House of Commons
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
1. What progress his Department is making on its rail fares and ticketing review; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
We are considering a range of options to improve rail fares and ticketing, and we intend to set out our findings and next steps this summer.
Chris Evans
Commuters in Islwyn will pay three times as much as their counterparts in Scotland, whose Government are freezing off-peak rail fares next year. Do this Government plan to do the same here?
Mr McLoughlin
We are looking at a wide range of options for ticketing and, as I said, we hope to report to the House on that in the summer. What we have in place for ticket pricing is exactly the same as under the previous Government.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The McNulty report identified significant costs incurred on our railways compared with those of our European counterparts. Will my right hon. Friend outline what those extra costs are?
Mr McLoughlin
I am keen that the industry learns a lot of lessons from the McNulty report. That important report was set up by the previous Government, although it reported to us, and it has set out ways in which we need to improve the operations of the railways. However, I would point out that there are a number of tickets in this country that are cheaper than those in Europe.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Given that the National Audit Office has warned that higher rail fares could lead to greater profits for the train companies, why has the Secretary of State caved in to those companies by giving them permission to increase their fares by up to 5% above his so-called cap?
Mr McLoughlin
We have had this argument before. As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members, we are following exactly the same policy as the previous Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is shouting from a sedentary position, but they changed it for one specific year. I would point out that the previous Labour Government planned that 70% of costs would be met by fare payers by 2013-14.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
If I try to book a train ticket from Glasgow to Sheffield, the cheapest standard single is £108. However, booking three tickets—Glasgow to Preston, Preston to Manchester, and Manchester to Sheffield—is half that cost. There is a whole host of similar examples throughout the network, so will the fares and ticketing review put a stop to such nonsense?
Mr McLoughlin
I want the ticketing review to address several issues. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), and I will look at that situation, but I also want passengers to have more clarity about how they can take advantage of some of the cheaper fares that exist.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State look at the cost of rail travel per mile? He will know that, compared with other lines, his and my line—the midland main line, which goes through Kettering—is very expensive for rail travel per mile.
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend is right to say that I know that line particularly well, and I often ask questions about it to find out what is happening over the whole rail network. However, I should point out to him that cheap deals on that particular line can be found.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to increase the affordability of bus travel for young people accessing education or training.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
The legislation which regulates the bus industry and which we inherited upon coming to office does not require bus operators to offer reduced fares for young people accessing education or training, although in many areas this is available, thanks to local authorities or operators themselves. However, this creates an unfair and confusing patchwork of fares. Young people deserve a better deal, including more consistent and affordable bus fares, and I am making this my top bus priority from now until the next election.
Barbara Keeley
That is a good thing, because the education maintenance allowance helped young people with travel costs, but this Government have abolished it, leaving them struggling. Many young people will have extra travel costs if they are to take up apprenticeships. Our constrained local transport authority, Transport for Greater Manchester, cannot manage to help with that. The Minister says that this is a priority, so will he review the position urgently, because it is stopping young people getting into education and taking up apprenticeships opportunities? Will he also look at putting some central costs in, because our local transport authority does not have the budget to help with this?
Norman Baker
The performance of local authorities and passenger transport executives across the country varies enormously. The education maintenance allowance was replaced by the 16 to 19 bursary fund—£180 million provided by the Department for Education. I am in discussions with my colleagues at that Department about access to education. With reference to access to work, the hon. Lady will be aware not only of the steps taken under the local sustainable transport fund to help access to work, but the initiative on which I have worked with bus operators to ensure that there was free access for some people out of work in January.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister allow transport authorities to access the better bus funding scheme so that quality contracts and quality partnerships can be pursued to give young people and others a better deal?
Norman Baker
Quality contracts were on the statute book, put there by the Government that the hon. Lady supported. It was open to them to take whatever steps they wanted, but they did not take any of the steps that she is now advocating. The two schemes are not mutually exclusive. In response to an Adjournment debate a few days ago which one of her colleagues introduced, I made it plain that if operators behaved inappropriately, it would be possible for better bus area funding to be provided under those circumstances.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
3. What steps his Department is taking to reduce congestion on the road network in south Essex; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
Tackling congestion as a barrier to growth is a key issue for the Department. In Essex we have invested in major schemes, such as the £63 million improvement to the Sadler’s Farm junction on the A13, funded schemes to tackle pinchpoints on both the strategic and the local roads, and provided £5.3 million of additional funding for maintenance in Essex to ensure that its roads are of the highest quality.
Rebecca Harris
We are grateful for the improvements that we have already seen in south Essex, but the Minister is aware of the long-running campaign for a third road off Canvey Island, having visited the area himself. Local residents and local business leaders in particular think the case for a third access road is now more compelling than ever in terms of growth, because of the many business developments taking place along the Thames Gateway. Will the Minister or the Secretary of State meet me and others to discuss the business case for a third road?
Stephen Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that I am well aware of her long-running campaign, and I pay tribute to her and her county councillor Ray Howard for the work that they have done on the scheme. I or my the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), would be delighted to meet her and to discuss the need for a third access road.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that Essex council has made it a top priority to press for an extra M11 junction, 7A, into Harlow. Will my hon. Friend meet me, Essex council and relevant authorities in order that we can make the case for this important junction?
Stephen Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that request. He will know that we have already committed £3 million for improvements at the A414 Clock Tower junction in his constituency in the last round of local pinchpoint funding. I will, of course, be happy to accept an invitation to meet him and his colleagues about the junction on the M11.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
4. What plans he has for road maintenance funding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
The Highways Agency, which is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England, has a budget this financial year for some £750 million worth of highways maintenance, excluding the costs associated with private finance initiative projects. The Department is also providing £890 million this financial year to local highway authorities in England for highways maintenance. Funding for highways maintenance in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government.
Mr Donohoe
Across the whole United Kingdom, potholes are appearing in all our roads because of the cuts taking place. I remember my grandmother telling me, “A stitch in time saves nine.” It is for the Government to start believing that that is a good way forward for the maintenance of our roads. It is costing local government more money in compensation for cars in accidents as a result of potholes than it would for them to repair the roads.
Stephen Hammond
I would gently point out that before local authorities start suggesting that the problem is due to cuts in the maintenance budget, they should recognise the more than £3 billion that this Government are giving to maintenance over the life of this Government, the £200 million given in March 2011 for severe weather, and the extra money given at the last autumn statement. The potholes review has published a number of conditions that local councils ought to meet to ensure that they do indeed follow the “stitch in time saves nine” adage from the hon. Gentleman, rather than just putting a band aid solution in place.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
In Chester, potholes have been caused by the bad weather—the freezing rain and snow we have had over the past winter, which has been a bad one. What additional help can the Minister offer my local authority to help put right the damage caused by the weather?
Stephen Hammond
I would like to be able to control the weather, but of course I cannot. It is right that the Government recognise that the pothole damage has undoubtedly been caused by the weather. That is why the Chancellor announced additional funding in the autumn statement.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Will the Minister please clarify the rather confused briefing put out a few weeks ago on funding to help ease congestion on the M4 around Newport? We have had another incident this week, so it would be really useful to know what progress is being made.
Stephen Hammond
I am not sure where the confused briefing came from, but I assume that it must be the Welsh Government, because funding for the M4 around Newport is, as the hon. Lady knows, a matter for them.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
One of the lead stories on the BBC’s “Breakfast” this morning was about potholes. The National Audit Office calculates that it would be cheaper to repair our roads than to deal with the damage and injuries caused by potholes. Regardless of whether they are the result of the weather or the cuts, has the Minister had discussions with Treasury colleagues on trying to get additional funding to use those infrastructure projects to get the UK economy moving?
Stephen Hammond
I announced earlier the huge amount of money the Government are committing to highways maintenance. We have continual discussions with the Treasury on the money needed for that, and I am delighted that this Government’s settlement for highways maintenance has been better than that achieved by the previous Government. We remain committed to ensuring that potholes are repaired, and I remind local authorities of their obligations.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
5. What obligation will be placed on any future holder of the east coast main line rail franchise to co-operate with High Speed 2 to ensure that classic compatible train services connect the north-east and York to High Speed 2.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
Where future rail franchises interact with HS2, we will ensure that the two are complementary.
Hugh Bayley
I welcome the Government’s decision that classic compatible trains will run on the high-speed line to Leeds and then continue up the east coast main line, but the east coast train operator might well see that as unwelcome competition. Therefore, the terms of a franchise for the new east coast train operator, whoever gets it, must include a provision that allows it to profit from getting the high-speed trains running over the east coat tracks as soon as possible.
Mr Burns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a valid and interesting point. He is absolutely right that that will have to be looked at. Fortunately, we have time on our side. I can assure him that between now and when High Speed 2 begins operating on phase 2 in 2032-33, this will be looked into fully in order to avoid the very problems he identifies.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As well as connections to York and the north-east in the new franchise, it is equally important that areas such as Grimsby and Cleethorpes are served in order to aid economic regeneration. Can the Minister assure me that he will give serious consideration to a direct service to that area in the new franchise?
Mr Burns
I seek to give my hon. Friend a partial reassurance, because I cannot prejudge at this stage in proceedings what might be in any franchise document, but I can say that there will be full consultations with relevant stakeholders and others before the document is finally put together so that all the issues, desires and wish lists can be fully considered.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is the Minister aware that every year there is no high-speed rail connection between south and central England and Scotland is a year when both economies underperform? Recent studies at the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto have identified that two of the world’s 40 co-called mega-regions are in the United Kingdom and that good, fast rail connections would benefit both. When will a date be set for that key infrastructure, as I am particularly keen that England should keep up with Scotland after we become independent?
Mr Burns
As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last October that the Government are investigating whether there should be a phase 3 for High Speed 2, from Leeds and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh. We look forward to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supporting us as we put forward the proposals and the legislation for establishing High Speed 2, which will bring so much benefit not only to England, but to Scotland and Wales.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The private sector has a record of significant investment and innovation in our railways and of growing the numbers of people using them. When does the Minister expect the east coast main line to return to the private sector?
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to prioritise a completely unnecessary and costly competition for the east coast main line rail franchise, which will also require him to waste taxpayers’ money on expensive extensions to other contracts, some for as long as four years?
Mr Burns
I am answering the question. The reason why we are moving the line back to a franchise is exactly the same as why the shadow Secretary of State’s right honourable friend Lord Adonis was going to do it when he said:
“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
Nor do we, and that is why we are ending it.
Maria Eagle
It does not sound like the Minister actually knows what is happening on the east coast main line: 3 million more seats, best ever punctuality, lowest taxpayer subsidy, £40 million of extra profit invested and £800 million returned to the taxpayer. He should stop talking it down. Will he confirm that all of the planned east coast upgrade—all the investment that his hon. and right hon. Friends claim is necessary—will be paid for by the taxpayer? None of this investment is dependent on privatisation. The fact is that private train companies now receive more from the taxpayer each year than they pay back in, so why is he doing this?
Mr Burns
I sometimes wonder which world the shadow Secretary of State lives in. If she would just do us all a favour and listen for one minute, I will offer her an explanation. First, the premium that the east coast main line pays to the Treasury is less than that paid by the west coast main line. Secondly, if the hon. Lady looks at reliability over the latest four-week period, she will see that the east coast main line is the worst of the 19 operators. Thirdly, we have found that the operator did a reasonable job in difficult circumstances when it had to take over the direct operation, but that it has now reached a plateau. Fourthly, yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
6. What steps he plans to take to address the effects of High Speed 2 on London; and whether he has assessed the case for Crossrail 2.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
HS2 Ltd is carrying out an environmental impact assessment on the London-west midlands phase of HS2 to look at the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The aim is to consult on a draft environmental statement shortly.
The Government have made no decision on Crossrail 2, and it is currently unfunded. Under devolution, the Mayor and Transport for London are responsible for transport in London, including the route options for Crossrail 2.
Lyn Brown
I thank the Minister for that answer. Following about £1 billion-worth of investment, Stratford has an international train station but, sadly, it currently has no stopping international trains. Given that investment, Stratford should surely be a transport hub, fully interconnecting HS1, HS2, Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2 with domestic and underground services. That would not only provide superb interconnectivity, but relieve stress on central London terminals. Will the Minister provide leadership?
Mr Burns
I always try to provide leadership, Mr Speaker. I fully understand the valid point that the hon. Lady makes, but there are consideration problems with her proposition. HS2 Ltd did consider whether Stratford should be the primary terminus for HS2 services and others. Its advice was that locating the principal HS2 terminus outside central London would not meet the needs of the majority of the passengers who will use the service or make best use of the wider London transport network. There would also be physical problems with the need to build an additional 10 platforms, given the geographic size of the site at Stratford.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
My concerns about HS2 will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend, but is he surprised at the concerns of UKIP, which, quite apart from believing that every last Bulgarian and Romanian is about to hitchhike their way to London, is opposed to HS2, whereas in 2010 it did not support just one high-speed line, but three?
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. As you will know as a politician yourself, Mr Speaker, if one makes promises, they must have some validity and credibility, and one must have the ability to fund them. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the UKIP manifesto at the last election, which you probably read more than most of us, Mr Speaker, stated that it would:
“Invest in three new 200mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham”.
It really is extraordinary—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will leave it there, although I have much enjoyed it. The Minister of State has many important responsibilities and no one in this House would disagree with the proposition that he always tries, which he advanced a few moments ago, but one thing for which he has no responsibility is the promises and policies of the United Kingdom Independence party.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
There is a growing view that by the time the second phase of HS2 is complete, Crossrail 2 will be essential to cope with the additional passengers travelling through Euston station. Is the Minister content that last week’s revised plan for Euston addresses that problem, or will the DFT now take the sensible step of assessing fully the case for Crossrail 2?
Mr Burns
As the hon. Lady knows, Crossrail 2 is the responsibility of the Mayor of London because it is a devolved matter. However, I accept that there is a knock-on effect for other rail services that are wholly the responsibility of the DFT. The Mayor of London announced recently that there will be a full consultation process. We await that and look forward to seeing any business case or justification. Those matters will be considered in due course, but we have to go through the due processes first.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I was sentenced to two years on the Crossrail Bill Committee. HS2 is jam tomorrow; Crossrail is £6 billion now. Is not enough money spent on London proportionately at the moment?
Mr Burns
I strongly believe that there is an overwhelming case for high-speed rail in this country. Indeed, I would go further and say that we cannot afford not to have high-speed rail. I regret, as much as I suspect the hon. Gentleman does, going by his question, the length of time that it takes to establish any major project in this country, because that is not in the country’s best interests. However, it is certainly in the national interest to press ahead with a high-speed rail network throughout the country.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to reduce sign clutter on roads.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
The Government are committed to reducing sign clutter. I recently wrote to English local authorities to encourage them to take action, and I have sponsored an award to encourage the reduction of sign clutter. The Department will be revising traffic sign regulations and general directions to provide local authorities with far more discretion about where and when they place traffic signs.
Pauline Latham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On a recent visit to Vietnam, I noted that the communist Government there put up propaganda signs all over the place. Similarly, Derby city council puts up signs showing anti-Government propaganda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money?
Mr McLoughlin
I, too, regularly see those signs, and one must wonder why we are seeing such signs around Derby city at a time when the council is saying that it does not have enough money for other essential services, and when it has just increased council tax. That is unlike Derbyshire county council, which also serves my hon. Friend’s constituency but has had a 0% rise in council tax. That is an important message for the people of Derbyshire about where money is being spent.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
8. What plans he has for incentives to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
The Government is committed to supporting the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles, and has allocated up to £400 million for that, out to 2015, including £82 million for research and development activities, £30 million for plugged-in places infrastructure pilots and £300 million to support motorists with the plug-in car and van grants. On 19 February we also announced a £37 million package of further grants for a national recharging infrastructure, and later this year we will be publishing a document setting out our strategic approach to supporting the uptake of ULEVs.
Duncan Hames
The take-up of electric vehicles is accelerating but from low initial levels. Among those grants, would the Minister consider support for a national rapid charging network to encourage the transition to electric vehicles by motorists?
Norman Baker
Take-up is in line with our anticipation, and as is always the case with new technology, the graph shows a slow start and a rapid increase thereafter. We are seeing more rapid charging points established across the country, including by the private sector which is showing a healthy and very welcome appetite to install such points.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
9. What steps his Department is taking to improve rail links between London and the south coast.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
Significant investment is currently being undertaken to improve rail links between London and the south coast. By 2018, the £6 billion Thameslink programme will be complete, providing more capacity for passengers with a new fleet of trains, and London Bridge station will be redeveloped and transformed.
Simon Kirby
Does the Minister agree with me and many other people in Brighton and Hove that the only sustainable solution for increased capacity is to build a second line?
Norman Baker
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is pressure on the existing line. It is very full up during many of the peak hours, and that also affects train performance on that line, which I know he is concerned about. I certainly think there is a case for looking at capacity issues in a novel way between London and the south coast, and the Secretary of State and I hope to take that matter forward in due course.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had on increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Work is continuing to assess the potential economic, safety and environmental impacts of trialling 80 mph speed limits across a number of sites on the motorway network. It is important that decisions are made on the basis of sound evidence, and as part of that I have had discussions with a number of bodies.
Sarah Champion
The Highways Agency proposes to expand its managed motorways programme so that the hard shoulder between junctions 32 and 35A of the M1 will be used as a permanent traffic lane, with the scheme running 24 hours rather than at peak congestion times, as other schemes do. Does the Minister share my concern, and that of local authorities, South Yorkshire safer roads campaign, and South Yorkshire police, that that proposal, especially at 80 miles per hour, will create a real safety issue?
Mr McLoughlin
I am obviously willing to hear any representations about the managed motorway scheme that we are progressing. We have found that where we have managed motorways, we have a better flow of traffic and safer statistics overall for the use of that particular road. These are important matters and I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Lady. I assure her that we are trying to increase capacity for her constituents and other people who use that very important motorway.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
But does the Secretary of State agree that retaining a 70 mph limit on our motorways and not strictly enforcing it risks bringing the law into disrepute, and that it would be far better to have an 80 mph limit that is enforced?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend makes one of the many arguments for an increase. The 70 mph limit was set in 1965, and it is fair to say that, since then, there has been a great improvement overall in road safety, but I want to look at all those issues.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
The human cost in lives, the economic cost of infrastructure changes and the environmental impact of carbon emissions are surely all good enough reasons to rule out once and for all any increase in the speed limit.
Mr McLoughlin
As I said in the replies I have just given, I am not ruling that out—I am looking at it. The hon. Gentleman makes important arguments that go the other way. It is not a straightforward issue.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
11. What funding his Department is providing for new train stations; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
In March, I made an announcement of three stations that are likely to secure funding from the £20 million new station fund—Ilkeston, Lea Bridge, and Pye Corner. I expect to make another announcement in May. The Government also provide funding to local authorities through the major local transport scheme budgets and the local sustainable transport fund. Those funds can also be used to provide new railway stations.
James Morris
Rowley Regis station in my constituency provides a vital link for commuters into Birmingham and the surrounding area, but the car parking facilities at the station have reached capacity. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Centro representatives to push forward on the vital project to expand car parking facilities so that commuters do not have to park on residential streets?
Mr McLoughlin
Recent research by the Association of Train Operating Companies shows that the number of rail journeys in and around Birmingham has increased by more than 20% in the past five years. It is one of 14 cities to record double-digit growth. In a way, I am not surprised to hear of the problems that that is causing for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and I am more than happy to meet him and Centro to discuss the matter.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
High-quality transport gateways to our towns and cities are vital in supporting regeneration and growth. Plymouth is a case in point—Network Rail’s buildings there are appalling. Given that Network Rail says that it is more reactive than proactive, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage development, and to encourage Network Rail to take commercial advantage of some of its sites?
Mr McLoughlin
That is obviously an ongoing, regular discussion I have with Network Rail. I will visit Plymouth in the next few weeks. That is one of the things I will look at and, subsequently, discuss with Network Rail.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Since I last addressed the House at Transport questions, I have appointed members of the franchising advisory panel. I announced in my last statement that Richard Brown will be the chairman. The other members will be Nicola Shaw, chief executive officer of High Speed 1 Ltd; Stephen Paine, managing director of UK investment banking at UBS; Martin Buck, the commercial director of Crossrail; and Michael Holden, chief executive officer of Directly Operated Railways and chairman of East Coast—[Interruption.] For the benefit of the shadow Leader of the House, Nicola Shaw is on the panel. That panel of experts will meet on a monthly basis and help provide reassurance that the franchising programme is on track, and that the correct governance will be followed.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the money he has put in for the pinchpoint between the A46 and the M5. In other A46 news, a local village has discovered that fibre optic cable runs along it, and has connected some of the local homes to it. Will the Secretary of State consider asking the Highways Agency to publish information on all roads on the network that have fibre optic cable along them?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is important that we make proper use of all the infrastructure available, particularly in respect of bodies such as the Highways Agency. My understanding is that the agency makes details of the current fibre optic communication network available to any interested party, but following my hon. Friend’s points, I will speak to the agency and see whether we can do more.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T2. What help are the Government giving to smaller local authorities away from metropolitan areas, to introduce smart ticketing to make bus journeys more convenient and cheaper, and to get more people on to buses?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
We have seen a significant roll-out of smart ticketing, but I agree that it is more difficult for small local authority areas. The Department for Transport budget allocates £15 million to pick up on small bus operators in particular, to ensure that they are not left behind and to retain diversity of supply in the bus industry.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
T3. Will the Secretary of State update the House on any discussions he may have had with the Mayor of London with regard to suburban railway services in the south-east?
Mr McLoughlin
I met the Mayor of London yesterday and had a wide-ranging discussion on many subjects relating to London and other areas. What I have always said is that in principle I have nothing against wider franchising, but I need to see that there is proper accountability. Discussions are ongoing.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As we approach the spending review, will the Secretary of State give careful consideration to the need to secure funding for the extension of the Metrolink in Greater Manchester through Trafford Park in my constituency?
Mr McLoughlin
I will take that as one of many bids we will receive. I am very keen to invest in infrastructure for the long term, and various local authorities are putting forward a number of schemes. They will all be assessed and judged, and decisions will be made in the light of the resources available.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
T4. The Minister and the Secretary of State will know that the world’s largest financial centre is connected by the great eastern main line to some of the leading centres of research and development in the country, yet commuters and travellers can expect to use rolling stock that was unsuitable for travellers on the west coast main line 10 years ago. The Government have invested heavily in infrastructure. When will they be able to invest in rolling stock, too?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
As my hon. Friend says, there is considerable interest in upgrading the rolling stock in East Anglia, and of course I have a particular interest too. My ministerial colleagues—I stress that—are currently considering what might be included in the specification for the interim franchise that will run to 2016, and our priority is, as always, improving passenger satisfaction as well as obtaining value for money for the taxpayer.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Secretary of State to provide me some evidence? I started off as a supporter of HS2. I attended a seminar in this House this week that predicted that it would cost £50 billion. What is the evidence that this will be a good investment for the towns and cities of the midlands and the north?
Mr McLoughlin
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be questioning this. People do inflate figures. I believe that the figures, with which I have been very open with the House, remain as the figures. I believe the changes that HS2 will bring—the first new railway line built north of London in 120 years—will provide an important impetus for economic growth for the United Kingdom.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T5. The A64 is an extremely dangerous and highly congested road serving businesses along the route right through Thirsk and Malton between York, Filey and Scarborough. Will it qualify for a pinchpoint scheme, and what other criteria will it need to meet?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She will know that the criteria for pinchpoint funds were set out with regard to the first three rounds. They fall under a certain financial limit and are completed by March 2015. We are in discussions on how further tranches will work in terms of the extension of the date of completion. I am convinced that given the record of the A64—one of the criteria is safety—it will be looked on favourably.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The east coast main line has returned £640 million to the public purse since 2009. Sadly, private ownership has failed the travelling public of the east coast franchise. What possible public benefit can be gained by another wasteful and expensive round of refranchising, when east coast is already where the vast majority of the public want it, in public ownership?
Mr McLoughlin
I point the hon. Gentleman to what was said by the last Labour Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench. It is worth pointing out that National Express paid £185 million in 2007-08, £145 million in 2008-09 and £8 million in 2009-10, which is when the franchise ended. The way that the track excess charges were calculated was then changed, so direct comparisons are not valid.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
T6. My right hon. Friend has been exceptionally communicative and has taken the time to discuss HS2 and the route with the constituencies affected, but that is in stark contrast to HS2 Ltd, which still has not responded to a letter I sent it on 22 February. Does he agree that a Government agency, such as HS2 Ltd, should at the very least be engaging more proactively with Members of Parliament?
Mr Burns
Yes, I do. HS2 Ltd’s policy is to reply substantively to all letters from Members within 20 working days. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend did not receive a reply to his letter. I have been informed by HS2 Ltd that a response and an apology have now been issued and that its procedures for handling correspondence with hon. Members have been looked at again to ensure that this sort of problem does not arise.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
An investigation by the Liverpool Echo last month discovered that the cost of catching a bus in Merseyside has risen by two and a half times the rate of inflation since privatisation under the Thatcher Government. The cost of public transport in Merseyside is a barrier to employment and makes the labour market less flexible. Will the Minister congratulate the Echo on its work and tell us what he proposes to do about it?
Norman Baker
Sadly, bus fares have been rising above inflation for many decades, including throughout the Labour Government, from 1997 to 2010, although some of these bus fares are determined locally by support from local authorities, so the picture varies across the country. The good news, however, is that overall bus mileage is holding up. In fact, last year saw a record 4.7 billion bus journeys, the highest since deregulation.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
T7. Many of my constituents work in and use both Heathrow and Gatwick airports, which is one reason I would firmly support the expansion of both. We are awaiting Howard Davies’s report into Heathrow expansion, but would the Minister consider his Department’s investigating the feasibility of a superfast maglev line, such as that seen in Shanghai, to link these two essential airports?
Mr Burns
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It would be premature at this stage to give the sort of assurances he wants, because it is part and parcel of the whole issue of capacity in the south-east and so is a matter for the Davies commission as part of its wider inquiry into the future of airports and capacity.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
In answer to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Secretary of State said that he made decisions based on evidence. Why is that not being applied in relation to the east coast franchising, given that we have had two failures of the private sector and now experience of a good service?
Mr McLoughlin
The evidence was supported by the fact that we have seen huge growth in the railways since privatisation 20 years ago. Since then, there have been 13 years of Labour Government, and they did not reverse it—in fact, they enhanced and pushed forward the franchising. The last Labour Secretary of State said that franchising was a good thing. I believe he was right and that passengers benefit from it.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
T8. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the dreadful congestion on the A38, particularly around the Markeaton and Little Eaton roundabouts in my constituency? It is causing misery to my constituents and Derbyshire residents.
Mr McLoughlin
I think that my hon. Friend lives close to the Little Eaton island and I live close to the Markeaton island, so we both know of the regular delays on that very important road. On the pinchpoint funds, I am pleased that we will see some improvements this month—as she will know, work has already started on preparing the site for those improvements. I have met the leader of Derby city council, and I know that my hon. Friend has met the Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). We are looking at this issue, but it is a very big scheme.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, Lord Adonis published a report on the north-east local enterprise partnerships suggesting that political consideration should be given to the extension of the Tyne and Wear metro into south-east Northumberland. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and interested parties to discuss that possibility and other possibilities for railway links from south-east Northumberland into the cities of the north-east?
Mr McLoughlin
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is calling Lord Adonis in support; other people were attacking what he did when he was Secretary of State. I am aware of the report and was in the north-east a few months ago. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss some of the important points within that report.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
1. what progress has been made on bringing forward proposals to set up a House business committee to consider Government business as set out in the coalition agreement.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I continue to consider proposals and will be discussing some practical proposals to meet this challenge when I give evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee next month.
Simon Hughes
Both coalition parties have a commitment to transfer more power over business from the Executive to Members of the House of Commons. Given that we made a commitment in the coalition agreement that this should happen by the third year of the Parliament, may I have a guarantee that, in this year—2013—and in the next, and third Session, that will be done?
Mr Lansley
The House will understand that any House business committee would need to add value to our existing processes. I hope that my right hon. Friend and others across the House will recognise that we have made substantial progress in that direction already in this Parliament, not least through the creation of the Backbench Business Committee. I want to make sure that we build on that and that it is not compromised, while meeting the requirement for responsive and effective business management and recognising—as the Wright Committee did—the opportunity for the Government to secure their legislative programme.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House is overwhelmed to hear that one member of the Cabinet is interested in the views of Select Committees; perhaps the Leader of the House could have a word with the Secretary of State for Education about the merits of that. This is yet another handbrake turn and broken promise by the coalition. What is the delay? The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats supports it and the Government Chief Whip is a vocal supporter of a House business committee, so who is holding it up?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his implication. As I said in my previous answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I am considering these proposals, discussing them with colleagues and looking at the practical issues. When I visited the Scottish Parliament during the February recess, I saw in its parliamentary bureau what is to all intents and purposes a House business committee. When one looks at how that works, Back Bench Members in this House already have considerably more influence and control over the scope of debate than Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is not about creating a thing with a title; it is about delivering the objective.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
A House business committee would timetable business in this House. Were there to be a rule that it must facilitate Government business—and given that its make-up is likely to reflect the balance of parties in this place, that it was a firm part of the coalition agreement when other things were dropped, and that we have had three years to sort it out—should there not be a firm commitment in the Queen’s Speech on 8 May?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is making assumptions about the character of a House business committee based on the Wright Committee recommendations, which are being considered by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to which I am sure he will be giving his views. It is important to recognise that among the evidence that the Committee has already received is evidence about the impracticality of implementing the Wright Committee recommendations as first set out, not least because we have already made progress in the Backbench Business Committee.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
2. If he will review the level of provision for cyclists who regularly commute to the Palace of Westminster.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Parliament’s green travel plan will be reviewed annually, with a green travel survey conducted every two years. As part of that, the provision of facilities for cyclists on the parliamentary estate was reviewed in 2012, in consultation with the all-party group on cycling and the parliamentary bicycle users’ group. As a result, 150 additional bicycle parking spaces were provided on the estate—a 60% increase—including 60 additional covered spaces. The House recently introduced a cycle-to-work salary sacrifice scheme for House staff, alongside the existing cycle loan scheme for staff.
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as though things have got much better, but in practice either people have to be much stronger than I am to work the new racks in most of the covered spaces or they are blocked up by people who do not commute every day. Will he please meet regular commuters to the House to see whether we can put in place mechanisms to ensure that they have access to covered bicycle parking spaces?
John Thurso
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would be delighted to have that meeting to discuss the issue she raises. Let me assure her that the House would certainly wish to ensure that the spaces that have been provided are properly used and available for bicycle users.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
3. Whether he plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments; and if he will make a statement.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
The Government have no current plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments.
Miss McIntosh
I am particularly disappointed by that reply. The House prides itself on scrutiny of legislation, but the weakness of the system is scrutiny of statutory instruments, whether to implement primary legislation or, more especially, to transpose EU directives into UK law. Will the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House please look carefully at allowing Members of Parliament not just to vote for or against a statutory instrument but to amend the very text of those instruments?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know this is a matter that she has been pursuing vigorously. The issue with her proposal for statutory instruments is that the two Houses could end up amending a statutory instrument in different ways. There would then need to be a reconciliation process, very similar to a Bill handling process, so there are concerns about what she suggests. If she has not already done so, she may want to raise the matter with the Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
The Cabinet Office used to give us the direct numbers of private ministerial offices. This year, we were given only the number of the main departmental switchboards. This week I had a very unhelpful experience when I tried to get some information about the progress of a regulation from a particular Department. Can—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I must confess that I am struggling to see the precise relevance of her supplementary question to the issue of scrutiny of statutory instruments. Maybe she was coming on to it.
Ann Coffey
Yes, the regulation was one that I was attempting to scrutinise the progress of, but I could not do so because of that unhelpful experience. Will the Deputy Leader of the House look into why we are no longer given the numbers of private ministerial offices, so that Members of Parliament such as me can do our jobs in scrutinising not only the regulations that are laid, but those that are about to be laid?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
4. What provision the Commission is making for the charging of electric-powered vehicles on the parliamentary estate.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
There are two charging points, which are sponsored by EDF, in the underground car park for official Government cars. There are also recharging points for electric scooters and motorcycles installed in the House of Lords areas of the Palace of Westminster. Members who belong to the Source London network may use the charging facilities provided by Source London in Abingdon car park, situated underneath Abingdon green. No further provision has yet been made for the charging of electric-powered vehicles on the parliamentary estate, although the House authorities will continue to keep this under review.
Duncan Hames
I certainly hope that the House authorities will continue to keep the matter under review, as the vast majority of us in this place have no hope of ever being able to use the electric charge points for official Government cars. My hon. Friend may have heard Transport Ministers saying earlier that the private sector was racing ahead in the provision of electric charging points. I hope he might bear that in mind when considering whether more can be done on the parliamentary estate.
John Thurso
May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the debate taking place at 1.30 this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the Transport Select Committee’s report, “Plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy”? The report contains an extremely good exposé of why the wide variety of vehicle plug-in types makes it difficult to know which to install. That is the core problem, but once the House knows what should be installed, I am sure that we will do our utmost to install it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What steps he is taking to ensure that the House of Commons facilitates the highest level of support to enable hon. Members to represent their constituents effectively.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House continues to work closely with colleagues on the House of Commons Commission to ensure that Members are fully supported by excellent staff and have the necessary facilities to carry out their duties effectively. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, responsibility for day-to-day pay and allowances, including pay for MPs’ staff, is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Mr Sheerman
I have raised this matter here before with the Leader of the House. The fact is that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which the House of Commons is being run at the moment. Many Members are dissatisfied with the withdrawal of many services across the piece, in Portcullis House and elsewhere. We also know that the good staff who serve us in our daily work and who do such a good job are totally disillusioned with the way in which this place is being managed. There is a management ethos that this place should be run as a business, but it is not a business. Because of the sittings and the hours, it can never be run as a business, so let us get back to its being run by dedicated staff who should be well treated and well looked after. We must ensure that we look after them because it is essential that we should be able to do our job for our constituents and for our country.
Tom Brake
I certainly agree that the House has excellent staff, and we should do everything we can to ensure that they continue to work effectively on our behalf. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about a specific aspect of staffing, he might find it appropriate to raise the matter with the House of Commons Commission, from which I am sure he will get a suitably informed response.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), may I draw to the Deputy Leader of the House’s attention the fact that the service desk in Portcullis House is no longer staffed? At whatever time of day one goes there for advice or to find out the location of a meeting room, there is no one there to help. I have consulted the police in Portcullis House several times, and they have been extremely helpful, but they do not always have the necessary information. I have therefore been seriously inconvenienced in the pursuit of my constituents’ interests, and I am not alone in that. Will the hon. Gentleman take action now to restore the staffing of the service desk in Portcullis House?
Tom Brake
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I must point out that that is not a ministerial responsibility. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that its representatives will be listening carefully to this exchange and that they will want to take suitable action.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
6. What plans he has to improve the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of Government expenditure.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The Government are keen to promote better financial scrutiny and would welcome discussions on how best that can be achieved. As Leader of the House, I hope that I can work with colleagues in the Liaison Committee and across Government to ensure that the scrutiny of Government expenditure in this House promotes efficiency and value for money in all Departments.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I press him further and ask whether he sees a role not only for the Public Accounts Committee but for Select Committees in scrutinising Government and departmental expenditure?
Mr Lansley
I do indeed see such a role. Select Committees have a responsibility in relation not only to the policy of the Departments that they scrutinise but to the Departments’ expenditure. It is fair to say, however, that there is a variable focus among Select Committees on the extent to which they scrutinise the expenditure of their Departments, but I hope that we can increase the extent of that scrutiny through the Estimates process. Also, as a member of the Public Accounts Commission, I know from the matters that we have discussed with the National Audit Office that the NAO has already made itself available to some Select Committees to help them with that process, and I hope that we can encourage more of that in future.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
The McKay commission reported on 25 March on how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only part of the UK. This is a very important issue, which is why the Government asked this expert commission to look at it. The report makes a helpful contribution, and we will give it very serious consideration before responding substantively.
Harriett Baldwin
I look forward to that response. I would like to know whether the Leader of the House intends to act on those proposals in the next Session of Parliament.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that she has pursued this matter vigorously in recent months. Clearly, the McKay commission has produced a serious report. It continues a menu of options and the Government will want to consider the recommendations very carefully before coming to any firm conclusions.
Mr Speaker
Time is against us, but I am determined to find time for the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
8. What estimate the Commission has made of the number of apprentices employed in the House of Commons supply chain.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I said in my answer of 28 February that discussions with a number of major contractors such as Royal Mail suggest that they operate apprenticeship schemes within their larger businesses, but I do not have an accurate number on how many of them are in the House. Most of the procurement exercises conducted by the House administration are subject to a legal regime imposed by the European public procurement directives, which limit the conditions that the House can impose. The House administration is committed to providing apprenticeships, paid internships and encouragement for young people from all backgrounds. The apprenticeship scheme of the Clerk of the House, to be launched in the summer, will give added impetus to those efforts.
Robert Halfon
Will my hon. Friend give strong support to the apprenticeship scheme started by the senior Clerk of the House, which will give many apprentices across the country the chance to work in the House of Commons? Will he link that scheme with the parliamentary apprenticeship scheme, which I set up with New Deal of the Mind, so that we can all work together on this issue?
John Thurso
I would be delighted to commit myself and the authorities to that support. The intention of the Clerk’s scheme, shortly to be launched, is to offer 10 paid placements of 12 months’ duration leading to an NVQ. I commend it to everyone in the House.
School Uniform Supply Regulations
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I present a petition on behalf of more than 250 residents in Feltham who have signed this or the original petition on similar lines to express their concerns about school uniform supply regulations. I particularly acknowledge the efforts of Mr David Howell MBE and Mrs Rani Kalsi in the campaign.
As someone who grew up in a shop that sold school uniforms, among other clothing and crafts, I know that buying a school uniform is a big milestone for a child joining a new school. However, residents have told me about the stress it can cause, particularly with more than one child at different schools, and especially for those without access to a car to travel distances of even two to three miles to buy a school uniform. Residents have talked about the benefit of being able to buy from local suppliers in the community who know the schools and local families. The petition seeks to encourage opportunities for local enterprises to become suppliers of local school uniforms to school specifications, through an open tendering process.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make amendments to school uniform supply regulations to allow opportunities for local enterprise suppliers.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Feltham and Heston,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that Central Government should amend regulations in regard to school academy’s powers to make decisions on appointing school uniform suppliers without formally opening tendering opportunities to local enterprise suppliers and believe that the London Borough of Hounslow should formally join this application for amendment.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make amendments to school uniform supply regulations to allow opportunities for local enterprise suppliers.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001174]
Objections to Incinerator for Huntington (South Staffordshire)
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I, like many of my constituents, vehemently oppose the proposal for a biomass and anaerobic digester facility to be built in Huntington.
The petition states:
The Petition of a resident in the UK,
Declares that the Petitioner objects to planning permission for a renewable energy facility on Cocksparrow Lane, Huntington, which has the potential to devalue surrounding properties and businesses; further that a renewable energy facility could cause problems like smell pollution and noise pollution and could cause increased traffic congestion in the area; further notes that this could cause increased risk to Littleton Primary School foot traffic, due to increased large vehicular traffic, and could have a negative effect on local business and trade, be detrimental for local wildlife and become an eyesore within the local natural green belt.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that their objections to this planning application are noted by Staffordshire County Council.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P001175]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, Mr Speaker will order the Division bells to be sounded. For the convenience of the House, it is anticipated that this will be shortly before 3.15 pm.
Sitting suspended (Order, 22 April).
Business of the House
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House make some comments today about future business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
With the progress of business now certain, a formal announcement was made yesterday evening in the other place on the arrangements for Prorogation. It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicated that I expect royal commissioners to attend the other place this afternoon to signify Royal Assent to several Bills and to prorogue Parliament until Wednesday 8 May.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that there will be a Queen’s Speech on 8 May. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all staff of the House for their support during this Session. We prorogue today, giving Members the opportunity to get some much-needed exercise campaigning in the local elections next week. I just hope that the Leader of the House will not be in a Conservative battle bus driven by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), because she told the House this week that Sunderland was near Bolton.
In the last few days of this Session, the Government have had to throw a series of cherished policies overboard to save their Bills from falling in the Lords. They have caved in on trying to abolish the general equality duty, on caste discrimination, on the pension age of Ministry of Defence police and fire officers, on licensing letting agents and the free market free-for-all on conservatories. In the battle over the Chancellor’s “shares for rights scheme”, they managed to spark two revolts in the Lords by two previous Lib Dem leaders and four former Tory Cabinet Ministers, including a previous Tory Chancellor. Lord Forsyth, the Thatcherite former Scottish Secretary said the scheme was
“ill thought through, confused and muddled”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 597.],
while the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell asked:
“in the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver. Is it now £2,000?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 617.]
The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that the cost of the Chancellor’s folly will be nearly £1 billion, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it could “foster tax avoidance”. The Chancellor’s pet scheme was saved by an eleventh-hour compromise last night, but when will he realise that it is simply wrong to put a price on people’s right to be treated fairly at work?
Reflecting on the current Session, I calculated that up to this morning the Government had U-turned 21 times, an average of once every seven sitting days. The Leader of the House has just announced another U-turn, on the House business committee. I wonder whether we shall see even more in the next Session. That may be a promise that the Government considered for the Queen’s Speech: it is probably the only target that they could actually meet. I hope that the Leader of the House will not mind my borrowing a well-worn phrase as a piece of advice for the Government: “You turn again if you want to”—and the sooner the better.
We now know that of the 10 original members of the Downing street policy unit only three remain, and apparently two of those are actively seeking other work. So great is the exodus that Conservative Back Benchers are complaining that No. 10 resembles the Mary Celeste, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has more advisers than the boss. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to come and make a statement about the Government’s policy on emergency support for sinking ships?
In a desperate attempt to reverse his fortunes, the Prime Minister has just announced that the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) is to be given a job at No. 10. The problem is that the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers think that he has got the wrong brother, and that it is the top job at No.10 that the Johnson dynasty really want. Meanwhile, sources tell us that the latest round of proposed spending cuts has caused such a backlash that Cabinet Ministers are turning on each other in a circular firing squad. They cannot even organise a firing squad properly.
On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics released the latest public sector net borrowing figures. They were a quarter of 1% lower than last year’s—and that is only after the most blatant piece of creative accounting at the Treasury that we have seen for a very long time. We now know that the Government are set to borrow £245 billion more than they planned to borrow in 2010. That is the cost of their economic failure.
The Chancellor’s deficit reduction plan has been so successful that, at the rate he is going, it will take 400 years to balance the books. If we look back 400 years, we see that the gunpowder plot had just failed, the King James Bible was newly published, and the pilgrim fathers were preparing to set sail for north America. Can the Leader of the House promise a debate in the new Session on the abject failure of the Chancellor’s economic plan? Today’s anaemic GDP figures show that we are back to where we were six months ago.
This week the Chancellor told John Humphrys that he had shed a tear while listening to the headlines on the “Today” programme. Can the Leader of the House tell us which headlines he meant? Was it the IMF describing his economic plan as “playing with fire”? Was it the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that we were in a depression? Was it yet another ratings agency stripping us of our triple A status? Or was it the Chancellor’s poll ratings, which are plummeting among his own Back Benchers?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for, in particular, expressing her appreciation for the House service, which I share. At the end of a parliamentary Session, we should express our appreciation especially for those who support us in the carrying on of the Business of the Chamber—the Clerks at the Table, in the Table Office and in the Public Bill Office, those who look after us in the Chamber, and of course the Official Reporters. The list of those on whom we depend is very long, and we are very grateful to them.
I am not in a position to comment on business to be conducted during the next Session, but in the current Session we have completed the passage of a substantial amount of important legislation. Some 27 Bills have been passed, including three that were carried over from the first Session to the second. Important measures were introduced, such as the Justice and Security Bill, the establishment of the National Crime Agency in the Crime and Courts Bill, individual voter registration, the new green investment bank, the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, and of course just this week the Succession to the Crown Bill.
At previous business questions, the shadow Leader of the House has asked about the publication of legislation in draft. In this Session, we published 15 Bills in draft, which is more than in any previous Session, including the two-year Session that preceded this one. To that extent I hope, we have continued a process established in this Parliament by my predecessor of ensuring that the House, the public and stakeholders have the greatest possible opportunity for input and contribution to the passage of legislation.
The shadow Leader of the House raised a number of issues. I know that the Prime Minister was thinking of the right Johnson when he engaged my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in policy making. It is not just about my hon. Friend, but about other Government Members; there is a difference. In the Liberal Democrat party, for their purposes, and in the Conservative party, elected Members of the party democratically take part in the discussion of policy, and contribute directly to policy. Labour policy is directed to Members by the trade unions. We have it from a former general secretary of the Labour party himself, who said of the trade unions that they were
“running rings around him”
—the Leader of the Opposition—
“and soon will control much of the party.”
He says that they control the selection of MEPs. They are the piper who calls the Labour party tune. In the last quarter, Len McCluskey and Unite paid a third of the Labour party’s total income—just that single trade union. Is it any surprise that it wants to go from controlling candidate selection to controlling the policy of the Labour party and who is on the Opposition Front Bench? I am sure the shadow Leader of the House is safe, but some of her colleagues are not. In the next Session, we shall see what the consequence may be in terms of changes on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr Speaker
Order. In the light of the imminent end of this parliamentary Session, I gently remind hon. and right hon. Members that somewhat greater ingenuity than normal will be required if their business questions are to be in order, bearing in mind, as they will, that those questions must relate to future business of the House. Perhaps we can be offered a textbook example of the genre by Mr William Cash.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I shall certainly try, Mr Speaker.
Last Saturday, 30,000 people gathered in Stafford regarding the outcome of the Francis report on the whole Stafford hospital saga; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tragedy. The Prime Minister has given his personal assurance that there will be a debate in due course. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House prepared to make sure that it happens much sooner rather than much later?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend knows that I am very well aware indeed of the situation at Stafford and all the circumstances that led to it. He will recall that the Backbench Business Committee very importantly secured a debate on NHS transparency and accountability. In response to his questions, I have made clear my view that once we have gone beyond the interim report made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, there should be occasions in the future, when the Government make a formal response to the public inquiry held by Robert Francis, for the House to have further opportunity to debate it.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1304?
[That this House expresses its utter condemnation of and disgust with Bernard Rowen of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Limited for his repeated victimisation of a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, whom he has dismissed twice without any valid justification; deplores slanderous statements made by management about this constituent; calls for the immediate reinstatement of this constituent and for his victimisation to cease; further calls instead for the dismissal of Bernard Rowen, who is not fit for this publicly-funded job; further calls on the Charities Commission to investigate the conduct of this organisation; further calls on the operating partners (Community Transport Services Manager, Manchester City Council, Manchester Community Transport and Manchester Ring and Ride) to carry out a similar investigation; and further calls on Transport for Greater Manchester Committee to review its funding of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport in the light of these circumstances.]
It refers to the persecution of one of my constituents by Bernard Rowen, managing director of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd, a publicly funded charitable body. Does the Leader of the House agree that the vilification, as well as the persecution and repeated dismissal, of my constituent by Rowen is outrageous and intolerable? In the remaining time for this Session, or during the recess before the resumption of Parliament on 8 May, will he take all action open to him both to find justice for my constituent and to stop public money being wasted on an organisation whose managing director behaves like a tyrant?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the House fully appreciates his concern for his constituent. I had read the early-day motion to which he refers. Of course, this is a matter for the transport and local authorities in Greater Manchester, and I know that he has been in touch with them about the situation involving Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd. If I may, through discussions with his office, I will ensure that I draw the attention of the relevant authorities to the issue and to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Is it possible to extend the duration of Transport Question Times to an hour, because the sessions are heavily oversubscribed? During today’s Transport questions, I was unable to raise BBC Suffolk’s “Don’t Be a Tosser” campaign on reducing road litter, and support for such an issue deserves to be raised on the Floor of the House.
Mr Lansley
These things are considered carefully, but the allocation of time for questions is a matter for the Procedure Committee in the first instance. However, I will by all means look at the point that my hon. Friend raises and the campaign in Suffolk to which she refers.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Many Members constantly have to deal with conflict between neighbours, and one of its causes is the planting of trees that undermine nearby boundary walls, drains and the foundations of neighbouring properties. Insurance companies say that that is a matter for regulation by this House, while the House says that it is a matter for insurance companies. Will the Leader of the House—either later today or in the next Session—consider whether it would be appropriate for the House to legislate on the matter and to provide guidance so that householders no longer face difficulties caused by inappropriate trees in neighbours’ gardens?
Mr Lansley
Several of my constituents have experienced such difficulties, and some hon. Members will recall that they were debated in the House when we were considering leylandii legislation. Rather than making a commitment regarding future business, I shall, if I may, seek the views of my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that they may respond to the hon. Lady.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
In January, a new European directive changed the rules for motorcycle licences. One of my constituents booked her test before the new rules took effect, but it was cancelled due to bad weather. She is now being made to take more expensive and time-consuming tests. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a written statement to be made on how the new EU directive adversely affects those who planned to take their test before 19 January, and is there anything that can be done about this?
Mr Lansley
I understand why my hon. Friend’s constituent might have been disappointed by that turn of events. I regret that I have to say that the answer to his question is no, because apparently neither domestic regulations nor the underpinning European legislation makes any provision for such an exemption to the requirements. I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, and I recognise why he feels for his constituent.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a time to reflect on issues that we have not addressed properly during the Session? Does he agree that one of those—I wonder whether there is any time to consider this in the few hours left to us—is the rights of women? There is an exhibition on slavery in the Upper Waiting Hall, and who would have thought that we would be told that that exists in this country today? We are now aware that female genital mutilation is reasonably widespread in this country and that women in our communities are prevented from voting. Is it not about time that we talked about the rights of women to education and a full life? Who would have thought that, in the 21st century, we would have to discuss such issues?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. In the course of this Session important debates have taken place relating to a number of them. I recall in particular the time that was allocated by the Backbench Business Committee around international women’s day and in anticipation of it, focusing on violence against women and violence in conflict situations. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has raised that through our leadership of the G8. He will no doubt be aware of the many steps taken by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) to support action in relation to female genital mutilation. I share with the hon. Gentleman and many Members of the House the outrage at the extent of modern slavery in this country, as illustrated and informed by the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. I attended its launch, which the Prime Minister undertook on Monday. The all-party group and Anthony Steen have done an important piece of work in bringing that exhibition here so that we can debate those issues.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
A recent meeting was held at Middlesex university in which three speakers variously said that Israelis support the death of Palestinians, glorify in Palestinian deaths and loot the bodies of dead Palestinians. When I wrote to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university about the anguish that such unfounded comments cause local residents, he advised that when he had intervened in the past about radical and offensive speakers, the student union had complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and the university was fined and reprimanded. May we therefore have a debate on anti-Semitism on university campuses and how we can prevent such occurrences?
Mr Lansley
I can understand how my hon. Friend might feel about that. It is of course a matter for the universities themselves, but he might consider raising it on the Adjournment, when the opportunity is once more available, as an important subject for us to consider. In the meantime I will take the opportunity to send to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university a copy of today’s Hansard in order to ask if he will reply to my hon. Friend and to me.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Early-day motion 1305 celebrates the work of Crick and Watson, Rosalind Franklin and others on an important day: today is the 60th anniversary of the publication of their work in Nature.
[That this House marks the 60th anniversary of the discovery of DNA; notes that the article entitled Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid was published by Francis Crick and James D. Watson in the scientific journal Nature in its 171st volume on 25 April 1953; further notes that that was the first publication which described the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA; further notes that much of the data that were used by Crick and Watson came from unpublished work by Rosalind Franklin and several others; applauds the discovery of DNA as having had a major impact on biology, particularly in the field of genetics; and further marks one of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 20th Century.]
It would be a great day for the Government to show some leadership on science and commit to holding Government-sponsored debates on major science topics so that the House can be informed and develop policy on some of the important consequences of the work of those scientists and other science disciplines—for example, the articles in the paper today about genetic editing, which is going to be an important issue in relation to food supply. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment to deliver such debates in Government time?
Mr Lansley
As a Member of Parliament representing part of Cambridge, I am only too aware of that anniversary, of the tremendous character of those discoveries, and of the work that Crick and Watson and others did. That is recognised. For example, I was directly involved as Secretary of State in securing the future of the Francis Crick institute, which I see emerging next to the British Library. I think this Government are giving leadership on science. We are investing in science, we see it as an essential part of this country’s economic future, and we are supporting it to that effect, as well as recognising that the quality of our science has a unique contribution to make for the whole world. We are determined to build on that.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Would the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate about the conflict in which insolvency practitioners find themselves when they are appointed by a bank to deal with the administration of a company that has failed owing to the mis-selling of interest rate swaps and hedging products by the very same bank? There is therefore a requirement for them to pursue a claim against the bank and the desire to remain loyal to their employer and to maintain a long-term business relationship with that bank, which requires the skills of poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously.
Mr Lansley
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a point which has been raised at business questions before. It is important to try to ensure clarity about how mis-selling claims are to be handled in order to give confidence and reassurance to small firms in particular. I will ensure that in the time available we are in contact with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about getting an answer to my hon. Friend on that point.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The measles outbreak is not just in Wales; we have had a steep increase in reported cases in Salford, mainly among older children—10 to 14-year-olds—who were not vaccinated in the 1990s, and I understand that about 10% of them have been hospitalised. Will the Leader of the House support my message to parents who did not have their children vaccinated when they were younger that it is absolutely vital that they take them now to be fully protected by the MMR vaccine? May we also have a statement from the Health Secretary—it would have to be today, of course—on what plans he has to boost the vaccination programme?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a statement today, but I am sure that the hon. Lady and the House know that Public Health England is producing publicity to encourage unvaccinated children and young people to come forward for vaccination. Having been shadow Secretary of State from 2003, I know that on both sides of the House we were very clear that the MMR vaccine was safe. We now have vaccine coverage rates back up to record levels, which is important, but we of course have an inheritance of unvaccinated young people. If we can deal with that rapidly, we will offset what would otherwise be a really unfortunate risk from a very nasty disease.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on getting young people with special needs into work? A project in my constituency and across the London borough of Redbridge will hopefully, with the help of the parent group, Interface, the borough council and employers, have the first people taking up jobs shortly.
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will join my hon. Friend in expressing appreciation in this House for the activities of Interface, other groups and his borough council. I welcome what he does on behalf of his constituents and applaud it.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor recently announced plans to introduce price-competitive tendering in criminal legal aid. The plans are ill thought through and will destroy the criminal justice system and the criminal law profession. May we please have an urgent debate in the next Session on that very important topic?
Mr Lansley
I cannot anticipate debates in the next Session. What I can say is that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor have done in trying to secure better value and a much greater focus for legal aid is terrifically important. [Interruption.] We have a very generous legal aid system, compared with countries around the world. [Interruption.] The intention is not that we should become ungenerous, but that we must be more focused and ensure that legal aid supports those who genuinely require public support in order to undertake their cases.
Mr Speaker
I have a hunch, as I suspect does the House, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is seeking to equal the volume of his predecessor.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Figures released in answer to a written question I tabled on the Safe and Sustainable review show that costs to date include over £300,000 in legal fees, £1.7 million for external communication consultants and over £6 million in other costs. That is around £8 million in total. Now we hear that NHS England plans to add to the costs by appealing the High Court decision, potentially delaying the Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s report. Given that, and in the time available, is there any way we can urge NHS England not to appeal, so that we can finally get a resolution to children’s heart surgery in this country?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that the Safe and Sustainable review was established independently within the NHS by the joint committee of primary care trusts and that it is being sustained by NHS England on the same basis. Those are decisions for NHS England and I, of all people, must recognise that we have legislated to give it greater independence in decision making on the basis that it must lead on clinical matters. What he has said will of course be communicated to NHS England, and it will obviously consider carefully all the aspects of value for money associated with how it proceeds.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House use his influence with the Secretary of State for Education to find out why he has not come to the House today to answer for his decision yesterday to close the Department for Education offices at Castle View house in Runcorn, with the loss of at least 220 jobs, and to transfer the work to a more expensive location, despite the Runcorn office being the cheapest location, with the lowest-paid staff, in the 32nd most deprived borough in England and Wales? The opposition to that is shared in the private sector: the Halton chamber of commerce and enterprise is opposed to the move. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House today to make a statement?
Mr Lansley
I fear I do not think it will be possible for the Secretary of State to be here today to make a statement or answer an urgent question on that. I also recall that we had exchanges on this issue at business questions, and it has been the subject of meetings that have taken place, in particular with the permanent secretary at the Department for Education, who explained why the move was necessary to help secure the administration cost savings—and I must say that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has been exemplary in securing administration cost savings in his Department.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The National Assembly for Wales has now resolved to take forward the Welsh Government’s proposal to introduce presumed consent into the organ donation system. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the view of the Department of Health at Westminster is made clear through a written statement on the consideration that has been given to the impact that change will have on the increasingly successful organ donation system in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will be aware, my personal view is that the decision the Welsh Assembly Government are proceeding with is not the right one. From the Government’s point of view, I know that the Department of Health provided evidence in the consultation that illustrated that consequences and difficulties would flow to the organ donation system in England as a consequence of the proposed changes in Wales. If I may, in pursuance of this request I will ask my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary when and how he intends to follow through on those issues and on the concerns expressed at an earlier stage.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
In a few days’ time in May, the European Union arms embargo on Syria will be up for expiry. The US Administration said there would be a red line if chemical weapons were used in Syria. It is increasingly clear they have been used, probably by the Syrian regime. Given that, what parliamentary accountability will there be before any decision is taken by our Government to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, which includes al-Qaeda-linked jihadists?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has regularly reported to the House on these issues, including at this Dispatch Box. What he has said when he was here is still true: these are difficult areas and dynamic situations, and as a consequence the Government are not ruling out further changes and, in discussions over the next few days with our European partners we will be discussing how the arms embargo has been amended and may be amended in future. My right hon. Friend has kept the House fully informed, therefore, and I am sure he will take every opportunity to do so again in the future.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
A few weeks ago we had a debate on the lack of accountability in the NHS and I am afraid it appears that we need another one. On 19 April, these comments were made in Computer Weekly about Sir Bruce Keogh’s decision to suspend surgery at Leeds:
“Keogh, first by requesting unverified data, then by ignoring the data's obvious faults, then by breaching usual procedure in not seeking to clarify those faults, then apparently wilfully misinterpreting that data, and then using the weight of all these errors to tell Leeds to close its heart unit, may have committed a serious breach of protocols he had helped establish.”
Why is the Secretary of State for Health still refusing to have an independent investigation into this matter?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said in response to an urgent question about these issues. I share the Health Secretary’s confidence in the decisions that Sir Bruce Keogh took and, indeed, his precautionary approach. As my hon. Friend will recall, in a matter of days he and NHS England were able to agree with Leeds general infirmary on how to proceed in a way that offered parents and children the necessary reassurance about safety.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Today’s quarterly growth figures are truly lamentable. May we have an emergency debate during the next few hours, so that although the Government have no new policies to offer, they can at least show their concern about the situation?
Mr Lansley
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I think that today’s figures are an encouraging sign of how the economy is healing. We know the economic backdrop and the House is under no illusions about how difficult the economic circumstances are, not just in this country but, as the IMF has made clear, across Europe in particular. The IMF’s forecasts for this country were for a limited return to growth, but that growth was stronger than that of France and Germany. Alongside that, we have to maintain the credibility of our fiscal position and give space for an activist monetary stance. The Growth and Infrastructure Bill and related measures show that in this Session we have taken every possible action to promote enterprise and wealth creation, because they are the only means by which the growth we are looking for will come.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is said that there are three types of economist: those who can count and those who cannot. [Interruption.] I knew that hon. Members would get that eventually. Given that this morning’s GDP growth figure of 0.3% was three times the much-reported best upper estimate of the BBC, may we have a debate on BBC bias?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a debate in this Session, but some Select Committees are taking every opportunity to scrutinise the governance of the BBC, so I encourage my hon. Friend to discuss the issue with them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Figures this week show that in the course of this Parliament, Hull will lose a total of £649 per head through local government and welfare cuts, compared with Surrey Heath, which will lose only £199 per head. May we have an urgent statement from the relevant Minister on why this Government want to penalise the most disadvantaged parts of this country?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but that is one of the poorest uses of statistics I have heard. One has to recognise the base one is starting from. In some parts of the country, Government grant to local authorities is very modest in the first place, while the consequences of reductions in central Government spending, which are necessary—we have to do it—are, in absolute terms, greater in those places where the original level of grant distributed was highest. We cannot avoid that simple fact. We are setting out to make sure that we are fair across the country and that the way in which grant is distributed reflects need properly.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When a suitable opportunity presents itself, might we have a debate on magistrates courts and magistrates? Figures released earlier this week show that 3.8% of offenders who appear before magistrates courts are jailed, but the figure in Northamptonshire is the highest in the country at 6.5%. Such a debate would allow me and other Northamptonshire MPs to praise magistrates in Northamptonshire, including the Kettering bench, for their effective use of sentencing powers.
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows, the Crime and Courts Bill has completed its passage through the House. I would not want to encourage him to believe that the Government want to compare sentences and praise sentencing in some courts relative to others. We in this House establish the legal framework, but we rightly expect magistrates and, indeed, judges to make their own decisions, and circumstances will vary across the country. It is entirely open for Members of Parliament to act in their own constituencies, as my hon. Friend does, and to speak freely on behalf of the people they represent.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Before the House rises, may we have a statement from the Chancellor about the pitiful state of the construction industry in this country? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Office for National Statistics established this morning that construction output has shrunk by a tenth under this Government and that 70,000 jobs in the sector were lost in the year to last December? Do Members not deserve an urgent opportunity to find out whether the Government have any plans to deal with that dreadful situation?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman knows that construction orders were up in the last quarter and that new work is up. It is a bit rich for any Labour Member to speak about construction, because they know as well as I do, when they look in their hearts, that construction activity in this country, and house building in particular, fell off a cliff in 2008 as a consequence of the bust that the Labour Government said would never happen. We are fighting our way back. The Chancellor’s Budget set out unprecedented measures to support new house building in this country and the Government continue to spend more on infrastructure investment than the last Labour Government had planned to spend.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
During this Session, we have had debates about skills and apprenticeships, tax competitiveness, the progress in cutting red tape, and investment in transport and digital infrastructure, such as the successful rural broadband project in North Yorkshire. When we return for the new Session, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate that pulls all those things together and reviews the progress towards making the UK a better place to do business?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. There are some very impressive schemes in North Yorkshire that demonstrate how IT can be used in rural areas. I am aware of that not least because of the way in which the telehealth and telecare systems were rolled out by North Yorkshire county council. In the year ahead, the introduction of the £2,000 employment allowance will reduce businesses’ national insurance contributions bill for employing people and stimulate further employment, we will move to having the joint lowest corporation tax rates among the G20 countries and there will be a tenfold increase in the investment allowance for businesses. I hope that it will be recognised that those measures and many others are making this country the best place to do business. In the next year, I hope that we will take every opportunity not only to add to that, but to shout about it in this country and beyond.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
How incredibly kind, Mr Speaker.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published its draft clauses for revising the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and asked the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to report by 29 April? We stand prepared to do that, but there is the slight problem that the House is not meeting next week to enable us to adopt our formal report. Prorogation is the only time when no Select Committee can meet. I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to ensure that the Department does not publish the clauses formally, but awaits the opinion of the Select Committee so that there is proper scrutiny and we do not repeat the situation that gave rise to the 1991 Act, which has caused so much concern that it now needs to be revised.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She raises an issue of timing. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consults her. What may be done formally during Prorogation is limited, but rather more may be done informally. Clauses would not be published during Prorogation. We will wait until the new Session before proceeding, subject to what is in the Gracious Speech, with the publication of further legislation.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1310 on the plight of disabled staff working for Tesco?
[That this House is concerned by reports from disabled Tesco workers in Harlow, that they may be forced into redundancy because their existing adjustments will not be transferred to the new site at Dagenham; notes reports that one warehouseman, who has been registered disabled and received an adjustment for many years, will be expected to hit new performance targets within an eight-week trial period at the new site; further notes the anxieties of disabled workers that this may make moving to the new site effectively impossible for them, pushing them into unemployment; and therefore urges Tesco’s management to allow Harlow workers to transfer to the new site with their existing pay and their existing terms and conditions, including disability adjustments.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the closure of the Tesco distribution plant in Harlow, and there are disabled workers at risk of redundancy. One warehouseman has been registered as disabled for six years, yet he has been told that in order to transfer to Dagenham and keep his job, he must lose his disability adjustment and will be expected to hit new performance targets in an eight-week trial period at the new site. That will be impossible for him and could push him on to the dole. Will the Leader of the House urge Tesco to be more compassionate and treat all its workers fairly—disabled or otherwise—and ensure that workers who move to the Dagenham plant get the same pay and conditions for doing the same job?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend’s constituents in Harlow affected by the redundancy consequent on the changes to Tesco’s distribution facilities will be grateful to him for the way that he has represented them, not only as a community of employees, but in this instance individually. It is not for me at the Dispatch Box to urge anything on a private company in such a way, but I take the opportunity to draw what my hon. Friend has said directly to the attention of Tesco, and ask it to respond. I hope it will do so very sympathetically.
Point of Order
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday it was reported that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has been taken seriously ill. Is there a mechanism by which the House can send its best wishes to his family, and wish our fellow parliamentarian a speedy recovery?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and the answer is that he has found his own mechanism. The sentiments that he has expressed towards the right hon. Gentleman and his family will be reflected in the feelings of the whole House.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
11:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 25E, to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees with the Lords in their amendments 25H rev and 25J in lieu.
On Tuesday when we considered this issue the House agreed to two amendments to the employee shareholder clause. First, we ensured that individuals would receive written particulars to explain the employment rights that are not associated with an employee shareholder job. Those particulars will also explain the rights attached to shares that are given as part of that role. Secondly, we amended the clause to ensure that individuals had the space and time to consider whether or not to accept the job.
Yesterday, the other place agreed further amendments to help ensure that individuals fully understand what those employee shareholder jobs will mean for them—both the risks and the rewards. Individuals who are offered employee shareholder roles must now receive independent advice before they can accept the job. That advice can be given only by a solicitor, a barrister, a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives employed in a solicitor’s practice, a certified adviser in an advice centre or—I am sure Opposition Members will welcome this—a certified trade union official. A person employed by the company, such as an in-house lawyer, cannot give that advice; it must be independent. In addition, the company must pay any reasonable costs incurred in obtaining that advice, even if the individual does not take up the offer of the employee shareholder job.
The amendments also clarify the process of becoming an employee shareholder. When offered an employee shareholder role, an individual must be given the written particulars in advance of receiving independent advice. We have also made it clear that the seven calendar day consideration period starts only once the individual has received the advice.
Those amendments confirm our intention that the new employment status is wholly voluntary. I have made it clear throughout the debates on the clause in the House and in Committee, and my hon. and noble Friend Viscount Younger has made it clear in another place, that we do not want people to be coerced into the new roles. It is important that they should agree to accept an employee shareholder job only when they understand what it means for them.
To that end, we have published guidance in draft. In response to the concerns expressed by some of my noble Friends, we have strengthened the measures by saying that there should be special protection for those on jobseeker’s allowance—they cannot be mandated to take that type of employment status. We have provided a written statement of the particulars and a cooling-off period, and we have now provided access to independent legal advice.
The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), kept pressing me on Tuesday on what I meant when I said that we would reflect on the concerns expressed in the other place. The new measures are the results of such reflection. We have reflected on and met those concerns.
I pay tribute to Lord Pannick and to my noble Friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Forsyth. Lord Pannick has said:
“It is impossible to see what further protections this House could usefully add.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1464.]
The House should support the further amendments to clause 27, so that it can form part of this important pro-growth Bill and provide companies and individuals with a new employment option.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Where on earth does one start with this poor excuse of a Bill? It is worth reflecting on where it all started. The Bill was a ridiculous and badly thought-out idea cooked up for insertion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s conference speech. It has been so badly handled and so badly thought through that people from all political parties, employers and employees have united in almost universal opposition to it.
Lord Bilimoria, one the country’s best-known business men, who voted against the plan in the other place yesterday, described the policy not just as a dog’s breakfast, but as a mad dog’s breakfast. The noble Lord is a man to whom all hon. Members should sit up and listen. I do not know whether hon. Members have partaken of Cobra beer while treating themselves to a curry, but Lord Bilimoria is the man behind Cobra. He is certainly worth listening to. He said that:
“from a businessman’s point of view, this does not make sense. It is absolutely unnecessary to do this”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1450.]
The Minister referred to the concessions—that concessions have been forced out of the Government serves only to reinforce how badly thought-out the proposal was. Whether or not JSA claimants could lose their benefit if they refuse to accept job offers carrying the employee shareholder status was an obvious question. I first asked it in November, when the Government ignored it. I repeated it, and the Government said that they could not lose their benefit. When they were mauled on the point in the other place, they effectively admitted that they could. In order to get the proposal through in the face of opposition from several former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, the Government had to come to the House last week and agree to amend the guidance for Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus advisers to state explicitly that a jobseeker cannot be mandated to apply for an employee shareholder job. They should have done that in the first instance. What a total shambles.
Another issue is the advice and guidance to potential employees, and the need to ensure that they understand what they are getting into. Of course people were going to be concerned—that was obvious. If, as is the case at the moment, the law requires that people who sign away their fundamental rights on leaving employment receive proper legal advice and guidance, then of course people were going to insist on getting similar advice on entering employment. I doubt the thought even passed through the Chancellor’s mind as he pursued his ideological fixation with watering down people’s rights at work.
Now there is a requirement for employers to pay for that advice in advance of a potential employee shareholder entering into an agreement. The point is this: these concessions are not enough and they were never going to be enough, because this entire proposal is wrong in principle. I think that most Government Members know that: it has been notable how few Government Members have stood in support of this measure.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. It is notable not only that the Business Secretary is not here, but that no one from his party is here. It will be interesting to see, in a few minutes when we go through the Lobby, whether the rest of the invisible men and women turn up to vote, or whether they abstain and renege again on workers’ rights.
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fairness to Conservative Government Members, at least they are up front and frank about their purpose in taking away people’s rights at work and do not, while voting for measures that do that, claim to be doing otherwise. We will watch carefully to see which Liberal Democrat Members join us in the Division Lobby.
I return to my previous point: there is no compelling vision for growth in the Bill. On all the evidence, the comments that the Business Secretary made in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister last year are just as valid now as they were then, which is why we will not support this ludicrous measure and have resisted it every step of the way.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on the Front Bench. There is a parallel here with the privatisations and de-mutualisations of the 1980s and early 1990s, when consumers and partners—shareholders, if one likes—in mutual organisations were persuaded to give up their rights for shares, which were then sold. A classic example is Northern Rock, which had to be funded by the taxpayer to prevent it from being destroyed, and just recently came the disaster affecting the old Trustee Savings Bank, which was a mutual bank serving the country and its customers very well. It was forced to privatise and has now turned out to be an expensive disaster, a basket case that even the Co-op bank cannot afford to take on. This will cost the Government money. Again, a Conservative Government are persuading people to give up rights for shares that will last a few weeks, and then they will have lost their rights for good.
Mr Anderson
This section of the Bill should be called, “The shoot from the lip” section, because that is exactly where it came from—a throwaway line in a conference speech by a Chancellor whose arrogance is matched only by his ignorance. It was an anti-trade union, anti-worker comment to score cheap political points by the seaside during the Tory party conference. This is a man who has decided to run a Government along dividing lines, a man whose Prime Minister’s background is summed up entirely by the fact that he was a public relations expert—and that is how he continues to run this country.
This proposal has shown yet again that the Conservative party still believes in the cost of everything and the value of nothing. It is banana-republic stuff. We are asking people to sell their rights. It is abysmal. If we asked people to sell their rights in any other part of what has become a civilised society in the 21st century, we would be laughed out of court, but the Government are serious about doing this, despite the huge opposition from everyone who really knows about it—the people in the workplace, in businesses and in the other House, who have said very clearly that this is nonsense.
The Minister said it was impossible to see what more reassurance we could want, but it is impossible for me to see why on earth we are bothering with this. This has been a complete and utter waste of parliamentary time. We have got lots of parliamentary time, by the way. We are going to be on holiday for another two weeks when we could have been discussing really serious things. The next motion is being pushed through in an hour and a half. This is just about a Tory party struggling to find a dividing line. Amendments 25F and 25G talk about “drag-along rights” and “tag-along rights”. As I read them, I was reminded of children’s hour on the television in the 1950s—you are probably too young to remember, Mr Speaker. There used to be programmes called, “Rag, Tag and Bobtail”, “Andy Pandy” and “Bill and Ben”, but we have been treated this week and over the past nine months to the “Woodentops”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I cannot match that. Reminiscences are a strong point of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).
I want to make four brief points. First, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a disastrous way to make legislation. It started with a stunt, and then we got to what the Minister called “ministerial reflection”. This is not an example of ministerial reflection; it is an example of ministerial retreat.
Secondly, the Minister has said again today that this will be voluntary and that protections will be in place. There are more than 2.5 million unemployed, and it is rising. People are desperate for work and will do anything they possibly can to find a job. The pressure to take the shares or perhaps lose the job—that informal pressure—will ensure that this is not voluntary. It is like putting food on a plate in front of a hungry person and saying that it is voluntary to eat it. We will monitor this and I would welcome a six-monthly report from Ministers on how many people take up the option. It will not be a long report, as this proposal is almost dead in the water already; in fact one could probably come along with a list of the few names of those who have taken it up.
On JSA, I repeat that I do not accept any assurances from the Minister. None of the assurances that we have heard about the activities of the DWP to protect people—particularly regarding the sanctions and targets that the DWP and jobcentre officials are forced to make—have held water and are not worth the Hansard record they are written on. We will monitor the activities of the DWP in this matter to see whether the Minister’s assurances stand up.
Finally, there is a lesson for the Government in these debates, and it is this: neither this House nor the other place will tolerate again proposals in which people are asked to sell, effectively, their basic human rights. I give this assurance on behalf of, I am sure, all Opposition Members, that if there are any further such proposals, we will resist them tooth and nail because they undermine a basic principle of human rights development in this country. We feel as strongly as others will feel as the Government seek to roll this out.
Michael Fallon
With the leave of the House, let me reply to some of the points that have been made. First, there was a suggestion that the measure is not supported. It has been supported, repeatedly, by this House, and the Opposition’s attempt to derail it yesterday in the other place was defeated by a majority of 107, including by Liberal Democrats and Cross-Bench peers. We are now in a position where both Houses of Parliament support the clause and the principles behind it.
Michael Fallon
No.
The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is quite wrong to say that we moved only very late in the day to consider the position of jobseekers allowance claimants. That issue was raised in this place and in Committee, where I gave assurances in response to questions and concerns from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in December. This is not something new; we have done everything we can throughout the passage of the Bill to ensure that the status is entirely voluntary. Members in both Houses were fully entitled to raise these concerns, and were right to do so. We have responded to them.
Secondly, we have introduced legal advice. Independent legal advice is not available at the moment for those considering other forms of employment status. A person is not offered independent legal advice if they are asked to make a judgment between being a worker and being an employee. I remind the House that the status of being a worker gives someone fewer rights than the status of being an employee-shareholder. People are not given independent legal advice on that, but we have introduced it in this respect because it is a new form of employment status and we want people to be absolutely sure of the risks and rewards involved.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Streatham said that my noble Friend Viscount Younger had somehow suggested that it would be impossible to value shares. What he actually said, at column 1444, House of Lords Hansard, was that the valuation of private company shares was not particularly easy, but that it was done the whole time by expert advisers in various circumstances who have to make a valuation. That is quite standard procedure.
Michael Fallon
No.
The hon. Member for Streatham suggested that the tax provisions would be open to some kind of abuse. If he looks at the Finance Bill, which clearly he has not, he will see that schedule 22 includes provisions, which we published in draft, that deal specifically with the possibility of abuse of those tax provisions. I remind him that the Finance Bill is an annual event. Where abuses occur at any point under the law, we have the ability to improve our defences against them.
It is wrong of the Opposition to be completely negative about this proposal. It is wrong indeed to focus on just one aspect. We are talking about a package of employment rights, a package of mandatory shares and a package of tax incentives. It is the interaction of all three aspects that we think will motivate staff and better involve them in the future prospects of the company.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I cannot hear the Minister speak. If he does not wish to give way, that is his choice, but I must be able to hear what he has to say.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it not be right to get it on the record that it is etiquette for one Front Bencher to give way to another Front Bencher in a debate of this sort?
Mr Deputy Speaker
It might be normal practice to give way, but it is still the Minister’s choice whether he wishes to or not. Obviously on this occasion he does not wish to give way.
Michael Fallon
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to wind up this debate in a few minutes. The House will recall that I have given way repeatedly in debates on this matter.
Nobody has claimed that this Bill on its own or any individual measure in it will by itself trigger the growth that our economy needs, but in this Bill six different Departments have come together with a package of measures that will speed up the planning process, make it easier for families who want to adjust their housing, speed up the roll-out of broadband, increase investment in our gas and electricity networks and, finally and importantly, provide a new form of shareholder-employee status for those companies that wish to bind their employees more closely into the success of their performance.
Question put,
Railways
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 172 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5855/13, a Commission Communication: The Fourth Railway Package-completing the single European railway area to foster European competitiveness and growth, No. 6012/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Regulation on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 881/2004, No. 6013/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast), No. 6014/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on railway safety (Recast), No. 6017/13, a Commission Report on the progress made towards achieving interoperability of the rail system, No 6019/13, a Commission Report on the profile and tasks of other train crew members, No. 5960/13 and Addenda 1 to 5, a Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail, No. 5985/13 and Addenda 1 to 7, a Draft Directive amending Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure, and No. 6020/13, a Commission report on the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2007/58/EC on the opening of the market of international rail passenger transport accompanying the Communication on the fourth railway package; supports the Government’s aim of ensuring any resulting measures are appropriate, encourage competition and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU; and further supports the Government’s view that any such measures should be evidence-based, proportionate and reduce or at least minimise the regulatory, administrative and cost burden for industry.
I welcome the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred this subject to the House for debate. I also thank and pay tribute to the Transport Committee for its report on the fourth railway package, a number of whose conclusions and recommendations the Government support.
The fourth railway package is a major European Union legislative proposal involving three directives and three regulations. As Members will appreciate, we are still considering the implications of the proposals in consultation with other Departments, so all I can give the House this afternoon is our initial position.
The United Kingdom has one of the most liberalised rail networks in the EU, which is why the Government support further opening of the domestic EU public passenger transport markets. However, we want to ensure that the proposals that are implemented as part of the package are flexible enough to work within the UK’s public passenger transport structure, and are compatible with our plans for rail reform. The Transport Committee made that point in its report.
Evidence garnered by the European Commission indicates that about 40% of passenger routes in the EU are accessible to new operators. That implies that significant market opportunities could arise both for UK rail firms and for those in the rest of the EU if the proposals pass into European law. There would also be potential for expansion of the rolling stock leasing sector. The new infrastructure manager separation provisions could give freight operators benefits as well if they further open up access in practice, reducing the chances of discriminatory behaviour in some member states. In any event, I can assure the House that the proposals will be the subject of consultation with stakeholders and considerable negotiation within the European Union. We will continue to engage with the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states to ensure that any concerns are addressed in the final texts.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am listening to the Minister’s comments with interest. Would these proposals force the publicly owned railway systems that exist in some parts of Europe to be handed over to the private sector, or would they allow the public sector to participate on a level playing field?
Mr Burns
I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance on that, if that is what he is seeking. It is not a question of forcing any railways in any country in the EU to move from one position to another, although the main thrust of the package is to create a greater liberalisation of the market for the benefit of both taxpayers in the EU and passengers.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that any operator, whether private or public, that returns £640 million to the taxpayers of any country is a good operation to have?
Mr Burns
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to take us back to the House’s earlier Transport questions, as he is trying to highlight the east coast main line case. I am more than happy to take as long it takes to explain why it is the right thing to return the east coast main line to a franchise situation, as the last Labour Government wanted to do, but if I were to do so, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would step in quickly to tell me that that is beyond the scope of this debate.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The important issue of whether ownership should be private or public has been raised, and I hope my right hon. Friend will assure me that he agrees that railways in private ownership are better run than those in public ownership. Certain countries in Europe, however, still have a tight grasp of public ownership of their railways, and I therefore hope he will encourage liberalisation of the market so that private companies can invest into markets throughout Europe.
Mr Burns
I am trying to answer my hon. Friend’s question. His second point is also absolutely right. As he knows—and as Labour desperately tries to forget—since privatisation the number of passengers using our rail network has doubled, the number of journeys on our rail network has doubled, the standards have improved noticeably—but there is still some way to go to get even better quality and standards for passengers—and the investment in the infrastructure to improve the quality of the journeys has increased. It is incredible that, although the Labour party pays lip service to a good, efficient rail system, in 13 years of the last Labour Government there were just 10 extra miles of electrification on the network, yet in the first three years of this coalition Government there have been 850 extra miles of electrification.
Sheila Gilmore
If our system is so much better than the European systems that have more state control, why is it that Members, including on the Government Benches, have been saying that the costs here are too great? Is there, perhaps, some relationship between the costs under a privatised system as opposed to the costs under a state-run system?
Mr Burns
I think I am in a better position than the hon. Lady to know what my hon. Friends say, as I probably mix with them more frequently than she does. They are impressed that since privatisation the number of passengers using the rail network has doubled, the number of rail journeys has doubled and the amount of freight on rail, and off our congested roads, has increased by 60%. They want continued investment in infrastructure to improve the quality of journeys and to improve rolling stock and track electrification so that people can travel around this country by rail far better than under British Rail. As someone who, sadly, is old enough to remember British Rail, I find it incredible that so many—almost dinosaurs—on the Opposition Benches seem to have a rose-tinted view of how fabulous it was. It was not.
I turn to the safety aspects of the package, which are important and are of major interest to the various sectors in the UK rail transport chain. In consultation with stakeholders, we are giving full consideration to their implications. The proposal to move from a two-part safety certificate to a single-part certificate is welcome as a simplification of the existing process. We expect it to lead to a significant reduction in the costs and regulatory burdens for railway undertakings. It will especially benefit those who operate cross-border services.
However, we need to look carefully at the justification for the extension of powers for the European rail agency to issue the single safety certificate, and we need to understand how it supports market opening objectives. Enhancement of the agency’s powers for audit and inspection of national safety authorities will change its current role. It is a fundamental shift away from a partnership role to a policing function. We are not convinced that those powers are necessary given the high level of co-operation already achieved between the majority of national safety authorities. We will ask the European Commission for further clarity about how any issues exposed will be resolved.
The communication includes proposals for a recast of the interoperability directive for railways. The Commission believes that there are problems with the authorisation process for rail vehicles, especially when the vehicle is intended for use in more than one member state. It refers to delays and costs reported by operators to the Commission owing to vehicles sitting idle in sidings awaiting authorisation from national safety authorities. To solve the problem, the Commission proposes a recast of the directive and changes to the authorisation process. A key change would be that the applicant applied to the European rail agency instead of the national safety authorities for authorisation of their vehicle.
Removal of powers from national safety authorities to the agency will change their role. The three safety authorities in the UK—the Office of Rail Regulation, the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland—will no longer be able to issue those authorisations.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does that not indicate the heart of the problem? The European Union is once again seeking to extend its powers in an area where it already has competence. In the review of competences, will my right hon. Friend consider returning the whole area to the authority of the United Kingdom and our democratic control, as we are an island and our connection with the continent by rail is limited to the channel tunnel?
Mr Burns
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, to which I will respond in two parts. His second point is, I am afraid, above my pay grade. I hear what he says, and I understand what he is getting at, but I cannot give him an assurance. The transport field is a bit more complicated because so much is done on a Europe-wide basis, but I can give him the somewhat glib assurance that no doubt his concerns and his point will be heard and considered in other places. On the narrower issue, I beg his patience because he may be more reassured when I reach our proposals.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). When my right hon. Friend reaches that narrower issue, will he make clear whether High Speed 2 is directly connected? It is being put around by the UK Independence party, and others in the county council elections, that HS2 is directly related to the issue.
Mr Burns
I will deal with it now. HS2 is not directly related. It is a project drawn up by the coalition Government—to be fair, building on the work of Lord Adonis when Labour was in power. We support the project because we believe it is in the national interest, which is why it is going ahead. UKIP has sought to muddy the water on a number of issues with regard to HS2 and the European Union. As I was saying at Transport questions, before I was politely interrupted, that is fascinating, because if one were to travel around Buckinghamshire, and possibly Warwickshire, Staffordshire and a few other points north, one would see opposition to that magnificent project from the party my hon. Friend mentioned. He might then be confused if he read UKIP’s 2010 general election manifesto, which calls for three—not one, but three—high-speed railway systems in this country. But I now return—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I help the Minister a little more? He is right to suggest to the Chair that he does not want a rerun of Transport questions. I totally agree and we are not going to do that, are we?
Mr Burns
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make some progress.
The Commission’s explanation is that removing authorisation powers to the agency will help to address the delays that some operators have reported when seeking authorisations from national safety authorities. That is especially the case for cross-border operations where a train may run through more than one member state. We are not currently aware of significant costs or delays for railway undertakings in obtaining those authorisations in the UK, so we are not convinced that there is a problem in the UK. That is why we need to safeguard practices that already work here.
Overall, the Commission needs to be clearer about how the changes to the directive will contribute to market opening. Another Commission proposal is to change the authorisation process for trackside signalling, which would have a significant impact in the UK. There is not yet much experience in the UK of the authorisation of trackside signalling by the national safety authorities. However, UK projects are more likely to prefer to seek authorisation from the national safety authority rather than the agency, because they have not encountered difficulties so far.
The Commission has explained that to deal effectively with authorisation delays and cross-border problems it requires action at the EU level. It argues that individual member states acting independently cannot address such problems. However, at the Transport Council on 11 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed that there might be an alternative to moving powers away from national safety authorities to the agency. We have suggested giving the market a choice about where the authorisation is obtained from, so we propose exploring with member states and the Commission an approach that would enable rail undertakings to choose whether to obtain an authorisation from the relevant national safety authority or the agency. The same principle could be extended to give the industry a choice about where it needs to apply for trackside signalling authorisations. The UK is continuing to push for our choice of approach so that the national safety authorities and the agency could have the power to authorise vehicles.
The details of the recast of the interoperability directive are being negotiated in Council working groups. However, there are indications that our views about choice are being listened to and that other member states support our idea, which gives us grounds for encouragement. We will keep a close eye on how the proposals develop to try to ensure that we get the best outcome for Britain and the rail system in Europe. We will try to preserve as much flexibility as possible for member states to determine what work needs to be authorised and the applicable standards.
Let me turn to the impact of the proposals to require a railway infrastructure manager to be separate from a railway undertaking. The Government will need to understand the possible effects on several areas, including alliances between Network Rail and railway undertakings, and joint working arrangements. Within the package are requirements to ensure the effective independence of the infrastructure manager within a vertically integrated undertaking. The Government are looking further at how they will influence the holding company model, as used by Eurotunnel in respect of the channel tunnel and the cross-border rail services that run through it. There will also be points to consider for the railway structure in Northern Ireland, which remains vertically integrated.
Sir Roy McNulty concluded in his report—we accept this—that the key to delivering long-term efficiencies in the rail industry is the alignment of incentives between track and train. Alliances or partnerships between Network Rail and the passenger train operators are central to our approach. Alliances are expected to maximise efficiencies and to ensure that minority freight and open-access operators are protected, not discriminated against. They do so by ensuring that capacity allocation and charging decisions are undertaken outside the alliance to avoid discrimination against smaller train operators, including freight operators. Safety is protected by ensuring that ultimate accountability rests with the statutory duty holder. We believe that that is compatible with the open competition in rail markets that the Commission wants, but we are worried that the way in which the Commission’s proposals are formulated might prohibit certain types of alliances, such as between Network Rail and rail undertakings, and joint working arrangements, such as integrated control centres and performance improvement projects. The proposals therefore might prevent us from achieving the benefits that we anticipate. I know that the Transport Committee’s report stated that joint working between Network Rail and train operators should not be prohibited or unduly restricted. We will continue to engage closely with the European Commission and Parliament, and other member states, to ensure that our concerns are addressed in the final proposals.
On the impact of the proposals on franchising, we welcome the commitment to market opening.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr Burns
I actually have not said anything yet, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is going to ask. Perhaps he will allow me to say a little more.
We believe that the liberalised domestic market has delivered significant benefits for passengers. We have shown our commitment to franchising through the recent announcement to restart the franchising programme and return the east coast main line to the private sector.
Gavin Shuker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. Will he confirm that it would not be possible for him to continue to operate the east coast line through Directly Operated Railways if this package of measures goes through? I understand his commitment to returning the line to the private sector, but given that it is thriving in the public sector, why does he want to go along with these proposals?
Mr Burns
I am not sure what it is about the hon. Gentleman that he cannot comprehend the position, but I suspect that he just has not read the facts. Lord Adonis and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), when he was in my post, also believed that it was best to operate trains through franchises in the private sector. Even when Lord Adonis had to introduce the emergency measure of taking the east coast main line into public ownership, as a result of the problems that blew up at that time, he was clear that that would be a short-term measure and that the service would be returned to a franchise when it was possible to do so.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman is displaying a degree of incredulity and suggesting that that was not the case. I know that he was not a Member at that time, but if goes to the Library to find the relevant copies of Hansard, he will read that Lord Adonis and the right hon. Member for Tooting were emphatic in their announcements to Parliament that the decision on the east coast main line was a short-term measure. I am rather grateful that Lord Adonis went a step further by saying that it was better for the railways to be run by franchises in the private sector.
Mr Burns
It is fascinating to hear that from one of Lord Adonis’s colleagues. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman—there seems to be a problem with Luton today—meant that in a derogatory way, but I thought that Lord Adonis was not a Tory, but the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport. I also thought that he was working with the present leader of the Labour party on formulating Labour’s policies.
Mr Burns
No, I am going to make progress—[Interruption.] I do not want to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have listened to many of his interventions and it is not often that they can be put in the category of making progress—they usually hark back to an era that most of us do not remember.
Mr Burns
I will make progress in my way, not the hon. Gentleman’s.
The subject of franchising has aroused considerable interest among Labour Members, so let me briefly set out something that I have said before. Since privatisation, rail numbers have doubled and passenger satisfaction is at an all-time high. Recent European research has shown that the countries with the greatest growth in rail travel are those with the most liberalised markets.
As with the proposals I have already discussed, we will need to ensure that we continue to engage on the detail, including by ensuring that any changes to public passenger transport services regulation are compatible with the specific needs of our network and give us the flexibility to deliver a sustainable franchise programme. I know that the Transport Committee’s report is concerned that our arrangements for letting train franchises should not be challenged, and I assure hon. Members that the Government share that view and are looking closely at the issue.
On transport plans, we are concerned that the requirements are over-prescriptive and will therefore impose a significant regulatory burden.
In relation to the channel tunnel, the focus of the Commission’s proposal is on achieving effective competition and further market opening for domestic passenger services, thereby increasing the quantity and improving the quality of passenger services. It is still too early to assess whether this will lead to more cross-border rail services through the channel tunnel.
I will summarise our initial findings on the impacts of the package on the UK. The package may present significant market opportunities for UK firms wishing to expand their operations into the EU. However, the benefits for domestic rail transport are less obvious. We cannot see how a substantial proportion of the additional demand and cost savings identified by the European Commission in its impact assessment will translate to the domestic rail sector in the UK. This is because significant parts of the Commission proposal, including the competitive tendering aspects of the package, are already in place, and because in the UK we already have the benefits of vertical separation which avoids discrimination.
I remain concerned about the Commission moving powers from national safety authorities to the European Railway Agency. The Government will need to be convinced that these powers are necessary, given the high level of co-operation already achieved between national safety authorities. We also do not want anything that interferes with the current UK rail structure or adds bureaucracy and costs, or any proposals that are not compatible with our plans for rail reform.
Andrew Percy
I am pleased the Minister is talking about UK passengers. My constituents would be happy just to be able to get on the train to Doncaster. They are not necessarily bothered about being able to get a train to Berlin, so I am reassured by what he is saying. However, having listened to the debate, my knee has started to jerk a little. We seem to be hearing the usual European argument about how all this will be in the interests of the passenger, but is not the risk that this is just another area that we will cede to the European Union? We will be told that it is all about improvements for domestic passengers, and down the line we will find out in short time that we have given away yet another power over another area of domestic policy, which will not be in the interests of passengers.
Mr Burns
I think I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend. As he will know, because he has been listening avidly to my remarks, I have identified a number of areas where we are concerned or where we are seeking to forge a partnership with other members of the European Union to make changes for the better. But the assurance is that we are so far ahead of most of the European Union with our liberalised market that we are seeking to bring others up to our standards and offer the same opportunities as we have of a more liberalised rail service in other EU countries. I do not think it is a case of our being dragged to do something that we do not want to do, because in many areas we are already doing it. We want other people to follow our good example and get the benefit that we have had from a liberalised market with a good franchising process, where more people are using our railways, standards are improving and we are investing in enhancing it.
On that happy note, I conclude by saying that I warmly welcome the opportunity that we have today to debate the document. I will listen with great care to the comments from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and I will be fascinated to see whether she and her hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby to take note of this important document.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
This is an important package of proposals and we must consider their consequences carefully. As the Minister acknowledged when he appeared before the Transport Committee and today, the Government are still considering their position on several matters of detail.
A number of issues need to be looked at in the context of the UK rail industry. Given the recent success of the east coast main line and the collapse of the franchising system, we do not believe that it is necessary to move towards compulsory tendering of all passenger contracts. Within the wider package there are several proposals that we can support in principle, but reassurances are needed on a number of points.
We broadly welcome moves towards standardisation which have the potential to deliver savings to UK companies. Part of that process is the move towards uniform European safety standards, and we need to look closely at how those changes would impact on the UK. We need to look at how the proposals would affect our cross-border links with France. The channel tunnel has not yet fulfilled its potential in either passenger or freight traffic, and the proposals in the package for greater co-operation between infrastructure managers, combined with a single certification authority, may improve services between Britain and the continent. It is therefore right to pursue standardisation which could reduce costs, and it is also important that where countries have chosen to put contracts out to tender, British companies should be able to compete on a level playing field.
Previous packages have done much to remove the cross-border restrictions which hold rail back compared with other modes of transport, although as the Select Committee noted this week, some outstanding issues remain. There is still much to be done and the possibility of single certificates across the EU will be a boon to purchasers and manufacturers, who currently have to obtain approval from individual national regulators. However, there are also concerns, and we must make sure that any final agreement is in the national as well as the European interest.
Crucially, the UK’s recent exemplary safety record must not be put at risk in a rush to achieve uniformity. Since Labour ended the failed Railtrack experiment and tackled the decades of under-investment in our infrastructure, the UK has established one of the best safety records in Europe. Much of the credit must go to the work of the Office of Rail Regulation, which since 2004 has helped to deliver a significant improvement in safety standards. Fatalities on the railways are now at an historic low, but under the fourth railway package the ORR’s safety and certification responsibilities will be transferred to the European Railway Agency. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that safety standards in the UK will not be weakened if the ORR’s responsibilities are transferred to the ERA? What discussions has he held with the Commission on this point? Will he give the House a full report on them today?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is it not fair to say that the British railways system is one of the safest in the world? We are on the right track with health and safety. If the package goes ahead, that could be in doubt.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Since Network Rail took over, overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, safety has improved enormously. That is precisely why I am asking the Government to give us the assurances that we seek.
As the Transport Committee noted, there is a
“lack of clarity about how they”—
the new standards—
“would work in practice.”
Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be a clear and simple division of responsibilities between the ORR and the ERA? What assessment has he made of whether there will have to be an increase in bureaucracy in order to enforce common standards across very different networks? The UK is currently leading Europe on safety, and our high standards must not be levelled down in order to reach a quick agreement.
There is also a difficult balance to strike on competition. Of course, where countries have decided to put routes out to tender, British companies should be able to bid without fear or favour, but the fourth railway package would force competitive tendering on all passenger services. This has already provoked opposition in Europe, and we believe that there are good reasons for opposing it in the UK too. If approved, it could deny the UK the right to maintain a public sector comparator or intervene in cases of market failure, as happened on the east coast. Since 2009, the award-winning not-for-dividend operator has returned £640 million to the taxpayer, so it is worrying to see the Commission base its proposals explicitly on the UK experience.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is making an exceptional case. The Minister talked about competition on the railways. Does my hon. Friend surmise that if a private operator returned £640 million to the Exchequer, the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box to say that it was an exemplary operator that should be encouraged?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Government’s claims—
Lilian Greenwood
I will respond to the previous intervention first.
The Government’s claims about the east coast main line’s performance have been blown out of the water by the Office of Rail Regulation’s recent financial report. East Coast has seen rising passenger satisfaction and been given a national award. It receives virtually no subsidy and makes the second highest contribution to the Treasury. The Government’s case for re-privatisation just does not stack up.
Mr Burns
The hon. Lady might want to reassure her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that the west coast main line has paid back even more money to the Treasury. In the light of what she has just said, perhaps she would like to explain her view of the comments of her right hon. and noble Friend Lord Adonis and her right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the east coast main line going back to franchising and out of public ownership.
Lilian Greenwood
The west coast main line, of course, enjoys the advantage of having had a major infrastructure and rolling stock upgrade, all funded by the taxpayer, and the east coast main line is due to have a large investment in infrastructure and rolling stock, also paid for by the taxpayer. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on the comments Lord Adonis made in last year’s “Rebuilding Rail” report. Some years after taking the east coast main line back into a not-for-dividend operator, he acknowledged that the current arrangements hold back our state operator.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that when the Government seek to put the east coast main line out for a new franchise, as they inevitably will, she will hold the Minister to account to ensure that whatever premium is paid by the new private operator will be at least the same as that which we are now receiving from the state-owned company, because anything less will surely be absolutely unacceptable to the taxpayer?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, it is not just about the premium payments. At the moment, because the east coast main line is run by a not-for-dividend operator, not only is it making the premium payments to the Treasury, but the £40 million surplus has not been shared with private shareholders; every single penny has been reinvested in improving services. I think that is what UK taxpayers and passengers want.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has just said, will my hon. Friend hold the Minister to account so that the Government ensure not only that the franchise delivers more to the Treasury than the Directly Operated Railways are currently delivering, but that the franchise can afford to do so, because we remember the National Express fiasco?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has said exactly what needs to be said on the matter.
The European Commission’s case for extending competition in that way can be found in a recently published non-paper, or document for discussion, on the UK railways. Actually, the term “non-paper” covers it rather well. It implies that privatisation was responsible for improving safety, but in fact the infrastructure sell-off had the opposite effect and subsequent investment in safety was taxpayer-funded. It also claims that privatisation itself was responsible for increasing passenger numbers, but other countries that did not fragment their systems also experienced comparable levels of passenger growth, as the Transport Committee acknowledged this week.
Most remarkably, the non-paper suggests that privatisation has reduced subsidy. At the time, we were promised a more efficient railway, but subsidy rocketed. As the Office of Rail Regulation’s financial report last week confirmed, in 2011-12 train operating companies received more public funding than they paid back. They were paid £51 million more than they gave back in premium payments, while the Government paid almost £4 billion towards the cost of infrastructure.
Mr Anderson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the subsidy has gone up by 300% since privatisation and, on top of that, fares have gone up by 22% in real terms, so the public are paying for the costs of privatisation? The really perverse thing is that a lot of the subsidy from British taxpayers and fare payers is actually going to the German, Dutch and French national Governments, because they own more than half the railways in this country.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why the Opposition have been prepared to look at reforming the railways.
In total, the train operating companies were left with £305 million before tax at a time when, as my hon. Friend has just said, some fares and season tickets have been allowed to rise by well above the rate of inflation. Those are the headline figures but, as the McNulty report, the Transport Committee and many others have pointed out, there is a basic lack of transparency in railway finances, as commercial confidentiality serves to obscure waste in the system.
The waste is huge. The McNulty report identified an efficiency gap of 40%, compared with the railways of four other European countries. The fragmentation of the industry has led to massive interface costs between Network Rail, the operating companies and the supply chain. Taxpayers and fare payers are supporting replica bureaucracies and unnecessary legal challenges. That money could be better invested in the industry. The great railway sell-off was a botched, rushed job. Labour took action to reverse some of the most damaging legacies of privatisation, including the disaster that was Railtrack, but the Railways Act 1993 was hurried through Parliament for political reasons, creating inefficiencies that are still with us today.
Mr Cash
With regard to the interesting dialogue between the question of Europeanisation, nationalisation and privatisation, does the hon. Lady agree that the consequences of adopting a positive policy towards the underlying desire to Europeanise the system of railways are alien to what I assume to be the interests of the trade unions, whether in this country or elsewhere, because Europeanisation and the bureaucracy she has just referred to will ensure that it is inefficient?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but my concern is to protect the interests of passengers and taxpayers. That prompts the reasons for our response to the Government’s proposals today.
Rather than reading the Commission’s non-paper, Members could watch the accompanying video—I wonder how much taxpayers’ money was spent producing it—which is very amusing. They could be forgiven for thinking that there is no real dispute at all, but buried in the impact assessment for compulsory tendering is the giveaway sentence:
“There is a certain degree of uncertainty in the assessment of impacts of some options, as evidence is sometimes fairly recent (e.g. competition in the market) or ambiguous (evidence provided only by specific stakeholders). The choice to move forward with the aforementioned combination remains thus a political choice.”
There we have it. The decision to impose one particular model on European states is a political choice, just as the Government’s decision to re-privatise the east coast main line was ideologically driven.
Lilian Greenwood
I will make a little progress.
Countries should be free to choose the models that best suit national and local needs. We had just such a need in 2009, after two franchisees walked away from the east coast main line. As a not-for-dividend operator, East Coast has gone from strength to strength. Overall passenger satisfaction has risen and the operator has won a national award for how it manages disruptions to services, with a 12% improvement in satisfaction ratings in the past year. It has provided a public sector comparator at a time when the Government’s franchising policy has collapsed, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £55 million. By the end of this year, it will have returned £800 million to the taxpayer and invested profits in the service.
The not-for-dividend east coast main line is working, and with a five-year business plan in place the operator could deliver more, if it had the Government’s backing. However, by prioritising the privatisation of the east coast main line, the Government seem to be saying that the service works in practice, but not in theory. We need to proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and build on success stories such as the east coast main line, Merseyrail and London Overground.
I am sure that the Minister will have listened closely to Transport for London’s concerns about the fourth railway package, particularly the definition of a competent authority. Interpreted literally, the definition of an authority that serves
“the transport needs of an urban agglomeration or a rural district”
could force TfL to divest itself of some services at a time when it is looking to take on additional responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister could offer reassurances on this issue, which may impact on other bodies, including the proposed rail in the north executive. The devolution agenda must not be put at risk by these proposals.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend will be aware of the current consultation on changing the rail network in London by extending the London Overground network to take in some of the suburban services run by other agencies. I am unclear about the effect that this European proposal will have on that. London Overground, after all, is one of the most popular and successful rail networks in the country and its expansion would certainly be welcomed by many people in London.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend, and that is the precise concern that I am raising on behalf of TfL. As he says, London Overground is a successful operation and we would not want to see this package stand in the way of TfL continuing to develop services for the benefit of passengers and taxpayers.
There are a number of concerns, therefore, about a number of points in the fourth railway package. We need to reach a deal that works for the British railway industry—a deal that removes the uncertainty over safety and devolution, while allowing us the option of replicating the success of the east coast main line, which should not be re-privatised, as the Government plan. The fourth railway package is not there yet, and that is why we cannot support this motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. My word, there are more speakers than expected. I am going to have to introduce a limit of five minutes and it may even have to go down. The opening speech lasted 33 minutes, so that has affected the debate a little. I call Iain Stewart.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I will first pick up on the fascinating comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I wonder whether we are witnessing the embryonic development of a Labour policy of whole-scale renationalisation of train operators. I have only five minutes, so I cannot pursue that much further. I imagine that the proposal finds a lot of favour with the hon. Lady’s Back-Bench colleagues and, indeed, trade union sponsors, but that is a matter for another day.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is ideologically bizarre, in that they seem to oppose public ownership of the railways by British people or the British Government, but have no objection at all to public ownership of British railways by foreign Governments?
Iain Stewart
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to some of the proposals in the EU package that I think will help British operators to expand into Europe, if they so wish.
I broadly welcome the package of measures. It takes Europe in a direction that we have already taken, so its broad thrust will not have a dramatic effect on rail operators in this country.
I want to pick up on a few specific concerns. There is an issue about how the rest of Europe will respond and I am concerned about how effective the European Union will be in implementing the package in other countries. The Transport Committee’s evidence sessions made it clear that it will be very difficult to apply the package to all EU member states, because of the different sizes and structures of their respective railway systems. Past experience shows that the proposals are so opaque in practice that national Governments can implement them as they wish so as to protect their own national operators. I asked Brian Simpson, the Labour MEP who chairs the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee, whether there was lobbying from France and Germany to protect their national interests. He replied: “You bet there was.” I am, therefore, concerned about how the proposals will be implemented in Europe.
The Committee has recommended—I think this would help—that the maximum limit for the bundling together of rail network services should be one fifth instead of one third. On the evolution of services in Germany, while urban and regional services are diversifying, allowing different operators to enter the market, the entire inter-city network, with only two exceptions, is operated by Deutsche Bahn. Therefore, a contract covering one third of the national network would allow Deutsche Bahn a near monopoly of the inter-city services, which goes against the principle of the directive. I hope that in his discussions with colleagues in Europe, the Minister will pursue an upper limit of one fifth of the market, rather than one third.
The Minister has already referred to one of my domestic concerns, namely that the package should not prohibit the alliance between Network Rail and some of the train operating companies, particularly South West Trains. I believe that that is an effective way forward for the railways and I hope that the Minister will be able to get some clarification on it and protection for those British interests.
I am also concerned about international services. For obvious reasons, the impact on British railways has not been significant thus far, but High Speed 2 and its connection to High Speed 1 and the tunnel will lead to many more international services from this country. I do not want our interests to be inhibited by problems relating to track access or safety, which is what happened when Eurostar tried to buy Siemens trains for the tunnel. The existing regulations are not as effective as they could be. I hope we can get much greater clarity and certainty on both those areas, in order to allow the development of effective cross-border services from this country. The Minister has said that he is looking at whether the issue can be dealt with through a European-wide arrangement or through greater collaboration between national agencies. I do not have a particular preference, but the overall objective should be to give operators greater certainty so that they can plan services.
I am running out of time, so I will conclude by saying that I broadly support the thrust of the package, but hope that the Government will be successful in getting the assurances and clarifications needed to protect our interests.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by apologising that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate, because I have to lead a transport debate in Westminster Hall that starts at 1.30 pm. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss some of the findings of the Transport Committee’s inquiry into the European fourth railway package.
The Commission justifies its proposals by talking about “stagnation or decline” in European railways. Of course, there is no such thing in this country. Our railways are enjoying an unprecedented period of growth. It is highly debatable whether that growth is due to privatisation or the growth in our GDP over the same period. It is worth recognising that there has also been major expansion in Germany and France, where major national rail operators run the rail services. It is therefore not justified to say automatically that our success in increasing passenger numbers is due to privatisation.
The Select Committee raises a number of concerns about the package, one of which relates to the proposal to separate infrastructure management and service operation. That thread runs through the whole package. It is ironic that against the background of our success, the Government are trying to bring the operators and the infrastructure holders closer together. That is being done in a number of ways, including through the development of partnerships between the national rail network and the transport operators and through what is prescribed in the new rail franchises. It is important that the European package does not prevent the working together that this country is trying to develop.
It is also important that that division does not apply to light rail services, where management of the services and ownership of the network are combined, as in the case of the docklands light railway. Those services are extremely successful and they must not be jeopardised.
Before the package was published, it was thought that it would require the complete separation of infrastructure ownership and service operation, but that is not the case. The package says that there can still be a holding company, as there is in some other European countries, that owns both the network and the train operation. However, it says that there must be strict Chinese walls to separate the two.
A major concern of the Committee is that the regulations on how much of the rail service of any one country an organisation can hold will restrict the opportunities for UK companies to bid for overseas business in the way that the European companies that run large sectors of our rail industry have done here.
In the short amount of time left, I would like to mention the omissions that the Committee is concerned about. There is a need to encourage cross-border services for both freight and passengers. Track access charges are an extremely important issue. We were told repeatedly that high access charges are impeding the development of cross-border services. There seems to be no recognition of that in the Commission’s package. Border control is another area that requires attention, but to which no attention was paid in the Commission’s rail package.
Those are the Committee’s key concerns with regard to the expansion of our rail services. We made other points too, but I have only had a limited time in which to speak. We are also concerned about the omissions. I listened to the Minister’s comments at the beginning of the debate. I am confident that he will take our points forward and I hope he will ensure that they are considered fully in the discussions in Europe before the package is finalised.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
First, I am glad that the Minister ruled out the connection between HS2 and this Europeanisation of the railway packages.
The European Scrutiny Committee asked for a three-hour debate on this matter. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman took up the best part of an hour, so we are down to five-minute speeches, but I will do my best.
What we need in our railway system is interaction, not integration. Obviously, we have to have compatible gauges because there has to be interaction between our country and the continent. I am very much in favour of trading and political co-operation in Europe, but I object to the Europeanisation of the railways on the one hand and their nationalisation on the other. That analogy, which was given by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), is very apt because there is no difference between the two.
The intention of the package is to create a single railway market and to reduce the barriers that are hindering the development of a single EU railway area. That has all the elements of centralisation and the creation of a monopoly in legislative terms. The effect will be to centralise power and reduce the extraordinary necessity for competition, on which the Minister put so much emphasis. Of course, we all want competition. We need the kind of competition that was created, albeit some time ago, in the mid—19th century. My family founded the London to Brighton railway and the Leeds to Thirsk railway, among others. In fact, my ancestor, William Cash, was chairman of the committee of inquiry into George Hudson, the crooked MP who created the monopoly of the railway system. There was a special inquiry into his behaviour and he was eventually driven out. I believe that Europe is probably moving towards the kind of monopoly that had to be unravelled in the United Kingdom.
I am deeply concerned about competition in relation to contracts. We remember the Bombardier fiasco, which affected British jobs. The French and Germans are very good at getting into our systems, but we are not allowed into theirs. We saw what happened with Siemens and Alstom. I have some knowledge of how that worked in practice, being a former Member for Stafford, but we do not have time to go into the details. The reality is that these matters affect British jobs. I remember discussing all this with Arnold Weinstock, who was so much in favour of the great venture of Europeanising GEC. I said, “Get the message: you will find that it doesn’t work in the way that you are hoping.” At the end of his life, he had a word with me and said, “You were right after all.” He had found that the system was very unfair and that other countries exploited it. We must have regard to our own national interests.
I am extremely worried about the direction of the railway package. I will go further and say that the Labour party should be worried as well. I would be interested to know what Mr Bob Crow thinks about it. Perhaps we will hear about that in a minute. Although I do not favour trade union control or nationalisation, I do believe in our national interest. Despite the fact that this is only a communication as yet, we know the direction in which it is going and I am not happy about it. The Labour party is doing the wrong thing because it is allowing this to happen. Although it is voting against it today, it will not really resist it for practical purposes. I am afraid that the Government are going to allow a system that will create a centralised monopoly in Europe.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and the chair of the ASLEF group, so in a sense I have an interest in the railways.
The core intention of the fourth railway package is simply to visit the mistakes made in Britain on the rest of the EU. Railway privatisation in the UK is a laboratory experiment that was designed in the EU. It has been an expensive failure which continental Governments would be foolish to imitate. Separating trains from track and privatising train companies to set up liberalised and allegedly competitive rail operations has been massively expensive to taxpayers and passengers. We have the highest fares in Europe and we know all about the taxpayer subsidies. Sir Roy McNulty’s report clearly demonstrated that in concluding that UK railways were up to 40% more expensive to operate than state-owned and integrated railways on the continent.
Some five years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Germany with the Rail Freight Group, and we met Dr Mehdorn, chairman of the German state railways, Deutsche Bahn. He was visibly angry and banged the table with his fist at the prospect of DB being privatised, especially on the “British model,” as he called it, of separating track from trains. The fourth railway package brings that outcome closer. Separating track from train operators has been a serious mistake, and significantly in the UK we have been making moves in the opposite direction towards vertical integration. The fourth railway package will force continental railways to go in the opposite direction and disintegrate—a big mistake.
On the same visit to Germany I met a British transport economist who had been a supporter of the UK privatisation model—a computer model—which apparently told him that such a system would reduce costs and produce efficiency. It had the opposite effect, as McNulty clearly demonstrated. My economist chum confessed to me—rather feebly—that his computer model had failed. I suggested that the logical answer was to renationalise and reintegrate Britain’s railways, to which he had no answer.
Why on earth is the EU pressing ahead with this package? It must simply be ideology, dogma, and serving the interests of those who make money out of privatisation. Incredibly, as we have heard, more than 50% of UK franchises are now operated, or part operated, by European state railways. When English, Welsh and Scottish Railway was taken over by DB Schenker I said, “You’ve been nationalised.” It said, “No we haven’t,” and I said, “Yes. You’ve been nationalised and taken over by the German Government.” It had been a private company in this country.
Are UK railways simply being exploited for profit to the advantage of continental Governments and their taxpayers? The same is happening in the energy sector with companies such as EDF. What nonsense is that? What happens if the fourth package proceeds? It is time to junk this model of railway operations, stop the fourth package, and return to sensible, integrated, publicly owned railways, especially in the UK.
There are, of course, good reasons for international co-operation to promote cross-border travel, but that can be done most easily by nationalised railways negotiating at international and national level. We do not need fragmented private companies trying to do that. As we know, rail travel is growing—I have been a commuter on Thameslink and its predecessors for 40 or 45 years—but it is growing in spite of privatisation, not because of it, and essentially because travelling to work on the roads is becoming more and more difficult. With the growth of the economy, particularly in London, more and more people are commuting.
Railways are wonderful things and the mode of the future, but they need state involvement and state running to make them work properly on behalf of us all, and to make them more efficient. We want to cut railway costs, and the way to do that is to bring them back into public ownership.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The fourth railway package is the latest effort by the European Commission to reform a European rail sector still dominated by state-owned railway businesses that control both tracks and trains. Most national domestic markets in Europe are largely closed—other than the UK, only Sweden has opened its rail markets. Because the UK already has an open market, it is unlikely that infrastructure separation proposals will have a significant impact in this country. However, the package offers new opportunities for UK operators to enter other European markets with the same ease that European operators have found when trying to enter the UK market. I understand that the package would not affect metro and light rail operations. That makes sense, and I hope the Minister will confirm that today.
I would like to raise a couple of concerns. First, the Commission is proposing to remove the existing exemption that allows the direct award of contracts that do not exceed 10 years. I believe that the 10-year period could be reduced, but there must still be a shorter exemption period to allow for the occasional need to extend rail public service contracts or combine them in a different manner. Even with our competitive tendering arrangements, the Government used that exemption following the cancellation of the competition for the inter-city west coast franchises. Furthermore, temporary arrangements for the east coast main line service, which has operated in the public sector since 2009, would no longer be allowed. We need an exemption that allows for temporary operation backed by the public sector.
My second concern is the proposal to centralise powers that currently rest with national safety authorities with the European Railway Agency, as that seems to conflict with the subsidiarity principle. The move from a two-certificate system to the issuing of one safety certificate makes sense, as do proposals to standardise administrative measures across all European Union agencies. I do not, however, see the need to shift responsibility for issuing those safety certificates from national safety agencies to the European Railway Agency—NSAs will be far better able to appreciate circumstances in their own countries than the ERA. I hope that those issues can be satisfactorily resolved, and I support the Government’s aims as laid down in the motion.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Before I begin my brief comments—I will keep them brief as we are running out of time—may I say I find it astonishing that over the past three years when the Government have sought to blame somebody for their appallingly failed financial and economic policy, they have blamed the previous Labour Government and not their own policies, yet when they want to take credit for investment in the railways that must have been made at least three years ago under the previous Government, they take credit for that? Such things cannot be done that quickly.
I have a couple of brief points that relate, believe it or not, to the east coast. I have used the east coast main line for the past 16 years to come to London and return to my Leeds North East constituency, and we have seen many changes during that period. Great North Eastern Railway operated that line as a private company extremely well, and led the field. Unfortunately, however, its parent company went into liquidation and the franchise was taken over by the disastrous National Express experiment. When that failed, it had to hand the franchise back to the Government because it could not keep up with the payments it had promised—that is why I made my earlier intervention. I hope the Minister will ensure that if the line is franchised, the franchisee can afford to pay the money it promised.
Since Directly Operated Railways has been running the east coast, it has been a superb service and I thank its staff and management for running that service so efficiently, excellently and profitably. We have heard time and again this afternoon that £640 million has been returned to the Treasury over three years, and it is estimated there will be at least another £160 million in the current financial year. Contrary to what the Minister said, my understanding is that Virgin Rail has returned just £200 million net to the Treasury in 15 years. How does it make sense to say that it will be more profitable and better for the public sector and the Treasury to return the east coast line to private hands for private profit to be paid out to shareholders? Will that improve the service? I would say no. It seems ideological and defies common sense.
Last year I believe that the Government, through Network Rail, gave £172 million to rail operators to compensate passengers for delayed or cancelled trains. East Coast trains paid £6.6 million of that, not because it was the worst performer but because it was the most honest. The average paid by the other companies was just £400,000. What have they done with that money? Why has that money not been paid back, and why have people not been encouraged to claim in the honest and decent way practised by East Coast? My final question to the Minister—I do not suppose he will have much time to respond—is will he please think again about refranchising the east coast line? If it is not broken, do not try and repair it.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
There is actually something slightly surreal about this debate. So often in this Chamber we hear diatribes from Government Members about how Europe is trying to tell us what to do and interfering in how we do things. We now seem to have a situation in which the Government and many—although not quite all—Back Benchers who have spoken, seem to be happy for us to impose on countries in Europe our view of how railways should be run.
I raised this issue earlier today and perhaps the Minister will answer this time. It seems slightly odd that the McNulty report—which has been mentioned particularly by Conservative Back-Benchers—said that the cost of running the railways seems to be much higher in Britain than in European countries that have a higher degree of state rail operations. If that is the case, why do we suggest that our system is so much better?
In any event, why does Europe have to impose a one-size-fits-all proposal? Why not allow national Governments to have the choice? We are not necessarily arguing that countries must choose to run all their railways publicly. Apart from anything else, a comparator is extremely useful. In politics, we do not often get a chance to see different ways of doing things at the same time, in similar economic circumstances. A comparator allows us to say that one thing works and that another does not.
The five years since East Coast was set up by Directly Operated Railways to run the service have been helpful in that regard. We have learned a considerable amount. The Minister is fond of telling us, as he has today, what Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said five years ago, but we must learn from what happens. The Secretary of State said earlier today that we must base our decisions on evidence. We now have evidence. In the light of the evidence, it is right to say that we perhaps want to do things in a different way. That is not unreasonable, especially for a Government who have turned semi-circles and circles and done U-turns in a shorter time than five years—they turned on the pasty tax and the caravan tax within months. It is reasonable, after five years, to say that any EU country should be able to choose to have directly operated services. They might want both directly operated services as well as franchises. Why not have both?
East Coast is making an important contribution to our environmental ambitions by making the service more attractive, particularly to people in Scotland, who have the alternative of flying—they are not a captive market. East Coast has made the service more attractive by extending services. It has an early morning service—a fast runner—and an evening service that enables people to get back after a late meeting. It offers a service to business customers and those who are able to take advantage of the first class service. Because of that, they might say, “I’m going to take the train rather than fly.” That is very important environmentally.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When we have such debates, it is important that we consult the people who run the railway system. I therefore refer hon. Members to the evidence provided to the Select Committee on Transport by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. When privatisation came about, RMT submitted evidence to the House and made it clear publicly that privatisation would result in a risk to safety. Eventually, Southall, Paddington and Potters Bar happened. I attended the funeral of the driver who died at Southall—he was an ASLEF member and my constituent. I remember the warnings that were given. As a result of privatisation, people such as that driver sacrificed their lives.
This time, RMT is saying clearly that the proposals, if they go ahead, will compromise safety. RMT is saying that the system is fragmented and complicated with numerous interfaces, and that the measure will simply introduce another tier of bureaucracy for it to deal with. Its view is that safety should be dealt with at national level and local level, where there is local knowledge. Yes, interfaces in Europe should be dealt with internationally by agreements within Europe, but safety should rest as a national competence. In that way, we can achieve safety on the basis of the knowledge of those who operate the system.
The second point made by RMT is on infrastructure. It clearly says that there is a move—the measure is a further step—towards a single European infrastructure manager. The House has debated High Speed 2. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that key decisions on infrastructure should be retained at national level. Of course, we need integrated decision making when we go across national boundaries, but basic infrastructure decisions should be based on local knowledge and the representation of local interests, and particularly local constituency interests. The measure will take us beyond that.
RMT’s third point is that rail is effectively a money laundering exercise. This is not petty nationalism, but we see an incremental nationalisation of our railway system by Deutsche Bahn and others. The taxpayer subsidy poured into the system is laundered into investment in those companies’ own countries. Why do I say that? Let me quote the German Transport Ministry. It said:
“We’re skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn and ensuring that it is anchored in our budget—that way we can make sure it is invested in the rail network here”.
The laundering of the British pound into German euros is a deep irony, and it is happening as a result of the UK Government’s proposals to support elements in the package.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend says that we should have a referendum, but we will come back to that in due course.
The objection is about democracy. The measure will fetter the hands of a future Labour Government, who will be unable to renationalise the railway network or keep some element of it in public ownership. That is what the measure is about, and why Government Members support it. They want to ensure that no Labour Government can at any time in future bring rail back into public ownership.
A number of us prefer public ownership and have made the arguments time and again. Public ownership is more efficient, more effective and more cost-effective. If hon. Members disagree with that, I suggest they read a succession of Transport Committee reports from the past few years. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House. Whatever they think about rail nationalisation, they should not allow Europe to fetter the hands of a British Government on such a major issue. This is about democracy, and about ensuring that, when we go into the next election, we have the right to implement what is in our party manifestos. If the measure progresses, it will fetter the hands of future Governments, and therefore undermine British democracy when it comes to deciding the future of our transport system.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I should like to make a few points in the very few moments left to me. As a member of the RMT group, I commend its important evidence to the Transport Committee.
The Minister can never miss an opportunity to have a go at British Rail—[Interruption.] There is no need for him to intervene yet. He should recall a couple of things. British Rail ran the system from 1948 until privatisation in the 1990s. During that time, there was a great deal of electrification, innovative engineering and scientific research. At the same time, the system was grossly underfunded. British Rail was always denied the funds it needed for infrastructure investment—it was always short of what it needed.
We privatised the railway system, and now spend more on subsidising train operating companies, which make considerable profits out of the system. We are spending more on the system so that we do not control it. Fares are among the highest in Europe, and we have the most expensive and diverse railway system.
I agree with the Minister that, for example, Virgin Trains runs a very good service on the west coast main line. I have travelled on Virgin trains and all the services at various times. The service is very good. I pay tribute to those who work on the trains and run the system—they do it very well with great difficulty. However, the Minister should not run away with the idea that Virgin Trains or any other company has done well because of its investment in the system. Who paid for the west coast electrification? We did. Who is paying for the electrification of the western region? We are.
The system is that we pump public money in for private companies to cream off very large profits. I am a strong supporter of the principle of the railway system and what it can achieve. Railways are the thing of the future. They are efficient and more environmentally sustainable than road traffic. The construction of railways has much less environmental impact. I understand the complaints about the route HS2 will take and the impact it will have in various places. I urge those who are concerned, next time they go on the west coast main line, to look at the section of the line that runs parallel to the M1 just south of Rugby. They should look at the land space taken up by the railways, and the number of people and freight travelling on that section of track, and compare it with the environmental impact of the M1, and of the widening of the M1 or any other motorway. The argument for railways is overwhelming.
The document is not a short, easy read, and these are just some of the papers associated with this subject, which is a proposal for the privatisation of the whole railway system across Europe. We do not need that. As many colleagues have said, integration can work within the existing framework. Yes, we need common safety standards. Yes, we need trains running directly from Spain bringing agricultural produce to this country, just as we need trains running directly from Russia and many other countries. That can all be achieved. Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating its services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either.
What we have is the worst of all worlds. The public are expected to pay for infrastructure and Network Rail has massive debts because of its investment in the system. I do not complain—
Banks and Banking
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move,
That the draft Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 26 March, be approved.
The draft order makes changes to the cash ratio deposits scheme, which is how the Bank of England funds its monetary policy and financial stability functions, which in turn benefit sterling deposit takers. Under the Bank of England Act 1998, banks and building societies of a certain size are required to place a proportion of their eligible deposits in a non-interest-bearing account in the Bank of England, which then invests these deposits in interest-bearing assets—specifically gilts—and the return it makes funds its monetary policy and financial stability functions, which benefit the whole of the banking sector, as well as the wider public.
The Government continue to believe that the cash ratio deposit scheme is the right way to fund the Bank’s important policy work. The operation of the scheme means that the Bank’s income is subject to two drivers: first, the gilt rate, and secondly the size of deposits eligible for the scheme, which is largely driven by the performance of the banking sector as a whole. Over the last five-year period, both these drivers have been lower than expected, which has caused a shortfall in the Bank’s funding. The Government are seeking to address this shortfall by recalibrating the parameters of the cash ratio deposit scheme to current economic conditions.More specifically, the order increases the proportion of deposits that eligible financial institutions are required to deposit at the Bank from 0.11% to 0.18% and increases the total amount of deposits that they have to hold to be eligible for the scheme from £500 million to £600 million. Alongside the Bank’s efficiency savings, these changes aim to ensure that its income covers the costs of its policy functions over the next five-year period.
The Bank is also playing its own part. It is committed to bearing down on costs. In particular, it will seek efficiency savings by establishing a shared corporate services model with the Prudential Regulation Authority. The Bank’s budget for the next five-year period takes these savings into account. The Bank also has opportunities to make further efficiency savings. These potential savings have not yet been incorporated into the Bank’s budget, so are likely to reduce the Bank’s running costs even further over the next five-year period. The Treasury will review the Bank’s progress in achieving these savings once the shared corporate services model with the PRA has been established. As part of the review, the Treasury will consider whether there are implications for the Bank’s funding requirements, and in turn for the cash ratio scheme.
Alongside that, and to ensure that the Bank’s important monetary policy and financial stability work continue to be fully funded, the Government have consulted on the changes to the parameters of the cash ratio scheme. It is these changes that are before us today. They are expected to increase the Bank’s income over the next five years to ensure that it is more closely aligned to the Bank’s costs. The amount that most institutions are required to deposit at the Bank under the scheme is small. In December 2012, 86% of deposits were made by just 20 institutions, with eight each contributing more than £50 million. The large majority of contributions are clearly from larger banks and building societies. Under the new parameters, some financial institutions will need to hold higher deposits with the Bank, but again it will be the larger banks and building societies that are most affected. In fact, 14 smaller institutions—mostly building societies—will be removed from the scheme altogether.
The Bank of England Act 1998 sets out that the cash ratio deposit rate can be changed only once every six months. The deadline for changing the rate for the next six months is 3 June 2013. If the agreement is not implemented by this date, the shortfall in the Bank of England’s funding will continue, which will be a further detriment to the dividend that the Bank pays to the Exchequer. The change is a sensible one that ensures that the Bank’s important monetary and financial stability functions are fully funded. The Bank of England is playing its part by making efficiencies in its operating costs, and this change ensures that banks and building societies that benefit from the Bank’s policy functions play their part. For that reason, I commend the measure to the House.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this issue on the Floor of the House. The last review—I believe they take place roughly every five years—was in 2008, as part of the changes introduced by the 1998 reforms. We feel that this is a reasonable way of funding the Bank’s policy work, and requiring clearing banks to deposit a proportion of their sterling deposits with the Bank of England to then allow the reinvestment of those, yielding returns of—I am told—roughly around £130 million to pay for administrative and research overheads, seems sensible. As those investment returns have underperformed, what was a Bank of England surplus in 2008 became a deficit recently, and we understand the need to revisit this. We understand the need for the Bank of England to cover its costs; after all, it is not as if it can manufacture money out of thin air. Oh no—actually it can manufacture money out of thin air, but that is another story.
There are two principal issues on which I would like to focus, the first of which is that the order raises the question about the Bank of England’s running costs generally and whether its budget is necessary and justified. The Minister helpfully talked about some of its plans in terms of efficiency savings. It is regrettable that the Bank’s forecasts for economic growth have gone somewhat awry, and they have not necessarily improved in recent years. No doubt the Bank will account for itself on quite why things have gone wrong. Before the financial crisis, the Monetary Policy Committee on average underestimated growth by 0.5%; since the crisis, the Committee has started to overestimate growth by 2%. Obviously, this difficult situation has led to criticisms from David Blanchflower and others, most specifically about the calibre of the forecasting arrangements.
We have also seen problems with the Bank’s development of new approaches to encourage lending to small businesses by the mainstream banks. That has required several iterations, which have not necessarily been successful. There are also the difficulties that the Bank has had in meeting its inflation target, with the Governor having to write to the Chancellor on nine occasions since 2010 because of the missed targets. We know that the Bank of England will have significantly higher costs and that the new Governor of the Bank will have a much larger remuneration package than is currently the case.
The order raises a second question about the impact on the economy if the banks are required to deposit extra sums with the Bank of England, which is why I have a couple of specific questions that I hope the Minister will address. What is the total of sequestered deposits at present, and what would it be under the new 0.18 ratio? Is it roughly £3 billion at present, going up to about £4.5 billion? If an extra billion is sequestered by the Bank of England, what will be the impact on bank balance sheets? I think he said that building societies were likely to be exempt from this measure, but I would be grateful if he clarified that. He will understand that we are concerned about the impact that this might have on the bank levy, which is calculated on bank balance sheet liabilities. If there are changes to balance sheet arrangements as a result of this measure, will that have an impact on Exchequer revenue?
Lastly, is there any anxiety about removing flexibility from mainstream banks that might otherwise have chosen to support lending to businesses, which these sequestered deposits might inhibit? We understand the need for the change, and this has been a useful opportunity to take stock, but we also seek assurances about any impact that these changes might have on banks and building societies and the wider economy.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the order. He asked some good questions, which I will attempt to answer.
First, he referred to the use of the increased revenue by the Bank of England and to increasing costs of the Bank. There are three main points. First, the Bank is playing its part in making efficiencies by sharing corporate services with the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is a demonstration that the Government expect the Bank not just to ask for more revenue to cover its costs but to try to find better ways of generating value for money.
Secondly, in real terms—even after this change—the budget of the Bank of England will be around the same as what it was in 2000-01, so it has not seen a large increase in spending when compared with many Government Departments. The Bank is taking on new responsibilities and its functions have changed over the last decade or so. It is trying to accomplish all that with a budget, through the cash deposit ratio scheme, similar in real terms to what it was in 2000-01.
Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Bank of England’s responsibilities have changed, especially since the financial crisis. The Bank has had to run numerous schemes and to do a lot more work in terms of financial stability, including new schemes such as the funding for lending scheme and others. I hope that he recognises—I think he does—that the Bank of England needs to cover the costs of these additional schemes.
In terms of the deposits that are affected, we estimate—this is an estimate from December 2012; the estimates will be updated, and I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not easy to have the exact number—that about 86% of all sterling deposits in the UK are eligible. That is made up of about 20 institutions, eight of which contribute more than £50 million; the largest banks, naturally, make the biggest contribution.
The hon. Gentleman talked about some institutions being exempt; it was not quite that. As we have raised the bar—the eligibility requirement in the order—from £500 million to £600 million, some smaller deposit-making institutions will now be excluded from the scheme. Rather than being exempt, they are, technically, excluded from the scheme if their deposits are less than £600 million. My understanding is that almost all those 14 smaller institutions are smaller local building societies, which I think is welcome, as it reduces a cost—albeit a small one —for smaller institutions that support local communities.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had made any assessment of the economic impact. The Treasury has not done so specifically, because even once the change is taken into account, our view is that there would be a negligible impact as the Bank will not receive a significant increase in revenue from these operations. As he will know, many of the banks concerned would in any case have deposits with the Bank of England beyond the scheme, as part of their capital reserves, so there is no reason to think that the change would make a big difference to their reserve management programmes or would therefore necessarily have an impact on their lending programmes.
With that, I hope I have satisfactorily responded to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I again welcome his support for the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Notices of Questions
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move,
That, in respect of Questions to the Secretary of State for Wales for oral answer on Wednesday 15 May in the next Session of Parliament, paragraph (5)(a) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments) shall apply with the substitution of three days for four days.
Regular participants in oral questions to the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that the deadline for submitting questions and for their printing and circulation is normally Tuesday for questions on Wednesday of the following week. This recognises Standing Order No. 22 (5)(a), which specifies at least four days, excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday, between circulation of questions and their subsequent answering where they relate to the territorial Departments and the Attorney-General. The motion before the House is necessary, given the imminent Prorogation, and replaces the normal Standing Order requirement of four days with three days, thereby providing for questions to be circulated on the first day that Parliament returns, Wednesday 8 May, for answering the following Wednesday, 15 May. I commend the motion to the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I will not detain the House for very long—obviously we are approaching the Prorogation. We very much welcome the spirit in which the Government have sensibly approached this issue, but as we are proroguing this afternoon, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm that, given the breaking news on Leveson, the Government will set out their response at the first opportunity when we come back after the Gracious Speech.
Petitions
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I present a petition on behalf of more than 250 residents in Feltham who have signed this or the original petition on similar lines to express their concerns about school uniform supply regulations. I particularly acknowledge the efforts of Mr David Howell MBE and Mrs Rani Kalsi in the campaign.
As someone who grew up in a shop that sold school uniforms, among other clothing and crafts, I know that buying a school uniform is a big milestone for a child joining a new school. However, residents have told me about the stress it can cause, particularly with more than one child at different schools, and especially for those without access to a car to travel distances of even two to three miles to buy a school uniform. Residents have talked about the benefit of being able to buy from local suppliers in the community who know the schools and local families. The petition seeks to encourage opportunities for local enterprises to become suppliers of local school uniforms to school specifications, through an open tendering process.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make amendments to school uniform supply regulations to allow opportunities for local enterprise suppliers.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Feltham and Heston,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that Central Government should amend regulations in regard to school academy’s powers to make decisions on appointing school uniform suppliers without formally opening tendering opportunities to local enterprise suppliers and believe that the London Borough of Hounslow should formally join this application for amendment.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make amendments to school uniform supply regulations to allow opportunities for local enterprise suppliers.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001174]
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I, like many of my constituents, vehemently oppose the proposal for a biomass and anaerobic digester facility to be built in Huntington.
The petition states:
The Petition of a resident in the UK,
Declares that the Petitioner objects to planning permission for a renewable energy facility on Cocksparrow Lane, Huntington, which has the potential to devalue surrounding properties and businesses; further that a renewable energy facility could cause problems like smell pollution and noise pollution and could cause increased traffic congestion in the area; further notes that this could cause increased risk to Littleton Primary School foot traffic, due to increased large vehicular traffic, and could have a negative effect on local business and trade, be detrimental for local wildlife and become an eyesore within the local natural green belt.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that their objections to this planning application are noted by Staffordshire County Council.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P001175]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, Mr Speaker will order the Division bells to be sounded. For the convenience of the House, it is anticipated that this will be shortly before 3.15 pm.
message to attend the lords commissioners
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Justice and Security Act 2013
Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013
Succession to the Crown Act 2013
Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Act 2013
Crime and Courts Act 2013
Marine Navigation Act 2013
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
Public Service Pensions Act 2013
Defamation Act 2013
Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013
Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I have further to acquaint the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty’s Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
The Speech was as follows:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.
My Ministers' first priority has been to reduce the deficit and restore economic stability. In pursuance of this aim legislation has been enacted to establish a new framework for financial regulation in the United Kingdom.
Legislation has been passed to encourage long term growth and to simplify regulation. Provision has been made for a Green Investment Bank and to reform employment tribunals.
Legislation has been enacted to create a growth incentive for councils by enabling them to retain income from business rates and to provide a framework for the local administration of support for council tax.
My Government has increased support to business and is expanding or opening diplomatic missions where commercial opportunities are greatest.
My Government has promoted investment in infrastructure. Legislation was enacted to authorise expenditure for a scheme to provide financial support for key infrastructure projects, as was legislation aimed at promoting economic growth and encouraging new infrastructure projects.
Legislation was passed to modernise the regulatory framework for civil aviation in the United Kingdom and to charge large heavy goods vehicles using the road network. For operators registered in the United Kingdom, the new charge will be offset by reductions to Vehicle Excise Duty.
Measures have been passed to establish an independent adjudicator to ensure supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers.
In recognition of the valuable work carried out by charitable organisations, legislation was passed to reduce burdens on charities, enabling them to claim additional payments on small donations.
With regard to the justice system, legislation was enacted to establish the National Crime Agency to tackle serious organised crime and to strengthen border security. Measures were also enacted to reform the courts to increase efficiency, transparency and judicial diversity.
My Government attaches the highest importance to ensuring the security of the nation and upholding the rule of law. Measures have been passed to strengthen oversight of the security and intelligence agencies. This legislation included provision to allow courts, through the limited use of closed proceedings, to hear a greater range of evidence in national security cases.
Legislation was also enacted to protect freedom of speech and reform the law of defamation to ensure that a fairer balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation.
Reform of the public services continues to be a priority for my Ministers. Legislation has been enacted to reform public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the independent commission on this matter.
My Government worked in co-operation with their counterparts in the 15 other Commonwealth Realms and legislation has been passed in the United Kingdom to reform the rules governing the succession to the Crown.
Legislation was also enacted to introduce individual registration of electors and improve the administration of elections.
In this Session of Parliament, my Ministers have also endeavoured to publish draft legislation in order that it may be scrutinised by Parliament prior to the formal legislative process.
My Ministers have continued to work to foster a strong working relationship with the devolved administrations.
My Government has promoted global security, supporting efforts to achieve a political solution in Syria; helping French and African forces in Mali; and promoting Afghan peace and reconciliation efforts.
Several measures have been passed in relation to the European Union, including legislation relating to the financial stability mechanism within the euro area and on the accession of Croatia to the European Union.
My Government has given a commitment to invest nought point seven per cent of national income on official development assistance.
In the year of the Diamond Jubilee we were pleased to attend celebrations in all parts of the United Kingdom. I was touched by the great kindness shown in this country and throughout the Commonwealth. The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased that members of the Royal Family were able to mark the Jubilee year by undertaking a series of visits to many Commonwealth countries and British Overseas Territories where they were welcomed so warmly.
The Duke of Edinburgh and I were delighted to greet so many visiting Heads of State and Government during the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in London.
We were also glad to welcome His Highness the Emir of Kuwait and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Indonesia on their visits to the United Kingdom.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provisions which you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
Prorogation
Mr Speaker
The Commission was also for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
“My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
By virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the eighth day of this May to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the eighth day of May.”
End of the Second Session (opened on 18 May 2010) of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Sixty-Second Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
Petitions
Police cuts (Humberside)
Wind Farm (Wingate, County Durham)
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Plug-in Vehicles
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to introduce these two debates on reports by the Select Committee on Transport. The first is “Plug–in vehicles, plugged in policy?”, which we published last September. It focuses on Government policy to promote the take-up of electric vehicles, and I will concentrate on that issue in my remarks.
It is important to begin by putting the issue in its wider context. The UK has a target to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 34% below the 1990 level by 2020 and 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. Carbon emissions from cars account for about 15% of total emissions, so reducing emissions from cars is essential to meeting those targets. The Government are correct to be considering ways to decarbonise road transport. Carbon emissions from road transport have fallen in recent years. The use of biofuels—
Mrs Ellman
Carbon emissions from road transport have fallen in recent years. The use of biofuels and the development of hybrid vehicles, which use electricity generated from braking as well as conventional fuel, have helped to deliver that decrease. However, the economic downturn has been a more significant factor in keeping road traffic down. Carbon emissions may well rise again when the economy begins to recover. There is much more work to be done to make road transport more sustainable. As 65% of emissions come from exhaust pipes, reducing carbon emissions from fuel is essential, and there are a number of ways to do that: lighter cars use less fuel; engine performance can be improved to use conventional fuel more sparingly; biofuels are becoming increasingly common; and new technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, are on the horizon. In addition to hybrid vehicles, various types of electric vehicle can be plugged into the electricity network.
To achieve the required reductions in carbon emissions by 2050, a significant shift from conventional fuel to very low or zero-carbon fuel is necessary. The Government have already said that they hope to achieve that and want UK industry to lead the way in manufacturing the necessary new technologies. The Department for Transport has said it would like its policy on reducing carbon emissions from cars to be technology-neutral
“to create the incentives for industry to develop the technologies that reduce emissions, work for consumers and make economic sense”.
Its main focus has been on starting a market for plug-in vehicles. The Government predict that by 2015 we should expect to see
“tens of thousands of plug-in vehicles on the roads in the UK”
and perhaps hundreds of thousands by 2020, if not sooner. They have chosen to back them, because plug-in vehicles are now a commercial technology and other technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, are still at the development stage.
The most eye-catching aspect of Government policy to promote plug-in vehicles is the plug-in car grant, which offers up to 25% off a vehicle’s price up to a maximum of £5,000, with a similar grant available for van buyers. Applications for the grant are increasing, but at September 2012 only 2,629 cars eligible for the grant had been registered—a fraction of 1% of total car registrations. The £30 million budget for plug-in vehicles for 2011-12 was significantly underspent. It would take a leap of faith to imagine that the number of plug-in vehicles will reach “tens of thousands” in just two years.
The Transport Committee heard that a lack of consumer awareness about the availability of the plug-in car grant, as well as concerns about the performance and range of the vehicles, has held back demand. The Department told us that it was gathering information about how people use plug-in vehicles and how they perceive them, which it said would help to make the case for plug-in vehicles “even more compelling”. It also pointed to specific initiatives to promote the vehicles, such as helping to draft a guide to electric vehicles. Those initiatives are not enough to meet our recommendation for the Government to promote public understanding of the infrastructure and support available. Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are doing enough to publicise plug-in vehicles?
The Committee’s report draws attention to some unexpected changes in the tax treatment of plug-in vehicles in the 2012 Budget, including the unanticipated removal of some financial incentives. Motor manufacturers were universally critical of the changes, because they make plug-in vehicles less attractive to purchase for commercial car fleets and because they reduce confidence in what was described as a “fragile, fledgling market”. The Department told us simply that
“tax issues are a matter for the Treasury”.
It would seem that either the Department and the Treasury did not discuss the issue before the Budget or the Department was ignored. There was a better outcome from this year’s Budget, with an announcement of tax changes to take effect in 2015. I hope that that signals a major change and that tax policy will support transport policy on plug-in vehicles in the future.
Most plug-in vehicles sold so far have been bought for fleets. Fleet purchasers are less likely than ordinary motorists to be put off by the up-front cost of a plug-in car, which can still be in excess of £20,000, even when the plug-in car grant is taken into account. The Government have certainly taken some steps to promote such cars to fleet purchasers, but a glance at the website of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles shows that most of its emphasis has been on promoting the cars to the domestic purchaser. Only relatively affluent motorists are likely to be able to afford a plug-in car. The Committee spoke to researchers from Coventry university, who warned of the risk that the grants could subsidise second cars for affluent households, noting that people who had driven plug-in cars saw them as a “support vehicle” rather than a main car.
The recent report from the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that Government fleet purchases, on which £400 million a year is spent, are likely to be a more productive way forward. Does the Minister acknowledge that there is more potential demand for plug-in vehicles from commercial fleets than from ordinary motorists? Does he agree that the Government could do more to promote sales to fleet purchasers? For example, what has been done so far to persuade local authorities or even Government Departments to switch to plug-in vehicles?
The Government have said that they hope that the grant will stimulate domestic demand for plug-in vehicles. Indeed, the IPPR sees car manufacturing as a potential major benefit to the economy. If manufacturers can be tempted into the market, the price of the vehicles should fall, further encouraging demand. There are concerns that manufacturers are not convinced that the market for plug-in vehicles will rapidly expand. I note that the recent report from the Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring Ltd also mentions that point. Nissan had suggested it would build 50,000 of its plug-in car—the Leaf—each year at Sunderland, but it has been reported recently that production volumes will be much lower. Will the Minister comment on manufacturers’ confidence in the plug-in vehicles market?
The Government are closely involved with the provision of infrastructure for charging plug-in vehicles. The Committee looked in some detail at the plugged-in places scheme, which has come to an end. The scheme encouraged the installation of charge points in eight places in the UK. Some plugged-in places were very successful; at the time of our report, 640 charge points had been installed in London and 399 in north-east England. In Manchester however, also a plugged-in place, no charge points had been installed. Can the Minister explain how the plugged-in places scheme has been evaluated and what lessons have been learnt from the less successful areas?
The Committee identified a number of issues with charge points: first, there is no national network; and secondly, the vast majority of charge points installed charge over a period of several hours. Charge points that can recharge a car in minutes are much more expensive and, as a result, less common. It would take considerable planning and a number of days to drive a plug-in vehicle from London to Newcastle, and that inevitably has an impact on the purchaser. Each plugged-in place developed its own payment scheme for charging cars, further complicating long-distance travel. There are also different types of infrastructure around the country. The quick-charge points use a Japanese protocol, which is incompatible with German cars. The Government told us they would look to the market to resolve the problems.
We also found that the national charge point register does not include details of all the charge points installed by the plugged-in places scheme. We were told that the Government remained
“committed to the idea of a single repository of comprehensive national chargepoint data”
that was available to all, but it is not clear what they are doing to achieve that aim, which is fundamental to consumer confidence. Will the Minister agree to ensure that the national charge point register includes all charge points whose installation has involved public expenditure? Will he do more to promote the register, to help to convince people that a national recharging network exists?
As a successor to plugged-in places, the Government recently announced that local authorities in England will receive £11 million over two years to fund on-street charging for residents and to install charge points on major roads. The Local Government Association has commented that the money will be spread thinly across 152 highways authorities. It will also mostly fund the cheaper slow-charge points, especially as the Government will cover only up to 75% of the cost. Can the Minister tell us how popular the new fund is proving to be?
If the Government are serious about promoting plug-in vehicles—and I think they are—they could do more to create a genuinely national network of quick-charge points on motorways and main roads, perhaps by paying for the infrastructure themselves. Will the Minister consider that? I understand that an application is being made for EU funding for 74 quick-charge points on strategic roads. Will the Minister support that initiative?
There are a number of other issues to consider. First, can the electricity network cope if there is a significant increase in demand for plug-in vehicles? Is it worthwhile promoting plug-in vehicles if the electricity they use is mostly generated by fossil fuels? Will an increase in the number of quiet plug-in vehicles make our roads less safe because pedestrians and cyclists cannot hear them approach? Can the UK become a world leader in the production of plug-in vehicles and their components?
In conclusion, the Committee broadly supports the Government’s aim of kick-starting a market for plug-in vehicles, to help to achieve carbon reduction targets and to support a fledgling domestic industry. In some ways, however, the actions have not been strong enough, although I am sure that the intent is strong. For example, we have ample numbers of slow-charge points in some parts of the country but none in others, and there are far too few quick-charge points to provide for plug-in vehicles to travel long distances. The Government could take further action in that area. We have also questioned whether it is appropriate to focus the plug-in car grant on the domestic market, when persuading the public sector to convert its vehicles from conventional fuel to electric would be more cost-effective.
I commend the Government on their actions in trying to kick-start a market, but policy on supporting ultra-low emission vehicles in general, and the plugged-in car scheme in particular, should be strengthened. I look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I called for a debate on ultra-low emission vehicles on 10 May 2011, and we had an interesting hour-and-a-half Westminster Hall debate at that time—to which the Minister who is here today replied—so it is good to be back here discussing this really important issue, to see what progress has been made, and to encourage the Government to keep on going in the direction in which they have started out.
There are four powerful reasons why the issue is tremendously important. The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), has already mentioned the first: the need to tackle climate change. If we are to have green electricity, ultra-low emission vehicles and electric cars in particular have a significant role to play in addressing climate change. Secondly, the economic potential is huge. Having the new apprentices, the young men and women who will have to learn to build the cars, service them and keep them on the road, and maintain the infrastructure and spread it out, gives the possibility of hundreds of thousands of extra jobs for our constituents across the country.
Thirdly, producing our own green electricity helps us deal with energy security, which is a big issue that this country faces. Lastly, and probably the reason that our constituents would most support, is the genuine potential for lowering the cost of motoring. We must recognise that owning a car and putting diesel or petrol in it is becoming a rich woman or man’s game. I am distinctly uneasy about that because for many people a car is a means to earn a living, take their children to school and get to hospitals and doctors, because public transport is not always available as and when they want it. This issue matters enormously.
We have made a good start and, to be fair to the Opposition, I think that a good start was made under the previous Government. I am reassured by the commitment I have seen from the Department for Transport, from this Minister, from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and also from the Treasury, given what we heard in this year’s Budget. I think that we have cross-party consensus, which is good because we are talking about something that requires long-term investment, and the people who will be putting the money in need to know that, whatever happens with the future government of our country, both sides of the House share a commitment to take the matter forward.
Nevertheless, I ask the Minister: are we being ambitious enough for Britain? If we look back through our economic history, there are many instances when things have been invented and created in this country and then the commercial exploitation has gone overseas. There is a worry that that might happen, with other European countries and certainly with the far east. It is quite possible that a country such as China could decide to invest significantly in ultra-low emission vehicles, seeing it as an economic game changer. I want the components, the vehicles and the batteries to be made in this country to a significant degree; I do not just want to be importing them from overseas.
We have heard about production in Sunderland, and I was a little concerned by what the Chair of the Select Committee said about recent reports of slightly lower numbers of the Nissan Leaf being made in the factory there. I have driven the Leaf around my constituency. It is a very nice car. It is a good size—I think that both you and I, Mr Robertson, could get into it, which is reassuring. I want to see many more Leaf cars on our roads. I have also driven the Vauxhall Ampera. It was brought here, to New Palace Yard, and I and several Members who are keen on the subject drove it over Westminster bridge and Lambeth bridge and back to the Palace of Westminster—without crashing it, I am pleased to say. That car drives extremely nicely, too, with very good acceleration. It looks nice on the road; it is a desirable car. We are not talking about antiquated technology or cars for geeks; these are cars that we all, I think, would be proud to have on our driveways.
The USA is investing some $2.4 billion in supporting the next generation of electric vehicles, and in China a company called BYD—which I think stands for “build your dreams”—is investing significantly in new battery technology. Interestingly, or perhaps ominously as far as the UK is concerned, Warren Buffett has apparently taken a 10% stake in the company, so if his past investment record is anything to go by, it will be a great success. Elsewhere around the world, Israel plans to have a transport sector that is completely oil-free by 2020—the Chair of the Select Committee probably takes a particular interest in that—and Denmark is very advanced and intends to move forward significantly in this area.
The hon. Lady mentioned the price of electric vehicles, which is a significant issue because, to be honest, they are not cheap at the moment. She mentioned a figure of £20,000 or so, even after the Government’s generous £5,000 discount. That is a lot of money—I have never spent £20,000 on a car—and of course there is no second-hand market for electric vehicles. I bought the car I currently drive for £6,000 second hand, but people cannot buy a second-hand electric vehicle for that amount of money.
My question to the Minister—if he answers only one of my questions, I would appreciate it if it was this one—is: when does he believe it will become an economically rational decision for a motorist watching the pennies to buy an electric vehicle? I believe that moment will come, because although petrol and diesel prices are now dipping a bit, in the longer term they will sadly go only one way, which is up. There will come a point at which it is economically rational to decide to buy and run an electric car, because it will be cheaper to do so, despite the up-front investment of buying it and the cost of keeping it on the road. When that moment comes, there will be a large change, because hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people will say, “Right, for my next car I want an electric vehicle. I want cheaper, cleaner motoring.” Above all, I want us to be ready for that moment, and not importing foreign components and cars when it comes.
My constituency of South West Bedfordshire had no electric charging points in May 2011. The Minister may remember that I pursued him about that. We were due to have some, but we had a few teething problems getting them. Since our last debate on this subject, I have unveiled electric charging points in Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable in my constituency. To be honest—we must always be as honest as possible in this place—great use has not yet been made of them. I am not surprised about that, because there are still very few electric vehicles on the road. There is a Nissan garage in Dunstable, which will sell more and more Leafs, and Vauxhall is extremely strong in my area, with a factory in neighbouring Luton, and I hope that local Vauxhall showrooms will try to sell the Ampera. I can see that there will be increased usage, and I hope that such electric charging points will be used. We of course need more of them, but some are being rolled out. The Government are doing the right things: there are increasing numbers of them in car parks at visitor attractions and motorway service stations.
Not many people realise that an 80% recharge is possible in about half an hour. People think that going somewhere means that they will have to wait for hours and hours to recharge their car, which will not be worth it. The average family might easily stop at a motorway service station for 20 minutes—by the time they go in, use the facilities, buy a cup of coffee and get everyone back in the car—so being there for only another 10 minutes to get an 80% recharge in order to continue their journey will transform what electric vehicles can do. People will be able to make longer journeys without having inconveniently long pauses.
In conclusion, it is good to have the Minister here, but I just want to hold his feet to the fire, in a sense, by saying that I really think that the issue matters for our country, constituents and economy in respect of climate change. As I have said, we have missed great economic opportunities in the past, so I urge him, after his good start, to keep on pushing the policy very hard. It has support right at the top of Government, as we saw in the recent Budget. The opportunities are huge: people have spoken of a $2 trillion market, and the United Kingdom’s share of that market really matters for the well-being and prosperity of this country. That is why I think that the issue is important and why I am here this afternoon. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson.
It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who gave a very good introduction to the need for the decarbonisation of transport for environmental, energy, security and economic reasons. I will not try to better his explanation, but I have some concerns about how we can best deliver that in the context of electric vehicles. There is certainly a role for an electric vehicle market, but I am not sure that it will evolve in the way that the Government or other parties—there is some consensus across parties—hope, and I trust that hon. Members will bear with me while I set out my rationale for that view.
The first obstacle to the significant extension of electric car ownership is the high cost, as has been mentioned. Even with the generous discount available, the capital sum involved is still large. Currently, a like-for-like comparison between an electric car and a petrol or diesel one is a no-brainer, unless people happen to be wealthy enough to afford the premium. The usual trend is that a new technological product is initially extremely expensive and then, as the technology improves and more people take it up, the price drops. When plasma screen televisions were first introduced, the cost ran into thousands of pounds, but the price has now come right down and they are available for most people to buy.
I am not as certain as my hon. Friend that we will easily reach a tipping point at which the cost of electric vehicles will come down and make them a rational purchase choice for many consumers. My concerns about why we will not get there are largely technical, but are also from the point of view of convenience. At the moment, the range of an electric car is about 100 miles maximum, but that can be significantly reduced by use of the air conditioning, the radio and all the other gadgets that we increasingly take for granted in cars. Apart from in a very domestic market, that is a big inhibitor: people will not have the confidence to buy such a car for regular journeys to other parts of the country for business or holidays. Even half an hour, for an 80% recharge, is a significant addition of time to a business journey. That is one reason why there will be a difficulty—I am not saying that it is impossible—in getting consumer certainty and confidence.
Andrew Selous
I accept what my hon. Friend is saying. He is making some fair points, but does he accept that there might well be significant improvements in battery technology—for example, with the use of graphene—that would transform those issues?
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that we reach that point, but I am not yet convinced that the technology is there to deliver that step change. It may come. I am in no way an expert on these matters, but from all my discussions with manufacturers—the Nissan Leaf was developed at Cranfield, which is close to both our constituencies—I did not get a sense that there would be a radical shift in range immediately. It may come, and I hope it does.
My other concern relates to the domestic consumer and their confidence in running an electric car. Not everyone can plan their daily journeys with great confidence. We might have our regular commute from home to work and back again, and that is within the range of the car, but then we have to pick up kids from sports activities or do an extra shop. We can suddenly add to our daily journey in all sorts of ways. Until we get to the point where the recharging of an electric car is as convenient as going into a petrol station to fill up, in terms of time and availability, we will not get that step change in consumer demand.
We have lots of charging points in Milton Keynes, but drivers can never be certain that those spaces will be free. They could be left stranded if they are not near a plug-in point to be able to recharge their car. If consumer confidence does not improve, I fear that we will not get the sort of demand that will reduce the unit cost of the car. We might be locked into that difficult cycle, which is why I fear that we will not get a huge increase in numbers in privately owned electric cars.
Andrew Selous
I take my hon. Friend’s point about the length of time that it can take to charge a battery, although perhaps not having to shell out £85 might compensate for that in quite some significant way. May I ask him about the technology developed by Better Place, which can literally swap over batteries in less than a minute? At least that is quick and would perhaps answer the issue that my hon. Friend quite properly raises.
Iain Stewart
If that could be delivered, I would be absolutely delighted, but I have not seen any evidence that that is a practical solution. If my hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it. I have outlined what I fear the barriers are; they are not insurmountable but a challenge none the less.
I see a better future for electric cars in the fleet and hire market. My initial thoughts on that came from our Rail 2020 Select Committee inquiry. On a European visit, we met with Dutch state railways, which gave us a presentation on an integrated transport system with smart ticketing technology that involved rail, bus and increasingly hire of electric vehicles in city centres, and it is now heavily promoting that. We have a real opportunity in this country for the development of electric cars. They are not cars that people will personally own, but they could be hired on a very short-term basis for 30 minutes or an hour or for a day or a couple of days. By shifting the responsibility for recharging from the individual driver and user to the fleet company or hire company, we would be able to remove much of the uncertainty, which I fear will prohibit people from purchasing the cars themselves. It would also help in the siting of charging points. Local authorities could work with the hire companies and whoever owns the fleet to strategically position points so that the cars are dealt with in an efficient way. It would also address the fear that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) about the potential overload on the electricity system if the pattern was that people come home from work and plug in their car.
Mr Robertson, you might recall that at about this time last year, you and I attended a conference in Copenhagen with European transport and environment committees. One concern expressed was that the demand from electric cars might be so great that the only way to spread the load would be to introduce price limits and controls to discourage people from charging their vehicles at particular times, which defeats the whole object of the system.
By having more of the recharging done by fleet or hire companies, we would be able to stagger the recharging of cars in a more uniform way and avoid the overload that could potentially happen if the consumer pattern was to start charging at 6.30 in the evening. It would also help with the planning of some of the issues of standardisation that the Select Committee has identified.
A better rate of decarbonisation in privately owned cars will be achieved through the development of hybrid car technology. The body weights of motor vehicles are increasingly coming down: a number of manufacturers that I have talked to have high ambitions of delivering carbon savings by developing not wholly electric cars but hybrid and lighter vehicles. That, I feel, is the biggest potential saving, but there is a role for electric cars as well.
Before the Government commit too much money in going down one route of providing plug-in places and all the other infrastructure, I urge them to take a step back and assess whether there are other ways in which we can more effectively see an increase in electric vehicles.
Finally, let me make one separate point, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside briefly mentioned, and it neatly bridges in to the second debate on road safety. Having very quiet or near silent cars on the roads poses a potential danger for pedestrians, especially for blind and partially sighted people. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is running an effective campaign on that, and wants a noise gadget to be introduced so that electric cars can be heard by visually impaired people.
As part of the Select Committee’s inquiry into disabled access to transport, with Guide Dogs for the Blind I took a bus journey blindfolded. Losing the power of sight is an incredibly scary experience. The purpose of the ride was to investigate audio announcements on buses, but when I was at the side of the road, I became very dependent on hearing cars. If they become so quiet that they cannot be properly heard, it could cause a real danger.
There is perhaps a market in creating different noises for cars. One could buy a little run-about car that sounds like an Aston Martin. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire talked about developing new technologies; I have just suggested one, and as Aston Martin is a very good employer in Milton Keynes, I heartily recommend it. Perhaps we could return to that issue of road safety in the second debate. I urge the Government to consider the matter.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome this crucial debate, because, as we have heard from everyone who has spoken, it is vital that we reduce carbon emissions for the sake of all our futures, and that we accept that plug-in cars have a central role in achieving that goal. The Transport Committee clearly recognises that, and its excellent recent report is an important step forward.
The Government have claimed to be the “greenest ever” on some occasions, but sometimes the facts tell a different story. In 2011, they set out their vision for reducing carbon emissions from cars and vans using technologies other than internal combustion engines. In their Carbon Plan, they said that by 2050 almost every car and van would be an ultra-low emission vehicle. The way forward, we were rightly told, was to encourage demand for plug-in vehicles by providing financial incentives for consumers to buy these cars, and by providing funding for an infrastructure for vehicle charging that was publicly available.
So far, so good, but then there were the initiatives and the Select Committee has examined these. Purchasers can apply for a car grant of 25% of the cost of a plug-in car, up to a ceiling of £5,000, while funding has been provided for the installation of electric charge points in eight pilot areas. However, we have to consider the effect of these initiatives, and whether we are actually on course for that brave new world.
What we see is rather less than a comprehensive plan. Instead, there is a series of piecemeal and—as we have heard from Government Members—cautious actions that are unlikely to create the kind of demand for plug-in vehicles that is necessary if we are to take a major step forward. We are moving forward, but at a snail’s pace.
As the Committee’s report recognises, consumer demand for these vehicles has increased, but it remains relatively low; it is about 1%. Yet by 2015 we are told that the Government expect that we will
“see tens of thousands of plug-in vehicles on the roads in the UK”,
and hundreds of thousands by 2030. Judging by the numbers that we are seeing at the moment, I am not sure that we are actually on track.
The truth is that the grant for the vehicles has not had the effect that it should have had. As we have heard—I think from everybody who has spoken—part of the problem is that plug-in cars are more expensive than petrol or diesel models, and there is evidence to suggest that the grants are being used by affluent families to buy a second car, but those families are still using their petrol or diesel cars on a daily basis.
We need to bring down the cost of electric cars, because I think that we have won the argument that they are cheaper to run and offer the potential for huge savings across their lifetime. However, as we have heard, winning that argument is of little use if the average motorist simply cannot afford the up-front cost of these vehicles. We have heard from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that there are some solutions to this problem, perhaps by looking at the network of hire vehicles.
When Labour were last in power, we provided £2.3 billion of assistance for the automobile industry during the recession, which was aimed at promoting research and development in new low-carbon vehicles. It also included helping companies such as Jaguar Land Rover to access the European Investment Bank’s clean transport facility. We made a commitment to make electric vehicles more easily available to consumers, with work by the then Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, on trial electric vehicles. In addition, £250 million was invested in making electric hybrid vehicles more affordable for consumers, and the Government should be continuing that work.
I will now discuss the infrastructure, because it is absolutely vital that there is a recharging infrastructure that offers the assurance that potential buyers of plug-in cars understandably want that they will be able to recharge their car wherever they are. I understand that people with plug-in cars mostly recharge at home, but without the insurance that it is possible for people to recharge wherever they are, more people will not take up the offer of electric vehicles. People have to be confident that the structure is in place to allow them to make long journeys or take significant diversions without worrying whether they can get back home again.
The coalition agreement committed the Government to developing a national recharging network of publicly available charge points, but there is little evidence that the public actually believe that that network will be created. As the Committee’s report says, the Government appear to have spent £11 million on providing infrastructure that currently benefits only a handful of vehicle owners, while the National Chargepoint Registry does not even show the location of the majority of charge points installed with public funds, which does not instil public confidence. I accept that there has not been full evaluation of the pilot charging schemes in the eight selected areas. However, as a car owner in Wigan, when I see that Manchester has no charge points at all, that does not encourage me to buy a plug-in car to make that journey.
The simple fact is that there just are not enough charging points. It is a real worry that greater progress is not being made, and there are real doubts about whether the Government are treating this issue with the urgency that is required to ensure that even their own claims will be achieved.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Government have done too little to inform the public of what is happening. Dr Berkeley from Coventry university told the Select Committee that
“the Government could do more to stimulate demand, particularly in terms of public awareness and public education”.
Indeed, one of the recommendations of the Committee’s report, which the Government need to consider more seriously, is that the Government must publicise the support and infrastructure that is available. There is no reason why the demand for plug-in vehicles should not take off, but it will do so only if the Government get firmly behind the project.
I accept that this is a bit of a “chicken and egg” problem, up to a point. People will not buy the plug-in cars if they are not sure that the infrastructure is there, and there is a reluctance to provide the infrastructure unless the demand is proven to exist. However, the Government can break that impasse. As the Committee’s report says, the Government should not sit back and hope that increased demand simply manifests itself. The Department for Transport should set milestones to make sure that its plug-in vehicle policy is effective, and it should take the lead in providing data on the location of charge points so that the public can actually see where they can charge their vehicles and can plan their journeys adequately.
In a wider sense, the Government also need to consider whether they are doing enough to help the automobile industry to make the changes. It is really pleasing that Nissan is building its electric car, the Leaf, in Sunderland, but it is disappointing that it has downgraded its estimates of production. We need to encourage Nissan and other companies in every way we can. Is the automobile industry putting sufficient investment into improving the efficiency of conventional petrol and diesel vehicles? Can we encourage it further to invest in British industry? I would like to hear the Minister’s views on those subjects because, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, it is important that Britain’s car industry takes the lead in this sector, so that it becomes revitalised.
We recognised in government that a step change was needed to move away from our dependence on oil, so we embraced and incentivised ultra-low carbon alternatives such as electric vehicles. Of the 20% of our total emissions that originate from our roads, 15% to 16% of them are from cars. If we can make it affordable for more people to use electric vehicles, that has the potential to make a significant impact on emissions. For the most part, the Government are looking in the right direction, but they seem to be in danger of stalling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, on securing this debate and on the way that she presented her case. I will do my best to respond to the points that have been made, but without causing those interested in road safety to be here for a fruitless exercise.
I also thank other Members who have contributed to the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire in particular has been a strong advocate of electric vehicles ever since I have been a Minister and no doubt for a long time before that.
Let me be quite clear that the Government is fully behind the drive towards low-carbon vehicles, both because it is environmentally sensible—in terms of cutting our carbon emissions—and because it represents a significant opportunity for British industry and British jobs to get ahead. I assure all Members that we are focused on that drive. There is close work between the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury. The Chair of the Select Committee rightly referred to the measures taken in the recent Budget, which are a good example of how Departments work together for a common purpose, and send long-term signals that this is where we want to go in terms of our transport objectives. As always, I will say at this point that creating growth and cutting carbon are two sides of the same coin; the commitment that we have made as a Government to the roll-out of electric and low-carbon vehicles is a precise example of that.
We are making significant progress. The 2011 Carbon Plan laid out how the Government intends to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions, and new car emissions are outperforming the progress that was expected. We are on track to meet the 2020 indicator target of 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre. As Members will know, there is also a 2020 target in place for vans, which is 147 grams of CO2 per kilometre. I am reasonably confident that that target will also be met.
Stricter emissions targets are stimulating the shift to ultra-low emission vehicles, as well as improving the performance of standard, traditional or normal—if we can call them “normal”—vehicles. We are determined to create the right conditions and infrastructure for the development of an early market for ULEVs. We have committed £400 million so far in this Parliament to that end. This has resulted in the provision of more than 4,000 charge points nationwide, through the eight plugged-in places, with 70% of those being publicly accessible. I am delighted that the private sector has responded with its own charge points. We are now seeing a huge increase in the numbers available to the public at large.
Andrew Selous
I was surprised to hear the contribution from the Opposition Benches just now about there being no charging points in Manchester, one of our great northern cities. Will the Minister say whether that is because of the Government or because of Manchester, or are there plans to change that?
Norman Baker
That information is incorrect. There are 29 charge points installed to date in Manchester and 58 are to be installed later this year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to put that correction on the record.
As has been mentioned, the plug-in car grant was launched in 2011 and extended to vans in 2012. To the end of March, we have received almost 4,000 claims for these grants. We hear some doom-mongers in the press in particular, and one or two in Parliament, who suggest that this is somehow a terrible result. It is not. A graph can be plotted for any new product, for example, a DVD—or, in the past, video—recorder, showing what happens when a new product is put on the market. There is naturally a slow upturn, leading to a sharp increase. We are perfectly content that the roll-out of electric vehicles is not dissimilar to that of any other innovative product launched in the past.
I agree that we need to do what we can to encourage the market for such vehicles. I agree with the Chair of the Committee that it is important to identify the potential for fleet buyers. We are doing that, not least through our work with the Energy Saving Trust, with which, as Minister, I agree a programme of work each year. One of its clear targets is to encourage the take-up by fleet purchasers of low-carbon vehicles. That is one way in which we will stimulate the market. Doing that will bring down the unit cost and will help, generally, to increase the number of cars that are sold.
Andrew Selous
Some of my constituents work in the Luton van factory, making the excellent, award-winning Vauxhall Vivaro van. I have often spoken to Vauxhall about whether it has any plans to bring in an electric vehicle. Will the Minister update us on what recent conversations he has had with UK commercial vehicle manufacturers about the potential for making electric commercial vehicles here in the UK?
Norman Baker
I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with details about that. We are in regular contact with manufacturers in the country to encourage them to pursue that matter further. In respect of that particular manufacturer, I will exercise my brain cells to find out whether anything comes to me during this part of the debate, to enable him to have a fuller answer.
It was suggested that these are merely second cars for rich people, but that is not so. Some 73% of the so-called second cars have taken up the grant for business use, so business is embracing low-carbon cars. That is the predominant purchasing market at present.
We are in the process of updating the “Making the connection” infrastructure strategy and looking to restate the rationale for policy in this area, and this debate helps, as does the Committee’s thoughtful report. As this strategy develops, I will be limited in what I can say about what it will contain. However, we are aiming to publish it in early summer and hope to be able to provide an in-depth analysis of our programmes to date and use this, and robust evidence from other key stakeholders, to set out a pathway to the mass adoption of ULEVs in the UK.
We are currently talking—we always do; it will not be a surprise—to automotive manufacturers, infrastructure providers and energy providers, because there is an issue about the grid. We are also talking to our colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, trade associations representing the motorcycle sector, other Departments, and so on. That is not an exhaustive list, but I hope it gives hon. Members confidence that we are engaging cross-departmentally and across industry, with all relevant parties, to ensure that we are getting the best possible future for ULEVs.
I think we are getting the policy right. The start of Nissan Leaf production in Sunderland is proof of this. Of course, it is not just that. The BMW 8 engine is to be produced in the UK; the batteries are now being produced, helped by the significant investment in research and development, which the Government has brought forward.
We have the potential to achieve—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire—and we must be ambitious for Britain in this area. We must ensure that we become the focal point for the development of ULEVs. We are on the way to doing that, certainly as far as the European dimension is concerned, by getting in early, with clear direction from Government. Industry has said to the Government that it welcomes the clear, direct steer from us, giving long-term certainty about the direction of travel. To be fair to the Opposition, all three parties have embraced this agenda, giving certainty to industry beyond particular Parliaments. It is important that that stays as it is. We want more auto manufacturers.
Another point about the number of vehicles sold is that there is a limited number of vehicles on the market at the moment. That will change rapidly, with a new range of vehicles coming along shortly, giving far more choice to the consumer and the business user as to which vehicle they purchase for their particular needs. That, as much as anything else, will lead to an upturn in sales.
I will now try to answer questions asked by hon. Members. The national charge point registry was mentioned by the Committee Chair in her opening contribution. It is a requirement under both plugged-in places and the new national grant scheme that all publicly accessible charge points funded by the Government must be registered with the national charge point registry. Good progress has been made in adding data to the NCR. There are currently 3,085 points on the register.
Yvonne Fovargue
Would it be a good idea to inform the people who run the websites of the availability and where the charge points are? When I researched—I presume my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside went to the same website—no charge points were listed in Manchester, apart from one that was a private charge point owned by the Citroën garage.
Norman Baker
I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that. We will certainly look into that, because we want to ensure that as much information is available as possible. We will take that point on board and see whether it is correct. If it is, we will draw it to the attention of those who can help correct it. The information needs to be available to the public at large.
I have mentioned Nissan’s production. The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned local authorities. I hope that she has seen the announcement by the Secretary of State, which was issued subsequent to her Committee’s report being finalised, but which does mention help for local authorities, including an £11 million fund to help install on-street charging for residents who have, or have ordered, a plug-in vehicle but do not have off-street parking. Authorities can apply for 75% of the costs of installing a charge point. That is a pretty generous contribution. It should not be too high, because if it were 100%, people would ask for charge points without any intention of using them. There has to be a buy-in on both sides and 75% is about right for the contribution made.
It was suggested that £11 million would not go far enough. Let us see what the response from local authorities is. If we are overwhelmed by local authorities that respond positively, we will reconsider within the spending envelope for the budget covering this area. However, I think that that is a pretty reasonable start. It goes along with the £13.5 million for home owners—a 75% grant for them, as well—to have a domestic charge point installed, and the £9 million to fund the installation of charge points at railway stations. That is a useful initiative, because it enables people to get to the station in the morning—it encourages them to use the train, by the way, which is also lower carbon—and charge the car during the day. It need not be a rapid charge, either. They can then have confidence that, when they come back in the evening, the car is ready to drive home, fully charged. That is a good initiative and I look forward to train companies taking us up on that generous offer.
We are allocating £3 million to support the installation of charge points on the Government and wider public estate to ensure that we are doing what we can, as a Government, to lead the way on this matter and to send a clear signal that this is right for us and right for the public at large, and all those who would be interested in running vehicles in future. I hope that addresses the point on the public sector raised by the Chair of the Select Committee.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the TEN-T rapid charge bid, which we have supported. She also referred to the impact on the grid, and our view is that, if demand for electricity is properly managed with the use of smart meters and dynamic tariffs, the grid can support a relatively high number of plug-in vehicles without the need to build extra power stations. In fact, electric vehicles may also provide a way to capture and store electricity produced at night from renewable sources such as wind power, so they could actually help the electricity mix. Clearly, those are matters in which DECC is interested, and it is considering them in conjunction with the Department for Transport. As she would expect, Departments are working together on that.
On taxation policy, the hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the recent change introduced by the Chancellor in his Budget, which is a welcome step and gives long-term confidence. In fact, it is a clear example of the Government responding to business: businesses said what they want, and the Government listened and delivered what they asked for. That will give confidence to manufacturers and purchasers of such vehicles in the years ahead.
The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South asked about quiet vehicles. There is an issue with whether visually impaired people are more at risk if they cannot hear particular vehicles. I am advised that, above 20 mph or so, the tyre noise is sufficient for them to identify that a vehicle is moving, but there is an issue with low-speed vehicles. The European Union is debating whether there should be a mandatory requirement for a noise to be added. I am not sure whether my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would appreciate an Aston Martin noise being added to a small vehicle, but there is a decision to be taken on whether adding a noise should be mandatory or simply voluntary. Those discussions are ongoing. There are also ongoing international discussions on whether that should be addressed internationally. Clearly, an international solution would generally be a good thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire correctly identified that, if these electric vehicles are rolled out, they could lower the cost of motoring, as well as making motoring cleaner environmentally. He also asked one question that he said I had to answer, which was on when it will be economically rational to buy an electric vehicle. I am afraid that I do not have a date in mind, and it would be rather foolish of me to give him a date. What I can say is that it depends on a whole range of factors, including the oil price, the take-up of fleet buyers and everything else, but I am quite clear that I share his view. At some point in the not too distant future it will become more sensible economically, apart from anything else, to purchase an electric vehicle rather than a traditional petrol-driven vehicle. I hope those days are not too far away.
I welcome the interesting suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South that cars might be available for hire, which would take away some of the uncertainty that people have, and it may fit in with people’s lifestyles to be able to do that for short journeys in particular circumstances. We are, I think, already working on something similar with car clubs so that they can partner local authorities and train operators in funding such possibilities.
Concern was raised about the possibility of electric vehicles running out and leaving people stranded, which I accept is a genuine concern for consumers. It is worth pointing out that such vehicles have a range of 100 miles, or less if the air conditioning is on, for example. In the UK, 99% of journeys are 100 miles or less, so the chance of someone thrashing their car and running out somewhere is, helpfully, quite remote. As battery technology improves, that will become even less of a risk.
Finally, I hope the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) will forgive me for saying this, but her contributions since being appointed Opposition spokesman have tended to be formed of two things: how the previous Government got everything right, and how all the things we are doing are wrong. Having spent 13 years in opposition, and perhaps having more experience of making such speeches, I would say that sometimes giving the Government credit for what it is doing means that the Government listens more when it is told that it is getting something wrong.
I think I have answered most of the hon. Lady’s points. Lots more cars are coming onto the market. She says that the grant has not had the effect it should have had. Yes, it has, and it will have more effect when we have more cars and more choice for consumers, as we will very shortly. I agree that we need to invest in British industry, which is what we are doing. The Government is on track and has a good record on electric vehicles, which in due course will be good for the economy and the environment.
Mrs Ellman
I am encouraged by the Minister’s response, and I look forward to receiving reports on further progress.
Road Safety
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I will start by setting out the current situation.
The most recent annual report on road casualties was published last year and provides detailed information for 2011. In that year, there were 203,950 reported casualties on the roads of Great Britain. What is notable about the 2011 statistics is that they represent the first annual increase in the number of people killed in road accidents since 2003. The number of fatalities increased by 3% to 1,901. Fatalities increased for car occupants by 6% to 883 and for pedestrians by 12% to 453.
The number of people killed or seriously injured also increased by 2% to 25,023. In particular, those figures increased for cyclists, by 15% to 3,192, and motorcyclists, by 8% to 5,609—those are very sad figures. Despite that increase, our report recognises that the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents still remains lower than in any year since national records began, with the exception of 2010. The 2011 figures, however, represent a worrying departure from the long-term trend of decreasing road casualties, which raises questions about the Government’s road safety strategy. The figures should be a wake-up call for the Government to provide stronger leadership on road safety.
We asked the Government to explain why they think road deaths increased in 2011. The Department for Transport’s response stated that there were a number of factors that may have contributed to the year-on-year increase in road fatalities from 2010 to 2011, particularly given that
“2010 saw the highest ever fall (17 per cent) in a single year.”
The main reason for that change put forward by the Department was that periods of extreme winter weather in 2010 may have reduced the number of road fatalities in that year, as there would have been much less traffic than usual and those motorists who ventured out would have driven more slowly and cautiously. What other reasons does the Minister believe might lie behind that increase?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am pleased that this debate is taking place, and I apologise for not being able to stay for all of it, but it means a great deal to my constituents. The Safer Trafford Streets campaign is bringing together a range of local people and local organisations to campaign for improved road safety. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, in light of the figures that she has just revealed, councils, including Trafford council, are cutting road safety posts? We have lost one of our two local road safety officers as a result of council cuts, which obviously creates a further risk that the figures will decline.
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend points to the importance of local campaigning and the impact of cuts in local government spending on the ability of local authorities to address road safety. I will return to those points. It would also be helpful to know whether the Minister has any provisional information on whether the winter weather earlier this year led to fewer fatalities.
Political leadership is a major factor in road safety. For many, the presence of targets under previous Governments was a sign of that leadership; targets help to focus attention on road safety and to prioritise resources. The current Government, however, have decided to adopt a different approach. When the Government published their strategic framework for road safety in May 2011, they decided against the use of road targets. Instead, they have replaced targets with an action plan and an outcomes framework, consisting of a number of indicators to be measured and a set of casualty forecasts. If the forecasts turn out to be inaccurate, the Department has indicated that it will look at the statistical data and consider its policy options. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on those options.
Localism, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), is a key theme of the Government’s strategic approach to road safety: decentralising power and funding will allow local authorities to be more flexible and innovative in tackling it. Strong leadership and a clearer vision, however, are required from the centre to communicate the importance of road safety to local decision makers and other agencies. We concluded in our inquiry that, under conditions of reduced local authority resources and a loss of skilled road safety personnel, the Government should not sit back and assume that road safety will remain a priority. There remains a responsibility for central Government to do all that they can to keep local authorities, the police, other agencies and indeed the public fully focused on delivering significant and sustained improvements.
Our inquiry found considerable variation among local authorities in their performance on road safety. There were certainly examples of good practice, but there were also cases of local authorities not improving their road safety performance in recent years. The Department indicated that it had plans to name and shame the worst performing local authorities; we asked for further information about how that might be achieved and the possible impact, and we were told that the Department had commissioned a local road safety comparison site to pull together a number of metrics that would allow members of the public to be aware of their local highway authority’s road safety performance. The Government believe that making that information available will help the public, lobby groups and council officers and members to identify where there is room for improvement. On launching the website last month, the Minister explained in a written statement that it will help the public and road safety professionals to compare the road safety performance of local authorities.
I have, however, received a number of expressions of concern about the efficiency of the website. I am told that it does not allow comparison of different authorities in any meaningful way. For example, comparisons using annual data can be misleading due to large fluctuations in some of the information, and a considerable amount of work would need to be done by someone looking for comparative data. In addition, there does not appear to be an opportunity to compare the performance of neighbouring local authorities alongside one another on the screen. Can the Minister tell us how much it cost the Department to get the website up and running and whether he is satisfied that it will work effectively as a comparison tool? Furthermore, how does he intend to use it to improve road safety? Having that information will be extremely helpful.
I will mention a number of areas of particular concern in road safety, the first being the safety of young drivers. It is not a new area of concern, and the Transport Committee has looked at it a number of times; the first report of the Select Committee that I was involved with was completed in July 2007. Today, I welcome the report by PACTS—the parliamentary advisory committee for transport safety—which again draws attention to this important issue. The figures are startling: a fifth of people killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2011 were involved in a collision in which at least one driver was aged between 17 and 24; 148 young drivers died and 412 people were killed in accidents involving young drivers, accounting for 22% of all road deaths; 4,894 people were killed or seriously injured in reported accidents involving young car drivers, including 1,552 young car drivers themselves, 936 passengers of young car drivers and 2,406 other casualties, such as occupants of other vehicles or pedestrians; and 27% of 17 to 19-year-old males are involved in a road collision within the first year of passing their test. Those are shocking statistics, and behind every statistic lies a human tragedy. Improving the safety of young drivers must be a priority and must be addressed urgently.
I was disappointed that the Government did not accept the Committee’s recommendation to initiate an independent review of driver training. Instead, the Department intends a Green Paper on improving safety and reducing risks for young drivers. Is the Department considering measures such as a minimum learning period and is it learning from lessons on the motorways to reduce young driver crashes? When will the Green Paper be published and what are the expected time scales for consultation and implementation? Implementing new policies inevitably takes time, so it would also be helpful to get an update from the Minister on specific action by the Department to improve the safety of young drivers and their passengers. What proposals does he have to encourage work with young people, perhaps before they drive, to change their attitude, which is the all-important issue? We do not want young new drivers, young male drivers in particular, to start driving with an attitude of bravado and without realising that a car can be a lethal weapon. The Government are concerned, but we need some urgency. Furthermore, are the Government looking to support voluntary organisations such as car clubs which can assist in this important area?
Cyclists are particularly vulnerable on the road: in 2011, 3,085 cyclists were killed or seriously injured. During our inquiry, The Times newspaper conducted a major campaign on the issue and gave evidence to the Committee. One criticism made by witnesses during our inquiry was about the lack of leadership from the Government on cycle safety. The Department told us that it had set up a cycling stakeholder forum, which was working on a list of ideas and actions to propose to Ministers. How often has that forum met over the past year and, as a result, what actions are being taken forward by the Department? Information from the Minister on that will be helpful.
I welcome the Government setting up the £40 million cycle safety fund, to improve road layouts in particular. The Government were reacting to concerns expressed, which is commendable, but there is a great deal more to do. Cycle safety could be improved in a number of different ways, including training, fitting heavy goods vehicles with sensors and providing infrastructure. Can the Department consider how to encourage the greater adoption of HGV sensors that might make cyclists more visible to lorry drivers? The Department told us that it was not in a position to support mandatory fitment of proximity sensors in HGVs and that the mandatory introduction of any new vehicle technology would need to be agreed at European Union level, so will the Minister update us on his discussions at EU level and whether there is support for such EU-wide regulations?
Motorcyclists are another vulnerable group; they accounted for 1% of traffic but 19% of deaths on Britain’s roads in 2011; 5,609 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured, with 74% of those accidents involving another vehicle, and 69% of the casualties resulted from accidents at junctions. The Department continues to promote motorcycle road safety through its Think! campaign. The Department said in its response to our report that a review of the motorcycle safety advertising campaign was under way to inform the development of the new campaign plan for 2014. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what lessons were learned from that review and how they have informed the new Think! road safety initiative to encourage motorcyclists to improve their defensive riding skills.
On motorcycle safety, we also sought in our report an update on the changes to the motorcycle test, another area that the Transport Committee has looked at in the past. It has also expressed great concern about the new European motorcycle test. The Department told us that research is being undertaken to evaluate the standard, suitability and safety of the proposed revised motorcycle manoeuvres. We were informed that phase three of the research was due to conclude at the end of last year, and that a full public consultation would follow. Will the Minister update us on that?
Finally, I want to discuss speed limits and their role in making our roads safer. Local authorities have found that 20 mph zones are useful in improving road safety, particularly by reducing pedestrian and cyclist casualties. There is evidence of significant public support for these zones. Indeed, this is another area of policy that is being implemented for which the Transport Committee made strong recommendations when it considered transport safety in the past.
I welcome the fact that the Government have recently updated their guidance to help local councils to implement more consistent speed limits on local roads.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that as a result of Government action it will be significantly cheaper for local authorities to implement 20 mph zones, and that the excuse that local authorities often used for not doing so is now significantly diminished as a result of that action?
Mrs Ellman
I welcome the Government’s measures in this area. One reason for the slow progress in some local authorities in the past was the cost of that and other measures that they had to implement at the same time. I am pleased that the revised guidance incorporates recent changes and that that creates more flexibility for authorities to implement 20 mph limits and zones.
The Government have been less clear about their views on motorway speed limits. During our inquiry, we heard a range of views on the possibility that the Government might raise it to 80 mph. We heard from many witnesses who are worried that the proposals would result in more deaths on the road.
Mr Leech
I supported the Government position on the 20 mph limit, but I certainly do not support the suggestion that motorway speed limits should be raised to 80 mph. When I was a member of the Transport Committee, it was made fairly clear that there was no evidence that additional resources would be given to the police to ensure that they would enforce an 80 mph speed limit. One argument for trialling an 80 mph limit in the first place was that if it were introduced it would somehow be enforced. That will never happen.
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He was a member of the Committee when we conducted our inquiry, and I clearly remember him raising the matter in his questioning. The views that he expressed in the Committee are on the record, as his comments today will be.
We were informed during our inquiry by the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), that a consultation period would begin soon. However, to date there has been no formal consultation on this proposal and there have been rumours in the media that the Government no longer wish to pursue that policy. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s position? I would be grateful if he also told us what work the Department has carried out to assess the impact of trialling this proposal, which was one suggestion. Will he assure us that any decision to increase the speed limit will follow a debate in the House on a votable motion, as the Committee requested?
In conclusion, road safety is a vital issue. Behind every casualty statistic is a human tragedy. Road safety is a matter on which the Government should show more leadership. It is immensely regrettable that 2011 saw the first annual increase in the number of people killed in road accidents since 2003, and that the number of people killed or seriously injured also increased in that period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I am sure the hon. Lady wants to put on the record the fact that, although she is absolutely right that the figures for 2011 are entirely regrettable and unacceptable, the provisional figures for 2012 show a welcome drop back to the trend that we saw before the blip caused by the bad weather in 2011.
Mrs Ellman
I am aware of the provisional figures. We need to see the official figures so that we can analyse them properly and ensure that they are the start of a return to the trend over a number of years of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. I know that the Government are firm in their commitment to bring more safety to our roads and to reduce casualties, and I look forward to hearing more proposals about how they will put their commitment into practice.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I should tell colleagues that I am expecting Parliament to prorogue this afternoon, probably around 3.25 pm, and it might be helpful to have an informal understanding that we will seek to finish the debate by that time. We can continue until prorogation, but when it happens I must immediately call an end to the debate. We should ensure that the Minister has no less than 10 minutes to respond.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady has rightly charged me to respond to a number of points. I have a speech of considerably longer than 10 minutes, but I am happy to try to wind up in five minutes to allow colleagues to speak, given the time scale.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
All hon. Members are aware of the likely time constraint.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I will delay the Chamber for only a few moments. I want to draw attention to the tremendous work of Dr Ruth Brinton, who was deputy principal of Hereford sixth form college, in trying to cut the number of deaths of young people aged 17 and 18. They are more likely to be involved in a road traffic accident if there are more of them in the car than if they are driving alone. To that end, she put together “E-driver”, an interactive video with questions to remind 16-year-olds in particular of their responsibilities as passengers and as new and young drivers. It is an extremely hard-hitting film that was put together free by the police and fire brigade. It is available to every school and I hope—this is my purpose in speaking today—to encourage the Minister to encourage the Department for Education to ensure that 17-year-olds have a chance to see it. It could be adapted to make it more relevant to different counties, but it works extremely well in any area. It reminds young people that texting and doing the things they do when not in a car really is very dangerous, particularly for young drivers. I hope the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that “E-driver” is seen by all 17-year-olds so that we cut the number of deaths of young and vulnerable drivers.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can, Mr Bayley. First, I must declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—an unremunerated trustee, I hasten to add.
I want to raise three broad points. The first is one I mentioned in the previous debate on electric vehicles. The Government need to address the fact that electric vehicles are very quiet, which poses a particular danger to visually impaired people. I was reassured by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), that action is being taken at European level. However, it is important for road safety that the number of casualties does not increase with the number of quieter vehicles.
I also want to focus on the two groups where there is the biggest risk of road safety issues increasing: cyclists and young motorists. There have been a number of debates on cycling in the House. Several technological innovations, such as sensors on lorries, mirrors and the like, will help, but there are two essential components to making cycling safer. One is greater separation of cycle paths and roads, and the other is training. Milton Keynes is a leading example of separation; we have a completely separate cycle network. I appreciate that that would be difficult to retrofit into more traditional towns and cities, but that is the way forward; it is the single biggest thing we could do. On training, the Government need to explore new ways of building into training for drivers and cyclists the need to be more considerate of other road users. Many cyclists and motorists are perfectly considerate, but too many—an aggressive minority—believe they own the road, and that is true on both sides. When that mentality exists, accidents happen. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on how we are improving training.
Finally, on young motorists, a number of initiatives to reduce the risks they face are worthy of consideration, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) mentioned the use of increased technology in cars. Real-time information, a black box recorder or whatever we call want to call it, will also be an exciting way of reducing motor insurance premiums. If a young driver knows someone is watching them, that will encourage better behaviour.
There are other proposals—I will not go through them in detail—about restricting the times young motorists can drive and the number of passengers under a certain age they can have in their car, as well as having a zero alcohol limit for newly qualified drivers. The Government should have a way of evaluating all those options and, indeed, the type of scheme my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) ably mentioned.
There is another suggestion I would put on the table. The Institute of Advanced Motorists is an excellent organisation, but I am not certain the training it makes available for young motorists is that widely known. Perhaps the Government could facilitate a publicity campaign and work with insurance companies so that drivers who had further accreditation could have a discount on their motor insurance premiums. In the interests of time, however, and to give both Front-Bench speakers a decent chance to comment, I will conclude my remarks there.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bayley. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is a member of the Transport Committee. I can be brief, because the Chairman of the Committee has raised most of the points I would have elaborated on, and we obviously want to hear the Minister’s response to her questions.
In the few minutes I have, I would like to thank the Committee for its excellent report. The Government response is also positive, and there is a lot to be taken from it. I also thank the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, Living Streets and the Motor Schools Association for their submissions to me when I was considering the report.
It is important to put on record that the cross-party consensus on road safety was broken by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), when he abolished targets as part of the Government’s approach to road safety. He opposed targets in principle. He used the mantra of the war on the motorist as part of his explanation, but there was never a war on the motorist—there was a war on dangerous and careless driving. None the less, targets went and, as the Committee said in its excellent report, the reduction in the number of deaths over the past 20 years in every industrialised country that uses targets varies
“between 4% and probably about 17%”.
Targets therefore have a proven track record. They were introduced by the Thatcher Administration in the late ’80s, and they had cross-party support for the following 30 years.
There was movement following the arrival of the next Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and there has been movement under the current Secretary of State. The introduction of forecasts, with much more elaboration of how they will be determined, is a positive move. Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about the road safety observatory, which sounds positive. Is there really a difference between targets and forecasts, or is there just a difference in the words? Perhaps he can also tell us about naming and shaming, which has been mentioned. Will it be down to road safety campaigners and local authorities to do that?
On young drivers, we would like to know when the Government’s research and their proposals will be available. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South also asked about graduated learning, and there are some positive suggestions. I am sure there is consensus on that issue. Other issues include young people not being able to get to work in areas where there are no good public transport links. There are issues to be looked at, but the question is, when will the Government come forward with proposals? The question of timing is raised in the Committee’s report. Similarly, on motorcycle safety, we are still waiting for the conclusions from the work started in 2011. The Minister might want to say a little about that.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and the Committee Chair raised the issue of speed limits in transport questions this morning, because there have been mixed messages about motorway speed limits. They were initially going to be tested in 2011. It is now 2013, and there have been statements saying, “No, we’re not going that way.” This morning, however, the Secretary of State said the Government will start trials later this year. That is a very mixed message, and it will not be welcomed by the road safety community. The Minister might like to say something about that and about increasing the use of 20 mph limits in our communities.
Road safety should not be political. I commend the Minister, who made an excellent speech at yesterday’s launch of the report by the all-party group on cycling. He made all the right noises about the campaign by The Times, which the Government are clearly taking seriously. Perhaps he will confirm that they will treat the all-party group’s report like a Select Committee report so that we could have a debate on it. The Committee has also raised the question of votability in relation to the 80 mph trials.
Many of us have lobbied for road safety debating time, and it is a real shame that when we get it, we run up against Prorogation. Mr Bayley, I am sure you can take that message back to the Speaker. A number of us will also approach the Backbench Business Committee to try to get a proper debate in due course.
Road safety should not be political; indeed, it generally is not, and there is consensus on it. I commend the Minister on his determination to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads, because every death is a tragedy for the families and friends of those involved. If six people died every day on trains or in planes, we would have public inquiry after public inquiry. We are killing that number of people on our roads, but the publicity is just not there, and we, as politicians, are not giving the issue as much priority as we should.
Engagement with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and the Treasury is a positive way forward. As I say, I commend the Minister and his officials on their efforts. I also commend the road safety campaign groups. We need to keep driving the numbers down. We have been massively successful over the past 30 years, and much has been done, but, as ever, there is much more to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Bayley. I can only echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). It is always a pleasure to follow him; he has a sensible and pragmatic approach to the present subject and to others in his portfolio. I shall of course probably not be able to deal with all the points that I have been asked about.
I welcome the Select Committee report, and listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). As I have mentioned, I suspect that I shall not, in the relatively short time that will be available to me, cover all her questions or those of the shadow Minister; however, because of that, should they care to write to me, I shall make sure that those questions are answered fully.
The number of fatalities has now returned to a downward trend. There was a 7% decrease in the 12 months to the end of September 2012, in comparison with the previous 12 months. There were 1,770 deaths, and that is the lowest number on record for a 12-month period. However, as I have often said, and as the Opposition have said too—it is not a party political issue—road fatalities are not statistics, but someone’s mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter. Those are real lives, cut short. I accept that the strategic framework does not carry targets, but that does not mean that there is not a clear vision for continuing to avoid complacency and drive down the number of casualties. We will be judged on the actions that we take, and the outcomes.
I want to talk briefly about enforcement. We are creating a new offence of driving with a specified drug in the body, above certain limits, to make it easier to enforce the law against drug-driving. We are consulting on improving the enforcement of the drink-driving laws, and changing the treatment of fixed penalty notices. I expect to make a further announcement about that relatively shortly. We shall make it easier for the police to tackle careless driving, by consulting on making it a fixed penalty notice offence.
I shall use the bulk of my time to talk about young drivers. That continues to be a matter of paramount concern. One fifth of the people killed or seriously injured in collisions on the roads in 2011—those are the most recent absolutely accurate numbers—were aged 17 to 24. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and others, it is not only young drivers whom we need to educate; we should educate young people about the roads before they become drivers. I appreciate, welcome and encourage initiatives by charities and car clubs to start people thinking at 14 about how they should interact safely with the road. We shall put continuing funding into Bikeability for the next two years before the general election.
Our forthcoming young drivers Green Paper will consider a range of innovative proposals for reforming young driver training and thus improving safety. I do not want to prejudge the options or the outcome, but I expect the Green Paper to include temporary restrictions on young drivers after they pass their test; there is a delicate balance between making those drivers safer and not impinging on their freedoms. I expect that it will also include a minimum learning period before candidates are allowed to sit the test; allowing learners to practise some form of motorway driving; and providing incentives for young drivers to continue their training once they have passed their test.
That is one area in which we are working with the insurance industry. We want to consider measures to reduce premiums and improve safety. Research shows that telematics can significantly reduce crash rates and risky driving behaviour. I welcome the increase in the number of insurers using that technology. Improving the safety of young drivers will not only reduce casualty rates, but make insurance more affordable, so that fewer people will commit an offence in that respect.
I should like to say much more about young drivers, but because of time pressure I shall now move on to the THINK! campaigns. Those marketing campaigns continue to play an extraordinarily important role in reminding drivers of key road safety messages. In the autumn, we launched one for drivers and cyclists, reminding them to consider their behaviour towards others. We recently launched a campaign urging drivers to look out for motorcyclists, particularly at those junctions where they have been proved to be vulnerable. That campaign follows coherently from what we set up last autumn.
That is not all, however, and it should not be. The £107 million made available by the Government through 2012 to improve the cycling infrastructure in England includes £35 million for attention to those junctions that we have judged, and local authorities have presented, as the most dangerous for cyclists. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) said, we have made it easier for councils to introduce zones with speed limits of 20 mph. We have also made it simpler for councils to install Trixi mirrors to improve cyclist visibility at junctions.
Improving cycling safety remains a key priority for the whole Government. I was delighted about attending the launch of the all-party group report, yesterday, and about the commitments that were made. My colleague as Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), continues to work with cycling stakeholders on what more can be done. As I pledged yesterday, he and that group will consider the recommendations of the report, and submit a Government response. We intend to treat it like a Select Committee report, as we committed ourselves to do at its hearings.
We are also improving pedestrian safety. The local sustainable transport fund is providing £600 million for projects to support local growth and reduce carbon emissions, but many of the schemes improve aspects of the routes that pedestrians most commonly use, and crossings. There are also schemes to boost safety awareness. We expect any further extension of the fund to include those benefits. We are also updating the THINK! education assets that we provide for use in schools. I expect when the next iteration is launched, it will have much more accessible material.
Last month, we launched the new research portal, the road safety observatory. It gives road safety professionals access to research on a variety of topics. The site is part funded by the Department and a board drawn from various road safety bodies. The observatory will be a live site, updated whenever new research is produced. Such sites help local authorities to assess their own progress, establish where action is needed and identify best practice. The project is not an attempt just to name and shame; it is intended to be positive, so that local authorities will see where best practice has been established, and follow it.
The Department is aware that several local authorities use such sites to look at their performance. We have been pleased with the response so far from road safety bodies, with respect to the value and validity of the research and statistics. We had not yet heard the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, but I will ensure that we keep that matter under review when we are preparing any response. I do not have a list of the costs of establishment or maintenance that she asked for, but I undertake to provide those details to her in a letter.
As to the Green Paper time scale, I should perhaps have said that we intend to consult on the proposals before the summer recess, and hopefully by the end of June. I anticipate a full 12-week consultation. I now seem to have a little longer for my speech than I expected, so I may pick up some more points that were made in the debate.
Stephen Hammond
I am grateful, Mr Bayley.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside asked me how often there are meetings of the cycle safety stakeholder group. It meets four times a year. It met in January and is next due to meet in May. The motorcycle test review was brought up, in particular, by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. There was a delay in the test review research, due to recruiting a number of candidates to ensure that the test had validity, but that difficulty has been overcome. I am expecting to receive the final report of those tests, again, in the month of May, and the Government commit to making a statement further to that.
It is fitting that this debate is taking place only a few days before UN global road safety week. That week’s very existence is a reminder of how tragically common, as the hon. Gentleman so rightly pointed out, road deaths are across the globe, and still are in this country. It is also a reminder of how preventable many of those deaths are and how much we still have to do. We welcome the UN’s launch of a decade for action on road safety, and the Government recognise that in our road safety policies.
We are proud of the country’s road safety record, but far from complacent and determined to improve on it: by training and testing drivers more effectively, particularly young drivers; by raising the awareness of road safety; by legislating in response to changing road conditions; by ensuring that the enforcement agencies and the police have the right ability to enforce the law with regard to drivers and vehicles; and by investing in our roads, particularly concentrating some of that investment on the most dangerous road junctions.
Road safety remains a top priority for the Government. The Transport Committee’s report makes an important contribution to the country’s strategy for road safety. We will continue to consider the Committee’s recommendations, as we look at ways in which lives in this country can by saved by preventing road accidents.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for co-operating to make sure that we could bring the debate to an end.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Royal Mail
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
At the beginning of this new financial year, I would like to report to Parliament on progress made in relation to Royal Mail since the Postal Services Act 2011.
Royal Mail is an essential part of Britain’s social and economic fabric. It is one of the UK’s largest companies with over 150,000 employees and a turnover approaching £9 billion.
Parliament decided, via the Postal Services Act, to give Royal Mail access to private capital in order to secure the universal postal service. Our overarching objective remains to safeguard the one price goes anywhere, six-days-a-week universal service. All the steps we are taking have this commitment at their core.
As recommended in the independent Hooper reviews of 2008 and 2010 and decided by Parliament, we have already relieved Royal Mail of its historic pension deficit and we have established a new regulatory regime. The benefits of this integrated approach are clear. Royal Mail’s results show how its staff and management, together with the Government’s reforms, have put the company on the road to sustainable profitability and long-term viability.
The final step in safeguarding the universal service is to give Royal Mail access to the flexible private capital it needs to innovate and invest. We are strongly committed to a sale of shares in Royal Mail, as Parliament enabled through the Act, and are advancing our preparations rapidly. Our firm intention is to give Royal Mail access to private capital during this financial year through a sale of shares.
We have put in place objectives for the sale which have been published today on the gov.uk website. These objectives set out that we will sustain the universal postal service for the benefit of all users by securing Royal Mail’s future through the introduction of private sector capital and associated disciplines.
This will be achieved through:
i. Delivering a sale of shares in Royal Mail within this Parliament;
ii. Creating an employee share scheme that, as Parliament has decided, will lead to at least 10% of the company in employee ownership, to drive stronger staff engagement; and
iii. Delivering a financial outcome for the taxpayer, which when considered in the context of the overarching policy objective, represents overall value for money.
We are exploring sale options and no final decisions as to the type of sale have been taken. We recognise the attractions of an initial public offering (IPO) and we have received positive investor feedback to date. However, all options remain open. If an IPO is not possible, we will pursue the option of a private sale if this can be achieved on acceptable terms.
A priority for Government is to honour the commitment that Parliament enshrined in statute in 2011 that at least 10% of shares should be reserved for employees so that they can share in the company’s success. We are rapidly progressing plans for an employee share scheme which would be the largest such scheme for 25 years.
I meet regularly with Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union (CWU) to discuss progress on plans for a sale of shares, and I have invited the CWU to give their views as to the structure and terms of the employee share scheme.
The delivery of Parliament’s commitment to private capital and employee shares will be good for employees, consumers and business, and will ensure a better capitalised, more adaptable company, better able to meet its customers’ changing needs.
We will continue to keep Parliament informed of developments as we progress our plans for a sale of shares in Royal Mail.
Payment and Settlement Systems
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
HM Treasury has today published a consultation document setting out its plans to change the way that systemically important payment and settlement systems are dealt with in the event of insolvency.
Under the proposed special administration regime, the administrator would have the overarching objective to maintain the continuity of the insolvent firm’s critical services, thereby ensuring that the failure of such a company would not threaten the stability of the wider financial sector.
The Government are determined to ensure that no firm, of whatever type, threatens financial stability in the event of failure. Today’s consultation is just the latest step in the Government’s efforts to learn the lessons of the past and to create a safer financial system for the future.
Copies of the consultation document have been deposited in the House Libraries.
Loans to Ireland
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to Irish loans as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 October 2012 to 31 March 2013.
A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report on the loan to Ireland was laid in Parliament on 15 October 2012, Official Report, column 1WS.
Local Audit
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I am today laying before Parliament the “Government’s response to the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the Draft Local Audit Bill Committee” (Cm 8566).
The Draft Local Audit Bill Committee published its report, “Draft Local Audit Bill: Pre-legislative Scrutiny” (HC 696), on 17 January 2013. We are grateful to the Committee for their deliberations and thank them for their report.
We have given the Committee’s report careful consideration in relation to the draft Bill and the proposed new local audit framework. We have also taken the opportunity to discuss specific recommendations with the National Audit Office and other partner organisations. This has provided the opportunity to further refine the Bill, making our intentions clearer, improving the drafting and the overall working of the Bill.
We have taken on board a number of the Committee’s proposals: for instance, to provide the Comptroller and Auditor General with powers to issue guidance to support the code of audit practice and increasing the explicit provisions for auditors to recover additional cost incurred through undertaking their functions. All of these proposals will help drive improvements in local audit, aims which were strongly supported by the Committee.
However, we have not taken on some of the Committee’s recommendations. We are not proposing to retain central capacity to procure and appoint auditors on behalf of local bodies as we do not believe that enforcing a centralised structure onto local bodies is efficient or effective. Local public bodies are perfectly capable of procuring and appointing their auditors once the Audit Commission has closed, however the Bill will allow local bodies to jointly procure their auditors, if they so wish.
We expect our reforms to bring significant long-term savings to taxpayers. Those significant savings will be fully quantified and will be published in the impact assessment that will accompany the final Bill. The majority of those savings will be realised by local government, representing meaningful reductions that will assist councils to manage their budgets during this challenging period, while ensuring that the same high audit standards are maintained to safeguard public money.
It remains our intention to introduce the final Bill as soon as parliamentary time permits. Subject to the timing of legislation, we intend to close the Audit Commission by April 2015.
Copies of the Government’s response are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The report is also available on www.gov.uk. the United Kingdom public sector information website.
Defence Matériel Strategy
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
For decades, there has been an acknowledgement that defence acquisition in this country can, and should, be done better. Despite almost countless reviews and reorganisations, successive Governments have failed to embed the radical changes necessary to provide our armed forces with the equipment they need in the most effective and efficient way possible.
In 2011, my predecessor established the materiel strategy programme to consider what changes would be required to the defence equipment and support organisation (DE&S) to resolve this problem.
In July last year, I announced to the House that, after a rigorous examination of all the possible options open to us, our preferred model for the future operation of DE&S was a Government-owned, contractor-operated entity, a “GOCO”. Since then, we have conducted more analysis that has confirmed our thinking in this regard, and today I am pleased to be able to announce the next steps in taking this work forward.
This final assessment phase, which we expect to last approximately 12 months, will allow us to make a true comparison between two options. These are a public sector comparator which is known as “DE&S +”; and a GOCO, implemented in two stages.
I would like to put on record my appreciation of the excellent staff at DE&S and the work they do. This programme is about giving them access to the necessary skills, processes and resources to enable them to do their job better, ensuring that the armed forces are provided with battle-winning equipment on time and to budget.
During this assessment phase, we will work with HMT and the Cabinet Office on the “DE&S+” option to explore the extent of change that could be delivered while keeping the organisation fully within the boundaries of the public sector.
In parallel, a commercial competition will be launched that will enable us to determine with potential private partners how a GOCO would work in practice, and what the costs and benefits would be. By the end of the assessment phase, we would expect to have proposals in a form capable of being contracted, if we decide to proceed with the GOCO model.
We have made no secret of our expectation that the GOCO option is likely to prove better value for money, but we need to test this assumption with the market, to see what can be delivered and at what cost. No decisions have yet been made. At the end of this 12 month assessment phase we will have a comprehensive set of qualitative and quantitative data for both possible operating models which will enable us critically to evaluate the two options and make a final decision about the future of DE&S.
I expect to publish a White Paper later in the spring setting out further details of our analysis of the problems in defence acquisition, of the options for potential solutions and the reasoning behind our focus on the GOCO as the preferred solution.
General Affairs/Foreign Affairs/Defence Foreign Affairs Councils
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and I attended the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Luxembourg on 22 April. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence (Dr Murrison), who is responsible for international security strategy, attended the Defence Foreign Affairs Council (Defence FAC) and the European Defence Agency steering board in Luxembourg on 22-23 April. The GAC was chaired by the Irish presidency, namely the Foreign Minister for Ireland, Eamon Gilmore, and the FAC and Defence FAC were chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
Commissioners Reding (justice, fundamental rights and citizenship), Füle (enlargement) and Lewandowski (financial programming and budget) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the GAC, and Commissioners Georgieva (international co-operation, humanitarian aid and crisis response), Oettinger (Energy), Füle (enlargement) and Tajani (industry and entrepreneurship) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the FAC and Defence FAC.
General Affairs Council
The 22 April GAC focused on enlargement, the multiannual financial framework, preparation for the May European Council and EU fundamental values, specifically democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/136915.pdf.
Enlargement reports for Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia
Commissioner Füle presented joint EEAS-Commission reports on Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
Baroness Ashton briefed the GAC on the 19 April agreement between Serbia and Kosovo reached through an EU-facilitated dialogue. Member states welcomed the agreement and praised Baroness Ashton for her positive role.
On Macedonia, Füle noted that implementation had continued on reforms through the high-level accession dialogue and that steps had been taken on good neighbourly relations alongside a new momentum to resolve the name issue.
Multiannual financial framework
The presidency outlined the European Parliament’s demands on the MFF, namely: reform to the system of own resources; a mid-term review that would allow the ceilings levels agreed to be revisited; and flexibility in how the budget can be spent. I emphasised that nothing should undermine the deal that leaders reached in good faith in February. We needed faithful translations of those Council conclusions into the regulations.
There was some discussion of the draft amending budget for 2013 in which the Commission have requested an additional €11.2 billion to meet existing commitments and the European Parliament has linked to agreement on the MFF. I argued with other like-minded colleagues that this was clearly too high and that any amending budget must be based on evidence.
Initiative on democracy, human rights and the rule of law/EU fundamental rights
Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands sent a letter before the GAC asking for a discussion on their initiative for a new mechanism to safeguard fundamental values in member states and a greater role for the European Commission. Commissioner Reding gave an overview of the existing mechanisms for the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law. She undertook to come with a more detailed examination of this issue at the GAC in May.
I welcomed the letter from these member states calling for work on this initiative, acknowledging the challenge of ensuring that the rule of law, democracy and human rights are not eroded once countries join the EU, as many of the levers for delivering in these areas only apply during the accession process. However, there were already existing mechanisms to address these issues, both within the EU and through the Council of Europe and it was important to ensure that these were not duplicated and that member state competence in these areas was not compromised.
May European Council
The presidency gave a presentation on the agenda for the 22 May European Council which will discuss the following: the energy aspects of the single market; tax policy focusing on improving tax collection and tackling tax evasion and fraud; a stocktake on the deepening of economic and monetary union (EMU); and foreign policy issues. The GAC took note of the agenda without discussion.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/136921.pdf.
Energy
Commissioner Oettinger introduced a lunch discussion on energy and foreign policy, drawing out in particular the need for diversification of supply, including pipeline development. The Foreign Secretary noted the potential impact of shale gas on global energy prices, stating that it was important that the EU developed its own shale gas reserves and kept regulation to a minimum. The Foreign Secretary also underlined that energy should form a key part of the EU’s free trade agreements; this would respond to the need for diversification that Commissioner Oettinger had highlighted. Ministers also discussed the importance of the EU developing its southern corridor pipeline.
Introduction
Baroness Ashton began the plenary session of the FAC by briefing on her activities on a range of issues. She started with an update on the Serbia/Kosovo dialogue, reiterating the message given at the GAC. Her efforts were again praised by Ministers. Baroness Ashton then outlined the state of discussions with Iran following the E3+3 (UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, US) talks with Iran in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on 5-6 April, including next steps and the forthcoming presidential election. Baroness Ashton updated the Council on the situation regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The FAC formally adopted a decision on restrictive measures against the DPRK, transposing sanctions under UN Security Council resolution 2094.
Southern neighbourhood
Baroness Ashton set out recent EU activity on Syria, including intensified contacts with Russia; discussions with UN and Arab League Special Representative Brahimi on how to build on the Geneva communique; additional humanitarian support to the opposition, plus amendments to sanctions; and a permanent EU presence in Gazaintep in Turkey to support cross-border projects. At the UK’s behest, working groups were tasked to look at all the options for supporting the opposition, including amendments to the EU arms embargo on Syria. The Council amended the oil embargo against Syria to allow for greater EU support to the Syrian opposition. Once the detail of the exemption and the necessary safeguards have been negotiated, which the UK will ensure are robust, the amendment will allow the EU to support the oil trade in areas free from regime control by supplying equipment and finance to the oil sector as well as purchasing oil directly.
On Lebanon, discussion primarily focused on the effects of the conflict in Syria, including the influx of refugees. Baroness Ashton stated that the EU and the international financial institutions needed to look at how to support the Lebanese Prime Minister designate’s efforts.
Baroness Ashton reported on her recent visit to Egypt, stating that while discussions with President Mursi had been constructive, the situation in Egypt remained fragile. She said that Egypt needed further financial support and to build political stability. The EU was a vital partner for Egypt and did not have the baggage of other international partners. The EU was talking to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank about the support they could provide and had provided advisers to Mursi on the proposed law on non-governmental organisations.
Eastern Partnership
Ministers discussed the Eastern Partnership, looking ahead to November’s summit in Vilnius. The UK made clear that it was open to initialling and signing association or deep and comprehensive free trade agreements, as long as conditionality is met. On Belarus, Ministers welcomed the news that Sweden can re-establish a diplomatic presence in Minsk, and reviewed the scope of travel bans. The Eastern Partnership will be discussed again at the June FAC, focusing on preparations for the July Eastern Partnership ministerial meeting. There will also be an early discussion of the Vilnius summit declaration.
Mali
Ministers adopted formal conclusions on Mali. Baroness Ashton gave an update on the work of the EU training mission, stating that it was now fully operational, although more contributions of equipment were needed. She updated on progress at the UN Security Council on the establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation for Mali. The Malian Government were now preparing for the July elections, with the first round of the presidential elections on 7 July: the EU would provide financial support and an observation mission. Baroness Ashton also noted that the members of the Reconciliation and Dialogue Commission had been appointed and would start work immediately.
Burma
Baroness Ashton outlined the remarkable progress made in Burma over the last 18 months. Significant challenges remained, but the EU was working closely with the Burmese Government and Aung San Suu Kyi to begin a new chapter in relations. To that end, Ministers agreed to lift sanctions, except the arms embargo and restrictions on equipment for internal repression, and adopted conclusions on the future of EU-Burma relations. Baroness Ashton also stated she would launch a taskforce to provide further political and economic support. Commissioner Georgieva welcomed the Burmese Government’s engagement on development assistance and outlined plans to share EU expertise on ethnic integration; provide political and financial support to the Rohingya; and continue to pressure the Government for humanitarian access to Kachin and Rakhine state.
Ministers discussed the importance of keeping human rights central to the EU’s planned comprehensive approach to Burma, and the need to develop a coherent framework for EU engagement with Burma, focusing on human rights and the resolution of ethnic and religious tensions. The UK also highlighted the need for greater international action to resolve the serious humanitarian situation in Rakhine state, and welcomed President Thein Sein’s commitment to renounce military ties with the DPRK.
Other business
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of others measures, including:
The Council approved the EU position for the EU-Algeria Association Committee regarding the implementation of the provisions concerning industrial products set out in the association agreement.
The Council approved preparations for the annual review of EU restrictive measures against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of Guinea-Bissau.
The Council amended EU sanctions in view of the situation in Libya to take account of changes adopted at the UN. It permitted the supply of non-lethal military equipment and technical assistance intended solely for security or disarmament assistance to the Libyan Government. It also allowed the supply of small arms, light weapons and related materiel, for the sole use of UN personnel and development workers.
The Council reinforced restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea so as to implement UN Security Council resolution 2094 (2013).
The Council agreed conclusions on Iraq, expressing concern about recent violence but welcoming the relatively peaceful conduct of provincial elections. The conclusions commit the EU to long-term engagement with Iraq in our priority areas: rule of law and economic growth.
The Council adopted revised EU guidelines on the death penalty, outlining how the EU intends to continue its long-standing campaign against the death penalty.
The Council endorsed the 14th progress report on the implementation of the EU strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition. The report covers activities during the second semester 2012.
The Council amended the legal basis for the European Security and Defence college, allocated funding and approved an increase in seconded staff to the college.
The Council adopted the EU position on the rules of procedure of the economic partnership agreement (EPA) committee, the customs co-operation committee and the joint development committee provided for by the interim EPA with eastern and southern African states.
Defence Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/136921.pdf.
Sahel/EU training mission Mali
Ministers discussed security threats in the Sahel and wider region over dinner, with a focus on the EU training mission (EUTM) to Mali. EUTM commander, General Lecointre, highlighted early successes in training the Malian armed forces but also the considerable challenges of training a severely limited army and officer corps lacking in equipment in only four months. Ministers praised France’s leading role in the response to the crisis but recognised the significant support required to rebuild Mali. The UK flagged the importance of earlier conflict prevention activity upstream demonstrated by the crisis in Mali. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Vershbow made the case for co-ordinated EU/NATO work on capability development.
European Defence Agency steering board
The EDA steering board addressed a number of capability issues, with the UK reiterating its offer regarding unallocated Voyager refuelling hours to help meet a shortfall across European nations’ capabilities. The EDA also reiterated the importance of better EU/NATO working, a key UK argument for a number of years.
December European Council
As part of a wider discussion on preparations for the December European Council Ministers concentrated on the defence industry. The UK and a number of key partners expressed closely aligned views on a number of issues, including competitiveness and access to non-European industry.
Battlegroups
Ministers discussed the EU battlegroup concept, focusing on member states considering adopting a more flexible and usable approach, in line with our intent. The UK highlighted its recent political exercise with its four battlegroup partner nations, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden and the Netherlands, as part of preparations for being on the battlegroup roster from 1 July.
Public Records Update
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
On 5 May 2011, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed Parliament of his intention to release to the public every paper from a large collection of colonial administration files, subject only to legal exemptions, Official Report, column 24WS. We remain on target to release these files by the end of 2013. The fifth tranche will be released at the National Archives (TNA) on 26 April 2013 in line with the published timetable on the www.Gov.uk website.
I also wish to inform the House that, following an initial release in 2005, we are making available a second tranche of files from the Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department (PUSD) on 23 May 2013. These files cover the years 1939-1951. This transfer of PUSD papers to TNA is part of a twin thematic release alongside a tranche of the Cabinet Secretary’s miscellaneous papers being released by the Cabinet Office. Both sets of papers are intelligence-related and the majority date from the second world war.
This Government are fully committed to transparency and openness. The release of Government records is an important part of our commitment.
Police Pay Review Body
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 24 October 2012, Official Report, column 56WS, I issued a written statement to the House launching a public consultation seeking views on how to implement Tom Winsor’s recommendations on changes to the police officer pay machinery, including establishing a pay review body for officers. In seeking views, I set out the Government’s belief that Tom Winsor’s report as a whole provided a good basis for discussion and consultation. The consultation closed on 14 January 2013. A total of 56 responses were received, from members of the public, individual officers, staff associations, and others.
I am today publishing the Government’s response to that consultation exercise, which will be available on the Gov.uk website and in the Library of the House. I have carefully considered the detailed issues which were raised in response to the consultation. My overriding concern has been to establish a pay review body which is able to take as wide a view of police remuneration as possible, to act in a strategic, forward-looking manner and not be constrained by the inefficiencies and time delays brought about by the current system of collective bargaining. This is in keeping with the thrust of Tom Winsor’s recommendations. The new review body will make recommendations on police officer remuneration up to and including the rank of chief superintendent. The Senior Salaries Review Body will make recommendations on chief officer pay.
The changes to the way in which police pay and conditions are determined is part of a wider programme of police reform which includes the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the creation of the College of Policing, the establishment of the National Crime Agency, and legislating to ensure a more independent HM inspectorate of constabulary. Police officers deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, and enable them to deliver effectively for the public. The Police Remuneration Review Body will help deliver this and to provide pay and conditions that are not only fair to police officers, but are fair to the public as well.
Passports
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The British passport is a secure document issued in accordance with international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The British passport achieves a very high standard of security to protect the identity of the individual, to enable the freedom of travel for British citizens and to contribute to public protection in the United Kingdom and overseas.
There is no entitlement to a passport and no statutory right to have access to a passport. The decision to issue, withdraw, or refuse a British passport is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department—the Home Secretary—under the royal prerogative.
This written ministerial statement updates previous statements made to Parliament from time to time on the exercise of the royal prerogative and sets out the circumstances under which a passport can be issued, withdrawn, or refused. It redefines the public interest criteria to refuse or withdraw a passport.
A decision to refuse or withdraw a passport must be necessary and proportionate. The decision to withdraw or refuse a passport and the reason for that decision will be conveyed to the applicant or passport holder. The disclosure of information used to determine such a decision will be subject to the individual circumstances of the case.
The decision to refuse or to withdraw a passport under the public interest criteria will be used only sparingly. The exercise of this criteria will be subject to careful consideration of a person’s past, present or proposed activities.
For example, passport facilities may be refused to or withdrawn from British nationals who may seek to harm the UK or its allies by travelling on a British passport to, for example, engage in terrorism-related activity or other serious or organised criminal activity.
This may include individuals who seek to engage in fighting, extremist activity or terrorist training outside the United Kingdom, for example, and then return to the UK with enhanced capabilities that they then use to conduct an attack on UK soil. The need to disrupt people who travel for these purposes has become increasingly apparent with developments in various parts of the world.
Operational responsibility for the application of the criteria for issuance or refusal is a matter for the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) acting on behalf of the Home Secretary. The criteria under which IPS can issue, withdraw or refuse a passport is set out below.
Passports are issued when the Home Secretary is satisfied as to:
i. the identity of an applicant; and
ii. the British nationality of applicants, in accordance with relevant nationality legislation; and
iii. there being no other reasons—as set out below—for refusing a passport. IPS may make any checks necessary to ensure that the applicant is entitled to a British passport.
A passport application may be refused or an existing passport may be withdrawn. These are the persons who may be refused a British passport or who may have their existing passport withdrawn:
i. a minor whose journey was known to be contrary to a court order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority in whose favour a residence or care order had been made or who had been awarded custody; or care and control; or
ii. a person for whose arrest a warrant had been issued in the United Kingdom, or
iii. a person who was wanted by the United Kingdom police on suspicion of a serious crime; or a person who is the subject of:
a court order, made by a court in the United Kingdom, or any other order made pursuant to a statutory power, which imposes travel restrictions or restrictions on the possession of a valid United Kingdom passport; or
bail conditions, imposed by a police officer or a court in the United Kingdom, which include travel restrictions or restrictions on the possession of a valid United Kingdom passport; or
an order issued by the European Union or the United Nations which prevents a person travelling or entering a country other than the country in which they hold citizenship; or
a declaration made under section 15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
iv. A person may be prevented from benefitting from the possession of a passport if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This may be the case where:
a person has been repatriated from abroad at public expense and their debt has not yet been repaid. This is because the passport fee supports the provision of consular services for British citizens overseas; or
a person whose past, present or proposed activities, actual or suspected, are believed by the Home Secretary to be so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is contrary to the public interest.
There may be circumstances in which the application of legislative powers is not appropriate to the individual applicant but there is a need to restrict the ability of a person to travel abroad.
The application of discretion by the Home Secretary will primarily focus on preventing overseas travel. There may be cases in which the Home Secretary believes that the past, present or proposed activities—actual or suspected—of the applicant or passport holder should prevent their enjoyment of a passport facility whether overseas travel was or was not a critical factor.
EU Treaties (Justice and Home Affairs)
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have prepared the third annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (“the treaties”) in relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) matters. The report, which is today being laid before the House, is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and that of the Secretary of State for Justice.
On 9 June 2008 the right hon. Baroness Ashton, the then Leader of the House of Lords, made a statement setting out commitments by the Government to Parliament in respect of the scrutiny of decisions to be taken by the Government in accordance with protocol (No 21) to the treaties on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice (“the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol”). These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.
This included a pledge that the Government would table a report in Parliament each year and make it available for debate, both looking ahead to the Government’s approach to EU Justice and Home Affairs policy and forthcoming dossiers, including in relation to the opt-in, and providing a retrospective annual report on the UK’s application of the opt-in protocol.
On 20 January 2011, the Minister for Europe confirmed in his statement to Parliament on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of decisions in the area of EU Justice and Home Affairs that the coalition Government have undertaken to maintain this commitment, and this is the third such report. It covers the period 1 December 2011 to 30 November 2012. For completeness, the report also covers the application of protocol 19 to the treaties on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU (“the Schengen opt-out protocol”). The Government’s decision-making process for this protocol is the same as for the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol.
It is important to note that decisions taken pursuant to the JHA opt-in and Schengen opt-out protocols are separate from the decision the UK must take, by 31 May, 2014, pursuant to article 10(4) of protocol 36 to the TEU and TFEU (the “2014 decision”).
Language Services Framework Agreement
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Today the Government responded to the Justice Committee report “Interpreting and translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract”. This sets out some of the work which has already taken place and some of which is planned in order to bring about improvements to the contract and the associated framework agreement for the justice sector.
Part of this work was to review the current terms and conditions for interpreters under the contract in discussion with Capita and taking into account the feedback from groups of interpreters. I can announce that several changes will come into effect in May this year which will have a direct impact on take-home pay for interpreters. We are confident that these measures are affordable for the taxpayer, but will also have a direct effect on performance levels by attracting more interpreters to register to work, as well as encourage those already registered to undertake more bookings.
The changes address a number of concerns that interpreters have raised with the Department and Capita and include paying interpreters at their qualified tier and in 15-minute blocks, extending the use of mileage payments and introducing cancellation fees where the hearing is cancelled or runs significantly shorter than expected through no fault of the interpreter. We are also introducing a fee to cover incidental costs that the interpreter might incur.
Other work is ongoing in our challenge to Capita to improve performance under the contract.
Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In my written ministerial statement of 18 December 2012, Official Report, column 96WS about the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) I undertook to make a further statement before the end of the current Session of Parliament.
I am pleased to announce that the Government intend to amend the 2010 Act to include (a) a number of specific insolvency situations and (b) a power for the Secretary of State to add further insolvency situations to the 2010 Act by order should the need arise. We intend to bring the 2010 Act into force as soon as reasonably possible after these amendments have been made.
The specific insolvency situations omitted are within the scope of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 (Northern Ireland). Commencing the 2010 Act without first including them would deprive third parties, such as individuals and businesses, of the protection they now have from the consequences of the insolvency of the person who has incurred a liability to them. These insolvency situations include: administrations (other than those ordered by the court) under the Insolvency Act 1986; debt relief orders in Northern Ireland; and certain subject specific types of administration orders, such as air traffic administration orders and energy administration orders. The proposed power will provide a straightforward means to remedy any other omissions that may exist now and to add any insolvency situations that are created in the future.
Legislation to effect the necessary amendments to the 2010 Act will be introduced when parliamentary time permits.
Independent Monitoring Commission
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I have today published and laid before Parliament my seventh and eighth annual report(s) on the operation of the agreement between the British and Irish Governments which established the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC). This report covers the period 18 September 2009 to 31 March 2011 when the IMC ceased to exist.
In line with a commitment made by one of my predecessors, this report also contains the audited accounts of the IMC for the 18-month period ending 31 March 2011.
The seventh report covers the 22nd and 23rd reports on paramilitary activity. It also covers the 24th report (third ad hoc report). The eighth report covers the 25th report on paramilitary activity and the 26th and final report on change, impact and lessons learnt.
The IMC performed a hugely important role, supporting the transition to a peaceful society and stable and inclusive devolved Government in Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to the Commissioners for their valuable contribution. The publication of this report brings to a close all matters relating to the IMC.
High Speed Rail
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am today publishing supplementary information regarding the consultation on an exceptional hardship scheme for phase two of high speed two. I am also extending the exceptional hardship scheme consultation period until 20 May 2013.
On 28 January I announced the Government’s initial preferred route, station and depot options for phase two of HS2. Alongside this I set out for consultation an exceptional hardship scheme (EHS). The EHS is intended to enable owner-occupiers whose property has reduced in value as a result of the route announcement—and who can demonstrate a need to sell their property—to sell it to the Government at its full un-blighted market value.
We always welcome feedback on our proposals for HS2 and in response to some such feedback we have decided to publish further information to supplement the consultation document that we published in January.
The additional information we are publishing consists of:
A summary of the more significant feedback that we have received on the operation of the EHS that is already in place for phase one of HS2, and our responses to those points;
Data about the operation of the EHS for phase one; and
A study of property blight around the phase one route in the six months immediately following the announcement of the proposed route.
We are also taking the opportunity to clarify some of the terminology used in the consultation document; and about how the scheme’s criteria are applied.
We have published this information on HS2 Ltd’s website and will be making printed copies of this information widely available in libraries, Citizens Advice Bureaux and at local authority customer service departments along the line of route for phase two. We will also advertise it in newspapers. HS2 Ltd will be writing to those who have already responded to this consultation to make them aware of this additional information and the extension of the deadline for responding to the consultation. I have placed a copy in the House Libraries.
The Government are committed to delivering a compensation scheme that is fair and appropriate both to those directly affected by HS2 and to taxpayers. We have been clear all along that we want to get compensation to the people who need it as quickly as possible and this remains our intention.
Subject to the outcome of this consultation, it is still our intention to have an exceptional hardship scheme in place for phase two in the summer of this year.
Health and Safety Executive
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
In April 2011, the Cabinet Office announced that all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) would undergo a substantive review at least once every three years. I have today launched a review of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that NDPBs continue to have regular challenge on their remit and governance arrangements. The review will be conducted in two stages as set out in the Cabinet Office guidance.
The first stage will examine the key functions and form of HSE. If the outcome of this stage is that delivery should continue in its current form, the second stage of the review will consider whether HSE is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance.
When it is completed I will inform the House of the outcome of the review and place a copy of the outcome in the House Libraries and on the Gov.uk website.
Private Pensions
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
As part of the Government’s red tape challenge programme, the Department has undertaken a detailed examination of the regulatory framework for private pensions. This has been supported by input from the pensions industry, employers, consumer groups and the public. With the conclusion of this work, the Department can confirm a number of proposed changes to private pension regulation, as well as areas where further work will be undertaken.
In particular we are proposing:
a simplification, consolidation and future-proofing of the regulations that deal with disclosure of information by pension schemes. This was a key request in the representations we received from stakeholders during the red tape challenge process and we have since published a consultation proposing improvements. We estimate net savings to business of £10 million per year, subject to the consultation response. We have also asked in the consultation whether respondents would welcome a move to a more principles-based approach to the disclosure regulations.
a new statutory objective for the Pensions Regulator to support scheme funding arrangements that are compatible with sustainable growth for the sponsoring employer and fully consistent with the 2004 funding legislation.
continuing to examine whether to make indexation for future accruals discretionary as part of our ongoing work to encourage more risk-sharing in pensions, through “defined ambition” pensions.
further work to consider how the current processes relating to employer debt that cause difficulties for charities and others participating in multi-employer schemes could be improved.
amendments to the regulations setting out the treatment of pension rights on bankruptcy to ensure compliance with EU treaty obligations.
a series of minor improvements and revocations of statutory instruments relating to the operation of the Pension Protection Fund, financial assistance scheme and the Pensions Regulator.
In coming to these conclusions through the red tape challenge process, we have sought to balance a reduction in burdens with the need to protect accrued rights and keeping an appropriate level of consumer protection. Broadly speaking, we feel the current regulatory framework strikes the right balance, though as can be seen from our proposals, there are some areas for improvement and further consideration.
In addition, we are proposing to make technical changes to improve the automatic enrolment process for employers, pension and payroll providers. We are currently consulting on proposals and expect to bring changes into force by April 2014.
We are grateful for those who have contributed to the debate around the regulatory regime for pensions and will continue to explore areas where we might be able to ease burdens without reducing member protection. In particular, as outlined in our recent reinvigoration strategy, we are carefully considering the future regulatory framework for private pensions as part of our work to enable greater risk-sharing and the development of defined ambition pensions.
Work-Focused Health-Related Assessment
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
The work-focused health-related assessment (WFHRA) was introduced in October 2008, as part of the employment and support allowance process, to allow claimants to explore with an independent healthcare professional (HCP) their perceptions about work and potential obstacles to employment.
External evaluation found that the WFHRA was not delivering the intended outcomes and it was decided in July 2010 that it should be suspended for a period of two years. We now believe that a further period of review is necessary to properly evaluate the impacts of both the work programme and universal credit systems. As such we are extending the initial suspension period of the WFHRA for a further three years, starting immediately.