagiarise heavily without apology the comment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow about the Marks and Spencer approach to heritage. She is absolutely right to say that it is not enough to recognise as historically important a building, structure or an archaeological remain; we need to have an explanation and a narrative. We need to have an exposition of why something is important. It is not enough to say, “This is an important building.” Explaining why it is important is an essential part of the heritage
7 Jun 2011 : Column 35WH
story. She will see her words cropping up in various speeches, but I am sure that she will claim credit for them whenever they do.
The hon. Lady mentioned a couple of points in passing, which I shall try to deal with quickly before moving on to the main meat of her comments. She mentioned that there is a degree of concern in the heritage world about the successor to planning policy statement 5. I have already made some comments about that in public, but perhaps I can repeat them here just for the record.
A couple of amendments to the Localism Bill ensured that we kept the statutory protections for listing and heritage preservation. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that that is only part of the story and that heritage protection requires many of the other points, which were elaborated on in PPS5, to be included in the new revised planning guidelines. We are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that that happens. In the same way that we have already come good on our promise to maintain the statutory protections, we aim to ensure that they are read across into the new forms of planning guidance, too. The draft has not yet been published, but no doubt there will be plenty of comment from the many experts in the heritage world when it is.
We are trying to ensure that the heritage voice is heard while the draft is being compiled, and there is a great deal more to do to ensure that the details are done properly. I want to reassure both the hon. Lady and those in the wider heritage world that that is an ongoing process and that we are taking it very seriously indeed. It is also true to say that there is a great deal of admiration and affection for PPS5. It sounds rather strange to say that people like planning guidelines, but those are probably the only ones that people like. The heritage world feels that PPS5 contains some important protections and wants them preserved for the future.
Stella Creasy: Does the Minister see any reason why the intentions behind PPS5 in their entirety might not continue? There is talk today that an application might come forward for the Walthamstow dog track. The local community would welcome confirmation that, as far as the Minister is concerned, regulations in PPS5 about taking into account any alternative viable option for a heritage site will be relevant to that decision.
John Penrose: I need to tread a careful line here to avoid prejudging the ongoing process to produce the new guidance. There are important things that the new guidance will do to make the whole panoply of different planning guidelines—not just the ones for heritage—become shorter, simpler and generally less burdensome. Within that context, we absolutely want to make sure that the principles behind PPS5 are maintained and truly and faithfully carried across. I do not want to comment on the detailed wording. As in all such things, the devil can be in the detail. I hope that I have given the hon. Lady a direction of travel and a statement of principle that will be helpful to her at this point.
The hon. Lady also mentioned some points about the Heritage Protection Bill, which, as I understand it, the previous Government spent a great deal of time working on. Certainly, officials in my Department spent a great
7 Jun 2011 : Column 36WH
deal of time working on it. None the less, the poor thing led a rather peripatetic existence, wandering around different parts of Whitehall desperately trying to find a slot in the legislative timetable. As it did not manage to find one before the end of the previous Government, it fell without ever being debated in the House. There were some rather useful technical points in it which we shall try to take through. We are currently discussing them with the Ministry of Justice to see whether they might fit into the Repeals Bill that is coming up. Many of them are entirely technical but worthy and sensible, too.
I am thinking of ideas such as trying to make sure that if we amended the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to try to ensure that listings apply not just willy-nilly to the entire curtilage of a listed structure but to the bits that are genuinely important and listable. Such a proposal will provide greater clarity to the current owners and potential future developers about which parts of a site could be important. Another of my favourite Acts is the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854, which apparently requires the Secretary of State to assent to the erection of statues in public places in London rather than that being done through the planning appeals system. I am not quite sure of the reason for that, but all such things are sensible and worthy.
However, nothing is certain yet because we cannot find a slot in the current legislative timetable. As we are focused on dealing with the Localism Bill and all the other factors related to the deficit, we will not be able to get a heritage protection Bill on to the statute book in the short term, but we may be able to do one or two of those things if we can find other slots. We are working on that, but I can make no promises at this stage.
I think that the meat of the hon. Lady’s comments were about the heritage at-risk regulations and processes are whether or not they are currently up to the task that has been set for them. It is worth pointing out that the heritage at-risk register, which has now been in existence for more than a decade, has had quite a lot of success. Various speakers in the debate have quoted figures about the number of heritage assets that are on that register and about how many of them have gone through the register. I think that it is true to say that a very large number of the sites that are fairly difficult but not impossible to deal with have now been dealt with. A quite large proportion of sites have come on to the register and come off it again after three, four or five years; I think that the average length of time that such sites are on the register is about five years. They come off the register because they have been dealt with and a solution has been found for them.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) put it nicely when he said that we need a sensible commercial model for an at-risk heritage site for that site to work. There is no point in simply transferring ownership of the site or making a temporary fix. If we do not come up with a sustainable solution, within 18 months, two years or a similar period, the site will start to deteriorate again and pretty soon we will be back where we started. I think that it was the hon. Member for Walthamstow who quoted William Morris, who said that we need
“living art and living history”.
It is vital that we all make that point as strongly as we possibly can.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 37WH
What has happened is that a large number of sites have come on to the heritage at-risk register, sustainable solutions have been found for them and then they have come off the register after four or five years. However, we also have a hard core of sites that are much harder to deal with, which have been on the at-risk register pretty much since it was started. Many of them have been on the register for well over 10 years, and either they are very difficult to find an economically sustainable solution for or they will always be at risk for other reasons—for example, they are coastal sites suffering from erosion. Forces of nature, such as coastal erosion, may be harder to deal with than economic difficulties, which may be solved by changing a site’s use. I think that the hon. Member for Walthamstow also talked about sites that have been on the at-risk register for a long time.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we have a series of powers that are being used spottily at the moment. She quoted some figures on how few times various powers have been used either by English Heritage or by my own Department, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As she rightly pointed out, that number is in the single figures. However, I should point out for the record that that is only part of the story; indeed, I think that she implicitly acknowledged that herself. There are many other occasions when such powers are used around the country, particularly by local authorities.
It is noticeable, however, that when we examine the figures for local authorities we find that some are much more comfortable with applying such powers—urgent works notices, compulsory purchase orders or whatever they may be—while others are much less comfortable and much less confident about using them and use them only rarely, if ever. As I say, there is a wide variety of practice by local authorities in the heritage sector. It is clear that some local authorities are comfortable about their ability to use such powers effectively to advance the cause of at-risk heritage assets and sites within their area, whereas other local authorities are a great deal more cautious or nervous about using them and are much more worried about the cost and other implications of doing so. Given that some local authorities are using such powers frequently while others are not, perhaps we can start to consider the reasons why the powers are not being used effectively in some cases and try to understand the issues involved.
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that we are already addressing that issue and are trying to understand the reasons for that difference in the use of the powers by local authorities. Inevitably, given the huge variety of different heritage sites—all of which face an individual and entirely specific set of issues—and of political situations in local authorities, there is an extremely complicated patchwork. Therefore, finding answers that will raise the worst-performing authorities even to the standard of the average-performing authorities is not a trivial exercise. It is not easy to find answers that will work across that very complicated patchwork, but we are already looking at that issue.
I think that the hon. Lady and I have already made the important point to each other—in earlier private conversations about the local heritage sites in her constituency that she has mentioned today—that it is important to start looking at having a rather more nuanced and finer gradation of stepping stones or escalation of powers. At the moment, particularly in
7 Jun 2011 : Column 38WH
those local authorities where the use of a compulsory purchase order or an urgent works notice is viewed as a bit of a nuclear button—that is, as a last resort—there is nothing in between using those powers and having a nice chat over a cup of coffee with the owner of a site who is not necessarily doing what needs to be done with the site. Perhaps we need to consider whether there should be a collection of both carrots and sticks that can be used between those two extremes. At the moment, such powers do not exist. We do not have them at present, but we are considering whether it is possible to develop them.
Even if we can develop such powers, however, we would need to use them extremely carefully. If we just go for carrots—that is, incentives—for owners to plough more money into a heritage at-risk asset and that asset gets to a certain state of disrepair, we run the very real risk of creating a very sizeable moral hazard. We do not want to create a situation whereby the entire system is set up to encourage people to allow the assets that they own to fall into disrepair, until they reach a certain stage of advanced disrepair whereupon the state will come galloping to the rescue with a large wodge of public cash. Clearly, that would be an extremely perverse incentive, and it is not one that we want. However, we may want to have some incentives that are matched up with additional powers to push or prod owners who are not doing the right thing. At the same time, we must be very careful to ensure that we match those powers to avoid creating the type of perverse incentive that I have just described.
I must add a note of caution to my responses to the hon. Member for Walthamstow. When an owner of a heritage site wants to do something with it—say, x—and there is a community that wants to do something else with it—say, y—and those two things do not match and there is no overlap between them, it is very easy to end up with a degree of deadlock through the planning system. From what the hon. Lady has said this morning, it sounds as though that has happened in at least one if not both of the two heritage cases in her constituency that she referred to. However tempting it may appear, it would be a mistake to try to cast the heritage industry and the heritage world as some kind of deus ex machina that will turn up and solve such problems for the good of all concerned, by coming down either on the side of the owner or that of the community. It is not possible—indeed, it is not even desirable—for the heritage world to try to act as the court of appeal between those two parties, because coming to a conclusion that both the owner and the community can live with must be achieved by dialogue through the normal democratic process. That is what the planning system is set up to do.
The hon. Lady rightly said at the start of her remarks that this debate today is not about planning policy. The heritage world must ensure that planning policy is applied where necessary in a heritage-sensitive and heritage-sympathetic way. However, the heritage world cannot fix a fundamental democratic disagreement; such a disagreement must be dealt with through the mechanisms of the planning system. Even if we can come up with new and better powers and incentives, we would breach that principle at our peril.
A conclusion may be reached about the best use for a heritage asset, and that use might be the same type of use that the asset was originally designed for. The hon.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 39WH
Lady gave the example of a cinema, and a cinema might be brought back into use as a cinema. However, the heritage world is not too precious about whether or not a cinema has to be brought back into use as a cinema, for the very reason that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central gave earlier: it is more important to have a viable, sustainable and ongoing commercial use for a building than that it should go back to its previous use. It is far better for that heritage asset to have a future that is workable, even if it is being used for another purpose than the one that it was originally designed for, than that it should have no commercial future at all.
Let me give an example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to some of the excellent work that is happening in the area around King’s Cross. If one walks north of King’s Cross, it is possible to see a building that I believe is called the university of the creative arts in London. It is a wonderful combination of modern architecture and a couple of old train sheds that are being turned into a wonderful university campus. That building is an outstanding example of blending the old and the new—it is an absolutely gorgeous combination of the two—and it is something that I think the country will be hugely proud of. If I can venture an opinion, it will definitely be a piece of heritage of the future as well as a piece of heritage of the past, and it is being created right now. That, however, would be completely impossible if we were too precious and insisted that a railway shed had to be used as a railway shed. I do not think that anyone here would argue that re-purposing the sheds and giving them a new use is a bad thing. I accept that it is entirely reasonable and sensible for there to be a local democratic debate between residents and the owner of a site about whether it carries on as a cinema, for example, or is used for something else, but from a heritage point of view that is not part of the solution. The heritage solution is to achieve a sustainable answer that ensures that the fabric of the building and, if necessary, its cultural resonance—let us not forget that its use will have created cultural ripples in the local area—is preserved.
I am afraid, therefore, that I am going to slightly disappoint the hon. Lady by saying that it would be a mistake for heritage to intervene and say, “This is an unacceptable use”—within very wide boundaries. Heritage needs to say, “This is a sustainable use, which will preserve the heritage character and fabric of the building, and any further conversation about the suitability of the use has to be expressed through the local planning mechanism rather than through the heritage world.”
Stella Creasy:
In the Walthamstow examples, there is a viable, commercially backed and community backed alternative for both buildings. The current planning process allows that to be taken into consideration, and the Minister has just very kindly confirmed that such an alternative should be taken into account if a plan comes forward for the dog track. What we do not see in heritage is a parallel ability to say that, if there is a viable alternative that is in keeping with the heritage listed status, we can make progress, and I want to press the Minister a little more on that. I understand his concern not to see a deus ex machina approach to heritage policy, but what confidence can communities such as mine have that he will not stand by and say that
7 Jun 2011 : Column 40WH
the heritage and sustainability aspects cannot be taken in account and that when owners sit on assets and do nothing, as they have in Walthamstow, we will not be left waiting, hoping that a planning application—as the only mechanism for expressing our heritage concerns—will come forward?
John Penrose: I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, and I refer her to my earlier comments about the need for some interim and escalation powers. From the list of cases that have gone through and have come off the heritage at risk register, we know that we have conversations, discussions and expert advice at one end of the spectrum of existing powers and the nuclear button—as we discussed earlier—at the other. We need some interim steps, which we just do not have at the moment. The letter that I wrote to the hon. Lady a couple of weeks ago, which I think arrived just in time for her planning meeting, made the point that there is no opportunity to use or impose the current legal powers from the centre here in Whitehall, but if we came up with some interim steps—stepping stones—we could use some of them for an equivalent future case. A far better solution to the kind of problem that the hon. Lady is laying out would be to create those kinds of powers, with the right mix of carrots and sticks to ensure that we did not create perverse incentives.
The hon. Lady mentioned that there is a solution on the table that has the approval of many local people and an alternative investor waiting in the wings, but the missing third party is the existing owners, who either need to be convinced that the solution is in their interests or, with some interim or other stepping-stone powers, be given some opportunities and incentives. As I think the hon. Lady mentioned in her initial remarks, that is an aspect in which such policy crucially needs to develop, and I hope that we can do so on a cross-party basis. Putting aside some of the comments about whether individual quangos have done well, I hope that the broader collection of approaches that we will be able to take on heritage will have cross-party approval. Incidentally, and for the record, the overall funding for heritage as a whole is going down by only 2%, even though funding for individual heritage quangos is decreasing by a substantially larger amount. If we can get to that position, perhaps Mr Norman Roach will be able to stop being the only repository of knowledge, understanding and memory in Walthamstow about one or two of the local heritage assets and instead be part of a much wider and better elucidated and enunciated set of heritage assets and experience there.
Stella Creasy: I just hope that I can encourage the Minister to commit to coming to Walthamstow, to see the two sites and talk both to members of the local community and to the investors that we have for both sites, so that he can understand some of the challenges that we need to embrace in heritage policy. I would be very happy to show him the range of heritage that we have in Walthamstow. Perhaps he could even meet Norman, to understand how the examples in Walthamstow reflect the wider problems with heritage policy. I hope that the Minister will make at least that commitment, so that we can show him the work that we are doing in Walthamstow to try to make heritage not just preservation but experience and enjoyment.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 41WH
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I am sure that you will find that invitation hard to resist, Minister.
John Penrose: I have had an invitation to Stoke and now to Walthamstow. I think that I did go to Walthamstow dogs before it closed. I am afraid that I will, as the saying goes, have to look at my diary, but I appreciate both invitations and hope that we can advance this policy.
There should be agreement on both sides of the House on this, but we have to tread very carefully because the devil will be in the detail and we must make certain that, while enhancing opportunity for communities to ensure that their heritage is looked after, we do not traduce or ignore the very real and legitimate rights of owners.
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair): It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that, while the Minister is in travelling mood, he select Portsmouth as a possible location, but we would welcome the opportunity to meet him there.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 42WH
City Status (Reading)
12.27 pm
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I am delighted that we are able to have this debate in the week after Reading’s formal application for city status was submitted.
I am sure that the Minister has seen the excellent bid document, which was put together jointly by the local council, representatives of business, our local papers—the Reading Post and the Reading Chronicle—Reading’s voluntary groups and other excellent local organisations. The document encompasses the very heart and soul of Reading: an economic powerhouse with a distinguished past, a vibrant present and a bright future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)is not only a very able Minister but an extremely fair individual. I do not expect that in his response today he will suddenly announce that on the strength of this debate Reading has been awarded city status. That would be nice, but I will not hold my breath. We all understand that Reading’s bid, along with all the others, will need to be properly evaluated. Nevertheless, I think that at the end of the evaluation process the Minister will find that if he takes the best bits from each bid—a long and varied history, deep links to royalty, excellent sporting, cultural and retail facilities, outstanding educational establishments, an active civic society and voluntary sector, economic leadership on an international scale and a self-confident people reflecting the cosmopolitan nature of 21st-century Britain—he will have Reading down to a tee. Reading represents not just cool Britannia but rule Britannia, when it comes to leading on international jobs, growth and economic activity. My home town of Reading, where I grew up and went to school, is a microcosm of all that is best, bold and bright about Britain today.
I will take the rest of my time to spell out the detail of Reading’s pre-eminent bid, and our powerful and persuasive case for city status. Reading began life as a Saxon settlement in the early seventh century and was first mentioned in written history in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle”. In 1121, Henry I, the youngest son of William the Conqueror, laid the foundation stone for Reading abbey. Over time, Reading became one of the most important religious and political centres in Europe. Henry was buried at the abbey, making Reading one of only a handful of towns where British monarchs are buried.
Reading’s association with royalty has continued through the ages. Reading abbey was consecrated in the presence of Henry II. Admittedly, Henry VIII put a damper on things by dissolving the abbey, and the last abbot, Hugh Cook Faringdon, suffered the occupational hazard of not recognising Henry as head of the Church and was duly executed outside the abbey gates. However, the outlook for Reading improved with Queen Elizabeth I’s ascent to the throne. She visited Reading on several occasions and granted the town borough status.
Fast-forwarding to today, Reading is the county town of the royal county of Berkshire and is the birthplace of our future Queen, the Duchess of Cambridge. Interestingly, there are no cities in the royal county. It would therefore be fitting, in the year after a magnificent royal wedding—the year of Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee—for Reading to be granted city status.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 43WH
When it comes to sporting, cultural and retail facilities, Reading leads the way. We have a premiership football club in Reading FC, which temporarily finds itself in the championship. The club’s home, Madejski stadium, is a modern facility of which any city would be proud. Reading football club is a beacon, a community-based club that was named family club of the year in 2010. The stadium is also home to London Irish rugby club and was voted the best place to watch rugby in a 2010 survey.
The local council operates seven leisure centres. Rivermead centre is home to the nationally successful Reading Rockets basketball team. The River Thames is the base for many rowing and canoeing clubs, and the Redgrave Pinsent rowing lake, a purpose-built marina at Caversham, will be the training base for Team GB rowing before the 2012 Olympics. In addition, Reading has flourishing clubs and facilities for cricket, hockey, athletics, swimming, golf and gymnastics. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that represents a wide range of facilities to satisfy the most demanding of sportsmen and women.
To soothe the senses, Reading offers many parks and playgrounds spread across the borough, as well as riverside walks and beautiful vistas across the Thames. Reading is also a shoppers’ paradise. The town is one of the top retail destinations in the UK, and the Oracle shopping centre on the banks of the River Kennet, with more than 120 retail units, is the region’s premier retail and leisure destination, offering restaurants and cinemas as well as shopping. Reading attracts shoppers from as far afield as Bracknell, Newbury, Royal Windsor and Henley. In addition to the Oracle shopping complex, we have the popular Broad street mall and a large range of major national and international brand stores, with Apple recently announced. Of course, in keeping with tradition, Reading also operates a farmers’ market and a street market.
For the outside visitor, Reading offers a wide range of accommodation, ranging from chic boutique hotels such as the Forbury and Malmaison and luxury chains such as Hilton and Crown Plaza to high-standard independent guest houses. If the Minister has not yet made plans for his summer holidays, may I recommend a few days in Reading? As well as enjoying our sporting, retail and leisure facilities, he and his family will be able to check out our various museums and enjoy a play or concert at the famous Hexagon theatre. If he comes during the August bank holiday weekend, he will be able to visit the internationally renowned Reading festival, set on the banks of the Thames. I suspect that he is tempted by Reading’s offer. Perhaps he will tell me in his response whether he would like me to reserve some accommodation for him during August.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I wish my hon. Friend every success. He is making an elegant case for city status for Reading, but will he reassure Wokingham that no extraterritorial demands will be made if Reading gains the honour of being a city?