---

Coastal Towns

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing the debate and enabling this important matter to be discussed through her work as Chairman of the Select Committee. The Committee’s report took the common challenges that face coastal towns and placed them firmly on the political agenda. For too long it has been assumed that because a town is an excellent place to spend a week’s holiday, the permanent population must be lucky to live there. In a sense they are, but as we have heard today, in many other senses they are not. Anyone who ventures past the promenades, deckchairs and piers will soon realise that many people who reside in coastal towns are far from lucky. From the lack of affordable housing to low-value employment, the vast range of problems that plague such towns have a daily impact on the lives of residents. I commend the Committee for turning its attention to some of those issues. Although I appreciate that the Committee covered a wide range of issues, for the sake of the debate I will focus on coastal economies, demography, funding and regeneration. As the MP for what I consider to be England’s premier coastal town, I am only too aware of the challenges faced by such towns. It is difficult to represent a holiday area as our main business is attracting visitors and therefore it is our duty to put the best gloss on the attractiveness of our area. However, we cannot ignore the socio-economic changes that have taken place in most of our seaside towns over the past 30 to 40 years, which have resulted in a number of negative features, more often associated with inner-city areas, that lie behind the facade of the palm trees. Seaside towns could be described as 180° local economies, whereas inland communities are 360° economies. Seaside towns have hinterland on only one side, while the sea faces them on the other. Those with the most severe economic difficulties are, inevitably, a long way from the main centres of economic activity and are geographically on the periphery. Many seaside towns are a mixture of the urban and rural, the deprived and affluent, and residents and visitors. Their main industry is tourism, which is one of the fastest-growing economic activities in the world—but not, sadly, in our coastal tourist resorts. Some 42 per cent. of British residents who opt to take their main holiday in Britain choose a traditional seaside destination. The market is worth an impressive £4.2 billion. Between 2005 and 2006, more than 270 million day visits were made to the UK coast. However, day trippers to the coast spent on average one third less on their day out than those who visited an inland city. However, that is only part of the story. The figures do not separate tourism spending in seaside resorts from the growing number of inland attractions and markets across England. They do not recognise the fact that local tourist spending does not stay in the local economy because of the growth of nationally owned entertainment centres, pubs, hotels, retailers and superstores, where once locally owned businesses rang up the tills. The geographic location of coastal towns means that they are likely to be end-of-the-line destinations, and with poor transport links it is harder to diversify the local economy to attract higher value employment from manufacturing and other sectors. The Government’s transport policy only exacerbates the problem, as funding and approval of major road projects is concentrated on the main arterial routes linking our main centres of population, with a number of coastal towns waiting decades for much-needed link roads. Although the Committee has highlighted the trend of high sickness and disability benefit take-up in coastal towns, the Government have again chosen to stick their head in the sand and deny that that is a problem. Unemployment in seaside resorts remains higher than the national average. In the United Kingdom the average was 5.4 per cent., but in many seaside towns it was well above that figure. The most recent figures produced by the Office for National Statistics on local labour markets show that in three of England’s regions, coastal towns have the highest take-up rates of jobseeker’s allowance: my constituency in the south-west, Thanet in the south-east and Great Yarmouth in the east England region. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) has taken an interest in the debate. The Government fail to acknowledge that the majority of tourism sector jobs are of a low value and tend to be minimum wage, service sector employment. High employment figures mask the cruel reality of low-value employment for both the individual minimum wage employee and for the local economy that has less disposable income in circulation to help other businesses to grow. The employment figures that the Government use do not reflect the nature of the employment situation. Low-skilled jobs do not prevent young people from leaving the area, provide enough income to allow people to compete in the local housing market or provide stability within communities that already have an above average transient population. No progress will be made until the Government acknowledge that that is a problem. Housing has been mentioned this afternoon, and although I appreciate that the issue of affordable housing affects many parts of the country, unaffordability is exacerbated in coastal towns. I welcome the Committee’s acknowledgement that greater provision of affordable housing is a key priority in coastal areas. Too many grotty bedsits and flats hide behind the affluent image of the Victorian seaside hotels and villas. That is a consequence of changes in the tourism market and of the Government’s failure to recognise that special change. The housing that has been built is out of reach to the two thirds of would-be movers who earn less than £17,500 a year, which is not enough to get a first-time buyers’ mortgage on a terraced house in my constituency, let alone on certain housing in areas of higher house prices in the constituencies of other hon. Members. The Government must consider giving local authorities more power to require developers to build properties that match local needs. Part of the problem could lie in the fact that VAT is levied on renovations but not on new build. The renovation of a great deal of old, crumbling infrastructure, often built in the Victorian era, in our seaside resort areas could be encouraged if that VAT were lowered. Planning law also needs major reform; local authorities must have greater power to determine what can occur in their area. Following pressure led largely by Members of Parliament from coastal resorts, the Government changed the rules on second home council tax discounts. Although that change is welcome, however, it is only a tiny step in the desired direction. The decline in business for both hotel and bed-and-breakfast owners and the consequential pressure from their lenders have led many into a tariff war with their competitors in which they have been charging rates that minimise profit margins. Where I grew up, I had friends whose parents made money as bed-and-breakfast proprietors—that was all that they did, yet it provided an income for a family. They were able to sit on the income during the winter months and spend the winter renovating for the next season. I do not know any guest house proprietor today who does not need a second job or income, because they cannot now sustain a living through tourism alone. Others have sought new custom from the growing numbers of people who are looking for accommodation to rent—many of them on long-term benefits. Changing accommodation use from tourism to long-term tenancies has an impact on the streets and neighbourhoods in which that accommodation is located. Reference has already been made to the number of housing benefit claimants, which increased nationally by 5 per cent. between 2001 and 2006. In my own constituency, the number of claimants has increased by 16 per cent. Government ought to be asking why that is and addressing the consequences of that trend. In their response to the report, the Government have stated that they are on track to deliver 30,000 new social rented homes nationally in 2007 and 2008. I acknowledge that that is a 50 per cent. increase on 2004-05, but it is really not good enough. In my constituency alone about 6,000 applicants are waiting to be housed, with only about 600 properties being allocated each year. If the Government are serious about tackling the shortage of affordable housing, they need to provide serious funding, but currently they are not. The Committee noted the impact that a coastal town’s demography can have on its economy. Inward migration of older or economically inactive individuals, coupled with outward migration of the young, perpetuates many of the problems that coastal towns face. The large, elderly populations are in many ways an asset—elderly people contribute to voluntary organisations, clubs and societies that would collapse without them. However, the numbers have effects for which local authorities, businesses, and health and social services cannot compensate. A large proportion of the elderly population are on fixed incomes, which in real terms are declining incomes, so the amount of money circulating in the local economy is suppressed. The extra pressures on local health and social services are not fully compensated for by Government grants. As the number of retired people is expected to increase over the next decade, the Government must deal with those issues. On regeneration, I welcome the Committee’s recommendation that the Government should support a permanent network to facilitate the spread of best practice in coastal town regeneration. Although they have held a Department of Trade and Industry conference on coastal towns, the Government refuse to take responsibility for the regeneration of such towns, stating that it is the role of the regional development agencies. Yet the South West of England Regional Development Agency, for example, with the support of the Government, is using taxpayers’ money to help relocate Dartington College of Arts—a higher education establishment—to another part of the south-west region. That is taking business and jobs away from the coastal resorts and towns of south Devon, despite the fact less taxpayers’ money could be used to secure the college’s future where it is currently based. I have much sympathy with the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in wondering what the point of RDAs is if they can, in my terms, misuse or abuse taxpayers’ money in that way. Governments have recognised declining and restructuring traditional industries, and have funded inner cities and rural areas to assist their economic regeneration. New tourism markets have developed, which in most cases have won some of the business that traditionally came to resorts. Traditional seaside resorts have suffered a double whammy: their economies have been in decline because of overseas competition, while Europe and the UK Government have funded other areas and made them into competitors for tourists. Why, given that single pot funding was allocated to the old coal-mining towns, are the Government so quick to dismiss a similar approach to tackle the problems faced by coastal towns? At the same time they seem perfectly happy to see European funding wasted on pointless relocations of higher education establishments that add no value to the economy of the far south-west. Is the answer that the decline of the mining towns occurred almost overnight, whereas the decline in coastal towns has been happening gradually for the past 25 years? Is it also that those who approve European and other funding lack any real accountability to the areas that they serve and to those whose taxes fund them in their work and largesse. Both those issues need addressing—and quickly. In conclusion, it saddens me that the Government have disagreed with every single recommendation by the Committee that requires them to carry out any action or change any resource priority. The Government are supporting only those recommendations that require them to do nothing. Their response to the Committee’s report shows a blatant disregard for the people who live in coastal towns.