Coventry City Football Club

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is a great advocate for all sports, and he certainly knows his football. I thank him for his support.

We must not prejudge the formal mediation process, but if it fails to clarify where Coventry City will play its home games, I want the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to ask the parties, including the English Football League, to attend a hearing of the Committee to explain how the issue of the football club’s future can be resolved.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate, which is of interest to many of my constituents, who are naturally Coventry City supporters. He is talking about the parties involved, one of which is Wasps rugby club, which acquired the stadium a while ago. Does he agree that it is incumbent on Wasps to do what it can, as it is doing, to provide a home for Coventry City to ensure that the football club can continue to play in the city that bears its name? Elsewhere in the world, two sports operate out of one venue. So far, Wasps has been sympathetic and has allowed a further year. Does he agree that it needs to be encouraged to continue its very generous offer?

[Mr Jones]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I set out at the start of the debate that I would not favour any particular organisation or relive old battles, because a solution to the situation is needed.

Returning to the role of the English Football League, I would like the EFL to explain its earlier role in the club moving to Northampton and to explain to Coventry City supporters its view of the future. In my view, the EFL should not again allow the club to move outside the city of Coventry.

I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull in his intervention by raising the issue of the start of an informal mediation process. The Minister has been very helpful in that, and I would be grateful if she will explain the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) in that regard.

Finally on the approach of the EFL, we need to look at situations similar to that of Coventry’s—clubs like Blackpool and Charlton, which are recent notable examples. Coventry City supporter groups have felt that the EFL should in such circumstances be able to appoint someone independent to make recommendations to the league on how to proceed and on the parties.

I will conclude, because I am splitting the speaking time to allow two Coventry Members of Parliament the opportunity to speak in the debate. I appreciate entirely that the Minister will not have all the answers for us today, but I ask her to consider our points seriously and to work with the football authorities to ensure that we do all that we can to secure a future for Coventry City in the city of Coventry. Football and its authorities must send a message to owners of football clubs that where a club is embedded in a community we must ensure that it stays in that community. The issue is important not only for fans of Coventry City football club, but as a marker to be put down because we do not want other football clubs and other groups of supporters to be in this situation in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T8. I am sure the Secretary of State will have seen today’s report from the British Chambers of Commerce, which concludes that, for our businesses to grow and compete, it is vital that local authorities provide an adequate supply of building land and consents for new commercial buildings. I know he is considering business rate retention, so will he ensure that proactive councils, such as Rugby Borough Council, continue to receive incentives to grow their local economies?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

The Government are still committed to further business rate retention. We have relaunched our working group, which is our officials and the Local Government Association, to take that work forward. It is important that any future reform of the system has a balance between meeting need and having an incentive for areas to grow their tax base.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which it is my pleasure to close. The settlement comes at an important time of reform for local government finance. It provides a sustainable path to the reforms that will be introduced by the end of this Parliament, through which 100% of business rates will be devolved to local government, giving councils control of an additional £12.5 billion to spend on local services.

The reforms are being made through the Local Government Finance Bill, which was introduced to the House last month. The Bill will enshrine in law our commitment to provide funding certainty by establishing a legal framework for multi-year settlements, which is a key feature of this settlement and something that has been called for by local government for decades. By putting the framework in place now, we can continue to work with local government over the coming months on the detail of the reforms, much of which will be set out in secondary legislation. Many local authorities welcome that approach.

Thanks to this Government’s action, 600,000 businesses are being lifted out of business rates altogether. A revaluation is overdue, and most businesses—three quarters of them, in fact—will end up paying either the same or reduced rates. Although three quarters of businesses will benefit or see no change, I am all too aware of the impact on the quarter that will see their bills rise. We are looking closely at what can be done to help the hardest hit.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, if we are to have a system of taxation based on property valuation, it is important that we arrange for regular revaluation?

[Mr Jones]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which is generally due to his experience of running a business. The Government have made it clear that we want to move to a system of more regular revaluation.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier, he is working closely with the Chancellor to determine how best to provide further support to businesses that are facing the steepest increases as a result of the revaluation. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement at the time of the Budget, just two weeks from now.

One hundred per cent. business rate retention is being piloted from next year. It will mean that participating authorities will be able to keep more of the growth in their business rates income, with no impact on the rest of local government. As we have said, in 2018-19 we plan to undertake further pilots in areas without devolution deals, including two-tier council areas. The nationwide roll-out of 100% business rate retention will take place throughout England in 2019-20. Earlier this month, my Department published a consultation to seek views on exactly how the system should look. I look forward to discussing the matter further with colleagues from both sides of the House in the coming weeks.

While we rightly look forward to the longer-term reform that will make local authorities financially self-sufficient and provide greater incentives for growth, the settlement we will vote on today reaffirms our commitment to funding certainty for local government. The 2015 spending review delivered a £200 billion flat cash settlement for local government, and last year we delivered four-year funding allocations, which provide the financial certainty required for councils to be bold and ambitious. The settlement is the second year of a four-year offer that was debated in this House a year ago and that has been accepted by 97% of local authorities.

The settlement before us delivers on our promise and provides councils with the resources required to deliver world-class public services in the year ahead while continuing to play their part in bearing down on the deficit. We have consulted carefully, and I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing their constituents’ views to us during the consultation.

As we have heard, adult social care, which is an issue close to all our hearts, transcends party politics. I take seriously the representations made today, and I take seriously the need to ensure greater respect, dignity and independence for people who receive care. In the spending review, we put in place up to £3.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care by 2019-20, but we recognise that the coming year is the most difficult in the settlement period for many councils.

There are immediate challenges in the provision of care that must be met now, before the substantial additional resources become available, which is why we have created a new £240 million adult social care support grant and are allowing councils to raise the adult social care precept by 3% next year and the year after. Together, the measures make available almost £900 million of additional funding for adult social care over the next two years, so the total dedicated funding available for adult social care over the four-year settlement period is £7.6 billion.

As we look to the future, local government spending will be based on local resources, not central grant, so we are devising a new funding formula for local government that is fit for purpose. Earlier, the Secretary of State acknowledged the many representations that have been made, including by many colleagues here today, about how demographic pressures, such as the growth in the elderly population, have directly affected different areas in different ways as the cost of providing services has grown. We are undertaking a fair funding review to consider thoroughly how to introduce a more up-to-date, more transparent and fairer needs assessment formula. We have been working closely with local government to make sure that it works for both local government and local people, and we will make changes on the fastest possible parliamentary timescale.

I wish to deal with a few of the issues that were mentioned during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is never backwards in coming forwards. It was interesting that, although many of his arguments were reasonably inconsistent, he was consistent on not coming up with a single idea for how we might solve the complex challenges faced by this country or by local government. I was also interested to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). He said, “Where is the money?” Well, it might be a good idea for him to take some advice from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne); I am sure he could tell his colleague where the money went.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made some very pertinent points, particularly about unitary authorities. We are certainly willing to listen to proposals, but those proposals must be driven from a local level, and be bottom up. If her area is willing to do that, we would be more than happy to listen to its views. She also mentioned local authorities’ funding challenge. We are providing a four-year settlement, so that councils, which have additional reserves and resources, can use them to bridge their funding gap, because they will know what their situation will look like in the third and fourth year of the settlement.

It was good to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He welcomed the principle of the four-year settlement, to which 97% of councils have signed up. He advocated that any additional funding from 100% business rates retention should go directly to help local government to fund services that are currently provided. Although that may sound tempting, may I remind him that we have been very clear that the situation would be fiscally neutral? New responsibilities would come with the additional £12.5 billion that we expect to go to local government.

It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), who is a strong champion for his constituency. I was pleased to hear his support for the fair funding review, but I did hear his concerns as well. A similar sentiment was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and I take their comments on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells also mentioned the business rates baseline and the principle of resetting the system, which is an important part of the whole system. Finally, I know that he has spoken to the Secretary of State about the aggregate levy, and I will certainly look into the further points that he made today.

I certainly take on board the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made about the uniqueness of the Scilly Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has vast experience in local government and as a local government Minister. I was pleased that he welcomed the idea of not including the attendance allowance in business rates retention. He was right that more needs to be done on the integration of health and social care. He was also right to advocate that the business rates multiplier uprating should be changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, which the Government fully intend to do.

In conclusion, this local government finance settlement honours our commitment to four-year funding certainty for councils that are committed to reform. It recognises the cost of delivering adult social care and makes resources available sooner, and it puts councillors in the driving seat with a commitment to support them with a fairer funding formula. It will give Government the resources they need to govern and I commend it to the House.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Elected Mayors and Local Government

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Thursday 9th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

The important point that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have missed is that it is for local authorities and areas that seek devolution to make proposals. The amount of democratic accountability that the Chancellor seeks will be determined by an area’s ambition, and the deal going through at the moment is an example.

Concerns have been expressed about what is seen as the imposition of metro mayors, to which the hon. Lady alludes. In 2012, a number of cities, including Coventry, voted against introducing a directly elected mayor. I wish to make it clear that, to be successful, decentralisation must be about not only devolving powers and budgets but having the necessary leadership in each place, which brings me back to my point. We need governance and accountability so that powers can be exercised properly and effectively, for the benefit of all.

Mayoral governance is an internationally proven model of governance for cities. Hence, as the Chancellor has made clear, we will devolve major powers only to cities that choose to have an elected metro mayor, but the Chancellor has also made it clear that we will not impose a metro mayor on anyone. Our Bill therefore provides for metro mayors, while also making provision for devolution and governance changes in circumstances where a metro mayor is not seen as an appropriate governance arrangement. The Bill allows for local governance to be simplified, but only with the consent of affected councils and the approval of both Houses.

The crucial point is that all the Bill’s provisions are to be used in the context of deals between the Government and places; nothing is being imposed. I reiterate that where there is a request for the ambitious devolution of a suite of powers to a combined authority, there must be a metro mayor, but no city will be forced to take on those powers or to have a metro mayor, just as no county will be forced to make any governance changes.

In that context, I congratulate the seven metropolitan councils of the west midlands on the launch of their statement of intent to establish a combined authority, which is the first stage in a process of consultation and engagement with other councils in the area. We welcome that development, and we are determined to hand as much power as possible to places with a clear, strongly led plan. With their proposal, the seven west midlands councils are showing what can be achieved by working together to bring greater opportunity to their area. We look forward to working with them as they develop their proposals.

In yesterday’s Budget—this answers a point raised by several hon. Members—the Chancellor strongly welcomed the statement of intent for devolution in the west midlands, which he sees as a proposal for a strong and coherent west midlands combined authority. He has shown great ambition for the midlands, and he sees the “midlands engine” as an integral part of the Government’s long-term economic plan.

[Mark Pawsey]

The Minister is making a strong case for the urban areas of the west midlands to come together. It is a big engine and could be a powerhouse of development. May I tempt him to comment on the appropriateness of shire counties on the periphery of such an urban area being involved? Should they, too, be pulled into that move?

[Mr Jones]

Locally elected leaders and members must decide whether they want to be part of any particular configuration of combined authorities. It is for local people to put proposals to us in the Department, rather than having a top-down solution imposed on a county area such as my hon. Friend mentions.

I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Coventry South made. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) hit the nail on the head—the principle of combined authorities is perhaps being confused a little. Many people want to paint it as an amalgamation of councils and their current governance arrangements. Actually, we are talking not about breaking down the structure of the authorities in the west midlands but about devolving the additional powers that those authorities are seeking. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) made that very point.

On whether the west midlands will have a mayor, as I said, that is a bottom-up process. It is for the west midlands to come forward and tell us the level of its ambition. It has set out an initial document, but it is early days. It was implied in the debate that the Government are leaving the west midlands behind. That is certainly not the case, and we are encouraging people from across the west midlands and the wider midlands area to think about how power can be devolved. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget that he welcomed the initial work being done in the west midlands.

The hon. Member for Coventry South mentioned the devolution arrangements that were previously made for the west midlands. Those arrangements were made many years ago, but funding and powers to carry out the projects that he mentioned were never directly devolved. They were very much directed by central Government, which is why the scenario being suggested now is different.

A5 Trunk Road (M42/M69)

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I am delighted to have been able to secure a debate about one of the busiest and most congested parts of our strategic road network. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) is present—he, too, has a constituency interest in this busy stretch of the A5—and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his time, and for the consideration that I hope he will give to the debate.

Let me explain why I am concerned about this stretch of the A5, and why I believe that there needs to be a fundamental rethink about the future of that busy highway for the sake of my constituents who live on the route, and for the sake of economic growth in the west and east midlands corridor.

The A5, or Watling street, which marks the northern boundary of my constituency, was built by the Romans, who originally built the road from Londinium to Deva—or London to Chester, as we know them today. I have not established the exact date when Watling street was built, but the fact that the Romans withdrew from Britain in 410 AD gives us a slight clue as to the longevity of the route. I am certain that the sheer volume of traffic that would use Watling street in the 21st century was never envisaged, even once the ownership of cars became commonplace after the second world war. That is why so many other sections of the busy road, which now stretches from London to Holyhead, have been substantially changed to reflect the volume of vehicles that use it.

Today, the A5 between junction 10 of the M42 and junction 1 of the M69 is one of the most congested routes on the strategic road network, particularly between the Longshoot junction and the Dodwells roundabout. That section is considered to be the 15th most congested section of road on the network. Many of my constituents live along Watling Street and on feeder roads such as the Longshoot, Higham lane, Weddington road and Woodford lane. They live every day with the imposition of queuing traffic, high levels of noise and massive pollution.

The pressure on the route is often compounded when traffic shifts from the M6 to the A5. There are regular closures on the M6. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have expressed concern in the House before about the safety of junctions 1 to 4 on the M6, where there are regular accidents. My constituents are affected by the way in which the traffic shifts from the motorway through my constituency to the A5 in order to reach the M42 and the M69. You probably think that that is a subject for a debate on another day, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give my comments some consideration tonight.

Over the decades, this section of the A5 has undergone numerous redesigns to deal with safety issues and to mitigate the growing number of vehicles on our roads. For many years my constituents have suffered from the disruption of regular roadworks that are intended to improve the situation. At this very moment, work is taking place from the Dodwells roundabout to the Royal Red Gate junction, where the A5 meets the A444. Just tonight, I was interviewed on BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire about the issue, along with a very disgruntled lady who was less than happy about the current disruption. I think that that disruption is extremely unfortunate, but it is quite necessary. Much of the work that is being undertaken between the Royal Red Gate and Higham lane junctions is facilitating the new Motor Industry Research Association technology park, which is creating more than 2,000 new jobs. As well as the new jobs, that part of the route will have a very positive effect on the local area because it is being turned into dual carriageway. Inevitably, that progress will put greater stress on the Longshoot junction and the Dodwells roundabout east of MIRA, but that will largely be mitigated by the current pinch-point scheme now under construction. The changes now taking place on the A5 will have a positive effect and there will be gain for the pain that my constituents and the many users of this busy route are experiencing.

I am also convinced, however, that we need a longer-term solution and we must seek it now. We cannot wait five, 10, 15 or 20 years before we consider the future. That would not be right for my constituents or the wider west and east midlands economy.

A substantial amount of development is planned along the A5 corridor both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. As my constituents know, I do not agree with all the development plans being promoted by the local planning authority in my constituency. However, it appears from the approach it is taking that these developments will go ahead whether I or my constituents like them or not. We must therefore think about substantive solutions for this section of the A5 to deal with the future issues.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will also be aware of the significant partnership-working currently taking place on the issue between the Highways Agency, the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership, the Leicester and Leicestershire LEP, Warwickshire county council, Leicestershire county council, and the Nuneaton and Bedworth, Hinckley and Bosworth and North Warwickshire borough councils. The Minister will know that those agencies have jointly started to conduct some very embryonic work on a strategic enhancement of this section of the A5. They are looking at the issues and constraints that affect that busy section of highway.

That work has been conducted by the partnership, which has been formed because there is a strong business case for a long-term solution to the problems we face on that section of highway. It is thought that a long-term solution for that section of the A5 could bring savings of £680 million through better travel times, lower vehicle operating costs and a reduction in the accident rate on what is a busy stretch of road. That proposal aligns with the strategic growth aspirations of both the public sector and the private sector in the area. This evening I am asking the Minister to look at the detail of the embryonic work that has already been conducted and that I am sure his Department has seen.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the A5, which is an important route from the M1 at junction 18 to the north-west, avoiding the M6. I wonder whether we might persuade the Minister to look at the southern part of the A5 as well, from the M69 down to the M1. There will be very substantial housing and commercial development at the junction 18 end, and we could use that as an opportunity to improve that thoroughfare.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who represents Rugby. I completely agree with his request in relation to the section further down the A5, which can only help the situation further up the A5, to the benefit of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. I would also say in that regard that the work currently going on at the Catthorpe interchange, where the M6 meets the M1-A14, will have an extremely positive effect for our constituents in addressing, hopefully, some of the issues—not all, but some—that I referred to earlier: the A5 and Nuneaton get so clogged with traffic due to accidents on the M6.

This evening, I am asking the Minister to speak to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor about this issue, which is a matter of major concern for my constituents and many other people living in the region. He will know that the embryonic work has been carried out. I am now looking for a sympathetic ear in the hope that he will put forward my argument that funding for a further in-depth investigation and feasibility study of this busy stretch of the strategic road network should be made available. The investigation needs to include all stakeholders, particularly the people who live on and are affected by the current route.

I know how diligent the Minister is. He has helped me personally with other issues in my constituency, including the fallout following the closure of Daw Mill colliery. I remember the assistance that he gave me at that time, and I am confident that he will try to help in whatever way he can now. We have an autumn statement coming up, and I am sure that he will make a strong case to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor so that we can look at the long-term future of this busy section of the A5, which needs urgent consideration. I hope that the points that I have put on record tonight will go some way to enabling the case to go forward, so that we can do the right thing for my constituents. That has not been achieved under numerous Governments over the decades, and my constituents have had to put up with absolute mayhem on that section of this busy route.

Housing

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is entirely right that we should debate the serious issue of housing this afternoon, but I am afraid that the Opposition have picked the wrong time to table a motion with such wording, as it does not reflect the state of the market, which is decidedly upbeat. However, those words might have been appropriate in 2010, when under Labour house building fell to its lowest level for nearly 100 years and Labour was consistently breaking promises on what it would do regarding housing.

I took the trouble to read the 2007 conference speech made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—his first speech after becoming Prime Minister—in which he promised that Labour would provide 240,000 new homes a year. The following year, the figure for new homes was 115,000—the lowest since the 1920s. Labour said that it would build eco-homes, and it kicked off with five communities, which went up to 10. That was going to be the centrepiece of its housing policy, but none of the communities was ever built or developed. Labour presided over a period of regional spatial strategies, with a top-down “central Government know best” system, but that simply failed to push forward land for development.

The words in the motion are wrong, because things are starting to happen with housing. The Government’s policies have begun to bear fruit, and nationally nearly 400,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010, and starts are up by 23%. The improvement applies not only to owner occupation: 99,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2011, which is halfway towards delivering the 170,000 homes that the Government seek to deliver by 2015.

The Government’s initiatives to encourage home ownership are working. The Help to Buy scheme, which was launched in April 2013, is allowing people to get started on the housing ladder. There were 5,000 sales in the first six months and 1,000 house builders are registered. The importance of small and medium-sized developers has already been mentioned, and some 90% of the developers registered under Help to Buy are small or medium-sized companies. There are now 11 lenders covering the scheme. We are also meeting the aspirations of those in the social housing sector who wish to buy their own home by invigorating the right to buy.

My constituency is in the middle of England, and it sits in the middle of many statistics. In 2010, the number of new builds in Rugby fell by 62%, which was inconsistent with the level across the country as a whole, but in 2012-13, housing starts in the constituency increased by 260% to their highest level since 2007-08. Included in those figures is the gateway development of Eden Park, which the Housing Minister visited last February, where three developers are building 1,400 new homes—and selling them as fast as they can build them. The positive attitude to development in my constituency is reflected by an application for 6,200 new homes that will come before the local authority’s planning committee tomorrow, so things are moving across the country, especially in my constituency.

What would have happened if Labour was in power? With regard to measures on land banking, we have heard about state confiscation. The Home Builders Federation, the industry’s trade body, has said that there is no incentive for land banking.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between his constituency and mine, where we have a Labour-run local authority, is that his local authority works with local people to deliver these things, rather than imposing things that people do not want?

[Mark Pawsey]

My local authority has a record of going out and consulting local people. It has brought together a local plan. We are living in a plan-led system, and those authorities that do not have a plan in place will experience difficulties, as I know is the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Confiscating land is no way to solve the problem. House builders want to build houses and there are no incentives for sitting on land. The Opposition’s policy would result in fewer houses being built, because house building would become a risky business to invest in and fewer people would invest in house building companies. Developers supply what the market demands. There has not been demand in the market in recent years, but the steps that the Government have taken, such as Help to Buy, have reinvigorated demand.

Labour is also calling for new towns and garden cities, but its eco-towns did not work. A much better way of delivering houses is through sustainable urban extensions, such as those coming forward in constituencies like mine.

High Streets

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I welcome today’s debate because we can all agree that high streets and town and city centres are vital to local economies, and I put it to the House that this Government are committed to seeing them improve. The issues faced by our town centres did not start in 2010. There were concerns in the high street well before then, and I do not recall any initiatives to support town centres from the Labour party when it was in government.

I will focus my remarks on the threat to town centres from out-of-town retail and internet shopping, both of which did not start only three years ago. Given the threat from out-of-town retail, it is right to have a “town centre first” policy, and last year when considering the national planning policy framework, the Communities and Local Government Committee was insistent that such a policy should be included. It is important to ensure that if development can take place in a town centre, it should do so over development on other sites. I am often asked why I am so supportive of a “town centre first” policy, but anyone who has visited the United States, where there are few planning controls, will see holed-out town and city centres, with doughnutted different shopping developments round the outside.

My constituency of Rugby is faced with an interesting dilemma, namely the proposed redevelopment of an existing out-of-town centre, with a firm commitment for a department store to be located out of town. In Rugby we have aspired to a department store for more than 30 or 40 years—I well remember a vacant site in the town centre awaiting such a development, but it did not come. We now have the opportunity to take that development out of town, or not at all, and I regret that we will be doing the right thing in taking it out of town. I will speak later about the importance of accepting new housing and how that can support retail. The proposal from my local authority to accept new housing means that we will have sufficient customers both for the enhancement of existing out-of-town retail, and to support our existing town centre.

Reference has been made to internet shopping. That is increasingly becoming the norm and town centres must adapt. Broadly, I believe that if 12% or 15% of retail purchases are conducted over the internet, town centres must reduce the size of the shopping available by a similar amount. The alternative is to grow a population. If we grow our population, we can defend the size of our existing town centre. A progressive Conservative council in Rugby is building 1,300 new homes at the gateway site. Further developments will result in 6,200 new homes. Communities cannot legitimately speak of their disappointment with high street decline if they are unwilling to accept the need for additional new housing in their areas.

On high street development, I welcome the Mary Portas review. The Communities and Local Government Committee looked closely at her report. I was pleased that she drew attention to the fact that what happens in town centres is about much more than businesses, and that we need to look at our town centres from a wider perspective, considering open spaces, libraries, coffee shops and the night-time economy. Although she has received criticism for failing to follow through on her proposals, she should be praised for highlighting those things and for engaging in discussions on the future of our town centres.

The motion refers to localism and criticises the Government, but which party pioneered the localism agenda and introduced the Localism Act 2011? This Government have given power to more people.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood planning has made a massive difference to localism, and that it can be applied to our town centres and high streets?

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a frontrunner in neighbourhood planning in my constituency, which is looking into the provision of local retail.

Localism could have happened at any time in the 13 years under Labour, but it did not. It is rich of Labour Members to lecture the Government on the local agenda when they centralised power with the national planning policy framework. As my hon. Friend has said, neighbourhood plans give local communities a greater say in what happens in their high streets.

The motion mentions betting shops. One question Labour Members need to answer is whether they would prefer a vacant unit or a betting shop that brings people and life into the town centre.

There is no denying that the future of the high street and our town centres is an urgent matter. It is entirely right that we should discuss it today. It is important that local authorities have a progressive attitude and take positive steps to bring forward development that sustains life within town centres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome today’s debate. High streets and town centres are vital to every constituency. Many that were once vibrant face immense challenges from the pressures of structural change, such as the year-on-year double-digit growth in online retail and the continued growth of out-of-town retail. I had hoped that the motion would contain helpful measures, but it seems to be concerned with political ideology set on dictating to individuals what they might want, rather than providing the answers to the problems that our high streets and town centres face.

I commend the Government for removing permitted development rights, which are referred to in the motion, from our town centres. One of the biggest issues we have is an oversupply of retail and office space, particularly in secondary areas—a problem that a lot of people do not like to admit. There is a lack of footfall in these areas and a lack of maximisation of available time. For example, there is often not a very good early evening economy. It is an excellent idea, therefore, to allow landlords to turn commercial property into residential property. We need far more people to live in most town centres to create that footfall and that early-evening economy.

As for limiting certain use classes, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. Across the country, many of our struggling town centres have more of the use classes that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) mentioned, so what she advocates could destabilise town centres. Of the use classes the Opposition have a problem with, one is payday lending. I must admit that I am not too keen on payday lending; it has its place, but the regulation needs to be looked at. The Government are doing that, however, and that is a far better way of dealing with payday lending than saying, “You can’t be in a particular town centre because of planning regulations.” I mentioned the structural change in retailing, but there has been a structural change in bookmaking too; bookmakers have shifted from the periphery and secondary areas to primary areas, because as town centres have become more difficult to fill, landlords have reduced rents, bringing bookmakers on to the high street. We need to consider both industries carefully, because we do not want to end up with more empty shops, fewer jobs and less VAT, national insurance and corporation tax being paid.

[Mark Pawsey]

Would my hon. Friend rather see a vacant unit or one occupied by a bookmaker?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is for individuals to choose whether to use bookmakers, but there is obviously a market for them and they create jobs on the high street. At the end of the day, would we rather have somewhere empty and possibly boarded up, or a bookmaker? I know which I would choose. I would choose to have the property occupied. The Opposition Front-Bench team grimace, but from how they have been talking about our high streets and town centres, one would think there was 100% occupancy and that these businesses were forcing out other businesses. If the hon. Member for City of Durham came out to high streets and town centres across the country, she would know that high streets are struggling and that there are a lot of empty units. Those businesses are not forcing people out, as she insinuates.

I know from speaking to local businesses that business rates are a challenge. Although many of the secondary areas in my constituency town centre benefit from the small business rate relief—I am glad the Government have extended that until 2014, a policy that Labour opposed, and that some of those small businesses will receive £2,000 towards their national insurance bill, which will be very welcome—there is a challenge for small businesses in primary areas of town centres, where they do not benefit from the rate relief. We need to look at that carefully to see what we can do to help those small businesses. This is a complex area, but I am greatly concerned by Labour’s policy and how it would pay for it. It advocates scrapping the Government’s pro-business, pro-jobs reduction in corporation tax, which would be a retrograde step. It wants to send the message to businesses that we are closed for business and inward investment, and to halt the progress that the Government are making. We have already created 1.4 million new jobs.

I would have liked to raise several other issues today, but in general, the motion offers very little in the way of solutions for high streets and causes me concern about the direction of Labour policy in wanting to control individuals. I will certainly be opposing the motion tonight.

Fuel Prices

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on the assiduous campaign he has fought on this issue, which has generated massive interest across the Chamber in response to the great pressure on our constituents. I was pleased to add my name to the motion, as I recognise the impact of fuel prices on individuals, particularly those in rural communities such as the villages around my constituency, many of whom have to rely on their car and spend a substantial proportion of their income on fuel.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), I want to concentrate my remarks on the impact on business—and particularly on small businesses—as a generator of growth in our economy, just as I did when we last debated the matter on 16 March. I will deal first with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker): the price gap in the UK between petrol and diesel, which is up to 8p a litre. The duty is, of course, the same; it is the higher cost of production that leads to a higher price. That is the reverse of the situation 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Frankly, as the gap widens, there is a disincentive for business to run more fuel-efficient vehicles powered by diesel. There is no reason for having the same rate of tax on fuel, and having a lower rate for diesel would greatly assist business.

The differential between the price of diesel in the UK in comparison with mainland Europe is also important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said. That presents a significant advantage to overseas competitors, particularly haulage businesses, many of which are based in my constituency in the middle of England. The Government are losing revenue as UK-based operators fill up their tanks on the continent, and there is evidence that they are specifying vehicles with larger fuel tanks for the purpose. The location and size of those tanks also raise safety issues, especially in view of the horrendous accident on the M5 only a few weeks ago.

In our last debate on this issue, I said that businesses needed certainty and stability in regard to the price of fuel. That is often their most important consideration as they negotiate the prices at which they sell to their customers. I used to run a business that used delivery vehicles to supply goods. We had 10 vans and 10 sales reps. The cost of fuel was a major budget consideration for that small business. Between January 2009 and January 2011, it increased by £1,000 a month before VAT—£12,000 a year. Most of those increased amounts cannot be recouped, because businesses are not able to raise their prices. Loss of profitability and the fear of generating loss have led to massive concern about the price of fuel.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the problem is even worse for small businesses that are not registered for VAT and therefore cannot reclaim it.

[Mark Pawsey]

I also note that, according to research conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, one in 10 businesses says that if something is not done about fuel prices, it will need to lay off staff. A quarter say that a freeze on wages is attributable to the cost of fuel, 36% say that they will have to reduce investment in new products and services, and 78% say that their overall profitability will be in jeopardy. The situation would, of course, have been worse under Labour, which—as we have heard from Government Members on many occasions—introduced a fuel duty escalator involving seven increases. Had it not been for the action taken by the Government, fuel would now cost 6p more per litre.

I know from my career before I entered the House how important fuel prices are to the business sector. I hope that in his autumn statement the Chancellor will be able to give the necessary support to hard-pressed households and to businesses.

Private Finance Initiative

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Main, for allowing me to speak in an extremely important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and others on the Backbench Business Committee on securing this vital debate. It is a crucial issue that is of great interest to my constituents, and I shall focus on that constituency interest.

Hon. Members have given a very technical analysis of PFI, its failings and what we should possibly do about such arrangements. However, in very practical and tangible terms, I want to speak for my constituents and explain why this rebate for the PFI would be extremely beneficial to them. If I may put that into context, I will be talking about the huge PFI scheme at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.

Let me give hon. Members the background. A large tertiary hospital on the edge of Coventry was built under the previous Government’s PFI regime. The hospital replaced the then Walsgrave hospital, where I was born in the early 1970s. The new incarnation of the Walsgrave, as we know it locally, is undoubtedly a great hospital. When I say that, I do not just mean great as in good, although it is an extremely good hospital, but great in terms of size, because it has 1,250 beds and 27 operating theatres. The hospital is a large fish in a small pond in terms of the Coventry and Warwickshire health economy.

Since the hospital started to operate in 2001, the cost of the PFI contract has been substantial, with more than 14% of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust budget now consumed by the PFI contract and the obligations under it. The main problem with the PFI contract is that the costs are pretty much fixed. Regardless of patient numbers, under the contract the trust must still pay over a long period for the buildings, repairs, cleaning and provision of support services. Should demand fall or patients decide to go to another hospital in the Coventry and Warwickshire health economy, inevitably those fixed costs remain and must be borne by the hospital.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My neighbour and colleague is making a strong case about the impact of the UHCW in the health economy of Warwickshire, but my interest is my local hospital of St Cross in Rugby, which is part of the same trust. One of our big concerns is that, with such a large proportion of the health economy going into the PFI hospital, in times of budget pressure such as now, the bias will always be towards the PFI contract, which must be fulfilled and maintained, but that might be to the detriment of other hospitals locally and, in particular, those in the same trust.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine, has hit the nail on the head.

In our situation, regardless of demand or whether the Coventry and Warwickshire PFI hospital wants to close a ward or to stop the activity associated with closing a ward, such as the cleaning or maintenance, the fixed costs must still be met. That is most detrimental, and it is a drain on the Warwickshire health economy.

Another concern relates to the primary care trust and the strategic health authority. That context is changing, but some of the people involved in those organisations were instrumental in the creation of the PFI hospital and, whatever happens, I suspect that they would not want to see the hospital—this landmark development in Coventry—fail. The concern is because, ever since the hospital was built—before the mortar between the bricks or the paint was dry—the local PCT, NHS Warwickshire, has been trying to reconfigure services. We immediately had an acute services review, which threatened services at my local district general hospital, the George Eliot, and to a greater extent at Rugby’s St Cross, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has said. NHS Warwickshire paired St Cross up with the Coventry and Warwickshire trust which, really, subsumed it. Services were drained away from Rugby to the new PFI hospital in Coventry, regardless of whether people in Rugby wanted the choice of going to St Cross. If we do not get a grip on the situation soon, I fear that the same might happen in my constituency at the George Eliot.

That brings me to the crux of the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire. I echo his concern about such huge beasts of projects, which are so expensive and we hear stories about, such as the £300 for changing a light bulb. They are real, tangible problems, and our constituents cannot understand why the previous Government signed the taxpayer up to such ridiculous commitments. Although the previous Government took on those contracts, I appreciate that the new Government cannot simply tear them up. Some difficulties might arise from how the contract was framed, in particular on the capital commitments. The companies that originally constructed and financed the hospitals have sold the debt on, and it might have been sold on again, so we would now find it difficult to pin down those people and to get some form of rebate.

Apprenticeships (Small Businesses)

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Thursday 9th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree. That is part of the problem, which my hon. Friend has highlighted. There is a culture in certain parts of this country in which work is frowned upon. I am glad to say that we now have a Government who want to get this country and our young people working and create a culture of work, rather than one in which being kept—staying at home and collecting benefits—is a job choice, not a safety net.

That brings me to the other risk that employers in my constituency tell me about, which concerns employee retention after several years have been spent training a young apprentice. Obviously, the costs of that training are borne by the Government, in the main, but there are also costs to the employer in training people on the job. Employers are concerned that a young person will come in, serve an apprenticeship and leave. In certain trades, including the craft trades such as bricklaying, plumbing and so on, people can quickly set up as self-employed workers, and employers are concerned that they will invest their time and money in training young people who will either get a job elsewhere or set up on their own. We must address that, whether through an incentive scheme for employers or by other means. We must do all that we can to encourage employers to take people on and overcome those risks.

We need to consider the barriers to career progression that make things more difficult for employers, particularly those who have younger employees. That was highlighted to me on a visit to MES Systems in my constituency, which has two fantastic young apprentices whom I met. One of the apprentices had just finished his time and had qualified as an installer of security equipment, but unfortunately that young man will have to spend this coming year working for somebody else, not because he cannot do the job independently but because the company could not get insurance on the van that he needed to drive to get around independently. That is a major impediment not only for the young person who is not getting the experience of working independently but for the employer, who knows that additional work is available but is hamstrung by the fact that that he cannot send a person out to do that work, allowing him to take on another apprentice. That is the type of barrier that we need to think carefully about.

To touch on another constituency scenario, I spoke to the principal of a firm of accountants several weeks ago. The Minister will be glad to hear that he is looking to take on four apprentices as trainee accountants, but I am sad to report that to date, he cannot fill those vacancies, which is a sad indictment of careers advice and the link between employers, schools and FE colleges. It is important for the Government to tackle that issue. I hope that the all-age careers service will help with the quality of advice that our young people get, so that they can have proper careers and receive independent advice based on getting a job rather than on trying to meet exam targets or school or college league table targets. To many youngsters, that is important, but to some it is not as important as getting straight into employment.

[Mark Pawsey]

There has been pressure on young people in recent years to go to university. I have teenage boys who are very motivated to go to university, because that is what their peer group does and that is what they have seen happen. It is the entire emphasis of our education system. Those with practical application who are willing to get their hands dirty are discouraged or looked down on as not doing so well in life. Will my hon. Friend comment on how the Government can deal with that, and how a change in attitude might go some way to stimulating more apprenticeships?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has highlighted the flawed ethos of the Labour Government and their target culture of wanting to get 50% of our youngsters into university. Although that has been useful for many of our young people, and we should certainly not decry the importance of a university degree, it has led, as he has said, to a culture where people frown on youngsters who have not gone to university, which has left those youngsters feeling dejected and undervalued. That is a poor position to put ourselves in.

To refer back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), we need to fill the gap in the skills sector, and there are many younger people who would be better off taking the skills route rather than going to university and perhaps doing a degree that is not necessarily recognised by employers or that is not relevant to getting into the labour market.

Rail Services (Nuneaton)

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss an extremely important matter for my constituents, namely the provision of rail services to Nuneaton. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, who has taken time from his busy schedule to respond to the debate. I also thank those of my hon. Friends who are here this afternoon for their support; the issue clearly affects neighbouring constituencies as much as it does mine.

My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt be fully briefed on the subject. However, it might be of some assistance if I first set out the history and background to Nuneaton station. I shall then speak about the west coast main line and lastly about local services, particularly the Nuneaton to Coventry service.

Nuneaton station was opened in 1874, when the London and North Western railway opened the Trent valley section of the west coast main line. It was built to avoid the congested areas of Coventry and Birmingham—even then, we had problems with rail capacity. Unfortunately, Nuneaton’s rail services were considerably reduced under the Beeching axe of 1963. That led to the closure of Nuneaton Abbey Street, Stockingford and Bedworth stations later that year. In addition, in 1965 the Nuneaton to Coventry line was closed to passengers. Happily, in 1988, under the previous Conservative Administration, the Nuneaton to Coventry line was reinstated for passengers, as was the station at Bedworth.

Nuneaton’s association with the west coast main line has not always been a happy one. Tragically, on 6 June 1975 six people died and 38 were injured when the Euston to Glasgow sleeper express crashed just outside the station. The train was carrying the then Labour Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fred Peart, who survived after a short spell in hospital. I do not remember much about the crash as I was only one at the time, but I have seen the dramatic press photographs of that awful incident.

Let me deal with the specific issues that affect Nuneaton rail services. The first is to do with the west coast main line. Traditionally, Nuneaton station’s place on the west coast main line has been a great advantage. Nuneaton enjoyed fast hourly services to London and the north-west, peak and off-peak, until 2008. In that year, the very high frequency timetable was introduced, at which time fast off-peak services from Nuneaton disappeared.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this valuable debate. My constituency is immediately adjacent to his, and those who live in the north of my constituency are served by Nuneaton station. Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem is that investment in the west coast main line led to an imperative on the operator to minimise city-to-city times? One way to achieve that was to reduce the frequency of stops at stations such as Nuneaton and Rugby.

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall return to the subject later.

Passengers wanting a fast service from Nuneaton now face the significant inconvenience of having to take an additional train to Coventry or Rugby to pick up a fast service. The alternative is to make a 30-minute car journey to Coventry or Rugby to catch the fast train.

I campaigned on this important issue before the general election. I wrote to the Department for Transport and to Virgin Trains, the train operator. The response was most unsatisfactory. The Department for Transport blamed timetabling changes on the operator, and the operator blamed the Department for Transport. Neither offered a solution to the loss of amenity for passengers from my constituency. That loss of amenity is substantial, and I fear that it will greatly reduce Nuneaton’s ability to attract inward investment from business and commuters. That is particularly galling given that we are now only an hour away from London and from the north-west.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I have not received that information, but if what my hon. Friend says is right, it is most welcome.

It is important that the preferred bidder on the west coast main line deals with a number of points. First, consideration should be given to Nuneaton’s becoming a regular pattern stop, as it once was, to enable more frequent fast services to run from there. Secondly, we should end the moderation of competition rules to allow new providers into the market. I am fully aware that if substantial investment is involved, it may impede changing the rules in that regard. Substantial upgrade work was undertaken at Nuneaton station in 2004, so I hope that changing the rules will not be so much of an issue. I am also aware that open access providers have been assessing the viability of providing additional services on the west coast main line, which brings me to my next important point.

I have discussed capacity with a number of operators and potential operators. My discussions all lead me to believe that there is additional capacity on the west coast main line. If the Minister would confirm that this possibility is under definite consideration, I would be most grateful. Rail usage at Nuneaton has increased over the past five years by 37%, and I have little doubt that there is still capacity to increase it. The neighbouring constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and mine give a catchment area of more than 300,000 people, which has substantial potential.

Having set out my case for additional fast services on the west coast main line, I should like to turn now to the provision of local services, particularly the link with Coventry. My hon. Friend the Minister is no doubt aware of my interest in this matter. He knows, too, that the Secretary of State has kindly arranged a meeting with me next week, which will be attended by several colleagues.

The importance of the link between Coventry and Nuneaton cannot be overestimated. Coventry is the closest city to my constituency. Statistics show that there is a clear correlation between the more affluent areas in my constituency and a travelling distance of 10 and 15 miles to the workplace, and Coventry is the only geographical location that fits that description. There is currently an hourly service from Coventry to Nuneaton, with a stop at the neighbouring town of Bedworth.

Access to employment opportunities for my constituents is vital, as indeed is access to both Warwick and Coventry universities for higher education opportunities. If we are really serious about improving social mobility within the areas of relative deprivation in my constituency—there are a number of such areas in the bottom 20% of the national deprivation indices—improved rail services will play a vital part in closing that gap. An example of how the inequality gap can be bridged is demonstrated by Coventry’s plans to redevelop part of the city centre that surrounds the railway station. The redevelopment scheme is projected to create some 15,000 jobs, from which my constituents would benefit if only there was more convenient rail access for them.

That brings me to the Ricoh arena, which is home of Coventry City football club and the Arena Park shopping centre. Some 600 people are employed there and further development is envisaged. Both facilities are adjacent to the railway line, but, currently, there is no station for a stopping train. That is perverse given that the arena contains not only a large shopping area and conference venue but a stadium, which is set to host football matches during the 2012 Olympic games.

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the reason for the location of the football stadium—immediately adjacent to the railway line—was that the primary means of access would be by train, yet there is no station. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to press for such a facility to be introduced at the earliest opportunity so that people from across the country can easily get to the stadium, particularly in time for the rugby world cup in 2015.

[Mr Jones]

That is a perverse situation. On the drawing board, it was envisaged that there would be a station adjacent to the stadium. Unfortunately, it has never materialised. It has been under discussion for 10 years, I think, and, unfortunately, it was very much neglected by the previous Government.

The improvement of Nuneaton’s rail services has been recognised as an issue of great importance for nearly a decade. It is a conundrum that has been greatly ignored. I hope that the coalition Government will give the matter much more urgent and sympathetic consideration. Capacity can be improved, and frequency and usage increased by taking the following measures: improving the line’s infrastructure, including a new platform at Coventry; providing new stations at Bermuda in Nuneaton and at the Ricoh arena; and providing additional rolling stock.

There is a huge lack of capacity at Coventry station, because the Nuneaton-to-Coventry service currently shares a platform with the fast service that connects to the west coast main line. At the moment, providing more local services has to be traded against the loss of the fast services on the west coast main line from Coventry, which is clearly not going to happen and is not an option. An additional station bay at Coventry station would remove the current impediment and allow for a twice-hourly service between the two stations of Nuneaton and Coventry.

A new station at Bermuda in Nuneaton would further strengthen access to the service, particularly from the adjacent area of relative deprivation. The Ricoh arena station would increase opportunities for my constituents to reach a greater diversity of employment and provide much improved access to the arena when matches and events take place. It could also strengthen the position of Nuneaton as a pleasant place to stay during such events, thus increasing the chances of inward investment for the hotel, leisure and hospitality industry.

As I mentioned earlier, additional rolling stock will be required to achieve these improvements. I was glad to see in the Secretary of State’s recent statement that an additional amount of new rolling stock is to be introduced to the overall network. I hope that such an investment will enable existing stock to be moved to lines such as the Coventry to Nuneaton line. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take these arguments back to the Department, where I know that an assessment of the Coventry to Nuneaton upgrade project is now under way.

In conclusion, I hope that I have set out an argument based not just on narrow and parochial terms but on economic and social grounds because improvements in services would lead to real benefits for constituencies across Coventry, Warwickshire and Leicestershire. Such benefits would inevitably help a region that has really suffered under the recession that was bequeathed by the Labour Government and reinvigorate an area in which private-sector growth and jobs are badly needed after years of decline.

Commercial Property

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. I know that even in areas where rents have been reduced to the level that she mentioned, there are still no takers. If no businesses are willing to take the premises, the price is irrelevant. We know that the situation must change.

The regulations have been in force for more than two years and have had a number of effects, some of which the property industry expected and warned the Government about at the time of the change. On the failure to provide services, it can be argued in the interest of fairness that business rates are a tax on occupation with the intention of raising funds, in the same way as the council tax. However, clearly, if a property is not occupied, no services are being consumed, and it follows quite reasonably that no tax should be payable.

In many cases, the tax has become a tax on ownership rather than a tax on an income stream. Taxes are usually based on income streams, which means that they can be paid from profits earned. Again, where a commercial property is vacant, there is no income stream on which that tax can be levied.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an important and compelling case. Does he agree that the imposition of non-domestic rates on vacant commercial premises has led to an increase in the demolition of serviceable commercial premises and in the number of derelict sites blighting our towns?

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine, is entirely right. There have been unforeseen consequences, one of which is that it is more sensible for property owners to develop a property rather than retain it for future use.

The rates are almost a form of wealth tax, levied on ownership of an asset rather than the income derived from it, as was originally intended. In times of recession, many small businesses find themselves occupying properties too large for their immediate needs and look for a tenant to take their surplus space. Where they do so, the rents add to their income and the occupier of the business becomes liable for the business rate, but if they cannot find a tenant, they face the burden of further business rates. For most businesses, business rates make up their third biggest item of expenditure, after wages and rents. Also, business rates are a fixed cost. They do not decrease as turnover declines during recessionary times. I am concerned that in many cases, excessive bills are contributing to business failures and leading to higher unemployment.

A further unfairness is that it often takes a long time to find a tenant for vacant commercial property, a fact reflected in the time limit allowed for the non-application of rates. Even in boom times, an industrial property is likely to remain vacant for between 12 and 18 months. In the current economic climate, the loss of a tenant will almost certainly mean additional liability for business rates that might not have been budgeted for.

The effect on rental values has not been what the Government intended. They hoped that rental values would fall, but an April 2009 report by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggested that that objective had not been achieved and that property owners were offering other incentives instead, such as rent-free periods. There has also been a detrimental effect on capital values. The same report found that because empty property rates make fewer investors willing to enter the market, investment levels in the sector have fallen.