Retail Sector

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the retail sector because it is hugely important to my constituency, where 23%—nearly a quarter—of jobs are in retail. That is 8,000 jobs and the highest percentage of retail jobs in any constituency across Great Britain. It is vital for my constituency and many others that we have a thriving retail sector, from the small high street traders such as Les Thompson, who sells loose fresh fruit and vegetables—not wrapped in plastic, I note—on the main road in my hometown of Ryton, to major retail centres such as the intu Metrocentre, which is still the largest retail shopping centre and houses national chains as well as smaller retailers.

Blaydon is made up of many small towns such as Birtley in the east, through to Whickham, Winlaton, Dunston Hill, Crawcrook, Chopwell, Rowlands Gill, Ryton and of course the town of Blaydon itself, where the shopping centre has recently been reinvigorated. All those centres provide valuable jobs and facilities and help to make our local communities vibrant places where people want to live and can access the essentials, and sometimes the extras, of life. The challenges that they face vary. Les and many other small shopkeepers like him face the problem of our small towns emptying during the day, as people commute to work and shop elsewhere. They need support to ensure that our small towns retain a vibrant high street and local facilities, especially since many of our banks have closed local branches and there is a reduced footfall. The large retail centres like the Metrocentre, where many of the retail sector jobs are located, face different challenges.

I want to support our retailers right across Blaydon. I am doing what I can locally, working with them and Gateshead Council, but we need a bigger plan and a strategy for supporting the retail sector across the UK. Retail is our largest industrial sector, but the Government’s industrial strategy hardly touches on how we can develop and support that sector in what is currently a very challenging environment for most of them.

Let me turn to those challenges. Many retailers tell me that the business rates system, which has been mentioned, is a massive challenge. All but the smallest, like Les, who are below the small business threshold, are facing big increases in business rates. The revised valuations for many mean a big increase at the same time as they face challenges from online retailers, which do not have the same shop fronts and so face much lower business rates. Of course, the huge growth in internet shopping is one of the other challenges, with many of us even looking at goods in store but then shopping online to find the best price. I am as guilty of that as anyone else, but we need to think about the implications.

Like many other industrial sectors, the uncertainty and fears about Brexit and the impact on trading and bringing in overseas retailers to our towns and shopping centres are having a huge impact on the retail sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred to evidence from research conducted on behalf of intu on that very issue.

We know that there have already been many job losses in the retail sector. In April, the Press Association revealed that 21,413 retail staff had already been made redundant or had their role threatened, the bulk of them at established high street chains, in just the first three months of 2018. Many of those retailers are present in my constituency. Last month I visited staff at Toys R Us at the Metro retail park. I met some staff who had been working there for more than 20 years. They felt that they had been left adrift without information about what would happen to them and their entitlements and what they should do as their shop and the business closed down. Their shop was performing well, but as in so many cases, big finance issues and management decisions far away—literally—from the shop floor led to them losing their jobs. I am pleased to say that the local retail community pulled together, and many of them were able to find new jobs, but it did not do away with that sense of uncertainty and neglect.

In the House, we often rightly highlight high-profile manufacturing job losses, but it is just as important for us to note the loss of jobs in the retail sector and to remember that these too are people and our constituents who need our support and help. We need to pay our retail sector much more attention than it currently receives, as it is a vital sector for our economy.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I appreciate and understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but does she also acknowledge that there has been significant job growth in the last few years, particularly in areas such as logistics, handling and shipping, which should be celebrated?

[Liz Twist]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. There are jobs in different areas, but that does not take away from the fact that we need these jobs as well as all those others in the sector.

As I said, the Government’s industrial strategy barely mentions the retail sector, with only three mentions in 256 pages of our largest industrial sector, which provides 15% of our jobs nationally and 23% of jobs in my constituency. The Government need to pay much more attention to this issue. They need to bring forward a sector deal for retail to ensure that it is given the emphasis it needs, and they must look again at the business rates system.

In raising these issues, I do not excuse the parts of the retail sector that have failed to manage their own affairs and businesses well. It is vital that the sector looks to act responsibly and manage its finances in a way that allows businesses to meet the challenges and to avoid more situations such as the recent collapse of BHS, Toys R Us and others, where financial issues seem more important than selling goods well. The sector has a responsibility to its staff and to our constituents who work hard in these stores but pay the price in job losses.

I cannot end this speech without mentioning the staff who work in our shops across the retail sector. Many of the 8,000 retail workers in my constituency face low pay and zero or uncertain hours, and many of them are women. If we want to strengthen productivity in the retail sector, we must address the question of low pay. Frankly, it is no good Ministers patting themselves on the back for jobs created when those jobs still leave people needing support from benefits, especially given all the problems with the universal credit roll-out in my constituency. That is a real problem. Any look at this sector must include a plan to put this situation right and to recognise the work that these people do and their need to live with decent wages and in decent conditions.

Since we are all making disclosures about our involvement in retail, I will put mine forward. My mum worked much of her working life in local shops, and my first involvement in representing people was in referring her and her colleagues’ case to the Wages Council, as it was then, because they were being underpaid. I am glad to say that we reached a satisfactory conclusion. That is my history in retail. Retail deserves our support and needs it now, so I urge the Government to take action immediately to strengthen the retail sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you for the welcome opportunity to contribute to this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the Opposition using their time to discuss these ideas, although obviously I do not agree with a number of things in their motion.

As many Members on both sides of the House have said, the fundamental point is that the high street and the retail sector are changing. Things are being done differently. We have to recognise that that is not something that we in this place can or should control to the extent suggested by some during the debate. The market is ultimately a market of people. It is a market of our electorate. It is our children, parents, friends and next-door neighbours. When we depersonalise these discussions, suggesting that things are being done to businesses, we miss the point that fundamental changes are taking place on the high street.

Every single job loss is a tragedy. I understand the concerns about, and the challenges created by, people having to do things that they were not previously required to do. Ultimately, however, we have to recognise that big trends and big changes are taking place. Ten years ago, 2% of our purchases were online; that figure is now 18% and it is only going to get bigger. As I said when the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) kindly allowed me to intervene on her, although challenges are created by jobs lost as a result of changes to the high street, many jobs are being created in other industries.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). He is a doughty campaigner and he made his point loudly and clearly, but there was an inherent, slight conservatism—he will not like me saying that—to some of his comments. I understand his point about automation, but so far it has created many more jobs than it has caused to be lost. I accept that his principles are valid and commend him for them—he said that he does not use the automated checkout—but if we were to resolutely adopt them, some would argue that we should not have come here by tube today or by train last week because they put people who kept horses 300 years ago out of business.

I do not seek to take the argument to the extreme, but the point is that we cannot stop progress. It is the responsibility of places such as this to discuss how we make sure that our constituencies are safeguarded to the best possible extent, but we must also recognise that there are trends happening that we should not stop or want to stop, because this is about how people want to live their lives, shop and interact with their local community, which is more important than we may think.

Like a number of Members who have spoken, I have a retail background. My father, just like the Secretary of State’s father, was a milkman. I spent most of my teenage years helping my parents on that milk round, often doing more early mornings than I particularly wanted to as a 15 and 16-year-old. I remember the town centre in my part of the world in Chesterfield when I was growing up. I delivered to shops such as Radio Rentals, which is no longer there because we no longer rent radios or need to do so. High streets have got to change. They have always developed. There is always a requirement to be careful about it, but we have to accept that change is inevitable.

That said, we also have to accept that we have to be cognisant of certain things. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about banks. I formerly worked in a bank. I understand their issues about making branches work, but they are adopting a short-sighted and wrong strategy regarding the removal of vital banking facilities from parts of the country. I have never understood why banks do not come together and share space so that everybody still has that vital link, with a desk for Santander and another for Barclays and any other bank that wants to join. We cannot simply channel everything through the post office, because that ends up with the ridiculous situation whereby it is always massively busy with far too few people to physically man it. We have discussed similar problems elsewhere on the high street as a result of an insufficient number of people.

I commend the Government’s work, particularly on town teams. I have some great town teams in my part of the world. Eckington town team spends an incredible amount of time organising events at Christmas and over summer to bring people into Eckington, where my office is located, and to encourage them to help and to see their local town centre and local village centre. Clay Cross town centre is doing the same thing. Clay Cross is the birthplace of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who is not in his seat. The area is now represented by a Conservative MP—[Interruption.] I had to get that one in. The town team has introduced initiatives such as “Clay Cross on the beach”. I would never have thought—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would never have thought—that on a bank holiday weekend a load of sand would be put in the middle of Clay Cross, to encourage people to come. Such initiatives will make people choose that destination and show them the opportunities provided by their towns, including the shops and other possibilities. We in this place have to recognise that great work is going on elsewhere.

I do not want to suggest that there are no challenges. Local authorities in particular have a responsibility to do more. The local authority in my part of the world is completely shirking its responsibility to regenerate our town centre. A number of discussions are taking place, particularly in Dronfield. The town council is doing lots, and businesses want to do lots, but the district council is doing almost nothing and it should be called out for that.

There are challenges and difficulties, but we have to recognise that change is going to happen. We need to guide people through that, but we should not be afraid of those changes. The high street is going to change. It has always changed and it will change in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Industrial Strategy

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am glad of the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who speaks for his area with characteristic vigour. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who made the sterling point that the way in which to make sure our country develops economically is through private enterprise and free markets, and ensuring innovation in the private sector, which can create economic growth and jobs. We all want that and have seen it in the past eight years. We hope that that will continue to happen.

I also agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) that we should embrace change. We have an opportunity, over the next 10 to 20 years, to make our country into an even better place; to grow the jobs we know we can have and to develop the new skills and new industries we know are coming. We should embrace them rather than be scared of them. What a contrast those fine speeches were compared to the dystopian and very unbalanced vision from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) about how this country will fall away. I can see how that could happen only under a Labour Government.

I welcome the Government defining some of our key challenges over the next 10 to 20 years: growth, artificial intelligence, meeting the needs of an ageing population, and mobility. I want to focus on mobility. We have heard today about a potential sector deal for the rail industry, which I would welcome wholeheartedly. My area has an historic link to railways and rail manufacturing. My county is the home of Bombardier, although it is not in my particular constituency, which builds a significant number of trains around the country. What a difference the last few years have made, from a company in an industry that may have been struggling to having a really good order book that shows the renaissance of our railways. When I walk out from the station in my town tomorrow, I will see the statue of George Stephenson. He lived just a few miles away from my part of the world and it was his son who developed the Rocket. My part of the world is steeped in history.

When the Secretary of State considers a sector deal for the rail industry, which I endorse wholeheartedly and hope will come forward, I hope there is an opportunity for a cluster in the east midlands, just like the other clusters and sector deals we have talked about and the wonderful work going on in the automotive sector. There is an opportunity for the east midlands to build on Bombardier in Derby, build on the academy that has been put forward in Northampton, build on the news about additional train manufacturing in Lincolnshire and build on all the other opportunities we will have in the future. As part of the industrial strategy and the Government’s mission to build on and improve economic growth and economic development, and the opportunities we have as a country, I hope we can have a sector deal for rail and a cluster that is supported in the fastest growing region outside London and the south-east, which is the east midlands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. I think that everyone recognises these issues. In fact, the First Minister wrote to me yesterday and acknowledged the

“genuine challenges in…considering a proposal involving untried technology with high capital costs and significant uncertainties.”

That is why the best way to do this is to explore all the possibilities and to recognise the constraints. That is what I have committed to with colleagues in the Welsh Government.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the level of consumer satisfaction with smart meters.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

20. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of smart meters on consumer energy behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

Government research on consumer satisfaction published in August last year shows that satisfaction with smart meters is high. Eighty per cent. of consumers are satisfied with their smart meters and 80% would recommend them to friends and family. Smart Energy GB found that nearly 90% of people with a smart meter made energy savings and changed their behavioural patterns.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to hear that so many people are reaping the benefits from smart meters. No system is ever perfect, however, and that is the case for a small number of customers such as a club in my constituency, Killamarsh juniors athletics club, which is now on its third smart meter and is getting really unhelpful responses from its electricity provider. Can he provide any advice to the club in my constituency?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend has made a point about the Killamarsh juniors club in his constituency. I would be very happy to meet him on that specifically. However, I have not found this generally to be the case. The roll-out of smart meters is a very important national modernisation programme that brings major benefits to consumers generally and to his constituents specifically.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Lee Rowley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who made an excellent case and, as ever, argued with vim and vigour.

I welcome this important debate because it is the role of the Government to step in when markets do not work effectively. Although I am instinctively a small state Conservative, I know that it is important that the Government recognise when markets have not worked effectively and take appropriate action, as we propose in this legislation, which I support. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is not in her place, said that to expose market failure is not to try to weaken or be against all markets. That is a key point. Exposing market failure is vital for Government Members. Markets exist to improve people’s lives and make things more efficient. They provide outcomes and ensure that we can deliver things for consumers. If they are not working, it is important that those of us who stand up for free markets and capitalism point that out and take action accordingly.

I am instinctively cautious about caps, as are some of my friends, given their comments today. I support the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), who said that he hoped that the cap was an incursion into this area, rather than a wholesale annexation. He expressed my view much more pithily that I can. I do, however, accept the need for temporary measures to find ways in which we can make the market more competitive, and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) spoke so eloquently about that in his speech.

It seems that there are two issues: supporting vulnerable customers, and the general stickiness of a market that is lacking in energy, vigour and the ease to switch. I hope that we can continue to put in place more support, protection and cover for vulnerable people, as we look to make the market more competitive. However, we have to recognise that there is an element of agency. People have the right to make and not make decisions, and we have to find that balance carefully.

There are some signs of improvement in the market. There has been a large increase in switching over the past year or so. The market share of the big six has reduced from over 95% in 2012 to around 80%; it is just not happening quickly enough. There is no doubt, however, that the market is broken. There are too many people on standard variable tariffs who do not benefit from the other tariffs as they could do. The price differential of £300 between the highest and lowest tariffs—or between the highest average and other averages—is too high. There is a clear disconnect between wholesale prices and the retail prices that people pay.

There is a strong suspicion of tacit co-ordination between the big six. Anybody who looks at the graphs in some of the briefings that we have all received will see how the price movements of the big six over a decade have so closely mirrored one another. There are clearly high barriers to entry. There is a real stickiness of customer movement, as well as stubbornly high market shares, which happily are slowly starting to float down. There is a clear problem.

I welcome the opportunity, in the next few years, for this competition and change to take place. I hope that some of the things that are proposed on improving communication, getting better data and improving the switching process also take place. I accept the interim changes, but hope that we can reboot the industry over the next few years, so that we do not need a cap in future. I hope that we can ensure that there is a competitive and successful energy market that serves the needs of its customers, so that we do not have to do some of the other things that none of us wants to do.

University Tuition Fees

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I have to confess to being slightly surprised at being called first, but none the less I am very happy to contribute to the debate and thank you very much for the opportunity to do so. I also thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing the debate.

I wanted to contribute this afternoon because the subject is close to my heart and of particular interest to me. When I read the petition I was somewhat intrigued by some of the statements made in it, and I think it is important that such debates baged on the actual reality. As we know, the petition states:

“University fees are rising more and more.”

Well, a month or so ago there was a statement saying that university fees would be frozen, although I accept that the petition was probably submitted before that was announced. It goes on to say:

“£9000 for university fees is too high and the stress of being in debt is what puts individuals off applying for degrees.”

I completely understand that notion, but the reality does not bear it out; the statistics, the data and what happens day in and day out in our universities do not suggest that that is actually occurring.

I looked at the UCAS information submitted after the last round of UCAS applications were made. The number of 18-year-olds who went to university last year, when this scheme was in place, was at record levels, at nearly a quarter of a million students, up 1.5% from previous years; the total number of students currently in university is over half a million, which, again, is at a record level and over 0.5% up; and someone from the kind of income groups and social economic groups that the hon. Gentleman described, and which I think he and I both originate from, is 70% more likely to go to university now than they were in 2006. I accept that there is a challenge and that many people are concerned, but the reality is that many more students are going to university compared with a number of years ago, and many more students from low-income backgrounds are going to university compared with a number of years ago. My first fundamental point is that we have to be careful to have these debates on the facts.

Secondly, we have to look again at what the principle is. What are we ultimately trying to do around university fees? The key point I always come back to when debating the principle of tuition fees is that somebody has to pay, so the question is who? The answer is either general taxation—that is, the taxpayer pays—or that some contribution is made by the people who will ultimately benefit from this the most. When I went to university in 1999, it was the second year of tuition fees. I paid £1,000, although I recognise that is nothing like the amount of money asked for today. I accept the notion that if someone will benefit—if they are likely to achieve a greater amount of pay over their working life—they should be expected to pay a greater share of the amount it costs to get them into that position.

[Margaret Greenwood]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a societal good in having a highly educated population? The cost of that education should not be placed entirely on the individual, but we as a society should value it and pay for it?

[Lee Rowley]

I completely accept that there is a societal good, and that is exactly why we should have debates such as this one. The reality is still that a proportion of the cost per student, on average, in our university sector is being paid for by society. An increasing portion is being paid for by the individual, but a portion is still being paid by society. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to make that statement. The system already makes provision for that, and the question is where we draw the line.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

From the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), does he accept that there needs to be a balance and that £9,000 tuition fees for the majority are wrong? That should be scaled depending on what institution someone goes to and what course they attend, for example, and there should be factors determining how much people pay in tuition fees or not.

[Lee Rowley]

I accept in principle that there should be a societal contribution and an individual contribution, which I think the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was querying. My argument—the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was absolutely correct about this—is that when an individual gains the most, they should be expected to contribute the most. We can have a party political debate about where to draw those lines, and I would probably take a different view from the Labour Members in the Chamber and from the Leader of the Opposition. In principle, somebody pays, and the question is whether that comes from general taxation or, at least, a contribution from the individual. My view is that it should be a contribution from the individual, and I understand, accept and support the direction of travel on tuition fees in recent years.

The motion that we are debating is about reducing fees to £3,000. In preparing for the debate, I looked at some economic bases on which the current system works. In my understanding, if we reduced fees to that amount, it would blow a significant multi-billion-pound hole in the national finances. I would not support that, but if it happened, the proponents of the measure would need to explain where the additional money would come from. It would be likely to reopen the debate about whether we should cap student numbers, which raises a question about supporting aspiration. It would probably also reopen the debate about the amount of money spent on supporting students through waivers, outreach programmes, measures to increase retention, combination discounts and hardship funds, with which nearly £0.4 billion is associated for the coming year. I would be interested to hear from those proponents where the alternatives would come from or what would be stopped if the proposed tuition fee reduction went through.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not accept that there can be workforce issues with particular professions, such as nursing and midwifery, which we have at the University of West London in my constituency? Professor Peter John, the vice-chancellor, has contacted me, saying that he is worried about the 20% decrease in applications since the nurse bursary was cut. It feels as if student fees are adding insult to injury. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that £3,000 is a bit of an anachronism because no one has suggested going back to that, but that profession has particularly suffered, with applications down 60% on the normal cycle for the February intake. Given that there has been a steep fall in EU nurses, frozen pay and NHS cuts, it feels like that profession is being battered by this measure as well as everything else.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, but I am not au fait with the specific subject and area that she outlined. However, if we accept the principle, which started in the late ’90s and was extended in subsequent periods, of trying to engender choice in this area and accept some element of market-based principles—I know that is controversial with some in the Chamber—then when there are demand, challenge or supply problems, the market mechanisms should have the opportunity to work.

I do not want to be totally critical of today’s debate, because I recognise that there is a genuine issue and that the petitioner began the petition because of genuine concern about where we had ended up as a country. I accept that the system as a whole has some issues, which is why I welcome the Government’s full review of tuition fees and the education system in general. I recognise that there has been inflation in the system in recent years and discussions about vice-chancellor pay in the past few months. I accept that initially, when the larger fee came in, not all institutions were expected to go to the top amount, so the review is timely and important. The argument is not about whether the system works perfectly now, because it does not—no system ever works perfectly, but this one obviously has challenges—and it is not about whether areas can be improved. Specific, obvious issues with the system have been highlighted in recent months, and I accept all that.

Ultimately, we come back to the principle that somebody pays: the taxpayer or the individual, or the individual makes a contribution. I think it is entirely legitimate that the individual makes a contribution. I support the system as it stands, pending the fuller review of the detail. For me, this is ultimately a question of a quasi-hypothecation or no hypothecation. Somehow the money will be spent and it will be paid back. The question is: who pays it back? Is the money associated with the people who get the greatest benefit? In my view, the people who benefit the greatest should contribute the most.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

Hydraulic Fracturing: North East Derbyshire

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential effect of hydraulic fracturing in North East Derbyshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about an issue of immense importance to me and to the residents of the constituency that I have the privilege to represent.

North East Derbyshire is part of the petroleum exploration and development licence 300, which was issued by the Department a couple of years ago. About a year ago it became apparent that we would probably see some exploratory drilling in my constituency, close to the picturesque village of Marsh Lane, which is in the stunning Moss Valley in the north part of my constituency. A formal planning application came forward for this exploratory drilling on 8 May. The holder of the PEDL licence, INEOS Upstream has put forward an application for exploratory drilling in Marsh Lane. That planning application is still under way with the minerals authority of Derbyshire County Council and we expect a decision on that application in the new year.

I want to place on record my complete and absolute opposition to exploratory drilling, which may lead to fracking, in the North East Derbyshire constituency and particularly at this particular site near Marsh Lane. I will talk extensively about my reasons for doing so. To be clear, North East Derbyshire does not support or want this application, and it does not want to see drilling on a historical, agricultural area of land, which can clearly be seen for miles around as it is on the brow of a hill in the middle of green belt, next to a conservation area.

I know that fracking is a hugely controversial area of public policy, and I cannot hope to do justice—

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

This is an important issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country, but we need to make sure that we continue to look at alternative sources of energy for this country, where energy security is a big concern for domestic users—for their own electronic equipment and devices—but also for businesses as we hope to encourage them to come here. More alternative methods should be looked at, and I am hoping to have tidal lagoon in my constituency to generate energy.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend highlights a point that I will come to in a moment: we have a variety of potential opportunities here, including some we have not necessarily thought about previously, such as tidal lagoons.

Proponents of fracking would argue that the United Kingdom, blessed by large-scale energy resources, should take the opportunities to harvest the energy beneath its sea and soil, to improve our energy security and ensure we are diversifying our energy mix. “Rejoice!” they will say, “The United Kingdom has a long and rich history of mining in this part of the world and across the United Kingdom as a whole, and fracking is just another innovation in a long seam of innovation that helps to heat our homes and allow us to drive our cars.”

The alternative argument is equally clear and concise, if not more so. “Fracking,” say its opponents, “is an energy activity which we do not need and should not support.” For some, that is down to environmental concerns. The continuation of hydrocarbon development in our country is not something we should support, in understanding the challenges we have in the coming decades. For others, such as me, it is the sheer imposition and impact of this kind of activity on areas that have been rural for hundreds of years and never seen anything like the kind of development that is proposed if fracking happens.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with the application in his constituency is not just the impact it will have there, but that it could be the tip of the iceberg for applications in surrounding constituencies, such as my own, that are in urban areas? This is not just an issue for rural areas. All the surrounding areas are considered to be high risk by the Coal Authority.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady brings up an important point—one that I will come to later in my speech, because it is vital to understand that specific point before we conclude.

Some will argue from an environmental perspective, some from a perspective on the sheer imposition of activity, and others will be concerned about the uncertainty that fracking brings, for a multitude of reasons, which I cannot hope to go into in this short debate. Others would simply point to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy opinion tracker on fracking, which shows that only 16% of people were in favour of fracking in the latest survey in August this year.

I acknowledge that the Government take a different view from me and many of my residents. I accept the place the Government start from—I have no criticism of that—which is that we need to improve our energy security, diversify our energy mix and ensure we can bridge to the future when renewables can take on a greater share of the energy generation that we need in this country, but I do not agree with the Government’s conclusion on this particular issue.

I accept that energy production has fallen by over a half since 2000, that we are back to pre-North sea oil levels of imports and that we are obtaining an increasing volume of gas from Qatar to heat our homes. I accept that renewable energy remains at a smaller level of energy generation than we would all hope, although it has grown massively from negligible levels just a few decades ago. Even as a fracking sceptic, I accept that there is a debate to be had on how we continue to keep our homes warm, our cars moving and our factories working.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

City of York Council policy is to not have fracking, yet INEOS Upstream is at its heels. In Kirby Misperton, 99.2% of the community in a survey said they did not want fracking, but fracking is now going ahead. Is it not vital that we listen to the community and also the environmental protectors, who are there night after night and day after day protecting that site at Kirby Misperton, wanting to ensure that those environmental standards are upheld?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I agree with the hon. Lady in terms of the importance of local communities being taken along with the country as a whole when it comes to fracking. Whatever people’s views are on fracking, there is certainly a job to be done on that.

Notwithstanding all the challenges to national policy I have described, that does not mean that we should automatically default to being in favour of fracking. In the main Chamber today we heard other examples of how we can improve and make better use of energy through new tax breaks and by trying to re-stimulate North sea oil. I welcome such activity, but I do not believe that the United Kingdom is so far having the conversation that it needs about the impact that fracking will have in some areas, such as mine.

In addition, we have not understood properly the issues that will be created for nearby residents, for businesses that need to continue to operate on a daily basis and for communities who will live in the shadow of the kind of proposals put forward for North East Derbyshire. Even if one agrees with the principle of fracking—I respect absolutely those who do, but that is another discussion we do not have time for now—that does not mean that fracking is appropriate in all circumstances or all places, or that it should be supported in all instances. That is the crucial point for me. Fracking is a highly intense, high-impact, large-scale set of activities, often but not always in rural areas, and it will change the nature of our countryside for decades. It cannot be the case even for the most ardent of its supporters that fracking is appropriate everywhere. If it should not be done in some places, I am positing that it should not be done in north Derbyshire because it is inappropriate there.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

As the MP for a constituency that is also in Derbyshire, I accept the valid points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is it not most regrettable that the Government have passed policy meaning that even if county councils reject an application for fracking, that will almost certainly be overturned under the Government’s guidelines and therefore the views of communities are not being taken into account?

[Lee Rowley]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with her conclusion. There have obviously been some places where the planning inspector has rejected the rejection of the planning authority, but in others the planning authority accepted the application in the first place or the planning inspector has not yet made an absolute decision. I do not think it is as cut and dried as the hon. Lady suggests.

I have no doubt that I will be labelled a “nimby” for what I am saying in this debate. It might be said that I do not like it just because it happens to be in my part of the world and that I would not be here right now if it were not for the fact that the field that it is being proposed to dig up is in the middle of my constituency. Many of my constituents would have absolutely no time for those sentiments. North East Derbyshire is not full of nimbys. We have spent most of the past four centuries digging up coal, oil and gas in order to support people, to heat their homes, to allow them to drive their cars and to enable them to ensure that their factories still work, and we have lost men, sacrificed health and scarred our landscape as a result. On a personal level, both my grandfathers worked down the pits; one died as a result of the health injuries that he incurred down there, and the other lost his leg. Many of my constituents worked in the production of energy for many years. The last coal mine in my area closed within living memory. I have sat in living rooms that have lamps from 40 years ago, collected when the mines were still open, surrounded by the memorabilia of those coal mining areas, which are now saying that they do not want fracking in their part of the world.

We are not nimbys. We have looked at the proposal in our area and we have concluded that Bramleymoor is a thoroughly inappropriate place to undertake this activity. We have rationalised, for good and honest reasons, why we do not want the kind of industrialisation that this would bring. Some in my area have gone further and turned against fracking as a whole; a number would ban it. Whatever the disparate reasons—I do not concur with all of them—we are stronger together as a group and we stand as one and say in unison: we do not want the Bramleymoor Lane application; we do not need it; and we should not have it.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest downsides to fracking is the amount of traffic movements involved? While this application does not directly impinge on my constituency, if contractors take a different route through Ridgeway village, it could cause major problems for my constituents as well.

[Lee Rowley]

I absolutely concur. I will come to traffic in a moment, but I understand that if this application goes ahead, the traffic management plan is likely to propose that it goes away from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. However, I cannot imagine the concerns that lorries going round 90° bends and down one-way streets would create in Ridgeway and Ford, were that to happen.

As I said, the location of this proposal is Marsh Lane, which is a small and picturesque village in my constituency with approximately 800 residents, in the stunning Moss Valley just south of Sheffield. Those constituents have been hugely welcoming of me since my election last June. The village has two pubs, a bustling community and a primary school of about 100 children. This proposal would be just a few hundred metres from where those primary schoolchildren play on a daily basis.

Near Marsh Lane, and also substantially affected, would be the villages of Apperknowle and Unstone, the suburb of New Whittington, the towns of Dronfield and Eckington, the hamlet of Troway and the village of Coal Aston where, if this goes ahead, it is expected that thousands of lorry movements will traverse narrow streets, go round the sharp country bends—as the hon. Gentleman talked about—and go past the frontage of hundreds of houses in order to enable the activities taking place down the road. By any measure, Bramleymoor Lane is a thoroughly inappropriate place to frack.

Picture the brow of a gentle hill, which can be seen for miles around. If this application is approved, a 60 metre-high drill rig will go on the brow of that hill for months to enable the initial drilling. Even when that drilling rig is removed—I accept that it will not be there for the entire time—the planning application confirms that up to 17 different bulky and highly visible items would remain there for up to five years: a 2 metre-high fence, 4.8 metre-high bunding and fencing, multiple 3 metre-high cabins, acoustic screening up to 5 metres in height, four lots of security cameras of 5.5 metres high, a 9 metre lighting rig, a 10 metre-high emergency vent, a 4.5 metre-high pressure control and a 4 metre skid and choke manifold. This is not a minor incursion into a landscape with similar features. It is the wholesale industrialisation of the Derbyshire countryside, which has never, at least on public record, seen the kind of changes that are proposed. I have spent time in the Derbyshire Record Office going through and looking at maps, and as far as I can see Bramleymoor Lane has had three centuries of agriculture and nothing like the kind of industrialisation that is proposed.

The effort required to start this process is large, imposing and disruptive. If it happens, there will be 14,000 vehicle movements over the next five years. Various road layouts leading to the site would need to be reconfigured, not because the cars using them every day need that to happen but because the huge lorries that would need to come through to set this up cannot get around the corners and the paraphernalia that is already on the road. There would be the removal or reduction of an undetermined amount, but probably up to half a kilometre, of mature hedgerow that has probably been in that location since 1795, when the enclosure Acts created the aesthetic in that part of the world. There would be the installation of permanent lighting across the site, just a few hundred yards away from families and houses, and many more things I could mention, including the impact on animals, flora and fauna; the loss of land likely to have been in agricultural use for centuries; noise impacts; and the potential for air pollution. Whatever our view on fracking, if there was ever a place for it not to go, it would be here.

When I speak with residents they are often in tears about this issue. They are reasonable people and they understand that the United Kingdom needs to make progress. They understand that the Government have a challenge to ensure that we have the energy we need to heat our houses, and they understand that we need to ensure the safety and security of our energy supply going forward. But, respectfully, they are unconvinced by this proposal. A petition on this specific topic has now reached 88,000 signatures. There are 5,000 objections to the planning application alone.

Yet it is my final point that is of particular concern to me, and it was referenced briefly a moment ago. Everything I have described so far is for a single application for a period of up to five years. I hope it does not go ahead; but if it does, my concern is about the wider impact if that drilling is successful and it is determined that Marsh Lane, Bramleymoor Lane, my constituency as a whole and the neighbouring constituencies are appropriate places to frack.

The drilling companies themselves have indicated that, in such an instance, the kind of impact that I have described would be multiplied many-fold over the near area. Up to 30 wells could be accommodated within a 10 km radius, according to the applicant’s own leaflets, of which I have copies. That equates to a concrete well pad, machinery and rigs for some of the time, and all the impacts every couple of kilometres, which I have just described. In addition, new pipelines and significant traffic movements to bring in water will be necessary—tens of thousands of vehicle movements, multiple fracking sites and myriad pipelines, all primarily in rural areas. Whatever our view on fracking, that is a wholescale change to our landscape and an even more pronounced reindustrialisation of an area. Such a planning application for anything else—housing, business or commercial—would be rejected.

The motion states that the House has considered the potential effect of hydraulic fracturing in North East Derbyshire, so we need to consider the noise, the pollution, the traffic, the disruption, the change, the pipelines, the rigs, the well pads, the security, the fences and the impact on that beautiful part of the world. The residents of my constituency have considered it, I have considered it, the villages around Marsh Lane have considered it, and we do not want it.