Westminster Hall

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 7 June 2011

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Dairy Farming

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Bill Wiggin.)

09:30

[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.

[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 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. 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.

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.

09:49

[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 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 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 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.

10:02

[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 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 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.

10:09

[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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Sitting suspended.

Heritage Assets

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

10:50

[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 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”

and includes

“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.

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”

and is a

“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 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.

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”

in London. It is

“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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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

[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.

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 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 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

[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.

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 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, 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 support community groups that want to preserve their public services in the beautiful and historic buildings that have served them well for centuries?

12:00

[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 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 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.

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 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. 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 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.

[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.

City Status (Reading)

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

12:27

[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.

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?

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. Our bid is clear. It is based on the document. Reading is a friendly town—its Members of Parliament are extremely friendly—and we will certainly ensure that whatever Reading does in future is on a co-operative and friendly basis.

Educationally, Reading offers a centre of excellence in many areas. We have a top-rated university that carries out internationally recognised work across various departments including cybernetics, meteorology, engineering and agriculture. The university’s Henley business school is an international leader. Some of our state schools, such as Kendrick school for girls and Reading school for boys, consistently top the national league tables for exam results, as do a number of our independent schools. There is also the excellent Avenue school in the heart of my constituency, a special school for boys and girls between the ages of two and 19 who have complex special educational needs. I have seen at first hand the work that Avenue staff do with pupils, and it is truly outstanding. The school is a benchmark of excellence for special schools throughout the country.

I am also pleased that some schools in Reading have already embraced the freedom that academy status offers. Several have converted to academies, and others are considering conversion. One of the first free schools in the country, All Saints junior school, backed by local parents and the community, will open its door to pupils in my constituency in September. The setting up of the school is a textbook case of go-getting, entrepreneurial Reading parents who want the best for all children in the town. It reflects Reading’s positive, can-do attitude.

The people of Reading are undoubtedly go-getting—I will talk shortly about the economic leadership that we provide—but ours is also a caring and compassionate town. We have one of the most active voluntary and community sectors in the south-east. Reading has more than 400 organisations that contribute to the town’s well-being, and many volunteers who put something back into the local community. Our Churches, in particular, are the backbone of many community organisations and provide support to all those in need of help and advice.

Some months ago, I was asked to address a conference organised by Reading Voluntary Action. The event was billed as a cross-sector conference involving all agencies interested in growing a genuine big society in Reading. The event was extremely well attended by voluntary groups from across Reading. The big society is flourishing in my home town. I hope that when all the bids for city status are evaluated, Ministers will reflect not just on the tangibles but on the intangibles, such as the generosity of spirit of a town and its people. I am confident that on that measure alone, Reading will be seen to lead the way.

On Reading’s economic prowess, thanks to the dire financial legacy that the coalition Government inherited from Labour, we must take action to eliminate Labour’s structural deficit. I do not want to turn this debate into an exposé of the previous Government’s mishandling of the economy, but the context is important. Last year’s emergency Budget was about rescuing the nation’s finances; this year’s Budget was about doing what was possible to help families with the cost of living and, importantly, reforming the economy to create jobs and growth for the future. The jobs and growth that will make our economy power ahead in the coming years will come from the private sector, and will be created in places such as Reading.

Reading is the commercial centre of the Thames valley and has 1,000 years of trading history. Historically known as a traditional manufacturing centre, it became famous internationally for its three Bs: biscuits, bulbs and beer. Huntley and Palmers biscuits, Suttons Seeds and, in its most recent guise, the Courage brewery all operated in the town until fairly recently. Indeed, the brewery survived until last year. For some towns, the demise of major traditional businesses can, sadly, spell economic decline, but Reading has had a continued, uninterrupted economic renaissance. Biscuits, bulbs and beer have given way to IT, industry and innovation. We are an undoubted economic powerhouse.

If we as a country are to compete successfully in the coming years against the likes of China and India, our knowledge-based companies and the value-added jobs that they create will be key. Reading is undoubtedly a leader in both home-grown and international knowledge-based companies. Yell, Premier Foods, National Grid, Prudential, BG Group, Logica, Procter and Gamble, Wipro, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, Verizon, Symantec, Rockwell Collins and Thales are just some of the companies that consider Reading home. Leading-edge innovation and research and development are now part of the DNA of Reading’s business sector, and the university of Reading works in close partnership with the business community. Reading is also a centre for finance, insurance and banking and provides many jobs in the town. Our work force is one of the most highly skilled in the country.

Earlier this year, the Centre for Cities, an independent, non-partisan research and policy institute, named Reading as one of the five “cities to watch” in its annual index, “Cities Outlook 2011”. The report noted that Reading has high potential to create private sector jobs and one of the highest employment rates in the country. There was clear recognition of Reading’s economic strength and, interestingly, it referenced Reading as a city.

Reading clearly punches above its weight on the international stage and, for many, is already regarded as a city. The greater Reading economic area is home to about 2,000 foreign-owned businesses, employing about 100,000 people, which reinforces our international position. Last year, Reading was named Europe’s top micro city for infrastructure, thanks to its strong road and rail network and unrivalled access to markets. Moreover, the foreign direct investment report ranked Reading eighth in the overall list of Europe’s top micro cities, based on economic potential and quality of life.

Certainly, Reading’s connectivity and closeness to London are key success factors in our economic dominance, and continued investment in infrastructure has played an important role. Recently, we have seen the remodelling and improvement of junction 11 on the M4, and we are in the middle of an £860 million upgrade to Reading railway station, managed by Network Rail. Already the second biggest interchange outside London, Reading station’s redevelopment assumes a doubling of passengers by 2035, from 14 million to 28 million. Reading is truly a gateway to the rest of the country and we are open for business.

Reading has also produced its fair share of authors, actors, musicians, entrepreneurs and scientists who have helped to put the town on the map. To name but a few: Jane Austen, Mary Mitford, Sam Mendes, Kate Winslet, Ricky Gervais, Jacqueline Bisset, Marianne Faithfull, Kenneth Branagh, Mike Oldfield, David Lean, Ross Brawn, John Kendrick, Alfred Waterhouse, Henry Addington, who was a former Prime Minister, and, most recently, Sir John Madejski, who has given so much to the town.

Reading is well represented in the current Parliament. At least eight Members were educated or grew up in Reading. It is said that Charles Dickens was asked to stand as MP for Reading, but turned down the request. Frankly, it was Dickens’s loss. We now have our own literary giant of an MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who will speak in this debate.

In conclusion, Reading already has many of the attributes of a city. We are the largest town that is not a city in the country. Indeed, Reading is larger than more than 40 cities in the UK, including your great city of Portsmouth, Mr. Hancock. Reading is today a cosmopolitan place and our diversity is our strength. We are a town at ease with ourselves, a town that knows its time has arrived. We are the bookies’ favourite for city status and I hope that, after this debate, although he will not be able to say it, we will be the Minister’s favourite as well. I thank him for listening so patiently, and I look forward to his response.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Mr Rob Wilson.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. I shall try to get you both in. Bear in mind that the Minister has to respond to the hon. Member for Reading West, so could you both take a maximum of four or five minutes?

12:43

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I will do my best to fit my remarks into the five-minute limit that you have suddenly imposed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this debate. He has set out, with great passion and in a compelling way, why Reading should become a city. He has covered an enormous amount of ground and has done a thorough job in doing so, so I will limit my remarks. To both viewers who are watching the Parliament channel at the moment, I say that my views on city status are set out elsewhere and have been aired in great detail.

As has been mentioned, this is Reading’s third attempt at becoming a city. I know a bit about the previous attempts, because I was around at the time and served on the local borough council on one of those occasions. What is noticeable to me is that this attempt feels different. I do not say that because we are the bookies’ favourite this time, as my hon. Friend has mentioned. In fact, I would rather that we were not the bookies’ favourite, because in politics the favourite has a knack of losing. The first two attempts to obtain city status involved top-down decisions to mount bids, which, if I am honest, were not supported beyond the local ruling elite. Indeed, I found them slightly embarrassing in some ways, as the local Reading public largely ridiculed them. The Reading public did not believe in the previous bids, because they were not in any way part of them. What they actually saw, for example, was the local council putting up signs directing people to the city centre when they knew it was a town centre. The public thought that slightly crackers, and so did I.

This time the bid feels very different. It has much more of a grass roots and groundswell feel to it. My constituents feel involved in what is going on, believe that the time is right and are behind the bid. They understand that Reading has changed and developed radically over the years and is now ready for the next step and for a new era. People who come to Reading tend to stay for a long time, because of the quality of life and the good jobs on offer. My constituents have, therefore, seen Reading change from a rather sleepy Berkshire market town to the capital city of the region.

My hon. Friend has already spoken about the strength and vibrancy of Reading’s economy. As he has mentioned, numerous research organisations around the country accept that Reading has huge economic significance. The influential Centre for Cities regards Reading as a “city to watch”, even though we are not yet a city, and one of six cities

“best placed to lead the UK’s recovery”

from the economic crisis and recession. People in Reading know and understand the economic contribution that they are making to the region and the national economy. They take pride in it and know that the town is ready to become a city. They are as confident and forward-looking as the Centre for Cities study says.

It is interesting to note what underpins Reading’s economic success. There are many factors, but I want to pick out two in particular. The first is transport. Reading has a railway station that acts as a national hub with connections that run the length and breadth of the UK. During the previous Parliament, I campaigned for and was pleased to secure, working with others, the £500 million investment that the station required. That investment recognised Reading’s strategic importance as a transport hub and reflects why it is a city in all but name. Reading is close to Heathrow; the M4 runs past its front door; and it has fast train services to Paddington. Whether travelling by road, rail or air, Reading has the connections required.

The second factor is education, which creates the highly skilled work force. Education is a passion for me, so I want to say a few things before I finish, although I know that the Chair would like me to speed up. According to Department for Education figures, Reading is the highest ranking authority for A-level and AS-level results. Of course, that has nothing to do with the local education authority, which has continually been hopeless on educational matters. It has much to do with Reading’s two state grammar schools—Kendrick school for girls and Reading school for boys. Both consistently lead the country in exam results. Reading school has been named the best state school in the country by The Times. I also have a fine crop of independent schools in my constituency in the Abbey school, Queen Anne’s and Leighton Park.

Reading is also taking advantage of Government policy on education, with Highdown school in my constituency becoming an academy and showing huge improvements. I am also hopeful that a bid in east Reading for a first-class university school, backed by world-class companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, BT and Blackberry, will be successful and lead to further improvement in the quality of education in Reading.

I also want to say a few words about Reading university.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be fair to his colleague, otherwise he will not be called to speak.

[Mr Wilson]

I will sum up by saying that I am proud of the fact that Reading university, which plays such an important role in Reading, is mainly in my constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West has said, it has an international reputation. I have no time to talk about the thriving social, cultural, artistic and creative communities in Reading, which I would have loved to have addressed, although my hon. Friend has given a flavour of them.

Our university, schools, transport and economy give Reading enormous strength, but it is the people of Reading who make the place what it is. It is they who have prepared Reading for city status and it is they who now ask the Queen and Ministers to give them the recognition that they deserve.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that you have very little time, Mr Howell, and you have your colleague to thank for that.

12:49

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in this discussion under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate. Reading is a neighbour to my constituency, but it is more than that. I do not wish to take issue with my hon. Friend’s geography, but the Olympic rowing lake—the Redgrave Pinsent rowing lake—is in my constituency, even though its waters practically lap over the rails as the train comes into Reading. The town provides all of the facilities that my hon. Friends have mentioned—both for their constituents and mine—so it would be churlish not to support this bid. However, my constituents and I need reassurance on some issues, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has already alluded.

How different would a city be from the current Reading town in its territorial ambitions and in terms of building into my constituency, because the town has always seemed to have a very aggressive approach? How different would a city be from the town in tackling major emotive issues such as transport, including the long-running possibility of a new bridge across the Thames, which would throw lots of traffic into south Oxfordshire? Furthermore, how different would a city be from the current town in engaging sensitively with constituents on my side of the constituency border?

I appreciate that, for much of my time in politics, Reading has not been under a Conservative Administration, but I hope that that will change, because I am sure it will be to its advantage. I understand that the answers to the questions that I have posed are not necessarily in the gift of my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and for Reading East (Mr Wilson) to answer, but answered they must be if they wish to have the unequivocal support of surrounding MPs and their constituents for a city bid. As has already been said, Reading has already exhibited many of the characteristics of a city and is an important hub for the wider area.

12:51

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate and on setting out Reading’s case clearly. During the course of the debates on city status, I have had some interesting offers. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) urged me to be Southend’s valentine, because we had the debate on Valentine’s day, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West has urged me to holiday in Reading during the summer. I fear that I may have to disappoint him in the same way I had to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West. I have to remain impartial, and holidaying in Reading may demonstrate a lack of impartiality. Therefore, I fear that I must decline his very kind offer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West joins another of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who also secured a debate to set out the case for his area to become a city. As part of the bid, I have learned a large number of things of both of those areas and about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and the town that he represents. Indeed, I suspect that other hon. Members whose areas are bidding for city status will have detected a pattern and that you and I, Mr Hancock—as well as your colleagues on the Panel of Chairs—will be treated to a continuing tour of our United Kingdom. I very much look forward to that.

My hon. Friend set out Reading’s case very well and was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson). I confirm that Reading’s entry for the diamond jubilee competition for city status has been safely received. It is one of 26 entries seeking city status, and 12 entries have also sought lord mayoralty status for existing cities. The level of interest and enthusiasm that clearly came across from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West shows how much the country is looking forward to celebrating Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee next year and how attractive such a civic honour is to local communities.

My hon. Friend spotted that I will not be able to agree or disagree with him in my response and that I must remain neutral and fair. At this stage, I can no more endorse Reading’s aspirations than I can any other competition entrant. Ministers must remain impartial to ensure that city status continues to be a real honour that is fairly bestowed and that the competition remains fair. My hon. Friend recognised that fairness is important, because there are no hard and fast criteria on becoming a city. City status continues to be an honour granted by the sovereign. Nowadays, it follows a competition and is a rare mark of distinction bestowed on a town. Reasons for success or failure are not given in these competitions and city status is not something that towns can gain by ticking off a list of pre-set criteria.

The reasons for that are obvious. Existing cities vary tremendously. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, some are large and some are small; some have wonderful cathedrals, universities, airports, underground systems or trams; and some do not have those physical features, but boast a vibrant cultural life. We have set out some of the qualities that we expect a city to have—a vibrant, welcoming community with an interesting history and a distinct identity. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and for Reading East have eloquently set out Reading’s claim in those and other respects. I assure them and their constituents—the people of their town—that Reading’s entry will receive a thorough and impartial appraisal, together with the many other entries in the competition. The process is just getting under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West has waved his bid at me to secure my interest, and the plan is that we will announce the result early in 2012.

On the point about territorial ambitions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), let me reassure them and make the matter clear. The local authority is bidding for city status based on existing local authority boundaries. Nothing in what the Government will recommend to Her Majesty about city status will affect the powers that that town has. On that specific point, I hope that I have reassured by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I detected their qualified support for the bid, which has clearly stirred up interest not only in the town of Reading, but among its neighbours.

My hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and for Reading East have set out their case well. Ministers will assess that case along with the others in the process. As I have said, we look forward to announcing the results in early 2012 as we go into Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee year.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

As a Member who has the privilege to represent one of our cities, I know what it means to people, so I wish Reading all the very best. The Minister and Member are present for the next debate, so we can move straight on. Will those Members who are leaving do so quietly and quickly?

Emergency Life Skills

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

12:57

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is not often that the Government get the chance to make a decision that could simply, easily, cheaply and immediately save lives, but this Government have the opportunity to do so right now. They have a chance to do something positive and tangible for very little cost.

Hon. Members know how it is. Someone collapses or has a road traffic accident and we all stand around in a circle waiting for somebody else to act, because we are too frightened to intervene. Let us imagine what would happen if every school leaver could save a life. Every year, 150,000 people die in situations in which first aid could have made a difference, and 30,000 people have a cardiac arrest outside the hospital environment of whom less than 10% survive to be discharged from hospital.

Emergency life support is a set of actions needed to keep someone alive until professional help arrives. It includes performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, putting an unconscious person into the recovery position, dealing with choking and serious bleeding, and helping someone who may be having a heart attack. Those skills are particularly crucial at the time of cardiac arrest where every second counts. Children are often present at accidents and emergencies, and if they are properly trained, they can be as effective as any adult in administering emergency first aid.

Our curriculum states that children should be taught many things but, frankly, learning the names of the six wives of Henry VIII is unlikely to save a person’s life, whereas emergency life support can. We know that the Government want to slim down the national curriculum, but surely learning emergency life support skills should be as important as learning the times table. The Government have stated that they want the national curriculum to reflect,

“the essential knowledge and understanding that pupils should be expected to have to enable them to take their place as educated members of society.”

Surely knowing how to save the life of a family member or a member of the public would enable children to have an impact on the health of society. Ensuring that life-saving skills are taught in schools provides the chance to instil in children how valuable life is and how important it is to be a good citizen. The Government, by putting emergency life skills into the curriculum, have an opportunity to leave a real, lasting cultural heritage.

Since 1996, the British Heart Foundation has operated the Heartstart programme, which helps to train children in emergency life skills. To date, it has successfully trained more than 2.6 million people in ELS, of which more than 760,000 were children. The British Heart Foundation has found that a significant number of children who have been taught life-saving skills have had to use them in practice. Approximately one in five schools registered with Heartstart reported, in 2008, that students have used ELS in real life situations, with an average of three students in each of those schools having done so. One of my local schools, Smithills, runs the British Heart Foundation Heartstart UK scheme with the full support of the head teacher, Chris Roberts. At Smithills, ELS are taught in a variety of ways—for example, as part of physical education.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I commend this fantastic speech. I raised the same subject in a Backbench Business debate recently, and I know at first hand what a difference it can make. On the specific point about PE, the actual training required is the equivalent of just one PE lesson. Therefore, while we acknowledge that the Government are trying to streamline the national curriculum, we are not asking for very much, but it can make a real difference.

[Julie Hilling]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has had personal experience of the need for emergency life skills, and I am very pleased that we can work together to try to get this issue higher up the agenda.

Smithills school aims to widen the scheme so that, during the school holidays, parents and siblings are able to learn these vital skills, too. The teacher responsible, Adrian Hamilton, told me that learning how to save a life in an emergency really engages the kids. He believes that ELS go a long way towards helping them become better citizens, and that learning ELS should be an expected part of what happens in schools.

The Government talk about wanting to compare themselves internationally, but ELS are already a compulsory part of the curriculum in France, Denmark and Norway. They are included in a number of states in Australia, and in the US they are part of the curriculum in 36 of the 50 states. Seattle is supposed to be the best place in the world to have a heart attack. It is impossible to get a driving licence or graduate from school in Seattle without being able to do CPR. Imagine a situation where one is rarely more than 12 feet away from somebody who can save a life. I hear, though, that there is a down side, because it is a very bad place in which to just faint.

Schools deliver ELS in a variety of ways and settings. Commonly, pupils enjoy the lessons, which increase confidence and self-esteem, and which are particularly important for children who have special educational needs. Sheringham Woodfields, a school for children with complex needs, told the Education Public Bill Committee about the enormous sense of achievement its pupils feel when they realise that they can save a life. One of its pupils received a bravery award when he saved somebody in the Norfolk broads. One of the most telling submissions to the Public Bill Committee was from Archbishop Ilsley Catholic technology college in Birmingham, which told us that it decided to teach ELS after a parent died from a heart attack in front of his family. The school felt that something positive should come from that tragedy. St Aidan’s primary school in St Helens told us about a year 6 child who was in a restaurant with her parents and 15 other adults when her eight-year-old brother started to choke on his food. He went blue and virtually collapsed at the table. All the adults stood around not knowing what to do, but the year 6 child jumped into action, put her training into use and saved her brother’s life. If she had not been there, 15 adults might have stood by and watched a little boy die in front of them.

I do not have time to list all the things that people have told me, but a common theme is that children who were taught ELS went on to practise them and either saved the lives of family members or helped in serious situations. A couple of weeks ago, I was in a meeting with Tabitha. When Tabitha was 17, a week before the summer holidays, she ran to join her friends and teachers during a fire drill. She does not remember anything else that happened, but apparently she collapsed with heart failure. She had been born with a congenital heart condition, but no one knew about it. Fortunately, her school secretary had been taught CPR, which they administered until an emergency responder and then paramedics arrived. Tabitha made it to hospital with all of her facilities still intact. She had emergency surgery and made a full recovery. Tabitha is now a voluntary emergency responder and is working hard to get ELS taught in schools.

I also met Beth at the same meeting. Beth is the mother of Guy Evans, who sadly died at the age of 17 in 2008. Guy was riding his motorcycle when he had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. He fell off his motorbike and laid there while his friends stood around not knowing what to do. They were told by the 999 operator not to touch him—people thought that he had had a motorbike accident. If only they had been taught emergency life skills, they would not have faced the trauma of watching their friend die and experienced the trauma of living their lives with the thought that maybe, if they had known what to do, Guy would still be alive. Beth has been campaigning ever since to get ELS into the school curriculum and into driving tests.

Cardiac arrest does not discriminate between young and old, or between gender and race—it can happen to the very fittest of us. On average, heart attacks are suffered by men in their 50s, and so should be of keen interest to many MPs in this House. On average, it takes approximately five to 10 minutes for an emergency ambulance to arrive. For every minute that passes in cardiac arrest, the chance of survival falls by 10%. CPR increases survival and prolongs the time a person remains shockable. If a defibrillator is used to administer a shock, the survival rate increases to 50%. When we watch “Casualty”, it looks as though CPR is actually the thing that makes people suddenly wake up—it is not. CPR keeps blood and oxygen pumping around the body, which means that the heart can still be shocked back into a rhythm. All the time that people are not breathing and their hearts are not pumping, parts of their body and brain are dying. CPR keeps people alive and keeps them going until they can be shocked, and until they can get to hospital.

I have been told about a mother who collapsed at the school gates. Instead of everyone standing around not knowing what to do and watching her die, children sprang into action and administered CPR. The school brought out their defibrillator, which they had purchased for £1,000, and saved the mother’s life. Just last week, 15-year-old Patrick Horrock had a heart attack in Hindley leisure centre, which is just next door to my constituency. A member of staff performed CPR and another used a defibrillator to restart his heart. Patrick is alive and well because people knew what to do and had the tools available to do it.

I had a meeting with some local firemen last week. They are Heartstart tutors and deliver classes to adults and young people in the fire station. They told me that approximately 7% of people know any first aid. Together, we are going to take ELS into local schools. They told me that two young people had been involved in saving a dog. As their reward, they were invited to the fire station for the day. The thing that those kids enjoyed most during that day was learning how to do ELS. It is something that children enjoy doing—it enhances them and gives them the confidence to save a life.

The firemen told me something that really made me think. One reason why we do not act when someone collapses is because we are scared of making things worse. Has their heart really stopped? Am I going to do them damage? The firemen told me that if a casualty stops breathing, “They are dead, and you can’t make them any deader.” That phrase resonated with me. If we do something, we may be able to save that life; if we do nothing, they are dead.

As the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has said, CPR can be taught in two hours. That is the equivalent of one PE lesson—one cross-country run, or two hours a year. That is something like 0.2% of national curriculum time. Surely we can afford that amount of time to save lives.

I will end with a statement from Abbey Hill primary and nursery school:

“A lot of our children are brought up in an extremely deprived area and are not always adequately supervised. ELS gives them the confidence to deal with an emergency, should one arise, and no adult was around...The silence in the room when the children are watching the DVD from the resource pack is remarkable! They watch it avidly and are always keen to take part in the sessions. They are also very impressed when we get the dolls out to practise resuscitation and can't believe they get to have a go on a ‘real live’ doll!”

I could say a great deal more, but I will finish. I ask the Minister to put emergency life skills in the national curriculum. If he will not, what will he do to promote the teaching of emergency life skills in schools and throughout the whole of education, in youth centres, colleges and community colleges? Will he also encourage the Government to think of other ways of embedding such skills in society, perhaps as a compulsory part of the driving test?

It is frightening to think that something like 7% of the population believe they could save a life. Many of us have done life-saving—I did it many years ago—but do not feel confident about using those skills. However, having now had less than half an hour with a dummy and looking at what to do, I now feel that I could do something—I could get that defibrillator off the wall, because instructions on exactly how to use it are written on the packet.

We need people in this country to feel confident about being able to save a life. I ask the Minister to consider that we could save 150,000 lives a year—just think how many lives that would add up to over anyone’s political career. I hope that the Government will do something—they could go down in history as a Government for saving people’s lives—and I urge them to do so.

13:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on securing the debate. She alluded to the recent Committee stage of the Education Bill, and I have read her comments in Committee, as well as in the early-day motion and at Education Question Time. In today’s debate, she has again emphasised the importance of teaching emergency life support skills to children. She has form, for which she is to be praised. Likewise, the interventions in debate by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) have shown his great interest. I praise them both; the subject is important.

Last night, at the end of the annual general meeting of my local hospital league of friends, we had a presentation by one of the hospital heart specialists. He talked about what a difference the hospital equipment financed by the friends would make, and about the huge improvement in the survival rates of people who suffer a heart attack, because of being to deal with them at the scene of their heart attack and getting them to heart specialist hospitals much more quickly, with the availability of stents, clot-busting drugs and everything else. He recounted an emergency case he had had just yesterday: the time between someone coming through the hospital door and being given a stent was 14 minutes, fantastically within the golden hour that is so important.

Survival rates have improved enormously, but the more we can do at every stage of the process—recognising the problem, getting someone to hospital and making sure they get treatment straight away—is important in achieving further improvements in the survival rates of the many people who still have heart attacks. The subject is important.

In the hon. Lady’s work with the Select Committee on Education, she has drawn attention to some of the excellent work done by schools, such as Smithills in her constituency, which she mentioned, and by programmes such as Heartstart, run by the British Heart Foundation, and others run by organisations including the St John Ambulance. I pay tribute to both those organisations. I did an infant first aid course with St John Ambulance in my constituency some time ago, and it was an eye-opener, showing me how little I knew until I did it. The more such courses are made available, and the more people take them, the better for everyone. The hon. Lady and others are raising their profile, which is important.

I was vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for cardiac risk in the young, which is another important subject that people know little about. Every week, several young, fit, healthy teenagers were dropping down dead for seemingly inexplicable reasons linked to a genetic heart condition about which they had no knowledge. The charity CRY successfully raised the profile of the problem, urging testing if relationship links increase the potential, and spreading the availability of testing. That is another important way of preventing such avoidable deaths, which cause great distress and, out of the blue, completely disrupt families.

Such initiatives not only enrich education but, as the hon. Lady said, help to engage pupils and equip them with the basic first aid skills of which all citizens should have knowledge. Regardless of whether someone is in school, there should be greater awareness and confidence, such as she gained herself, in how to administer first aid at all sorts of levels, most importantly because it can help to save lives. Things can happen anywhere, to anyone, however fit they might appear.

The hon. Lady mentioned “Casualty”; no debate on health seems to be complete without such a reference, and people can actually learn quite a bit from it, as long as they learn the right stuff. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the profile of the issue, although I am not sure whether the Seattle tourist board will compliment her on marketing that fine American city as the best place to have a heart attack—but she did her bit. I applaud all those involved in this area, as well as the campaigning of the hon. Lady and others.

Whether we think about swimming and physical education, or more broadly about the curriculum, it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that life-saving and first aid skills are part of what is taught in our schools. But, I fear, I must once more disappoint the hon. Lady and her supporters. I read about her proposed amendment to the Education Bill, in which she raised the issue; she alluded to the wives of Henry VIII then, too, and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, said in response that had Anne Boleyn known a little more about her husband, she might not have lost her own life—an interesting response. I will not go over that debate again.

We do not believe, however, that learning emergency life skills has to be a statutory part of the national curriculum. We do not take issue with the principle or with raising the profile, and we agree that awareness for more people, in particular children, is a good thing; our problem is making it a statutory part of the national curriculum. In recent years, the national curriculum has been bent out of shape, as it has been overloaded with too many subjects and too much content, often with the best of intentions but with damaging results. At the same time, there has been too much prescription, not only about what should be taught but how it should be taught.

The Government want to restore the national curriculum to its original purpose: a core base of essential knowledge that pupils need to succeed, and which stands comparison with what pupils in various age groups learn in the nations with the best-performing education systems in the world. We want to ensure that schools have greater freedom and flexibility to teach so as to encourage more innovation and inspire pupils. Those were the express aims of the national curriculum review, which we launched in January. The review team received almost 6,000 responses to the call for evidence—the most for any education consultation—including a number of representations about the teaching of emergency life skills. I received a number of letters from my constituents on the subject, as I am sure the hon. Lady did.

I cannot pre-empt the review itself, but one of the most important objectives set by Professor Tim Oates, who is leading the review team, is to ensure that the right balance can be struck between the core national curriculum and the wider school curriculum. In all likelihood, the smaller statutory content will take up less teaching time, leaving more time for the activities, topics and subjects, including emergency life skills, that we know are also important in preparing a student for the wider world. As the hon. Lady mentioned, many schools already manage to deliver such things imaginatively and effectively, in a way that best engages their pupils.

Recent findings from the British Heart Foundation demonstrate that many parents, children and teachers want young people to learn life-saving skills at school. The non-statutory programmes of study for personal, social and health education already include teaching young people how to recognise and follow health and safety procedures, ways of reducing risk and minimising harm in risky situations, and how to use emergency and basic first aid. The internal review of PSHE that we will undertake alongside the national curriculum review will look carefully at how we can improve the quality of teaching and at how external organisations such as the British Heart Foundation can support schools to do so. That and other healthy-living issues may be delivered by outside specialist bodies in a more imaginative way that will engage kids in school so that they do not feel that it is just another lesson. I am a big fan of bringing in outside bodies to teach in a different way—outside the box and often outside the classroom.

Equally, we know that it takes only a few hours every year for pupils to learn basic resuscitation skills. I do not know whether that is 0.2% of the national curriculum time, as the hon. Member for Bolton West said, but I acknowledge that it is a small part. There would thus be plenty of room in the school day for other important subjects and activities, such as learning about healthy eating, taking part in competitive team sport, and working on projects with local businesses. Such things are important and enjoyable for pupils but, most importantly, it is for schools and teachers to decide what to teach and when to teach it. The Government believe in the professional judgment of head teachers and teachers, and we are giving them the space to exercise that judgment, and to provide a broad and enriched curriculum for their pupils.

[Julie Hilling]

I am not clear how much steer the Government are likely to give to head teachers and schools about the importance of emergency life skills. As the Minister says, under PSHE, or whatever we want to call it, an enormous range of subjects may be taught—drugs, alcohol, sex and so on. Emergency life skills are a fundamental issue of citizenship, and involve not just individuals, but society. Are the Government prepared to give head teachers a steer and to say that they should consider teaching such skills?

[Tim Loughton]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, and I think she is hearing me loud and clear. My view, which is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is that it is good if more people and pupils learn about health and life-saving skills. There are good examples of that happening in schools already, regardless of what is in the curriculum, and of schools engaging and training their pupils. When that is done, pupils enjoy it, and it is a good way of engaging them in something that is useful beyond the confines of the school. I praise all schools that are doing that, and encourage them to do more, but I also encourage more schools to take it up. We are trying to free up time in the curriculum to enable them to do what they think will most benefit their pupils. Clearly, life-saving skills are way up at the top of the priorities.

The hon. Lady knows from our previous conversations that the Government’s approach is to be less prescriptive, but to encourage schools to do such things because they are right and will benefit their pupils, the community and society at large. The problem is that in opposition and now in government e-mails, letters or comments are sent to me every day saying that X, Y or Z should be a statutory part of the national curriculum. If we took just a fraction of those suggestions on board, something would have to give. The national curriculum is already completely overloaded, and my response to all those suggestions, however worthwhile, as life-saving skills clearly are, is to ask what should be taken out of the national curriculum or diluted to make space. That is the problem.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his positive comments. I have often been guilty of sending in requests, and I understand what he said about being inundated, but surely there is no greater or more important skill to equip a young person with than the ability to save someone’s life. I am sure that replacing one cross-country run a year would be welcomed across the board.

[Tim Loughton]

I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s suggestion, and I want schools to implement it, but not because an edict from Ministers says that it should be part of the national curriculum so that they think, “Where can we fit that in?” I want them to do so because it is a good thing to do, and a good way of engaging young people who might be more difficult to engage. The subject might be a good way of enticing their interest in the classroom.

During the consultation, we received proposals that the compulsory part of the national curriculum should include chess, knitting and pet care, which I am sure are all worth while. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady would argue that they should not have the same priority as life-saving skills, but people argue that a whole load of things should be a priority. I want schools, and heads and teachers who know their children, to have the freedom to deliver the subjects that they believe are most important and that children will most relate to and benefit from. That is what the Government are trying to do.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the Minister for giving way yet again. He is being very generous. The Government will prescribe some parts of the national curriculum. They will prescribe the core. The hon. Member for North Swindon and I are saying that emergency life-support skills should be part of that very small core, because they are about the future, saving lives, and being a good citizen, which are all crucial. Chess, knitting and so on may be good subjects to teach, but life-saving skills are vital and could transform the United Kingdom. I do not understand why that cannot be one of the subjects in the small prescribed core.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady has answered her own question. I entirely agree about the importance of the subject, but we are trying to make the national curriculum tighter and more concise with a smaller range of subjects, giving more freedom to teachers to take on that subject, which I agree is a priority. We want a slimmer curriculum, and we do not want to add more subjects to it. However important the subject, it would add to the national curriculum.

There can be no more important training than that which allows someone to save the life of another who is injured, ill or otherwise in danger, and we must do all we can to ensure that children learn the basic skills that they might need in case of emergency. We all agree on that, but the best way is not through the academic base of knowledge that the national curriculum contains, but through the broader curriculum. Just because the skills are not specified in the national curriculum does not mean they will not and should not be taught, or that the Government are downplaying or undervaluing them. The reverse is true. I implore all schools to ensure that their pupils develop the personal and social skills they need to become responsible citizens, and to lead healthy and safe lives, and that includes being able to encourage and enable others to lead healthy and safe lives.

[Justin Tomlinson]

On the specific point about outside organisations, such as the British Heart Foundation, surely the Government could play a role in providing information so that schools can access it. When I visit my schools, they agree that it is a good scheme to take up, but do not necessarily know how to do so. Perhaps the Government could be proactive in encouraging that.

[Tim Loughton]

That is the point that I intended to end on. It is a fair and practical solution. We are not proposing to make the subject, along with pet care, knitting, chess and thousands of other helpful suggestions, part of the core national curriculum, but there are other things we can do. The hon. Member for Bolton West asked me to look at other ways of promoting the subject, and we will do so, for example, by asking individual MPs and Ministers to go into schools and ask what they are doing to teach first aid, and whether they are part of a local appeal to install a defibrillator in the town centre, and are ensuring that their children know how to use it. We can also send strong messages in our work on the PSHE review.

I think the hon. Lady suspected that we would not be able to deliver her request today, but that in no way downplays the importance of the issue that she has rightly and usefully raised. There are many other ways of promoting the subject to ensure that we have a far better educated and engaged population in our schools who will take on those skills because they want to, because it is the right thing to do, and because they will all benefit.

Stonnall Road, Aldridge

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

13:29

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

First, I want to thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday, together with Mike Flower who is a local councillor from Aldridge and represents the views of councillors in that area. This debate is on a subject that is uncomfortable for most elected Members of Parliament, and for the public at large, who are the one ingredient that always seem to be overlooked in such discussions.

On Monday 4 March, a resident of what is still referred to as the bail hostel in Stonnall road came to my surgery. Although I had never met him, he was known to me. A couple of years previously, his partner had sought to have this individual moved from a distant prison well outside the west midlands. He is a convicted paedophile, and as the single mother of a small child, she found it difficult to make arrangements for child care to enable her to exercise her visiting rights. I wrote to the prison authorities, and the individual in question was moved.

A while later in June 2009, his partner approached me again. It transpired that the prison authorities had withdrawn visiting rights for his very young daughter, and subsequently stopped telephone calls. I had not understood that the partner wished to enable her daughter to have continuing visiting rights, and I was concerned. My office spoke to the prison, which explained that it had withdrawn visits and telephone calls as they thought that the man might possibly be grooming his child. The purpose of his visit to my surgery in March was to see whether I could help him re-establish contact with his daughter. I said that I could not, and the visit greatly disturbed me.

The probation service placed this man in a hostel less than two miles from the child whom the prison authorities suspected him of grooming—I have said, Mr Hancock, that this would be an uncomfortable debate. My anxieties about the case led me into correspondence with the Staffordshire and west midlands probation authorities. I also notified those councillors who were actively involved in managing the concerns of local people and trying to establish the closure, or removal, of the hostel.

The site was originally a Barnardo’s children’s home that offered secure premises for children with difficulties. Councillors Anthony Harris, Keith Sears and Mike Flower have written a letter to the Minister, and I shall read a couple of passages:

“The journey for the site currently designated as an Approved Premise on Stonnall Road has been a troubled one. The site has changed from being a Barnado’s Children’s Home caring for children to being an Approved Premise housing sex offenders. It is a journey of secrecy, deceit, judicial defeat and change of use by stealth. It stands as the polar opposite of the localism and transparency agenda being championed by the coalition Government. Now is the time for the new Government to re-evaluate the status of Stonnall Road Approved Premises and correct a long-standing historical wrong.

The Approved Premise has never been through the democratic processes of planning consent and therefore does not have a democratic mandate. Originally, to change from being a Children’s Home to use as a Bail Hostel, it was deemed not to require change of use in planning terms as there was no material change in its use—”

that dogs the history of those premises across the past 20 years—

“yet since that decision the building has moved from housing children in need to sexual offenders released on licence. This is unacceptable in a democracy and is a change of material use by stealth, contradicting the very spirit of planning laws and local engagement.”

In January 1995, the extension application to add yet more places to what was still a bail hostel was refused by Walsall council on the grounds that

“The residents of the area and adjoining properties now experience severe problems and material problems and incidents arising from the existing use of the premises, which are incompatible with the surrounding residential area. The further expansion of a use which, in the considered view of the local planning authority, is unsuitable for that area has the potential to further exacerbate these problems, to the detriment of the amenities which local residents could reasonably be expected to enjoy.”

The letter from the councillors continues:

“At no point has the community ever had a say on what this building should be used for and people have watched powerlessly as the use of the building has materially changed. This venture into the planning process proved on three levels—”

that refers to the High Court judgment and the defeat of the probation service’s appeal against the planning application—

“that the Bail Hostel was having a detrimental impact on the local community—the case paperwork proves this locality is inappropriate despite denial from the Probation Service. Why have the Ministry of Justice and West Midlands Probation Trust dismissed the view that the facility has a detrimental impact on the local community?

If this wasn’t evidence enough, the sad cases of criminal behaviour caused on occasion by residents of the Approved Premises has further proven that it is a very real risk to the public it is meant to protect, and a problem for our community. Local head teachers, who have experienced some residents engaging in illegal activity around their primary schools (later convicted in court), agree with us that this is inappropriately located and that the type of offender placed in this location is unacceptable.”

They wrote to the Minister:

“You will be aware that the Bail Hostel was turned into an Approved Premises by decree of the Secretary of State under the last Labour Government. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed in writing, in an email from Sean Langley to Councillor Mike Flower, that no process was undertaken and that no process is outlined by law. We believe that this is therefore a breach of natural justice on the following grounds.”

They gave three grounds. First:

“A person must be allowed an adequate opportunity to present their case where certain interests and rights may be adversely affected by a decision-maker.”

Secondly:

“No one ought to be judge in his or her case. This is the requirement that the deciding authority must be unbiased when according the hearing or making the decision.

As the Ministry of Justice contracts the Probation Service to allow Approved Premises to house offenders released from prison, is it not a conflict of interests if the same body decides where and who these places are?”

Thirdly:

“Administrative decision making must be based upon logical proof or evidence material. Evidence presented by one party must be disclosed to the other party, who may then subject it to scrutiny.”

That question of scrutiny will return again and again.

“The Ministry of Justice does not have a process for approving Approved Premises and therefore no proof or evidence has been considered. No evidence has ever been presented or disclosed to the community or their representatives for scrutiny.”

They asked the Minister—as do I—to explain

“how the decision to designate Stonnall Road as an Approved Premises met the principles of natural justice and the Wednesbury principles? We would be grateful to see a copy of the paperwork that officially designated Stonnall Road as an Approved Premise. We’d also like to know what weight was given by Ministers to the past planning and Court judgements as referred to above.”

The councillors expressed their immediate concerns:

“Whilst elected councillors remain resolved in our aim to close Stonnall Road Approved Premises there are a number of practical issues we also wish to raise on restricting the admissions policy and in building trust and scrutiny with the community and their democratically elected representatives.”

They then go into the case of the individual under discussion, and want to know how many sexual offenders are currently resident in the hostel. They asked:

“How many have been recalled to prison since the Hostel/Approved Premise were opened? How many offenders have been convicted of crimes committed during their stay at Stonnall Road and what crimes were they convicted of?

Regarding MAPPA”—

the multi-agency public protection arrangements—

“Who audits MAPPA to ensure the risks they are calculating and managing are reasonable?”

Very importantly, the councillors ask:

“Who are the lay assessors on MAPPA charged with representing the views of the local community, how were they chosen and why are elected representatives not informed?”

The councillors also want to know about the admissions policy:

“We request a copy of the admissions policy for Stonnall Road Approved Premises and ask that it be made public.

There is a Ministerially imposed restriction on admission policy at Bunbury House in Ellesmere port, Cheshire that excludes the residence of offenders who have committed any sexual offence against a child under 16. We request that Ministers consider and impose the same restriction on Stonnall Road”.

They also request other things in their submission to the Minister.

I verify almost everything that the councillors say in that letter. It has been a frustrating and long journey to try to wake up the probation service to a judgment that it took by deceit—that is what the councillors call it. The reason why I say “by deceit” in the end is the frustration of this. I raised a previous debate in the House of Commons on the nature of this hostel. I said that Miss Macdonald, who was the assistant chief probation officer for properties—buildings—had made a statement to the planning committees. I am not going to find the quote immediately, but the substance of what she said was that the magistrates had supported the bail hostel being placed in the former Dr Barnardo’s property.

This is what the then Home Secretary said:

“My officials are unable to find any papers to support your comment that the West Midlands Probation Service ‘misinformed local Councillors and residents as to the specific support of the Aldridge Magistrates for the location of the hostel in Stonnall Road’”.

It was not the Aldridge magistrates; it was the Walsall magistrates, and I had an exchange of correspondence on that very subject.

The Stonnall Road bail hostel came into being because the then acting head of residential services in west midlands probation service assured elected members of Walsall metropolitan borough council at a planning meeting in September 1989 that

“Walsall and Aldridge Magistrates were in favour of the proposed bail hostel in Stonnall Road”.

It subsequently transpired from my inquiries with the clerk to the magistrates, Edward Jones, barrister, in the course of an application to increase the size of the hostel in 1995, that the chairman of the magistrates had written that

“it has never been the policy of the Bench to comment upon the location of the facilities required by the Walsall district Probation Service.”

Mr Jones in his reply said:

“Once you have studied this correspondence you may be of the same opinion as I am that Mr. Baker’s response was misquoted by Miss Macdonald in the meeting before the Planning Committee.”

That application was refused by the planning inspectorate, as I have said, and that decision was upheld by the judgment of the High Court.

In the years since, the hostel has caused, as the councillors say, much concern to local residents, the head teachers of two primary schools and their elected representatives. We have come to believe that the bail hostel houses convicted offenders released on licence—a fact that was finally confirmed by the probation service in a letter to me dated April 1999. It stated:

“The Stonnall Road Hostel was opened and run as a provision for bail residents only. Since 1995 however, it has been the policy of the West Midlands Probation Committee that the hostel could also be used for men subject to Probation Orders, or on Licence after a prison sentence. I apologise if that change was never communicated directly to you.”

Despite my recent correspondence with the probation service, this latest case seems to me to fly in the face of its assurances that the Stonnall Road approved premise was the most suitable location for the sort of man whom I have brought to the attention both of the director of social services in Walsall and, with much difficulty, of the principal officers of the probation service in the west midlands and Staffordshire. They have assured me that this man offends only against children he has groomed and within the family. It was on that point that the director of social services, whose operation is of course part of MAPPA, wrote to the west midlands probation service. MAPPA had conducted two reviews, both confirming the original decision, in the knowledge that I was concerned and that the director of social services was also concerned. At the moment, the man has been moved from the Stonnall Road bail hostel, but there is no agreement that he could not be returned to those premises.

The probation service wrote back to the director of social services. I understand from councillors that that was not a very happy letter, and I understand that the Minister would use the phrase “outside the envelope”, yet these very probation officers have referred to councillors as part of the process—they are involved in it. Now, there is rage. I would not want anything to happen to the director of our social services, who was also concerned as to why the case of a child who was possibly being groomed by an inmate of Stonnall Road should not be examined with the closest possible attention to the implications for that child. How is it that this organisation does not have to come back and justify why it is convinced that the most secure arrangements are within 1.8 miles of the child?

The fear of the probation service is that the name of the man will leak. I have here letters that ask that the name not be leaked. The first is from Dr Gerard Bates, director of operations. He says:

“If his surname enters the public domain, then the most likely consequence would be the identification of previous victims and other relatives including a young child and his very elderly and vulnerable mother. This would cause severe distress and could compromise safeguarding arrangements.”

I have no doubt that that is absolutely true, and no one has put into the public domain this person’s name, but the very fact that people have to write that indicates to me the possible insecurity of the location in respect of this individual. Mr Maiden wrote to me on 3 June in anticipation of this debate. He says:

“A primary concern of all involved is that the families”—

notice that it is families, plural—

“connected with the offender are not identified and, given his…name, this is likely to occur should the information enter the public domain.”

Those people know that this name is such that that child was at risk, either through the man’s activities or proclivities or through the name leaking into the public domain.

We can go round this again, as I have so many times with the probation service, but at the heart of it is the continual denial in respect of a small unit that accommodates 12 people, for which the probation service sought an extension far beyond anything that people were told by Miss Macdonald. The planning authorities are alarmed and concerned that this could happen. However, we are also mindful of the fact that there are 2,100 such people in this country and that there are inadequate places for them. That is why, having seized on an opportunity 20 years ago, those involved have now moved to create this nightmare in a local community of small houses—that is described by the inspectorate and understood by the community at large. We are talking about open, vulnerable, small spaces, local schools with small children and a major secondary school. All those children are under the age of 18, and if this man’s proclivities and interests extend beyond just members of his family—who is god enough to say that that is his only interest?—every one of those children will be at risk.

13:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) for raising this important subject. The security of our citizens is the first priority of any Government, and public protection is a central responsibility of the Ministry of Justice.

I hope that I can demonstrate to my hon. Friend and the House that we take our obligations in this respect extremely seriously and that our arrangements for managing dangerous offenders in the community are robust and effective. Approved premises, including Stonnall Road, raise challenging questions about how the criminal justice system deals with its most serious offenders, but the view of successive Governments has been that such premises are an important part of those arrangements and ultimately perform a critical role in keeping communities safe.

As my hon. Friend said, it was my pleasure to meet him and Councillor Mike Flower yesterday. If my remarks do not answer in full the letter that my hon. Friend drew on in his speech, he will, of course, receive a full reply later.

I share my hon. Friend’s revulsion at the offences committed by the offender, whose case led my hon. Friend to secure the debate. However, the offender has now served the custodial part of his sentence, and our priority, as with all offenders, must be appropriately to protect the public from future offences. That can mean difficult decisions being taken by the agencies involved and overriding the wishes of those who have committed no offence, and my hon. Friend alluded to that. Tragically, it is not possible to eliminate entirely the possibility that a known offender will go on to commit further crimes—in some cases, serious ones—but the Government are committed to doing all that we can to ensure that the risk of an offender causing harm is managed effectively and robustly in the wider interests of us all.

The main topics that my hon. Friend raised were the multi-agency public protection arrangements and the approved premises in Stonnall road. MAPPA and approved premises are two of the key measures that the statutory agencies use effectively to manage offenders who are known on account of their previous offending to present an ongoing risk of harm. I was going to speak in some detail about MAPPA, but I suspect that my hon. Friend would prefer me to address more directly the issues raised by Stonnall Road in the time available. All that I would say about MAPPA is that the arrangements are being validated by studies and are at the leading edge of international practice in managing serious offenders. We will continue to make sure that we improve and develop our practices, but the United Kingdom is well served by the arrangements that we have.

I turn now to the approved premises in Stonnall road, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am aware, not least as a result of yesterday’s meeting, that there has been some local opposition to the approved premises over the years, and my hon. Friend laid out how long the issue has been around. However, those premises, along with others in England and Wales, must be understood in the context of a system-wide approach to the effective management of risk, so it might help if I explain briefly what approved premises do.

There are 100 approved premises in England and Wales, with a total of about 2,200 beds. They are the places that our most serious offenders go to when they are released on licence from prison, having served the custodial part of their sentences. Approved premises have 24-hour staffing and a structured regime, including overnight curfew. The principal aim of approved premises is to ensure that offenders are effectively supervised and monitored during the critical period immediately after release. During that period, the supervising agencies can best gauge how successful work in prison has been in addressing the underlying causes of an offender’s behaviour.

For certain offenders, such as child sex offenders, compliance with the restrictions in their licences, such as daytime reporting and exclusion from places such as schools or parks, can be more closely monitored in approved premises than if they are dispersed into alternative accommodation in the community. Residents in approved premises must take part in purposeful activity and in programmes designed to address their offending behaviour and to reduce reoffending. In addition, they are subject to drug and alcohol testing and are monitored on the premises by CCTV. Where the risk assessment deems it necessary, offenders can be escorted by a member of staff when they leave the approved premises.

The system is all about managing the risk posed by people who, having served their time in prison, are being returned to the community. If they remain a threat, approved premises are the best chance the system has to pick up their offending behaviour and to subject them, if necessary, to recall to prison. Staff working in approved premises are trained in risk assessment and to look for the telltale signs of risky behaviour. They work closely with offender managers and local police through MAPPA. They have daily contact with residents, so they are often the eyes and ears through which vital intelligence can be passed to other agencies. The whole idea is to monitor certain high-risk offenders much more closely than would otherwise be possible precisely, so that action can be taken promptly without the need to wait for a fresh offence to be committed.

Broadly speaking, the system is effective. Clearly, there will always be cases that slip through the net—risk can never be eliminated entirely—and each such case is one too many, but the available data show that offending rates for those held in approved premises are much better than for those who are not. In the last full year for which data are available, about 0.3% of residents were charged with a serious further offence. In addition, in many cases, prompt action is taken to recall offenders to custody before they can commit further offences.

The challenge is that communities where approved premises are situated understandably have concerns about being near offenders, especially those who have previously committed serious crimes and sexual offences. I hear and entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns that people are unhappy when they find they are living near somewhere where those who have done dreadful things are temporarily housed.

However, the alternative to offenders living in approved premises is not that they stay in prison. These people have been released from prison because they have served their custodial terms and they must be accommodated somewhere in the community. If they were not in approved premises, they would be somewhere else—somewhere less controlled and less suitable. The result would not be that there were no sex offenders in the community. Rather, there would still be sex offenders in the community, but not so obviously, so it would be much more difficult to provide effective supervision for them.

In the past, when we did not use approved premises as we do now, serious offenders leaving jail were much less effectively supervised. Too often, that included them being put in temporary accommodation, such as bed and breakfasts, alongside some of our most vulnerable families. Tackling that situation was the right thing to do.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about whether these approved premises are in the right place and about its history, so let me say clearly that the safety of the public is our first concern. Clearly, offenders returning to the community must go somewhere, but every offender is placed in every approved premises with a proper individual risk assessment.

Where any offender under statutory probation supervision, including one residing in an approved premises, is charged with a serious further offence, the supervising probation trust is required to undertake a rigorous review of the management of the case, but that was not the case in the circumstances that my hon. Friend raised. He told us that Walsall children’s services, no doubt prompted by his inquiry, became concerned that an individual was at risk. The director of children’s services wrote to the agencies involved and copied that letter to my hon. Friend and local councillors before there was a chance to review the case formally through MAPPA. She was clearly concerned that prompt action needed to be taken, and I am happy to look at the circumstances of the case to understand what happened. However, it is obviously of some satisfaction that necessary action was taken. The substantive result was that the offender was moved to another approved premises in the west midlands probation trust area, and no offence has been committed.

My hon. Friend may believe that the MAPPA process must have fallen short if the director had to behave in that way—

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, Minister, but I have to interrupt you, because time has caught up with us.

14:00

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).