British Retail

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Paul Uppal

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I do not think that point is relevant in this particular case. As far as retailing is concerned, a payday loan company, provided that it is legal and proper in all that it carries out—I accept that there is a different issue—employs people in much the same way as a shop with the same number of staff. That is not to take away from the hon. Lady’s point, but from a retail perspective, it is important to realise that like traditional retailers, all those companies employ a lot of people and in that respect contribute a lot to the local economy, which is the subject of the debate.

Rates are an important issue to which the Government must turn their thoughts. The planning side of things is also important. The national planning framework, which I thought was absolutely excellent, gives a lot of emphasis to town centres and their development, but there seems to be no compliance mechanism. It must be remembered that more than 80% of planning applications for retail currently being considered are for out of town rather than in town centres. Given that it is generally agreed that the regeneration of town centres is a good thing, it would be good to have some form of compliance for ensuring that local authorities emphasise it.

We must accept that because there are now fewer functions for retail premises, local parades do not have the “get out of jail free” card that they used to have when new industries and uses would by and large appear. However one looks at high street retailing, there is less demand because of the internet, which has also brought many benefits. The Government’s current policies on relaxing planning rules to allow some units to return to residential use are a good thing and an acceptance of reality. Although one would hope that it was not the case and that some units could be live/work—for residential use at the same time as retail—the fact is that there are a lot of places where, if there is a convenience store, it is very good. I commend the convenience store sector for how it has adapted, notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) about the big supermarkets in all their guises, from hypermarkets to convenience stores, doing their best to dominate the market.

There is still a strong and good independent sector in this country, and long may it continue, but that sector will not fill up all the parades of shops and tertiary units, which were built with very good reason. In the case of many of our parents or grandparents—for some hon. Members, their great-grandparents—the husband would be at work and the wife would walk to the shops every day with the baby in the pram and the shopping trolley. The shops had to be nearby, because there was often no public transport and people certainly did not have a car. Most of us accept that has changed, and that planning laws have to change in respect of empty properties; we need both private and social accommodation and some of it could come from surplus retail space.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I declare an interest. Like my hon. Friend, I worked in the sector for about 20 years, either as a landlord or a tenant, and I echo his sentiments. The vital issue with retail space, in particular in city centres, is utilising the upper parts: residential conversion is crucial. For far too long, we have been obsessed with the ground-floor unit, almost dismissing the upper part. In continental Europe or other areas, people utilise the upstairs, which provides an alternative use.

[Richard Harrington]

I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said.

I finish with two suggestions that might be unpopular with the large commercial sector, the shopping centre providers and commercial landlords. I mentioned many good points about companies such as Westfield and the strong regeneration sector; retail happens to be their product, but they are really redeveloping important parts of our landscape. However, it is almost impossible for independent retailers to get into such units. I am not talking about community efforts, an area for a market with local craftsmen and that type of thing; I am talking about people who are running proper businesses, be they start-ups or just one unit. They cannot get into the shopping centres because of the commercial value of a rent paid by an individual operator to the shareholders, many of which, ultimately, are the pension funds that look after all our pensions; those capital values are very much dependent on having big names in the units. As part of planning, the Government should look at the possibility of allocating to independent retailers a small number of units paying market rent; I am not arguing for any form of subsidy, except the sort that people get to move in, such as fitting out or a rent holiday. A number of shops should be allocated to companies with only one or two stores. That is the only way. It could be part of a general planning permission. I am not specifying half the units, or a quarter, but somehow it has to be realised in the retail sector that small companies and start-ups with capital—properly capitalised, I am not talking about ones that cannot compete from a capital point of view—should be allowed into those main retail centres.

My second suggestion will probably make me extremely unpopular, in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). Although the Government cannot do much about the role of small commercial landlords, those landlords are absolutely deluded about their ability to get the rents they ask. Their mentality is to ask for yesterday’s rent; because a shop was rented out 10 years ago at £40,000, they will keep it empty for three, four or five years under the delusion that they will get the same rent, and notwithstanding the fact that they are paying empty property rates, which I point out to the Minister it is right for them to be doing. If the vast array of small commercial landlords are listening to the debate or reading Hansard tomorrow, which I accept is completely unlikely, I have a suggestion that might help, although it is not the panacea for everything. As MPs, local councillors and people involved in the community, we could persuade small operators to come into some of those empty shops, but landlords asking for a rent that they once got 10 years ago makes it almost impossible.

In summary, retail should be recognised as a modern, vibrant sector, something that this country is good at and which contributes a lot to our national economy. It has to be accepted by Government that retail is up there with manufacturing and all the other businesses that the Government are promoting to help the country, and not, as used to be thought, something that just sucks in imports and is part of the distribution sector.

Property Market

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Paul Uppal

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I hope to sit in on some of the future public sessions of the Bill Committee.

In the Minister’s opinion, does the Bill remain in step with the White Paper statement about its three functions? The White Paper states that those functions are to allow people to shape their own communities—which I think it clearly does; to provide sufficient housing to meet demand; and to support economic development. I am not sure whether the new homes bonus is enough in respect of the second and third functions, and I think that the Government should create a back-up plan to ensure that development continues.

I should like to take this opportunity briefly to consider shared ownership schemes, which are a very important way of increasing home ownership, and of helping the demand and supply sides to meet. On 21 October, I submitted a written question to the Minister for Housing and Local Government about the Government’s plans to increase shared ownership and low-cost home ownership schemes, which, as I have seen in my constituency, are a very affordable and attractive prospect at the present time. The response was very positive:

“We announced in the spending review almost £4.5 billion investment…a new delivery model is expected to deliver up to 155,000 new affordable homes”.—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 671W.]

To the best of my knowledge, the details that we have been promised have not yet arrived, and I encourage the Minister to give us some information on that. I very much support what the Government are trying to do with shared ownership, and would like to see progress on that as soon as possible.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have been involved in property for about 20 years, and so this is an area that has concerned and perplexed me many times.

I understand the premise of my hon. Friend’s argument this morning, and have no issue with that; he is wholly correct. On the supply side, however, and particularly in terms of demand, in the UK we suffer from an exceptionally large number of people who aspire to own their own homes, compared with our continental neighbours in Germany and France, where there are much higher levels of renting. I have found that institutional investors often look for avenues through which they can get into the residential market, particularly from a letting perspective, and they have often approached Governments regarding the best way to do that. One area that is particularly talked about is the shared ownership vehicle. I do not know whether my hon. Friend, or the Minister later, will be able to comment on that, but I echo the sentiment of shared ownership as a way of solving the problem—not wholly, but certainly helping.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the vehicles that can be used, and I am sure that the Minister will comment on that. I very much supported the introduction of the real estate investment trusts scheme into this field, but my argument today is about the supply of land for housing development, some of which—a greater percentage, I hope—will be for shared ownership; some of it will be for private ownership and private tenants, and the different forms of social housing. I do not think that my hon. Friend’s point, valid though it is, is relevant to that argument.

I remind hon. Members that the lack of accessible housing for first-time buyers is not just a housing issue, or something to do with the idea that an Englishman’s home is his castle, and people’s desire for their own home. It has serious ramifications for the future of Watford, as for many other places. To use Watford as my example, as I should and must, it has for a long time been a popular place for young professionals, people working in and opening new businesses, and families seeking a first step on the property ladder. It is quite near London, and a lot cheaper, and it is a nice place to live. I say that in my capacity as honorary president of the Watford tourist board—but it is a nice place, and people enjoy going there. It is close to London without London prices. However, I have a significant fear that without housing supply at reasonable prices, which is a function of supply—we know that the demand will always be there, or I at least believe it will—the area will have difficulty in attracting young professionals, and attracting people to open or engage in businesses. That is the most significant aspect of what is a serious matter, with huge implications.

I support localism and I applaud the Government’s efforts to introduce it throughout the country, but my central argument, which I hope the Minister will accept, is that it must be part of a balanced package. We must avoid any trap; for the last Government it was their obsession with centralism—the Stalinism that I mentioned before—but that must not be replaced by a similar obsession with localism as the only way to obtain housing supply.