Leisure Services (North East Lincolnshire)

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is very important to raise this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in doing so. I emphasise at the start that we have no desire to challenge the council and still less to try to dictate policy to the council. That is not the job of MPs. The council takes the decisions relevant to the council, and the swimming baths are relevant to its portfolio. The point of the involvement of MPs is, first, to represent the views of our constituents, and very strong opposition was demonstrated to closure of the Scartho Road baths. Indeed, a petition was signed by more than 5,000 residents of the area against closure. There was a strong feeling that they had not been properly consulted. We took up the case and managed to secure another consultation, although, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, it was not adequate, as the questions were fairly loaded towards the closure of the Scartho Road baths. However, the council did accept the need for a new consultation.

Our responsibility is, secondly, to get the best possible deal, in the light of the very acute financial stringency that the current Government have imposed on our council. It has suffered very badly in the cuts—certainly worse than any authority in the south would have suffered, or many richer authorities have suffered. Our responsibility is to get the best possible financial deal on the provision of swimming facilities, and we asked whether the best possible deal was achieved by refurbishing Scartho Road baths, which is 50 years old. In fact, it had its birthday in December. That is the first time a swimming baths has been almost as old as the Member for the constituency. However, the pool, like the Member for the constituency, is still in good condition and eminently refurbishable. Or was the best financial deal achieved by going for a new pool? That is what the council wanted to do. It wanted to establish that pool at the Willows leisure centre in Cromwell road. The aim was not to pay the staffs of two centres to do work that could be done by the staff of one centre and to economise in that fashion.

Another of our responsibilities was to ensure, if the council did go for a new pool, as it wanted to do, that that pool was the best possible pool, with the facilities that children, young people and adults need to train to become future Olympic champions and to go into championship swimming. There is now a passionate desire to train. A growing number of kids want to train to develop Olympic capabilities. There is a growing demand for that kind of facility and training. We want Grimsby to breed champions—it has in many other areas—and that means having the best possible facilities for the whole region. Ours is a region of 250,000 people; it serves the needs of 250,000 people. A good leisure pool, up to proper Olympic standards, would be a facility for the whole area, which is under-provided for in many respects.

In the light of what I have described, we thought it best—we thought it sensible—to take soundings from pool providers. There are a number of expert pool providers. They are comparatively unemployed—under-employed certainly—at present, with the cuts in council spending. We wanted to take soundings and get costings. One provider in particular, from the north-east, undertook to come down and give us free estimates and free advice on the best course.

We discovered during our inquiries that providers were building pools at much lower cost than the council was estimating would be necessary to build a 25-metre pool, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes said. They could even provide a 50-metre pool—in other words, a pool up to Olympic standards. To train in such a pool, anyone from the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area would have to go to Ponds Forge, at Sheffield, which is the nearest available Olympic-sized training pool. Anyone who wants to go on to championship swimming has to train in such a pool, and that is the nearest one. Why should we not have a 50-metre pool for our area? That is the question. The provider that I have mentioned said that that was possible at a price that was still lower than the council was estimating it would cost to provide a 25-metre pool in the Willows leisure centre.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate my two constituency neighbours, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), on this excellent debate. A 50-metre pool is of course something that North East Lincolnshire council could work with other authorities in the area to try to provide, because we do have a vision of making ours an area of sporting excellence. North Lincolnshire, the East Riding and Hull could be brought into that potentially.

[Austin Mitchell]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to express admiration for my appearance in a swimming costume, but as he raises a financial matter, I agree absolutely with what he says. There is no reason why we should not co-operate with other local authorities to provide something central for the area in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, which would remain the centre of population. That could draw swimmers, in the way Ponds Forge does to Sheffield, to the Hull area.

The provider said that the pool could be provided at a cost lower than the council had estimated for 25 metres, although the costs of running it would be higher. It would also be a pool that had diving facilities, which the council does not now intend to transfer from the Scartho Road baths to the leisure centre baths. Modern young people in training, particularly at championship level, need diving facilities and a diving well in the pool as well. All that could be provided at a lower cost than the council was estimating. We therefore argued that it was best to bring in these consultants to lay the ground—to give us proper information on what could be done and what was available. It is sensible, in taking any decision, for people to have the fullest information and the fullest costings before they let the contract, so that they know what they are doing.

It is important to keep Grimsby swimming, especially the young people. Swimming is for life, after all. Swimming is for health and swimming is for well-being. We want it to be encouraged and sustained in our area. This is where the Minister, I hope, will be able to help us and where Government can help. I do not expect the Minister to say, “By God, these two are all right and the argument is strong,” give way immediately and provide Grimsby with the money to establish a big pool, but I do hope for advice from the Government and from the Minister on the provision of facilities for Grimsby. What advice—what help—is available?

We had before the Public Accounts Committee the people responsible for the Olympic provision, which was very successful. I asked them, “What does Grimsby get out of the legacy from the Olympics?” After a certain amount of hemming and hawing, one official came up with the idea that we got the experience of and enthusiasm for volunteering. That is not enough. We need money as well to support local activities. What finances are available, first, for refurbishment of an existing pool and, secondly and more importantly, for the provision of a new, bigger pool—it could be a regional pool—to provide top-rank facilities of Olympic standard with a diving facility for the whole area? What finance is available from Government? How do we set about tackling this?

We want a centre of excellence for Grimsby, Cleethorpes and the surrounding area, to help local young people who aspire to be swimmers—perhaps in the Olympics and the swimming championships, which are now so important—to achieve their ambitions. Grimsby deserves the best. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes and I will ensure that it gets it.

Council and Social Housing

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Austin Mitchell]

I will come to that point, which is wrong. Hopes are not houses. The Government might have the intention to build an increased number of houses, but the problem is now, and it is getting worse. A crisis is building, to which the only answer is to build more public housing for rent now. That is not being done; it has not even been started. House building is so low that the tragedy will become worse in the next months and years. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in that the Labour Government’s record was pathetic. At the end, we managed to persuade the then Prime Minister—often a difficult job—that we had to build council houses and had to have a building programme. That was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). That was responsible for growth, and for jobs in the recovery from recession, but it was immediately cut by the incoming coalition Government, who had initially promised to maintain that building programme. They stopped it, and began a deliberate policy of diminishing, demeaning, draining and dumping social housing and those who live in it.

I say “diminishing” because of the 60% cut in funding for building social housing. Even that spending is predicated on higher rents providing revenue. That meant that areas such as Grimsby and north-east Lincolnshire got nothing, which is unprecedented. We wanted to build, but we could not, because no money was available as our rents were too low. I say “diminishing” because of the cuts in housing benefit, the cost of which is high only because the building rates have been so low. If we had built social houses over the long term and on a sufficient scale, we would not need to pay housing benefit to the homeless and to move them into expensive accommodation, and would not have the kind of abuses that are serialised every day by the Daily Mail. It is failure to build that has made the housing benefit bill so high.

Other cuts are already affecting new claimants and, from April, they will start to affect those who renew their housing benefit. First, there was a cut for adult dependants at home, which was designed to force kids—adult children—out of the household and into a single person housing market that is not there. The bedroom tax, which comes in in April next year, is a cut in housing benefit of 15% for those with a spare room, and of 25% for those with two spare rooms, to force tenants to move to smaller accommodation, which is not there, or into the private rented sector.

There is the renewal rate for under-35s from April next year, who will be getting the shared-room rate for single people. Then universal credit and caps will come in, which will produce even more difficulties, not so much in Grimsby but certainly in London and the big cities. That is the “diminishing” part of the argument.

The demonisation part is that council tenants are being treated and regarded as subsidised scroungers living on state subsidy. In fact, the Localism Act 2011 ends secure and assured tenancies, which are the basis of establishing a settled community and a good life on a council or housing association estate. It replaces them with short-term tenures. That means that if the family get better off—if the head of the household or members of the family get jobs—and income increases, the tenancy will not be renewed.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I thank my next-door neighbour but one for giving way. On the issue of longer-term tenancies, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and I have joined him in the Lobby on the issue of short-term tenancies. However, what he has not said is that it will be up to local councils to decide whether to offer them, so there is an element of local democracy. It may be that our councils in north Lincolnshire decide not to do that. Secure tenancies have not gone completely; it will be up to local councils to decide whether to continue to offer them.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am a grateful for that point. I am also grateful that, for a period, in Humberside, we have agreed on the issue of short-term tenancies. I hope that the measure will not be enforced by councils, but several are already making arrangements to enforce it, and others are being campaigned against by tenants who wish to persuade them not to enforce it. We will have a patchwork quilt over the country, but the net effect will be that in many cases, people are forced out, and are forced into accommodation in the private rented sector that is not there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman has asked a difficult question. I do not know the answer. I take it that there was an element of financial stringency—a desire on the part of the Conservative Government to cut taxes, which meant cutting Government spending and therefore spending less on public housing for rent. Certainly, the Labour Government did not spend enough on housing because their priority was to put money into the health service and education, which, after a long period of disinvestment, did get a lot more cash from the Labour Government. The financial situation was pressing in that direction. Also, there was clearly a feeling that we had built enough. That feeling was wrong, because building public housing for rent is a means of providing employment, maintaining full employment, stimulating the economy and providing for social need.

[Andrew Percy]

There was another element; it was not quite as the hon. Gentleman suggests. As he will know from the time he spent in council housing in Hull for “Tower Block of Commons”, there was also a social change, which meant that a lot of people did not want to live in council housing. Consequently, in Hull, where I was a councillor for 10 years, we had hundreds of houses that we could not let because people simply did not want to move into them. It is not quite the case that we simply abandoned social housing the 1980s.

[Austin Mitchell]

But it is the case that a failure to invest made the estates less attractive to live in. Had those estates been updated, modernised and refurbished in the way that was needed—that was certainly needed on the Orchard Park estate—they would have been more attractive places to live in. In the ’70s, they were very much mixed communities, as all the statistics show. It was because spending was cut that they became unattractive. Housing there was also less available, due to sales, which picked the eyes out of many of the estates. That was the reason why people did not want to move in. That movement was coupled with the fact that the Government were spending less, so the housing was less attractive. They were disinvesting in the policy. I do not have the answer to why Governments were doing that—they should not have done it; it was socially divisive and damaging to other social services—but that was the reality. We were spending less, we were not building, and we were not refurbishing or modernising. There was a big modernisation under Labour, to be fair, which brought in private capital by privatising the estates. Again, that was inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem and the disinvestment that had taken place.

I want to resume my thread and talk about draining public sector housing. The new proposals for giving councils control of their housing revenue accounts involve them paying substantial sums to buy back, in order to pay off historical debts. However, that historical debt has in fact been paid off many times over the years. For instance, in the years when daylight robbery applied—that was begun by a Conservative Government, and was carried on for too long by a Labour one—£13 billion was drained out of housing revenue accounts by that system of financing, and the draining has gone on since. The Government were abstracting £1.6 billion every year from housing revenue accounts to pay off historical debts, they said, and to redistribute. The proposal that historical debt has to be repaid by councils that want to run their own revenue accounts is fallacious. It is an attempt to squeeze council financing of development of new housing once again.

The whole programme is imposing sacrifices on those least able to bear them: the poor, the low-waged, the disadvantaged and the handicapped. Given that the approach is to spend so little on social and council housing, the question is: why should those who are not responsible for the financial crisis and the recession be forced to bear the burden of paying for it? That question is never answered. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own risk assessment shows that the benefit cuts are hitting the vulnerable, the sick, the young, and the low-paid. That whole package, plus the other changes, results in fear, homelessness and insecurity. It will also result, particularly in London, in a kind of ethnic cleansing, because the cuts will hit racial minorities who have bigger families harder than other sections of society. People will be forced out to the private rented sector.

The private sector is not rent controlled. We need to restore rent control and regulate conditions more tightly to control the incipient development of Rachmanism and exploitation. Rents are too high in the private rented sector, yet in the public rented sector they are being raised to 80% of private sector level.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree absolutely. That is the best indication that this is a constitutional fix, a coalition deal, a rather squalid political manoeuvre, rather than a matter that can be discussed and presented to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and discussed with the legislatures there, because it has repercussions for them as it does for us.

I had better come to a conclusion. The conclusion is simple: three-year Parliaments would give the people the power that they need and want not only to keep us accountable, but to throw the rascals out—throw out the Government if they do not like them—every three years. I hope it is a power that they can exercise sooner than May 2015 on the present lot.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I shall make a short contribution. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) for a four-year term. I am not quite so enamoured with the idea of three years, and I shall say something about that in a moment.

However, I could not agree with the manner and the tone of some of the contributions in the past hour or two from the Opposition Benches. Silly comments about Con-Dem Governments, political posturing and so on are not helpful to an important debate about the constitution of this country. I do not believe for one moment that any kind of dodgy, underhand dealing is going on.