I thank the Minister for his responses. I deliberately said, in proposing my amendment, that I did not want to go on too long, because it is a very big issue and we know what pressure we are under on the Bill, so I will try to resist going on too long now. However, I say to the Minister that this is a very big issue. The few of us here this evening, including my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord True, and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, have come forward with tangible examples. If the House was full, which I do not expect it to be at this time of night—let us say that it was Question Time and everybody was here—I could guarantee that many people would come forward with many more.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for his support and for his example from Cambridge, which encapsulated what has been happening throughout the country for many years. Other noble Lords came up with other examples. Were we to have had a full debate, the number of examples would have been enormous. I shall resist trying to go on too long. It was good to hear the Minister express awareness of many similar problems throughout the country and talk about the need for healthy town centres. He spoke of the coalition’s commitment to high streets and local shops and its desire to strengthen shopping areas. Although it is above my pay grade, he referred to the national planning framework coming along the line, as if that were something we can hope will help in this particular area.
It has been striking that, while the amendments are quite different, their whole thread expresses the same concern. I shall not go on very much longer, because I realise that we are under pressure. I did not wish this to become a discussion about the benefits or otherwise of market forces—we all approve of market forces, and I do not wish there to be a battle between supermarkets and small shops. However, when one goes down that road, one picks up the fact that, if you get a supermarket in an area, it reduces its prices until such time as it drives other competitors out. I shall not pursue that further save to say that very complicated issues surround market forces, competition and such like. Although I shall seek to withdraw my amendment, the concerns remain. I am sure that the Minister has listened to this debate, will perhaps have a fresh look at my retail development Bill—which addresses a particular aspect of this matter—but also have regard to the points put forward by my noble friend Lord Greaves, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and many others, which tangibly express a major concern for this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 148ZZA withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed.
Amendment 148ZZB
Moved by
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cotter
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c693-4 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:03:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759832
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759832
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759832