Food Prices (Planning Policy)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Chris Heaton-Harris

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but that is exactly the issue that the planning system is supposed to resolve.

I fully recognise the important issue of food prices and congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood on raising it. Last year about 130,000 people turned to food banks to meet their families’ daily needs. The number is growing weekly. I am sure a lot of hon. Members will have recently taken part in the FairShare campaign organised by Sainsbury’s to collect food in their local supermarkets. Such is the degree of need in our communities. Indeed, we see more and more families who are simply not able to feed themselves because of rising food prices. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation says that cereal prices could be 20% higher over the next decade, and that will eventually lead to higher food prices in our shops.

I am not sure whether the point was made by the hon. Member for Sherwood, but the UK produces about 65% of its own food, so domestic land use policy clearly has a significant role to play in keeping food prices low and, critically, affordable. We therefore need a planning system that supports vibrant communities and Government policy that encourages long-term sustainability—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—and builds on a sustainable rural community and economy. Things have to change somewhat if we are to achieve that, in particular in the face of some of the wider issues raised by the hon. Member for Sherwood, such as climate change and alternative land use challenges.

This year alone, the UK’s harvest was down 15% because of the unusually wet summer weather. Such unpredictability is set to worsen and will lead to a need for, possibly, a change in Government policy and, certainly, more intervention. The Government’s record to date is not good.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady said that the weather is set to worsen and that we therefore need Government intervention. Can she tell me what the weather will be like next Wednesday or in a year’s time? Weather is remarkably unpredictable, and I am not sure that it justifies Government intervention.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Sorry, I thought that was going to be a sensible intervention. Obviously, given that we will have more unpredictability in the weather—that is what we think, at least, because of climate change—I meant that we need to plan for it and perhaps look particularly at a policy that would support more food production on the land we have, or on additional land, which was another point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood.

Local Government Financing

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Chris Heaton-Harris

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to contribute to the debate, because it is important to remind everyone of the key role that local government plays in the delivery of services to our communities. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who is not in his place, for outlining the importance of council services to vulnerable people. That is why we need to take a detailed look at where the £6.2 billion of additional cuts are falling. I shall speak later about the huge impact that the £16.8 million of additional cuts, in-year, to Durham county council’s budget will have in Durham city.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by the coalition Government’s callous approach to local government and the communities it serves, because, although the coalition document says a lot about enabling communities to run services, there is not a single mention of how those services will be paid for. Neither is there a single mention of what will be lost by those communities in terms of services that they will no longer get from their local councils. I am surprised that our Liberal Democrats in Durham, who are normally very good at saying how they support localism, have been strangely quiet in the past few weeks. Not one of them has come forward to condemn the outrageous cuts being inflicted on north-east councils.

The Labour-led council in Durham has shown how dreadful the cuts will be for our local communities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has said that it will make a cut of £6.34 million, but it has announced only the cut to the area-based grant. There is, in fact, a cut of £16.8 million, because other cuts that have not been clearly identified have been passed on to local government in relation to transport capital, the housing and planning delivery grant, the local area agreement reward grant and many other areas. The cuts to Durham county council are savage already, even before the comprehensive spending review in October, which we know will go even further.

The two Government parties have to answer a number of questions. The headline percentage decrease reported by central Government has been calculated only against the area-based grant reduction. When other cuts are taken into consideration, the cut to Durham’s budget will not be the 1% presented by the Government, but 4%. Why is there this lack of clarity?

Analysis of the reductions in grants shows that northern authorities have received the largest decreases in funding, with 31 of the top 50 authorities being in the north. That will add to the problems that we have in trying to rebuild the economy after the recession and in trying to improve life chances in some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. That is not fairness. Why are the Government taking that approach?

Perhaps more outrageous still, considering the size of the reductions being made, is how they relate to the index of multiple deprivation. There is a strong trend of the most deprived authorities receiving the largest budget cuts. It is simply wrong that the poorest authorities seem to be the least protected. Again, the Government must make it clear to the Chamber why they are attacking the most disadvantaged communities in the country the most.

We have to get past the idea that the cuts are simply cuts to waste, because they are cuts to real services. Durham is experiencing a cut to its extended schools start-up costs. Providing those services is not profligate; they help parents to go to work and they give vital support to children.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

How much of the cuts, in percentage terms, does the hon. Lady think that the top officers in Durham have taken on board themselves and how much does she think is being passed down to front-line services?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

It is because the hon. Gentleman’s Government have cut the area-based grant and additional services that the cuts have to fall in the ways that I am describing. It would have been much more sensible not to have—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman going to listen to my answer or not? What I am saying to him is that if we did not have these additional cuts in-year and if there had been a proper programme of consultation, it might have been possible—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? It might have been possible to identify other cuts that would not have had such a direct impact on front-line services. The way in which his Government have made these cuts has led to the attack on front-line services.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Let us just say that a reasonable percentage of the cuts have been in the amount spent on the officers in Durham county council. Can the hon. Lady tell us how much the Labour county councillors on Durham county council have cut their allowances?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer that I gave him and does not understand the impact that a cut to area-based grant and other grants has. As I was saying, there will be cuts not only to extended schools start-up costs, but to the careers service and to the Supporting People budget, so they will affect both young and older people.

The cuts are not just to the public sector. The Government parties have demonstrated again today that they do not understand the links between the public and private sectors. On Friday, I visited one of the private nursing homes in my constituency to discuss the problems that it was experiencing with its budget. The entire business of that private sector delivery organisation is being affected by the requirement for the local authority to raise its residential allowances, which will lead to a loss of jobs in the private sector. It also makes no sense to cut the working neighbourhoods fund and the local enterprise growth initiative, especially in Durham, where the unemployment level is higher than the national average.

Do not get me wrong. The council and the regional development agency have worked hard in the last few years to try to ensure that unemployment remained at much lower levels than those experienced in the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, and they were very successful in that regard. However, they need the working neighbourhoods fund and support for local business if they are to ensure that unemployment does not rise further. According to the council, it has received funds in the past for projects to help people into work, deal with worklessness and enhance job creation, but those are the funds that are being cut now. I consider that action to be disgraceful, short-term and short-sighted. It shows no understanding of the need for measures to encourage people to seek employment. Furthermore, the loss of funds from the Home Office will reduce the amount of resources for tackling antisocial behaviour.

I could go on and on with the list, but my main point is that if local people were asked where to make cuts, I very much doubt that they would prioritise cuts in services that seek to tackle antisocial behaviour or help people back into employment. We all know that cuts have to be made, but the top-down way in which these cuts are being inflicted means that local authorities cannot have full control over the areas that they would protect and those in which they would make cuts. It also means that they cannot consult local people. Such a degree of centralisation imposed by the Government parties, whose members say that they support localism and devolution, is breathtaking.

As well as not allowing local government time to produce a sensible framework for reducing the deficit, the Government have provided no clarification in respect of key programmes. In the case of Building Schools for the Future, that is leading to considerable uncertainty in our communities about whether new schools will go ahead. We need clarification as soon as possible. My local authority wants an open dialogue with the Government, and greater consultation within the sector on the timing, extent and detail of future reductions so that they can plan for them properly—and, critically, so that they can ensure that those who are most vulnerable are protected as far as possible from the impact of the cuts that must be made.

Why are the Government parties picking on existing policies—particularly those designed for the long term—that seek to reduce inequality? I have two examples in mind: free school meals and free swimming. The task of protecting and improving health must not depend entirely on the national health service; we also need local policies and services that help our young people to develop healthier lifestyles and a more sensible approach to their eating habits. The way in which the Government’s cuts are attacking free school meals will ensure that a central plank is removed from our plans for reducing inequality for the future, and I do not consider that acceptable.