Manufacturing (East Midlands)

Debate between David Simpson and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Spencer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend—it is easy to focus on the big boys, but small family businesses are driving the economy. They are starting to expand and take on new staff, and they will move us forward as a region so that we are seen on the map. I want to highlight some of those companies.

I do not want my speech to turn into a list of companies in my constituency, but I have mentioned hosiery and I still have a sock manufacturer, F. J. Bamkin and Son. The company was formed in 1886 and is still making socks in the town of Hucknall. It has made them for the Ministry of Defence, although the MOD has decided to procure its socks from foreign manufacturers over the past 15 years. I hope the Government can redress some of those changes of the past 20-odd years—we have looked to foreign rather than UK-based manufacturers—and start to consider quality. I can guarantee that the socks are top quality. I have even worn a pair myself. [Interruption.] I am not wearing them today.

Yesterday I was at a company called Doff Portland, which, as well as manufacturing fertilisers and agri-chemicals for garden centres, is one of the major manufacturers of slug pellets. Anyone with an allotment or garden will know what a fight it was last year to keep slugs out. If it were not for companies such as Doff Portland that turn UK-grown wheat products into slug pellets and distribute them, we would all be much hungrier.

Not all the companies in my constituency date from 1886 and 1887. Howard Marshall Engineering was formed only 10 years ago. Howard Marshall is a young entrepreneur who set up his own agricultural engineering company, and he can produce anything out of metal that people might want. He has worked for a well-known BBC car programme that I had better not name, because it does not want to be publicly linked. He has also designed and made a grass-collection machine for Arsenal football club. His going from a young man starting in business to having more than 20 staff should be celebrated, and he should be congratulated.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

We started many things in Northern Ireland but not the industrial revolution. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the point he raises about a young man starting in business, will he congratulate the new university in Derby that will teach not only manufacturing but business, entrepreneurship and financial skills to young people at 14?

[Mr Spencer]

I happily add my congratulations to the new university. I will go on to talk about skills training, which is one area we need to improve.

I want to highlight two more companies. Many Members may be familiar with the old Robin Hood sports cars, which were manufactured locally; the company is now called Great British Sports Cars Ltd. I know the Minister might not be able to afford a sports car on his salary, but should he ever decide to purchase one, I highly recommend the two-seater manufactured in my constituency. Perhaps at some future point he would like to visit the great constituency of Sherwood to see those cars for himself.

Food Prices (Planning Policy)

Debate between David Simpson and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Spencer]

I am conscious of the fact that I said that I would try to focus on the matters that are relevant to the Minister, and we are in danger of straying into Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs territory, dare I say? However, it is difficult not to do so because these are cross-Government issues, and biofuels are one such issue.

The Minister is in control of planning policy. If we look at other renewable schemes, such as the siting of wind turbines, we might think that they do not have a large effect, but I am told that the current demand means that we will have to build 5,000 wind turbines. European targets will mean that we must more than double the amount of energy from onshore wind during the next 10 years and that we will have to build at least another 5,000 turbines onshore. Guidance for farmers provided by Wind Prospect advises that less than one acre of land is required for each turbine, including the access track, the tower itself and hard standing for the crane; the remaining land can be utilised as it was previously. However, 5,000 turbines equates to 5,000 acres, and 5,000 acres of productive arable land goes a long way to producing quite a lot of food.

We need to think about where we site some of these wind turbines. There are a number of examples of how we can put wind turbines on former industrial land, former collieries, old pit-tips and places like that, where they would not impact on the use of agricultural land. That is something that we should look at much more closely.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and I declare an interest in the agri-food sector.

Most commentators would say that the era of cheap food has gone, certainly for the medium term, and that the world has become a much smaller place, so that reactions in prices happen fairly quickly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that we look at something radical to encourage the primary producer of food, because if things continue as they are they will result in more imports from other countries and the loss of jobs? We need to look at something radical to encourage farmers to grow more crops.

[Mr Spencer]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have achieved that before, with Government-led campaigns to improve domestic food production, and there are examples from the recent past, when the previous Government encouraged farmers to diversify and to consider adding value to their products, to get more from their production. That, however, brings with it anomalies.

I will draw on my own experience as a farmer on the urban fringe. We considered diversifying into farm retail, so that we could sell not only our own farm products but those of our neighbours, but I was told by my local planning authority that, because of the legislation in place to protect the green belt from out-of-town development, it was not possible to retail where we wanted to. Companies such as Halfords and B and Q want to build large retail units in the urban fringe, and a farm shop is, in effect, retail. I was told that most of my produce had to be sold through the farm shop and most of the shop’s produce had to come from the farm—I understand the logic of that—but if I asked my neighbours who live close to the farm, “Would you rather my farm shop retail the pork of one of my near neighbours, so that I could support both their business and the retail business, or would you rather I put 1,000 pig arks behind your houses and produce my own pork?” they would reply, “I would rather you sold another farmer’s pork than have an impact on the green belt with all those pig arks.” That is just one anomaly; there is a clear difference between agricultural diversification and major retail companies putting large warehouses in the green belt.

What can we take from the current state of food prices? We have a problem, frankly, because food prices have been rising for some time and we can no longer regard the increases as an anomaly. Whether we pin the hikes on oil prices, climate change, population increases, bad harvests or other developing industries in the green belt, it is clear that the rises are here to stay. We remain a nation dependent on imports, increasingly from all over the world, and we leave ourselves vulnerable to the storm that is raging outside our borders. We need, therefore, to protect ourselves, just like we did in the 1940s. We need to look at domestic production and ensure that we are making the most efficient use of our domestic land.

The percentage of agricultural land dropped from 39% to 25% between 1989 and 2009—a stark decrease. England has 14 green belts around its major cities, covering nearly 13% of the country, and 72% of the Nottingham and Derby green belt—1 million hectares—is in agricultural use. Overall, 66% of the green belt is used for agricultural purposes. The conclusion that I draw is that the green belt is fundamental to our ability to produce food ourselves. In Nottinghamshire, the green belt is under enormous pressure from local authorities, as they consider sites for residential developments, and it causes me enormous frustration that some of those authorities are choosing green-belt development over using the available brownfield sites.

This debate comes down to one thing, and my one request of the Minister is that he assure us that his inspectors—these things undoubtedly end up in front of an inspector—will be completely rigorous in their scrutiny of local plans. One of my local authorities, Gedling borough, has available to it the possibility of developing a former colliery site, but has chosen, for whatever reason, to develop the green belt in the villages of Linby and Papplewick, and around Hucknall, instead. That causes me enormous frustration, because most people in the borough recognise that the Gedling colliery site should be developed. There is some debate about whether an access road would allow for more housing, but clearly there is the opportunity to put between 600 and 700 houses closer to the urban fringe, rather than to tear up the green belt in Nottinghamshire.

Another example is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has spent a lot of money on flood defences at a site called Teal close in Netherfield. I am led to believe that the site, which is close to the urban fringe and not within the green belt, is now protected from flooding, but it is not being developed, for whatever reason, and we are, again, pushing houses out into the rural areas. We need to look long and hard at that issue.

I cannot say often enough that brownfield before green-belt development is absolutely essential. I hope that that message seeps through and that at some point in the future, when we are all feeling much hungrier and cannot afford to import food, these things will come together. We will then wonder what on earth we were doing back in the early part of this century. We cannot go back. Once we have developed land and it has been taken out of agricultural production, it very rarely goes back. Probably the only examples of such land being returned to agricultural use are those involving open-cast sites that have had their topsoil removed and later put back, but even then it is very low-grade agricultural land that is probably used for grazing sheep rather than for arable production.

There are, nevertheless, some good examples of where we can get it right. Cemetery provision is a fairly contention issue, of course, because people do not really want cemeteries to be set up in the green belt, but natural cemeteries have been developed. There are no headstones and people are buried in a more natural state in a wicker coffin, so the cemetery can be used for grazing sheep and for livestock. That is a good example of things working together, and I encourage that sort of diversification.

One of my final points is that we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—if Members will forgive the cliché. Farmers need to be able to diversify, to consider other ways to support their income.