House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of the effect of freezing fuel duty on the price of petrol.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
This Government will freeze fuel duty for the rest of this Parliament. As a result, petrol will cost a full 20p per litre less than if we had stuck with the previous Government’s hated fuel duty escalator. We can afford to do this because we have got a grip on the public finances.
The House will also want to know that today we learned that GDP grew by 0.8% in the first quarter of this year. That is 3.1% over the year and today’s figures show that Britain is coming back. We cannot take that for granted. We have to go on working through our long-term economic plan, but for the first time in a decade all three main sectors of the economy—manufacturing, services and construction—have grown by at least 3% in the past year.
The impact of the great recession is still being felt, but the foundations—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chancellor will resume his seat. The answer was not just too long—it was far too long.
Jeremy Lefroy
I welcome today’s growth figures, which reflect the hard work of the people of the United Kingdom and mean more jobs and more economic security. Based on the dynamic modelling my right hon. Friend has done, what contribution have his decisions to cut and freeze fuel duty made to that economic growth?
Mr Osborne
Absolutely, Mr Speaker: having heard all the bad economic news in the previous Parliament, I thought Parliament would want to hear some good economic news. The reduction in fuel duty is one of the number of steps we have taken to support the British economy and families. As my hon. Friend says, we have just published a study that shows that the reduction and freeze in fuel duty has the potential to increase GDP by 0.5%. As Conservatives, we understand that lower taxes mean higher economic growth.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the fact that we now have a policy to drive down costs on hard-pressed motorists, who have found it very tough in recent years. Can we take it from the Government that that reflects a wider shift in policy and that they are seeking to bear down on other energy input costs, including those of fossil fuels, in order to help hard-pressed consumers and encourage British competitiveness?
Mr Osborne
We need to have competitive energy prices while at the same time building a sustainable energy mix. The major £7 billion package in the Budget to help with the cost of energy for manufacturers has been welcomed not just by the big energy-intensive industries, but by many small business and, of course, families.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
2. What recent representations he has made to the European Union on the proposed cap on bank bonuses.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
In September, the Government launched a legal challenge to the bonus cap provisions agreed under EU capital requirements directive 4. We feel that those rules were rushed through without any assessment of their impact and that they will undermine the progress we have made to try to align remuneration with risk by pushing bankers’ fixed pay up rather than down.
Angela Smith
The Chancellor has chosen to prevent the Royal Bank of Scotland from paying bonuses to employees that are worth more than double their salary, but he has not done the same with Lloyds. Will the Minister explain why what is good enough for RBS is not good enough for Lloyds?
Andrea Leadsom
RBS has made a good start on its return to growth under Ross McEwan. It now has a good strategy to be the best small and medium-sized enterprise bank in Britain, but it still has a very long way to go. Therefore, we felt, and United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd agreed, that the right thing to do was to not allow RBS to do what other private sector banks have done, which is to go for the maximum of 2:1 in terms of bonus to salary. Lloyds, on the other hand, is much further along the road to recover, so it was fine to allow it, in line with other private banks, to go ahead with that 2:1 plan.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
May I say how good it is to see my hon. Friend in her new position? I welcome her answer. Does she agree that the best way to tackle widespread concern about excessive bonuses is through opening the banks up to proper shareholder inspection and answerability, as we are gradually doing?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the priorities of this Government has been to ensure proper scrutiny of directors’ pay and remuneration, so the changes in the Prudential Regulation Authority guidelines introduced last year, strengthening improvements made by the Labour Government, are designed to do just that—to put us at the forefront of scrutiny and transparency in pay for banking.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
May I offer my congratulations to the hon. Lady on her much-deserved promotion? The whole House welcomed the Chancellor’s intervention to stop loss-making RBS paying these bonuses to its investment bankers. However, it has now emerged that RBS intends to pay that money as allowances. What is the Government’s intention on this matter?
Andrea Leadsom
May I first thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and say how very much I enjoyed working with him for several years on the Treasury Committee? As with many Opposition Members, there has been a lot of agreement between us on issues of competition and minimising pay. With regard to allowances, the key point to remember is that bonuses at RBS are down 68% overall since 2009. The figure we want to focus on is the restriction in pay and bonuses across that bank.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, genuinely welcome the hon. Lady to her post and the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint her to the Chancellor’s Department. May I ask her to be very clear on this particular point? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is using the EU bank bonus cap legislation in respect of RBS, but at the same time the Government are mounting a legal challenge against that legislation. Will she clear up some of the confusion? She alluded to whether it was a UKFI decision, and it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister apparently waded in to override the Chancellor. Was the Deputy Prime Minister at odds with the Chancellor, or was the Chancellor just at odds with himself?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The key point to remember is that we are challenging the proposal at the European Court of Justice because we believe that it will not suppress remuneration and create proper equivalence between risk and remuneration in the banking sector. We in this country are at the forefront of trying to ensure that risk and reward are properly aligned. We do not think that the bonus cap will do that, so it is perfectly consistent to implement the cap—since it is the law—but to challenge it in the European Court of Justice.
Chris Leslie
I very much hear what the hon. Lady says, but I am asking a question about how the decision was made. Who was involved: was it UKFI; was it the Chancellor; or was it the Deputy Prime Minister who did it? I might not get a clear answer, so maybe I can move on to the next question: how much has this cost so far? It is a legal challenge to the change that she is herself using. How much has it cost so far, and is it a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Andrea Leadsom
The legal challenge is in line with all legal challenges of this sort. To protect the British financial services sector, it is very important to try to challenge the proposal. There has been a House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee report on the cost of similar legal challenges. It is not excessive—it is £25,000 to £35,000, or of that order—but the point is that we in this Government are trying to align risk and reward, which is absolutely crucial for the success of the financial services sector.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
3. What recent steps he has taken to make saving more flexible.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
This Government believe that people who have worked hard and saved hard through their lives should be trusted with their own pension savings in retirement. That is why, following the Budget, we have already given people much greater access to their pension savings and why, from next April, they will have complete freedom of access to their defined contribution scheme.
Graham Evans
This year’s Budget exposed some people’s innate belief that those who have worked hard and saved all their lives could not be trusted with their own money. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reassure savers in Weaver Vale that he rejects such patronising views, and will he update the House on his plans to let people choose how to spend their own money and to make savings far more flexible?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that the Labour party had nothing to say in response reflects the muddled approach: it did not support the measure, but it did not know what to do with a popular Budget proposal. We are absolutely clear that we reject the patronising view, pursued by the previous Government, that the state knows better than individuals how to spend their money. Trusting people, reducing taxes, supporting savers—that is this Government’s approach.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Chancellor agree that the traditional financial services sector has let down savers and borrowers? Is it not time that he gave more encouragement to the crowdfunding sector, which is flexible and gives a much better deal?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman has asked me about that matter at previous Treasury questions and I know that he takes a keen interest in it. He wrote to thank me for the measure in the Budget to include crowdfunding vehicles in individual savings accounts. That is an important step to support this new sector.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
As the Government’s long-term economic plan unfolds successfully, will my right hon. Friend consider giving further encouragement to savers through ISAs? Savers have warmly welcomed the greater flexibility that he has introduced with the new ISA regime.
Mr Osborne
Alongside the flexibility in and access to pension pots, we have increased the limit for both ISAs to £15,000. The new ISA will come in at the beginning of July and there will be complete flexibility in transferring funds from equity ISAs to cash ISAs. Of course, we have also abolished the 10p savings rate. Unlike the shadow Chancellor, when we abolish a 10p rate we get rid of it altogether, rather than doubling it.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Chancellor said that last month’s Budget was a Budget for savers, so will he tell us why page 106 of the Red Book shows that the saving ratio is falling and that it has been revised down this year, next year, the year after and in every year up to 2018?
Mr Osborne
What the hon. Lady did not say is that by 2018 the saving ratio will still be double what it was under the Labour Government. That is a rather important piece of information that she failed to tell the House. We are 15 minutes into Treasury questions. When will a Labour MP welcome the GDP numbers?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the level of bank lending to businesses since May 2010.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
In May 2010, business lending was contracting sharply in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The Government have introduced various measures aimed at improving bank and non-bank lending to businesses, in particular the business bank and the funding for lending scheme. Since 2010, survey evidence has suggested that the credit conditions for businesses have improved significantly and gross lending flows have increased.
Robert Flello
The latest funding for lending figures show that, shockingly, net lending to small businesses is down by £2 billion at RBS. Should not a bank that still has huge support from the taxpayer be serving Britain’s small businesses better?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there has been an enormous challenge since the financial crisis. Banks still have a long way to go to work out their balance sheets and to ensure that they are again lending to small businesses. RBS announced recently that it has the single goal of becoming the No. 1 SME bank in the UK. Banks are focused on that issue and it is vital that they are.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that Labour’s crash caused a massive problem in our banking system, which hurt the ability of banks to finance businesses, and that with the long-term economic plan it will become easier for banks to find the reserves that they need to get more money to business and to help grow the economy further?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The financial crisis caused a massive problem in our banking sector. The measures that have been brought in by this Government, such as the funding for lending scheme and the improved impetus towards bank competition, are helping to improve the situation for small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Since funding for lending was introduced, funding for small businesses has actually gone down. Businesses in my constituency tell me that one of the biggest problems is the withdrawal of overdraft facilities by many banks. What is the Minister doing to ensure that such short-term cover is available.
Andrea Leadsom
Only recently, the national policy chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses said that funding for lending is helping to bring down the cost of credit for small businesses. It is vital that banks focus on rebuilding business lending, and many of them are doing so. As the economy recovers, we expect that to pick up. Indeed, gross lending is 12% higher than in 2012-13.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Companies in my constituency tell me that confidence is at a new high. In many instances, they are able to fund investment through their own resources. Despite that, gross lending is up over the past 12 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that the concerns that funding for lending would be used for residential property purchases were misplaced?
Andrea Leadsom
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Help to Buy scheme accounts for only 0.5% of total mortgage lending, and real house prices remain 15% below pre-crisis levels. There is no evidence to suggest that the funding for lending scheme has led to a property price bubble.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of growth in the economy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
As you know, Mr Speaker, GDP grew by 0.8% in the last quarter and 3.1% over the year. Growth is broadly balanced, and those who predicted a year ago that our plan would choke off recovery got it spectacularly wrong.
Mr Walker
In March last year, with youth unemployment in Worcester at 645, the shadow Chancellor said that
“the economy will get worse”.
Youth unemployment in Worcester is down by a quarter since then and by 40% since it peaked under Labour. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor update the House on how the wider economy has performed during that time?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the shadow Chancellor made his prediction, the economy has grown by more than 3% and almost 1 million jobs have been created. In Worcester the claimant count is down by 20% in the past year, so we have more of these predictions from the shadow Chancellor and the economy just keeps growing.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor not understand that despite the belated but welcome growth in the economy, the only people who are not worse off than they were four years ago are the super-rich—people such as him and the other multi-millionaires sitting around the Cabinet table? His wilful refusal to accept what every ordinary family in the country know, from their daily experience just goes to show how out of touch he is.
Mr Osborne
Of course families are feeling the impact of the great recession over which the last Government presided, but the hon. Gentleman talks about who has felt the benefit of growth. What about the people in his constituency who have got a job, where unemployment has fallen by 17% and youth unemployment is down 18%? What about the 1.5 million people who have got jobs as a result of this Government working through their long-term economic plan?
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
20. I welcome today’s excellent news. With the deficit down, growth up and more people than ever in work, the Government’s long-term economic plan is clearly delivering for my constituents. However, there is always more to do, so will my right hon. Friend tell me what further steps he can take to encourage growth in workplace apprenticeships? In Tamworth, they have grown by more than a third.
Mr Osborne
We have provided more than 1 million apprenticeships, and in the most recent Budget we provided more support for apprentices by extending grants to small and medium-sized companies to help them take on apprentices. We also introduced and expanded degree-level and post-degree-level apprenticeships. Apprenticeship schemes are one of this Government’s great successes, and we are going to build on it.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Chancellor accept that the growth he is talking about is fuelled by mortgages pushing up house prices and consumer debt? Lending from banks is now at the 2008 level for mortgages but down 30% to businesses, which is why productivity and real wages are down. When will he deliver sustainable growth rather than a bubble before an election?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman obviously has not looked at today’s GDP numbers, because they show that the sector that has grown most strongly is manufacturing.
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman mentions services, but manufacturing has grown by 1.3% in the last quarter and services by 0.9%. Even a Labour MP can work out that 1.3 is higher than 0.9.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Long before the great recession, the region that it is my privilege to represent was getting poorer relative to the rest of the UK, with youth unemployment rising and private sector jobs shrinking. Now, however, things seem to be on the turn. May we have an assurance that, this time, the recovery will be for all, particularly for the north of England, and that we will finally start to bridge the gap that grew under the Labour party?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right that the gap between the north and south grew under the last Government, who put all their bets on the City of London, which went spectacularly wrong. In his part of the world, which he represents so ably, we are not only helping manufacturing by reducing energy costs, which is important for steelworks in his area and elsewhere, but helping with the tolls on the Humber bridge. We have also had the great news that Siemens will open its new wind turbine factory in the area. Those are all examples of how we will have a more balanced economy than the one that we inherited.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Back in 2010, the Chancellor promised to balance the books in 2015 and said that living standards would rise “steadily and sustainably”. Following today’s welcome news that the economy is finally growing again, will the Chancellor tell us whether he is now on track to keep either of those two promises?
Mr Osborne
I am delighted that the shadow Chancellor is still here. He is the man who, quite literally, crashed the car. On that occasion he fled the scene, but when it comes to crashing the British economy he cannot escape scrutiny of his record. Let me be clear: we said we would get the deficit down, and the deficit has come down; we said we would recover the economy, and recovery is taking place. He predicted that 1 million people would lose their jobs, but 1.5 million jobs have been created. He has apologised to the lady whose car he crashed into—why does he not apologise to the British people?
Ed Balls
If this Chancellor wants to have a discussion about whiplash we can do that any day of the week—Mr, Mrs or Mistress. However, let us not go back to biographies of the past; let us get back to the serious issue. The fact is that the Chancellor has failed to answer my question. For all his promises, he has broken them, even on the deficit, and living standards are not rising but falling year on year on year. People are £1,600 worse off under the Tories. If the Chancellor really thinks that his economic plan is working, let him answer this one simple question: at the next election, after five years of this Chancellor, will working people be better off than they were in 2010—yes or no?
Mr Osborne
Of course Britain will be better off because we will not have the mess of an economy on the brink of collapse, a banking system on its knees, and an 11% budget deficit. The only way to help people in this country is to grow the British economy. What the figures reveal today is that Britain is coming back, but we cannot take that for granted. People are still experiencing the impact of the shadow Chancellor’s economic policies, and the only thing he can say to us is “Why are you not clearing up our mess quickly enough?” That is literally what he is saying; it is absolutely pathetic. His car crash was caused by a seven-point turn that he was trying. Why does he not just get up, make a simple U-turn, admit that he got it wrong and that Britain is growing again?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What comparative assessment he has made of trends in the annual rates of inflation and growth in average earnings since May 2010.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there have been significant falls in real earnings as a direct but delayed result of the 2008 recession. The actions that the Government are taking are working, including taking 3.2 million people out of income tax by 2015-16, thanks to our policy of increasing the income tax personal allowance, and also because of the strong, sustained and welcome growth that we see in the figures today.
Stella Creasy
Of course, one of the other things that are growing in our economy is personal debt. We know that 40% of the public struggle to make it to payday, and for a third of those people it is repayments on the debts they built up under this Government that are the problem. What impact does the Minister think that that personal debt mountain will have on his long-term economic plan?
Danny Alexander
Household debt income ratios have fallen during this Parliament, as the hon. Lady will know, but—this is a good lesson for the Labour party—there is no shortcut for increasing people’s living standards, which is the answer to the question she poses, and no short cut to increased productivity in our economy. That means increasing growth in the economy and sticking to the coalition’s plan, which is being delivered by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in this Government. That is the important thing to do for the next few years to ensure that we have a stronger and more sustainable economy in this country.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider what the impact would be on annual rates of inflation and growth of a potential 1% increase in national insurance contributions, and particularly the impact of that on the NHS budget?
Danny Alexander
It would have a significant impact on almost every working person in this country. The Government’s direction of travel, led by the Liberal Democrats, has been to reduce the burden of taxation on working people. Some 26 million working people have seen their income tax bill reduced this month by £700 a year, thanks to the decisions that this coalition Government have taken to increase the personal allowance to £10,000.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Perhaps the Chief Secretary can do better at answering this simple question. Next year, the Chancellor will have been in post for five years. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that over that time real wages will have fallen by 5.6%, leaving working families worse off, not better off, after five years of the Chancellor’s stewardship of the economy?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady will know that the OBR forecasts earnings to grow more rapidly than inflation throughout the forecast period—that is the answer to the question. I have to say that the hon. Lady seems to have been listening to the shadow Chancellor rather too closely. I notice his recent quote:
“I had no awareness at all that there had been any damage”.
He was referring to his car rather than to the British economy, but it is about time that the Labour party apologised for the mess that it made of the latter.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
7. What fiscal steps he has taken to encourage manufacturing in the UK.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
The Government are committed to strong and sustainable economic growth that is balanced across the economy. The manufacturing sector, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said, is a vital part of it. In the recent Budget, the Government announced a package of measures to reduce energy bills for manufacturers and improve their competitiveness, for example, by capping the carbon price floor. Earlier this month, the Government announced a £100 million extension to the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative.
Neil Carmichael
I echo the Chancellor’s welcome to the excellent GDP numbers. Despite the fact that the Labour party continues to wallow in its own failed predictions of doom, manufacturing has actually increased by 1.3%. That is very obvious in my constituency. With the long-term economic plan in mind, what more can we do to promote British manufacturing?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I understand that he established in his constituency the annual festival of manufacturing and engineering, and that the next event will be held in November 2014. As he said, this morning’s GDP figures show the strongest annual performance for manufacturing for three years—up 3.4%. He asked what more the Government can do. In the Budget last month we announced plans to double UK Export Finance’s direct lending programme and further to increase our support for apprenticeships.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has the Chancellor, in his long-term plans for the economy, looked at the impact of any increase in interest rates on businesses, and in particular on manufacturing?
Nicky Morgan
First, it is welcome to hear Opposition Members talking about this Government’s long-term economic plan. Long may they continue to do so, but I am not going to take lessons on manufacturing from them. Manufacturing halved as a share of the economy under the previous Labour Government. This Government are on the side of manufacturers and small businesses up and down the country.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
Today’s GDP figures are particularly welcome and the contribution by manufacturing is especially impressive. Many manufacturers are investing heavily in skills, but get frustrated that their skilled employees are poached by others who are not making that investment. What measures can the Minister suggest to help to share the burden of investment in skills?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is absolutely right. Skills is an issue mentioned, I am sure, to all Members from all parts of the House every time they visit their local businesses. We have invested in apprenticeships, so we are growing a skilled work force. In 2012-13, the Government supported 66,000 apprenticeship starts in engineering and manufacturing technologies. He is right that we have to invest in skills all the way through the work force and all the way through their working life, but we are making a great start with apprenticeships.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to secure funding for infrastructure projects.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Through difficult decisions on day-to-day spending, we have prioritised vital capital investment in infrastructure projects. Last year I set out a £100 billion pipeline of specific projects right the way through to the end of the next Parliament, including many projects in the south-west of England. For example, the hon. Lady and I were both present on Friday when we announced funding for Bristol’s successful bid to be the green capital of Europe.
Charlotte Leslie
I know this Government are committed to large infrastructure projects, but will the Chief Secretary recognise the value of more modest, branch-line rail infrastructure projects, such as the Henbury loop line in Bristol, which is vital to the community and to jobs? Will he look closely at providing the extra funding needed to reopen the line, not as a dead-end spur, but as a circle line around the city, which would unleash the economic dynamism of Bristol?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It was raised with me in Bristol on Friday and I know she has raised it directly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has also been put forward by the West of England local enterprise partnership in its strategic economic plan, which is being discussed as part of the growth deals process, so I urge her to encourage people locally to continue to advocate for the project as part of that process.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
9. What recent estimate he has made of how much the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45% will be worth each year for a person earning £1 million a year.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax to 45% is estimated to be around £110 million a year, as set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2013. We have not broken down the impact by income ranges. That is because there is a significant behavioural response associated with the additional rate of income tax. The behavioural response is estimated in aggregate and reflected in the costing.
Bill Esterson
Ordinary people are £1,600 a year worse off under this Government. More than 15,000 working people in my constituency alone are paid less than the living wage. Is not the reality that a tax cut for millionaires is totally the wrong priority when so many ordinary people face a cost of living crisis?
Mr Gauke
It should be pointed out that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has fallen by nearly 30% in the last 12 months. The challenge with the 50p rate is that it is not very effective at reducing the deficit, but it is effective at driving jobs and growth out of the UK. Maybe that is why Labour supports it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Is not Her Majesty’s Government right to consider the overall effect on the economy when setting income tax rates and not to use them as a means of squeezing the rich out of Britain? Is it not also sensible to consider the extra revenue that comes from lower rates?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell the House and the country today that his Government rule out any more substantial tax cuts for the richest before the next general election?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Cutting taxes surely promotes growth and investment and produces the jobs that we see in the north-east, where manufacturing is up and fuel duty is frozen. More specifically, last week I went on to the banks of the Tyne and saw 1,000 people working on shipbuilding for the first time in a very long time.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
10. What steps he has taken to reduce the cost of living for people on low incomes.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The coalition Government have taken decisive action to support families on low incomes. Increasing the personal allowance, for example, will take 3.2 million individuals out of income tax altogether by 2015-16. We have helped to freeze the council tax, frozen fuel duty and reduced energy bills, providing universal free school meals for infant schools and introducing tax-free child care support of up to £2,000, all on top of the most important thing, which is an economic plan that is delivering strong and sustained growth for this country.
Simon Wright
This month more than 3 million low-paid people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether since 2010, as a result of delivering the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment of a £10,000 tax threshold. Can my right hon. Friend say how the impact of this policy on low-income workers compares with the previous Government’s policy of abolishing the 10p tax rate?
Danny Alexander
That is a very good question. My hon. Friend and I are both very proud of reaching the £10,000 tax-free allowance goal that the Liberal Democrats set in our election manifesto. Our increases in the tax-free allowance total more than £3,000, which is considerably more than the width of the former 10p starting rate band and is, of course, a 0% band. In that sense, it is literally twice as good as the previous policy.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
For the 17% of wage earners who are already below the income tax threshold, much of what has been said is not of much help. Will the Chief Secretary directly commit to helping low-paid families with child care costs by reinstating the 80% level rather than the 70% level, which he introduced, so that people in that category can begin to gain rather than simply stand still or become worse off?
Danny Alexander
I am sure that if the hon. Lady had had longer, she would have welcomed today’s growth figures and the jobs and employment opportunities that that has created for people right across the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland. The 3.2 million people that the hon. Lady mentions have already been taken out of tax by the actions of this coalition Government—something that she did not welcome. Of course, the extra opportunities to increase their time in work also helps those individuals. We are increasing our support for child care, with the Government providing free hours, extending support under universal credit and introducing tax-free child care, too. This Government have done far more than any previous Government to help working people with children get back into work.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his fiscal policies on the level of child poverty.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his fiscal policies on the level of child poverty.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
This Government are protecting vulnerable groups while taking action to tackle the record deficit we inherited. Work remains the best way out of poverty and last month’s Budget took action to support families by making the tax and welfare system fairer and by further increasing the income tax personal allowance to £10,500 next year, which will take 3.2 million people on low incomes out of tax altogether.
Kate Green
I must take issue with the Minister. Most children in poverty are in working families, so work is not a secure route out of poverty. Why are the Government’s policies on the proceeds of growth not reaching those children?
Nicky Morgan
I have already said in answer to the question that work remains the best way out of poverty, and I set out the raising of the personal allowance. There is no doubt that children who grow up in workless households are three times more likely to be in poverty. This Government remain committed to eradicating child poverty, but are taking action to tackle the root causes rather than allowing people to continue in welfare dependency.
Chris Ruane
Is the Minister concerned that the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that an additional 400,000 children will be living in poverty by the end of this Parliament? Workers may have jobs, but their children are not benefiting from them. That is the issue that the hon. Lady and her Government fail to realise.
Nicky Morgan
As I have already said, this Government remain absolutely committed to eradicating child poverty. We have set out our child poverty strategy, which sets out our aims. In October 2011 the IFS predicted a fall of 100,000 in the number of children in relative poverty, but the actual fall was 300,000. Rather than looking at predictions, let us look at what we actually achieve in government.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right that the way out of child poverty is to reduce unemployment, which has gone down 20% in my constituency, and to take the poorest paid out of tax altogether. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government’s tax-free child care policies are also important, as they help 2 million families with their child care, which will make a real difference to them—four times better than the previous Government did with their voucher scheme?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. She is absolutely right that child care is one of the biggest barriers to enabling people, particularly women, to work. The Government’s tax-free child care policies as well as the moves under universal credit to help those on low incomes will be instrumental in helping more and more people. We have already seen the recently published employment figures showing that more women are in work than ever before.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
12. What fiscal steps he is taking to help businesses to invest and export.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are actively supporting the export investment aspirations of British businesses to ensure that companies have access to world-leading export finance. Budget 2014 announced that UK export finance’s direct lending facility will be doubled to £3 billion and the rate of interest cut by a third to the lowest level allowed by international agreements. UK Trade & Investment’s programme budget has been doubled during this Parliament and the organisation is on track to help 50,000 companies export by 2015—double the number supported in 2010. In addition, our corporation tax reforms are helping investment.
Mark Menzies
I recently hosted a UKTI exporting event at BAE Systems in Warton in my constituency and I was asked about what funding streams could be available for businesses wishing to access foreign export markets. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the funding is available for Fylde small and small and medium-sized enterprises to expand their businesses into export markets?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. As I have said, the Budget doubled UK Export Finance’s direct lending programme. Moreover, earlier this month we announced a £100 million extension of the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, and a £1 billion package to support the Aerospace Technology Institute was announced in the 2013 Budget. The Government are working hard to ensure that we secure the growth that is required by small and medium-sized enterprises in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The coalition Government promised to rebalance the economy on both a geographical and a sectoral basis, but little progress has been made in increasing business investment and exports as a percentage of GDP. Does not the low level of business investment—which is among the worst in the world—indicate that the business community is not entirely convinced by the UK Government’s economic policy?
Mr Gauke
The reality is that business investment is increasing, by 8% this year and by 9% next year. We have also just seen some very good figures relating to manufacturing growth over the last year. The Government continue to work to secure a balanced recovery, with the support of a number of measures in the Budget, but we are already making very good progress.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
13. What recent representations he has received on reform of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
16. What recent representations he has received on reform of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
The Chancellor regularly receives representations on a wide range of matters, including the role of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Alison McGovern
The Minister may have guessed that I am going to ask whether she agrees that the OBR should be allowed to audit the manifestos of all the main political parties, and I can probably guess what her answer will be, but can she explain why?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady can read my mind, Mr Speaker. Excellent!
This matter has been the subject of some debate, and, as the hon. Lady will know, it has been discussed by the Treasury Committee. I feel that, given that the Office for Budget Responsibility was established so recently, this is not the moment to start considering changing its remit. As has been pointed out by the hon. Lady’s party, it is essential for the OBR to be independent and to confer accountability on the Government, rather than becoming embroiled in party politics at such an early stage.
Mr Love
The Minister ought to be aware that it is not only the Opposition who are promoting this change in policy. The chair of the OBR himself has been sympathetic to it, and the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee has also been supportive. Even the Chief Secretary, who is sitting near the Minister on the Front Bench, gave us warm words during the last session of Treasury questions. It seems that the Government are isolated on this issue, but there is still time for that to change.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. It is true that there are those who favour the change in principle, including Robert Chote himself, but Mr Chote has also made it clear that, for very good reasons, now may not be the time for it to take place. Amending the OBR’s remit would require primary legislation, and would have huge implications for the resources available to it. We need to consider such action after the next general election, when there will be time for it to be reviewed properly in the House.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.
Mr Hollobone
My constituents were very worried indeed when the shadow Chancellor told them four years ago that the Chancellor’s attempts to rebalance the economy would result in a 1 million increase in the number of unemployed people. Would the Chancellor be kind enough to inform the House of the actual impact of his long-term economic plan on the Kettering economy, and to explain how my constituents can look forward to a more secure financial future as a result?
Mr Osborne
Our economic plan is delivering stability, and it is now also delivering the economic growth and jobs that we all want to see. We are coming out of the very deep mess in which the shadow Chancellor and his team left the country, with the result that in Kettering the claimant count is down by 30%, and 1,500 new jobs have been created in the last year. As my hon. Friend well knows—because, as an assiduous Member of Parliament, he has lobbied hard for them—major improvements have been made in the road and rail infrastructure in the Kettering area, to ensure that there is a balanced economic recovery.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T3. The Chancellor spends taxpayers’ money in Brussels on defending big bank bonuses, but he has not lifted a finger in four years to deal with the falling real wages of millions of ordinary working people. Is he not just presiding over recovery by the few, of the few, and for the few?
Mr Osborne
Well, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is Abraham Lincoln, but the point I would make is that we can only see an increase in the living standards of the British people if the British economy is growing and jobs are created. That is exactly what our economic plan is delivering.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T2. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the House will also recall that earlier this year the shadow Chancellor said:“do I think the level of public spending going into the crisis was a problem for Britain? No, I don’t, nor our deficit, nor our national debt”.As the last Government were spending more than they took in as early as 2002, does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows they still cannot be trusted to take the difficult decisions needed to control public spending and get the deficit down?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is chuntering away, but this is what he said on the radio this morning: “I don’t think I’ve been too pessimistic in the last few years.” He predicted that the economy would be choked off and that jobs would be lost, but the reverse is happening. In Sleaford and North Hykeham, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, the claimant count has come down and 1,700 jobs have been created.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T4. When the Chancellor said earlier this month, “If you are hiding your money offshore, we are coming to get you”,did he mean “coming to get you to work in the Treasury”?
Mr Osborne
This Government have taken action against tax avoidance that the last Government never dreamed of taking. We have increased the resources for tackling avoidance and evasion. I will tell the House something else: we do not preside over a tax system in which cleaners pay higher tax rates than the people they work for. That was the tax system that the Labour party voted for, and we have got rid of it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T5. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for visiting Cornwall last week, when he will have been impressed by the resourcefulness and enterprise in the Cornish economy. Will he make sure that those charged with managing the Cornwall EU structural fund programme are granted the appropriate delegated powers of intermediate body status in future?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I was indeed impressed, and also convinced by the strong support from the Cornish businesses I met for the policies the Government are putting in place to secure the long-term future of the British economy. Having announced on that visit the Government’s recognition for the Cornish identity, values and culture under the European convention, it would seem odd not to take seriously the request that there should be a degree of autonomy in the management of the European structural funds programme. I urge my hon. Friend to work with the local enterprise partnership to make that case strongly to the Government, as part of the growth deal process.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T6. With average wages down, ordinary working people are increasingly being driven into the arms of payday loan lenders with their usurious rates of interest. What measures are the Government taking to give ordinary working people access to fair credit?
Mr Osborne
We are introducing a cap on payday lending, and that will be an important—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor chuckles. He was the City Minister; he could have taken that decision at any point when he was—[Interruption.]. Why has it taken so long? Labour had 13 years to do these things—13 years when its team were running the Treasury. That is why people will not listen to what they have to say. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is this: by supporting credit unions, capping payday lending and encouraging competition on the high street, we will help his constituents and many others.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T8. As the economy continues to prosper and grow under the excellent stewardship of our Chancellor, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the tube workers who turned up to work today to keep London moving, and in congratulating the workers who went to work this morning despite the antics of the RMT?
Mr Osborne
I join my hon. Friend in thanking those who went to work today on our tube system. The strike is totally irresponsible and unnecessary. It impacts on the economy and makes it difficult for people in London to get to work. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps the reason that so few Labour MPs are at Treasury questions is that they are manning the barricades with the RMT.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
T7. My constituent Mr Effard works on a zero-hours contract and does not know from week to week whether he will be given enough hours to be able to cover his bills. Mr Effard wants to work, but admits that in many ways jobseeker’s allowance provided him with more stability. Will the Chancellor admit that the normalisation of these contracts under his Government means that for people such as my constituent a job no longer guarantees financial security?
Mr Osborne
The last study on the impact of zero-hours contracts was undertaken by the previous Labour Government, who concluded that they wanted to retain the flexibility that such contracts offer to business. However, we are not satisfied that all the work has been done on this, which is why the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on what changes potentially need to be made to zero-hours contracts. We have received a lot of representations, we are looking through them and of course we will come forward with a response shortly.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T9. Within a few months, Norwich will no longer be the UK’s largest city not to be connected to the dual carriageway network. Can the Chancellor confirm that the excellent progress of the coalition’s A11 dualling scheme in Norfolk is meeting Treasury expectations, and will he keep this in mind when considering destinations for further infrastructure investment?
Danny Alexander
I can confirm that the scheme is meeting our expectations. It is a major scheme for the region, with estimated investment of £102 million. The Secretary of State for Transport, who is in his place, confirms that it is on track and scheduled for completion in December 2014. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that a major milestone was delivered yesterday, as the Elveden bypass opened to traffic for the first time.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
If the Government’s economic plan is working so well, why is the Chancellor planning to borrow £190 billion more than previously planned?
Mr Osborne
This country was borrowing £150 billion a year when this Government came to office, and we are on course to reduce the deficit by a half this year. We are taking—[Interruption.] What exactly is the Labour party’s complaint? Is it that we are not doing enough to reduce the deficit? Labour said that we were doing it too quickly and opposed all the things we proposed in recent years. Labour simply has no explanation for why the economic growth it said could not happen has happened.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
T10. Does my right hon. Friend agree that politicians would do well to listen to senior business figures who warn that the anti-business policies put forward by the Labour party would put jobs and investment at risk, and would prevent Britain from having a stronger, more competitive economy?
Mr Osborne
The Opposition do have an anti-business agenda, but the Government are taking a different approach. We are reducing business taxes; we have introduced an employment allowance this month which will help small companies with their jobs tax; and of course next year we are taking under-21s out of the jobs tax. Labour’s plan is now not only to increase corporation tax; the party is discussing plans to put up the jobs tax, which would be a total disaster.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Since May 2010, long-term unemployment in my constituency has increased by 27%, long-term youth unemployment has increased by 40% and average real weekly wages have decreased by £116.93. Does the Chancellor want to take credit for that?
Mr Osborne
The hard-working people of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency should take credit for the fact that unemployment is down by 21% in his constituency and youth unemployment is down by 29% there.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Chancellor join me in warmly welcoming this morning’s announcement that Dyson is to invest £250 million in expanding its headquarters in Malmesbury in my constituency and intends to employ 3,000 more people, 2,000 of whom will be high-quality engineers, designers and a large number of apprentices? Does he agree that that is hard evidence that that shrewd operator Sir James Dyson has every possible confidence in the Chancellor’s long-term economic plan?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman is planning an Adjournment debate on the subject. I have that distinct sense, although some people may think he has already had it.
Mr Osborne
The jobs being created by Dyson at Malmesbury are excellent news. Many people will know Dyson’s products, but its facility at Malmesbury, which I have visited, is fantastic. We went to James Dyson to ask how we could replicate some of that success elsewhere in our economy. He came forward with proposals—which became our innovation and catapult centres—to bring applied science to commercial success. We are building on the success of Dyson, not just for the people my hon. Friend represents, but for the whole country.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
How often have the Chancellor and his colleagues referred to the long-term economic plan during this Question Time? Is it because the shorter-term economic plan that he announced in 2010, allegedly to get rid of the deficit and reduce the debt by next year, has failed and he is instead adopting something much closer to the two-term offer that Labour proposed?
Mr Osborne
I have not been keeping count of how many times the long-term economic plan has been mentioned, but the hon. Lady has just added two more to the total. That long-term economic plan is reducing the deficit, which is due to be down by a half this year, seeing the creation of 1.5 million jobs in our economy and supporting the growing economy, as we have seen in the GDP numbers today.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The elimination of the deficit by the end of the next Parliament still requires reducing general Government consumption to its 1948 level. Will the Chancellor confirm that that is in the national interest and that the Labour party does not have a snowball’s chance in Hades of achieving it?
Mr Osborne
The Labour Government left us the highest budget deficit in the peacetime history of this country. The numbers to which my hon. Friend refers assume that there are no savings in welfare. I have made it clear that I think we should consider savings in welfare. Of course, other parties, such as the Labour party, have put forward proposals to increase tax.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given the great success of the Labour Welsh Government’s Jobs Growth Wales scheme, which is on target to help 16,000 young people into sustainable jobs, mostly in the private sector, will the Chancellor now commit to a similar UK-wide scheme funded by a repeat of Labour’s tax on bankers bonuses?
Mr Osborne
This week, the help to work scheme came into force, which is helping long-term unemployed people, providing them with more support and ensuring that those who need to sign on daily do so, and that those who need work experience and who need to be in work can take community jobs. We are reforming welfare, and that is part of the approach that we are taking to create jobs in this country by ensuring that work always pays.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
There is no doubt that low interest rates have played a crucial part in the Chancellor’s long-term economic plan and brought about today’s widely welcomed news, but low rates will not be good news for those people who have worked hard, done the right thing and now wish to see a safe return on their cash. Will he explain to the House and to savers in my constituency what he is doing to promote their interests by supporting saving?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the low interest rates put in place by the independent Bank of England have made life more difficult for savers, although, of course, the growing economy is good news for savers as well as borrowers. My hon. Friend has warmly supported what we have done in the Budget, not only to give people access to their pension pots but to introduce the new ISA. We have also introduced the new savings bond for pensioners, which will come into effect at the end of the year, with higher interest rates to help those in his constituency who have worked hard and saved hard.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Real wages have fallen by £1,600 since the election, so will the Chancellor now answer the question repeatedly asked by Opposition Members: will wages in real terms be higher or lower at the next election than they were at the last election?
Mr Osborne
Britain is better off because we are rescuing this country from the economic mess in which the Opposition left us. There is a complete fantasy in the Labour party, demonstrated again in the past hour, that one can have an economic policy that destroys the banks, destroys business and destroys the public finances but somehow helps the people of the country in the process. As we learned to our cost under the previous Labour Government, that is not the case. They wrecked the economy and we are recovering it.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary saw the world-class robotics engineers of Anthony Best Dynamics in Bradford-on-Avon. What is he doing to create the conditions in which such successful manufacturers can continue to grow right where they are?
Danny Alexander
I did indeed see the fantastic work at Anthony Best Dynamics, which supplies 20 out of the top 20 automotive companies in the world. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited the Transport Research Laboratory to announce £500 million of support over the next five years to ensure that the United Kingdom is the best place in the world to develop and manufacture ultra-low emission vehicles.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
According to the Office for National Statistics, unemployment in the west midlands has risen to 8.2%. Can the Chancellor explain why?
Mr Osborne
The statistics for the hon. Lady’s constituency show that unemployment is down 20%, youth unemployment is down 20% and long-term unemployment is down 20%. In the west midlands, during the boom years—the unsustainable boom—private sector employment actually fell. That points to what went wrong with the previous Government—they put all the bets on the City of London, the shadow Chancellor did not regulate it properly, it blew up and we are now retrieving the situation that he created.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
In Rossendale and Darwen, the majority of our large employers are in the construction and manufacturing sectors. People want not just new jobs, but security and stability in those jobs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the latest figures show that those two sectors are growing at their fastest rate for 10 years?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend, who so ably represents his constituency, is absolutely right that in his constituency, manufacturing is doing better. That is because, in the Budget, we introduced a package of measures to support manufacturing and, above all, through the long-term economic plan, we are providing the economic stability that allows for investment in construction. I have every confidence that, when he takes that argument to the British people, he will see off the red princeling who is standing against him.
Petition
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Kingswood.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Kingswood,
Declares that South Gloucestershire Council is now charging residents £36 per year for the collection of their green bins and further that a local Petition on this subject has received over 4,200 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage South Gloucestershire Council to reconsider this decision and not implement a charge for the collection of green bins.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001344]
Safe and Sanctuary Rooms (Exemption from Under-Occupancy Penalty)
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt social housing tenants occupying properties with safe and sanctuary rooms from the Housing Benefit and Universal Credit (Size Criteria) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2013; and for connected purposes.
The bedroom tax, spare room subsidy—call it what you will—has had a significant number of serious and unexpected consequences. The Bill would remove the penalty placed on a victim of domestic violence who has in their property a safe or sanctuary room, or whose property has been adapted to make it secure.
One in four women will have been a victim of domestic abuse. It accounts for 17% of all crime, and two women a week are killed by their partner or a former partner. Safe rooms or safe houses can mean the difference between life and death, yet under current legislation, many women, and indeed some men, cannot afford to remain in the home because it is viewed as having a spare room. If they cannot pay their rent, they will be evicted, and so these victims of abuse not only lose their home, with a safe space within it, but become more vulnerable to further abuse. We are not just talking about a room, but about a place of safety for victims and their children.
In Plymouth alone in 2012-13, there were 6,092 abuse incidents; in Cornwall, there were 7,451—and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Ninety per cent. of the victims were female and 90% of the perpetrators were male. The reduction in support for refuges across the country as Government cuts start to bite is further adding to the problem. Without access to a safe room, there may well be nowhere else for the victims to go. Those victims are deemed to be at high risk, for whom the option of a sanctuary scheme can be a lifesaver, quite literally.
The numbers involved are small and so the spending commitment, when set against the cost of hospitalisation, police time and the need to take children into care, has a cost benefit attached to it. In introducing the Bill, I have consulted social housing providers and support groups such as Women’s Aid.
What are we actually talking about? We are talking about properties, which may have a room with reinforced doors, an alarm installed and other safety equipment. Or we could be talking about a situation whereby the property has been upgraded to ensure that the whole site is secure, but that property has an extra bedroom, which causes it to fall foul of current legislation. The family may well have moved into the house many years previously, perhaps with children of different sexes and therefore needing three bedrooms. The scenario is that the relationship degenerates into one where one partner is abusive and violent, and the house is made safe to protect the victims, but when one of the children leaves, the remaining partner—the victim—is technically under-occupying.
Moving that person and her family into another property will, of course, require a new and smaller property to be upgraded to keep her safe. The costs involved here would be significant. Making a new property safe could involve, as I have already suggested, windows being laminated and reinforced, external doors being strengthened, fire retardant letter boxes, smoke detectors, fire alarms, window alarms and so on. While all those changes come at a considerable cost to the taxpayer, that still does not take account of the distress caused to the family and children involved. They live in a home where violence is an issue and periods of calm are needed. Expecting them to move out, possibly find a new school and build new friendships is hugely destabilising. There is therefore a further human cost to the decision to include sanctuary rooms and properties in the legislation. Indeed, Plymouth city council and Cornwall council have tabled motions with cross-party support that seek to press the Government to consider the exemption. I congratulate Councillors Nicky Williams and Hanna Toms on making such a strong case that councillors from all parties, including Government parties, have given them their support.
I should like to provide a case study to support the argument for changing the legislation. Julia is a survivor of domestic violence who suffered rape, physical assault and harassment at the hands of her partner. Julia and her 10-year-old son live in a three-bedroom house that has been specifically adapted to enable them to live there safely in the light of the risk posed by her abuser. A sanctuary system has been installed in their home, which contains all the things that I have described: reinforced doors and windows and alarms, as well as a room to which Julia can go for safety, with a direct hotline to her local police station. Those measures are necessary to enable Julia and her son to live safely in their home. Under the bedroom tax rules, Julia is only entitled to receive housing benefit for a two-bedroom house. She either has to pay the extra rent and go without essentials, or move to a smaller property. If she cannot pay the extra rent she faces eviction, and with very few two-bedroom council houses available, and none with the safety features that she needs, she faces a grave risk from her abuser, who has threatened to kill them both.
We have to protect women such as Julia. The cost of exempting safe rooms in Plymouth is minimal. Only 39 such rooms have been installed in Plymouth in the past three years, and of the new homes built in the city by Plymouth Community Homes, 13 have full sanctuary rooms available. I applaud Plymouth, Cornwall and indeed Swindon councils for taking a stand on this issue, as they have agreed to use discretionary housing payments to support women living in sanctuary scheme properties, but the money that they have is finite.
Why should a victim of violence be treated differently in Plymouth, Peterborough, Poole or Preston? What they face at present is a postcode lottery, which could mean the difference between life and death. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, in its report, “Support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system”, made it clear that the criteria applied by local authorities to discretionary housing payments varied enormously. It confirmed that
“there was too much variation in decision-making”.
The Women’s Aid Federation has carried out a detailed study and has identified in England about 1,300 households in 2012-13 which were part of a sanctuary scheme. For each of those households to face a different decision-making scheme depending on their local authority is nonsense. In the 80 authorities surveyed, only about 280 properties in total were affected by the bedroom tax, so the Minister can see that the numbers are very small. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), will say that discretionary housing payments are designed to protect these women—and they are mainly, but not solely, women—but this is a time-limited benefit, and the cost of the assessments and delivery of this support would, I suspect, be easily offset by making the premises exempt in the first place.
The Opposition want to see the abolition of this evil piece of legislation. I am sure the Minister will disagree, but I hope that she will at least consider the addition of this small exemption that will better protect victims of abuse. I remember highlighting in Prime Minister’s questions, using a local example, the application of the bedroom tax to families with children serving in the military. The Prime Minister at the time said that he did not think that that was a problem, but an exemption was subsequently introduced. I do not want to have to come back to the House after a death has occurred because a woman had to leave her house, which had a safe space, because she could not afford to remain there.
We have an opportunity to put a safety net in place that will have a positive impact in cost terms but, more importantly, could ensure that a victim remains safe. I urge the House to support the measure.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on raising the important issue of domestic violence and the protection measures that are needed to help people to stay in their home. A sanctuary scheme is a victim-centred initiative. It is an innovative approach to homelessness prevention that is designed to enable victims of domestic violence to remain in their accommodation when it is safe for them to do so, when that is their choice and when the perpetrator no longer lives in the accommodation.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, who may not have done this before—she would be in a large gathering of colleagues in that category—but she needs to make it clear to the House whether she is opposing the Bill. She is not speaking on it in general terms; she is opposing it. Is that right?
Dr Coffey
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should have clarified that at the start. The reason for my preamble is that I recognise the issue’s importance and the serious matters that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View raises. However, the point that I would like to put across to her is that the Bill is unnecessary. She may shake her head, but I have long believed that solving the problem is more about the actions that individuals can take rather than creating another law.
I will make this a short speech. The hon. Lady referred to individual cases, and a sanctuary room is often principally the main bedroom and not necessarily a spare room. As the hon. Lady mentioned, such rooms can feature additional security, including window locks, strengthened doors and panic alarms. Freedom of information requests to local authorities have shown that some 280 such houses around the country are currently subject to the spare room subsidy penalty. However, as a significant adaptation has been made to the house, any householder with a sanctuary room can automatically apply for the discretionary housing payment. The Government have provided more than £300 million to ensure that local councils can do what they need to do for local residents. I understand that the 13 households in Plymouth have been granted discretionary housing payments, which is right. With less than one sanctuary room per council area, it is appropriate that we do not just create laws, but rather allow local councils to get on and do the right thing with the discretionary housing payment. The hon. Lady also referred to the general policy of the spare room subsidy, and I point out to her that no such discretion was applied to the private rented sector for the local housing allowance.
While I do not seek to divide the House today, I want to put on the record my concern that the Bill is unnecessary and should be opposed at its later stages.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
That Alison Seabeck, Andrew Gwynne, Andrew George, Barbara Keeley, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Diana Johnson, Caroline Lucas and Ian Lavery present the Bill
Alison Seabeck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 202).
Business of the House (No. 1)
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I beg to move,
That the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Patrick McLoughlin relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill and (notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 16) the Motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 not later than four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
This is the second day of debate relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill and has been arranged in response to calls for more time to consider this important Bill. It has meant that we were able to spend all yesterday considering the Bill itself and we now turn to these important motions.
The business of the House motion allows the House to take the four motions together for debate. All of them relate to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill that was given a Second Reading yesterday, in particular the establishment and working of the Select Committee for the Bill, so it seems entirely sensible to take them all together. Overall, the House will have had more than 10 hours to debate the Second Reading and the motions, compared with fewer than seven hours for the same debates on Crossrail and HS1. I commend the motion to the House.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing the Bill’s Second Reading last night, but it is extraordinary that the Prime Minister, who found the time to reassure his Back Benchers on his EU referendum plans, was too busy to back this hugely significant infrastructure, which is of national importance. High Speed 2 is really important for our country. In the spirit of cross-party working, I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said.
Yesterday we debated the principle of HS2, and today we will debate the detailed process that Parliament will establish to ensure that the Bill receives the scrutiny it deserves. Any Bill of this size and importance will be controversial, and we must debate it properly. Today’s motions will set up a Select Committee to consider petitions on the Bill, instruct the Committee on the removal of the spur from Old Oak Common to the channel tunnel rail link and allow the hybrid Bill to be carried over into the next Session and the next Parliament.
I am pleased that it was Labour’s pressure that led to this second day of discussions on the Bill. I am very glad, as I am sure are many right hon. and hon. Members, that yesterday we did not have to sit through the night to vote these motions through—the public would certainly not have thanked us for that. Also, Parliament has hardly been overburdened with business for the past six months. Labour supports the Bill and will vote in favour of today’s motions to allow it to proceed. The Bill requires proper scrutiny, in broad daylight and in full public view, so I am glad that today it will get that.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s motion. As he appreciates, I was disappointed not to secure two full parliamentary days to debate the main principles of the Bill, as I think the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) knows only too well. It is regrettable that many colleagues were able to speak for only four minutes yesterday. Indeed, I was unable to allow colleagues to intervene, because I had extra time and did not want to eat into the time for others to speak. I welcome the fact that these discussions have been split over two days, which was a good decision. I think that four hours is a good time. We need to be able to ask questions about the detailed arrangements for the Bill, not least because it is a very complex process, even for some people in the House. I welcome the motion and hope that we can proceed in an orderly fashion.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
While I echo the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), I know that you, Mr Speaker, had expressed an interest in going late last night. I did not want us to have to go late, but I think that it was regrettable that Members were unable to speak for longer than five minutes—four minutes in the case of those who spoke towards the end of the debate—particularly given that today’s proceedings might not go the full distance. Having said that, let us get on with the business.
Question put and agreed to.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We come now to the four motions on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, which it is appropriate to debate together—[Interruption.] I wondered whether guidance was being proffered, but it was merely an expression of interest, in the form of a genuflection, from the Clerk at the Table. The four motions will indeed be debated together. I hope that I have enlightened the Clerk in that regard and satisfied any curiosity on the part of anybody else.
Amendments have been tabled to motions 3, 4 and 5. The selection of amendments is available from the Vote Office and in the Lobbies. I have selected amendments (b) to (j) to motion 3, amendments (a) to (e) to motion 4 and amendments (a) and (b) to motion 5. Members will be invited to move selected amendments formally at the end of the debate as we dispose of each motion in turn. The debate may range across all four motions, so it can be a seamless debate—I am confident that it will be—addressing any amendments that have been selected to any of those motions. To move the first motion, I call the aviation Minister no less, Mr Robert Goodwill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am also the Minister for phase 1 of HS2.
I beg to move motion 3,
1. That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
2. That the following Members be appointed as members of the Select Committee: Mr Henry Bellingham, Sir Peter Bottomley, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Mr Robert Syms and Mr Michael Thornton.
3. (1) That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee
(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office between 29 April 2014 and the closing date (inclusive), during the hours specified in a notice published by the Private Bill Office, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office during such hours and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee, being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through Counsel or Agents.
(2) The closing date for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) is-
(a) in a case where the Petition is that of a local authority (except a parish council) or a business, 16 May 2014, and
(b) in any other case, 23 May 2014.
4. That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day or days on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered.
5. That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of that person’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon that person’s Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
6. That in applying the Rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body.
7. That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
8. That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.
Mr Speaker
With this, we shall discuss the following:
Amendment (b), at end of paragraph 3(1)(b), insert:
‘(c) any other Petition, which, while initially not conforming to the rules for Petitions, has been resubmitted within seven days of the Petitioner receiving notice and explanation of any defect in their Petition,’.
Amendment (c), leave out paragraph 3(2)(a) and (b) and insert ‘10 June 2014.’.
Amendment (d), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert
‘3A. For the purposes of petitioning on the Bill, electronic deposit of petitions shall be permitted.’.
Amendment (e), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert
‘3B. For the purposes of petitioning on the Bill, the £20 fee shall be waived.’.
Amendment (f), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert
‘3B. For the purposes of petitioning on the Bill, electronic money transfer for payment of petitioning fees shall be facilitated.’.
Amendment (g), in paragraph 5, after ‘in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House’, insert
‘and shall be given six weeks’ notice of the date on which the Committee shall hear their Petition’.
Amendment (h), at end of paragraph 5, insert:
‘5A. That each Petitioner whose Petition has been referred to the Select Committee shall be consulted on whether they wish to be heard at Parliament or in the parliamentary constituency in which they reside, and that the Select Committee shall seek to accommodate all requests to be heard in the relevant parliamentary constituency.’.
Amendment (i), at end of paragraph 5, insert
‘5A. The Committee shall visit each parliamentary constituency on the proposed route to look at the route so proposed.’.
Amendment (j), in paragraph 8, leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘four’.
Motion 4—High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction—
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—
1. The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by
(a) leaving out provision relating to the spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and
(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).
2. The Committee shall not hear any Petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
3.–(1) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (2); and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
(2) The matters referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are:
(a) the provision of a high speed railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham and intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, and
(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in November 2013 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Amendment (a), after paragraph 1(b), insert:
‘(c) making such amendments to the Bill as are necessary to provide complete protection to any areas of outstanding natural beauty, classified ancient woodland, sites of special scientific interest and national monuments.’.
Amendment (b), at end of paragraph 1(b), insert
‘1A. The Committee shall consider whether the statutory and non-statutory provisions for compensation available to those who may be injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill merit any change.’.
Amendment (e), in paragraph 2, leave out from ‘whether’ to ‘Link’, and insert
‘the spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link referred to in the Bill; but the Committee is not prevented by this instruction from hearing any Petition relating to the need for the Bill to:
(a) include an alternative to the spur;
(b) facilitate the provision at a later date of the spur; or
(c) facilitate the provision at a later date of an alternative to the spur, by reason only that (a), (b) or (c) shares some of the same characteristics as the spur or would encompass facilitation of the spur referred to in the Bill.’.
Amendment (c), leave out paragraph 3.
Amendment (d), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert:
‘4. The Committee shall comment on and report to the House for its consideration any issue relating to the environmental impact of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides that is raised in a Petition against the Bill, including whether alternative or additional environmental protections and mitigations should in the Committee’s opinion be further examined.’.
[Relevant document: Thirteenth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on HS2 and the environment, HC 1076.]
Motion 5—High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Carry-Over—
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill:
Suspension at end of this Session
1. Further proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2014-15”).
2. If a Bill is presented in Session 2014-15 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session–
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;
(c) any Instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2014-15;
(d) all Petitions presented in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any Petition presented between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2014-15 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15;
(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15;
(f) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (d), and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2014-15, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15 shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of that person’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petition provided that it is prepared and signed and in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
(i) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
(j) any person registered in the current Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in Session 2014-15;
(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2014-15.
Suspension at end of this Parliament
3. If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2014-15, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2015-16”).
4. If a Bill is presented in Session 2015-16 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2014-15–
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in Session 2014-15, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2015-16; and
(c) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with–
(i) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph 6, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph 8, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(v) paragraph 9, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
5. If this paragraph applies–
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2014-15;
(b) any Instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2015-16;
(c) all Petitions presented in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any Petition presented between the day on which Session 2014-15 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2015-16 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2015-16;
(d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2015-16;
(e) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2015-16, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the first Session of the new Parliament shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petition provided that it is prepared and signed and in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
(g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
(h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
(i) any person registered (or deemed by paragraph 2(j) to be registered) in Session 2014-15 as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2014-15, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in Session 2015-16.
6. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
7. If this paragraph applies–
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee; and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
8. If this paragraph applies-
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered; and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
9. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
10. The references in paragraphs 1 and 3 above to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
11. That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Amendment (a), in paragraph 2(i), leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘four’.
Amendment (b), in paragraph 5(h), leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘four’.
Motion 6—Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
That the Chair of the select committee appointed to consider the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is specified for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
Mr Goodwill
Yesterday the House voted comprehensively in favour of the principle of a high-speed railway between London and the west midlands. Today we turn to the practicalities of how the parliamentary process for the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill will work. We have four motions before us this afternoon. The first is a motion to establish a Select Committee to hear petitions against the Bill; the second is an instruction to that Committee to clarify the principle of the Bill for its purposes; the third is a motion to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next Session, and also into the first Session of the next Parliament in 2015-16; and the fourth allows the payment of a salary to the Chair of the Select Committee, in the same way as for any other Select Committee Chair.
The second motion refers the Bill to a Select Committee of six members, as nominated in the motion. The motion also sets the period in which petitions against the Bill need to be submitted to be heard by the Committee. The period starts today and concludes on 16 May 2014 for petitions from local authorities, other than parish councils, and businesses.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Having spoken with the Public Bill Office earlier, I understand that the petition period starts tomorrow, not today, because there was some query about the length of the debate on Second Reading of the hybrid Bill.
Mr Goodwill
If that is the case, I stand corrected. The petition period will then be extended by an additional day. I had not been made aware of that by the House authorities. Of course, the way the petitions are controlled and the way the Committee carries out its work is a matter for the House; it is not one over which Ministers can have any influence.
The period closes on 23 May 2014—or perhaps 24 May—for members of the public, parish councils and other groups or organisations. Such an approach of having different periods for different types of petitioner is standard for hybrid Bills, having been used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 and the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. That allows 16 days and 23 days respectively for petitions, which is longer than most other hybrid Bills to date.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I go back a long way, and I know him to be a true Yorkshireman who will look after money well. On a practical point, where does the £20 fee for petitions go, what is it used for and can it be presented only in cash, or can payments by cheque or credit card be accepted?
Mr Goodwill
That will be a matter for the House authorities, but I am sure that it would be acceptable to pay the £20 in cash. I know that one of the amendments refers to electronic payments and tabling, which we will resist. The money will ultimately go to the taxpayer, as the House is a taxpayer-funded authority. We do not believe that a fee of £20 would be prohibitive for any organisation or individual seeking to petition the Committee.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why there is a £20 fee? HS2 Ltd, which is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on consultants, does not have to make any contribution to the cost of running the House, so why should individuals? Certainly, for some of the individuals in my constituency who will see their homes demolished, £20 is a rather large part of their weekly income.
Mr Goodwill
HS2 itself has spent considerable taxpayer funds on trying to mitigate many of the environmental implications of the line, which might well head off petitioners. Indeed, I was speaking with representatives of the Ramblers Association only the other week, when we went on a 10-mile ramble in my constituency. They told me that they were hopeful that, because of the engagement with HS2, they might not have to petition, as their concerns had been answered. HS2 has been engaging with a number of potential petitioners, including local authorities, to try to allay some of their concerns and fears without the need to petition. That money has been well spent in addressing those issues.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would antagonise the public more if, when their house was threatened with demolition, they were charged £20? Does he not see that that could have an adverse effect?
Mr Goodwill
We do not believe that the £20 fee is prohibitive. Of course, if some of the amendments were agreed to today, we could have a situation in which e-petitioning was allowed, and at the same time no fee was payable, and we could find the work of that Committee being frustrated by large amounts of electronic petitioning, perhaps done in a vexatious way designed to hinder the progress of the Bill, rather than to improve it, as the petitioning process is designed to do.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Could such complaints from a number of sources be combined and presented with one £20 note, or would a £20 note have to be submitted for every person involved?
Mr Goodwill
I can allay my hon. Friend’s concerns. Yes, a group of people can petition together and only one fee is payable. The people who petition can appear at the Committee, and they can be represented by an agent or by a number of people from that group. I do not feel that the fee is prohibitive. It is set by the House and has not increased since 1988. It is a matter for the House to administer these costs, not a matter for the Government. Members might like to raise the question with Mr Speaker, as it is a House matter.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a matter for which the Minister may be responsible, how long does he expect the Committee to sit? When does he expect its life to end?
Mr Goodwill
We have already made it clear that we do not expect the Committee to conclude its work, which must be done thoroughly and in a way that we believe responds adequately to concerns raised in petitions. The Secretary of State indicated that he expects it to continue after the next general election, which is why there is a double carry-over motion before the House. That means that the Committee can continue its work not only into the next Session of this Parliament, but beyond the general election. It is a matter for the Committee how it organises its work and how it considers the petitions. That is not a matter for me as the Minister.
Chris Bryant
I think the Minister just said that he does not expect the Committee to conclude. In other words, it will go on for ever and ever. That is what the motion allows for, yet later today we will be asked to contribute to the pay of the person who is to chair the Committee. We are going to be paying this person in perpetuity, yet it seems that the Minister has nothing to account for.
Mr Goodwill
Any motions passed in the House today can be amended in future by the House. If, for example, the Committee was not sitting and it was felt that the Chairman therefore did not deserve his fee, that could be revisited by the House. In view of the precedents of previous hybrid Bills, we believe that the period of time needed will take us past the next general election—I hope not far past the next general election, but given the number of petitions that we expect and the work that the Committee will have to carry out, it has the possibility of sitting during the recess to try to improve the speed at which it can carry out that work. This is a reasonable way of going forward and of giving that Committee the resources and the time it needs to do its job thoroughly.
Mr Speaker
Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me say that I feel sure beyond doubt that the Minister was trying to be helpful to the House, but in a similar vein perhaps I ought to emphasise to colleagues that in respect of the matter of fees or charges, appertaining as they do to a private Bill, such matters would ordinarily be raised by right hon. and hon. Members with the Chairman of Ways and Means, who oversees such matters. A visit even to the Private Bill Office might be beneficial to Members. What I am saying politely to colleagues is that there is no great merit in raising the matter with me, notwithstanding the good intentions of the Minister’s intervention.
Chris Bryant
I have almost forgotten what I was going to ask after that rather lengthy—but welcome—contribution to the debate. The Minister has already said that the Committee that we are appointing—we are naming the members of the Committee in the motion before the House—will continue after the general election. It is quite clear that this is providing a safe berth for a Conservative Member of the House. When we win the general election next May, will the Committee membership and the chairmanship automatically change party?
Mr Goodwill
The membership of the Committee is a matter for the House. When after the next election we have a majority Conservative Government, if necessary we could revisit that. It is a matter for the House. We are voting on it today and there is nothing written in stone today that cannot be changed in future by a further motion put before the House and voted on.
The motion sets out that anyone who submits a valid petition is entitled to be heard by the Select Committee, either in person, or through a parliamentary agent or counsel. The motion gives some latitude to organisations petitioning to authorise different officers as their representative before the Select Committee, should they need to do so. The motion provides for the Committee to meet during recess should it wish to do so, and also to hold its hearings away from Parliament if it so wishes. I know that one of the amendments tabled refers to its meeting in other parts of the country. It would be for the Committee to decide if it would be useful to do so.
However, our hope is that people will not feel the need to petition. HS2 Ltd has produced a significant number of information papers which are published on its website. These attempt to address the key concerns that people have about the project, such as the impacts of construction and noise. I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to read those papers, as this might stop unnecessary petitions.
It is established practice that the Select Committee cannot hear petitions against the principle of the Bill. That principle was agreed by the whole House on Second Reading yesterday, and it would not be appropriate for a Select Committee to consider changes that might undermine the decision made by the whole House. This instruction, therefore, sets out the principle of the Bill for the Select Committee: the provision of a high-speed railway between Euston and a junction at the west coast main line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham. The principle also includes the intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange located near the airport, and the broad route alignment set out in the plans and sections deposited with the Bill. This principle should give the Committee sufficient scope to address the issues of petitioners without sacrificing the desired capability of the railway to give the benefits expected.
The instruction also addresses the Secretary of State’s decision to remove the HS1 link. The removal of the link was agreed as part of Second Reading yesterday. The instruction, therefore, requires an amendment to be made to remove the link and then treats the Bill as though the link were not included in the principle. Therefore, there is no need for people opposed to the link to petition against the link, as it will be removed. It is also not possible for the Committee to hear petitions in favour of a link, in the same way as it is not possible for the Committee to hear petitions in favour of an extension to Newquay, for example, or anywhere else. That is beyond the principle of the Bill.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I agree that it should not be for the Committee to devise an alternative link, but can the Minister clarify whether the Committee could hear petitions for passive provision, which would future-proof the project if a link were deemed desirable at a future date?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Indeed, there is already passive provision in the first phase to allow the Heathrow spur to be constructed, should it be decided to go forward in that way. From an engineering perspective, it would be very expensive and disruptive to try to join that link. Similarly, in relation to the passive provision for the HS1 link, it is ultimately for the Committee to decide whether or not a petition should be heard. The Committee may choose to hear petitions relating to a future link not being precluded, but the work of the Committee is about the railway before it and it cannot get bogged down considering the merits of links that may or may not happen.
Frank Dobson
Much as I welcome the dropping of the preposterous HS2-HS1 link, as do all the people whose lives would have been ruined by it, in view of the fact that until about three weeks ago HS2 was saying that there was no possibility of dropping the link, no one in the area believes a word that HS2 says. I warn the Minister of that. The motion says that the Committee shall not hear a petition if it relates to the link. That is fine, because the link has been dropped. Supposing that, after the Committee stage had concluded, the House as a whole decided to reinstate the link; would people then be allowed to petition? If not, they would think they were being swindled by officialdom, as would indeed be the case.
Mr Goodwill
I hope that, following the decision to scrap the link, I have a few more friends in Camden than before. If the Committee were to decide to make changes to the Bill that affected potential petitioners who were not affected before, there would be another opportunity for them to petition, and a similar period would be allowed for that to happen.
Let me underline that for a whole variety of reasons that I will not go into but the right hon. Gentleman will understand, we do not believe that the HS1-HS2 link represents value for money or that it is practical. There are all sorts of logistical problems. From a security perspective, the journey would have to be designated as international because we could not have a situation where some people on the train had gone through passport control and some had not. There might be rather frugally minded Yorkshiremen such as me who decided that, rather than buy a through-train ticket to Paris, they would buy two tickets and make the short stroll between Euston and St Pancras, or get the underground, or even use some other means such as a travelator, which could transport people quickly and easily between those two locations.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister refer to a travelator for efficient and easy travel. He said that the HS1-HS2 link would be an international route and everyone would have to go through passport control. Will he consider the possibility of domestic services regarding a future link? Research from Greengauge 21, paid for by Kent and Essex county councils, among others, suggests that demand for those services would be very substantial and potentially much higher than for international travel.
Mr Goodwill
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. However, having analysed this carefully and brought in Sir David Higgins, who did the work for us and has a wealth of experience in major projects of this sort, we concur with him that the link does not represent value for money and we have therefore scrapped it; the House voted last night to do so. Although there may be an opportunity for the hybrid Bill Committee to consider passive provision so as not to obviate any potential future link, it is certainly not in our plans at the moment—nor, having heard the comments of Opposition Front Benchers, would Labour wish to press for it, should there be, God forbid, a change of Government at the next election.
Mr Jim Cunningham
About 20 years ago, I chaired the Committee on the hybrid Croydon Tramlink Bill. At that time, we accepted that there could be changes to the Government’s proposals and recommendations could be made. Is the Minister saying that no changes are going to be allowed if people want to introduce a spur or different forms of link?
Mr Goodwill
I am saying that if the hybrid Bill Committee proposed changes that the Government agreed to, there would be a further opportunity for people who are directly affected by those changes to petition. The Bill cannot be changed in a way that affects people without their getting a second bite of the cherry, because they may not have considered petitioning in the first place.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is getting himself back on to my Christmas card list, from which he was rejected last night. Are the Government completely closed to the idea of a different, better HS1-HS2 link than the one we rightly rejected last night?
Mr Goodwill
Any link between HS1 and HS2 is not part of the Bill that was before us last night or the provisions we are considering today, and we as a Government are certainly not planning to look at it in the near future. This project will be in operation for many centuries, we hope, and who knows what might happen in future? At the moment, the Government’s position is absolutely clear: we have abandoned the link—we voted on that in the House last night—and we do not wish to revisit it. We will be looking into making it easier to get across from Euston to St Pancras. Although it is not a long walk and there is an underground train service, there may be better ways of dealing with the situation, and HS2 is looking into that.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I will not pre-empt what I have to say when I move my amendment, but will the Minister clarify what he meant when he talked about passive provision and referred to Heathrow? Is he saying that passive provision is already in existence, or would it have to be made?
Mr Goodwill
The passive provision for the Heathrow spur is included in the first phase. That is because if the spur goes ahead—it is already part of the second phase that is being consulted on—breaking into the line to put in a link would be very expensive and disruptive. The spur—the passive provision for the Heathrow link—is part of the first phase. We are consulting on the second phase, part of which is the Heathrow spur.
I must point out that the first phase of HS2 includes a very good connection to Heathrow airport via Old Oak Common, with up to eight trains an hour and 11 or 12-minute journey times. That is a very good way of getting to Heathrow and to other stations served by Crossrail. Old Oak Common is currently a little-known backwater, but very soon, I promise, it will become as famous as Waterloo, St Pancras or Victoria stations and be an integral part of this country’s and this capital’s transport system.
Ms Stuart
May I make this clear? The passive provision for Heathrow is already in place, and passive provision to provide for a potential HS1-HS2 link could be put into the legislation as it is now. It would have to be put in because it is not there by virtue of the Heathrow passive provision, and it could not be added by dint of the Committee deciding to do so.
Mr Goodwill
Yes, I think the hon. Lady has got it right. There is an opportunity, should anyone wish to take it, to petition the Committee to put in some passive provision for a future connection. We have commissioned HS2 Ltd and Network Rail to look at options for better connecting the rail network to HS1, but any conclusions that require powers would not be taken forward in this Bill.
On the carry-over motion, hybrid Bills can be carried over Prorogations because Standing Order 80A does not apply. This is a completely standard part of the process for hybrid Bills, as they generally take longer than public Bills.
Mark Reckless
Is one study taking place or two? There is the question whether we have a travelator-type arrangement to connect Euston and St Pancras for passengers going from HS1 to HS2, but is there a separate question of how we connect HS1 to the broader railway network, which may be a case of a train-in-a-tunnel HS1-HS2 link for the future?
Mr Goodwill
Those are two separate matters that are mutually exclusive. We are looking at whether better provision can be made for the short journey between Euston and St Pancras for those who wish to continue their journey internationally, or indeed to use King’s Cross or St Pancras for domestic journeys. A separate process is going on whereby HS2 Ltd and Network Rail are looking at how we can better improve the connectivity of HS1. That is being done in the light of the decision to abandon the HS1-HS2 connection, which was very popular in places such as Camden.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill was carried over two Prorogations. The Crossrail Bill was carried over two Prorogations and a Dissolution for a general election. The House is due to prorogue shortly for the Queen’s Speech—
Mr Goodwill
I haven’t a clue. Even when I was in the Whips Office, we did not get to hear about that.
Because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, we know with a degree of certainty when Parliament will be dissolved for the next general election. Although we had hoped that the hybrid Bill would secure Royal Assent before the next general election, I am clear that in all likelihood it will not do so.
Chris Bryant
The Select Committee that was appointed to consider the Crossrail Bill had 10 members, so why has the Committee under discussion got only six and, therefore, a different quorum of three?
Mr Goodwill
To be absolutely honest with the hon. Gentleman, many people who volunteered to consider the Crossrail Bill did not realise what a commitment it would be. We have found six Members—some of whom have been volunteered—who are prepared to put in the time and commitment to do this, and I think we will be well served by them. We are very grateful to them for putting their names forward. It would be a big ask to find a large Committee to do this work, given the large amount of time those Members will have to take out of the other parliamentary duties they carry out on their constituents’ behalf. We are very grateful that they are volunteers rather than pressed men.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As I understand it, this is a general debate about all the issues, as encapsulated in the motions and the various amendments. Next week will be my 30th year in Parliament and, having spent a lot of my previous life dealing with hybrid and other Bills, I entirely concur with my hon. Friend on the burdens involved in the privilege of being given the opportunity to take such an active part in the Select Committee stage. Does he accept that there is recognition in one of the Bill’s schedules for property bonds, and does he agree that the Select Committee should take that issue into account when it decides what kind of compensation should be paid?
Mr Goodwill
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the compensation package at this stage, given that consultation is still taking place, but we recently announced a package that I believe to be generous, particularly in rural areas. It also has to be fair to the taxpayer, who will ultimately pick up the bill, and the compensation is in marked contrast to that which other people around the country might receive if a bypass, new railway spur or goods marshalling yard were to be built in their area.
The carry-over motion reflects the certainty provided by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It allows the Bill to carry over into the fourth Session of this Parliament and the first Session of the next. That will avoid the need unnecessarily to use up the House’s time with another carry-over motion later in the year when it is clear to everyone when the general election will take place and that this Bill will not have secured Royal Assent by that point.
The motion provides for suspension of the Bill from the end of the Session, but that will not prevent the depositing of petitions after Prorogation should it precede the end of the petitioning period. The motion also provides for the continuity of the membership of the Select Committee and maintains any instructions given to the Committee by this House, the standing of roll B agents and all the elements of whatever progress the Bill has made from each Session into the next. In providing for carry-over into the next Parliament, the motion caters for the fact that the Bill could have reached a range of different stages by that point. In each case, the motion provides that the progress made up to the end of the fourth Session be carried over into the next Parliament.
As the House is aware, the Chairs of departmental Select Committees are paid for the additional responsibilities the role brings, as allowed under section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The role of the Chair of a hybrid Bill Select Committee is no less demanding —indeed, in some cases it may be more demanding—and the Chair of the Crossrail Select Committee was paid a salary equivalent to that of a departmental Select Committee Chair. The motion allows the Chair of the HS2 Select Committee to be paid an equivalent salary, and I am sure the House will agree that that is appropriate, given the significant responsibility the role carries.
In conclusion, I commend the motions to the House. HS2 is a vital national project and it is important that we make swift progress. However, it is equally important to ensure that those affected by the railway have appropriate opportunity to have their say. I believe that the motions strike the right balance. They establish a Select Committee with the flexibility to hear and deal with the concerns of those directly and specially affected, but they do not import unreasonable delay. Everyone wants certainty—petitioner, promoter and the general public—and I believe that the motions provide that certainty and that they will allow people to have their say, have their issues addressed and get on with their lives. I think that everyone in the House wants to see that, and I hope they will support the motions.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Last night the House gave its clear endorsement to the principle of building a new, high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. We urgently need that additional track capacity to meet the growth in passenger numbers, to enable new commuter services and to provide the basis for a high-speed network to connect the great cities of the midlands and the north. The case for building a new north-south line was robust when the previous Labour Government launched their Command Paper in 2010, and it remains robust now, especially in the light of the continued growth in demand for rail travel.
Although the principle of the Bill was endorsed by the House last night, it is right that more time has been allocated to debate the various motions before us today. Hybrid Bill procedures put major rail projects through a very intensive process of scrutiny—much more so than in many other European countries—and I know that veterans of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Crossrail Bills would attest to that fact. Those procedures mean that there will be opportunities to put in place additional mitigation measures through the petitioning process. It is vital that, where there are remaining environmental challenges or concerns over the impact of construction work, those petitioners receive a fair hearing.
This House has now voted in favour of the principle of building HS2 from London to Birmingham, but, given the Government’s rather leisurely pace in introducing this Bill, there is now no prospect of it receiving Royal Assent before the election. It therefore makes sense to vote on the carry-over motion now, so that the process can continue into the next Parliament. That will also ensure certainty for people along the route who are getting ready to submit their petitions.
We are also being asked to vote on the Select Committee motion. I want to put on record the gratitude of, undoubtedly, the whole House to the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton). This represents a major personal commitment, but the process should also deliver a railway that will be used by millions of passengers a year and more equitable treatment for those affected by construction.
It is a point of principle that hybrid Bill Committees are able to manage their own affairs, beyond the normal limits of deviation. However, given the sheer volume of this Bill—including the environmental statement, it is reckoned to be the most substantial piece of legislation ever produced—it is also common sense to minimise the burdens on the Committee. A number of amendments have been tabled that would restrict its ability to hear petitions in the way it thinks most effective. As I said yesterday, I think the Committee should hear petitions in the constituencies affected by construction, including Euston. Indeed, the House is familiar with the issues in that area, thanks to the tireless campaigning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).
There are similar issues to be considered with regard to the instruction motion, which sets out the limits of deviation for any changes made by the Committee, as is usual with a hybrid Bill. The motion also includes instructions for removing the planned link to HS1 from the Bill. It may be worth briefly describing how flawed that proposal was. It would have involved running trains on a single track over the north London line, which is an important passenger and freight route. Earlier this year, I saw for myself the disruption that could have been caused in Camden Town. The link was always an inadequate compromise that pleased no one, and Labour listened to Birmingham, the northern cities and organisations such as Transport for London that called for a rethink.
That is why we said last August that the link should be reviewed, and it is absolutely right that David Higgins has looked at the proposals and found them wanting. HS2 Ltd and Network Rail have now been asked to look at other options, and I hope the Minister will tell the House when he expects that report to be published.
We have to recognise that amendment (e), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), is not connected to that process. If passed, it would allow for a new link to be put in, even if it did not adequately meet the country’s strategic needs. To quote the Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire chambers of commerce submission to the environmental statement consultation:
“It is important that this stage of the planning”—
process—
“does not build a ‘weak link’ into the overall intentions for HS2.”
Given the strategic importance of such proposals, they should have the support of the Government of the day and must be properly evaluated. It is difficult to see how the petitioning stage could be an appropriate process without such input. Although I understand why amendment (e) has been tabled, I hope that the Government will engage positively with Centro and other transport planners in the west midlands and, indeed, further north. I thank the Minister for his clarification that the instruction motion will not prevent the Committee from discussing options for future-proofing the project to ensure that putting in a link remains feasible.
Amendment (d) has been signed by several members of the Environmental Audit Committee. They raised several points in their recent report, some of which were also made in a Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) last year on the impact of HS2 on ancient woodlands. The Committee already has the power to make changes to mitigate the environmental impacts of the proposed route, but the amendment would require it to prepare a report for the whole House on any petition that raises any environmental issue. We have concerns about the cost and time implications that that requirement might impose, especially as some petitions could be resolved by relatively minor and straightforward changes to the scheme and, in such cases, it would not be necessary to involve the whole House. I note that when previous instructions were agreed, Standing Order 224A was not in place. That Standing Order provides for an independent assessment of responses to the environmental statement consultation, which has now been published as the Golders report, and it will not be necessary to have two separate reporting processes.
It is important to retain the Committee’s ability to exercise discretion in such circumstances and to ensure there is no infringement on its right to issue a special report to the House, as happened during the passage of the Crossrail Bill, but that should remain the Committee’s choice. We want the Government to take a more effective approach to environmental mitigation than they have done so far, but we have concerns about the additional burdens that the directions in the amendment would impose on the Committee.
The motions represent the Government’s admission of the realities that the Opposition have frequently pointed out and that Ministers had long denied: first, that the proposed link to HS1 was utterly inadequate; and, secondly, that there was no prospect of the Bill receiving Royal Assent before the election, which they had previously insisted would be achieved. It will therefore fall to the next Parliament—and the next Labour Government—to deliver this nationally important project. That is why the motions as they stand represent the best balance between allowing the Committee a free hand and ensuring an operationally effective route, alongside value for taxpayers’ money.
The case for HS2 is clear. The railways cannot go on as they are: without more capacity they cannot grow, and if they cannot grow they will decline. Local services have already been cut in the north and in the west midlands to make way for faster, more profitable trains to London. Without a substantial increase in capacity, which can effectively be achieved only through a new line, our commuter economies will suffer. We want both inter-city and branch lines to thrive, and we have reached the point at which we need serious investment in new track if that is to be achieved. The project is vital to the country as a whole. That is why Labour supports the Bill, and why we want the motions to be passed.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I shall deal with my amendments to the motions. As I am following the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who speaks for the Opposition, I can tell her that although the principles of HS2 were agreed by the House last night, 50 Members voted for the reasoned amendment to deny the Bill a Second Reading and many others abstained, so this Government and their successors have not been given carte blanche to ride roughshod over the views of the people who do not think that the project is the best solution to our transport problems.
Today we are dealing with the process, and it is important to probe the process and make sure that it is fit for purpose. Through the medium of the amendments, I hope to gain some insight into Front Benchers’ and the House’s thinking about how we should handle such matters. The amendments are designed to probe and, for the comfort of the House, I can say that I do not intend to press any of them to a Division for the simple reason that I hope Ministers and the House might take them away and consider them. I think that will make things more comfortable, certainly for the Whips Office, which always seems very concerned to know what I am up to.
In amendment (a), which was not selected, to the committal motion, I sought only to restrict the number of members of the Select Committee. It is important to point out that if the Government wanted to add members, that would disturb the dynamics of what will be a very complex Committee that has to sit in judgment on the project. We need to maintain the same membership for as long as possible, notwithstanding what may happen with the electorate if the Committee continues its work after the next general election. We need the Committee to have a stable membership, and I do not think that any chopping and changing would benefit the House, the scrutiny of the Bill or confidence in the House and our processes.
I want to ask what training will be given to the six brave Members of Parliament, whom I certainly congratulate on their appointment to the Committee? The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) is very new—he came in only in February last year—and I do not know what experience he has of such projects, but I am sure he would benefit from any training that is provided. The hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) entered the House in 2010. In my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), we have a man of great experience, who has served as a shadow Trade and Industry Minister, which will be particularly useful. Of course, the longevity in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)—since 1975—is not to be underestimated. He has the great advantage of having served as an Under-Secretary of State for Transport between 1986 and 1989, and that experience is relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) was a distinguished member of the Transport Committee, and was a shadow Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions spokesperson. With his former managing directorship of a plant hire firm, he brings with him a great deal of relevant experience.
Sir John Randall
I am interested in what my right hon. Friend is saying, but does she not think that one merit of such Committees is having a broad spectrum of people—not necessarily all experts—who can give a common-sense view and, in that way, listen to petitions almost like members of the public?
Mrs Gillan
The five men and one woman—I apologise to the hon. Member for Bolton South East—have been chosen well and will bring an objective view to the project. However, they will have to get to grips with some pretty complex technical information on local geology, hydrology, construction details, logistics and operations. Even the Clerks of the House, who are very helpful and very good on procedure, will have to get to grips with that information. I want to know what training will be provided, when it will start and who can attend it.
Mrs Gillan
As a former Whip, my right hon. Friend will know that he and I may not discuss in public matters that were discussed in the Whips Office. I am rather surprised at him for laying such a puerile trap at this stage, when I am trying to be helpful and to elicit information.
I am concerned about who will provide advice to the Committee. As all of us who have sat on Select Committees and Public Bill Committees and who have been Ministers know, the technical and professional advice that is given to the Committee will be important. I want an assurance that people will be available to provide technical advice to the Committee who are not on the payroll of the Government in one way or another. We have a finite number of engineering companies, most of which seem to be employed by the Department for Transport or other Departments. It is a valid point that we need to know that the Committee will be able to draw on independent technical advice. I want to know how many advisers to the Committee there will be, what their qualifications will be, how they will be chosen, how much they will be paid and who will vet them.
Sir John Randall
Perhaps it is inappropriate for me to offer my services free, but if there are any questions on the environment or on wildlife, I will be happy to assist the Committee on a no-fee basis.
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful for my colleague’s offer. I am sure that the Minister will have taken it on board. What worries me is that so many members of environmental groups have been insulted so often in the course of this project that he might have to provide his services, because people might be unwilling to come forward if they are going to be treated so roughly.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the first part of the right hon. Lady’s speech. I agree with her strongly about the advice of technical experts. However, even technical experts have views. Is it not important to ensure that we hear a range of views about the project and that we get honest technical advice on all the detailed points?
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which extends the point that I am making without labouring it. The members of the Select Committee will bring common sense and the view of the Member of Parliament to the Committee, but they will still have to rely on the people who have the expertise to take them through the detail.
Mr Goodwill
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way today. The advice that the Committee takes and the expertise that it chooses to draw on will be a matter for the Committee itself. Of course, the expertise of HS2 will be available to the Committee, should it wish to avail itself of that. Many of the petitioners may well be experts, in particular the environmental non-governmental organisations that wish to petition. I do not think that there will be a shortage of offers of advice to members of the Committee. However, that is a matter for them as they conduct their work and not for Ministers.
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful for that intervention. I am using this debate as a vehicle to raise these questions. They might not all be directed at the Front Bench, but I am raising them in this forum because I see no other opportunity for Members to raise them. I take on board what the Minister has said.
Frank Dobson
Does the right hon. Lady recognise that some of the organisations that are said to have advised the Department or HS2 are not necessarily on quite the same lines as the Department or HS2? For instance, we were told that the Institution of Civil Engineers had provided advice on the HS1-HS2 link. It had indeed, but it turns out that it advised against the link. That bit was not mentioned.
Mrs Gillan
One has to be very careful in this game and read the fine print. Even when one reads the fine print, one can be surprised about what one discovers.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Before the right hon. Lady moves on from this point, will she comment on the intervention by the Minister on the powers of the Select Committee? He said that it will be possible for the Select Committee to take the action it needs to take. Is it not important for there to be an instruction from Parliament on what its remit should be?
Mrs Gillan
That is another valid point. The hon. Lady and I would agree that we want to ensure that the Committee is not irrationally constrained or affected in any way if it looks as though it is moving towards decisions that HS2 Ltd and the Department do not like. We need to ensure that the Committee is independent and that it is not constrained. While I am responding to her intervention, may I say that I was very grateful for the detailed and thoughtful work that was carried out by the Environmental Audit Committee? It was very helpful and was much appreciated by my constituents and a large number of people beyond my constituency.
It strikes me with horror to hear that the advice of HS2 will be available to the Committee. I have this thought about the fox getting into the chicken house. However, I know that it is essential that HS2 advises the Committee. It will need to reveal more about its plans. That leads me to my next point.
Will the reports of the Major Projects Authority be available to the Committee? Ministers have seen the MPA reports into risk, which have categorised the project as amber-red. Those documents have been withheld from general release, despite the decision of the Information Commissioner that it was in the public interest for them to be released. My understanding is that the Information Commissioner will look for a review of the Government’s decision to block the publication of the reports.
It would be unacceptable to me if the Committee that scrutinised the project did not have access to the reports, which must contain facts that the Government do not want to be in the public domain, when deciding on the project. I ask the Minister once again: if he could not make the reports available to this House before the vote yesterday and if he cannot make them available to the wider public, can he make them available to the Committee on a confidential basis so that we know that the representatives of this House who are scrutinising the Bill will not be hoodwinked and will not have information withheld from them?
Sir John Randall
I am following what my right hon. Friend is saying and I share her disappointment at the blocking of the reports. However, am I not correct in saying that if they were going to be delivered to us, it would have happened before yesterday’s Second Reading debate? This matter will not impinge on the Committee’s work. We must not impugn the members of the Committee who, as she said, are excellent people, by saying that they will be hoodwinked in any way.
Mrs Gillan
I am sorry if I gave that impression. I do not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, but perhaps he did not understand fully what I said. I know that Members of this House and people beyond it cannot see the reports by virtue of the veto that has been brought to bear by the Secretary of State for Transport. I am not challenging that and it is not for me to do so any more. I have challenged it on many occasions. I think that we should have seen the reports before yesterday’s debate. However, I want to ensure that the Committee has access to them because I believe that the only reason for their being stopped is that they contain information that would reflect adversely on the project. I think that the Committee that scrutinises the project on behalf of the House should have access to the reports. I am asking whether it can have privileged and private access to the reports so that it is fully apprised of what the MPA has said about the project.
Will the costings on the tunnelling, which HS2 has so far refused to disclose, be published for the Committee? I cannot see how the Committee can look at tunnelling processes and options without knowing the costs that HS2 Ltd has calculated. It has not made those available to any of the engineering or environmental teams that have looked at better and preferred options for protecting the area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency. I appreciate that that will be difficult, because there may be a conflict with government procurement rules. However, I need to know whether the Minister is thinking about that problem and whether there is any way around it. I do not believe that the Committee will be able to make a judgment on the tunnelling options unless it can see the full facts and information on the tunnelling proposals that have been put forward by HS2 Ltd.
Sir John Randall
If somebody presents a petition for extra tunnelling, presumably HS2 will have to present how much it would cost if it opposes it. Therefore, those facts will presumably be available to the Committee.
Mrs Gillan
I have learned that making a presumption about this project is always dangerous. I, too, would have presumed that, but I also would have presumed that when engineering experts asked for the calculations and costs associated with the tunnelling that was being promoted by HS2 Ltd, they would have been made freely available. The reply has always been that they are commercial in confidence, and I am trying to get around that, because it is important to ensure that the Committee has access to the costs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would support me on that, but I would not make the mistake of presuming.
On amendment (i), I want to know how often the Committee will sit. I appreciate that it could sit through the recess, and I am grateful that the motion states that it may adjourn from place to place. I believe that it will need to visit the areas affected and publish the details of its sittings, and it should confirm when and how there will be public access to its meetings.
I would also like to know whether Committee members will fly the whole route of phase 1 of HS2. When I was looking at what National Grid was doing across Wales when it was building the gas pipeline, I found it of great advantage to go up in a helicopter and look at the work along the whole route. While I am on the subject, I must say that National Grid did a fantastic piece of work in negotiating with more than 80 landowners with very little trouble. It also did fantastic environmental reinstatement work across some sensitive land, including the Brecon Beacons national park. I was impressed with its operations, and I wish I could say that I had been as impressed with HS2’s negotiations with property owners and landowners so far.
On amendment (c), the petitioning process will be open from tomorrow at 10 o’clock. The Minister will know that we have to get our facts right, and the parliamentary website, in a section entitled “How and where do I present my petition?”, states:
“Petitions will be accepted from 10am to 5pm on 30 April—not on 29 April”,
as the Minister said earlier,
“as the House will not consider the petitioning motion setting the petitioning dates until the afternoon of 29 April.”
There is some useful information on the Parliament website under the title “FAQs on the High Speed 2 Hybrid Bill”, and I recommend that anybody who is watching these proceedings and wishes to petition has a look at that excellent document, which the Clerks of the House have produced.
Is three weeks really long enough for the petitioning process? May the House have confirmation that if I receive any petitions in my office in Amersham, I can seal them in an envelope with the £20 cheque or payment and then bring them here for the convenience of my constituents? Will handing them over to staff of the House in that way be sufficient, and will I be able to get a small receipt so that I can confirm to my constituents that that has happened?
There has been some confusion about the deadlines for petitioning. I should like the Minister to make it absolutely clear that town councils have the same deadline as parish councils, 23 May, whereas there is an earlier date for county and district councils.
Mrs Gillan
I will give way to the Minister, and I would also like to know why county and district councils have been given a week less. The reason is not obvious to me, but maybe I am just missing something.
Mr Goodwill
May I confirm to my right hon. Friend that town councils are in fact parish councils? The councils that do not have the longer deadline are borough and district councils.
Mrs Gillan
I am most grateful. Does the Minister also want to tell us why there is a week’s difference in the deadlines? Why could we not just have one deadline?
Mr Goodwill
We are just following previous practice. My right hon. Friend will be aware that many local authorities have been preparing their petitions for many weeks and months, so the focus on the timeline for delivering them is rather a spurious argument. The project has been known about for many months and years, and she will know that many petitions have already been prepared.
Mrs Gillan
That is all well and good, but the process is complex and I was just seeking to simplify it by having one closing date rather than a tortuous process of two dates. Frankly, I would have thought that we should set new precedents on such a large issue rather than rely on old ones.
Sir John Randall
We ought to stress that the dates set are deadlines, not dates on which all petitions have to be deposited. As somebody who has never been very good at doing stuff before deadlines—I think I still have a couple of university essays outstanding—I believe that we should press the case that we do not want all petitions to be submitted at the last minute.
Mrs Gillan
That is a valid point, and I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about deadlines, because sometimes I am not too good at them myself.
Amendments (e) and (f) are about the transfer of money for petitions. I do not believe that electronic payment for petitions is currently possible, but that would be good. At the moment, if Members of Parliament are asked to deliver a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of their constituents, they handle money or cheques, which is not a particularly good system.
Sir John Randall
I think I have a common-sense answer to that, which probably means that it cannot happen. It is for the House to open a PayPal account, which would avoid a lot of the rigmarole involved in taking credit or debit card payments by other means. It is quite simple.
Mrs Gillan
I will go with the flow on that, because I think PayPal is very good, particularly for buying stuff on eBay and so on.
Mrs Gillan
PayPal is good, but I must admit to my right hon. Friend, who has a small interest in the retail sector, that the high street is also good.
I disagree with the Minister and others, because I believe that the £20 fee should be consigned to the dark ages. Opposition Members have made good points about it. It might not seem a lot of money to some people, but let us put it in perspective. It is just under 20% of the basic weekly old-age pension, which is a lot of money. People who will be affected by HS2 will want access to the petitioning process, but £20 will be a lot of money for them to find for the privilege of defending their own house and their own territory.
Sir John Randall
Again, I have a possible solution. Obviously, the reason for the fee is to prevent vexatious petitions, and I think we all agree that that is preferable for the sake of the Committee getting its job done efficiently and quickly. Perhaps people should put down a £20 deposit, and then if the petition is accepted the deposit should be returned. If it is seen to be vexatious, the House authorities should keep the deposit.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend is leading me down a path that I do not really want to go down. I appreciate what he says and I like the way he is thinking, but I do not want to put the House authorities in the position of deciding whether a petition is vexatious. Some of my constituents know the disregard that is being shown to their views about HS2. They are not vexatious people in any way, shape or form—they are people speaking up for their locality, their homes and their environment—but they are sometimes referred to in derogatory terms by both officials and Ministers.
Amendment (b) is about the ability to amend petitions if someone has made an error in them. We have a complex format for our petitioning process, even in its simplified form compared with when I came into the House some 22 or 23 years ago. It is still complex and daunting, and I need some undertaking that if a mistake is made in the formatting of a petition, that will not be held against the potential petitioners and there will be a mechanism whereby they can be informed of the irregularity and have the opportunity to correct it. In other words, we need the assistance of the House to ensure that people who wish to get their petition in order can do so easily.
If the Committee is to last for two years, some of the petitions may not be heard for a long time. A petition is, after all, a gateway document, and I want to ensure that there is a facility for people to make changes to it. Two years is a long time for a document to be set in stone. I would therefore like reassurance that perhaps over a two or three-year period, there would be the possibility and leeway for amendments to be made to those petitions, and a mechanism whereby petitioners could contact Parliament to make those changes.
Amendments (g) and (h) are about listening to people and how easy we make that process. I know this is a matter for the Committee, but I hope it will hear what I have to say. Hearing people in their own constituency and location could make it a great deal easier for those who want to come forward. The type of questioning we see on our televisions from some of our more tenacious members of Select Committees can look pretty intimidating. I am second to none in my admiration for the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I want to ensure that my constituents who come forward to defend their property will not be submitted to that type of aggressive interrogation. They are trying to protect their properties and elicit information, and to give information to the Committee; they are not being held to account by the Committee, which I hope will be borne in mind.
In addition to hoping that some petitioners can be heard in their constituencies and closer to their homes, I also hope we will give people a decent period of notice about when their petition is likely to be heard. I appreciate that the detailed workings of the Committee will set out how and when it will hear which petitions and at what stages, but it is important that people have at least six weeks to make their arrangements. We are not talking about Members of Parliament who are used to being summoned in; we are talking about people who are sometimes in care or who care for others, or who have children or other responsibilities. A decent period of six weeks to let petitioners know when they are due to be heard would be acceptable.
Mr Simon Burns
My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important point because clarity and giving people time to rearrange their affairs is important. Does she agree that rather than setting in stone the period of six weeks and defining a term, it might be sensible to operate a system such as that in a long-running court case, and the way that potential witnesses are informed of the time scale in which they may expect to be called to give evidence or make their contribution?
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend knows that it is a long time since I was familiar with what goes in on court cases, but if that mechanism gives reasonable flexibility to anybody seeking to petition, I could support and endorse it. My point is that we are dealing with members of the public who have complicated and complex lives, and we must appreciate that. We are not dealing with people who have been called before a Select Committee to be held to account; people are petitioning us and we must treat them with the respect they deserve and give them the time they deserve.
Mr Burns
May I reassure my right hon. Friend? I have some personal experience of this procedure, having up to that time served on the second longest Select Committee, which was ironically to do with placing the railway station for the London end of High Speed 1. The attitude of hon. Members on that Committee was that it was not a court of law in which one intimidated witnesses. Members of the Committee were there to help witnesses to develop their arguments so that the Committee was better placed to reach a decision on the merits of the petition and the arguments put forward.
Mrs Gillan
That is helpful of my right hon. Friend and I am sure his experience of these matters will be taken into account. It is worth while airing such issues at this stage because if we do not discuss them now, there will be little opportunity for any Members of the House to make their feelings known. It is also important that petitioners know how long their hearing could last. If it is a long, complicated or difficult case, perhaps people will need to come back again after the Committee has taken expert advice, and knowing how much time they need to give up is important.
Amendment (j) has been referred to by others and there are subsequent amendments to it. I think that six members is a good number for the Committee—if I were able to, I would restrict it to six and keep it to those same six people for continuity. However, I am worried about the quorum of three and have suggested that it be increased to four. We in the House set a great deal of store on the balance of Committee membership. When there is a Committee of six and a quorum of three, and three of those members are from the Conservative party, it will be possible for the Committee to sit with only Conservative members. If the quorum was four, we would always ensure a cross-party membership of the quorate Committee. I would like Ministers and the House to think about that issue because a quorum of three would be inequitable. If the Bill is to be scrutinised properly, it must be scrutinised—as other Bills are—with membership from both sides of the House. The danger is in the maths. We are still in the early stages, but I hope that the Committee will let us know how it will divide up the work and update Members who have not been able to attend the sessions, and how it will co-ordinate and ensure continuity between individual Members.
I have tabled amendments (a) and (c) to motion 4 on instruction to the Committee. If the Government are willing to accept amendment (a), that will go a long way to repairing the damage I referred to earlier, which has been done by insulting campaigners, environmentalists, and even MPs alike. That has seemed to be the hallmark of some of the engagement up and down the line, and it is certainly not confined to Chesham and Amersham. We need an understanding of how passionately people feel about these subjects. Indeed, some have engaged experts to provide advice and offer alternatives to the Government on how to do the project better. Those include the new tunnelling proposals that were launched by Chiltern district council, Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council and the Chiltern Countryside Group last Friday. I know those proposals will be considered very seriously at the highest level, and I hope within HS2 Ltd and by the Committee.
Kelvin Hopkins
On that important point, if someone whose views are different from one’s own is abused, that is not the right way to approach politics. We should address the arguments and not commit sins by making ad hominem attacks, to use the Latin phrase. When people have serious concerns about their lives or the environment, they should not be abused. They should be listened to and perhaps if their arguments are wrong they can be countered, but they should not be abused.
Mr Speaker
It must be said that there is no better practitioner of that principle in this House than the hon. Gentleman. Whatever is said about anything else, I feel sure that his proposition will command universal assent.
Mrs Gillan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for that support and endorsement. I probably fail on many occasions, but I will try to live up to his high standards. It is important because the smallest, least significant person in some people’s eyes is probably the most important in a process such as this. We must remember that and certainly not insult people.
Sir John Randall
May I put on the record our gratitude for the way in which the current Secretary of State is doing exactly that? In his comments yesterday on Second Reading he went out of his way to say that the views of those who object or have a problem with this proposal are valid, even if he disagreed with them. There has perhaps been a change, but it is very positive.
Mrs Gillan
I would agree with that. I have known the Secretary of State for a very long time. Indeed, my mother was on his selection committee—[Interruption.] It is not my fault at all; I assure the House that I was not on his selection committee. He has always treated me with respect, and certainly he would do that. I think he understands quite clearly the difficulty and problems that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), and many other colleagues have with this project, but there has unfortunately been some history to it, and remarks have been attributed to people in high places—such as saying, for example, that the Chilterns is “not exactly Constable country”. This is not a good basis on which to form a relationship when we are looking to protect the countryside. It is important to listen to everybody and to treat them with respect. Let us face it, we have just heard the Government admit that, after four years, their HS1-HS2 link was rubbish. It has taken them four years to get there. We have been telling them it is rubbish, but they have not until this stage admitted that and cancelled the project.
I am coming on to my closing remarks. I apologise to the House for going on for so long, but I did have rather a large number of amendments selected. It is an embarrassment of riches. Amendment (c) raises the question: what more can be added to the instructions to the Committee? Can the Government restrict and issue more and more instructions at any time? What safeguards do we have, if the Committee heads in a direction that officials, HS2 Ltd, the Department or the Treasury get nervous about? Can the Department just add an instruction, or edict, and rule out all the options that can be considered by the Committee? We need to know. If there is to be a war of attrition and an eye cast over the Committee on a constant basis by HS2 Ltd and the Department, and then instructions change through the medium of this House, that would worry me. I am sure that that is not the case, but I look to the Minister for that important reassurance.
I have a couple of questions about the carry-over motion. I do not understand why the Government ruled out a Joint Committee with another place. If time was of the essence and there was a possibility of getting this through before the general election, I would have thought that a Joint Committee with the other place might have been considered. I am not sure why the Government—they have always carried a huge majority—did not consider that. The former Minister may be about to inform me—it is a genuine question.
Mr Simon Burns
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Certainly, when I had anything to do with this issue, nothing would have given me greater pleasure than if we had been able to do what she suggests. Unfortunately, because of the way in which both Houses operate, it just was not possible within the rules, however we looked at it, to be able to come to that conclusion, even though we would have loved to have done so.
Mrs Gillan
That is an interesting response because we have changed Standing Orders for this process and for HS2. I am sure the other place would have looked at it. If not, I would be very interested to see the paper trail and what was pursued. Perhaps we could ask the Minister to place that in the Libraries of both Houses, so that we can see what the problems were. Phase 2 and the route to Crewe is about to come up and we need to see whether there are ways we can facilitate the process. Otherwise, it could be very arduous for our people, and others, who are petitioning.
Ms Gisela Stuart
When the Convention on the Future of Europe was set up, we did have a Joint Committee between the Commons and the Lords. New rules were found to make that possible.
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Lady has taken the very words out of my mouth. I was going to say that it has happened before and it would be interesting to consider that, because we need to learn for the future processes associated with this major infrastructure project.
Why do we have the carry-over motion here and now? To bind the next Parliament, assuming that all the Committee members are re-elected, and, in effect, to rule out the Committee stage having any chance of finishing before the general election, seems a bit short sighted. I think it is premature: we do not know what could happen between now and then. It would have been advisable to keep the carry-over motion for another day, when it became obvious what was going to happen. There must be an explanation, because the Minister is leaping to his feet.
Mr Goodwill
No one would be more delighted than I would be if the Committee concluded its work by the next general election. However, in the likelihood that it will not, the motion will facilitate its work to carry on past the election.
Mrs Gillan
I understand that. I cannot say that I would want the Committee to conclude it work before the general election, but to rule it out at this early stage and give the impression that the Government have given up on it, is not a particularly good tactic.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
This gave rise to an animated conversation in the Tea Room yesterday from some of the proposed Committee members, who thought that the carry-over might be some form of endorsement for the outcome of the general election—that it was tantamount to a commitment not to stand candidates against them.
Mrs Gillan
I think that such a commitment should be reserved for Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, I did not manage to get to the Tea Room yesterday, but that is a good thought. I would, of course, hope all six members are returned safe and sound to the House after the next general election to serve under a good Conservative Government.
I am drawing my remarks to a close, Mr Speaker. I heard the Minister say that the process should enable the appropriate people who are affected by this project to have their say. That is very important. We may not have been able to stop the project being approved by this House, but we must ensure that the best possible mitigation to our environment, and the best possible compensation for our people, is obtained. I have always endorsed this twin-track approach. I meant what I said at the end of my speech yesterday: Members must follow the process inch by inch to ensure that fairness pertains, that people receive a good hearing and that this House does not put unnecessary barriers in the way of the people who will be pleading for their properties, their life and their environment.
I hope that not moving the amendments to a vote will provide the opportunity for those on the Front Bench, the whole House and the proposed members of the Committee to take on board my remarks. I hope some of the measures put forward in the amendments, which are supported by other people, will be incorporated. They may make the process just a little easier.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I think some people think that the St Pancras part of the constituency name refers to the station, but it refers to the parish of St Pancras, which has two St Pancras churches. We also have three major main line stations: St Pancras, King’s Cross and Euston. The history of what has been proposed for those stations over the years has to be borne in mind by anyone considering the current proposals. Ministers need to understand the background.
I have never questioned the integrity of the Ministers and I tell people that I do not question their integrity, but everyone questions the integrity of the officials that they have had to deal with over the years. The background is that the first proposal for a channel tunnel link to London was for it to terminate at a concrete box under King’s Cross station. We were told that there was no possible alternative to it; that it was “perfection”. Eventually, that daft idea was abandoned. An idea was then taken up—I was the first person to put it forward—for St Pancras station to be used as the channel tunnel link terminus. When I first suggested it, sneering remarks from all sorts of railway aficionados were the result. In the end, it went ahead and it has worked very well, as I think everyone accepts. Although it involved problems for local people, they went along with it because they could see the merits of it, both from their point of view and from everyone else’s.
Similarly, the recent improvements at King’s Cross were welcomed by virtually everyone, including the council, me and local organisations. That is not the case with Euston. We still need clarification to satisfy people in my constituency. When the proposal for the channel tunnel link was first put forward, I said to officials that it would need a great deal of engineering work to make it work and that that would be very troublesome for the people adjacent to the part of the line above ground. They said, “No, no, it won’t need major engineering works.” When I said that at a public meeting, one of the consultants—not an official—came along and said, “Oh no, no; we can assure everyone it won’t need major works.” Lo and behold, it was eventually accepted that major engineering works would be needed, because some new factors had arisen, including the need to widen the route. Somebody who thinks they can put a line across Camden town for an additional service without widening the route ought not to be allowed to advise the Government or anyone else.
Time and again, people said the proposition was ridiculous and they were sneered at and snarled at, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who speaks from the Front Bench, would confirm. I very much welcome the position taken by her and our hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), as do people in my constituency, that we do not accept that the link is a good idea. It is a bad idea and it should, without a shadow of a doubt, be wiped out altogether. That is why I could not possibly support amendment (e), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), which would raise the possibility of the damn thing being revivified. I could not bear the thought of that.
The other point I would like to make, before I come to all the amendments, is that the procedure that we are talking about is archaic, difficult for human beings to cope with and ridiculous. We might compare it with a public inquiry into a similarly large proposition, where people have the opportunity to make representations without having to engage with an A4 page of all sorts of archaic rubbish and ridiculous language before actually getting round to putting their point, and without time limitations on submitting their petitions, which are then vetted to see whether they are valid. For what might be described as normal human beings—or, for that matter, small businesses, which do not have a great secretariat or legal advisers and suchlike—the time limits proposed are already too short and ought to be extended. In relation to businesses, I have a query for the Minister that I hope he can clear up. As I understand it, the restaurants in Drummond street will, because they are businesses, have the short deadline for submitting their petitions. Is that right?
Mr Goodwill
The small businesses along the route—shops or, indeed, farms—can petition either as businesses, in which case they will have the short deadline, or as individuals, in which case the longer deadline will apply. I hope that clarifies matters.
Frank Dobson
The next question is this: does the business restriction apply to the association of businesses in Drummond street? The Minister might not know the answer to that—I would not necessarily expect him to know that.
Mr Goodwill
I stand to be corrected by wiser authorities than me, but an association would be in the same category as businesses, some of the non-governmental organisations and larger local authorities. However, members of an association could collectively petition as individuals and then delegate one of their representatives or parliamentary counsel to speak on their behalf.
Frank Dobson
I am grateful for that clarification, but I am sorry about the direction of it.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some very small businesses would have greatly benefited from being treated as individuals? Why someone running a very small business, going about their normal, day-to-day activity, should be considered a greater expert in the petitioning process than an individual is quite beyond me.
Frank Dobson
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s views about that. I am glad that Camden council is organising workshops for individuals and small businesses and making its best efforts to ensure that their petitions are in order and, in some cases, that the £20 is handed over and logged, and then passed to me, so that I can personally hand it in, in the hope that their petitions will be valid.
That leads me on to the £20 fee. It is said, generally speaking, that it is not a deterrent. Well, if it is not a deterrent, why do we have it? People do not have to pay a £20 fee to give evidence at a public inquiry. The fee will raise quite a trivial sum. Even if thousands of people submit petitions, at £20 each, the fee will not raise any worthwhile amount of money for the House of Commons. If the fee is not a deterrent, why do we have it? I think it will be a deterrent for the worst-off. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said, it is a fifth of a single pensioner’s pension, which is a lot of money for a pensioner—or some pensioners, anyway—to find. Whatever the outcome in this case, the whole hybrid Bill approach needs to be looked at. We talk about modernising, and by God there is some modernising needed for this hybrid procedure.
That takes me back to the instruction that the Committee
“shall not hear any Petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.”
No one trusts the processes involved, so there is something that is still not clear to me. I am sure the Minister is trying to get the truth out, but to return to the proposition that I was trying to explain earlier, let us suppose that the Committee complies with that instruction—as it must—and cannot reintroduce the proposal for a spur from HS2 to HS1, but the matter returns to the House after the Committee has looked at it and made all its recommendations. As I understand it, the House could then reinstate the link, if it wanted to. If it did, would there be any procedure to enable petitions from those affected? If not, in effect we are banning people’s petitions from being examined now, while they might not be able to petition later if there were a further proposition.
Mr Goodwill
To clarify, if any changes that result from the Committee responding to petitions affect people who were not affected previously, a new petitioning period would be triggered. People who were then affected could petition, so they should not be frightened that something could be slid under the door without their having the opportunity to petition.
Frank Dobson
I understand that; my question is this. Let us suppose the matter comes back to the House and the House as a whole wishes to change things in some way that affects people. Will those affected then have the opportunity to petition against those changes?
Mr Goodwill
I will correct this if it is not right, but my understanding is that if that happened—there are no plans anywhere at all to do that; I must make it clear that we have scrapped the link—that would initiate the whole process again. It would be a new process and a new Bill, and there would be a new hybrid Bill Committee, but that is not the situation. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman can allay the fears of his constituents, in that we have indeed abandoned the HS2-HS1 link as part of this project and the petitioning process could not resurrect it, because it is not within the scope of the Bill before us.
Frank Dobson
I thank the Minister for that; I am 99% reassured.
As the Minister knows, the Bill’s proposals for Euston have been abandoned—or are to be abandoned—and are to be replaced. The engineering and other studies have only just commenced. My next question to the Minister is whether he can confirm that when the new proposals for Euston are formulated, they will be subject to the usual procedures requiring HS2 to produce a new environmental statement, that there will be opportunities for people to respond to it and that people will then be able to submit new petitions against the new proposals that the Government wish to include in the Bill. Am I right about that?
Mr Goodwill
I shall comment on that when I sum up at the end, so that I do not misinform the right hon. Gentleman. I rather suspect, however, that I will be able to reassure him that that is the case.
Frank Dobson
I welcome that reassurance.
I am particularly concerned, too, about the statutory and non-statutory provisions for compensation. Outside London, some people whose homes will not be demolished but whose property and general lifestyle will be adversely affected by a railway perhaps 50 yards away will be compensated, which I think is right. The situation in my constituency, however, is that people whose homes are 5 yards away from the line or 5 yards away from 10 years of engineering works will get no compensation. I hope that the Minister, the Department and HS2 Ltd are aware that the immediately preceding Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, has given us an opinion that the procedure followed in respect of my constituency is actually in breach of the law. I therefore hope that at least the House will have an opportunity to review it, even if the Committee cannot. I view it as strange that we are talking about a Committee supposedly looking at mitigation and compensation that is apparently not allowed to look at compensation. That needs to be revised.
My last but one point is that I very much support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I hope that the Government, as well as our Front-Bench team, will go along at least with the spirit of it.
My final point is about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. I believe that if we are to have a High Speed 2, it is ludicrous for it not to be connected to High Speed 1. That does not mean that it makes any sense whatever to have the HS2-HS1 link that was originally proposed, which was crackers in practically every aspect and certainly does not go to the right place. I agree with those who believe that there needs to be a connection—and the best place to receive that connection, if that is the right word for it, is Stratford.
Frank Dobson
I hear my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). It has just occurred to me that if HS2 did that and it went to Stratford, the most famous Englishman of all time might have ended up in a different Stratford from the one in which he was born and brought up. I think that would be a welcome move. I would ask anyone who thinks that we are going to see successful use of a travelator between Euston and St Pancras quite where this “covered way” is to be constructed. The proposal has been suggested about 25 times in the past and it has always been rejected as absolutely loopy.
Going back to the original proposition for the channel tunnel to come into King’s Cross, I remember moving an amendment to the effect that provision should be made to go from King’s Cross to the west midlands, but it was duly voted down. I have always been in favour of having proper connections. When the preposterous idea of placing a travelator along Euston road was proposed, it was received with mockery and derision then and it is still being received with mockery and derision now. The only way to avoid using Euston road would be to demolish even more houses in my constituency or to drill a hole through the British Library or through the Francis Crick Institute that is currently being constructed. I find it most extraordinary that some people think that a satisfactory link can be constructed.
I have noticed that the great hero of the hour is Sir David Higgins, so we are told that because he suggested the proposal, it must be a good idea. He suggested that the delay would be no more than that we experience when we have to go from one terminal building at Heathrow to another one. They are not quite the same. Not much rain falls on people when they travel from terminal 4 to terminal 1 at Heathrow, but Euston road really can get pretty wet. I thus very much support the spirit of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, but I could not bear to support it in full because it still includes the possibility of facilitating
“the provision at a later date of the spur”,
which has rightly been abandoned.
On all these issues, I urge the new Minister to bear in mind that every time local people—and me in trying to represent them—criticised the link and every time we criticised the design for Euston, we were treated, frankly, with contempt. Now the contemptibles have turned out to be right, yet the people who treated us with contempt are being asked to come up with alternatives to meet the requirements that everyone thinks are needed. The Minister needs to keep an eye on them: if they are the same people, the chances of them getting it right now are no better than the chances of them getting it right before.
My final point is this. The original proposal for Euston was to cost £1.2 billion. Eight months later, before anybody had done a trial bore or anything, the project came up with a revised costing of £2 billion. That is why the Minister needs to be very careful in entrusting the future of this project to people who can get a costing for a station £0.8 billion wrong and have to correct themselves within eight months. I offer friendly advice to a fellow Yorkshireman: “Have a good look at ’em, mate; have a good look at ’em.”
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the Old Contemptible himself, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I may be sitting on the other side of the Chamber, but I shall try to emulate the wisdom and greybeardedness that is associated with him.
Perhaps you should have been in the Chair earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we were discussing what would be done with the £20 fee for the lodging of each petition, and Mr Speaker suggested that it would be down to the Chairman of Ways and Means to be in charge of all that. I suspect that you will need to read the report of the early part of the debate in order to be prepared to deal with some of what was discussed at that stage.
I think that those of us who voted against the motion last night knew that their actions would constitute one of those magnificent but futile gestures, rather along the lines of the charge of the Light Brigade—apart from not being a mistake. The British rather pride themselves on doing something that will be regarded as a great victory despite having been, in fact, a complete defeat. The real work, however, is just beginning. The new Select Committee will listen to the views of constituents and others who have presented petitions, which will form an integral and very important part of the whole process, and I thank those who volunteered to sit on it. Contrary to popular belief, such Committees are not punishment details. The Members of this Committee may begin to think otherwise, but I have been led to believe that they all volunteered freely.
The Committee’s members should be commended, because theirs will probably be some of the most difficult and time-consuming work that the House will have to do for a considerable time. I am sure that they will approach that work in an entirely fair-minded way. While I understood what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said about the composition of the quorum, I do not think there will be any question of party political partisanship. After all, as is clear from yesterday’s voting figures, all the political parties back the proposal; it is opposed by just a few mavericks with, perhaps, a bit more foresight.
Kelvin Hopkins
I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although only 50 of us voted for the amendment yesterday, 150 Members were missing from the total vote.
Sir John Randall
I am grateful for that intervention from another venerable greybeard. Something of a theme seems to be emerging. Yes, it is true that those Members were missing in action, but I am afraid that the figures on which we always work relate to those who actually go through the Division Lobbies.
Frank Dobson
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that we can take some comfort from the thought that each of the 50 of us who voted for the amendment was voting against £1 billion?
Sir John Randall
Personally, I would rather vote for £1 billion each, but that would probably be inappropriate.
Let me reiterate my thanks to the members of the new Select Committee, because they will be faced with a very onerous task. I am not sure whether it will be possible for the message that I tried to convey about the Heathrow spur during the five minutes that were allotted to me yesterday to be raised before the Committee, but I think that very few people, if any, still think it worth continuing with the spur, and raising that issue would help those of us who are petitioning for an extension of the tunnel beyond Ickenham.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. Now that I have been released from the Whips Office, the House is perhaps beginning to recognise that one of my great interests is wildlife and conservation, and everything to do with the environment, and I hope we will do all that we can to ensure that the Committee considers the question of mitigation in that context. I mentioned corn buntings yesterday, but if I had had more time I could have mentioned a great many more species, and enlightened the House a great deal more about wildlife in the Chilterns.
This will be a long process, and there will be decisions for us to make. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has raised some interesting points, and we have discussed them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to what has been said, and will pass it on. I hope that the Committee will do its work so well that by the time we reach Third Reading, I shall find myself able to agree with the Bill, which would be far preferable to the position in which I find myself today.
I must say that I feel sorry for the members of the Committee. I have never had the good fortune, or possibly misfortune, to be a councillor, but I understand that members of planning committees never win friends, because whatever decision they make, they are bound to please one lot and annoy another. I am afraid that the Committee will be rather like a referee at a football match, or in any other sport: whatever decision it makes, someone will be upset by it. I therefore feel that we, as fellow Members of Parliament, should give it the fullest possible support.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The contrast between yesterday and today is huge. Yesterday the Chamber was packed, there was a five-minute limit on speeches and we had no real opportunity to say what we had come here to say, whereas today we are considering the detailed instructions that we shall give to the new Select Committee. Yesterday I, at least, talked about the failure to organise a strategic environmental assessment of the Bill, whereas today we are considering the detailed aspects, and carrying out the equivalent of an environmental impact assessment. What Parliament does today will be very important, and I hope the Government will respond to the debate in a much more relaxed way.
My amendment gives me an opportunity to flag up issues relating to how HS2 Ltd will ensure that some of the worst environmental effects are mitigated. I see that the Minister is nodding. It is essential that we have robust procedures that Ministers and HS2 Ltd will follow, but given that—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson)—it seems impossible for anyone entirely to understand the strange creature that is a hybrid Bill, we should establish how it will work and what the role of the Select Committee will be.
The purpose of my amendment is to establish how we will deal with the environmental consequences of the Bill. It is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. My aim is to challenge the Government—and, for that matter, Opposition Front Benchers—regarding measures to mitigate the effects and to provide compensation. I should make it clear that mitigation and compensation are two very separate things. The Government must also be accountable to themselves, if not to the House, given that they set themselves up as the “greenest Government ever”. Again, the Minister nods, but to what extent is that put into practice?
The right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), who is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, has done tremendous work on natural capital, both in the Committee and in the natural environment White Paper. She has spoken of a huge ambition for the Government: the achievement not just of no net loss of biodiversity, but, where appropriate, biodiversity gain. The Bill needs to reflect that.
Mrs Spelman
In fact, the HS2 project will be the first and largest of the major infrastructure projects to which the relatively new concept of biodiversity offsetting will need to be applied. DEFRA has consulted on biodiversity offsetting, but we should not miss the opportunity to do something really good and significant in regenerating degraded parts of the environment.
Joan Walley
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she did a great deal to advance exactly that thinking when she was Secretary of State at DEFRA. This project involves the biggest infrastructure investment that our generation is likely to see, and I do not think it is too much to expect that the environmental aspects be given equal importance to the transport infrastructure and investment ambitions.
It is not only the work that came out of DEFRA that is important; so is the work the Government did on the national planning policy framework. That set out clearly not just that there should be no net loss in biodiversity, but that there should be—although I accept with some qualification—where possible, a net gain. My amendment seeks to explore how that objective, which I think we share on both sides of the House—that was certainly the case with the Climate Change Act—can be put into practice as we go forward on the HS2 journey we are now all embarked upon. That issue has not been given sufficient attention so far, and perhaps the Minister can set out today how the concerns reflected in my amendment can and will be addressed. To do that, he must also address the detailed recommendations in the 13th report of the Environmental Audit Committee.
I want to go on a bit of a detour, if I may, because I think this issue is important. I was a Member of the last Parliament, when we had the Wright reforms, which looked at ways in which Parliament as well as Government could be more accountable. We are always looking at the role of Parliament and how people outside see us, and that is about not just what happens at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but the sort of detailed discussions we are having now. The Wright reforms set out that Select Committees should have a greater input into policy making and that Parliament itself should have a greater role, and that was in part about Select Committees having greater input into legislation. I very much support the Liaison Committee proposal that, where Select Committees have, on the all-party basis that we operate under, looked authoritatively at a matter in detail, and having taken expert evidence, they should be able to play a procedural part in the legislation in question going forward. I greatly regret the fact that the Government have not so far accepted the Liaison Committee’s recommendations.
All Select Committees have to report on how well we are scrutinising legislation. The Environmental Audit Committee produced a report entitled “HS2 and the environment” at great speed. We took a huge amount of evidence, including from Ministers, non-governmental organisations and HS2, and we came up with what we believe is an authoritative set of recommendations. For example, if what the Government and HS2 are doing does not match up with the work of the Select Committee to be appointed today by Parliament, the danger is that we will not cover to the necessary extent the environmental concerns we set out in our report. That is why our report made those recommendations, and I am happy that members of our Committee have added their names to the amendment.
Paragraph 86 of our report states the Government should
“not overly constrain the ‘principles’ of the Bill approved at Second Reading”,
and that, through the motion, we should do what can be done to
“avoid, reduce or remedy environmental damage”
through the environmental impact assessment process, or look at
“potential modifications to the route and its infrastructure and consequential environmental protections that might result”.
The real issue is that today we are appointing the new Select Committee and establishing its remit, but we have not yet had the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee report. I understand that the Government will say, “Well, actually we have already taken account of such concerns.” If they are going to quote Standing Order 27A which requires an environmental statement, and Standing Order 224A, which requires an independent assessor to produce a report on the consultation on the environmental statement, that will not address the question of how the new Select Committee should consider the environmental issues. What instructions will there be? How narrow or wide will the Committee’s brief be?
I believe that the Standing Orders I have just referred to came about as a result of the Crossrail Bill, although I am sure other Members will have far more information on that issue than I do. As far as I can see, the Government’s advice relates just to Second Reading, so in effect, the role that arises from the instructions in these two Standing Orders applies only up to Second Reading, and not to what subsequently takes place, which includes the new Select Committee.
Mrs Spelman
To support the hon. Lady’s point, the significance of a hybrid Bill is that it incorporates the planning process into the legislative process, which strengthens the democratic element of the way we go about this. Therefore, it is completely in keeping with the logic of the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee that we should be giving the communities that stand to lose biodiversity a greater say in how we offset that biodiversity loss. They would have an opportunity to do that if the Select Committee proposed in the motion were able to adopt the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Joan Walley
Once again the right hon. Lady is absolutely right and I value the work she does on the Environmental Audit Committee. When the Government have the report of the Select Committee that has been appointed today, they will bring forward environmental proposals on Third Reading. There is ample time for the Government to take account of how we can have something in place that makes up for the lack of strategic environmental assessment—we have not had that—and which could still look at the detail of the environmental impact assessments that we need. In the evidence that we received from many NGOs—from the wildlife trusts, the WWF and a host of other organisations—they all said how much they wanted to work in collaboration to find ways of having the mitigation that is needed, and also to look at implementing offsetting in ways that could be truly transformational. There are all kinds of implications for the detail of the engineering works on the route as well. If there is no way for all that to be brought together and taken on board, I think Parliament will be accused of having total disregard for the environmental aspects that should have been included and still need to be.
Finally, I want to refer to the Supreme Court. It made it clear that it is for Parliament, not the Government, to decide the parliamentary procedure for the hybrid Bill, and therefore for Parliament to decide what is reasonable and practicable when it comes to environmental protection, mitigation and compensation measures. It is entirely appropriate that the Select Committee should have the instruction to ensure that it is able properly to consider environmental issues and not leave what is “reasonable and practicable” to HS2 to decide, which in my book would be likely to mean a much lower level of environmental protection being applied than is required.
The cost of such environmental protections is a necessary cost if such a scheme is to go ahead. We heard about the huge ambition of HS2. That ambition needs to be equalled by environmental ambition. We should be doing everything to avoid impacts first, before we mitigate or compensate for them.
Frank Dobson
People sometimes think that the environmental factors apply just to rural areas, but the environmental impact in my constituency will be dramatic; I am thinking of the effect on air pollution, noise, general filth of one sort or another, and disruption. I very much agree with the line my hon. Friend was taking in her last few words, because, for example, not only will people have to live next to the main site of the Euston development, but no fewer than 14 subsidiary depots are proposed, all of which will be damaging the environment.
Joan Walley
I am most grateful for that intervention, as my right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The environmental aspects are not just about nature, biodiversity, natural capital or ecosystems; they are also about noise and air quality. This week we are already seeing the huge concerns that exist about air quality; in yesterday’s debate we heard the extent to which many Members are worried about the long-standing impact on it. How that is mitigated needs to be factored into the specifications of the work that is done, and the Select Committee appointed by this House will have an important role to play in that.
Mrs Gillan
I commend the hon. Lady’s amendment, the work she has done and the way in which she is putting her argument forward. May I just make the point that this issue is important for individuals, too? A constituent of mine has an impaired lung function and if he is close to any construction works it will threaten his life. That is not taken into consideration. Air quality, among other things, is vital in this day and age, particularly where individuals have that sort of health problem.
Joan Walley
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. We are increasingly understanding that environmental issues are cross-cutting and that public health concerns are at the core. All of those need, somehow or another, to be costed and factored into the decision making. It is incumbent on the Government to say how such issues will be taken forward at a later stage, given that no precise instruction is being given to the Select Committee on that.
Let me say a brief word about Crossrail, because we have heard a lot about how it had the best way of going about this and so on. We cannot compare the geographical scale of HS2 and Crossrail, as HS2 dwarfs it. We have just heard about the biodiversity and environmental impacts of HS2, particularly on ancient woodlands. My Committee received a lot of evidence about that, but it has not really been included in the debate. This is being taken forward as a hybrid Bill, with HS2 phase 1 and HS2 phase 2, and there has not been the opportunity to examine the overarching aspect, and what happens in phase 2 will be very much determined by what happens in phase 1.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our Committee took a lot of evidence and information on surveys, particularly those of ancient woodlands, that one would perhaps expect to have already been done in the early stages if this were any other project? The emphasis should therefore be on how the hybrid Bill ensures that the things we would expect to have been done are done as part of the project, rather than in any new effort that we would expect to be undertaken outside any other project?
Joan Walley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because he is not only a dedicated member of our Select Committee, but an incredibly knowledgeable one. The fact that we had so much evidence about the failure to map areas and the huge gaps in information shows how unfit for purpose the environmental assessment has been so far.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady is aware that in some cases we did not have access to land because the landowners would not give us that access. If they then petition, they can, presumably, bring forward the information as to the effect on the particular environmental habitat they are concerned about.
Joan Walley
I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I absolutely agree with what he says. Indeed, we heard evidence from the Country Land and Business Association that there has not been the proper access to be able to survey, and without a survey and audit we cannot go on to monitor, mitigate and do all these other things. The issue at the heart of this is that that has not been done, yet we are being told—or I imagine we will be told—that we do not need my amendment because we already have Standing Orders 27 and 224A. They, however, go up only as far as Second Reading and do not continue through the work of the Select Committee. We have a huge gap in knowledge and people all over the country want to have cast-iron assurances that all the land that needs to be surveyed has been surveyed. That has not been done yet, and if we do not give a sufficiently flexible remit to the Select Committee, how is it going to deal with what has not already been done?
Although people will have opportunities to petition on this aspect, and that petitioning will now be coming forward at great haste, my amendment seeks to address the issue of who is going to take responsibility for the consequences of those petitions. So far we have had a summary of issues that people have raised and a commitment to consult on those, but we have not had a proper procedure of impact assessment to address how we deal with those issues that are raised. I would like the Minister to say how that will be addressed.
Frank Dobson
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the fact that Crossrail is usually cited as an example of how things should be done, and I agree with that view. Crossrail runs across my constituency and its Tottenham Court Road station is in it. The original proposal was that the nearest depot to facilitate the building of Crossrail should take over the Phoenix garden behind St Giles’s church for about a decade, but I was able to persuade Crossrail that it would be better to knock down a couple of buildings in Oxford street instead. That is in marked contrast to the approach of HS2 Ltd, which proposes to take over and occupy for a decade every open space and play area within about 100 yards of Euston station.
Joan Walley
That is a point well made, and unless the current arrangements are changed HS2 Ltd will be able to give judgment on its own plans. It will be given carte blanche to do exactly what it wants if there are no means of scrutinising its proposals. I would hate to see all the areas of land that people value and want to see as part of their communities coerced into becoming depots or some such thing. Yesterday, on Second Reading, hon. Members raised transport issues and asked why the tunnelling spoil could not be transported away other than by road. All these aspects need to be looked at from the environmental perspective, not just on the basis of the bottom line of what the cost and engineering will mean. That is the equivalent of giving HS2 Ltd carte blanche to set out its own policy.
For all those reasons, I shall be interested to hear the response to the concerns that we have expressed in the amendment about these environmental issues. Constituents and the country at large expect this Parliament to provide the highest level of scrutiny of this massive, £50 billion investment programme, and we need to be seen to be doing that. For that to happen, we require the instructions to the Select Committee to be unambiguous about its environmental responsibilities and those matters for which it has a responsibility to report back to the House.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I do not wish to detain the House for long. I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) say that it is strange that this House has not modernised its procedures for hybrid Bills. I have never considered myself an arch-moderniser, but I could not agree with him more. The whole process of dealing with major infrastructure projects in this country—including both the parliamentary processes in this House and the processes outside it—is outdated, antiquated and unacceptable in this day and age. The fact that it took 10 years to build terminal 5 at Heathrow and so much time to build some of the other major projects that this country has enjoyed in the past 20 years is ludicrous and we should deal with that.
I declare an interest, because I had the dubious honour of being a member of the second-longest running hybrid Bill Committee, which, again, had an association with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, as the Government of the day had the idea that the London terminal for High Speed 1 was going to be at King's Cross. Man and boy, I went through that process and I was fascinated to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) say that the members of these Committees are not pressed men. Things have changed, I suspect, in the processes of the House. The Committee had a fantastic cast. There were only four of us: Bob Clay, the former Member for one of the Sunderland seats; someone who has now reinvented himself in this House as the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway); Mr Neil Hamilton; and myself. I knew what they had done wrong, but I was not sure what I had done.
Sir John Randall
I am sure that my right hon. Friend was selected because he was marked for high office and they knew that that would be experience he would need later.
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment, and flattery has got him a long way during his illustrious career, but I do not think that was the reason. I think I was a sucker.
Some serious points arise from my experience and I hope that they will reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about a number of interesting points that she raised. Although the Committee was not legally defined as such, we were told that we were a quasi-judicial body and we conducted our business as such. Obviously, we had been selected because we had no interest, either through our constituencies or whatever else, in the King’s Cross area. As we saw it, we were members not as, for example, the Conservative Member for Chelmsford with no interest in King’s Cross, but to give an independent judgment on the facts. The whole proceeding was conducted with barristers present arguing the case for and against.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham rightly said that she hoped that the Committee that would deal with the hybrid Bill on High Speed 2 would not be like a Select Committee, interrogating the witnesses and the people who brought their evidence and views before it. That was certainly not my experience and I am sure that it has not been the experience since. Members of such Committees are there to analyse and listen to the arguments and to reach a decision based on the facts and the evidence they have been given, taking into account the best interests of the project and so on.
My right hon. Friend also raised the relevant and important issue of the mechanics of how the Committee will work. As she rightly said, people live busy lives—they work and do other things—and they need plenty of notice about when their turn is anticipated to come. That is why I said in my intervention that, although it will be up to the Committee and its members to organise how they will conduct their business, I hope that they will have a system like that for a long trial in court in which witnesses are waiting to be called to give evidence so that people can have the maximum amount of time to put their affairs in order before they are expected to appear before the Committee with their petition and their points.
I am not in favour of my right hon. Friend’s amendment to raise the quorum from three to four, because, as she rightly said, my hon. Friends and the hon. Members who will be members of the Committee will face an onerous task as they will potentially be sitting three days a week, mornings and afternoons, and during parliamentary recesses. I know from experience that it can be a very long day. I do not share her concern about the fact that there might be a day on which there might be only three members present who were all Conservative Members, given that we are the largest party in the House. I do not think that the members of the Committee will have that mindset or thought process. They will not be Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. They will be virtually independent members reaching decisions on the merits or otherwise of a case based on the evidence. Personally, I am not attracted to the idea of changing the quorum.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point and I follow his argument. For me, it was slightly anathema that the quorum should be only 50% of the Committee. I felt that with such an enormous project, with effectively £50 billion in question at the end of the road, the quorum should be more than 50%. The members will have to sit for very long hours and the subject will take over their lives much as it has taken over my life over the past few years, so it is important that a larger number of them share that burden. I thought that pushing the quorum up to four out of six would be a better way of doing it, but that is just a point of view.
Mr Goodwill
We could also have the situation that happened to me when we had a Regional Select Committee in Barnsley town hall. When one member had to pop out to answer a call of nature, the Committee had to suspend. If we had a bigger quorum, that could happen and that would be rather embarrassing for the Committee.
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the tactful way in which he makes his point. I am almost certain that the Committee on the King’s Cross Bill, which had only four members, had a quorum of three. That put a strain on the Committee, particularly when situations arose such as the one that he describes.
I also do not share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, expressed in her amendment, about the ability to carry over the Committee into a new Parliament. I think that this is the appropriate time in which to make that point and enshrine it in the rules governing how the special Committee will work. In many ways, it would look rather ridiculous not to have that provision, given that we all know—because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—that we will have an election at the beginning of next May.
I am also not so concerned about the fact that, after the election, for a variety of reasons, there might be some changes to the Committee’s membership. There are many examples of changes of personnel in Public Bill Committees, which do equally significant work in studying line by line some very important legislation. Sometimes, if it is the wrong time of year or of the cycle, Ministers taking a Bill through Committee can suddenly disappear and be replaced. The strength of this House is that the sum total of knowledge that Members bring to subjects and Committees means that there would not necessarily be the problem and hiatus that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham fears. Of course, she is right that mechanisms must be there to assist the Committee, in an independent manner, to brief Members who, for whatever genuine reason, have been unable to attend a sitting.
I was also interested in my right hon. Friend’s amendment about the Committee going out to areas that will be affected by HS2. That is an interesting concept. It brings closer to the public the workings of Parliament, particularly on a matter that is so sensitive because it has such an impact on people’s lives. Raising that in an amendment is extremely valid as we all seek to make Parliament more relevant and closer to the people we represent. However, that must ultimately be a matter for the Committee to determine when it forms and decides how to conduct its business.
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful for the acknowledgement that some of my amendments meet my colleague’s approval. It is difficult because this is the only forum in which we can examine the matter in detail. Even though it is not a matter for Front Benchers but for the Committee, it is important to get it on the record in Hansard because, like my right hon. Friend, I am worried that we will pull the House into disrepute with the general public if our processes are not transparent at every stage on a project as contentious as this one.
Mr Burns
My right hon. Friend is correct, though of course the day-to-day business of the Committee will be very transparent because it will be open to the public so that those who are interested can go and see the workings, particularly when any petitions are being dealt with that are directly relevant to certain communities, groups or organisations. It is not beyond the wit of this place to hold those proceedings in a room that has a television facility so that they can be televised in the same way as Public Bill Committees and Select Committees. The general principle of transparency so that people can see the workings, and follow and monitor the proceedings is crucial.
It was a little unfair of some hon. Members to question paying the Chair. Frankly, given what they will give up, I would not mind if every member of the Committee were paid rather than just the Chair. Serving on it is quite a sacrifice in many ways. We also have a precedent in that the Chair of the Crossrail Committee was paid, as are the Chairs of Select Committees. Having served on three Select Committees, I know that the work of one of them is very brief. When I served on it for a year, it met once a week late on a Wednesday afternoon, and it usually sat for about eight minutes. It always amazed me that the Chair of that Committee was paid the same as the Chair of the Defence Committee or the Chair of the Treasury Committee. It is known in the trade as a very cushy number. However, the job of this Committee’s Chair will not be cushy, and serving on it will be onerous for all the members. One therefore wonders whether it is fair to restrict payment to the Chair.
The amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) have tabled and the debate today have given us an opportunity to consider ideas about how to improve the Bill. Many of the decisions are to do with the day-to-day running of the Committee, and they must be left up to it when it starts its work. As we heard from previous contributions, other subjects are in the remit of the House of Commons authorities, and are therefore matters for them. However, I believe that, ultimately the House must examine the legislative process for such projects because it is deeply flawed.
I was told at the Department for Transport that the basis of the legislation—I assume this is correct because, unlike some people, I believe what civil servants tell me; I may not always accept it, but I believe it—is the legislation in the 16th century that established tollbooths, and that the Victorians thought that it was suitable legislation for granting the permissions to build a railway. Since the railways began, they have always had to have planning permission through legislation in Parliament. Of course, the Victorians were very different. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in the past, when the concept of building a railway from London was dreamt up in the early 1830s, it took from 1832 to 1837 to think about it, legislate for it, build it and get it running. Clearly, using a premise based on tollbooths is totally out of sync with building high-speed rail, Crossrail, an airport or an extra runway, wherever—if ever—there is going to be one. We should consider that carefully and modernise as a matter of urgency so that this country does not lose out on badly needed infrastructure because of the sheer length of time it takes to get it.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I will not speak for long and I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate. I was a member of the Crossrail Committee for two years and, contrary to what some have speculated, the Whips put me and some of my colleagues on it as a punishment. We had voted against some civil liberties legislation and one of my colleagues, who is no longer in the House, remonstrated with our Whips and was told, “You’re staying on—get on with it.” It was definitely seen as a punishment. However, the Whips did not appreciate that I am a railway enthusiast. I know a lot about railways. I do not want to seem immodest, but I also know a lot about the engineering of railways, and I receive advice from a series of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are skilled in engineering and running railways. I therefore had something to offer that Select Committee and I enjoyed my two years on it. It was quite onerous—two solid days a week and so on—but it was a nice experience, and I like to think that I made some positive contributions.
That brings me to the important point about skills. It is important for Committee members to have engineering advice at their disposal so that they know what they are talking about and what other people are talking about. Barristers will appear before the Committee, and other people will give evidence, but it is important to develop the expertise of Committee members. They are fine Members, but as there are six of them, they will have a hard job for quite a long time. If they are not interested in railways and do not receive skilled advice, they will find it even harder. I hope that that point will be taken care of.
I think that the House has become more democratic in the way in which it appoints people to Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) talked about the modernisation of the House and the Wright Committee. I served on the Select Committee on Public Administration under the chairmanship of Tony Wright for several years. I still serve on that Committee—it is an interesting Committee, now chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and I really enjoy that work. We are constantly looking at the way in which government operates and the way in which the House interrelates with government, and we try to raise the status and effect of the House in holding the Government to account. That is what we are about.
Previous Governments, both Tory and Labour, have not paid sufficient heed to the House of Commons, and have adopted a rather high-handed manner. I was kept off Select Committees for a long time, perhaps because I was regarded as a radical person of the left. For five years, I tried to serve on every Select Committee, but the Whips would not hear of it. Now, the process is much more open, and anyone with any particular view in the House can become a member of a Select Committee, provided that there is a vacancy. That is a great advance. Two Members made that advance: Tony Wright and, before him, Robin Cook, who should be praised for his work in trying to improve Parliament’s control over the Executive. I want that process to continue and become more significant.
A number of points have been made about the project by hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). My view is that the Euston terminus is complete nonsense. It would be horrendously expensive, and it is in the wrong place. If the railway stopped at Paddington or even Old Oak Common, and linked directly to Crossrail, people would use Crossrail to go straight through to the City and Canary Wharf. There is a lot of talk about business links between the centre of Birmingham, our second city, and the City of London, and being able to make an easy trip from Birmingham to the City, particularly Canary Wharf, is a sensible way forward. Going to Euston would be expensive, and it would require at least two tube journeys to get to Canary Wharf. All the time that might be saved by a slightly faster train to Euston would be lost, given the time taken for those journeys from Euston to Canary Wharf.
The Euston terminus is nonsense, and it is my belief—and people have said this to me—that it is really about property development and making money out of such a development at Euston. It is not really about transport needs. I have criticisms and reservations about the whole project, as my vote indicated last night. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak in the debate yesterday; otherwise I would have made some serious points. If Old Oak Common or Paddington were the terminus, that would save billions and would immediately—
Kelvin Hopkins
Well, Stratford possibly. That would save money and would put people straight on to Crossrail. I supported Crossrail, which was a difficult, expensive project, but we improved it as a result of careful analysis by the Crossrail Bill Committee. We drove certain projects. For example, we proposed that there should be a station at Woolwich, and we managed to get that into the Crossrail Bill. There will be a Crossrail station at Woolwich, which is a valuable improvement.
There are environmental problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North chairs the Environmental Audit Committee. It is important to know how we will overcome such problems. One problem with Crossrail was that it went under Soho, where there are a lot of significant and economically important recording studios, which are sensitive to vibration and noise. I know from friends and advisers that one can do various things to tackle such problems, including the use of floating slab track. Not every Member will know what that is, but it is a way of insulating the track from the concrete channel on which it runs, thus avoiding vibration. Builders do not want to know about that, because it costs more money, although not very much more. If that option had not been proposed, such a measure would not have been included. It is therefore important that expert advice to Committee members is provided by engineering specialists who know what they are talking about.
I have friends who criticise the route of HS2. It seems that, in the first instance, the route was created by non-engineers drawing lines on maps. As a small child, my son used to take Ordnance Survey maps, and used a felt-tip pen to draw railway lines across them. It ruined the maps, but the method used to determine the route of HS2 was not far from that. Even now, there are serious criticisms about the precise route, even from those who go along with HS2.
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman is making some valid points. I am sorry that he did not manage to speak at great length yesterday.
It is important that there is flexibility in the way in which the project is considered, because the route was just a straight line drawn on a map for speed purposes. Many reasons for sticking to the original route design have now gone. What gives me heart is the fact that the Government have made much of the £14.4 billion contingency fund. We must ensure that if that fund is available, it is used to get the best possible mitigation, whether environmental or urban, as in the case of the recording studios in Soho. There is capacity in the budget to afford those protections and include them, and it is important that we secure them.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree, and I very much appreciate what the right hon. Lady said in her speech.
There are measures to deal with environmental damage. I mentioned floating slab track to deal with vibration, but there are also noise barriers disguised by foliage and tunnelling where necessary. All sorts of things can be done: they cost a bit extra, but they make the project much more acceptable. Getting the line right in the first instance is absolutely fundamental, and many of my good friends tell me that the line is not right, especially north of Birmingham, but also between London and Birmingham. All sorts of details need to be argued, which will take the Committee a long time. HS2 is a much bigger project than Crossrail, and the Crossrail Bill Committee took two years. We met every week, and there were lots and lots of petitions. There will be many more for HS2, so we are looking at a big job.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned speed, and recently there was talk about reducing the maximum speed from 250 mph to 183 mph—or 300 kph—and going at the speed of HS1. It was an arbitrary decision—“Oh well, let’s just reduce the speed”—which changes a lot of suggested journey times. I have spoken in the House about journey times, and criticised the project in that regard, as it seems that someone can just make a quick decision—“Oh well, we won’t go there. We’ll decide to change the speed.” There is a problem with high-speed trains, which cannot go round tight curves as they would fall off the track. Curves have to be gradual and of a large radius, which causes all sorts of problems. That does not apply to trains on standard rail, with a speed of up to 125 mph or 135 mph.
Raising the speed from 300 kph to 250 mph demands a tremendous increase in energy. Energy costs are much greater at higher speed, and extra emissions from power stations required to drive electric trains are disproportionately increased. Optimum railway speeds are much lower—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Quite a few more Members want to speak and I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman’s speech to turn into a Second Reading speech. I would have thought that the motions are more important at this stage.
Kelvin Hopkins
I shall conclude in a moment as I have basically made my points.
I would be happy to support all the amendments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham were they ever put to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take them into account. I am also in favour of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, who is not her place, and all the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that we see some common sense in the long run.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendment (e) to motion 4 on the Order Paper, which is tabled in my name and that of five other right hon. and hon. Members from the west midlands representing the three main political parties. It is quite useful to have learned that to be on the Committee that will consider the Bill requires not only persistence, but also continence—in every sense of the word.
In speaking to the amendment, I am trying to prove a theory, namely that the greater and more significant the issue under debate, the fewer words will be used to discuss it. Debates about £20 fees and the Committee’s quorum may take up more inches in Hansard than this amendment. The amendment is quite simple and tries to suggest that when planning massive investment that will last for decades, it is foolish to constrain the project unnecessarily. Some 12 years ago, I was in Birmingham to discuss the revamping of New Street station and a question was asked about high-speed rail. Everybody around the table said, “You’re never going to get high-speed rail so you might as well forget about it.” We decided, however, that we ought to keep the corridor, so that high-speed rail could happen should it ever be cleared. The amendment asks that although the Committee will not be permitted to hear any petition to the extent that it relates to the
“the spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link referred to in the Bill”,
it should not be
“prevented by this instruction from hearing any Petition”—
and this is important—
“relating to the need for the Bill to:
(a) include an alternative to the spur;
(b) facilitate the provision at a later date of the spur; or
(c) facilitate the provision at a later date of an alternative to the spur”.
I was not born in this country. I was born in a city called Munich, which, when it was awarded the Olympic games, was synonymous with traffic jams. London transport engineers moved to Munich and managed to design an integrated transport system that is still serving its purpose 50 years later. The main thing was that Munich had planning laws that allowed for big decisions to be made. We should not have a high-speed rail line that has speed and ease of access, both national and international, as its whole purpose and that then asks passengers to get out of one train halfway through the journey, move across London and then go somewhere else. That may be how it is done in Paris, but it is still not a good idea. I want Ministers to consider the matter, because it is not just the Mayor of London who thinks that it is a bad idea. Birmingham city council’s view is that it is important not only for the region, but also for its provisions and planning for Curzon Street station and the international link.
Accepting the amendment or elaborating on what the Minister means by passive provisions would not close the door on something that it is so essential to the success of high-speed rail. I urge the Minister to ask himself why we are spending massive amounts of money so far into the future. We want to increase not only capacity, but also interconnectivity, both within the United Kingdom and with the rest of Europe. The Minister should consider the amendment with great care. If he can come back with some proposal that proves that the door has not been closed on what is an enormously important debate, I will be happy not to press the amendment to a Division, but he must be quite specific about what he means by passive provisions and how the link will be considered. That does not mean a specific link; it means linking HS1 and HS2 in a meaningful manner. If we do not do that, the whole purpose will be defeated.
Frank Dobson
As I hope I have already explained to my hon. Friend, I would happily accept paragraphs (a) and (c) in the amendment, but were the proposal to
“facilitate the provision at a later date of the spur”
accepted, we would create a situation in which people would be able to petition in favour of the abandoned spur, but the people affected by it would not be able to petition against it.
Ms Stuart
I fully accept that that is an argument. The main thing, however, is that I do not want the decision not to consider a link simply to be in the hands of the Secretary of State and Sir David Higgins; I want the decision to be made in a democratic way. I therefore want the doors to be kept open for the Committee to consider petitions to provide such a link. That is really the only point that I wanted to make today.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments to motion 4 to which I have lent my name as I have some particular local and regional reasons to support them.
Although I did not lend my name to amendment (a), it contains a regional aspect that is important in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) seeks
“to provide complete protection to any areas of outstanding natural beauty”
and areas of special scientific interest. The first interchange station outside London is proposed on green-belt land in my constituency at the juncture with Birmingham international airport. It is perhaps not an area of outstanding natural beauty, but the Meriden gap is the green land that holds the cities of Birmingham and Coventry apart. Throughout my 17 years as an MP, there has been constant pressure to build in that gap, which is only 5 miles wide at its narrowest point but contains a lot of transport infrastructure.
Right at the centre of the gap is something known as the golden triangle, which comes under the auspices of the Solihull planning authority. Great concern has been expressed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England that the imperative of this infrastructure may lead to the loss of green-belt land in that triangle without due consideration. My local authority, which supports high-speed rail in principle, with certain conditions attached, very much wants me to put on the record that it wants to maintain control of carefully planning what comes into that most sensitive of green spaces. In respect of amendment (a), the Select Committee needs carefully to consider what happens when green-belt land is at stake.
I put my name to amendment (b) to motion 4 specifically because I want the Committee to consider the statutory and non-statutory provision for compensation. As I said yesterday, I welcome the fact that the Government have produced a revised compensation package. To be perfectly clear, it is a significant step forward from the statutory compensation currently available, because constituents really get compensation only one year after a project is finished. Considering that this project is expected to end in 2026, folks would be waiting an awfully long time without the revised package, which successive Secretaries of State have worked towards.
However, the revised compensation package contains an important omission: compensation for people affected by construction works. The revised package represents a step forward, because the area of eligibility has been extended beyond 120 metres from the tracks to a taper of 300 metres in rural areas, but construction compounds and sites might not be adjacent to the tracks, so they slip through the net of the revised compensation package.
Significant parts of the route, at both the London and the west midlands ends, will see many years of extensive construction work. The environmental statement highlights that around the interchange station at Birmingham airport we can expect construction work to continue for over five years. People are every bit as blighted by being opposite a construction compound or next to a spoil heap as they are by being 60 metres from the tracks. That is why I have put my name to the amendment.
Mrs Gillan
It has been a great pleasure working with my right hon. Friend on this subject, and I think that, together, we have made some progress. The situation she describes also applies in Buckinghamshire. In the course of preparing for yesterday’s debate, I discussed it with colleagues in Buckinghamshire, including the right hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who told me that he had a group of houses near a construction site where no anti-HS2 campaign was active, and the residents did not realise until recently that they would be so badly affected. In fact, HS2 Ltd had not contracted them. If that can happen in the fairly immediate past, we must be very careful about who will be affected.
Mrs Spelman
I agree, and I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will mention the impact of construction works.
Frank Dobson
Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of HS2 Ltd’s favourite words is “temporary”? It only meets the ultimate dictionary definition of “not permanent.” The temporary use of a depot next to a school, for example, would last longer than the average time a child is at the school. If it is next to a quiet, little garden where old people like to sit, most of them will not be alive at the end of the temporary period.
Mrs Spelman
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In fact, the blight applies from the moment people are made aware that construction sites will be located next to their properties. Since March 2010, people have been waiting for over four years and are unable to sell, so we know that construction works have exactly the same impact on the need to get on with their lives.
Mr Goodwill
I hope that I can allay some of my right hon. Friend’s fears by explaining how the Committee can address issues about the compensation package. Let me state for the record that anyone “directly and specially”—the wording used in the Bill—affected who feels that the available compensation does not address the impact on them is free to petition the Committee and ask for additional compensation. The purpose of the Committee is to hear these petitions, but not to review the national compensation code.
Mrs Spelman
I think that is a very valuable outcome, because it helps Members to understand that we can assist individuals and groups in our constituencies who are blighted by the construction works but ineligible for compensation in preparing a petition to which we can lend our names. Although we cannot petition as MPs, we can lend our support to such petitions. I think that everyone affected by the project has learned something important today.
That brings me to an important remark made by the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), when he took through the paving Bill. He frequently stated that compensation would be fair and generous. With regard to construction compounds, at the moment no fair or generous compensation is available. I hope that the House will understand why I lent my name to amendment (b) to motion 4.
The next amendment to which I shall speak briefly as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee is the important one that takes the recommendations of the inquiry by the Select Committee and turns them into an instruction to the Select Committee when it takes the hybrid Bill through Parliament to pay close attention to the environmental consequences and to the Government’s stated aspiration to be the greenest ever, and to give expression to that through something new in law—biodiversity offsetting. The key words in amendment (d) to motion 4 are
“alternative or additional environmental protections”,
because there is more than one way of providing environmental protection, and we should seek to do that to the highest possible standard. That aspiration is shared by the National Trust.
In the natural environment White Paper published during my time as Secretary of State, we set down a clear commitment to achieve net gain. Overall, we are going backwards in terms of loss of species and loss of habitats. Inevitably, this large infrastructure project will result in the loss of habitats, because it will be necessary to dig up green spaces and displace species, some of them vulnerable, from those areas. I urge the Minister to take seriously the exhortations of my friend, the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and to give the House an undertaking that should something come up during the Select Committee stage which pertains to environmental protections, the Government will make time on Third Reading to enable us all to debate those significant points. I hope the Minister will be able to give me that undertaking later today.
Finally, I shall speak in support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has led the charge from the west midlands over the importance of not precluding the link between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2, which is all-important for the west midlands and regions outside London. The regions—not just the west midlands, but the east midlands, the north-west and the north-east—were all led to believe when High Speed 2 was first mooted in 2010 that there would be through-trains. That is undoubtedly what other non-London-based Members such as me will have mentioned to our constituents at the time, as part of the expectation of what HS2 will deliver. There is not a little disappointment about the fact that that is to be precluded from inclusion in the hybrid Bill as it stands.
To me it is unacceptable that in the 21st century an American passenger can land at Birmingham international airport, clear customs, get on a high-speed train by which they aspire to arrive on the continent, have to get off on the east side of Euston station and schlep their luggage in our rather indifferent weather to St Pancras station, pass immigration control again, and board another train to the continent. I am convinced that in the 21st century we can do better than that.
Inextricably linked to the question of the link is the Euston problem. Euston is a problem, but it was clear from the paving Bill that there is more than one model for solving the problem. In defence of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the difficulty for his constituents is that every time we publicly change that model, more and more properties are blighted by that effect.
We in the west midlands are keen to see a through link. For us that is integral to the project. As I mentioned yesterday, Birmingham airport will be 31 minutes from London on High Speed 2. If there is a stop at Old Oak Common, as the Prime Minister observed on visiting Birmingham international airport and opening its extended runway, he could get to Birmingham airport from Notting Hill as quickly as he could get to Heathrow. The under-utilised runway at Birmingham would become competitive given that faster running time, but much of the competitive benefit is lost if the interchange to a high-speed service by train to the continent is not achievable. I urge the Government to heed this very important point, which is not just about the west midlands.
Ms Gisela Stuart
The right hon. Lady reminds me of an anecdote that Birmingham city council told us when Deutsche Bank was negotiating about its relocation. The board members went back home, some to London and others to Frankfurt, and the ones who went back to Frankfurt got home quicker than the ones who went back to London.
Mrs Spelman
That is a very telling point. Deutsche Bahn aspires to run through trains from Frankfurt to London, and we should have the same aspiration to run through trains from Birmingham to Paris. In the 21st century, that should not be beyond the wit of man. At the same time, it would resolve the serious problems that beset the constituency of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras. It would also address the salient issue raised by Camden council at the time of the paving Bill—that back in the 19th century the local community was severed by the west coast main line. A remodelling of Euston and a linking of High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 has the potential to heal that fractured community if it is done in the right way.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider the exclusion of considerations on the link as part of this hybrid Bill. After all, the link is integral to the project for all of us who live outside London.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman); I agree with much of what she says. I hope that she has more purchase with her own Front Benchers than I might, and that they have listened very carefully to her speech and to those of others who have talked about the HS1-HS2 link. I rise in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).
I want to reflect on the link between the existing route for High Speed 1 from St Pancras to the channel tunnel and the proposed High Speed 2 link. I am a supporter of HS2, but the proposed link, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) rightly stated, would not have provided an adequate service. I was therefore happy to support its deletion from the Bill yesterday. It was to be a single track shared between international, freight and domestic passenger services, with limited potential to maximise the growth and regeneration benefits that high-speed rail could bring to the UK. It was not adequate to address anticipated demand. It would have allowed for just a small number of international services and created a conflict between those, freight and London orbital services, with limited potential for further inter-regional and intra-regional ones.
Recognising the shortcomings of that link route and removing it and its safeguarding from the Bill does not, of course, remove the strong arguments in favour of a good-quality link between the UK’s two high-speed lines and between the UK and the European high-speed rail network. Indeed, as I said yesterday, Richard Threlfall, head of infrastructure at KPMG, is quoted in the engineering press as saying that it is a “great tragedy” to scrap the link and “complete nonsense” not to have the two lines connected. I absolutely concur with his judgment. Clearly, at some time in the future we are going to need a much-enhanced capacity such as a dedicated twin-track line capable of working as a dual-purpose line for international and domestic services. We therefore need to look at the physical alternatives to the proposed and now rejected link, including the possibility of tunnelling to provide a connection with the west coast main line and HS2. We need to start that discussion and evaluation now.
I really urge the Minister to reconsider his position, because such a link also opens up the possibility of inter-regional and intra-regional services, as well as international links. We know there is demand for direct rail services from the midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire to east London, Essex and Kent without having to go through central London.
I reiterate the tribute I paid yesterday to colleagues across the political spectrum from Kent and Essex county councils who have collaborated with my own borough of Newham to demonstrate that demand through research published in the 2013 report, “Travel market demand and the HS1-HS2 link”. It concluded that potential increases in domestic demand enabled by an HS2-HS1 link of adequate capacity would bring significant benefits and, therefore, strengthen the business case for HS2 overall. Consultants commissioned by Greengauge 21 research highlighted an historic lack of long-distance, cross-London connectivity, only some of which will be addressed by the additions from Thameslink and Crossrail. The net effect is that many journeys end up being made by car, making use of the busy M25 simply to avoid the difficulty of cross-London transfers. I have to admit that I am guilty of making such journeys.
The report discerned in particular seven inter-regional domestic service markets that would benefit from a transfer to rail from other modes—especially car journeys on the M25—if there were an HS2-HS1 link. It concluded:
“The increase in rail share is between 7% and 23%, which is a remarkably high transfer”,
such that a
“new geography would get direct benefit from HS2 services: Essex, East/South East London, Kent, parts of Suffolk and East Sussex”.
Five of the seven inter-regional services include a focus on Stratford and enable connections to the west midlands and the north-west, the west of England and south Wales, the east midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, and north-west London and Milton Keynes. The report aggregates that increase in domestic inter-regional demand as equating to 45% of demand emanating from central London, or 25% of the whole demand from Greater London. Along with increases in international demand from the link, those benefits will justify investment in the HS2-HS1 link and add significantly to the core business case for HS2. It will be seen that Stratford would play a key role in such substantial service development.
It strikes me as a great pity that there has not yet been any work to give a financial value to the opportunities to run those inter-regional services, even though the demand is clearly there. The Government must surely take note of that: the interconnectivity cannot be denied and the common sense of the link is obvious. The time to act is now and I seek an assurance today from the Government that they will commission a further examination of the demand, assess the economic benefit and put that into the mix when reviewing the potential for a future link between HS1 and HS2.
Although I am conscious of and totally support the need to contain the costs of HS2, I am also conscious of the old maxim, “penny wise, pound foolish”. We must take care not to take decisions now—indeed, we should avoid them—that would create obstacles down the line to securing maximum growth in the economy, particularly in regions to the north of London and in the midlands, as well as in east London.
The current approach also fails to recognise the environmental advantages, including reducing car travel on crucial networks such as the M25 and relieving pressure on central London interchanges and termini. We know that connectivity and capacity are far and away the most important issues for travellers—more important even than speed. Stratford International has both in spades, and I make no apology for reminding the House of that fact yet again.
We are discussing investment for a high-speed railway network designed to last until the next century. We must be strategic in our approach, squeeze value from every pound of spending and not overlook the opportunity to strengthen the business case for the entire network. Dragging our suitcases along streets in London, however desirable those streets may be, is not a 21st-century solution to the issue of connectivity.
Frank Dobson
Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposed walk is along Euston road, which has the worst air pollution in London, and for which the Government are being prosecuted under European air quality legislation?
Lyn Brown
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for supporting my case in his speech and in that intervention. Frankly, the Stratford option would help us enormously with the difficulties in his own area, which he has raised.
Above all, we need to consider how we can, in the not-too-distant future, secure an improved, fully integrated, robust link between HS1 and HS2. The link should be available for international and domestic services routed through Stratford at the heart of the growing east London economy, and benefiting economies in the midlands, in the north and indeed across the whole country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving late for the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your leniency in allowing me to speak for one minute.
Before the Bill goes into Committee, I just want absolute clarity. Last night, I asked the Minister a question about the Heathrow link. Clause 50 refers to the ability to extend the scheme under a Transport and Works Act order, without the full legislative scrutiny that would be required if a further Bill was introduced to deal with the Heathrow link. I want absolute clarity about whether my interpretation of clause 50 is accurate: could the Secretary of State use the provision to make a Transport and Works Act order to introduce a Heathrow link without full legislation? I ask that because many of my constituents want to petition against the Bill, and we need absolute clarity on which clause we are petitioning against and about whether we should petition against the whole Bill because of its failure to address the Heathrow link as part of a comprehensive package of railway network development.
In addition, I have been through all the inquiries for terminals 4 and 5, as well as various other inquiries, and I was a petitioner in relation to Crossrail the time before last. We found that there was a great inequality of arms in making representations, particularly for small community groups. Will the Government look at whether there is an opportunity for better resourcing not local authorities, which can stand on their own feet, but smaller community groups that represent individual facilities or individual communities? They need assistance of some sort to ensure that they can draw on the full expertise they need during the petitioning process.
Lilian Greenwood
With the leave of the House, I will start to bring this two-day process to a close. Over the course of more than 10 hours, several right hon. and hon. Members have set out the compelling case for building a new north-south line. Passenger demand has doubled during the past 20 years, and in the west midlands demand has more than trebled. Every day, tens of thousands of commuters are left standing on the approaches to London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. All too often, cities in the midlands and the north have relatively good links to London and relatively poor links to each other. That holds back economic growth and prevents regional commuter economies from developing. On the west coast main line, the busiest and most complex line in the country, the scope to run more trains is almost exhausted.
If we are to achieve balanced economic growth, we must invest in 21st-century transport infrastructure for the midlands and the north, just as successive Governments have done for London and the south-east. I very much hope that in 20 years’ time we will see an extensive flow of high-speed services extending beyond the west midlands as part of a fully integrated inter-city network. To achieve that, we need to enable the new Select Committee to proceed with hearing petitions on the phase 1 route, and that means agreeing to the motions.
Right hon. and hon. Members have made important points in the debate. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said that agreeing to the Second Reading has not given this or any future Government carte blanche to ride roughshod over individual concerns. I agree with her. The Committee should listen closely to every petitioner’s individual concerns. That is precisely the point of the forthcoming stage in the hybrid Bill process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has been incredibly tenacious in raising the concerns of his constituents. I was privileged to visit his constituency and to meet some of them. I was pleased when the Government finally conceded that the proposed HS1-HS2 link is wholly inadequate and should be withdrawn. I am also pleased that they have recognised the need to revisit their proposals for Euston station. I hope that, in doing so, they will listen much more carefully to Camden council and the local community, who have, as my right hon. Friend said, responded positively to the outstanding redevelopments at King’s Cross and St Pancras.
The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) paid tribute to those who will serve on the Committee. He asked that they have due regard to the impact on wildlife and the environment. Those themes also formed the basis of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who called on the Select Committee to mitigate the environmental consequences of the new line. I hope that in his response to the debate, the Minister will acknowledge that many people inside and outside this House share her concerns about the impacts on biodiversity. I hope that he will reassure Members that those will be fully considered as the Bill proceeds and confirm that the Select Committee may amend the Bill to mitigate the environmental impacts in response to the cases that are made by petitioners.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has been a staunch supporter of the high-speed rail project. He brought his detailed knowledge of it to bear in his contribution when he called for the modernisation of the processes for dealing with infrastructure developments of this scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) also demonstrated his long interest in rail issues in his remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made a compelling case for an integrated network that serves the long-term interests of her city and the wider west midlands region. I hope that the Minister will confirm that future-proofing is within the remit of the Select Committee.
The right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) made many important contributions in the Committee stage of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013. She again raised valid questions today.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is rightly proud of her constituency’s Stratford international station and is ambitious for its future role in our rail network. I know that, like me, she is keen to see the report that HS2 Ltd and Network Rail are producing on the options better to connect the line to High Speed 1. I again ask the Minister to clarify when we can expect that report.
Finally, I trust that the Minister will address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised on behalf of his constituents who will be affected by the Bill.
It is important that the Committee’s work can begin in earnest because the west coast main line is almost full. There are also capacity constraints on the midland main line and the east coast main line. Although some incremental work can be done to boost seat numbers in the short term, that will not meet future demand or enable new services to be run. There is already a train lengthening programme, but it is worth noting that there are hidden costs to that approach because platforms have to be lengthened and longer depots have to be built. It can also reduce the number of trains that can stop at platforms, so there limits to how far that approach can be pushed. In just a decade, a new line will have to be in place.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport referred to the building of the original railways almost 200 years ago, which still form the backbone of our network. It is fair to say that the original railways did not always enjoy a good press either. It is worth quoting the words of the promoters of the Liverpool and Manchester railway—the world’s first inter-city line—to Parliament in 1825:
“All I ask you is, not to crush it in its infancy.”
After last night’s vote, I am glad that the first phase of HS2 can go forward with confidence, although much work remains to be done. No one would pretend that the proposed route of HS2 is in its final form. It must be refined where needed and the environmental impact of its construction must be mitigated wherever possible. Labour will keep up the pressure on the Government to ensure that the spending is better managed and the costs brought down wherever possible. The hybrid Bill process has an important part to play in achieving those objectives. We will return to close line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill once the petitioning process is complete. I hope that the House will pass the motions and let that work begin.
Mr Goodwill
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I do not know whether other constituency MPs often feel frustrated, as I do, that many processes such as planning inquiries and the operation of health trusts and other bodies seem to be beyond the control of us as elected Members. In this case, the hybrid Bill Committee at least means that the process will happen within Parliament.
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and her boss, the shadow Secretary of State, for the co-operative way in which we have been able to work together. It has been a little bit like Christmas day on the western front, but no doubt when we have Transport questions next Thursday the howitzers will start to roar again across the no man’s land between the two Dispatch Boxes.
Hybrid Bills come along rarely, and changes to their rules and procedures seem to be even rarer, so it is important that these motions receive the House’s full consideration despite the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said, they might seem arcane. Members have raised important issues about the Select Committee stage of the process, and I will address the amendments to the motions. I hope that I will allay many of the fears that have been raised, and that none of the amendments will be pressed.
I turn first to the points that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made about the Heathrow link. I reassure him that Transport and Works Act orders can be applied only to extensions of under 2 km, so the Heathrow spur, which would be much longer than that, cannot be authorised in that way. I hope that sets his mind at rest.
Mr Goodwill
We would need a very good lawyer to get that passed.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) came from Bavaria. I think a socialist in Bavaria is a very rare breed indeed. She talked about passing a provision for the HS1 link. As I said, it is ultimately for the Committee to decide whether a petition should be heard, and it may choose to hear petitions suggesting that a future link should not be precluded. Its work is on the railway proposal before it, and it cannot get bogged down in considering the merits of links that may or may not happen, but it could certainly consider ruling out any future provision should it choose to do so.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, made a number of points about the environment, and I share her ambition to ensure that the environmental impact of the project is minimised. Of course, she is aware that we published a 48,000-page environmental impact report. I recognise the Environmental Audit Committee’s intention, and we are seeking to have no net loss of biodiversity. It is a hugely ambitious scheme, equal to that on any comparable project worldwide. We are building 140 miles of railway, and in biodiversity terms, it will be as though it were not there. In many cases, of course, there will be biodiversity gains. As I think I mentioned to the Committee, in some places where there is arable farming and monoculture we will put in something better than the current oilseed rape or wheat crops, which have little biodiversity and offer little in the way of habitat.
Joan Walley
Does the Minister agree that what the Government and HS2 Ltd intend to do is one thing, but the instructions to the Select Committee on the Bill are a slightly different thing? I would be grateful if he addressed how the Select Committee can be given the flexibility in its remit that it needs.
Mr Goodwill
The Committee will certainly be able to examine how measures in the Bill and the project will affect individual petitioners, and non-governmental organisations and other groups will also be able to petition. The overall scheme itself will not be under consideration, however, because it was decided last night.
I reassure the hon. Lady that I am not being dragged kicking and screaming into giving environmental reassurances, and I am keen for us to leave something for future generations. I am very aware of the problems of trying to restore ancient woodland. Unfortunately, 36 hectares of ancient woodland will have to be removed, and we are doing what we can to try to replace that. We cannot replace ancient woodland straight away, but we can do whatever possible to ensure that it regenerates and, in the fullness of time, replace that environment. Indeed, there may be other opportunities. For example, as research goes on to produce ash trees that will be resistant to the big problem of ash dieback that is starting to develop in this country, there will be a good opportunity, as we carry out tree planting, to ensure that there is a new generation of ash trees to replace those lost because of that terrible disease.
Joan Walley
A point was raised about having time on Third Reading to discuss feedback on environmental issues from the Select Committee. Is the Minister able to offer some kind of commitment on that?
Mr Goodwill
Certainly, regarding the hon. Lady’s amendment I can reassure her that that base is already covered. The introduction of Standing Order 224A, which she referred to, means that the amendment is unnecessary as it essentially copies part of the instruction given to the Crossrail Bill Committee at a point when there was no Standing Order 224A. The instruction to that Committee was to ensure that any environmental information in petitions that related to the principle of the Bill and therefore could not be heard by the Committee was reported to the House on Third Reading when the principle of the Bill was reconsidered. I hope that that allays her fears.
Standing Order 224A means that the amendment is not required because it introduces a process of consultation for any supplementary environmental information provided at the Select Committee stage. All consultation responses are summarised by an independent assessor in the same way as they have been for the environmental statement consultation. If a petition includes environmental information that does not touch on the principle of the Bill, it is wholly within the scope of the Committee to consider that. If the Committee considers that some reasonable and practical mitigation could be introduced to address the issue, it will amend the Bill to do so. That is a key part of its role and its conclusions will be included in its special report.
Joan Walley
What expertise and capacity will be available to the members appointed to the Select Committee to assist them in that?
Mr Goodwill
Obviously, within the limitations of the resources made available by the House to the Committee, it can enlist whatever expert advice it wants, just as the hon. Lady’s Committee will have advisors who give it expert and scientific advice and so on. That is a matter for the Committee, but I hope it will enlist the best advice to assist it in its work. Indeed, many of the environmental NGOs that produce petitions might themselves be providing what they consider to be expert advice, and it will be up to the Committee to consider how much weight to give it.
We must also comply with directives such as the habitats directive. As a Member for five years of the European Parliament’s environment committee, I was involved in many such directives. Even if some aspects of the project do not come within the scope of the petitions, we must comply with environmental protections that we have agreed at European level.
Mrs Spelman
The Minister mentioned that there would be an independent assessor. Who will that be, and will the Government make use of agencies such as Natural England to provide the kind of advice that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee suggested would assist the Bill Select Committee in its work?
Mr Goodwill
I am not aware that an assessor has been appointed, and neither do we need to appoint one at this stage. Therefore, I am not able to tell my right hon. Friend who it would be, but under the definition of the word “independent” it would be a person not connected to any vested interest.
When we started this debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) touched on the Major Projects Authority report. As we have heard many times from the Dispatch Box, the MPA does not routinely publish its reports on the major projects it scrutinises, and a founding block of the effective function of the MPA is the confidential nature of the reports it produces and the way it can be used as a tool within government to ensure that projects are delivered efficiently.
Mrs Gillan
I understand what the Minister is saying and it is absolutely accurate. What I asked was whether, for the purposes of examining the project in detail, we could treat the Committee members as Ministers and give them confidential access to the MPA reports, so that they can fully see the risks that have been identified by the very body set up by the Government to scrutinise such projects.
Mr Goodwill
The work of the Committee will be done in public and I would be very nervous about giving confidential information of any sort to it. That would not be appropriate. The report that my right hon. Friend refers to is from 2011, so its relevance erodes by the day. I really do not think that it would bring anything to the Committee’s work.
My right hon. Friend mentioned electronic payments, and identified that Parliament’s website has much useful information for petitioners. This includes the information that payment can be made by cash or cheque, and by credit and debit cards except, I am told, American Express.
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; it is good to be able to have a proper debate. He refers to the MPA report being from 2011, but he must appreciate that the costs being used on the project are also 2011 costs. He says that the Committee will sit in public and so he would be nervous about giving its members confidential material. Does that also mean precluding Committee members from having access to the financial information and financial calculations made by HS2 Ltd on, for example, tunnelling activities?
Mr Goodwill
The Committee already has the budget before it. I do not want to add anything to what I have said already.
My right hon. Friend talked about further instructions to the Committee. It is the case that further instructions to the Committee can be made only by a motion in the House. The Government believe that these instructions are correct and we have no plans to change them.
Ms Gisela Stuart
The Minister is on weak ground if he does not make the MPA report available to Committee members and if the Committee does not have access to something so significant. Virtually every Select Committee I have ever been on has, at some stage or other, talked to Ministers and been shown confidential documents.
Mr Goodwill
I am sure that were the Committee to make a request for either this type of report or commercially confidential material it will be considered at that time, but at this stage the Committee has not been formed and no such request has been made.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), as we heard from his contribution, is a man ahead of his time. His predictions have come to pass—at least the ones that he referred to; he may have made other predictions that have not. I would be keen to have dinner with him at one of the restaurants at Euston and see the problem first hand. Maybe I should go incognito; I suspect he is so well known he could not go incognito. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I suspect that there may be a problem at the end of the meal when we have to decide who is going to pay.
Frank Dobson
I am very happy to take up that invitation. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I suggest we go at lunchtime when there is a brilliant buffet that costs a lot less than eating in the evening.
Mr Goodwill
How could I refuse such an invitation?
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we could confirm that any new Euston proposals would require a new environmental statement, consultation and petitioning period. The answer is yes. A consultation would be required by Standing Order 224A. The change would then be subject to a new petitioning period.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about petitioning by business associations. I think I can go further than I did in my intervention. A business is defined in the terms of this measure as an organisation that exists to make money for its owners. A business association would not seem to meet this definition and so would have the longer deadline. I suspect that if he found a different lawyer he would probably get a different result, but that is the position of this Government at this Dispatch Box and I hope those associations will be reassured by that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) talked about the green belt. The Bill includes powers for local authorities to approve plans and specifications for the railway, which should ensure that any structures in the green belt are designed sympathetically.
This debate has been an important stage in the progress of this Bill for phase 1. I hope I have explained why many of the amendments are superfluous to the effective operation of the Committee.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I may have missed the Minister’s—very brief—response to my amendment.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady’s amendment was about the link. I made the point that it would be possible to petition to ensure that a link was not obviated, but the link itself, whichever route it might take, was not covered. Therefore, in the same way that we have provision for the Heathrow spur in phase 1, it would be possible to petition to ensure that the construction of phase 1 would not rule out any future link. I thought that was one of the very first points I made—if the hon. Lady was paying attention then.
Lyn Brown
I have paid great attention to everything the Minister has said, both today and yesterday, and I cannot remember hearing the word “Stratford” come from him at the Dispatch Box. Given that I have listened to every word he has said, I am hoping I will be able to add him to my Christmas card list, as he now gives Stratford some confidence.
Mr Goodwill
I am certainly happy to mention Stratford, but Stratford is not within the scope of the Bill at this stage. I made it clear in my opening remarks that this is about constructing a railway from Euston to Birmingham, with the intervening stations and other works, and not, at this stage, about including Stratford. In fact, the Bill does not include Stratford, so perhaps she should get to work on her policy people in the Labour party. I am sure they will be beavering away, busy writing their manifesto, and she might be able to be slightly more persuasive.
It is interesting, because people in Sheffield were keen to make the point to me that they wanted phase 2, which is not within the scope of this Bill, to go into Sheffield city centre, because a station was needed there. I am now being told that stations are needed way out. The idea that we could be served by Stratford and Old Oak Common, without the need for a city centre station, is the exact opposite of what I heard in Sheffield.
Lyn Brown
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Olympic games were held in Stratford in 2012? The idea that Stratford is “way out” shows that he is himself a little distanced from the reality of what London is. Stratford offers interconnectivity through the rail networks in the east of England and to the north. It also offers economic opportunity. The idea that we will be wandering down roads with our suitcases in the rain shows the limit of his imagination. I would ask him gently—because I like him very much—whether he would reconsider his position.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes some very good points, I am sure. I would merely make the point that the distance from Meadowhall station, outside Sheffield, to the centre of Sheffield is less than the distance between Stratford and the centre of London. It is interesting that when we talk to cities such as Nottingham, Sheffield and others that are served by parkway stations rather than city centre stations, they see the importance of having a station in the city centre. However, I understand the point she makes about Stratford.
Should the House approve the motions, the matter will move to the Select Committee to start hearing the petitions of those affected by the scheme. This is a crucial moment in the process and one that many have waited many years for. I therefore believe that the House has an obligation to ensure that we swiftly progress to that point. I believe that the motions as drafted provide a fair and reasonable framework for both petitioners and the Committee. As I have said, I do not believe that the proposed amendments would add to the Committee’s ability to hear petitioners or progress its work effectively. Indeed, in some cases the amendments seem to work against the interests of the petitioners and should be rejected. Indeed, as I read them, many of the amendments gave me the impression that they were designed to frustrate the Committee’s work, rather than facilitate it, but maybe that was one of the objectives.
Mr Goodwill
I am moving to my conclusion. My right hon. Friend was not very generous yesterday, but I will not reciprocate.
Mrs Gillan
No, I was not very generous yesterday; the Minister is right, but it was because I was trying to leave enough time for others to speak in the debate. Let me say to the Minister that none of my amendments was intended to delay. There is a four-hour limit on the debate and the amendments were tabled in good faith to try to elicit more information from the Government. Once again, I remind the Minister that people have been abused in the process to date and I do not want him to continue that from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Goodwill
I merely make the point that if amendments were designed to waive the fee for petitioning while at the same time encouraging electronic petitioning, that could be used by some who seek to frustrate the Bill rather than to work with the Committee, using the provisions as a way of preventing the Committee from carrying out its work.
I commend the motions to the House and urge Members to vote in favour of them and against the amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I understand that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) does not intend formally to press any of her amendments. Is that correct?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
1. That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
2. That the following Members be appointed as members of the Select Committee: Mr Henry Bellingham, Sir Peter Bottomley, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Mr Robert Syms and Mr Michael Thornton.
3. (1) That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office between 29 April 2014 and the closing date (inclusive), during the hours specified in a notice published by the Private Bill Office, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office during such hours and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee, being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through Counsel or Agents.
(2) The closing date for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) is-
(a) in a case where the Petition is that of a local authority (except a parish council) or a business, 16 May 2014, and
(b) in any other case, 23 May 2014.
4. That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day or days on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered.
5. That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of that person’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon that person’s Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
6. That in applying the Rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body.
7. That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
8. That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.
High speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—
1. The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by
(a) leaving out provision relating to the spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and
(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).
2. The Committee shall not hear any Petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
3.–(1) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (2); and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
(2) The matters referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are:
(a) the provision of a high speed railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham and intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, and
(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in November 2013 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Mr McLoughlin.)
High speed rail (London - west Midlands) Bill: Carry-Over
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill:
Suspension at end of this Session
1. Further proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2014-15”).
2. If a Bill is presented in Session 2014-15 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session–
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;
(c) any Instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2014-15;
(d) all Petitions presented in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any Petition presented between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2014-15 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15;
(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15;
(f) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (d), and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2014-15, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15 shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of that person’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petition provided that it is prepared and signed and in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
(i) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
(j) any person registered in the current Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in Session 2014-15;
(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2014-15.
Suspension at end of this Parliament
3. If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2014-15, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2015-16”).
4. If a Bill is presented in Session 2015-16 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2014-15–
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in Session 2014-15, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2015-16; and
(c) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with–
(i) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph 6, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph 8, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(v) paragraph 9, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
5. If this paragraph applies–
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2014-15;
(b) any Instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2015-16;
(c) all Petitions presented in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any Petition presented between the day on which Session 2014-15 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2015-16 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2015-16;
(d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2015-16;
(e) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2015-16, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the first Session of the new Parliament shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petition provided that it is prepared and signed and in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
(g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
(h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
(i) any person registered (or deemed by paragraph 2(j) to be registered) in Session 2014-15 as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2014-15, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in Session 2015-16.
6. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
7. If this paragraph applies–
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee; and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
8. If this paragraph applies-
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered; and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
9. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
10. The references in paragraphs 1 and 3 above to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
11. That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —(Mr McLoughlin.)
positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the parliamentary standards act 2009
Resolved,
That the Chair of the select committee appointed to consider the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is specified for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.—(Mr Goodwill.)
defence reform bill: Programme (no.2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Defence Reform Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 July 2013 (Defence Reform Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
(1) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Philip Dunne.)
Defence Reform Bill
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 7. If the House agrees it, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 33
Amount of Penalty
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 6.
Lords amendment 7, and amendment (a) thereto.
Mr Dunne
Before we proceed with the debate on the Lords amendments and with your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Captain Thomas Clarke, Army Air Corps; Flight Lieutenant Rakesh Chauhan of Joint Helicopter Command, RAF Odiham; Acting Warrant Officer Class 2 Spencer Faulkner, Army Air Corps; Corporal James Walters, Army Air Corps; and Lance Corporal Oliver Thomas, Intelligence Corps, a reservist who worked for one of my hon. Friends in this House. They were killed while on operations in Afghanistan on Saturday 26 April. This appears to be a tragic accident during a routine sortie in Kandahar Province. Our thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives. The incident is the subject of a thorough investigation to find out exactly what happened. The House will understand that I am unable to say anything further at this time, pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation into the incident.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I cannot let the Minister’s comments pass without welcoming them and thanking him for them, and, in particular, expressing the sympathy of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party and its researchers and staff following the loss of their friend, who displayed great courage and died in the service of his country.
Mr Dunne
I appreciate and reciprocate that sentiment.
Let me now deal with the Lords amendments. They deal with all three elements of a Bill that introduces a new and significantly stronger regime for the management of single-source contracts, and makes important legislative changes that will enable us to modernise and make better use of our reserve forces. There is a great deal of support for those measures in all parts of the House, as was evident when we discussed all its previous stages here. The Bill also includes the measures that are needed to help an effective Government-owned contractor-operated organisation to manage defence equipment and support should a future Government decide to proceed with such an option. I shall return to that shortly.
These are all Government amendments, which were made following detailed consideration of the Bill both in this House and in the Lords. Although they deal with different parts of the Bill, they have a common theme: they either provide Parliament with further information relating to the implementation of defence policy, or strengthen parliamentary oversight of future legislation. That, I think, is right, and it reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that Parliament has a greater role in the scrutiny of the Executive. The amendments demonstrate that we have listened to the concerns that were raised about issues covered by the Bill, particularly in the other place, and that we have responded accordingly.
Lords amendment 6 fulfils a commitment given on Report in this House, on 20 November, to make it a statutory requirement to report annually on the state of the reserve forces, while Lords amendment 7 reflects the debate in the other place about parliamentary involvement in any future decision to proceed with a GoCo proposal requiring the provisions in part 1 of the Bill. The amendments will strengthen the parliamentary oversight of future defence plans, and I hope that they will be widely welcomed.
Lords amendments 1 to 5 relate to part 2, which concerns single-source procurement. They were made in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill, which was published on 20 December last year. I am grateful to the Committee for its report, and for the excellent work that it does in ensuring that any proposed delegated powers are appropriate.
The Committee recommended that the first set of single-source contract regulations should be debated and agreed by Parliament. It also recommended that certain of the regulations—namely those relating to the definition of a qualifying defence contract and to the penalty amounts applied under clause 32 of the Bill—should always be subject to the affirmative procedure. Those recommendations are reflected in Lords amendment 5, and Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 make the necessary consequential changes that arise from that amendment.
Lords amendment 6 would require reserve associations to report annually to the Secretary of State on the condition of the volunteer reserve forces, and for their reports to be laid before Parliament. The reports would include the associations’ assessment both of the capabilities of the reserve forces, and of the provision made in relation to the mental welfare of their members and former members. The amendment delivers on the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Report in this House last November. Members will recall that we had a substantial debate at that stage, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)—it is good to see him in the Chamber—about the state of our reserve forces, and the need to report regularly to Parliament on the issue. The amendment enshrines in law the requirement to produce such a report.
Members may be interested to know that on 10 April I had the privilege of attending the West Midlands Reserve Forces and Cadets Association annual dinner. Their knowledge and enthusiasm for the reserves was palpable and I am glad we will have such expertise reporting to the Secretary of State on an annual basis as a result of this amendment.
At the dinner, Defence’s most senior reservist, Major General John Crackett, spoke eloquently and persuasively of the reservists’ contribution to our nation’s defence in the past century and the importance this Government have attached to revitalising and expanding the reserves during this century.
Last weekend’s helicopter crash, which unfortunately I have already had to refer to today, underscores the fact that, tragically, 31 reservists have paid the ultimate price in the service of their country since 2003.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I thank the Minister for paying tribute to the five men who were lost in the tragic helicopter accident over the weekend, in particular Lance Corporal Oliver Thomas who used to work for me. He is a fine example of the very talented young people we have in our reserves and the contribution they make to the British armed forces.
Mr Dunne
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has joined us. Unfortunately, he missed my tribute to Lance Corporal Thomas. I pass my sympathies to him and his colleagues, and his family and friends, on this tragic loss.
Lords amendment 7 will provide Parliament with information on the options for reforming Defence Equipment and Support before any order commencing part 1 of the Bill can be made. As Members will recall, part 1 provides the legislation needed to enable any GoCo solution for reform of DE&S to work effectively. This option is not being pursued at present, and will not be taken forward in the near future, but we think it right that the necessary legislation remains on the statute book in case a future Government, of whatever colour, decide to go down that route.
This amendment follows a substantial debate in the other place about the level of parliamentary oversight required before any future Government could proceed with a GoCo for DE&S that would require the provisions in part 1. As a result of that debate, Lords amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the options for carrying out the defence procurement activity being undertaken by DE&S before laying the draft affirmative order commencing part 1. The report would need to cover any arrangements for a GoCo and any other options that had been considered, including the option of the new DE&S that is currently being put in place. This information will ensure that Parliament can have an informed debate on the reform of DE&S before agreeing to bring part 1 into force.
The amendment to Lords amendment 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) —with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee and who conducted herself with considerable distinction—would make it a requirement for a future Government to produce the report on the options for reforming DE&S at least 12 weeks before any order commencing part 1 is laid before Parliament. While on the surface this amendment might seem reasonable, I think it is unnecessary and would unduly constrain a future Government. Amendment 7 already places a statutory requirement on a future Government to produce a report and sets out what that report must contain—and it is most likely to take the form of a White Paper. To place such an obligation on a future Government is itself unusual, and we are aware of no other examples where a commencement order has such requirements attached to it. As such, it represents a major concession by the Government and demonstrates that we have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in the House of Lords.
We have therefore already gone a significant way towards ensuring that Parliament has detailed information to enable it to consider these matters, and there is no need to go further. Although I would expect any such report to be published in good time to enable Parliament to debate whether part 1 should be commenced, it is impossible at this point to predict the exact circumstances in which a decision to proceed with a GoCo might be made. Of course, if Opposition Members were to find themselves in government in the future—that is most unlikely in the immediate future—they could publish the report whenever they wish, but I think it is a step too far to put a legal time limit on the production of such a report; I simply do not think it is the sort of thing we should be setting out in legislation.
No doubt the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View will argue that without such a time limit a future Government might try to rush through proceeding with a GoCo—that, of course, will be up to her if she is in this post in a future Government—but that fails to take into account the reality of how these decisions are made or indeed the recent history of the time it took to go through the commercial process in looking for a GoCo solution. The need for a robust commercial process will mean that any such decision will not be taken quickly and that there will be announcements and discussions at each stage along the way.
The last competition, for example, took nearly nine months from the issue of the contract notice in April 2013 until the receipt of detailed bids in November last year. That helps to convince me that Parliament will have ample opportunity to consider and debate any proposals to move to a GoCo well in advance of any order commencing part 1 and we should not be placing arbitrary time limits into statute just for the sake of it. Placing such a time constraint in the Bill may add to uncertainty around the commercial process. The Government will therefore be resisting the amendment to Lords amendment 7.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
So is the Minister guaranteeing the House some minimum time for discussion in these circumstances? Is he able to say that there will absolutely be a certain minimum time?
Mr Dunne
What I am guaranteeing is that a report will be presented to the House before the commencement of part 1 comes before the House in an affirmative resolution. It will be up to the Government of the day to decide at what point to publish that report and therefore what interval to leave between publication and moving an affirmative resolution in this House. What I am not guaranteeing is the duration of that interval.
These Lords amendments will make a good Bill better. They show that the Government have listened to the concerns raised during the Bill’s passage through both Houses. The changes to the Bill covered by the Lords amendments will ensure that Parliament has the information it needs on these important aspects of our defence. I therefore ask hon. Members to agree to Lords amendments 1 to 7 and to reject the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment 7.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Labour Members associate themselves with the condolences offered to the family and friends of the five servicemen lost so very tragically while serving their country. Their loss is deeply felt, particularly by their colleagues and close friends here in this place, and we acknowledge that loss.
Let me start by discussing the proposals to part 2 of the Bill. The Minister has talked about Lords amendments 1 to 5 to clauses 33, 39 and 42, which deal with the single-source procurement contracts. Labour Members welcome the amendments in principle, because they take forward the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and because they make sensible changes to simplify this legislation. It does indeed make sense to use one statutory instrument for all the regulations under part 2, as Lords amendment 1 achieves, along with the accompanying amendments—the technical changes that follow. Baroness Jolly in the other place explained the logic behind these amendments, which allow all the regulations under part 2 to be made in one statutory instrument; there is also provision for the maximum penalties to be made under the single- source contract regulations, rather than in separate regulations.
My colleague Lord Tunnicliffe, who did sterling work in the other place speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said he needed to see the proposal in writing before deciding whether there might be a problem. Having seen it in writing, Labour takes the view that these are largely technical amendments to which we have no objections. However, there are some concerns about the way in which impact assessments are being carried out by Departments on new regulations. The recent Regulatory Policy Committee report, published last month, on the improvement of the evidence base for regulation suggested some serious weaknesses in the way in which Departments were estimating the impact of new regulations. Indeed, only 75% of the first-time impact assessment submissions were fit for purpose, down from 81% in 2012. Will the Minister confirm that the proposed change has been given the green light and whether there are likely to be any problems for that Committee? Lords amendment 5 addresses two more recommendations of the DPRRC. As the Minister stated, it is purely technical and we have no problems with it at all. The Opposition support the work done by the DPRRC and on both sides of the House of Lords and we welcome that group of amendments.
Mr Dunne
I am intrigued by the selective amnesia from which the hon. Lady appears to be suffering. Does she recall the passage of the Companies Bill under the previous Government, as no fewer than 250 amendments were proposed for consideration by the House in the final two minutes of debate?
Alison Seabeck
The Minister is quite right to make that point. It is deeply frustrating for Back Benchers and for the public to see legislation being rushed through Parliament. There are lessons that Members on both sides of the House can learn—
Alison Seabeck
We can learn the lessons without hectoring from colleagues from Scotland. Full and public debate, and full and open scrutiny, are a sign of strong government, and it is something that we should all try to achieve in the House.
My noble Friend Lord Rosser said:
“If a future Government adopt the same approach”
and seek to run Defence Procurement via a GoCo
“the report on the effectiveness of the new DE&S-plus-plus organisation will be crucial, as will be the objectivity of that future Government’s assessment of DE&S-plus-plus”—
as it was referred to in the House of Lords—
“and their case for believing that the GOCO option would be more successful.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 966.]
The report for which this amendment provides will ensure that we can have real oversight as to the effectiveness of the new-look DE&S. However, as I have said, it still falls a bit short of what we would like. We are being asked to allow a measure to proceed that has been fraught with difficulty, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. According to the Minister, in a written answer to me on 18 December 2013, in running the tendering process the Government had
“spent £7.4 million supporting the work on the GoCo option”—[Official Report, 18 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 636W.]
However, according to a parliamentary answer on 11 February 2014 to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the total for the concept and assessment phase was almost £29 million. What is the final total, and has the Minister assessed the costs of running a similar exercise if a future Government opted to go down the GoCo route?
The Opposition very much hope that the changes that have been made—sadly, many of them are still not in the public domain—will make a difference, bolstering those areas within DE& S that need additional expertise or which have been hollowed out by changes to the overall size of the civil service. As we are discussing this part of the Bill, will the Minister kindly explain why, as of yesterday evening, the corporate plan and framework document for DE&S were not in the Library or on the Ministry of Defence website? In a written answer to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), a former Defence Minister, and to me on 7 April, an assurance was given that that would happen. Certainly, in discussing the need for openness and for the full and proper scrutiny of the proposed measures, as well as consideration of the Lords amendments, having sight of this document would be helpful.
It was noted in the other place that a future Government, having made up their mind that they wanted to go down the GoCo route, might be tempted to try to rush through the affirmative order. That was acknowledged by the Minister as a potential problem. Lord Rosser pointed out:
“I cannot help but recall that this Government, in declining to withdraw Part 1, argued that there might in future be a need to bring in the GOCO option with a minimum of delay—an odd argument, bearing in mind that the Government themselves had just had to delay their intentions on the GOCO option by at least two or three years, but nevertheless an indication of a Government’s thinking that they might seek to make the change as quickly as possible at the possible expense of proper scrutiny.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 966-67.]
That was enough to cause Opposition Members concern. Any decision that could have such a major impact on the safety and performance of our heroic servicemen and women must be subject to the necessary scrutiny, and Parliament should be allowed time to undertake that scrutiny. We also have at the back of our mind debates about conflicts of interest, intellectual property protection and so on, which will need, should a new proposal be introduced, to be addressed properly and transparently. A rushed scrutiny period would be unsatisfactory and it would not inspire public confidence.
In conclusion, I am concerned that simply expecting the DE&S-plus proposition to become match-fit as a public sector comparator for future market testing of the GoCo is hardly a vote of confidence in the hard-working staff of that organisation or, indeed, of those businesses that have been encouraged to tender to become strategic partners, which is why stronger scrutiny would help. The Minister mentioned significant concessions, but he also referred to an uncertain future. The measure, as it stands, could do with a little more certainty and scrutiny. Sadly, he has failed to persuade us that our amendment is unnecessary, so we will be pressing it to a vote.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) in their tribute to the five young men who lost their lives and in expressing thoughts and prayers for their families and loved ones. Our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), has lost a researcher, who served with 3 Military Intelligence, with which several House of Commons researchers are also associated.
The House will be relieved to hear that I will be brief. I congratulate the Minister on the quiet and typically modest way in which he has taken the Bill through Parliament, listening at every stage. I will not say much about procurement except that I feel oddly comfortable with the outcome. I expressed several concerns throughout the Bill’s passage about the possibility of going as far as a GoCo, but we would not have obtained concessions from the Treasury and the wider civil service had the MOD not tried it.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the concessions from the Treasury, but without the detail of the corporate plan, which is yet to be laid in the Library, we do not know exactly what those flexibilities are.
Mr Brazier
We do not have the detail, but we do know that there is now more flexibility on people and in other crucial areas, such as the annuality of budgets, which are extremely important for running an operation such as procurement.
I want to leave one thought on procurement. Some 25, 26 or 27 years ago, when working as a management consultant, I was privileged to take part in a study comparing the procurement methods of seven different countries. Our procurers in the then procurement executive—it has changed its name several times since—were at least as good as the average and arguably better. The majority of the problems in the system fell into one of two categories. Either the customer within MOD changed its mind or was unclear about its needs, or things were laid down from outside, some of which appear to be being addressed. As a result of the unsuccessful attempt to create a GoCo, we have ended up with a better outcome than we would otherwise have had.
I support all the Government’s amendments and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View is with them, too, although she has indicated one area in which she would like to go further.
I of course knew when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his pledge on the reserves that it would be honoured. However, not only has it been honoured exactly, but the Government’s wording of the clause is better than I originally proposed and has been well thought through. They particularly thought through the complicated federal nature of the reserve forces and cadets associations. The clause deals neatly with a problem, which I hope will never occur again but happened some 15 or 16 years ago, when the centre got out of touch with its regional branches. Leaving the real power with the regional branches, which are elected, covers that issue nicely. Parliament will get a good report whatever happens. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to the proposal and to the Members on both sides of the House who supported the original measure.
I end by saying—I hope that you will indulge in me in this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, strictly, it is beyond the amendment—that when we originally debated the matter in the House, there was great concern about recruiting for the reserves. I expressed the view that it had been seriously mishandled under the new assimilated structure controlled by the Regular Army. I also expressed confidence in Major General Chris Tickell, who had taken over.
Since then, things have moved a long way. My local TA infantry battalion got as many soldiers in January and February as it did in the previous 10 months. That is still only two thirds of what it needs if it is to grow, rather than just tread water, but it is a huge step forward. Today it has eight young officers under the age of 30, whereas a couple of years ago it had only two or three.
I firmly believe that things will move in the right direction, but I think that the steady hand on the tiller of this annual report from the RFCAs, which really do get it, will play a profound role, and I am grateful to the Government for giving way on that. I support all the Lords amendments.
Martin Horwood
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who displays great knowledge of these issues. I am sure that the friends and family of Oli Thomas will very much appreciate the comments that have been made across the House, as I am sure will my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). He would have been here at the beginning of the debate to respond to the Minister’s comments had the expected times for votes not changed rather suddenly. I hope that people will understand that. I am sure that all Members across the House would wish to express their sympathy to the friends and family of all the servicemen who lost their lives in that terrible accident.
I welcome the Lords amendments, which I think strengthen Parliament’s role in scrutinising the implementation of defence policy, which is very important. I know that several of my noble Friends had concerns about the process of building up the new reserve force and about the technicalities of the GoCo idea. It is very welcome that the Government have been open-minded enough to bring forward their own amendments to reflect those concerns and increase parliamentary scrutiny.
On the volunteer forces, we have an ambitious plan to change the whole chemistry and make-up of our armed forces. I think that will leave us with armed forces that are more flexible, more light-footed and more cost-effective, and in a time of genuine austerity that must be borne in mind. On the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House about exactly how well that will work, whether it is too ambitious and whether it will at some stage pose unexpected challenges, I think that it is right to have this extra level of parliamentary scrutiny over the process, so Lords amendment 6 is extremely welcome.
Lords amendment 7, which relates to the GoCo, now seems slightly academic, given that we are unlikely to see any proposals for a GoCo in the near future. However, were such a proposal to come forward at some point, I think that it is important to have the safeguards in place to ensure not only that a draft statutory instrument is laid before the House before the actual order is laid, but that we have the report beforehand on alternative options and impact assessments for each one.
In tabling amendment (a), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) is perhaps trying to gild the lily. I think that she is trying to conjure some mild controversy out of what is now a consensus on the issue. She said that she had remaining concerns about wholesale outsourcing, but of course that is only about the outsourcing of outside supplies, so it does not really change anything in that respect. It is only about whether in future that outsourcing is managed directly by a Government agency or by a more independent and commercially orientated organisation.
Many of us have expressed doubts about that idea. I expressed doubts on Second Reading about whether we should have yet another tier of decision making in between the armed forces and the actual decision-making process and the eventual supplies. However, I think that the formula we have come up with, whereby the different options will be re-examined at the time any such proposal comes forward, is a good one. We would not normally insert another 12-week time scale into legislation of this kind, so I am not sure that that is absolutely necessary, but I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was moved.
I think that the Lords amendments have made a good Bill even better. I join the consensus on both sides of the House in this good-natured debate by saying that this is the right Bill to bring forward at this time.
Mr Dunne
With the leave of the House, I shall make a few closing remarks. I know it is not conventional to do so, but I have been challenged in customary fashion by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) with a number of questions, and it is right that we put some answers on the record.
The first question that the hon. Lady posed was a technical one about whether the framework of part 2 had been approved by the RPC. We approached the Better Regulation Executive in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which confirmed that in its view part 2 did not constitute regulations of the type that ought to be considered by the RPC or the reducing regulations committee. We therefore did not do so.
The hon. Lady also asked whether in the strategic defence review in 2010 there was some strategic basis for arriving at the force composition of regulars and reservists. As she will know, I was not in post at that time, so I cannot give her my personal recollection of those discussions. It is undoubtedly the case that the fiscal situation that not only the country faced but our Department inherited—the £38 billion black hole in unfunded commitments—played a part in determining dispositions, but the main drivers of the force composition were set out at the time of the SDSR—namely, the unpredictable strategic environment and the need for an agile and adaptable force structure. The force structure that we ended up with, we believe, will enable us to meet the unpredictable strategic environment in future. It also moves UK armed forces closer to the force structures in place among many of our closest allies, so we do not think it is out of line with our main partners and allies.
The hon. Lady touched on reserves and the status of reserve recruiting, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). I thank him for the anecdote he gave us about the growing youthfulness of officers and the growing numbers of recruits that he referred to. I am not in a position to give the House detailed figures at this point, but applications are running significantly higher than average applications in months last year, which is an encouraging sign. We are making good progress in increasing the conversion rate from applicants to trainees. That is also an encouraging sign. I would not like to give the House the impression that we do not recognise that we have a considerable way to move in raising both the number of applicants and that conversion rate.
Mr Ainsworth
There is no doubt that there has been an improvement, but what the Minister and the House must do, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) said, is keep on top of it. There is institutional resistance to that change and we must recognise that. If we want it to work, we have to be prepared to drive it.
Mr Dunne
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence not only of me, but of the right hon. Gentleman, the former Defence Secretary, for making that point. It gives me the opportunity to say that there is a clear determination from the Secretary of State downwards to bear down on the issue within the Department. My colleague responsible for personnel, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), is having weekly meetings with the officials who are responsible within the Department and there is a clear determination throughout the ranks, in particular the Army, to ensure from the very senior levels down that there is a major focus on getting the institutional and behavioural change that the right hon. Gentleman talks about.
We are doing some practical things to try to improve recruitment. For example, the bounty for regulars going into the reserves has been doubled relatively recently. We have also introduced a bounty for completion of phase 1 training and a subsequent bounty for completion of phase 2 training to encourage applicants who start the training process to see it through and to have better results at the end of the process.
Mr Brazier
I strongly endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who understands these matters so well.
Of the two measures that the Minister has mentioned, I particularly welcome the second one. On the first, it seems to many in the reserves that the transfer rate is excessively generous. The fact that the other two services have chosen not to adopt it, although they both seem to be doing well in this regard—the Navy has a particularly good record in getting ex-regulars to join, especially as pilots and in other key skill areas—suggests that it should perhaps be a temporary measure.
Mr Dunne
It is not for me to determine what may happen in future in an area of the Department for which I am not responsible. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that the cost of training and bringing a new entrant into the Army Reserve is considerably higher than the cost of an already-trained regular transferring, where the cost is, in essence, negligible. The rationale for providing an additional bounty for the regular is that the cost is equivalent to what we are paying to train up a raw recruit into the reserves.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View asked where the corporate plan and the framework documents stand in relation to DE&S-plus. I am pleased to be able to inform her and the House that we will be placing those in the Library and publishing them shortly.
The hon. Lady asked about the costs of the exercise. I think she was trying to get me to predict the future cost of a subsequent GoCo exercise. I like to think of myself as a clairvoyant in some areas, but I cannot possibly determine what the rates of consultant advice might be at some indeterminate point in the future, so that was a question incapable of an answer. She asked specifically about the costs that we incurred on the previous exercise. I gently point out to her that the answer I gave on the cost of the GoCo element was a subset of the cost of the matériel strategy as a whole. That is why there is a difference between the £7.4 million figure and the £28.9 million figure that we gave to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in response to a question.
We have had a good debate this afternoon. It has been good natured—
Alison Seabeck
I thank the Minister, who has been helpful and charming throughout this whole process. I wonder whether he will indulge me in putting on record my thanks to the Officers of the House and to all the Members who have contributed to this debate. I am sure that he is about to do the same.
Mr Dunne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for indulging so many Members of the House in an opportunity to use time that is rarely available to us to pass such niceties and congratulations across the Chamber. Yes, the hon. Lady’s remarks are absolutely reciprocated. We have had good support from the Officers of the House and from Members of the House throughout the Committee stage and all stages of the Bill. We have also had considerable support in the other place, where there was a great deal of interest not only from the former Chiefs of Staff who sit there but from many other Members on both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham, who aided and abetted her throughout the Committee stage. I place on record my thanks to my colleague, Lord Astor of Hever, who took the Bill through the other place in his customary exemplary style.
This is an important Bill that will help transform the way in which we procure equipment for our armed forces and the way in which we use our reserves. I am pleased that it will now proceed to Royal Assent.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 49
Commencement
Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 7.— (Alison Seabeck.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Green Bins in South Gloucestershire
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Kingswood.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Kingswood,
Declares that South Gloucestershire Council is now charging residents £36 per year for the collection of their green bins and further that a local Petition on this subject has received over 4,200 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage South Gloucestershire Council to reconsider this decision and not implement a charge for the collection of green bins.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001344]
Rural Bus Services
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
We have had green bins in Gloucestershire; perhaps we can have green buses in Dorset.
It is a fact that rural bus services in my constituency are under great pressure, as they are across the country. In urban areas, bus services will continue for as long as demand and passenger numbers ensure their viability, which is highly likely to be the case. Operational costs in those areas are met entirely by revenue, and operators receive no financial support from local authorities. However, out in the sticks, where a lot of my constituency is, there is no commercial incentive to maintain rural bus routes, many of which are underused. Instead, local authorities run so-called tendered services, which form about 20% of the market. Those are mandatory services, providing transport for the old, the disabled, the vulnerable and of course our schoolchildren. They also include buses to isolated communities, rarely used routes and early morning and late night services.
Until recently, those services were tendered for and provided by bus companies. Now, as part of the Government’s localism agenda, local authorities run them. The changes came into effect on 6 April, after which Dorset county council cut just under £1 million from its bus budget of £2.8 million. Consequently, 38 routes have changed, 12 Saturday services have been removed and 10 bus routes have been withdrawn completely, while 39 bus services have remained untouched. It was a difficult exercise for the county council, whose budget has been cut by a third—about £100 million. To its credit, it consulted widely on the changes and proposals were drawn up based on surveys of passenger numbers, to which 1,200 responses were received. The result was that services during the week were reduced to ensure that communities continued to have Saturday services. Dorset county council is also investing £25,000 to help community transport schemes tackle the problem of rural isolation, and it continues to invest almost £2 million a year in bus services.
As I have said, however, savings are beginning to take their toll on rural bus services, which are a lifeline for many of my constituents and others around the country. For example, the No. 103 bus service from Bovington and Wool to Dorchester now runs only once a week on market day, allowing barely two hours in the town. We will all agree that that is too short for shopping, and certainly too short for any appointments.
When cuts are made, evening and Sunday buses go first, and of course, it does not make commercial sense for operators to put on a day service if there is no bus to return on. Go South Coast in Dorset is currently providing a number of services at a loss in an attempt to retain the integrity of its network, but as it says, that situation obviously cannot go on for ever.
A critical player in this whole issue is the bus services operator grant, or BSOG, which sounds a bit like a sort of underground warthog. Since 1966, bus companies have been able to claim back that fuel duty, which in turn has held down passenger fares. Nationally, that amounts to £350 million per year, which the 2002 Commission for Integrated Transport described as
“outstanding outcomes for very little cost.”
Over the years BSOG has been reduced by 30%, and not just by this Government, and with local authorities now funding bus services, less money is available for the commercial operator. As I understand it, BSOG is ring-fenced only until 2017. Operators in South Dorset are warning that any further cuts will inevitably lead to service reductions right across the bus network.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and I endorse his comments. Like him, I have constituents, whether in Greenhead or Gilsland, who currently have no bus service. Is it incumbent on our county councils to prioritise rural bus services, because without them our constituents are literally left high and dry, and incumbent on us to support innovative schemes such as catch the bus week, which is this week? I have been proud to support that scheme, and I believe it is a good innovation that supports bus services, particularly in rural areas.
Richard Drax
I thank my hon. Friend for his wise intervention and I agree with both the points he makes. However, although his efforts to provide some form of service are to be highly praised, such a service does not necessarily fit in with the right timings to get people to or from work, for example. In Wool, the Share and Care system has been set up mainly by retired people. Some 50 drivers provide a service, at a price of about 40p a mile, for those who are stuck at home and need to get to the doctor or to hospital, or to go shopping and do all the everyday things that people in rural communities need to do. That is, one could say, the community in action, which is to be applauded, but it is slightly regrettable that such a basic service as a rural community bus must be provided almost through charity. As I say, however, I applaud the initiative.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland the Rural Community Network scheme provides Government grant aid and assistance through the Northern Ireland Assembly to enable those who live in rural areas or are isolated, such as elderly or disabled people or those who do not have cars, to get transport to where they need to go, such as their GPs, doctors or shops, at a price they can afford. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will consider that scheme, which enables people in the countryside to access transport.
Richard Drax
I applaud the scheme in Northern Ireland. The Minister will no doubt have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point and perhaps he will comment on it.
Another pressure on rural bus services is the concessionary bus pass. Government statistics show that 30% of all bus journeys are now made using this pass. Free off-peak bus passes for pensioners are welcome, but they skew the economics of bus networks in rural areas. For example, in Dorset operators are dealing with record numbers of pass holders enjoying our stunning countryside and coastline. Up to 20 million people visit Dorset, many of them on buses. It is a tourist destination. The original idea of the pass was to ensure that bus companies are not better or worse off. However, reimbursement is paid on the basis that without concessionary journeys, fewer would have been made. Dare I say it, that is slightly illogical in a business sense, although any money is gratefully accepted. The rebate is about a third of the cost of a ticket, which clearly disadvantages the bus company and the local taxpayer. Inevitably, it means that operators are left struggling to fund services, not least in rural areas such as my constituency.
The Government recognise the value of the national network, and the “Green Light for Better Buses” agenda is intended to improve local bus services. Some, however, such as the Campaign for Better Transport, worry that 2014 may be the worst year yet for cuts to bus services.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I concur with everything he is saying, particularly about the pressure from visitors, who are welcome, on our bus services in one way or another. Does he agree that this has been a particularly bad year? We have villages that are now down to just two bus services a week. Young people want to be able to take up an apprenticeship and travel to our local colleges. There are people who, for whatever reason—perhaps sight impairment—cannot get to work. We are at crisis point in Dorset. We need longer term planning. We cannot go from year to year with people wondering whether they can stay in the village in which they have lived for many years.
Richard Drax
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I agree with her entirely. I wonder whether the Minister will consider the point I was about to make. Obviously, some routes in rural areas are loss-making. When contracts are put out to bus operators, as part of that contract, should they not have to take on board the whole contract and not be allowed, as they currently are, to drop non-profit-making routes? Business plans should be drawn up to take this into account, so that, rather than making x profit the operators make y profit, but essential bus services are retained.
Guy Opperman
I utterly endorse the point about not dumping unpopular routes at the first opportunity. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward is surely to take the London example of an integrated transport system with a single card, the Oyster card, that is interchangeable between different operators—some national, some local—which has the benefit of reducing the cost to the provider and, ultimately, the passenger, and brings down the cost of that transport arrangement? Does he welcome the work that is being done to try to extend that around the country, beyond London?
Richard Drax
I welcome anything along those lines. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure the Minister can expand on that point and say how far such an arrangement has progressed. We welcome any initiative that creates a better and more integrated bus service, not least for those who are stuck out in the sticks.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I want to draw the attention of the House and, in particular, the Minister to the fact that in my area someone trying to travel to Taunton from Street in Somerset can get caught out, because different bus companies run different services at different times of the day. That competition means that someone who buys a ticket, unwittingly thinking that they can use it for the return journey to the village from which they came, can find that that is not possible if the service is run by a different company. It is completely ludicrous that people should end up having to buy a new single ticket to return on exactly the same route. Some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made might solve that problem.
Richard Drax
I agree, and I think my hon. Friend has answered her own point: our hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has made some suggestions. I would entirely concur with anything that creates a better, more integrated system that is not as convoluted as she describes.
Local authorities nationwide have already announced savings of almost £20 million. I use the word “savings” rather than “cuts” intentionally, because I accept, as I know the Minister does, that we face difficult times and we are not out of the woods yet—although the economy is showing signs of turning—so we all have to live more reasonably, and certainly within our means. I welcome a lot of what is going on. This country has to learn to live within her means, because clearly we cannot do otherwise. However, I feel that the provision of bus services—better integrated, we hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) has said—will not disappear, and certainly not in my rural Dorset.
Routes to remote parts at the most unsocial hours are the most vulnerable to being lost to savings. In a recent reply to me, Transport Minister Baroness Kramer wrote that
“local transport matters must be determined locally and that the Government’s localism agenda is about giving people the freedom to create effective working partnerships.”
In insisting on a localism agenda, we must ensure that we do not inadvertently starve councils of the resources to provide a proper bus network, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. In rural areas, I would categorise not just the elderly and the sick as “vulnerable”. They include, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned—she beat me to the punch—those holding down a job, trying to find work or attending college or university. Just because they live in the countryside, they should not be disadvantaged so far as their future careers, what they want to do and where they want to go are concerned.
Annette Brooke
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time—I will claim first place because I want to mention a Dorset problem. I wonder whether he has experienced the same problem that I have, where parents and students have decided to go to an out-of-catchment school, knowing that there was a bus route, but suddenly the bus service has been terminated. Even for catchment routes, I have got parents and students stranded without a bus or a safe route to school along country lanes. Our problem with the main services has spilt over into providing services that get young people to school and thereby comply with our law and our expectations of young people staying on longer at school.
Richard Drax
Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have some experiences in my constituency—I am wandering slightly off the point—where, as I understand it, school children cannot get to school because the school bus will not pick them up, as they are not quite in the catchment area, yet if the bus travelled another mile or so, they would be. Again, this goes back to—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has disappeared.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on rural bus services. Does he agree that in some areas where there are very few people, a commercial operation, however much subsidy we give it, is not always likely to work? What we need is some support, even if just for fuel or whatever, for those who can create a transport system, whether charitable or not. At the moment, fuel is very expensive and we do not seem to have any means to help those people to help themselves. We need that help, too.
Richard Drax
I am going to be very naughty now. Perhaps my hon. Friend was not present at the beginning of my speech—
Richard Drax
He was, he was—in which case, I apologise profoundly. I mentioned the bus service operators grant, which is, in effect, a fuel rebate, and which is being gradually reduced. One bus company managing director has told me that if the Government continue to cut the grant, bus services will be even more seriously affected.
Tessa Munt
My hon. Friend mentioned jobs. A number of my constituents who live in Cheddar, Axbridge and Chippenham work in Bristol, which is on the other side of the local authority boundary. When Somerset county council makes decisions about transport, it needs to worry only about the areas that it covers, but some of my constituents will have to give up their jobs because, owing to the one-mile gap between the Somerset and North Somerset bus services, they have no means of travelling to work in Bristol. There are only 10 or 12 of them, but the Government should bear in mind the cost of supporting them in some way with taxpayers’ money because otherwise they cannot reach their workplaces.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say to the House that interventions are becoming speeches: they are becoming very long. Of course Members can speak if they wish, as long as what they say is on the subject of the debate, but I implore those who intervene to follow the normal rules of the House, under which an intervention must be short and must be relevant to the point that is currently being made.
Richard Drax
I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I too will be very brief.
For all the reasons that I have given, I ask the Minister to consider ring-fencing BSOG beyond 2017 to ensure that the remoter parts of our constituencies continue to be served. Ideally the Government would return BSOG to its earlier levels, although I do not suppose for a minute that that will happen: I suspect that it is wishful thinking, given our current financial circumstances.
Finally, may I ask the Government to consider a fairer way of sharing the financial burden of concessionary travel across the United Kingdom? I am thinking especially of counties such as Dorset, where tourism effectively penalises bus operators. As I said, Dorset is a major tourist attraction, but it suffers a great deal more than other counties that may not attract so many visitors. Our bus companies are, in effect, being paid a third of the price of a ticket.
The overall benefits of buses need hardly be rehearsed. Last year 5 billion journeys were made in the United Kingdom, a fifth of them by commuters. Those benefits, social and economic, are incontrovertible. Residents of rural areas spend between 20% and 30% more on transport than their city counterparts. The need is there, and in some cases it is desperate. Does the Minister not agree that all Governments of all colours have a duty to preserve some form of service—preferably, as many of my colleagues have suggested, a better-integrated service, but at least a service —to support those who live in rural areas? Rural bus services provide a genuine lifeline for many, and, in my humble opinion, we must do all that we can to protect them.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission, and I hope that of the Minister, as we have so much time—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I feel I should just explain to Members, as they may not be familiar with this, that the Minister’s permission is not necessary when we are on an Adjournment debate that has begun significantly before the moment of interruption. That is a matter for the Chair to judge. The hon. Lady can make a contribution in this debate. She does not have to seek the Minister’s permission. It might be helpful to remind Members of these arrangements, as we do not often start an Adjournment debate so early. I hope that is clear.
Annette Brooke
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very helpful to have that clarified, and I apologise for my earlier lengthy interventions as I was not aware of that.
I am deeply concerned about cuts in rural bus services. I know that they are not just happening in Dorset as studies have shown that there have been cuts across the whole country. I therefore think that, as much as we want to make our decision making as local as possible, this is an issue on which an overview from the Government is needed, if only to make sure that best practice—some of which we have heard about tonight—is shared. That should be encouraged and seminars should be available to show what can be done.
I have a village that has at least 1,200—maybe 1,400—houses. That is quite a large village. Every single year the bus service is threatened. That creates a great deal of uncertainty for families and older people, who wonder whether they can remain there as this goes on year after year. It is a huge worry, and a great number of petitions are produced and eventually somebody comes up with some sort of solution. The current solution, which is thanks to the very many people, including councillors, who have worked hard to get something in the way of a solution, is a commercial service. Will that last the year? Will notice be served during the year? Nobody knows, and even though the bus service is there for some people, we do not have a service between 7 am and 9 am, which is not terribly helpful for people getting to work.
As I mentioned, I feel there must be some way in which we can have some longer-term planning. Of course there will have to be variations to take account of population movements, but there must be a certain basic level of service to which people are entitled. I am all in favour of the community services which many Members have mentioned and I think parish councils are able to take a great lead in these types of services. Very often it is nonsense to have a very large bus running on a certain route when there are not many passengers. The flexibility of community transport for some of the functions is all-important, but I would argue that there is a core service that we need for workers, students and apprentices so that they can access work or their studies, and so that everybody has a future.
By turning our backs on this problem, we are creating even more rural poverty. We are all aware of the rural poverty figures, and it is those families and young people who are truly deprived as they are not getting access to a lift in the car every day and at all times of the day, because sometimes that just cannot happen within families, whereas for others it can be much easier to give a lift into the local town so family members can socialise.
This is a crisis and I plead with the Minister to look at what is happening over the whole country. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Dorset, and the services my constituency shares with that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), which are constantly being cut away. Our mailbags are enormous, and they are full of letters from people who are very worried. People should be spared this anxiety and know that there is a certain minimum level of service to which they are entitled. A lot of work may need to be done on encouraging people to use the bus—that is acceptable and the strong message of “use it or lose it” can be given—but we need a continuity of service so that people can be confident enough to plan their lives around using the bus service. We are in a downward spiral the more we cut, as people find they cannot sustain their living styles with the current provision. I issue a plea to the Minister to say what leadership the Government can give to save our rural bus services and, at the same time, our rural communities.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has said, but I wanted to bring one or two other aspects of life in Somerset to the Minister’s attention. This subject is one of the most vexing that comes up in casework and in my surgeries, as people complain because they are not able to get to work or to hospital appointments. In my part of mid-Somerset, someone wanting to attend an acute hospital has to go to Taunton, Yeovil, Bath or Bristol. Nobody complains about that because that is just a fact of life and people have to travel 20 or 25 miles to get to any appointment. We have the opportunity to do something pretty standard; that does not mean we have to have bus services once an hour through the villages, but it does mean we have to consider people’s needs. When their needs cross local authority boundaries, things becomes increasingly difficult for them when the authorities do not work together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has left the Chamber, was talking about different technologies and making sure that we have some form of co-ordination. A lot of modern practices in London and in other cities around the country allow people to see where their cards have been used when they are using a bus or train service. There should be some way of ensuring that we have co-ordination in gaining information on the activities of passengers, so that the bus companies are aware of, for example, exactly how many tickets are used by older members of the population at no cost to themselves. We should be able to allocate those to services and then take action in areas such as mine, which have a large number of tourists and a lot of people using their free bus passes to travel around my beautiful constituency. That would allow for a more accurate reflection of what is actually happening.
We should also probably examine some of the alternatives. As a child, I lived for a while in a part of the country where there were post buses, whereby the Royal Mail provided a minibus that had about 17 seats. The back part of it was a cage and the postmaster or postmistress would call at villages on a particular route to collect the post or deliver it to the point where people could collect their own post. The post in all the mail boxes was collected on that trip, and people had to sit on the bus and wait for two minutes while people jumped in and out to put the parcels and envelopes into the back of the minibus. The Royal Mail needed to collect the post and there was a civilised, co-ordinated and fantastic service, which was reliable because it ran to outlying villages regularly at certain times every day and fitted in entirely with the postal collections. I wonder why government cannot consider co-ordinating services with those of other organisations that have to go into the villages—the Royal Mail is exactly one such organisation.
I am sure we can find some way of ensuring that smaller buses are used for core services. Large areas of my constituency, such as Brean and Berrow, attract a huge number of visitors who want to be able to access the bus service, particularly on changeover days when they need to go to Weston-super-Mare station or down to Taunton station. Those bus services need to be provided, particularly in the summer months, but perhaps even from March to October. A much more basic service is needed for local people, however, so perhaps it might be worth considering an extended service during the summer months and a basic service during the winter months. That might mean having smaller buses, but having more of them during the summer months.
One of my passions is ensuring that younger people use bus services. In my area, if someone wants to move out of their village or the most local town, they invariably need access to a car. It seems to me that modern technology should allow us to give some sort of restricted access to a free bus pass. That was one issue on which I crossed swords with Bob Crow here in Parliament, because he expressed his desire that only older people should be able to enjoy free bus passes. I do not think that is right. We should at least be able to allow young people up to the age of 19 a card that gives them free travel within a 25 or 30-mile radius of their home. That could be done using the technology used on some of our buses and would reduce the need for young people to use cars and it would set good habits for the future.
I also want briefly to mention a point on which I hope the Minister can give us absolute clarity. When alternatives such as car sharing are used, what is the insurance situation for those who drive other people? Is that considered to be work in some way and is the act of offering lifts absolutely excluded from one’s normal social, domestic and pleasure use of a vehicle? If someone is effectively charging 40p or 25p a mile, I believe they can get into difficulties over the insurance cover they need and there is the question of whether that becomes business use or whether it is covered by social, domestic and pleasure use.
I hope that something can be done to give more assurance to people in rural areas about their bus services. Buses provide vital links to the local town. Someone living in a village might often have to make a journey of five, six or seven miles to reach any services whatsoever given the reduction in the number of post offices, garages and so on. Although one might formerly have been able to buy some small services, a lot of our village shops are no longer around and people might have to cover significant distances that are far too far to walk, and in places where there are no footpaths, it is extremely difficult for people to access services. I hope that the Minister might be able to address some of the points that I have raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber this evening and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this debate on rural bus services. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for their contributions this evening.
I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, who is a passionate advocate for his constituents on a number of matters that we have debated. I was particularly interested to listen to his in-depth knowledge of the local bus service and to his view of where issues remain. That was helpful.
My hon. Friend was right to point out, as many people have, that buses play a vital role in our economy. Some 2.2 billion journeys were made on local bus services outside London in the past year and more than half of those who rely on bus services outside London do not have access to a car. Not only in rural areas but in other areas the bus is essential, not only enabling many people to get to work, to education, to the doctor or to hospital but for their quality of life. I accept the case made tonight that for many, particularly in rural areas, the bus is a lifeline, and without it people cannot access essential services, or do a number of the things that people in cities and towns take for granted.
We should note that, overall, satisfaction with bus journeys is high: 88% of passengers are satisfied with their services. As was pointed out, it is not just older people who use buses: under-21s make up a third of bus passengers. However, as a result of the concessionary pass, use among older people is increasing. I will touch on some of the compensation arrangements for that in a moment.
I want to set out how important the Government think buses are. The point about their importance was recently reinforced by a study from Leeds university, which pointed out that bus commuters generate £64 billion of economic output every year, and that one in five bus journeys is for work purposes. I therefore absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset that there is an onus on the Government to recognise that bus services are essential. The Government’s continued commitment to expenditure on buses, and to improving bus services, reflects that. This year, we will spend some £1 billion on the concessionary travel entitlement, and some £340 million on direct subsidy. More than £300 million has been allocated to funding major bus projects in the last year, so the Government absolutely recognise the importance of bus services.
Moreover, we have worked with a number of local authorities, through the “Better Bus Areas” fund, to deliver improvements. We have provided £22 million to support community transport, much of it in rural areas. Many bus improvement schemes are funded via the local sustainable transport fund. A total of £95 million has been provided for four rounds of the green bus fund, which has also helped to make environmental improvements. My hon. Friends rightly make the case for their area, and for us to look at further solutions, but I hope that they will recognise that in this spending round, we have protected bus spending until the end of 2015-16, despite the economic chaos that the Government inherited.
I am pleased to say that we have looked at Dorset. Its county council has received some £14.5 million via the local sustainable transport fund. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset will know that some of that has funded bus improvements along the Weymouth-Dorchester corridor, which I think goes through Dorset. That money has also resulted in a package of new public transport infrastructure improvements in south-east Dorset.
Improvements have been made, but the Government recognise that more can and must be done. In 2012, our “Green Light for Better Buses” document set out the Government’s plans for the bus industry. The proposals included reforming the bus subsidy, improving competition, incentivising partnership working, looking at multi-operator ticketing, and making access to bus information and ticketing easier for all. We should not underestimate the importance of the ability to access information about services and their regularity as a driver for the continued use of bus services.
There is no doubt that we are in challenging economic times. Government and local authorities have had to make difficult decisions, but the Government want to ensure that the bus market is still attractive to all operators, large and small, urban and rural. The funding that I have mentioned helps to ensure that the market is still attractive. We want to ensure that funding is allocated in a way that is perceptibly fair, while giving the best value for the taxpayer.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned the bus service operators grant, or BSOG. I would describe it not as a warthog, but as something rather more positive. It is not quite the fatted cow, but it certainly has been paid directly to bus operators in a fairly blunt and untargeted way that relates to fuel consumption. None the less, BSOG was a help in ensuring that services continued to be provided. Some local authorities have told us that they can make the bus subsidy deliver better value for money by working in partnership with operators to grow the bus market. The characteristics of local bus markets vary, so different solutions will be appropriate in different areas, which is why the Government believe that it is for local authorities to decide which route to pursue. This year, £43 million of BSOG funding will be paid directly to local authorities, rather than to bus operators, in relation to the services that councils fund. That will give communities much more control over how that money is spent. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset noted, funding has been ring-fenced until the end of 2016-17, which provides three years of stability and certainty for operators.
My hon. Friend tempted me down the line of committing the Government to reinstate the full value of BSOG in years gone by, and he tempted me down the line of ring-fencing funding post-2017. Although I have heard his entreaty, he will not be surprised to learn that I will not be tempted or, rather, I shall resist that temptation this evening, as it would prejudice the work that we are doing on partnership working, where we are moving forward to deliver better services. It would be wrong, too, to ring-fence any expenditure, and I am sure that the Chancellor would not allow me to do so post-2017. None the less, the funding that has been ring-fenced until the end of 2016-17 provides a period of stability and certainty for operators.
The Government are committed to protecting the national bus travel concession, which is of huge benefit to about 11 million people, allowing free off-peak local travel anywhere in England. The concession provides older and disabled people with greater freedom and independence, as well as a lifeline to their community. It enables access to facilities in the local area, and it helps them to keep in touch with their families. It also provides access to employment for many people who might not otherwise have that opportunity. A number of my hon. Friends have discussed the way in which the Government allocate funding. The Department has set out in clear guidance how local authorities should remunerate local operators, taking account of local circumstances, but my hon. Friends will note that operators can appeal.
The hon. Member for Wells spoke about young people’s travel, which is a complex issue. There is no statutory obligation to provide discounted-price travel to young people, but many commercial and publicly funded reductions are available. It is for local authorities to judge whether that is good value when considering the services they provide for young people in their area. Doubtless, she has made entreaties to her local authority along those lines.
Bus services in rural areas are not just concerned with levels of public funding. Commercial operators provide services in those areas where there are enough passengers, and overall commercial mileage in some rural areas of England has increased. The Government accept that where that is not feasible local authorities have a vital role in supporting rural bus services. About 28% of bus mileage in predominantly rural authorities is operated under contract to local authorities. It is local authorities that are best placed to decide what support to provide in response to local views and need, and in the light of their overall funding priorities, particularly with regard to transport.
Richard Drax
While I have heard every word that the Minister has said—it is all wonderful stuff, and I welcome what the Government are doing—the key issue, certainly for us, is that although councils are trying to provide a bus service, they are so pushed for money that they cannot provide sufficient services at the appropriate times. That means getting people to work at 7 am and back home at 6 pm. The buses leave at 9 am and return at 3 pm: that is one of our major problems.
Stephen Hammond
I understand that problem and have set out the extensive amount of finance and will shortly set out some other solutions for rural areas. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is obviously for local authorities to establish demand and to decide how to use Government support. It is vital that authorities maximise the return on every penny of funding, which is why my Department met its commitment to publish revised guidance on best practice when procuring local bus services and other types of road transport for rural passengers, taking into account some of the challenges he mentions. As a result of the guidance, there has been a lot of innovation from councils up and down the country, but there is scope for more. Authorities should highlight and draw upon the good practice to help rural users. Much of what tonight’s speeches have demanded, such as providing a whole range of solutions, is for local authorities. The Government offer support and leadership, but I urge local authorities to consider the best practice.
We have been discussing fixed-route bus services tonight, but there are also community buses, dial-a-ride and other types of demand-responsive transport, such as taxis or the postal taxi mentioned earlier. My Department is undertaking further work to consider how to remove the barriers that prevent such services from operating more effectively. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend Baroness Kramer, was right to emphasise that while there may be multiple solutions, it will be for local authorities to determine which is the best for them.
In conclusion, the Government believe in buses. Our vision is for a better bus with more of what passengers want, which, whether they are urban or rural, is a punctual, interconnected, greener and more accessible service with greater availability of smart ticketing. We will be considering next year the results of a pilot project in Norfolk that will potentially overcome some of the other ticketing issues that rural people experience. I absolutely accept that there is more to do, but the Government have shown that they accept that there is an onus on them, through the extensive support that they provide, to try to ensure a more competitive and greener bus network that will encourage more passengers, be they urban or rural.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 6 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
Schools Funding
(10 years, 6 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr Robin Walker, in the interests of good order, I have two announcements to make. First, the screens in the middle of the Chamber are not working, so, to see the time, Members will have to refer to the screens at either end of the Chamber. Secondly, I believe that a lot of Members wish to speak. May I ask those who wish to speak to rise now in their place?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Thank you. My supplementary point is that it would greatly enhance the chances of everyone getting called if those who wish to speak do not intervene on other speakers. I cannot enforce that, but that is my encouragement, so that everyone gets in.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to open this debate and to see such strong support from Government Members. It is a particular pleasure to speak again about a campaign that has been central to my career as an MP, and it is good to do so during the Government’s consultation to do something that no Government this century have done: to help the lowest-funded education authorities and provide a minimum level of funding to those who have suffered from unfairness for too long.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and for the cross-party support that helped to secure it, which ranged from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). F40 is and always has been a cross-party campaign, and as we celebrate some measure of progress today, I acknowledge the role played by Members in previous Parliaments, such as the former Member for Stafford, David Kidney, who led the campaign for many years.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I apologise for intervening so early, but he mentioned my predecessor and I want to put on record my tribute to the work that he did. I point out that it is rather ironic that Staffordshire is one of the few counties that, despite this excellent move by the Government, has been left out. I am sure that my hon. Friend will return to that.
Mr Walker
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend and I will indeed return to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), as Chair of the Education Committee and over a long period, has championed this cause in this and previous Parliaments. Alongside them, Members of all parties and none in Parliament, councils, governing bodies, parent forums and unions have spoken up for the lowest-funded education authorities over the years.
I am grateful to the House of Commons Library, the Association of School and College Leaders and the Local Government Association for producing helpful briefs for the debate and, in particular, to the voluntary members and officers of F40 for the detailed work that they have put into informing Members. The F40 campaign has been running, representing the interests of the least-well-funded local authorities, since the Major Government, and this is the first time in all those years that it can celebrate a decisive monetary step towards fairer funding.
The previous Labour Government accepted the premise that the system for allocating school funding was unfair, non-transparent and in need of reform, but they did not have time to deliver on their consultation on a fairer system. The coalition Government have already delivered a new consultation, committed to a fairer and more transparent formula and delivered new, simplified local formulae, as well as the pupil premium, which is a better system for targeting deprivation than what went before. Until recently, however, F40 had won the argument for changing national funding but had precious little to show for it.
Despite all the aforementioned changes and the Chancellor’s welcome commitment to greater fairness, the same list of authorities remained resolutely at the bottom of the funding tables and, year after year, the gaps between those authorities and some of their better-funded neighbours grew bigger and bigger. F40’s long, hard campaign to get a better deal looked as though it had won plaudits but no pennies; words but not pounds. The announcement by the Schools Minister in March of £350 million specifically to help the lowest-funded areas changed that for most F40 authorities.
Many hon. Friends in the Chamber today were with me in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in April 2012, when we welcomed the Government’s commitment to a fairer formula but bemoaned the lack of a down payment to begin its delivery. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who invoked the Chinese proverb of Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism, who said that the longest journey begins with a single step. That single step has now been taken. Many parts of the country can rejoice at that. Of the £350 million targeted at helping the lowest-funded authorities, some £172 million—slightly less than half—is coming to F40 authorities. Cambridgeshire, South Gloucestershire, Northumberland and Shropshire all see gains of more than 6% as a result of the projected allocations and, of 34 current members of F40, 23 are seeing some uplift.
In Worcestershire, the £4.9 million of additional funding that we have so far been allocated—an increase of just 1.7%—has been queried by some as less than our due, but celebrated by most as the first major step forward after decades of underfunding.
Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his significant role in achieving that breakthrough? It is, however, only an initial breakthrough, as he has said. As long as schools such as Prince Henry’s school in Worcestershire face significant real-terms funding cuts, despite those achievements, much more work needs to be done. I offer him every best wish in pursuing this excellent campaign into the future.
Mr Walker
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has been a long-term champion of fairer funding for schools, and I think that his constituent, Helen Donovan, would be very proud of the work he has done on that front. The Worcestershire Association of School Business Managers and head teachers and governors have expressed their appreciation for the progress made so far, but he is right that there is still much further to go.
Having made the campaign my No. 1 priority as a result of meeting all the primary school heads in Worcester during my time as a candidate—every single one of whom railed at the unfairness of the funding system—I promised them that further progress will and must follow. Some F40 areas have not however been so fortunate, and I want to ensure this debate hears the voices of those such as Warrington, Trafford, Solihull and Nottinghamshire who, despite being F40 members and languishing towards the bottom of the tables for per pupil funding, have yet to see progress.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on all the work that he has done on this. One authority that he did not mention is York, which is moving towards the bottom of the school funding table. We have made great steps forward, and we must congratulate the Government and the Minister on doing that, but we are still some way off having that level playing field that authorities such as mine strive for.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the situation in my local authority, Trafford. He will be aware that Trafford in general is a well-off borough, but it has pockets of very serious deprivation. Does he agree that it is extremely difficult to deal with such deprivation when other neighbouring Manchester boroughs are so much better funded and that that puts our children at a real disadvantage?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The evidence that we saw at the recent F40 conference was that, although there is little link between funding and overall attainment, there is a link between funding and raising the attainment of the most deprived cohorts. That is where the F40 campaign has always said that funding does make a difference and fairness in funding is vital to help those people. I completely agree with her, and I will come on to some of the urban areas represented by the F40, such as Trafford and York, that could have done better out of the consultation.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on the moves that they have made. Will the Minister comment on what we are doing about special educational needs in that regard? Does my hon. Friend support reversing the Government decision whereby schools used to have more say over their budget, which in rural areas really helped those schools most in need?
Mr Walker
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I hope that the Minister will answer her point. I agree that giving schools greater say is important and very much in line with some of the Government’s policies.
The East Riding of Yorkshire is by most calculations very low in the table for school funding, yet gets only 0.3% through this allocation, and Staffordshire’s MPs have been among the most consistent in pressing F40’s case.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I have a little list and Staffordshire is 12th from the bottom. Given that the F40 campaign began in Staffordshire, does my hon. Friend understand the surprise of all MPs in Staffordshire that we have had no uplift at all? Can he explain that?
Mr Walker
That is obviously for the Government to explain. I share my hon. Friend’s mystification, though, that a county so close to the bottom of the table has so far received nothing, and I hope that because consultation is continuing that is something that can be changed and that areas such as the East Riding of Yorkshire, Staffordshire and Trafford, which have so far missed out, may still have something to gain from the process. They certainly have something to gain from fairer funding.
In its consultation response, F40 has queried the methodology used by the Government in allocating the £350 million. One substantial difference between its calculations and the Government’s is the unit of funding used. F40 has tended to use the guaranteed unit of funding, whereas the Department used a new measure called the single basic unit of funding. I do not want the debate to be dominated by the technicalities of funding mechanisms. However, I understand that that technicality is part of the reason why the East Riding of Yorkshire may have done less well than Cambridgeshire, despite similarly low funding. Differences in the local approach to the allocation of high-needs funding account for much of the difference in the outcomes. F40 has asked the Government to look at those matters again, to ensure that each poorly funded authority gets a fair chance to secure better funding. I hope that the Minister will be able to look into that.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I want to express support for the hon. Gentleman’s efforts, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on what they have achieved in government; they have done something that two previous Governments failed to do. Does the hon. Gentleman share my anxiety that nothing that happens in the consultation should undo the benefits that a number of authorities have now received—not before time—such as Northumberland’s extra £10.6 million?
Mr Walker
Absolutely. I completely agree. After fighting for so long for any improvement at all, it would be tragic if at this stage the benefits that the consultation brings to areas that have suffered for far too long were to unravel. However, there are one or two allocatons in the consultation that F40 would question.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his valiant efforts to get fairer funding for schools. I do not want to sound ungrateful for the extra £203 per pupil that Leicestershire gets, but we have jumped in the league table from 151st to 150th and continue to receive almost £1,000 less than schools in the city of Leicester. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
Mr Walker
Clearly, there is much further to go in the process of providing fairer funding. What has been done is a down payment—a first step. I am glad that Leicestershire, which has been at the bottom of the table for too long, is getting substantial uplift from the process, but that is by no means the end of the story. I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the need to go further. Indeed, by F40’s own calculations, it seems that Leicestershire, as the least-well-funded authority, deserves at least the 5% uplift that it is receiving. The East Riding of Yorkshire, the third worst funded, deserves more than its 0.3%, and Worcestershire—much as we appreciate our gain—has not done as well as might have been hoped, with an increase of less than 2%. Every other F40 member among the 20 authorities in the lowest position has had at least that uplift, with the exception of Warrington, Staffordshire and Solihull.
Higher up the table, more F40 members have missed out. There are some surprising gainers who, according to F40’s calculations, might not have been expected to gain so much. F40 does not mind—nor do I—that authorities outside its membership benefit by a move towards fairness; we should celebrate the fact that low-funded areas such as Wiltshire, Rutland and Poole have gained substantially from what has been done, despite not being members of the F40 campaign. Cornwall has also gained, although not as much as it might have hoped.
Harder to explain is the fact that some of the better-funded local authorities—high in the table of funding by GUF—are nevertheless receiving substantial uplift. In the words of the secretary of F40:
“We think it is odd that so many LAs in the higher part of the funding league table (too high in the league to be f40 members) are gainers, whilst LAs that are obviously more poorly funded have small gains or are overlooked”.
The gains made by Westminster, which is one of the 10 best-funded authorities in the country, and by Brent, Sutton and Bromley, the three biggest gainers in per pupil terms but all in the top half of the funding table, look much harder to justify from an F40 perspective. In its response to the consultation, F40 argued:
“We do not understand the rationale for adjusting for labour market costs—as they are already fully taken into account in the main funding distribution between local authorities.”
It said:
“We can see no case for supplementary funding for area costs. The research work undertaken by f40 has clearly identified that the very large funding differential between London and f40 authorities enables schools in London to employ significantly more staff; it does a great deal more than compensate for additional employment costs.”
It is perhaps the inclusion of such an allowance for costs that has allowed relatively well-funded London boroughs to benefit from the uplift, while urban F40 members such as Warrington, Solihull and Trafford seem to have missed out. I ask the Minister to look at that carefully.
In previous debates, hon. Members from both sides of the House have set out their concerns about the challenges of rural sparsity and delivering education to sparse communities. F40 has always supported the idea of including a sparsity factor in the national formula and welcomed its inclusion for the first time in the new local formulae. However, without national funding in the national funding formula, there has been surprisingly little uplift from sparsity. In its consultation response, the group said:
“We agree that sparsity is potentially a useful means of targeting funding at small rural schools. Many authorities have not introduced a sparsity factor for 2014/15, taking the view that further work is needed on producing a viable model. We would welcome an evaluation by the Department on the approaches local authorities with different characteristics have adopted for 2014/15.”
Although the constituency that I represent is not a sparse one, it appears to suffer from a lack of funding because it is in a larger local authority that suffers significantly from sparsity. I think that the Government have further to go to meet the challenges of rural sparsity and to ensure that rural authorities are properly funded for the future.
Perhaps the most important part of F40’s consultation response is about the challenge that many of the lowest-funded areas still face:
“The Department will be aware that schools are facing major cost increases at a time of ‘flat cash’ funding settlements, particularly: September 2014’s 1% pay increase for teachers (typically, teacher’s salaries account for 65% of school costs)”—
in Worcestershire that figure is more like 85%, because of years of underfunding—
“The anticipated increase to non-teaching staff pay—which as yet remains unknown; The increase in the employer’s superannuation contribution from 14.1% to 16.4% from September 2015; The introduction of a flat rate state pension from April 2016, the impact of which will be to increase schools’ costs of in excess of 2% for teaching staff and most ancillary staff; For schools with sixth forms, a continuing reduction in sixth form funding; Energy, fuel and other cost increases”.
F40 says:
“We urge that these cost pressures are fully taken into account in the Spending Review for 2016-17 onwards. Without additional funding a typical secondary school will need to identify compensating savings of around £350,000, the equivalent of ten teachers.”
F40 schools, which have suffered from decades of underfunding, have no spare capacity to make such savings.
In meeting the challenges, we must recognise that March’s funding announcement was not and was never intended to be the end of the shift to fairer funding. As the Minister made clear at the time, it was a one-off measure to help those areas that were hit hardest by unfair funding and a precursor to more substantial reform. Ivan Ould, the chairman of F40, said in his response to the announcement:
“The additional funding is seen as a down-payment, or first step towards a new and fairer allocation system. This marks a huge step forward for our campaign for fair funding. The fact is that pupils and schools in f40 local authority areas have been dis-advantaged by an archaic system for nearly twenty years: they have been the poor relations in terms of the share of education funding.
This is a red letter day for members of f40 who can now look forward to a time when the injustice will end.”
F40 members will scrutinise closely the manifestos of each of the major parties, to see what they will propose with a view to ending the injustice swiftly and surely. F40 has always been a cross-party campaign, and we will look to each of the parties to deliver progress and will judge their manifestos by how clearly and within what time scale they commit to fair and transparent funding. Our funding has been unfair for far too long, and F40 authorities will not have endless patience for interim measures to ensure that better-funded authorities hold on to their advantage if that means holding back long-awaited justice for our constituents. We must have progress and we will scrutinise each statement of every party for what it can deliver.
I was not in the Chamber for the announcement of the £350 million for underfunded areas. Had I been there, I would have welcomed it, but I would have called, as I do now, for further progress. The debate is not a partisan one, but I was mildly disappointed by the Opposition Front Bench response on that day. In response to those who have argued, wrongly, that the first steps that have been taken are in any way partisan or designed to help coalition members, I would point out that many of the Conservative seats that have benefited, including my own, were held by Labour until 2010.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he said, the F40 campaign was started by a Labour MP, David Kidney, in Staffordshire. Is he as surprised as I am to see just one Labour MP—no, two? [Laughter.]
Michael Fabricant
Am I wrong? There are two. [Interruption.] Anyway, is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am at the lack of turnout from Labour MPs apart from the shadow spokesman?
Mr Walker
I am delighted that we have a Labour MP in the Chamber, arguing the case for her F40 constituency. I am also delighted that, in proposing the debate, I had the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover, whose constituency stands to gain 34 times as much as the Prime Minister’s. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who made critical points in the debate, stands to gain more in his constituency than does the Minister for Schools, who made the announcement about fairer funding. If every F40 authority were to benefit from the changes, the winners would also include the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Education Secretary and the shadow Health Secretary, so Labour has a strong interest in supporting proper reforms. We want to see them step up to the plate.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman referred to me, so perhaps he will point to any part of my statement in the House at the time that was party political. There were no such remarks.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to respond later.
The F40 campaign has been driven by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I am only one of many voices who have been calling for progress. I hope that we will hear those voices following up on that in the debate, but I also hope that we hear from all such Members recognition of the progress that has been made to date. I urge the Minister to listen particularly closely to the concerns of those long-suffering F40 areas that have so far missed out and to ensure that all the lowest-funded authorities get the fairest deal possible from the consultation. I urge her to keep up the pressure for progress towards a fair and transparent system of funding and to commit ever more firmly to real fairness in the years to come.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Free schools is one area that is party political. I am sure that we all welcome the excellent progress made by the Government and that the funding formula for free schools has had a stronger impact on the lowest-funded areas than, perhaps, on the wealthier ones. Does he agree that the Government need to address that in F40 areas?
Mr Walker
Changes to the system for free schools and to the LACSEG—local authority central spend equivalent grant—a couple of years ago have produced some effects that have tended to hurt the lowest-funded areas more. That is a consequence of unfair funding, rather than of the changes, and the key thing is to get the funding system right, so that we do not have such pernicious effects in future. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to welcome the Government’s decision to fund the Aspire academy in Worcester, a free school that is taking over pupil referral unit provision in the county, which is badly needed and supported by a wide range of secondary schools in Worcester.
I want our party to set down clearly in its manifesto our commitment not only to a fair, transparent funding formula in years to come, but to its rapid implementation. I am proud that, with the help of so many colleagues, I will be able to face the electorate of Worcester and say that we have won a better deal and that fairer funding is on its way, but the fight is not yet over—it has scarcely begun. We have secured the first down payment on fairer funding. F40 MPs must keep campaigning together to secure the real fairness that our schools, their teachers and, most importantly, their pupils have been denied for too long.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for that excellent start. To get all 10 speakers in, there will be a time limit of four and a half minutes each, which should leave the Front Benchers with 10 minutes each at the end of the debate. It will not work, I am afraid, if there are interventions. To assist Members, this nice bell next to me will be rung by the Clerk, which will indicate that there is a minute to go. After four and a half minutes, we will move on to the next speaker.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to follow such a powerful, well thought-out speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker); he has done a sterling job since coming to the House in 2010. The turnout today is a reflection of not only the importance of the issue to our constituents, but the leadership that he has shown. He has shown that again today, with his powerful championing of the case.
The campaign for fairer school funding has been running for at least a decade. For too long, the extra costs faced by rural authorities have not been acknowledged properly by the funding system. A whole generation of school children, in places from Devon to Northumberland, have lost out. Seven years ago this week, I led a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject and it has become no less urgent since. As everyone in the Chamber knows, for many years the school funding system in England has operated on the basis of outdated data and in accordance with political priorities that channelled funding away from rural areas and into urban ones—based on politics, not need. In the 13 March statement on school funding, the Minister for Schools hit the nail on the head when he characterised the end result as
“opaque, overly complex, and, frankly, unfair to pupils, parents and teachers.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 427.]
The inequity is recognised across the political spectrum. In an article for The Guardian earlier this month, Fiona Millar—not exactly the greatest champion of the Government’s policies—admitted that
“the differentials between London and the rest of the country, which are often rooted in historical political decisions, are simply unfair.”
If Fiona Millar can see that, the case for change across the spectrum is overwhelming and needs to be acted on.
One does not need to look far to find glaring examples; the East Riding of Yorkshire is a case in point. It is a beautiful part of the world, but it does not conform to any lazy stereotype of rural affluence. Median gross earnings are below the national average and towns such as Withernsea, Goole and Bridlington have pockets of real deprivation. Mike Furbank, head of children and young people’s services at the East Riding council, has explained:
“As a rural authority we suffer the hidden deprivations of social isolation for children living in remote communities where families have limited access to services and the wider cultural life of the area.
These deprivations are not recognised in any formula and often the ‘goldfish bowl’ view of village life makes poor families unwilling to accept support or declare their eligibility.”
Andrew Percy
I am grateful. Obviously, I am also grateful for the extra funding for the north-east, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the deprivation of Goole, in the East Riding part of my constituency. Does he share my shock that local Labour councillors in Goole have attacked me for campaigning on the issue and for pointing out how much less well off Goole was, compared with neighbouring Hull and Doncaster, although we have the same levels of deprivation?
Mr Stuart
The aim of the Rural Fair Share campaign, which I co-chair and helped to found, is certainly to ensure that fair-minded Labour Members of Parliament see the case as well. We have to ensure that the split is not partisan; we are looking for a system that takes scarce resource and allocates it on the basis of need. At a time of austerity, it is more rather than less important to get those allocations right. Such reallocations may be politically difficult, but because no more money is being thrown at the system every year, the unevenness becomes more apparent as the tide goes down and creates a more difficult challenge.
The East Riding has some good schools, but, regrettably, too many indifferent ones. Last June, Ofsted reported that in the East Riding a child has only a 66% chance of attending a good or better school, compared with 79% in England as a whole. Only 38% of secondary schools in the East Riding are rated good or outstanding, compared with 74% in neighbouring North Yorkshire. If the Minister compares the number of good or outstanding schools in the East Riding with those in neighbouring similar authorities, she will see a stark differential. In the light of those numbers, I ask her to reflect on the methodology that the Government have come up with to allocate that welcome £350 million.
I am aware that, given my position as Chair of the Education Committee, I ought to keep my language moderate, but was the person who devised the system sober? The Government have put things off; the national funding formula will come, but they have decided—politically or otherwise—that, a year before a general election, a fundamental reallocation is perhaps not politically deliverable. The interim £350 million to help the poorest-funded authorities, however, is welcome. But why is the money going to authorities in London that are not among the poorest-funded authorities? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester touched on that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). We do not want to see the money stripped away from Northumberland; the Minister must have the courage, despite the publication of the allocations, to look again at the methodology.
The East Riding, because it was historically underfunded and had so many small schools, poured all the money it could into the schools block of funding and so had the lowest high-needs block in the country. The new methodology, however, looks only at the schools block. Under this intervention to help lower-funded authorities, what is the situation of the East Riding of Yorkshire—the third-lowest-funded authority overall when the whole quantum is considered? It is moving from being the third-lowest-funded authority to being the lowest-funded in the entire country. After many years of campaigning, that does not feel like a result. I ask the Minister to look again at how the money is allocated.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
In June 2013, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said clearly that current schools funding
“is distributed on a historical basis with no logical reason.”
I think we all agree that the facts speak for themselves and that there is no logical reason for the present funding system. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
“The result is that some schools get much more than others in the same circumstances.”
He further observed that
“That is unfair and we are going to put it right.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 311.]
The question that most of us, and our constituents, want to ask of ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education is: when will it be put right?
This is not a partisan issue. I did not think I would ever agree with a London socialist such as Fiona Millar, but she said:
“But even as one of the beneficiaries of a skewed system, it still seems profoundly wrong to me that every school should be subject to increasingly rigid national accountability measures, yet be expected to deliver the same results when such huge regional funding disparities persist.”
I think we would all agree with that. She also mentioned that the Minister for Schools observed, when announcing the £350 million, that schools with 3% of children on free school meals in Birmingham receive higher funding per pupil than schools in some rural areas with more than 30% of pupils eligible for free school meals. How does one make sense of that?
Even allowing for higher area costs and deprivation in London, the gap between most London boroughs and much of the rest of the country is far too high, reaching £1,000 per pupil in some cases. Quirks in the current funding system result in schools with the same characteristics and miles from one another receiving wildly different sums depending on their local authority.
The £350 million is welcome, but we are discussing a league of pity—where people appear in the league table. The consultation document lists 62 authorities that are in line to receive additional funding under the indicative minimum funding level. Oxfordshire is 59th on the list and receives a lower percentage and cash increase than any other English county. Oxfordshire loves Cambridgeshire dearly, but there seems to be no logic in the fact that Cambridgeshire will receive from the £350 million a boost of around £20 million in 2015-16 when Oxfordshire is set to receive only £500,000 or 0.14% of the total new funding—more than 10 times less than the £5.64 million average increase of the 62 authorities that are benefiting.
Even in the context of the £350 million that has been given additionally to try to mitigate some of the unfairness, Oxfordshire is still being treated extremely badly, and there is absolutely no intellectual or policy justification for that. At a time when schools throughout the country are rightly obliged to set national targets, standards and performance levels, it is grossly unfair that schools in some parts of the country are receiving so much more money than those in other parts. That is unjust and unfair. It must be put right, and quickly.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) cannot be here today, but it is two years since in this very Chamber he so eloquently made us all Taoists and began the long journey with a first step. It is as well to remember that the words he used then from Deng Xiaoping—the Minister is a keen student of Chinese maths—were “Yi Bu, Yi Bu”, or “one step at a time”. We are slowly getting there and I pay tribute to all hon. Members, particularly the F40 campaigners, on a fantastic journey.
I can walk over the border from Northumberland, which receives £5,241 per pupil, to Newcastle upon Tyne, which receives £6,052 per pupil—a difference of £809. Teachers in some of my schools in Northumberland, such as East Tynedale, send their own children to schools in Newcastle, which can almost not spend their money, while Northumberland is struggling desperately. The system must change, and I welcome hugely the 6.4% uplift of £10 million.
A point that has not been made today, but needs to be made, is that the consultation expires tomorrow and there are still opportunities for all our teachers—I have written to all of them in every school in my area—to respond to it. If they fail to do so, the Department for Education will not have the benefit of their wisdom and robust comments, which Members of Parliament have received. I thank those who have written to me, including Ponteland middle school and Whitley Chapel first school, making the case, and those who have responded to the consultation.
I want to touch briefly on rural schools. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on only one matter: I say “sparsity” and he says “spercity”. That is my only disagreement with his outstanding speech.
The long and short of the matter is that rural schools have been in a singularly difficult situation for many years under successive Governments. In areas with a three-tier system, such as Northumberland, it is particularly complex because the system is focused increasingly on two tiers. I mean no disrespect to the Department for Education, but it seems to struggle and have great difficulty in understanding what three-tier education is and to accommodate it in a funding system and the Government’s approach.
The honest truth is that the head teachers we meet day in, day out, whose schools are in the F40 group, are clearly struggling to provide for their individual schools. On the day when most of us have suffered the delights of the RMT’s approach as a dinosaur trade union opposing all automation, we are dealing with teaching unions that are struggling desperately. We should pay tribute to the individual teachers in the F40 schools who are struggling to provide quality education in extremely difficult circumstances.
The crucial point is that the Government are making a difference to those schools. We must have a continuing campaign. I endorse the point that we must scrutinise all political parties on their approach because the matter will not be solved overnight. The long journey has had many steps, but they are leading in the right direction. I welcome what we have done and I support the campaign.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and all colleagues who have been associated with this campaign for years. I want to focus my comments on schools in rural communities, but on a day when we are mourning the loss of a teacher—the first teacher ever to be killed in a classroom—we must take the opportunity to pause and pay tribute to the pressures under which teachers work, and particularly to the lovely teacher who lost her life. We can never reward teachers or thank them enough for their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester referred to the cost of staffing as 65% and sometimes 85%. We must not lose sight of the fact that if there were a change of Government and national insurance contributions rose, that would take an enormous chunk out of school budgets. We must be extremely mindful of that.
The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not focus only on food, eating, farming and fishing. We recently produced a very wide-ranging report on rural communities. One of its most alarming conclusions was about what my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) mentioned: the particular pressures on the budgets of schools in rural areas. There are particular issues about travel to work and school buses. I know that the matter is constantly reviewed in areas such as North Yorkshire. I am grateful for the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness to the outstanding excellence and achievements of North Yorkshire schools. I pay tribute also to the local education authority of North Yorkshire, which is generally there when needed but is recognised to be a very light-touch LEA. It has a good relationship overall with local schools.
However, as I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, we regret the loss of autonomy suffered by individual schools, which previously had the opportunity to have more say over budgets. That is highly regrettable. We called in our report for it to be reversed, and I repeat that call here today.
Let me deal with sparsity funding. Historically, rurality and sparsity have always been recognised by Governments. In particular, the members of the current coalition, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, have historically paid great attention to rurality and sparsity. I urge the Department and the Minister to have a greater focus on that. There was, if I may say so, a very small, pitiful amount of money for sparsity provision. Look at the neighbouring education authority of York. One of the greatest difficulties is that when York went unitary, a big chunk of the education budget went into the York unitary authority and now we are feeling that pinch in North Yorkshire.
I have been able to make only a few remarks, but I believe that the measure we are discussing is a very important step. It would be churlish not to recognise that it will have a significant impact on schools in North Yorkshire.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for the tremendous work that he has done, because this is a complicated but very important subject. His achievement is the start of a very necessary journey that has still to be completed.
It seems to me that £350 million is an injection of money that is both substantial and much needed. It is a clear admission that the funding system needs to be fixed, because having in place a measure such as this, however temporary, demonstrates that the system is flawed. Today, if we do nothing else, we should acknowledge that point, so that we can move on to devise a system that is workable and fair for rural schools as well as all other pupils who might be suffering in an indirect way.
I would never automatically link the amount of money spent to the services provided, but I will draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that Ofsted has produced a very important report, “Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on”, which highlights the failure of many schools in rural and coastal areas. We have to acknowledge that that is just not good enough. We need a system that ensures that all schools, all teachers and all pupils benefit from fair funding. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, that that is a subject for his Committee to consider, because we need to lay the foundations for fundamental reform. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to talk about just how thorough the Department will be in ensuring that all areas are considered when coming up with a new formula that provides fairness. Of course, there is also the issue of timeliness, because we cannot wait indefinitely. We need a firm commitment that action will be taken on this matter. That has already been recognised to be necessary.
As for my own patch in Gloucestershire, I of course welcome the £9.6 million. That is much needed and will be wisely spent by our schools, because they have consistently suffered, as many of my colleagues have noted about the schools in their constituencies. Ironically, the situation is about the same between Northumberland and Newcastle as it is between Gloucestershire and Bristol. That is just not a reasonable situation for us to have to deal with, so my question to the Minister is basically this: what commitment will she give to ensuring that fundamental reform of the formula funding system will be brought about, and how long will it take? I ask that because the needs of our children and the urgency of our reforms elsewhere in the education system, coupled with our place in the global economy, all add up to this being a major part of the long-term economic plan.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker)—it was a pleasure to work with him on this issue—and all the F40. My focus has been on schools funding in Cambridgeshire. We get the least per pupil as a basic amount and we have been underfunded for some 30 years. That is a very serious issue, which has affected us very seriously. I first campaigned on it when I was still at school; the campaign was led by the now Baroness Brinton. I have also worked on it as a county councillor and as a Member of Parliament. It has been a long fight by many people. Councillor Peter Downes, when he was head of Hinchingbrooke school, campaigned on the issue. Cambridgeshire Schools Forum, led now by Philip Hodgson, has campaigned on it. Over the decades, it has affected us very heavily, and ultimately that is not for any good reason; poor decisions made by the county council in the 1980s have left us with this situation.
We are so far behind. Cambridgeshire gets £600 per pupil per year less than the English average. That is about £250,000 for a typical primary school. Comparisons have been made with Oxfordshire. Oxfordshire gets more money per pupil now than Cambridgeshire will get with the extra money, so I will accept the praise in the Oxford Mail for my lobbying campaign—I was delighted to see it there—but I do not think that one can feel particularly sorry for Oxfordshire, whose pupils will continue to get more than pupils in my area and others in Cambridgeshire.
We are seeing real problems as a result of the continued underfunding. We are seeing the achievement gap widening, because there are simply not the resources in the schools to be able to do the work that is necessary to close that gap. Fantastic work is done by dedicated teachers. Excellent staff are doing their best, but with such scarce resources, right at the bottom end, it will always be a challenge.
Despite the fact that the issue had been raised for so many years, the previous Government did not do anything to fix it. They did not help the people in Cambridgeshire; they did not ensure that we got the fair amount that we deserve. That is why I was so delighted when, after much lobbying by me as well as many others, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools announced that we would get a substantial amount of extra money— £20.5 million in Cambridgeshire. In fact, that is less than half the gap between us and the English average, although of course the English average will go up. It will help; it is incredibly welcome, but it is not all that we need.
We in Cambridgeshire have taken the approach of saying thank you. Just yesterday, I handed in to the Minister for Schools a petition with about 2,000 signatures on postcards, pieces of paper and online to say how much people in Cambridgeshire want to get this extra money. We need it, and we need it soon. The money will go some way towards starting the change that is needed. I agree with all the hon. Members who have said that this can only be the first step on the way to a proper fair funding formula that makes sense, that starts off not based on historical numbers but by working out what is needed for schools and pupils. This is nothing like the end of the road.
Philip Hodgson, the chair of the Cambridgeshire Schools Forum, has said that he is
“pleased the Government has at last recognised the problem but the extra money is needed now.”
Schools in Cambridgeshire and, I am sure, in other areas face problems in this financial year as well. Having to wait until the next year will cause problems for schools that have been pared to the bone for 30 years. We are having to try to cope with decades of underfunding—chronic underfunding—which has hit the infrastructure and everything else in those schools. It makes it harder to adapt. We need some sort of immediate relief. If anything more could be done, that would be great, but most importantly we need to get this money; we need to get it in full; and we need that real and sustainable fairer funding system to last beyond 2016.
There is more to be done as well in terms of capital money and to make sure that places such as Cambridgeshire can continue to build the schools that we need. We are a fast-growing county and we need to have money not only to pay teachers but to build schools. We have problems with sixth-form funding, and I hope that the Minister will have news to share with us on those matters. We would like that assurance, and I would like an absolute assurance from the shadow Minister that if his party were in Government, it would continue to give us the fair funding that we deserve. I say a big “Thank you” to the Government. We need our £20 million, and we will be grateful for it and for anything more that can be done.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, the subject of which will make a considerable difference to the futures of young people in my constituency. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for securing the debate but particularly for his tireless work on the subject, not only in our county but nationally. His constituents, like mine, have suffered from unfair funding in education for far too long. It has been a priority for many of us since we were elected to see the mess of education funding sorted out. I am pleased that now we are starting to see real progress on the matter following the previous Government’s failure to act.
My own passion for the subject predates my time as an MP and goes back to my own experiences of education funding when my children were at school, which was many years ago, I have to say. When my family moved to Worcestershire in 2000, I was shocked to find that my children’s education in Redditch did not seem to carry with it the same monetary value as it did in our former home of Wrexham. My awareness of that grew further when I became a governor at Vaynor First school in Redditch and saw that the situation was worse than I had anticipated. As has already been said, Worcestershire is one of the lowest-funded local education authorities in England. It is in the bottom 10. Despite my constituency being just 5 miles outside Birmingham, there is a difference of around £700 between what pupils get towards their education in both areas. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point and explain to the parents in Redditch why their children are worth less than children 5 miles up the road.
In 2009 Redditch was red flagged for unsatisfactory educational attainment by the Audit Commission, as the borough was falling way behind the rest of the county. However, in the years that have followed, thanks to both the hard work of teachers and the reforms made by this Government, schools in Redditch have gone from strength to strength. Redditch now boasts some of the best-performing schools in the county—a remarkable turnaround for the borough’s schools, where almost 70% of pupils now achieve the five A* to C GCSE standard compared with only 37% in 2007. Imagine what would happen if we got fairer funding in Redditch. This will be the first time in a decade that funding has been allocated to Redditch, Worcestershire and other local areas on the basis of the actual characteristics of pupils and schools, rather than simply on the basis of historical levels of spending. Under the minimum funding levels proposed, young people in Redditch stand to receive a 1.7% or £4.9 million rise in funding which will rise from £4,231 to £4,302 per pupil.
Having studied the figures across the different local authorities, however, I am concerned that Worcestershire is still not getting as good a deal as others, particularly given that some better-funded authorities stand to gain more from the proposals. There is real concern that without more funding they will still continue to meet their responsibilities. I look to the Minister for comment, and hope that after the consultation period some of the figures will be adjusted accordingly. The commitment we have made is an important step forward, and it is worth remembering how far we have come in such a short time.
The campaign has been about securing a fair deal for our constituents and righting an obvious wrong. Of course, money is not all that is required to give our young people a good start in life but it certainly goes a long way towards doing so. Our Government must continue to work to show children and their parents that no matter where they come from or what their background is, we are committed to improving the education they receive.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Although it is not a member of the F40 campaign, I would like to make a plea for fairer funding for Cornwall. Currently the duchy is towards the bottom of the funding table with our dedicated school grant at just over £5,000 per pupil. We are grateful for the small increase we have received.
Cornwall, for many pupils, is a very rural area. The cost of getting to school children who are spread out over a large area is much greater than in a city where many students are likely to be within walking distance and therefore the cost to the local education authority is much less. Often, rural areas have many more excellent small schools but they lose the economies of scale which larger urban schools can gain. Teachers, too, face these additional travel costs. In Cornwall we have relatively high housing costs in relation to wages. I do not have to be told what a beautiful place Cornwall is because I was lucky enough to be born there. However, that drives up housing costs.
Surely, we should see equal spending per pupil regardless of their location. That would provide a level playing field, allowing schools to offer equal pay and conditions, to give us a chance to attract the best teachers. The education of our children is one of the most important aspects of government. Well-educated children tend to work harder and contribute more to our economy. Cornwall is lucky enough to qualify for substantial EU growth funding, as it has been classified as a less-developed region. Surely, one of the best things the Government could do is to improve the education in Cornwall, to give it the very best opportunity for the future and to bring it in line with the rest of Britain.
The F40 campaign believes that an extra funding allowance in the formula should be made to help more rural schools—the sparsity element—and, if it can be done, take account of the size of classes. I echo that call for my home county and Duchy of Cornwall.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on continuing to lead the campaign and securing today’s debate. He has already made an eloquent contribution, and the point about salary increase and increase in pension contribution, or superannuation, has been well made.
I am here to fly the flag for Suffolk, as many other hon. Members have flown the flag for their own constituencies. I am sure that the Minister will do the same for Norfolk in her contribution. I welcome the extra money that we have received, but I echo and endorse the points made by many hon. Members about the real disparity that continues to be a feature of education funding. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) that more money is not necessarily the only way to make improvements in educational attainment, but I am sure that it will help and I hope that the increase of £105, or 2.5%, will go some way to address the situation in Suffolk.
As has been mentioned, Suffolk is a rurally sparse county that struggles with attainment. The county council, working with the Royal Society of Arts and the schools themselves, have embarked on something called “Raising the Bar.” It is a strategy to raise attainment that will take some time, but there will hopefully be some good results quickly en route. We have paired up with Hackney, a great council that has seen significant improvement in educational attainment. I have some sympathy with my head teachers when they point out that we will be moving to funding of £5,251 on average per pupil, but Hackney currently receives £9,268, which is an additional £4,017 or 76% per child. There is a lot more money to provide additional teachers and facilities to tackle some of the issues that Hackney deals with well, including through some of the specialist units that have been developed to help with difficult children. There is a huge difference.
I want to make a point about the pupil premium, of which the coalition is rightly proud. I point out to the Minister and hon. Members present that my part of Suffolk has a low unemployment rate of less than 2%. People who do not have a job are rare—there are about 800 in total—but that does not mean that average or median wages are particularly high. In fact, they are lower than in Liverpool, where I attended school. In Liverpool Wavertree, the median wage is £510; in Suffolk Coastal it is £490; and in Ipswich, it is £460. The pupil premium is adding to a significant funding gap between different parts of the country.
Kate Green
Although the Government have made a welcome commitment to extend free school meals to all children at key stage 1, does the hon. Lady share my concern that, because parents will presumably no longer have to apply for free school meals, it might become more difficult to identify all the students who should attract the pupil premium? That might further exacerbate their position.
Dr Coffey
Some local authorities already do that. I think it is for the Government and the Department to learn from where it already happens successfully, so I am not going to go down that route. I will explain my point by making another comparison with Hackney. About half of the children there are eligible for the pupil premium, and at £1,300 for a primary pupil and £935 for a secondary pupil, that is very welcome. However, that is almost double the budget available to head teachers in Suffolk.
The extra funding that has been announced is a welcome step, but it is only a sticking plaster, and we recognise that. It is going to take quite a lot of bravery to get to the point where there is not such a disparity of thousands of pounds per pupil that turns into hundreds of thousands of pounds in our large secondary schools. We must get to grips with that. I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to keep the campaign going, and I am sure that all Members will be working on our education Ministers and shadow Ministers in order to ensure that appropriate provision is made in the manifestos for the 2015 election.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on leading the charge on such an important issue.
I have now been an MP for four years, and one of the advantages of that is that I can look back on my old speeches and make them again. It is two years since we were all in this Chamber discussing how we were going to reform the formula inherited from the previous Government. There was no dispute that that formula was wrong and there was no serious attempt to justify it. The Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), has continued with the attitude that the existing formula is wrong and must be changed. The issue has been one of timing and expediency.
When I spoke two years ago, I gave the example of the contrast between funding in Warrington and Westminster, two places that I know—I live in Westminster when I am in London and in Warrington when I am in Cheshire. I made the point that funding was £8,100 per head in Westminster and about £5,000 per head in Warrington. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made an excellent speech, but he was wrong to say that there was a differential of £1,000 per head; the differential is £3,000 or even £4,000 per head for some schools.
In my previous speech on this issue, I explained that I did not understand how Westminster, a relatively affluent part of London, could receive such an increased allocation over and above Warrington, which is not particularly affluent, although parts of it are. Teachers at schools such as St Monica’s and Appleton Thorn are dealing with really quite tough budgets and having to make very hard decisions, whereas there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the extra money received by places such as Westminster resulted in more teachers per head. The differential of more than £3,000 per pupil is enormous when multiplied out and compared with a school with 100 or 200 pupils.
It was agreed that the existing formula had to change, and no serious attempt was made to defend it. We have now received the first response in the form of the initial allocation. I hate to say that my words did not work, but Westminster, which previously received £3,100 more per pupil than Warrington, will receive a further £200 per pupil from the initial allocation. Westminster is 10th out of the 152 local authorities. Warrington, which is 135th out of all local authorities, will receive no extra funding. Perhaps my previous speech was not as effective as it might have been.
I want to echo the words of the F40 campaign in its consultation response. What we have ended up with is neither transparent nor fair. The formula can do lots of things—it takes into account attainment and all sorts of other factors—and I understand that, even allowing for the very low budget in Warrington, attainment there is pretty good, which is testimony to the quality of teaching and the efforts made. However, when we know that the formula must be changed but it is not because to do so would be politically difficult, that is not courageous government.
I have asked why the new Government, who came in bristling with talent, new ideas and determination to get things right, have not been able to put the formula right. It looks like they are not going to be able to do so over the five years of this Parliament. I understand that the formula was inherited from the previous Government, that many of the trade-offs were unacceptable, particularly in the massive haemorrhaging of funding to London, and that that will take a while to unwind. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, every journey must start with a small step. We have not really taken that step yet.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and to contribute to the debate, which was opened so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He has done a fantastic job of promoting the F40 cause, alongside many colleagues in this place.
When the initial funding announcements were made, I was surprised for two reasons. First, I was pleasantly surprised to see that North Lincolnshire will receive an extra £153 per pupil, despite previously being, I think, the 57th worst-funded authority. We are lucky to have people in our borough such as Tony Norton—who may or may not be present today—who have fought hard for us on the issue locally. I was pleasantly surprised to see that figure of £153, and then thought that, given that North Lincolnshire was receiving that extra amount per head despite being either the 50th or 60th worst-funded authority at that point, there must be good news for the East Riding of Yorkshire as well. That is when the second, less pleasant, surprise occurred: I noted that the figures for the East Riding of Yorkshire showed an increase of just £12 or £13, despite it being the third worst-funded authority.
We are grateful for the increase, and I certainly do not want to see changes to the extra £153 per head that is going to be awarded to North Lincolnshire and for which schools are starting to plan. However, I do want to see changes to the £13 increase for the East Riding of Yorkshire, which, as I said, is the third worst-funded authority. As things stand, we will have two boroughs next to each other, one of which, North Lincolnshire, will receive £5,426 per pupil next year, while the neighbouring borough, the East Riding of Yorkshire, which was the worst funded to being with, will receive less than £5,000 per pupil.
Nearby Hull will receive £5,978 per pupil. I have taught at schools in both Hull and North Lincolnshire, where these is a massive discrepancy. It makes a huge difference in what is provided to schools on the ground. The money is not always well spent—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) said that he does not always associate extra money with improved outcomes, and that is certainly true. Nevertheless, when dealing with rural schools, particularly schools that are perceived to be doing okay but are doing so only because the majority of their cohort are from the sort of background where the kids naturally do quite well, the money does make a difference, because, as colleagues have mentioned, the perception that they are doing okay can mask a failure to deal with some of the more challenging pupils or those who are struggling the most.
That is where money really does make a difference, because it means that extra individuals can provide dedicated support. We had that in Hull, and I do not wish to take a single penny away from the city of Hull, which has great needs. I simply wish to make the case for levelling the playing field a little. We could not offer the same level of intensive support to struggling pupils in schools in the East Riding of Yorkshire, in which I have done quite a bit of work in the past, and especially not in North Lincolnshire. The money just is not there to do that.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the fact that there is a discrepancy and a problem—that certainly was not the case when the campaign started—and that is a great move forward. However, it is inexplicable to me as a local MP to have to go back to the two local authorities I represent and say to the worst-funded, “You’re getting 13 quid extra,” while saying to the other, which is still badly funded and desperately needs the money, “You’re getting £153 extra.” That does not make sense. It is not fair on the East Riding of Yorkshire, which has some very deprived areas, including Goole, which I represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) also mentioned in his excellent speech places such as Withernsea and Bridlington, as well as areas on the edge of Hull. I thank the Government for the changes that have been made, but I think that things can be done in a much better way.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing this debate and on his speech, in which he outlined many of the problems with the current funding formula system. He was ably supported by many other hon. Members. He pointed out the reasons why the Government should spell out their longer-term intentions in relation to the national funding formula and why, although his hon. Friends might have criticised me for saying so, the Government should not hide the fact that there will be losers in the process or pretend that there will not be, just because we are a year away from a general election. I might have been criticised for saying that, but it is the truth. We must ensure that we are open and transparent about the journey that we are on in relation to a fairer funding formula for our schools.
Kevin Brennan
In a moment. I was just about to mention the hon. Gentleman, so I will do that first before giving way briefly. Other contributors to this debate have included the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who did in his remarks exactly what I did by pointing out that the timing of the announcement could be interpreted in a certain way if one were of a cynical bent, as some of us might be from time to time.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that in times of austerity, redistribution is harder. He said that we are on a journey. Is his party on that journey? Will he commit today to coming forward during the next Parliament, should his party form a Government, with a national funding formula that bravely reallocates funding and has losers as well as winners, in order better to match need with the funding that goes alongside it?
Kevin Brennan
I can absolutely confirm that we are on that journey. The last Government started the consultation process on that journey towards the end of the last Parliament, as the hon. Member for Worcester mentioned in his opening speech.
We also heard contributions from the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who mentioned Taoism in his remarks, and from the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who mentioned Deng Xiaoping. Perhaps I can also quote Zhou Enlai, who, when asked about the effects of the French revolution, said that it was too early to tell. It is also, perhaps, a little too early to tell exactly what the outcome of the funding formula for schools will be, but we would welcome some transparency about it from the Government.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for York Outer—
Kevin Brennan
I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. The constituencies keep changing all the time. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) paid tribute in her remarks to the teacher Ann Maguire, who was tragically killed yesterday in school. I associate myself with those remarks, and I am sure that everybody in the House would want to do the same.
Contributions were also made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who recognised the long-standing issues and the source of some of the present inequalities in the system, acknowledging that some of the issues in Cambridge go back to decisions taken by the county council in the 1980s. Such historical difficulties are hard to unravel, as Governments of all colours have found. Contributions were also made by the hon. Members for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) managed to point out some of the odd outcomes of the Government’s methodology in the current allocation made in the recent statement. We heard a contribution as well from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who also pointed them out and summed up the difficulty for all Governments when he said that he does not want to take a single penny away from Hull.
Will the Minister acknowledge that introducing a national funding formula will result in losers as well as winners? We must be open and honest about that. What I found frustrating about the statement was that the Schools Minister would not acknowledge that, and that some of the bad news about what will happen elsewhere was being parked down the road rather than openly alluded to now. I make that point now, as I made it at the time. Interventions were made by many hon. Members present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who rightly pointed out that her local authority has been subject to issues relating to the national funding formula.
There are undoubtedly wide disparities among different areas. Some of those disparities can be explained by levels of deprivation or by things such as London weighting, but it remains true that pupils in schools with essentially similar characteristics can be funded very differently depending on where in the country they are. It goes back even as far as to when I was teaching, 25 years ago, before the introduction of the dedicated schools grant. Before that, the exact level of funding for schools was determined by local authorities, and the grant from central Government was part of the overall local government settlement. The Government set out an expected level of school funding for each local authority during that time and well into the 2000s, until 2006, when the dedicated schools grant was introduced. However, authorities were free to ignore it, as the money was not ring-fenced. That is exactly what happened in Cambridgeshire, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out.
The result was that most councils spent more than the Government’s expected amount, which was known then as the school formula funding share, but to widely different extents. The exact level of funding was determined as a result of local political priorities, including the level of council tax, and the arcane working of the local government settlement as a whole. The national funding formula grant was introduced in 2006, and those basic levels of funding were taken as the baseline. The grant was increased by a given percentage each year, so the differences basically continued, except that authorities that spent less got an increase to bring them up to that level. Over and above that, there was some relative increase in the funding for areas of deprivation. That leads us to the consultation that took place towards the end of the last Government. The issue is long-standing, and it is rooted in how the funding was calculated formerly. The last Government changed that system. I accept that the disparities remained, which is why we began consulting towards the end of the last Government on a national funding formula approach.
The current Government have committed themselves to the national funding formula, but when they made their announcement back in 2011, they did not analyse the figures fully. It was up to the Institute For Fiscal Studies to do so, and its report showed that the level of disruption caused by the introduction of the Government’s proposals for the national funding formula would be highly unpredictable. The IFS calculated that one in six schools would lose at least 10% of their budgets as a result of the Government’s plans as outlined at that time, that one in 10 would gain at least 10% and that nearly 20% of primary schools and 30% of secondary schools would experience a cash-terms cut in funding if those plans were introduced.
Having realised how complicated and difficult it is to get it right, as we must—I welcome hon. Members’ remarks that we should attempt to do so in a cross-party way—the Government have tinkered with the proposals a bit in the meantime and have put some money towards the problem in the announcement that we are discussing. However, as hon. Members have acknowledged, the Government have not done what they said they would do at the beginning of this Parliament and introduced the national funding formula. They could have done so, but they chose not to. That is the reality. Although they have made a down payment, as hon. Members have described it—another way of putting it is that they have thrown a bit of money at the problem—they have not actually introduced the national funding formula, as they committed themselves to do. I do not criticise them overly for that, as it is a difficult thing to do, and it must be got right. We have seen what the consequences are, as the IFS has pointed out.
On the Government’s proposals themselves, the current proposals assert that no authority will lose money as a result. That may be true purely in cash terms, but it will occur in the context of no increase for inflation throughout this Parliament, and an extra 2.3% increase in employer pension contributions that will not be funded by the Government. The consequence will be a continuing squeeze on school budgets. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is the reality on the ground? For many schools, many of the gains will only offset losses that they suffer elsewhere. Welcome as the proposals are for those schools, the reality is that they will not lead to a real increase in the amount of money available to them, and that other schools’ budgets will be squeezed by increasing pressures. Malcolm Trobe of the Association of School and College Leaders said that the announcement
“is completely overshadowed by the reality that all schools and colleges will have a huge hole in their budgets caused by the pensions contribution rise. This will have a catastrophic effect and lead to larger class sizes and reduced curriculum choice.”
I shall just ask a few questions, because I want the Minister to have time to respond. Will she confirm—it was difficult to get this information out of the Minister for Schools because he would not answer me—exactly where the money is coming from? He said that it was a mixture of Treasury and Department for Education money and, later, following a written parliamentary question, on which I had to press him to get an answer, he mentioned that some £90 million of the £350 million would come from the Treasury, the rest being taken from other parts of the schools budget. Will she confirm that and tell us which programme that money is being taken from? I have the text of that written answer, but not the reference from Hansard.
Will the Minister publish the Government’s modelling of who will be the winners and losers from the national funding formula? If she cannot do so now, will she place that in the Library? Over what period is she planning to introduce the national funding formula, if it is to be introduced, if the Government are re-elected at the next election? Other hon. Members asked about that. Is it possible that after the consultation there will be changes to the allocations announced in the statement and that some authorities will lose money that they were expecting and others will get more than they were expecting? Hon. Members have asked about that, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and the F40 group for the amazing progress that has been made on this campaign. As hon. Members have said, this long-standing issue is finally starting to be dealt with. It is down to the dedication of all right hon. and hon. Members who have attended this debate and made such eloquent contributions that we are finally making progress on this issue.
Many hon. Members have highlighted the idiosyncrasies and unfairness of the current system. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that. Our spending on education is the fifth highest in the OECD. We have protected the education budget during this Parliament, because we believe that education spending is vital for the future of our children and our nation. Nevertheless, this spending is not fairly distributed at the moment; it is unfair and inefficient. Unfortunately, this unfairness has been baked in over the years, so even when education budgets were rising significantly, it was not dealt with. We are playing catch-up at the moment, as was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester made the good point that the link between funding and attainment is not always clear, but that there is greater clarity in respect of those from the most deprived backgrounds. Of course, one of our main priorities as a Government is closing the gap between those on the lowest and highest incomes. We have a long tail of under-achievement in this country that has a profound impact on social mobility and our economy, and that is something that we are keen to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) referenced the report, “Unseen Children”, which highlighted the issues for children in rural and coastal areas in general. That is a major problem, and we need to deal with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) talked about the issues faced in her constituency. I associate myself with her comments about the terrible tragedy of the dedicated teacher, Ann Maguire, in Leeds. I went to school in Leeds. My thoughts are with her friends and her family.
I am pleased that hon. Members have recognised that the Government have provided £350 million of funding. I cannot provide the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) with additional information about his parliamentary question, but it is significant that the Government have found this additional money. We recognise that this is a priority. We are vigorously pursuing a route towards a national funding formula, which is the right way forward, and we are pressing that case. This funding represents a step towards it.
Mr Graham Stuart
The consultation on how the £350 million is allocated closes tomorrow. It is difficult to comment once indicative allocations have been given, but is it a genuine consultation? Will the Minister consider points that have been made and, despite the political difficulties, ensure that that funding is distributed in the fairest way possible?
Elizabeth Truss
It is a genuine consultation. We will listen to representations, not just from today’s debate, but from discussions that we have had as a team with the F40 group. It is a difficult process, obviously. A lot of hon. Members mentioned the problems in moving towards a fair national funding formula.
A number of hon. Members mentioned that the longest journey begins with a single step. We have made that step. There are always issues with the way that a formula for minimum funding is decided; all sorts of aspects have to be considered in a formula, including sparsity, rurality, deprivation and attainment. There is no perfect formula. There will always be some local authorities that gain more and some that gain less, and even when we get to the holy grail of the national funding formula, that will be so. There has to be a formula. However, where the Government have had an opportunity to allocate new money, as with the two-year-old offer, we have allocated it completely fairly throughout the country, and done so on a per-child basis with an area cost adjustment. Where this Government have had an opportunity to allocate new money, we have done it fairly.
I am committed, as my colleagues are, to a national funding formula. It is incredibly important for equity, social mobility and for our long-term economic plan, as hon. Members have said.
I recognise the issues raised about the high-needs block and the perceived unfairness of looking at the schools block. There would be issues in looking at the entire block, as well. Because the whole situation is so complicated, with the schools block, the high-needs block and the early years block, we have taken it step by step, starting with the schools block. That matter has come through in the consultation and we will look at that.
I note the specific issues in Staffordshire, the East Riding, Leicestershire and Warrington. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat); I have seen excellent attainment in Warrington, at the Evelyn Street primary school, which I visited with him. It is a such an outstanding school that we are using it as a national case study of how to integrate early years into schools. Fantastic work is going on in Warrington, but that does not mean that Warrington should be underfunded.
I have also taken the point about the area cost adjustment, particularly about how that has benefited London authorities in particular. We have to reflect the cost of teacher salaries in different areas, but how that is reflected in the overall allocations will be under consideration in the consultation.
We have recognised sparsity, although a number of my colleagues do not think that we have recognised it enough. But it is recognised in a minimum funding level, with a grant being given per school.
I acknowledge points made about the rising costs faced by schools, whether teacher salaries or pension and energy costs. However, in difficult economic times, we have protected education spending in real terms, because we consider it a priority. The question about what we will do on education spending and the national funding formula is important for our respective parties, going forward into a future Parliament. I cannot fully announce our position on that today; we are still working on the plans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said that he is pleased that we are going in the right direction. It is important to acknowledge that. This has been a long time coming. We have taken steps with the £350 million, although people may not think it has been allocated in an absolutely ideal fashion. There have been detailed discussions about the modelling used for the formula. This is probably a precursor to discussions that will go on about what a fair national funding formula will look like.
I also acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about the positive changes that we have made in Cambridgeshire, particularly with respect to the capital budgets there.
To summarise, we have made the largest step that we can in a single year by securing the additional £350 million funding, without creating major turbulence in the system, which is a danger of moving too fast in funding reform. There is not a perfect formula. The arguments will continue about what factors are most important and what really drives the costs in schools. The Department is working on better analysis of schools’ costs, so that we can ensure that a future national funding formula properly reflects the costs, such as attracting and retaining high-quality staff in rural areas. I commit to listening to representations.
Planning (North East Lincolnshire)
(10 years, 6 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
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I will focus on the inability of North East Lincolnshire council, as the local planning authority, to protect the best interests of local residents and to allow communities to influence major planning issues in their own areas. Although I acknowledge that it is not possible to separate local decision making from the role of central Government because of national guidance, I aim to highlight the fact that, because the council will not have an approved local plan until November 2017, it will be almost impossible to defend decisions made in line with local opinion. I also want to ask the Minister to consider intervening—if not now, certainly at some time at the future—to protect my constituents from unwanted, unloved developments that have the potential to destroy the environment and change many of the villages that make up the rural part of my constituency for ever.
It will help if I sketch out a picture of my constituency. The town and resort of Cleethorpes is part of the urban area of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and only locals know where the boundary between the two lies. Roads such as Park street and Clee road have one side in Grimsby and the other in Cleethorpes. The villages that form the suburbs of Grimsby and Cleethorpes have distinct identities. In the past, when regional spatial strategies were in place, things were complicated by the fact that many suburbs were not just in a different council jurisdiction but in a different region. People will accept new developments and there is a need for more housing, but unless councils have proper policies in place, developments will take place in a haphazard fashion and will not be part of a proper structure.
My constituency is served by two unitary authorities, Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire and Labour-controlled North East Lincolnshire. Around three quarters of the constituency is in North East Lincolnshire, and I wish to focus on that area today. In recent months, the council has had to determine a number of applications, particularly in the Humberston and New Waltham ward, but villages in the Waltham ward and the Wolds ward are now also being affected.
As we know, local plans are the rock on which local authorities build their planning policies and are subject to intense scrutiny by local people, acting both as individuals and collectively, through residents associations and, importantly, through parish councils. Without an up-to-date plan, a council is unable to direct developments to preferred sites that have been the subject of extensive local consultation.
In recent months, North East Lincolnshire council’s failings have been highlighted by the planning inspector who heard the appeal into the proposal by Keystone Developments. The inspector published an extremely critical report, highlighting the council’s many failings. The inspector’s report to the Secretary of State stated, in paragraph 5.1:
“The Council is not able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land…locally-derived figures require 410 houses per year for the period 2011-2017, and 520 houses per year thereafter… The Council has not succeeded in delivering 410 houses in any recent year… The implication of this is that the first part of LP Policy GEN2 has to be treated as out of date”.
When local plans are out of date, there is a presumption in favour of development.
The report points to the council’s failure to meet its statutory duty to identify a five-year supply of land for residential development. Failure to meet that requirement means that local people suffer. Of course, identifying such land can be controversial and there will always be objections—those of us who have served as local councillors know that there are serial objectors who will oppose anything and everything—but the overwhelming number of people will accept decisions when they have seen a transparent process and have been able to have their say through their elected representatives and as individuals.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his excellent work on behalf of his constituents in Cleethorpes. I know that the electorate there appreciates it, and as his constituency neighbour, I hear positive things from residents. Will he draw out once more the comparison between the two unitary authorities? The situation that he is demanding is what happens in the parts of his constituency and mine that are under North Lincolnshire council—the local authority has clear plans in place and is prepared to stand up for residents and to go to appeal and defend them in such cases. Often, it does so in the teeth of opposition from Labour councils, which then accuse the council of wasting money because it is standing up for people. There is a real contrast in our area between the appalling situation under North East Lincolnshire council and what happens under North Lincolnshire council, where residents are at the centre of planning policy.
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend highlights something that is apparent. As I mentioned earlier, two wards of North Lincolnshire council are in my constituency. Under the leadership of Councillor Liz Redfern, that council is robust and determined in its planning policies and, as my hon. Friend points out, prepared to defend the interests of local communities. It is able to do so because it has a robust local plan and is proceeding well with its new plan.
When the Department for Communities and Local Government was required to confirm the inspector’s findings, there was no possible reason for it to overturn the decision. Indeed, the letter sent by the Department to confirm the inspector’s decision said in point 6:
“The current Local Development Scheme states that the new Local Plan is due to be adopted in 2015. As the new Local Plan is still in the early stage of preparation, the Secretary of State attaches little weight to it in the determination of this appeal.”
I draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that a report approved by North East Lincolnshire council’s cabinet on 31 March shows that the amended date for final adoption of the new local plan has slipped further, to November 2017. For a further three and a half years, my constituents will be left high and dry by their local authority and will be unable to protect the environment or identities of their local communities.
I return to the Department’s letter, which in paragraph 7 states:
“The Council accepts that it does not have a five year housing land supply, and as a consequence, LP policies relevant to the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date”.
As the inspector’s report notes in paragraph 11.2,
“where relevant policies are out of date, then (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.”
Again, that makes it clear that, without approved policies, the council is letting down the people it should be representing.
The council further weakened the defence of its original decision to refuse permission for the development by Keystone because, as noted in paragraph 12 of the Department’s letter, it had already accepted the developer’s offer of a financial contribution to mitigate highway congestion. That paragraph states:
“The Secretary of State notes that the Highway Authority has confirmed that the proposed financial contribution would enable it to satisfactorily mitigate the increased congestion that the construction of the new dwellings would otherwise cause. He therefore agrees with the Inspector that there would be no adverse impact in this respect to weigh against the proposal”.
In its overall conclusions, the letter from the DCLG states:
“Parties are agreed that the local planning authority does not have a 5 year supply of housing and, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, the Secretary of State concludes that full weight can no longer be given to the relevant housing supply policies of the development plan.”
I return to the inspector’s conclusions, beginning at paragraph 11.7, which states:
“The Council has consistently viewed the regeneration of the district’s urban areas as one of its priorities, and to this end has identified a number of previously developed (‘brownfield’) sites in urban areas, many of which are presently occupied by old or unwanted buildings which contribute little or nothing to the surrounding area.”
At this point, I should mention that the former Bird’s Eye factory site in Ladysmith road is the one site that is always drawn to my attention as being in urgent need of redevelopment.
The paragraph continues:
“Some of these sites were allocated for residential development in the current Local Plan, and some have been granted planning permission for housing. That is consistent with the NPPF’s approach of encouraging the effective use of such land, but as is evident from the number of them which have the benefit of an allocation and/or planning permission yet still remain undeveloped, provides no guarantee that housing will actually be delivered on those sites.”
Paragraph 11.8 states:
“In the circumstances, I can understand the Council’s concern to ensure that nothing should discourage the re-development of these urban brownfield sites, but am not persuaded by its argument that permitting the residential development of the appeal site would necessarily have that unwanted effect. I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that the delivery of housing on greenfield sites prejudices the delivery of housing on brownfield sites. The Council contends that the situation speaks for itself, but it seems to me that it would be over-simplistic to assume that a housebuilder would always choose a greenfield site over a brownfield site. Much will depend on the specific circumstances of each site, and the capabilities, preferences and financial arrangements of each developer. Some may favour a greenfield site, to avoid the need to demolish existing unwanted buildings: some may favour a brownfield site, to avoid the need to lay electric, gas, water and sewage connections.”
Paragraph 11.9 states:
“Further, in the context of the acknowledged shortfall in the district’s housing provision, I see no reason why housing permitted on greenfield sites in order to redress that shortfall should in any way affect the housing on brownfield sites that has already been assessed by the Council as deliverable within the next 5 years. There is no indication that the assessment of deliverability was based on the premise that no other housing sites would come forward.”
Paragraph 11.10 says:
“As to the brownfield sites assessed by the Council as not being capable of delivering housing within the next 5 years, again I see no reason to suppose that situation would alter as a result of the residential development of the appeal site. The deliverability of such sites is far more likely to be affected by the market conditions and housing need that exist five years hence. The Council does not seek to argue that it would be right to countenance an under-provision of housing for the district, in the hope that such under-provision would incentivise the earlier regeneration of these sites. There is no evidence at all that such an approach might work, and it would in any event conflict with the NPPF’s clear objective ‘to boost significantly the supply of housing’ by requiring Councils to make provision for a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
Paragraph 11.11 states:
“Taking all of this into account, I find no convincing evidence to support the Council’s assertion that there must be a connection between the non-delivery of a large number of brownfield sites and the continued coming forward of greenfield sites. That being the case, I attach only very limited weight to the possibility that permitting the residential development of the appeal site would discourage the regeneration of brownfield sites”
in the district.
Paragraph 11.12 says:
“As discussed above, the fact that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites means that by operation of paragraph 49 of the NPPF, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.”
I stress that those are the words of an inspector, not a partisan politician. Clearly, the construction of 400 new homes will have a considerable impact on the demand for local public services, and as we are aware, those are always under pressure. The proposals provide some additional funding for primary schools, but the local senior school is an academy, and as the chairman of governors, who attended my surgery earlier this month, drew to my attention, it therefore does not qualify for funding through a section 106 agreement. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether that is a matter for his Department or for the Department for Education and whether consideration is being given to reconsidering that apparent anomaly.
I was a local councillor in North East Lincolnshire for 26 years, and I recognise the difficulties that the council has in attracting high-quality recruits to specialist areas such as planning. It has relied too much in recent years on interim appointments and the situation needs to be resolved as soon as possible. If overdevelopment in Humberston, New Waltham, Waltham, Laceby and the other lovely villages in north-east Lincolnshire continues, it will totally change the character and nature of those villages. My constituents value their local environment and identity, and they do not want to be merged into one urban mass. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me in the near future to discuss the problems specifically in north-east Lincolnshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and it is a particular pleasure to take part in a debate among Lincolnshire MPs about the examples of good and poor local government in our wonderful county.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on securing the debate. I know that the issue is of great importance to him and his constituents, because this is by no means the first time that he has talked to me about this subject—his concerns about the lack of a local plan in North East Lincolnshire and the effect that that is having on decision making about particular applications in his constituency. Because he has such a sophisticated understanding of the planning system, he will understand that I cannot refer to any decision that has been made or any application that may be under way, but I can talk to his point about the local plan and to the effects on decision making of not having an up-to-date local plan.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that local plans are absolutely at the heart of the planning system in a way that they were not when we came into government in 2010. The previous Government’s approach was that local areas were told what they had to do and where they had to do it, and they were denied both the responsibility and power to make decisions about providing for their needs. That happened through regional strategies, and he referred to the fact that his authority lies at the edge of two such regions.
On coming into government, we strongly felt that it was important not only that local areas were given the power to make decisions about development, but that that power could be transferred to them only if they had taken responsibility for showing how they would meet their housing needs by identifying, through a local plan, a sufficient supply of sites to meet those needs so we could all be reassured that enough houses and other facilities would be developed over the coming years to meet the area’s needs—hence the importance of local plans.
I am glad to say that, nationally, local authorities have been making very rapid progress in plan making. When we came into office, less than a third of local authorities had a draft published plan and only 17% of authorities had an adopted plan. The latest figures, in 2014, are that 76% of all authorities have a draft published plan and more than 54% of authorities have an adopted plan. There are lots of local councils whose plans are in examination or about to be submitted for examination by inspectors, so I am hopeful that those figures will continue to rise steadily over the next few months and years.
What those figures highlight, I am afraid, is the failure of some authorities, including North East Lincolnshire, to do what many other authorities have managed to do. I am not suggesting for a moment that putting together a local plan is easy or straightforward, or that it is uncontentious. It is not easy, straightforward or uncontentious in any part of the country, but 76% of local authorities have managed to produce a draft plan and 54% have managed to have it passed through examination and be formally adopted, so there simply is no excuse for his local authority not having managed to make more progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) draws a contrast with the other authority in the neighbourhood, North Lincolnshire council, which is Conservative controlled. That contrast is instructive because the North Lincolnshire local plan was adopted in June 2011 and sets out a five-year land supply, which means that North Lincolnshire council’s development decisions are respected. As I often put it, North Lincolnshire council is in the driving seat on local development decisions.
If North Lincolnshire council could adopt a plan in time—and no doubt it had to go through difficult moments and have difficult conversations with local communities—and ultimately do what we elect local authorities to do, which is to take responsibility for local decisions, there is simply no reason why a neighbouring authority should not have been able to do the same. I have to confess that I can see absolutely no reason or excuse for the suggestion that North East Lincolnshire council will not be able to put a plan in place until November 2017. World wars have been fought and won in the same amount of time. It is extraordinary that an authority will spin its wheels for so long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes is entirely right about the effect on decision making. In his textbook exposition of the planning system, he made only one very small error when he said that, in cases where there is no five-year land supply, there is a presumption in favour of development. The presumption is actually in favour of sustainable development, which means that policies on environmental protection, respecting the need for adequate transport infrastructure and recognising floodplains, and so on, have to be seriously taken into account. The presumption will apply only if a proposed development can be demonstrated to be sustainable.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right that, in the absence of a local plan and a five-year land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be what determines whether a development should go ahead. The preferences of local people and local communities as to where development should happen will unfortunately not carry the weight that they would have carried if the local authority had a five-year land supply and a local plan. Indeed, that is what has happened in some of the decisions to which he referred, and it is happening in other areas of the country, too. I completely understand local people’s frustration and dismay that their opinions are effectively being overridden by such decisions, but we have to return to the fundamental point that we can transfer the power to say yes or no to development proposals only if local councils have taken responsibility for identifying how they will meet those needs. It is only when that responsibility has been demonstrated through a five-year land supply that that power can be transferred to local councils in a relatively unfettered way.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes and for Brigg and Goole, and indeed all hon. Members, including yourself, Mr Hollobone—nobody is more involved at both local level and parliamentary level in representing people than you are—want our authorities to be in a position to make decisions on behalf of local people that local people have helped to shape and form. That is what we all long to see. The good news is that most areas are arriving at that point, but I completely understand the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes that his authority, a Labour-controlled authority, is entirely failing. I wonder whether that failure is a result of incompetence or cowardice, and I wonder whether his local authority prefers to be able to blame the Government and the Planning Inspectorate for difficult decisions, rather than taking responsibility for having conversations locally about where development should take place. I hope that the people of north-east Lincolnshire will not reward people for failing to take responsibility, for acting in a cowardly fashion and for failing to discharge their responsibilities.
We are all elected to public office to do a job on behalf of our communities. That job is not always popular, and it is certainly not always to avoid difficult decisions; the job is to work with communities to explain what is needed, to talk about the alternatives and to secure broad community support for a balanced plan for discharging our responsibilities. That is what we try to do here in Parliament, and I suspect that it is what all of us here today tried to do when we were councillors representing people on local authorities. It is what North East Lincolnshire council should be doing, and it is what North Lincolnshire council is doing.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I will be delighted to meet him to discuss further how we can help him to kick North East Lincolnshire council into swifter action on making its local plan.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all those who have taken part in this extremely important debate.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
(10 years, 6 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
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to have this opportunity to raise some important issues in relation to the Deregulation Bill. I am delighted that the Minister is here to respond.
I am speaking up for my constituents in Easington who are likely to be affected by the amendments that the Government made to the Deregulation Bill in Committee. I am also speaking up for Unite the union—of which I and many taxi drivers are members—and the GMB. I am also speaking on behalf of a number of stakeholders who feel disfranchised by the Government’s truncated consultation.
It might be useful if I mention the background and where we stand with consultation. Back in July 2011, the Government asked the Law Commission to consider wide-ranging reforms to taxi and vehicle licensing legislation. The Department for Transport asked the Law Commission to undertake a comprehensive review with the aim of modernising and simplifying that legislation. There is no doubt that taxi and vehicle licensing is a complex area, and many right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the effect that the amendments are likely to have in their constituencies.
In May 2012, the Law Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation on the Government’s proposals. Indeed, the industry has many stakeholders who have been involved in that ongoing process over the past two years. In parallel with the Law Commission’s ongoing review, however, the Government launched another review with a truncated 10-day informal consultation on three specific new clauses that were added to the Deregulation Bill in Committee.
The long consultation process under the auspices of the Law Commission is still ongoing, but I understand that stakeholders and industry and union representatives were told on Friday 14 March 2014 that the new clauses would be added to the Deregulation Bill. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister give an explanation? I have sought advice from a number of stakeholders not just within my trade union but within the trade, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the Government have decided that there is insufficient time to allow due consideration of the Law Commission’s draft Bill before the general election in 2015.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is he saying that the Government have pushed through three amendments to the Deregulation Bill while there is an ongoing consultation?
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister is able to clarify the Government’s thinking, because the shortened consultation was launched with barely a week’s notice before the amendments were considered by the Public Bill Committee. That must concern parliamentarians who are keen to ensure that there is full and proper consultation on controversial and contentious issues.
The Cabinet Office guidance on consultations states:
“Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response… For a new and contentious policy, 12 weeks or more”—
that is 12 weeks, not 12 days—
“may…be appropriate. When deciding on the timescale for a given consultation the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration.”
As has been demonstrated by the objections raised by all concerned parties outside Whitehall, the policy is clearly contentious and there are a number of different viewpoints. Indeed, I have had a couple of debates over the past few days, including one this morning on local radio, and there is a huge degree of contention on the pros and cons of the three new clauses. Nowhere in the guidance do I see a reflection of the current situation, in which such a disparate industry with such disparate views, and with many different stakeholders and interested parties, was given only 10 days’ notice of the proposals.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
This rushed and ill-thought-through process has caused real concern among my disabled constituents. Would my hon. Friend welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government do not propose to make any changes to section 37A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which makes it illegal for minicab drivers to refuse to carry guide dog owners simply because they are accompanied by a guide dog?
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although I welcome the Government’s assurances on that specific issue, I am concerned about the Government’s amendment on contracting out. A customer might telephone a private hire company for a particular reason. They may have a disability or a preference, or they may get a better price. Unfortunately, some taxi operators discriminate against disabled people by charging them a higher premium. There are considerable and worrying implications for disabled people, even if we accept some of the Minister’s assurances.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will surely accept that the Deregulation Bill is going through the Commons and the House has yet to complete its consideration of the new clauses. Surely, he cannot possibly object to one of the new clauses, so this is my simple question: why should we not allow a private hire vehicle to be driven, when off duty, as a normal vehicle, thereby freeing a family from the need to run a second car, particularly given the cost of living crisis that he so frequently asserts?
Grahame M. Morris
There is a reason, which I will address in more detail. On the immediate question, there is ample evidence, particularly in the City of London, of a problem with unlicensed taxis and rogue minicab operators. If people drove around in private hire vehicles, it would be much easier for them to pick people up and engage in illegal activity. I have seen figures showing that in London last year there were 260 assaults and 54 rapes, so we should be cognisant of that.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
If we look at the Bill in a broader sense, the Government are trying to deregulate health and safety, and the new clauses affect health and safety in a number of ways. Women are being attacked in unlicensed taxis, for example. Eighteen months ago, if I went outside not far from here, an unlicensed person would be touting to take my fare at an extortionate price. Finally, in answer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the taxi is primarily a working vehicle. That is a fundamental difference. To police that, a family vehicle and a working vehicle have to be distinguished.
Grahame M. Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The fundamental point that I was trying to make before that series of interventions is that the Public Bill Committee did not have the opportunity to consider properly representations from the trade in the time scale allowed. My understanding is that these new clauses had not been tabled when the evidence sessions were held. It is important that those representations are properly considered.
A number of important stakeholders—including the Local Government Association, which has contacted me—have said that the informal consultation on the measures has been completely inadequate. What is the point of the Law Commission going to the expense of compiling a detailed report if we are not going to wait for its outcome? Undoubtedly, a considerable amount of time, money and effort have been spent on it, and Members should have an answer.
Grahame M. Morris
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress. I am sure that he can make a fuller contribution in a moment. [Interruption.] Well, I did give way to him once already.
I will quote from some of the representations that I have received, given that the Public Bill Committee was not able to take evidence on the issue. My union, Unite, which represents thousands of taxi drivers up and down the country, said:
“These amendments are a last minute attempt by the Department for Transport to get something on the statute books without proper or full consultation with stakeholders having taken place and without waiting for the Law Commission’s Draft Bill.”
I think that that is a fairly accurate statement of fact.
To go into the specifics, the first of the Government’s three proposed new clauses would allow drivers, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, who do not hold a private hire vehicle licence to drive such a vehicle when it is not being used as a private hire vehicle. I read the text of the Minister’s response in Committee in Hansard, and in mitigation he indicated that London was a precedent for the proposed changes. We have to recognise that London has one of the largest taxi markets in the world and is a truly global city. We have heard arguments about exemptions for investment in transport. A figure that I often quote is that the investment in transport infrastructure in my region is £5 a head, and in London it is £2,900 a head. If we are using precedent as an example, we should have a 500-fold increase in investment in transport infrastructure in the north-east. It is not always appropriate to use precedent. Compared with the rest of the country, the situation in London is rather different in terms of regulation, enforcement and Transport for London.
Under the new clause, family members will be free to use a private hire vehicle on a personal basis, so long as they do not use it for private hire. The Minister said that it would be totally straightforward to identify abuses, but it would be hugely problematic. I was trying to imagine how someone could be stopped on suspicion of committing that abuse, and that should have full and proper consideration. It was one of the reasons for setting up the Law Commission consultation.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the overall review, he must have seen the judgment by the Court of Appeal on Stockton-on-Tees borough council and the taxi trade. The court said that it could only do a certain number of things, and the rest was left to Parliament to review. Does he agree that, if we are going to review this, we should review the whole thing and ensure that there are proper criteria and a structure with one piece, rather than numerous pieces, of legislation dealing with it? That would only be fair to all taxi drivers, including those in my constituency.
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes an eminently sensible point, which is the one that I am trying to make. We should not approach the matter in a haphazard, piecemeal fashion, particularly when we have set in train a major review and are consulting with all stakeholders, not all of whom would agree with me. That seems sensible, and I cannot for the life of me see the logic in ploughing ahead with these changes in such a piecemeal fashion.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman talks about stakeholders, but does he accept—on BBC radio this morning, he debated with one of the stakeholders, who made this case robustly—that the change will bring a considerable number of new jobs to the north-east? Lord knows we need them, and the hon. Gentleman often makes the case for them.
Grahame M. Morris
I did have a debate this morning with a representative of Blueline Taxis from Newcastle. One of my hon. Friends wants to talk about some of the problems that have arisen, so I will leave them to respond on that.
There is a consequence to what we are doing. I hold taxi drivers in the highest regard. I socialise with a number of taxi drivers. I count them among my best friends, and I want to keep them. I do not want their status and prestige to be undermined by unlicensed taxis and the potential consequences of rushing this ill-thought-through legislation through Parliament.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a consensus across the trade that this piecemeal approach is not what is needed? We need to wait for the Law Commission to bring forward holistic legislation, as the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said. Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), that holistic approach will lead to safer taxis and more jobs for people than the Government’s piecemeal approach.
Grahame M. Morris
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. There are dangers, not only to the trade, but to the safety of the travelling public. I mentioned some of the campaigns that have been run, which I support, on alerting people to the dangers of unlicensed and unauthorised taxis. Police figures show that 214 women were sexually assaulted in London last year after getting into illegal minicabs and unlicensed taxis, and 54 were raped. My concern is that new clause 8 would increase the number of unlicensed drivers pretending to be legitimate and make the enforcement process against the illegal use of licensed vehicles almost impossible. In particular, when we factor in the subcontracting amendment, the taxi might well be from another area, if we are looking outside London.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is talking about passenger safety, but I wondered whether, in addition to the other issues with the Deregulation Bill, increased deregulation also creates issues for driver safety. In Oldham, there is big concern about that. There has been a spate of attacks on taxi drivers, and there are concerns that deregulation will make them more vulnerable.
Grahame M. Morris
That is a legitimate point, which I hope the Minister will consider on Report, along with whether we should wait for the Law Commission’s report.
There are also concerns about new clause 9, which would set a standard duration of three years for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences and five years for private vehicle operator licences. Industry and trade unions expressed concerns during the limited time available. The National Private Hire Association and the Institute of Licensing said that the clause would remove the flexibility from councils, and there are already concerns about how effectively drivers are scrutinised.
I raise that because local authorities have a degree of flexibility. Indeed, it was pointed out to me that the three-year licensing period already applies in London. However, an authority might wish to have annual licensing of drivers and operators, which is currently permitted under legislation, as that is a proven way to keep track of behaviour and to take remedial or preventative action. Although local authorities impose licence conditions on private hire vehicle drivers and vehicle operators that require them to report criminal convictions and changes to their medical status within a specified period, those are often ignored.
Even in relation to drivers’ licences, where the police are supposed to inform the local authority of any recordable convictions and have discretion to inform the local authority of minor matters, information is often haphazard. Some local authorities get information directly from their local police forces, but there are very few instances of local authorities receiving information from police forces that do not cover their area. That is important because one of the Government’s amendments will allow subcontracting, so a taxi or private hire firm might come from another area and be covered by a difference police force.
Rehman Chishti
On private hires operating in an area where they are not licensed, if they are going there simply for private hire, that may be lawful. However, if they then carry on and park in a stand-by, that would be illegal and that would put more pressure on the local enforcement authorities’ resources. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that must be addressed?
Grahame M. Morris
I do. The hon. Gentleman has made a couple of really good points. The other aspect that I thought of when considering the arguments is that, to the best of my knowledge, the licensing budget is ring-fenced on the basis of fees and charges. Therefore, if a local authority is ring-fencing a budget based on a licensing and inspection regime on an annual or two-yearly basis and that is then changed to three and five years, there will be a commensurate drop in income. If that is how the enforcement officers are paid, that must impact on their ability to take enforcement action. That is a good point. There are a number of implications to extending the licensing period and it is not all good news, as some of the operators would have us believe. Consequently, it is good that local authorities have some discretion.
One of my principal concerns relates to the Government’s amendment to the Deregulation Bill that allows private hire vehicle operators to subcontract and book an operator licensed in a different licensing area. When I was reading Hansard, I saw that the Minister said that that will give customers more choice and that it may be advantageous in that passengers could ring up their local provider if they did not know who to call. However, passengers may well not want to use the subcontractor sent to their door.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the good things about our taxis in this country is the local knowledge that people need to have? That sets us aside from many other countries in which we are suspicious of taxi drivers and where they are taking us on their meters. I am grateful to the Brighton Sudanese Taxi Forum for alerting me to this issue. Does he agree that deregulation that leads to subcontracting to a taxi company outside a city is fraught with danger in terms of local knowledge?
Grahame M. Morris
Again, I completely agree. It is very unusual for me to agree with Government Members—[Interruption.]. Apart from Guy. That is an excellent point and I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
Quality is an issue, and in some cases the name of a company is important. People may book on that basis and choose not to book others on the same basis. The customer may have experienced many problems with one operator. If a member of the public calls a specific operator because they feel that it is reliable and safe to travel with—I am thinking here in particular about women who are out late at night who may have a preferred operator because they know that they will be transported safely—surely they should have the comfort and knowledge that that company will take them home. There is a risk in passing jobs from one company to another; it is not the wonderful panacea that some of the advocates of deregulation would have us believe. We should think about some of the consequences.
The Transport Committee recommended that the Government engage with the trade unions, local authorities, licensing authorities and users about future legislation and commit to reform in this Parliament. Ministers should be working collaboratively with the industry, drivers and passengers, rather than just rushing contentious clauses through Parliament. The new clauses are evidently contentious and 10 days’ notice before the Public Bill Committee was completely inadequate to allow for any meaningful consultation.
The consequences of the new clauses have not been considered sufficiently. It seems to me that there is a mad, ideological rush to deregulate on occasions. We would not do that if we were talking about firearms regulations, would we? I hope that we would not, anyway. The idea appears to be that we must cut red tape without considering all of the consequences, even though we have set in train the Law Commission, which is engaging in the process. Many stakeholders feel—rightly, in my opinion—that they have been ignored and passenger safety and the enforcement of private hire vehicle registration could be undermined. I respectfully urge the Minister to remove the clauses added to the Deregulation Bill in Committee—he can do that on Report—for the safety and confidence of the travelling public and, indeed, for the reputation and livelihoods of the taxi and private vehicle hire trade.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Chope. I add my congratulations to those of everyone else who has congratulated the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, taxis and minicabs are an essential part of our transport network, not least for people with disabilities, women, in particular, for getting home safely at night, and people who do not have access to a car.
Regulation of the taxi industry has been around for a long time. A House of Commons Library note says that it could be said to have begun in 1636 under King Charles I. More recently, the issue has come up under successive Governments who, having looked at the evidence, decided to leave regulation of this essential industry in place.
I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Gentleman: why now the rush to rip up that regulation? Suddenly, the Government are amending their own Bill to give the market more power over this essential part of our transport network with barely any effort even to pretend to consult about it. The Local Government Association politely said:
“We are disappointed that the LGA was not made aware of these proposed clauses until they were brought before the Deregulation Bill Committee.”
How can the Government possibly justify their failure to discuss this change with councils in advance of the parliamentary process?
In my city of Brighton and Hove we have 1,800 drivers who serve our city well. I share the deep concerns of many of the drivers whom I have met. They are worried that the Government’s attempt to rush through changes to taxi and minicab regulation will be bad for consumers, bad for our city and potentially dangerous.
The changes will allow, as others have said, anyone with an ordinary driving licence to drive a minicab when it is off duty; minicab operators to subcontract to operators licensed in a different district; and fewer licence checks. The measures weaken protection for the public and they should be stopped. The licensed taxi industry has served the public well down the years, but the Government’s desire to shrink the state means that good systems in place for good reasons are under unprecedented attack.
Safety is an integral issue. Taxis are essential for so many people, such as women at night, schools or people with disabilities. They have to have confidence and trust in those with whom they are sharing the vehicle. Deregulation could hit safety standards and cause chaos. It is yet another example of a Government who talk up localism while ripping up local powers in the interests of big business. Our tremendous passenger safety culture, which has been established in the industry over many years, cannot simply be disregarded in such a way. There is real concern that the Government amendments could lead to more women being put at risk of assault or attack when they have to travel late at night by unlicensed and unregulated drivers. The deregulation of the taxi industry could also lead to rogue taxi drivers—criminals posing as drivers—passengers being ripped off and chaos on our streets, with people unsure about whether the taxi that they have just flagged down is legitimate.
We need to ask why such potentially dangerous changes are being rushed through. We know that good money can be made from the taxi and private hire or minicab industry—Addison Lee has made so much that it is giving it away in large quantities to the Conservative party, and are we supposed to believe that Addison Lee has had no influence on the move to push amendments through before the publication of the Law Commission’s in-depth review of taxi and PHV legislation?
John Griffin, the boss of minicab giant Addison Lee, was embroiled in a cash-for-access scandal in 2012, after his firm gave £0.25 million to the Conservative party. At the time, Mr Griffin was quoted at saying:
“Politicians are not running the country. Businessmen are. They are the housewives. We give them the money.”
We can make of that what we will, but we read that last year Mr Griffin kept up his company’s generosity with an individual donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party—reportedly, the third largest donation in the three months to the end of September.
Mr Griffin is clearly a man who has a potential political agenda for the minicab business. For example, he appears to hate cyclists. In comments that beggared belief, he described deaths and serious injuries among inner-city cyclists as “inevitable” and primarily the fault of “untrained riders”. That controversy came less than a week after he had spent several days in the spotlight because he had ordered the drivers of his company’s 3,500 vehicles in London illegally to use bus lanes while promising to indemnify his staff against any fines. Clearly, he thinks he is above the law, and we cannot help but ask ourselves what he might want in return for his large donations.
The Government’s wish to sweep away regulation in the interests of their industry mates represents a systemic and systematic attempt to water down the standards and rules that should have been, and have been, designed to serve and protect the public. The Government should be heavily criticised for showing an extraordinary disrespect for those who rely on taxis and minicabs, for councils and for drivers. I urge Ministers to scrap their rushed and misguided amendments when the Bill returns to the House of Commons on Report. Instead, the Government should be following the 2011 proposals of the experts on the cross-party Transport Committee: listening to users, in particular vulnerable groups, to the trade and to local authorities, and keeping the situation simple and local.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Chope, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing it and on expounding a well worked-out argument, with which I am certain that most hon. Members in the Chamber agree. The Law Commission consultation is extensive, asking many questions and offering several sensible proposals. I will focus on my concerns about the accessibility of taxis and private hire vehicles for disabled people.
At the beginning of this year, Boro Taxis, which operates in the south Middlesbrough part of my constituency, hit the headlines in national and local media outlets following what many might see as exploitation of and disregard for disabled passengers. On 31 December 2013, Middlesbrough council’s licensing department was reported to have found that a number of private hire operators were charging disabled passengers—wheelchair users, in particular—up to twice the standard fare, with licensing officer Tim Hodgkinson arguing that this was a “widespread” practice and a “direct consequence” of passengers’ disability.
The council sent notices to the relevant operators advising them that it considered the practice to be in breach of their regulatory and statutory obligations. I am sure that most hon. Members find such flagrantly discriminatory practices repugnant. Disabled people throughout the country struggle to access transport as is, and to charge them extra because of their disability strikes me as totally wrong.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the fundamental principles underpinning the Equality Act 2010 is that disabled customers should not be treated on less favourable terms than able-bodied customers, and that surely extends to the price that fare-paying taxi customers are charged for the same journey? If that happens under the existing regulatory framework, what on earth will things look like if the deregulation programme goes ahead?
Tom Blenkinsop
I agree with my hon. Friend. Such circumstances are occurring now, while the trade is regulated, but my fear is that with further deregulation, instances such as the one I described will become increasingly common and harder for local authorities to monitor and to manage.
On 11 January 2014, somewhat astonishingly, the owner of Boro Taxis, Mr Bashir, admitted that his own company policy at the time was “morally totally wrong”. The firm, however, subsequently started to refuse to carry any wheelchair users, arguing that it would be “uneconomic” to do so. News of the Boro Taxis decision resulted in a ferocious backlash, and thousands of social media users, many of whom were likely customers, called for and pledged to a boycott of the firm.
The company quickly performed a welcome U-turn on the decision, given the ensuing negative publicity, but the issue continues to be one that users of the taxi service talk about and it is often referred to when the firm is discussed. That there was even such a proposal in the first place, however, I fear shows an unwelcome eagerness to discriminate and to treat disabled passengers as liabilities, rather than as valued customers. My main fear about the proposed deregulation of the trade is that such practices will become more common.
That is only one case, but it demonstrates a problem that I suspect, from communications from disabled people throughout the region, to be systemic. The Law Commission is therefore correct to identify equality and the needs of disabled passengers as an area in desperate need of legislative reform. In the consultation, disability groups highlighted the lack of training and disability awareness among taxi and private hire drivers, with issues such as an increased risk of injury due to wheelchairs not being properly secured, or a deaf passenger being unable able to communicate effectively with the driver. That is of course a two-way street: drivers may also injure themselves while helping disabled passengers in an inexpert fashion. Employers have to ensure that their drivers are trained and compensated properly for such training.
Some excellent training schemes are available to drivers on all aspects of dealing with people with a disability, such as loading and unloading wheelchair users, securing the wheelchair, or how to operate the swivel seat, the hearing loop and so on. More importantly, however, training will ensure that drivers and indeed taxi firm owners are aware that it is imperative to treat all people of differing abilities with dignity.
Various training schemes have been adopted by local authorities, but I firmly believe that national safety standards should be applied as a minimum and that this should include disability awareness training. On a business level, there should therefore be a fair playing field and a good standard of customer services maintained for all, especially disabled people, nationally. Furthermore, a statutory requirement should be placed upon licensing authorities to take steps to ensure taxi and private hire drivers’ compliance with their equalities obligations.
Middlesbrough council’s report into accessibility, which highlighted the issue of charging disabled passengers extra, was a welcome step. It will have made a real difference for disabled people in the town. That should be the practice nationwide, and it should be done on a regular and standardised basis. I am aware that some councils are hesitant to undertake monitoring and testing due to concerns about the safety and welfare of their employees, but a statutory requirement of that kind could be met through regular consultation with disabled passengers by licensing authorities, and through improved and easier reporting structures for recording incidents.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to be able to take part in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing one on such an important issue. I also declare that I am a proud member of Unite the union, which has an interest in the taxi trade.
Two weeks ago, my two Bolton colleagues and I attended a meeting in my constituency, which had been called by the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers. In attendance were people from the Law Commission, the Local Government Association, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Association, Unite and the GMB, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester and councillors from a number of Greater Manchester authorities, including Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Stockport and Salford. It was interesting that those attendees, from a vast range of different backgrounds, all spoke with one voice. They did not understand why the clauses affecting taxis were being rushed into the Deregulation Bill. They wanted them to be withdrawn, and instead wanted holistic legislation, focused on the Law Commission review. In a meeting of such a diverse group of people it is unusual for them all to speak with one voice.
We know that there are already problems in the system. For instance, in the north-west, Rossendale has licensed over 1,000 hackney carriages, most of which are being used not in Rossendale but elsewhere. Where are checks carried out, and by whom? We do not have national standards, so we could have a situation in which a taxi that is licensed in Rossendale but would not reach the standards required by authorities in Bolton is driving around in Bolton, and a passenger in Bolton who wants to complain about the taxi cannot do so to officers in Bolton, as they have no right to inspect the vehicle or check the driver.
Let us look at the situation in Sheffield. North East Derbyshire district council has licensed a Sheffield-based operator that uses hackney carriages licensed by Gedling borough council. Effectively, no council has regulatory control. Sheffield council is particularly powerless when there are complaints from Sheffield residents about taxis overcharging or poor driver behaviour.
Rehman Chishti
There is a similar situation in Medway in Kent. Drivers from Tonbridge and Malling are operating in Medway, which according to my local taxi drivers is exceptionally unfair. The local authority has said that it makes enforcement difficult. Does the hon. Lady agree that taxi drivers should operate in the area in which they are licensed? That makes enforcement easier and makes things easier for the people who use taxis.
Julie Hilling
The interesting question is why Rossendale, for example, is licensing so many taxi drivers. Why is that happening—why are firms going to Rossendale or to Gedling for licences? Is it that the regimes in those places are much easier to get through or that it is cheaper to get vehicles licensed there—what is it about the system there? When the system as a whole is fractured, there are all sorts of ways through it for disreputable drivers, disreputable companies or people who are simply trying to make the cheapest buck they can.
There is also the question of whether operators should be able to carry out journeys across local area borders. The legislation does not solve that problem. We need to look holistically at what we do about those cross-border journeys to ensure that there can be enforcement of regulations. Wherever a taxi was licensed, if is operating in Bolton why cannot Bolton enforcement officers be allowed to enforce regulations on that vehicle? I am not sure that the answer is necessarily to say that it is not possible. We need a framework in which it can happen, under which local authorities can get remuneration to enable them to carry out checks when licensing has been carried out by a different authority. The situation is complicated and is not solved by the legislation.
This issue came to my attention when the parents of a 13-year-old girl came to one of my constituency surgeries because they were concerned about a specific incident that had happened to her. She had taken a taxi. To start with, she was going into Bolton, but part of the way through the journey she received a call from her friend to say that they needed to meet elsewhere. It would appear that at some point during the journey the taxi driver turned off all his monitoring equipment—his GPS and everything else. The 13-year-old was taken to quite a remote estate in the constituency. The taxi driver parked up there and said, “I’m just waiting for a friend to bring me a phone charger—we just have to wait for them to turn up.”
The girl started to get agitated. She had told the taxi driver that she was 16, because her mum had said that she should tell people that she was a little older, thinking that that would protect her—in fact, in the circumstances it appears to have done the opposite. The girl became concerned about the questions the taxi driver was starting to ask her about her social life and so on. Fortunately, she had the nous to get out of the taxi. She played a ruse; she said, “I just want to pop to the shop over there,” got out of the taxi and ran like hell. Fortunately she met a bystander who listened to her, took her to a McDonald’s, called the police and waited with her until they turned up.
It transpired that the taxi driver had a record of past misdemeanours. He was taken through the tribunal system and lost his licence, so is now unable to operate in Bolton. But, like me, the girl’s parents were absolutely horrified to learn that although the driver is banned in Bolton he could become a taxi driver anywhere else, depending on whether another local authority were to do a police check—and because he was not actually prosecuted, a police check may not throw up the fact that he is a danger to the travelling public and, it would appear, to young women in particular.
I asked the Department a written question on what proportion of local authorities in England and Wales require a disclosure and barring service check on applicants before issuing a taxi or private hire vehicle licence. I have received this response:
“The Department for Transport does not hold this information. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a ‘fit and proper person’. As part of this process they can undertake criminal record checks on applicants but we do not keep details of the assessment policies and procedures adopted by local authorities.”
That “can” seems inadequate. I have asked questions about whether all local authorities carry out police checks, but as nobody holds the information we do not know. That is another reason why we need holistic legislation that ensures that licensing authorities carry out proper checks on drivers. We need a system in which if a person is banned by one local authority they are banned, full stop. The changes proposed in the Deregulation Bill will make the situation worse, not better.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is no longer in his place, asked why family members should not be allowed to use a taxi when it is off duty. I was puzzled myself about that when I met operators and others involved in the industry, and was not wholly convinced by the answers I got, so I asked about whether taxi markings could be removed. I was told, basically, that that would be extremely difficult for taxis operating in my own local authority area—I would guess that would also be the case for all those operating outside London—because they are marked clearly as taxis. Another issue raised was what would happen in areas where taxis are allowed to use bus lanes. What happens to an off-duty taxi then—how would we enforce proper use of bus lanes?
We already have a massive problem in all of our areas with unlicensed taxis touting for business, particularly late at night. I am not often in city centres late at night, but I have been there in the past, and it has to be said that one becomes quite desperate for a taxi. In particular, when young people have perhaps been drinking more than they should have, they will not be rigorous about checking the identity of the driver or the car. In those circumstances people are simply pleased to get a lift home. We should not bring in any measure that weakens regulation and makes it more likely that people will be in a vehicle that is driven by someone who is not the licensed driver.
There are real problems with the system as it is. I ask the Minister to look seriously at removing the provisions from the Bill and to make sure that we have holistic legislation based on the Law Commission report. It seems a nonsense that we are looking to pass the Bill with those provisions, and I ask him wholeheartedly to remove them.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is important to recognise that 99.9% of taxi drivers, if not more, provide a fantastic service to many of the public. A lot of taxi drivers go beyond their duty, at times. We are not here to have a go at taxi drivers—quite the opposite. We are here to support them and the industry as a whole.
I am not sure why on earth the three new clauses to the Deregulation Bill were tabled. It is beyond me. If it is believed that there is a need for legislation, and if that is contentious, perhaps it is in everyone’s best interest to consult the people who work in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) eloquently said, the Cabinet Office suggests that there should be at least 12 weeks’ consultation for any contentious legislation.
Where was the consultation in the present case? Why has there been none? There were 10 days’ consultation—what on earth was the reason for that? I know the Minister will give a full-hearted answer to that question; I just will not be sure about it. What I am sure about is that when the coalition Government come forward with legislation—particularly to do with the Deregulation Bill—it will never be good news for the people working in an industry. I am positive that that is true about the issue we are debating.
The Law Commission is currently drafting a Bill, which is due by the end of April. Is it not slightly confusing that the Government should have commissioned it to draft that Bill and that before it has even been published they have tabled amendments to the Deregulation Bill? It is fair to ask why those reforms have been made in a rush, as last-minute and very contentious—and questionable—new clauses to the Deregulation Bill. I see the Minister smiling. I am sure that he has the right answers, and we all want to hear that the changes are in everyone’s best interest.
The Minister has ignored everyone who works in the industry—the people in the trade, and the trade unions, which have been asking for meetings to discuss the matter: Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which take the health and safety of the general public seriously. There have been no consultations with the trade unions or the trade. There is just a cabal of people from Government who want to push through legislation against ordinary working people.
I appeal to the Minister to recognise that there is a threat to passenger safety. The Government’s reforms to licences could increase the number of unlicensed drivers. That is something that no one here wants. Unlicensed drivers who can masquerade as legitimate present a huge problem for the general public. I am like anyone else: I have been in the city centre and needed a cab—it need not even be a city centre, but could be somewhere quite isolated. If someone calls for a cab they need to be confident that the driver of the vehicle that comes is a licensed driver for an organisation that they can have full confidence in.
Even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned, someone rolled out of the pub—and there are no MPs who do that, by the way—slightly inebriated at night in the city centre, and there was a taxi there, I am sure they would not knock on the window politely and say, “Excuse me, is this for Mr Ian Lavery of 42 Chiltern close? Sorry, what is your licence number?” That just does not happen. That is why we must ensure that the safety of the public who use the services is paramount.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) raised an important point about subcontracting. There have been problems in the past, and legislation has been passed about disabled people in cabs, which has been positive, to be fair. However, there will be problems. I want to raise the issue of rogue drivers. What problems might arise? Someone—perhaps a disabled person—who did not have confidence in a particular firm might ring another, but if that firm could subcontract without permission, someone from it could turn up in an isolated place to pick up the individual or group. The problems could be immense, and that is not what we want.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
My understanding of what the Law Commission is trying to do is not that the broad thrust will be deregulatory at all. In my central London constituency, we have great concern about pedicabs and stretch limousines—two matters that the Law Commission recommends should be brought within the scope of taxi and private hire regulation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is desirable that the Law Commission should stick to that position and include pedicabs in the scope of regulation, rather than taking a deregulatory approach such as he has described?
Ian Lavery
I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and other coalition Members have made similar remarks. It has been suggested that the Law Commission report should be looked at. There has not been any consultation about input into that, and it has not yet been published. People have not yet had the opportunity for input, as the hon. Gentleman was perhaps suggesting they should.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
It is simply wrong to say that there has been no consultation on the Law Commission report or that no contributions have been given to the Law Commission. More than 3,000 contributions and submissions have been made to it about the likely report.
Ian Lavery
I fear the Minister picked up the wrong thing from what I was saying. I am complaining entirely about the fact that such contentious measures as clauses 8, 9 and 10, which should have had the full consultation period of 12 weeks, as outlined by the Cabinet Office, have been given only 10 days or so. Whether I put it over wrong or whatever, that is the point I wanted to make. There has been very little consultation about a contentious measure. It might be helpful if the Minister mentioned, when he has the opportunity, whether he believes the clauses are contentious. From what I have read, I think that the Government are saying they are non-contentious, and that would be alarming to say the least.
From the Opposition’s point of view, the clauses are deregulation gone mad. They are ideological—an attack on ordinary people and a blinkered pursuit of deregulation at all costs. They risk damaging the taxi and PHV industry, and threaten public choice and safety. Someone mentioned the red tape challenge, but I would rather talk about the challenge of bloodied red bandages. That is how I look at things—with regard to health and safety. The key test that any reform to private hire vehicle regulation should pass is whether it will improve passenger safety. If the clauses do not pass that test, they should be withdrawn.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed, it would be sensible to have full and proper consultation about all and any changes. I simply ask the Minister to withdraw the three amendments, to have full and proper consultation, to listen to the trade unions—the RMT, Unite, GMB and all other unions—and to listen to the people in the trade who operate licences. He would then be in a better position to say where the law needs to be altered.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to serve under your chairmanship again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate and other hon. Members—I counted 12—on their excellent contributions. They covered different aspects of the issue, but were united in asking why it has come forward at this time and in this way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, we must recognise that taxis and private hire vehicles are a critical but often overlooked public service. They are vital to enable people to get from A to B early in the morning and absolutely vital late at night. They are often the only form of transport available in remote areas for people who cannot afford to run their own car. That is why it is so important that regulations covering the sector are based on the needs of passengers and why the bodies responsible for enforcing the regulations must do that with passenger safety and effectiveness in mind.
It is widely accepted, including by the Transport Committee’s comprehensive report into the sector in 2011, that the current legislation is outdated and needs reform. As this debate has shown, regulations governing taxis and private hire vehicles are complex and often contentious, so one hopes that the Department for Transport will approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way. As hon. Members have said—I highlight the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—this reform is not being carried out in that balanced and comprehensive way.
Speeches and interventions today have revealed the grave problems resulting from the attempt to sort the situation out with last-minute amendments to the Deregulation Bill. That has undermined confidence in the previous reform process—the Law Commission’s investigation. There is serious anger and concern from various stakeholders who have felt ignored or marginalised in the process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington explained, the Government’s guidance on consultations stresses the importance of adequate time, engagement and transparency with key stakeholders in policy making. However, in this case and despite the fact that, as the Minister said, the Law Commission was already consulting before introducing these proposals, Ministers decided that informal consultation based on piecemeal reforms would be enough and that it would take 10 days—eight working days.
I hope the Minister is aware of the views of a host of organisations that have expressed concern: the National Private Hire Association, Unite, which is my union and that of other hon. Members here, the GMB, the RMT, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the Licensed Private Hire Car Association, the National Taxi Association and the Local Government Association. They are not just one set of interest groups; they represent a crescendo of concern.
The Local Government Association said:
“Changes to regulations should be considered in the context of the legislation as a whole, rather than in piecemeal fashion...The failure to discuss these proposals with councils…significantly reduces the opportunity for councils to provide constructive input on the feasibility of the proposals and their potential impact.”
I will echo what my hon. Friends have asked. Given that Government guidelines say that up to 12 weeks is necessary for adequate consultation, why does the Minister believe that 10 days is adequate in this case? Why was it not made clear to stakeholders involved in the informal consultation that these measures were intended for inclusion in the Deregulation Bill? It would be helpful if the Minister clarified why the measures were not initially proposed on Second Reading of the Bill. Was there a specific reason, or was it to minimise parliamentary scrutiny and opposition?
My hon. Friends have made points about the impact of the proposals. First, changing who is eligible to drive a private hire vehicle risks increasing the number of unlicensed drivers pretending to be legitimate. We have heard from hon. Members today about the real safety risks that could accompany that. At the moment, we at least have the safeguard that only licensed drivers can drive PHVs, but the Government propose to remove that without giving councils additional enforcement powers. Currently, licensing officers have no power to stop moving vehicles, to prevent drivers from driving off or even to request a driver to reveal their identity.
The Minister will probably say, “Don’t worry. It works in London, in the capital.” As has been made clear, the situation in London is different. Since responsibility moved to Transport for London, I understand that on-street enforcement is conducted with a police presence, or the police are called on to act when necessary. We simply cannot assume that that would be the case elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, the health and safety consequences are very real indeed. It is simply not good enough for the Government continually to dismiss these widespread concerns. When will the Minister recognise that additional enforcement powers are necessary if he is going down this road? If he recognises that, what should they be?
Secondly, changing licensing terms will make it even harder to monitor and take action against non-compliant drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. The vast majority of drivers are excellent, and—pardon the pun—will go the extra mile for their passengers, but we know that things sometimes go wrong. If we need more reminders of that, we can do no better than to remember the story from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West about the 16-year-old in her constituency. If the Government introduce the proposed requirements, how will they ensure that they are effectively policed and monitored?
The Government propose to implement an extremely contentious policy to enable some subcontracting by PHV operators across different licensing districts. We have been told today by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) about some of the problems that may arise, particularly in respect of people with disabilities. When will the Minister accept that the drafting of the clause is completely inadequate if we are to make cross-border hire work effective?
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I did not cover properly. Does he share my concern that, far from increasing employment opportunities, as has been suggested, the contracting-out clause, which is the most damaging, is likely to dilute and drive down earnings if drivers are subcontracted in from neighbouring areas at a lower rate? That would be bad for the taxi drivers as well.
Richard Burden
I am sure it would be bad for taxi and PHV drivers. The key point that the Minister must address is how the system will be policed. If we know that local authorities already have inadequate control and powers for effective policing, how can an extension of cross-border work be policed effectively?
In the light of strong and widely held concern about enforcement, the Law Commission’s July 2013 interim statement recommended that, if reforms are to be implemented, they must be underpinned by tougher powers for licensing officers, such as the ability to stop licensed vehicles, to impound PHVs and to issue fixed penalties. Those powers, if they are to work, would need to apply in respect of out-of-area vehicles to ensure that cross-border hire can be implemented safely, too. Why, therefore, have the Government not listened to the Law Commission? As the Government have said, it has had an extensive consultation process on a complex issue, including more than 3,000 written responses from across the trade, a four-month series of 84 meetings and an industry survey.
As Frances Patterson QC, the law commissioner responsible for the review, said:
“The legal framework governing the taxi and private hire trades is complex and inconsistent. The purpose of our review is to improve and simplify it, and ensure it is fit for purpose.”
Amen to that, but if Ministers are determined to plough ahead with reforms before the Law Commission has reported, was the review that they commissioned just a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money? After continuous delays, the Law Commission’s final report and draft Bill were finally expected—we were told—in April. We now know that they will come in May, after the local and European elections, it seems—presumably because the issue is so sensitive. Is that not clear proof that the Government’s proposals are far too controversial and complex for the paltry 10-day consultation that they had in this case?
The Government are making the point—and will no doubt argue again today—that the reforms are about cutting red tape. However, as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made clear, far from cutting red tape, they could increase it. They will increase uncertainty and the potential danger to passengers. The Government state that the reforms will reap benefits for the trade. In light of the concerns I have raised, I want to ask the Minister this: if he really feels that, does he have a shred of evidence to back it up?
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues today; sadly, the Government have not provided the House with such an opportunity so far. They have tried to rush the proposals through without adequate parliamentary or public scrutiny, as today’s debate has made abundantly clear.
Taxis and private hire vehicles are important parts of our transport system, but as we have heard, the legislation regulating them is complex and contentious. It requires close collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders if it is going to be reformed effectively. The Government’s attempts at deregulation have not only been woefully inadequate in doing that, but, as I said, they have undermined the process that they established with the Law Commission investigation. The result is a set of piecemeal proposals so poorly thought through that they threaten public safety and are set to increase bureaucracy and litigation for the trade.
I urge the Minister to reconsider these rushed reforms. If he will not do that today—and I hope he will—I assure hon. Members that when the Deregulation Bill reaches Report, Labour will move to delete new clauses 8, 9 and 10. To do otherwise would represent a complete disregard not only of the taxi and private hire vehicle sector, but—perhaps even more importantly—of the interests of the public, who rely on the sector as an important means of public transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Like everybody else, I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate on the proposed reforms to taxi and private hire vehicle regulation that we have been discussing. A number of contributions have stressed continuing themes: first, the lack of consultation; secondly, concerns over safety; and thirdly, concerns about the proposals being piecemeal.
I hope to address all those points in my speech, but let me start by saying that important issues were also raised about accessibility and, from the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who is no longer here, about guide dogs. Let me put on record right at the beginning that nothing in the measures impacts on accessibility in any way. If anything, there are real opportunities to improve accessibility. Let me make it absolutely clear that there are no plans to change any relevant legislation with regard to guide dogs. The Government are considering commencement options for section 165 of the Equality Act 2010 that will set out in greater detail the requirements of drivers when assisting wheelchair users. I also point out that a lot has been made of subcontracting and of potential restrictions. Of course, subcontracting would allow private hire vehicle operators who do not have wheelchair access vehicles to subcontract to private hire vehicle operators who do.
Grahame M. Morris
On that specific point—the assurances the Minister gave that nothing would be changed in relation to disabled access—one criticism I have received representations about is that the amendments, hastily drafted as they are, have not addressed case law where some of those things could have been looked at. It would obviously be more opportune to look at the issue in the round with the Law Commission report, but is it not a bad thing not to address previous case law, particularly in relation to discrimination against disabled people and access?
Stephen Hammond
As I have set out, we are looking at commencement orders that will set out some details and obligations more carefully.
There has been a huge amount of talk this afternoon about the trade, which many of us rely on heavily on for our everyday lives. The sector is also made up of thousands of small businesses; indeed, the single owner-driver is a typical feature of the industry. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, these businesspeople are experts who often go the extra mile. That was something I certainly agreed with him on, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I did not agree thereafter.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made the point that it has been clear for some time that the law covering this transport mode is both archaic and complex. In many ways, it has not kept up with a number of other pieces of transport law and more importantly, it has placed a number of unnecessary burdens on small businesses. That is why the Government asked the Law Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of the law. As has rightly been pointed out, it will present its report—it will not be presenting a Bill; it will be presenting a report in the next few weeks—and at that stage, as with all reviews and reports, the Government will review the whole of those detailed findings and recommendations.
We gave the Law Commission a simple instruction, which was that it should carry out a review with a clear objective to deregulate as far as possible, and after careful consideration, should the Government decide to take forward legislation arising from the review, we will do so in a way that removes burdens and ensures that safety is still paramount. The publication of the Law Commission’s report has been delayed by several months, so there was no chance to have a dedicated Bill in the final Session in order potentially to introduce some of the wider reforms that the Law Commission will shortly recommend.
Julie Hilling
I wonder what the point of the Law Commission report is if the clauses are put in the Deregulation Bill. What if they are contradictory and what happens to the rest of the Law Commission’s work? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to us what will happen with the Law Commission report if it comes up with some really positive suggestions.
Stephen Hammond
I expect the Law Commission to come up with a lot of positive suggestions and a lot of recommendations on removing some of the more archaic aspects of the existing legislation. I do not expect any of what is being proposed to contradict in any way that report. We have had to weigh up the case for finding a suitable opportunity to look at pragmatic changes in the immediacy rather than looking at the possibility of waiting until everything is reviewed. The Government have chosen to operate and act pragmatically, and to introduce limited measures at this point, because it is clear that the care we are taking to introduce the amendments will make life easier for small businesses and allow them to remove some restrictions that are completely unnecessary. That opportunity has been presented by the Deregulation Bill. It allows us to make immediate progress to assist both taxi and private hire businesses.
Mark Field
My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right. This issue is a frustration for us all. As I mentioned in my earlier intervention, I would like pedicabs to be brought within the scope of regulation and the Law Commission is quite keen that they be regulated. But clearly, once the Law Commission reports, it will take some time before a Bill gets on to the statute books. I say to all Opposition Members that it surely makes sense that elements of deregulation that apply to all small businesses, whether in the private hire vehicle industry or elsewhere, should become apparent sooner rather than later, given that it will probably be, I fear, the next Parliament before we can get the fruit of the Law Commission’s work into a Bill that, I hope, all of us will be able to support in Parliament going forward.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The measures that we are introducing via the Deregulation Bill will apply in England outside London and Wales. They represent the first part of a longer journey towards a deregulated trade. As I said, my hon. Friend is right. I remember in the last Parliament arguing in this very Chamber that pedicabs should be regulated and the member of the Government saying that they should not be. Perhaps there has been a change of view on regulation. I see this as the first part of a journey that my hon. Friend is right to say is likely to take longer than the lifetime of this Parliament, because of the necessary review of the Law Commission report. Let me just state this on the record. I do expect there to be more comprehensive reforms. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake extensive consultation, and it has done that. I referred earlier to the more than 3,000 responses that there have been already. It is worth stating on the record that each of the measures that we propose we have already discussed in detail with the Law Commission.
Richard Burden
If I am reading the Minister correctly, he is saying, “Why hang around if there are simple things you can do now?” In that case, may I put to him one of the proposed changes, which is removal of the requirement for annual licensing? We know—we heard this from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—that a number of drivers do not always do what they should do, which is to report criminal convictions, bans and so on. The Institute of Licensing has said that if we move away from annual licensing and the licence period is
“extended to 3 years…a great many unsuitable and potentially dangerous persons would remain licensed for longer.”
That surely is not something simple and uncontentious. It requires rather more scrutiny than the Government are giving us today.
Stephen Hammond
The whole issue about people who choose to put their licence at risk is about enforcement. I will come on to that direct point in a moment, but I want to set out exactly what these three measures are designed to do. We want to work with private hire operators to help businesses to flourish and grow; we want to make life easier for passengers; and we certainly want to ensure that safety is at the forefront of all that is being done. Private hire operators have said that the existing restriction on sub-contracting such that people can subcontract only to operators based in the same district is frustrating for many of them and artificial. It means that often they have to tell passengers that they cannot take their booking.
Allowing private hire operators to subcontract to operators licensed in a different district is a simple change. It will have a huge impact on the ability of operators to meet passenger needs and to grow their businesses, and it should help to make the passenger’s experience much more convenient. In short, it is a liberating measure. It will allow the private hire trade to operate in the way that it sees fit, not just in the way that the current legislation dictates.
There has been some talk about accountability. It is absolutely clear that there is no compromise to the liability in respect of passengers. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that the onus is on the original operator, who accepts the booking and subsequently passes it on, to retain liability for the satisfactory completion of that journey. It is also clear there is a duty on the operator who takes the booking to keep a full record and to report the full record of that journey.
The second measure proposed in the amendments to the Deregulation Bill will save the private hire trade many thousands of pounds. At the moment, private hire vehicles can only ever be driven by a licensed private hire driver. That creates a substantial burden for the trade, as in many cases people have to buy a second car for family members to drive. That is an unacceptable restriction, particularly in the current economic climate. It came about only because of an unexpected interpretation of the law in a legal judgment back in 1997. At a stroke, that meant that thousands of families had to buy a second car in order to remain within the law. That is a burden too far and one that is ideal for reform using the Deregulation Bill. Therefore, we propose to change the law so that any person with the appropriate driver’s licence and insurance can drive a private hire vehicle when it is off-duty—when it is not in use in connection with a hiring for the purpose of carrying a passenger and not immediately available to an operator to carry out a booking. In that way, private hire vehicle owners and their families stand to make substantial savings.
There is a precedent for the change that we are introducing The judgment was made in 1997. Parliament took account of that judgment when framing the much newer legislation governing private hire vehicles in London. The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows a person who does not hold a private hire driver’s licence to drive a licensed private hire vehicle while it is off duty.
Quite rightly, some concerns have been expressed about safety and the effective enforcement of the measure. That is why in the clause that introduces it, we introduce a reverse burden of proof. If a driver without a private hire vehicle driver’s licence is caught driving a private hire vehicle with a passenger, the clause puts the onus on that person to show that the vehicle was not being used as a hire vehicle at the time when it was being driven. That reverse burden of proof will make things substantially easier for enforcement officers and overcome a number of the concerns about enforcement that are being raised. Of course, in most cases, it will be abundantly clear in a matter of seconds that the passenger is in the vehicle as part of the general domestic use. It will also become apparent very quickly if the driver’s sole reason for being in the vehicle is to undertake private hire work. It seems absolutely reasonable to put the burden of proof on the driver to show that they are not driving for private hire purposes. That reverse burden of proof is significant and it enhances the enforcement powers. If people consider it carefully, they will see that that safeguard goes a long way towards meeting the concerns about safety and enforcement.
The third measure relates to taxi and private hire vehicle driver and operator licence durations. Again, there has been much talk about cost, but there are also savings. This measure will save about £9 million for the trade, as well as a great deal of administrative hassle. At present, the law allows local authorities to grant taxi and private hire vehicle driver’s licences for a maximum of three years. However, far too many authorities are opting for shorter periods. Therefore, three years will be the standard duration for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible standard to move to.
I appreciate that some concerns have been expressed about adverse safety implications from allowing drivers to have a licence for three years. The safety of the general public is of course paramount. The licensing system, though, should be proportionate. It should recognise that where there is a requirement, there is also a cost. It is a question of striking a balance. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck said, 99.9% of drivers are safe and responsible. The licensing of those drivers should be proportionate.
I hope that in the few minutes available to me I have been able to demonstrate that the Government have considered the measures carefully. They are pragmatic amendments to the Deregulation Bill. They will allow substantial scrutiny in Committee and will reduce the burdens on the taxi and private hire trade. They are effective and safe steps along the longer deregulatory journey.
Music in Prisons
(10 years, 6 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
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate on music in prisons. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who has responsibility for prisons, is unable to attend, but he did me the courtesy of speaking to me personally to apologise and I know that he has briefed the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on the issues that we are debating.
The Prisons Minister is well aware of the efficacy of the arts, and specifically music, as a means for the rehabilitation of prisoners. Research by the National Offender Management Service into the arts in prisons concluded that
“arts projects are effective at improving in-prison behaviour (such as compliance with rules and engagement with the regime) and individual psychological factors (such as depression and a sense of purpose).”
In 2008, a study by Cambridge university stated that
“it is clear that the Music in Prisons project contributes to the Prison Service’s aim to provide ‘safe, secure and decent regimes’”
and it concluded that music projects
“play a role in fulfilling the NOMS ‘Seven Pathways to Reducing Reoffending’.”
I could go on citing evidence on the matter, but I know that the Department and the Minister are well aware of it. As the Prisons Minister said to me in answer to a question in the House on 18 March:
“He is right that music can be a method of rehabilitation.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 637.]
I know, therefore, that the Prisons Minister accepts that that is the case.
Given that well established consensus, I was surprised earlier this year to start receiving letters from prisoners who knew of my interest in music, telling me that new rules on incentives and earned privileges meant that they would no longer be permitted to keep steel-strung guitars in their cells, and they were having to hand them in. One wrote to me
“have you ever visited a prison and seen first-hand the power that music has, in particular learning a musical instrument, to change prisoners’ attitudes and lives for the better?”
I have visited prisons in my former position as a Minister for skills and education, and I have seen the kind of power that such programmes can have on rehabilitating offenders. The prisoner went on to describe how the new restrictions were impacting on prisoners. That is just one of the many representations that I have received.
I raised the matter with the Prisons Minister at Justice questions, and his answer gave me some encouragement that he was prepared to look into it. I was slightly disappointed—I will not put it any more strongly than that at this point—when the follow-up letter that I received from him simply confirmed the policy and did not offer any rationale whatsoever for it. I applied for today’s debate to pick up the thread and find out what it is all about.
Most people who hear about the change in policy assume that some kind of security risk is at its source, but nowhere in his answer to me in the House or in his subsequent letter did the Minister make any such suggestion. It is true that a prisoner might do harm with a guitar or with guitar strings, but that is equally true of nylon guitar strings, the thicker of which—the bass strings—are wound with steel in any case, as the Minister acknowledged in his letter.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The issue is important, and I support the thrust of his argument. I should make a declaration in relation to the book that I published last year on prison reform, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we should encourage music in prisons to the greatest extent possible, it is a legitimate and proper part of the prison rehabilitation process that the Government—and, to be fair, the previous Government—have been engaged in to make music part of an incentive programme?
Kevin Brennan
I absolutely accept that proposition, but I will go on to show that I do not think that it applies in this case. I believe that this restriction, however it has happened—perhaps by accident—is without any rationale. I might add that I would offer to send a copy of the hon. Gentleman’s book to some prisoners, so that they could read it, but of course we are not allowed to do that any more.
I have not been able to discover any rhyme or reason for a blanket ban on steel-strung guitars. In fact, the NOMS incentives and earned privileges instruction, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman and which brought the policy into effect from last November, helpfully lists all the restrictions on items approved for prisoners on the standard and enhanced scheme and places a convenient “S” next to any item that is restricted for security reasons. Of course, there is no “S” placed next to the guitar string restriction, so the change is not to do with security.
Why should this really matter? What difference does it make whether prisoners are permitted nylon-strung or steel-strung guitars? I accept that it is not the most important issue in the world, or even in prison policy. For a guitarist, however, there is an obvious difference between nylon-strung and steel-strung guitars, which is not simply to do with the sound that they make or the style of music for which they are suited. Even more crucially, it is to do with the way in which the strings are attached to the body of the guitar, which is completely different in each case. As a result, existing guitars that prisoners have bought out of their prison wages for use in their cells can become redundant, and they have become so in many cases. Prisoners wrote to me to explain that, and I quote from one of those letters:
“There are a lot of devastated guys who are having to hand back electric guitars and steel strung acoustics. Many of them would have saved up over months or years, from their £14.47 per week prison wages, to buy their instruments.”
The vast majority of guitars in prisons are steel strung. The Prisons Minister said in his letter to me that the guitars donated by the Jail Guitar Doors initiative, which was founded by the musician Billy Bragg, are mainly used in organised settings outside the cell. That is correct, but to gain any benefit from a musical instrument, it is necessary to be able to practise. I would have thought that that was the very definition of a purposeful activity, which is what the Government want to incentivise.
Kevin Brennan
I will not, because it is a conversation between me and the Minister, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest. I would like to use the time that I have, but perhaps he can intervene on the Minister if there is time. The Minister rightly wants to incentivise such purposeful activity, and for that to happen, a prisoner has to have the same sort of guitar available in their cell as they are using in their lessons.
I assume that the Minister has seen the letter in today’s Guardian—I am sure that he is an avid reader of that newspaper—signed by an impressive array of musicians, starting with Billy Bragg. I am sure that we all agree that he has done tremendous work for many years, taking on the mantle of the great Johnny Cash in helping to spread the message of the rehabilitative and redemptive power of music in our prisons. The letter was also supported by guitar legends such as Johnny Marr, formerly of The Smiths—I understand that even the Prime Minister is a big fan—Richard Hawley, formerly of Pulp, and, in this year of the 60th anniversary of the Fender Stratocaster, Pink Floyd’s Dave Gilmour, who owns the Stratocaster with the serial number 0001.
Those musicians understand how music can transform lives. They also understand, as they make clear in their letter, that an ill-thought-through, unnecessary restriction of this kind can have a serious effect in our prisons. In their letter, they ask the Secretary of State to look urgently into the rise of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm in our prisons and to consider whether some of the new restrictions may be a contributory factor. That is not as far-fetched as it may sound to some people. Last year, researchers at the university of St Andrews found that playing a musical instrument, even at moderate levels, can benefit brain functioning. Ines Jentzsch from the university’s school of psychology and neuroscience said of the research:
“Our findings could have important implications as the processes involved are amongst the first to be affected by aging, as well as a number of mental illnesses such as depression.”
Earlier today, I spoke to the fiancée of a prisoner who told me that the prisoners who play guitar in the prison where her fiancé is serving a sentence have been devastated and depressed by the recent decision because, in effect, it meant that they had to hand in their guitars. I want to be charitable to the Minister, and to the absent Prisons Minister, because I get the sense that they probably did not intend this outcome, not least because when I first raised the issue in the House the Prisons Minister told me that he was unaware of the detail of this restriction.
Many other parts of the new restrictions are controversial, including the restrictions on books—to which I alluded earlier—and clothing. I am sure that Ministers will have to look at them again. Nevertheless, this debate is about music, so I urge Ministers to look again at this decision with a view to reinstating prisoners’ permission to have steel-strung guitars in their cells. We have already established that the relevant NOMS document does not name security as a concern, and noise or nuisance cannot be the issue because steel and nylon-strung acoustic guitars make similar levels of noise. If electric guitars are the concern, rather than banning them completely, restrictions could be placed on amplification, not least as it is perfectly possible to insist that such guitars are played through headphones—they can effectively be silent and not disturb anyone. That would be a sensible restriction.
One prisoner who wrote to me said:
“I am not sure why this change in national policy has occurred but, as one prison officer put it, the prisoners who are learning a musical instrument are generally the most well behaved”.
I understand that the Minister, who is deputising for the Prisons Minister, might not be in the position to reverse the policy here and now, but will he report back to the Prisons Minister on this afternoon’s discussion? Will he also ask whether the Prisons Minister will agree—I have reason to think that he will not—to meet me and the musician Billy Bragg, if we can synchronise diaries, to explore the issue further and discuss the possibility of changing the decision?
The Prisons Minister is a reasonable man and I think he has understood that neither I, the prisoners themselves, Billy Bragg nor the other musicians who have supported the campaign are arguing that, when they commit a crime that leads to their imprisonment, prisoners should not lose many of the rights that they would have on the outside. However, we are all arguing that a significant public investment is made in our prisons, and most of the prisoners in them will eventually be released into the community, where they will live among us.
Music is a proven aid to rehabilitation, and restricting access to it will, in the end, cause more problems than can be justified by the as yet unknown reason for such an unnecessary and counter-productive restriction. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. As an optimist I have every confidence that good sense will eventually prevail and that prisoners will once again be able to play their guitars and prepare for a new beginning when they get out of jail, perhaps by playing and singing the old Bob Dylan song with which I am sure you, Mr Chope, are familiar:
“Any day now, any day now
I shall be released”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Chope. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing this debate on such an important subject. It is abundantly clear from what he has said that he has great expertise and knowledge on the subject. I assure him that I will ensure that what he has said today will be conveyed to my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister. Also, I am more than happy to facilitate a meeting for him, to the extent that he feels one is necessary after I have said my piece.
This is an important debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important role that music plays in our prisons and set out the position regarding prisoner access to musical instruments. Let me be clear: facilitating access to musical instruments for prisoners is an important part of their rehabilitation. Whether individual prisoners learn to play musical instruments or music is played in a shared environment, such as a prison chaplaincy, music can provide focus, encourage positive social interaction and provide constructive activity.
In chaplaincy, we see activities involving and using music in a range of ways. As well as music being used as part of some of the main acts of worship, a number of chaplaincies have choirs or chapel bands, which allow prisoners to be part of a creative shared experience. They can also help prisoners to develop listening and communication skills and engage with others in a positive way.
In education, there is significant provision for learning about music. The offender learning and skills service, which has been commissioned jointly by the National Offender Management Service and the Skills Funding Agency, works with offenders to identify their learning needs and advise on what learning and training opportunities are available in prisons. Vocational opportunities are available towards the end of a prisoner’s sentence, to ensure that any training undertaken is current and relevant to the local job market on release.
The offender learning and skills service—OLASS—also funds personal and social development, which may include recreational learning, such as music activity. Personal and social development is particularly helpful when engaging with resistant learners who might not participate in more formal learning. In the 2011-12 academic year, there were 580 enrolments on OLASS courses that included music as part of the course title. A range of courses are available, including the awards for music practitioners, in music theory and in sound engineering and music technology.
Aside from learning, prisoners are also able to listen to music in their cells by listening to CDs in their possession or to the radio. As well as the availability of national radio, prison radio is now installed in 102 prisons.
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. I have appeared on prison radio and experienced its quality in Brixton prison, which is one of the hubs for prison radio, so I would like to say first of all that it is doing a fantastic job and should be supported by the Ministry of Justice. Secondly, I can assure the House that although my book, quite rightly, cannot be posted at random to a prisoner by any person, however esteemed, it is available in prisons via the usual channels and is being read.
Mr Vara
I am sure that those prisoners who are regular and avid readers of Hansard will take note of that plug for my hon. Friend’s book, which is easily available in the relevant prison libraries. I note what he said about the prison radio service, which is available in many prisons. The Prison Radio Association delivers national prison radio, and prison radio tutors work with prisoners to develop new and innovative content. As well as output that is focused on reducing reoffending and encouraging engagement with education, training and opportunities in prison, music is broadcast. Many individual prison governors also engage with local community and voluntary sector organisations, which facilitate music-based activities.
There is plenty of music to be heard in our prisons. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is particularly concerned about changes that we have made to the incentives and earned privileges policy framework and what those changes might mean for prisoners who want to play guitars. It important that I explain the intention behind the changes and what they mean in practice.
The policy on incentives and earned privileges underwent a thorough and detailed review, the first such review for more than 10 years, to ensure that the revised framework would properly address reoffending and that the public could have confidence in it. The review of the policy included extensive consultation with prison operational staff.
Since the changes came into effect on 1 November 2013, the absence of bad behaviour has no longer been enough to earn privileges; now prisoners must also work towards their own rehabilitation and help others. The focus on rehabilitation resulted in numerous other changes to the framework. For example, prisoners can no longer sit in their cells watching television when they should be out working or in education, and they can no longer spend much of their days in the gym.
An important part of our changes was ensuring that prisons operate to a consistent standard in allowing privileges to prisoners who have earned them. That is why we introduced the standardised facilities list, which identifies and limits the items of property that prisoners can retain in their cells, subject to their IEP level. The list is available for each governor to select from as they consider suitable to the specific population, physical fabric and regime of the prison.
The changes have not prevented prisoners from playing musical instruments. The greater the commitment a prisoner shows to the requirements of the IEP framework, the more money they can earn from working, the more they are allowed to spend and the greater the range of property they are allowed to have. Prisoners who work hard, engage and achieve standard and enhanced levels can purchase a musical instrument to keep in their possession at the governor’s discretion. Prisoners who do not engage are not permitted to possess a musical instrument. The standardised facilities list sets out a number of different instruments that prisoners can purchase: for example, a flute, a harmonica or an acoustic guitar.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West is particularly concerned about the position in respect of prisoner access to guitars and the type of strings permitted. Prisoners on the standard and enhanced levels of the IEP framework can be allowed an acoustic guitar with nylon strings. For the bass notes, that can include nylon strings with metal coiled around the outside. Guitar strings can be issued on a one-for-one basis, subject to risk assessments. Full metal guitar strings are not permitted. As I have mentioned, the revised policy was subject to a significant amount of consultation with the operational line and other interested parties. The consultation extended to the contents of the standardised list itself. In the light of security concerns, a decision was made not to allow full metal strings.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful for that information. As far as I am aware, that is the first time that Ministers have mentioned any security concerns. If that is the case—incidentally, I hope to persuade the Minister that there need not be with regard to nylon strings—why is that not indicated in the National Offender Management Service list of items and restrictions, and why is there no security “S” flag on the document?
Mr Vara
I am not saying that there is no security risk with nylon strings, because I think it is acknowledged that there is. It is just felt that there is a greater risk with metal strings. As for the specifics that the hon. Gentleman requires, I am mindful of the time limit on this debate and keen to put as much on record as I can, but I am happy to return to the issue later.
Kevin Brennan
Before the Minister moves on, there are six minutes left and this is the heart of the matter. The NOMS document does not say that there is a security concern. I would be grateful if, following this debate, he would send me the details of the concern and of how it was raised during the consultation, and perhaps indicate why it is not signalled in the NOMS document. However, I am grateful for his earlier offer of a meeting with the Minister to discuss it further.
Mr Vara
I am certainly happy to follow up on this debate by supplying the information that the hon. Gentleman has requested and providing the explanations that he has sought.
I am keen to get everything on the record in the limited time that I have. The hon. Gentleman referred to electric guitars, particularly with reference to a letter that he had received. The standardised list does not allow prisoners to have electric guitars in their possession. It was certainly not the case before the standardised facilities list came into effect that prisons routinely allowed prisoners to have electric guitars in their possession; it has always been more usual for prisoners to have access to electric guitars in a supervised setting. I know that charities such as Jail Guitar Doors have donated numerous electric guitars to prisons over the past few years. Those guitars are most often kept in educational or chaplaincy departments for prisoners to use in a supervised environment, rather than kept by individual prisoners. It is important to be clear that none of the changes involved in IEP should have affected the use of electric guitars and other musical instruments in a supervised setting. The changes to IEP involve the property that prisoners can possess in their cells.
Inevitably, when deciding what items prisoners can possess, there will be a variety of views on whether particular items should be allowed. We are clear, however, that the items that we have included on the standardised facilities list provide a suitable range from which governors can select so that prisoners can be rewarded consistently and appropriately for engaging with the requirements of the IEP policy framework and that, with appropriate access to musical instruments, the quality of their lives can be improved and their chances of successful rehabilitation enhanced.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing this debate, and I reiterate the assurance that I made at the outset that I will facilitate the meeting he requested with the Prisons Minister and follow up with the outstanding information mentioned in this debate.
Syrian Refugees (Support and Aid)
(10 years, 6 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
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The River Euphrates on the Syria-Turkey border should be a place of peace, calm and holiness. Instead, at the Nizip Syrian refugee camp, which lies on its banks, the consequences of the Syrian civil war are all around. On a visit there in January this year, I, along with other colleagues present, saw 17,000 men, women and particularly children existing in giant compounds, waiting for the conflict to end so that they could go home. The refugees in Nizip, helped as they are by British overseas aid, multiple charities, some other countries and a supportive host country in Turkey, are the lucky ones. The colleagues who went there with me spent four days in the camps, and we saw at first hand and had a good chance to assess what life was like in a refugee camp, and we saw a good camp.
I want to address the state that Syria is in, the progression of the conflict and its impact on the Syrian people and their neighbours, the nature of our aid operation outside Syria itself, which is frankly very good, the limited aid in Syria and the problems that it is causing and what we can do both in Britain and as part of the United Nations to exercise greater influence and impact on what is going on. However, we must accept the harsh reality that it is everyday Syrians—the men and women in the street inside Syria—who are fundamentally affected by the conflict and who are not receiving the aid that they need to survive. Only this week, BBC journalists on the ground in Aleppo reported:
“A trickle of aid makes its way across the border but Syrians feel shunned by what they see as the indifference of the outside world. They are defenceless in the face of incessant attacks, caught between two sides determined to fight to the bitter end and with little hope of either respite or relief.”
The reality is that the Syrian conflict is a problem that will not go away, either for Britain or for the United Nations. For my part, I believe and will make the case that the United Nations must do more. Put simply, it needs to add some bite to its bark. Syria forces us to examine our consciences and ask ourselves searching questions, such as: what is the role of the UK Government and the United Nations in confronting the conflict, how do we physically save the lives of refugees who are affected by that conflict, how do we convince our voters of the wisdom—I believe it is wisdom—of spending UK taxpayers’ money on humanitarian aid and how do we ensure that that aid gets to the recipient who needs it in Syria? Put simply, what more can we do?
We have thus far chosen diplomacy as our major approach to this matter. The crisis that began in March 2011, with protests against the Assad Government, has long since escalated to a civil war between Government forces and an array of rebel militias. Having decided not to intervene in the conflict, Britain and the UN have chosen to pursue diplomacy to resolve it, but this has failed to prevent the killing and, with the war now in its fourth year, this conflict is fragmenting into ever more complex disputes. At the same time, the death toll, as we all know, has exceeded approximately 150,000 people and the number of displaced persons is a huge 2.6 million people and rising fast. Inaction is not an option.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank the Government for all they are doing to support the Syrian people. Does not my hon. Friend agree that there are two problems? There are now actually more than 3 million displaced people—1 million in Lebanon, 1 million in Jordan and 1 million in Turkey—and 7 million internally displaced people. Does he agree that it is a priority to get the international community, particularly the UN, to ensure that there is support for Security Council resolution 2139, which says that aid must get to the Syrian people who are currently displaced internally and with no support?
Guy Opperman
I totally agree. It is significant, is it not, that as we began the fourth year of this conflict, the United Nations finally took significant action on 27 February and passed resolution 2139, which deals with the humanitarian crisis inside Syria. Adopted unanimously, it calls for an immediate end of all violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights; it demands that all parties fully implement the provisions of the Security Council and asks them immediately to lift the sieges of populated areas and to provide unhindered cross-border and cross- line access for UN humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, stressing the need to end impunity for violations. I will talk about that in more detail.
The UN has helpfully conducted a 30-day review of resolution 2139, which means that every month it is reviewing how aid is progressing from outside into Syria and the impact that the resolution is having. I urge all parties that are interested to study those reviews— I have copies here—and note that, in reality, aid is not getting through to any great degree or in any meaningful assessment. Therefore we have to ask ourselves what more we are prepared to do.
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend is missing one part of resolution 2139, on the cessation of barrel bombs. Barrel bombs are highly destructive and are exacerbating an already bad humanitarian crisis. It is important that we give more teeth to the resolution, to stop the Assad regime dropping barrel bombs on its own people.
Guy Opperman
The one action that we have taken is to attempt to stop the chemical weapons. Three shipments of chemical weapons have been destroyed already. Russia says that Syria should complete the transfer of its weapons stocks and they should be totally destroyed by 30 June. The problem is that, chemical weapons having been taken out of the game, almost—we are getting there—the preferred weapon of choice is the barrel bomb. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. The barrel bomb is wreaking havoc within Syria and is making life extraordinarily difficult, not just for Syrians, internally, but in respect of how we get humanitarian aid to those people. With barrel bombs being used regularly, it is exceptionally difficult.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Is not the central point that the way to solve the humanitarian crisis is to bring the conflict to an end? The way to bring the conflict to an end is to force Assad to the negotiating table and we will not do that while he thinks he is winning the military conflict. Surely, the answer is to ensure that the Free Syrian Army is properly armed and equipped and able to prosecute this conflict more effectively and to force Assad to the negotiating table, so that the conflict can be brought to a conclusion and the humanitarian crisis can be solved.
Guy Opperman
I totally respect the point that is made. All hon. Members in this Chamber and in the House, and everyone everywhere, would like a resolution to the civil war. I am concerned that, even if all those points were made, this is not a war that is going to end within six months or, in all probability, in 12 months. Even with all the actions that the hon. Gentleman legitimately and fairly mentions, that humanitarian crisis is worsening by the day, week and month. The expectation is that at least 1 million more refugees will attempt to leave Syria by the present process that we are engaged in, even as it goes ahead.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I was with him in Syria. I take his important point, which is that we should look at the aid being given within Syria, but there is a third category of those who are out of Syria but outside the camps. In Turkey, there are 600,000 refugees, but only 250,000 are in camps. UNICEF made the point that those outside the camps are not being educated, so in some ways they have many of the problems of those within Syria.
Guy Opperman
I endorse my hon. Friend’s point. We were lucky enough to go to the Nizip 2 camp, which is the gold standard of modern refugee camps, supported as it is by this country and others and by a multitude of aid organisations and charities. It is good at this point to say that we should make it clear that the work of the likes of Oxfam, Amnesty International and all the various charities involved is massively to be applauded. I am sure that the Minister will go on about the £600 million that this country is spending and I endorse and support that. That spending is popular in my constituency. Whether it is expressed by the churches in my constituency or at the pub quiz that I went to on Easter Sunday at the Feathers Inn in Hedley on the Hill, where they raised money for the Syrian refugees, there is a strong view that we are doing the right thing by supporting people in this way.
We saw in Nizip a strongly supported camp. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) mentioned education. I went round the classrooms there, as several of us did, and saw how those involved were trying to provide education. I met Suleiman, a former engineer in Homs, who is now a teacher of year 6 and 7 children in the camp. He spoke movingly of the family members he had lost and of his desire, one day, to return, and about the difficulties of trying to provide education in a container or a tented camp on the Syrian border.
Aid is being provided outside Syria and I think that no one would dispute that this country is doing everything it possibly can in terms of the financial contribution and diplomatic and other efforts being made to ensure that the refugees, whether in Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan, are getting as much support as they can. We should make it clear that those three countries in particular have gone above and beyond the expectations of many and are to be supported and validated. It is noted that they have done a great deal to support the Syrian people.
I am particularly concerned about the situation inside—
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this rather important debate. He rightly mentions the support in all our constituencies for the humanitarian assistance going to those outside Syria but of Syrian origin, and rightly mentions the lack of support inside Syria. I am sure that he welcomes the open letter today from humanitarian law experts, saying that there is no legal blockage to UN cross-border operations in Syria on a humanitarian basis. Would he support calls to the UK Government to back such operations?
Guy Opperman
I certainly want the UK Government to do more. I have not seen that specific letter, but I take what the hon. Gentleman says. I would like the UK Government to do considerably more to enforce the resolutions and the law that operates to allow international aid through. I have received briefings from a number of organisations, including UNICEF, Oxfam, Amnesty International, Christian Aid and many more. Amnesty, for example, makes the case that the Security Council must ensure that resolution 2139 is effectively implemented by both the Syrian authorities and the armed opposition groups and that non-compliance should result in further measures being taken. Amnesty cites the application of sanctions and full arms embargoes against any groups suspected of human rights abuses. One has to question whether more should be done, and I will try to address that question in a second.
There are strong obstacles, and I accept and endorse that, in the statement by the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary on 14 March 2014, the UK Government made it clear that they condemn those who are stopping such aid getting through. But the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of the parties on the ground, primarily Assad but also some extremist and opposition groups, are preventing that aid getting through, and we need to consider the further steps that the Security Council promised if non-compliance persisted after 30 days. Those 30 days have been and gone on two occasions. The last report was barely a couple of days ago. Although there have been small successes—I cite the 9 April 2014 delivery of aid to a besieged neighbourhood in eastern Aleppo and other small examples of ongoing aid that is getting into Syria—the vast majority of aid is not getting through. The consequences are significant. Frankly, the parties that are still in Syria believe there is no prospect of survival and are therefore looking to leave. The reality is that there is effectively ethnic cleansing because people are being forced out by another means. To a certain degree, there is no need to kill those people. If those people’s lives can be made so unbearable that they are forced to leave, Assad and others will think that they are going to win.
Mr Newmark
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Ali Gunn, who travelled with us to Nizip and sadly died a couple of months ago? My hon. Friend and I have discussed using the Nizip refugee camp as an example of best practice. Surely one of the things the UK can do is to ensure that the best practice we saw in Nizip is shared with other refugee camps, particularly in Jordan, which seems to be fairly chaotic at the moment.
Guy Opperman
I endorse both of my hon. Friend’s points. We need a detailed understanding of what the UK Government are going to do. First, what representations will they make to the United Nations so that it considers resolution 2139? For the first time—some could argue this has taken too long, but we are where we are—we have a common United Nations resolution agreed by all parties that provides a framework for getting things done inside Syria, but that resolution is not working. That may not surprise any of us who have watched, observed and visited the Syrian conflict. The question is what more we are prepared to do. It is a question not of picking a side and fighting for that side but of specifically trying to understand how aid will get into Syria.
There is a degree of pressure on individual aid agencies and charities working on the ground in Syria because, to be blunt, most of their work is limited to the Damascus area because the situation is exceptionally difficult and complicated, but they have to ask themselves whether they are doing what they need to do to ensure that their work happens.
Secondly, the British Government and the United Nations have to look specifically at how they will enforce resolution 2139. I would like to see efforts made to ensure that the United Nations, which has considerable clout even in these difficult days, does what it said it would do, because what is the point of such resolutions if we do not try to enforce them? I hope the Minister will address that point and take the message from this House that Members are keen that more is done to ensure that humanitarian aid gets through to Syria. We must recognise that we have to do all we can to support the Syrian people, because few can imagine their plight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing this important debate. As the Syrian conflict enters its fourth year, I genuinely welcome his efforts to bring the plight of Syrian refugees to the House’s attention. I will give a broad description of what we are doing, but I hear loudly and clearly his message on what he feels is impotence in the face of a security resolution that is not being fulfilled on the ground. I will address that point.
We continue to be very concerned about the Syrian refugee situation and the impact that the crisis is having on neighbouring countries. There are more than 2.7 million Syrian refugees in the region. Neighbouring countries have been extremely generous in hosting Syrian refugees, and we urge them to continue showing that generosity by welcoming those seeking safety from violence and by keeping their borders open. Stretched services such as water and health care, however, are under increasing strain. Rents, food prices and unemployment are on the rise. Access to education and protection for refugee children, particularly girls, are major concerns.
As many here today will be aware, the UK has been at the forefront of the humanitarian response in Syria, and I thank my hon. Friend for praising the Government’s actions. The UK’s total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million—three times the size of its response to any other humanitarian crisis. Of that total, our support for Syrian refugees and host communities in the region amounts to £292 million. That money is reaching hundreds of thousands of people across Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt and provides food to 190,000 people, safe drinking water and sanitation services to more than 213,000 people and more than 71,000 medical consultations. The money is also delivering a range of shelter and essential relief items to Syrians displaced by violence.
Food, water and medicine are not enough. More than 1.3 million children—my hon. Friend raised the plight of children—have crossed the border to escape the bloodshed. Some have seen their families split up, and some have seen their parents and friends killed. Away from their homes, many face neglect, exploitation and abuse. Even very young children are being sent out to work or beg, and girls as young as 13 have been sold into early marriage.
Guy Opperman
Does my hon. Friend also welcome the fact that this country has approved more than 3,500 asylum applications and that the vulnerable persons relocation programme started approximately a month ago? Will she make the case that we should not be encouraging our young men in particular, but also our women, to go to Syria to try to get involved in the struggle? We should be deprecating and stopping such involvement as much as possible because the situation is well looked after by both the UK Government and individual charitable organisations.
Lynne Featherstone
This country has an honourable history of receiving asylum seekers, and I am pleased that the first refugees under the new scheme arrived in March. Our young people are going to fight in Syria with what I hope are misguided good intentions. The Foreign Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have made it absolutely clear that such activity should not be embarked on, as it is dangerous beyond belief and can lead to no good for those individuals or their families.
A destroyed childhood is a destroyed life, and as the crisis rages on, an entire generation of children is being shaped by this relentlessly brutal war that has ripped away every bit of normality. That will have long-term, profound consequences for Syria, the region and further afield—we cannot afford to let those children become a generation lost to conflict. That is why, right from the start of the crisis, the UK Government have highlighted the plight of vulnerable children and focused on ensuring that they have the basics they need to survive.
In September last year, the Secretary of State for International Development helped launch the “No Lost Generation” initiative, which is designed to galvanise a global co-ordinated effort to provide Syrian children with the education, protection and psycho-social support they so desperately need. Slightly off topic, but not very far off topic, is our work in Sudan. The loss of 20 years of education to the children of Sudan has affected the recovery there. As can be seen from the problems that Sudan is experiencing, a lost generation is something that we cannot afford.
Earlier this month, the Secretary of State convened a high-level summit to underline the critical need for renewed financial and political commitment for the “No Lost Generation” initiative and announced a further £20 million of funding for it, bringing the total UK support to £50 million.
Anas Sarwar
The Minister is rightly outlining some of the humanitarian assistance, particularly for children, happening around the Syrian conflict. Will she break down specifically what support there is in Syria? What additional support can go into Syria within the legal framework?
Lynne Featherstone
I will come to that. It is important to recognise the impact the refugee crisis is having on the host communities, which is why we are working with partners to ensure that host community needs are incorporated into all programmes. If the host communities are not supported, only the refugees are getting support, which causes all sorts of knock-on problems. The UK also gives £12 million of funding to targeted programmes to meet the specific needs of host communities.
Conditions inside Syria continue to drive the refugee crisis as neighbouring countries’ capacity to support growing numbers of Syrian refugees is limited. We are working hard to ensure that more aid is delivered inside Syria. The UK has allocated £249 million to partners to provide assistance to all 14 governorates of Syria. That is delivering food for approximately 380,000 people and helping to supply drinking water to more than 1.4 million people.
Guy Opperman
I am sure the Minister does. No one disputes that the UK Government are allocating money, resources, food and all manner of things to individual organisations and on the ground, but the problem is that it is not getting there. The question that the UK Government have to ask themselves is about what they are specifically going to do, whether alone or as part of the United Nations. I assure the Minister that she has more than seven minutes left.
Lynne Featherstone
I thank my hon. Friend. I am keeping an eye on the time, because I want to address the specific points raised. Although aid is getting through, it is not enough. Access is extremely unpredictable. Thousands of people in desperate need wait each month for relief that does not arrive because humanitarian agencies are prevented from reaching them.
To address the point more directly, I should say that the UK lobbied strongly for the UN Security Council resolution on access, and it was unanimously agreed. It was the first time that the UN Security Council came together in support of a humanitarian resolution since the start of the conflict. It is vital that the Syrian regime and its backers respond immediately to those demands, which they clearly are not doing.
On the changes we have seen since that resolution was delivered, the report on the implementation makes it clear that the regime continues to obstruct humanitarian operations, in violation of the resolution. We are expecting a further update later today—the one that my hon. Friend said was leaked.
Lynne Featherstone
Indeed. I do not doubt my hon. Friend’s access to it; I am merely explaining that it was to have been released officially later today.
We need to maintain pressure on the regime and its allies. We need to maintain our dialogue with neighbouring countries, regional partners and the opposition. As the resolution makes clear, we fully intend to take further steps if the demands it sets out are ignored; I accept that they are being ignored. We will return to the UN Security Council to consider further measures. It is vital to the credibility of the Security Council that it acts when its will is so clearly undermined. I have heard loudly and clearly the message that my hon. Friend wants me to take back to my Secretary of State and to the Foreign Secretary about applying more pressure and going back to the UN Security Council to say, “This is urgent. These people are in desperate need. We cannot wait for things somehow to resolve.”
Obviously, things such as humanitarian corridors have been looked at, but they are simply not feasible at the moment. It therefore behoves us to press the UN Security Council to take further steps to put pressure on the Syrian authorities and on the opposition. The Syrian authorities could certainly be seen to be arbitrarily blocking access to refugees, particularly in opposition-surrounded areas.
Anas Sarwar
Would the Minister support UN cross-border humanitarian operations?
Lynne Featherstone
There is a legal discussion going on at the moment. The UK Government agree that providing partial humanitarian aid cross-border without explicit regime consent is not unlawful in circumstances in which the regime is arbitrarily denying consent for humanitarian access across borders over which it has no control and in the light of the fact that the regime is employing starvation as a method of warfare, which is against international law, against its own people. Such aid, however, must fulfil the requirements of humanity and impartiality.
On whether the UN should give cross-border aid, humanitarian agencies should deliver aid by the most effective route possible to get aid to those who need it. A decision on the UN going across borders without regime consent must be taken after consideration of not only the legal arguments, which we are having now, but the security risks and the risks of regime retaliation against humanitarian operations in other parts of the country where we are getting access to those who are in need. There could be reprisals and then more difficulties created, so worsening the situation.
We continue to urge the United Nations to do all that it can to ensure that aid reaches those who need it. It is indeed a hugely frustrating and dangerous situation, and a desperate one. Although there has been an important step forward, the UN report to the Security Council on 28 March made it clear that obstruction of humanitarian operations is going on in violation of the UN resolution. That is why, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, I will take the message back loud and clear that the UK Government need to consider what our next steps will be to press the United Nations on what further actions it might take. Baroness Amos will provide further details later today, although my hon. Friend already has the details of her proposals—I cannot comment on why his information is better than mine. I assure him, however, that the UK will do everything possible to provide humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees in the region and outside Syria. We call upon other nations to contribute their fair share in this humanitarian crisis.
I thank hon. Members for their interest and concern about such a desperate situation. The Department for International Development, working hand in hand with the Foreign Office, will continue to focus efforts on ensuring that humanitarian needs are being met, while working hard to find a political resolution to the Syria crisis—although seemingly not in the offing, that is ultimately the only way in which the region will find peace.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Senior Salaries Review Body (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
On 5 March 2014, I announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement—Official Report, column 47WS —the commencement of the triennial review of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The work of the SSRB, and the publication of its annual reports on senior salaries, provides transparency and allows for public scrutiny of senior pay. This review has concluded that the body remains fit for purpose, delivering functions which continue to be relevant and beneficial to the Government within an appropriate governance framework. However, the SSRB of the future must be strong, with sufficiently skilled and competent members to make robustly evidenced and sensibly judged advice to Government. As a result, a number of recommendations have been made to improve the governance and composition of the SSRB.
The triennial review has been carried out with the participation of a wide range of interested parties across Government. I am grateful to all those who contributed to this triennial review. The final report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 36th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
During March, three candidates withdrew from the presidential race. On 6 March, Qayyum Karzai, the President’s older brother, withdrew and threw his support behind Zalmai Rassoul. Similarly, Nader Naeem (who stepped down on 26 March) endorsed Rassoul’s campaign. However, Abdul Rahim Wardak chose not to endorse another candidate when he resigned from the race on 16 March.
First Vice-President, Marshal Mohammed Qasim Fahim Khan, died on 9 March. President Karzai declared three days of national mourning in response to his death. On 18 March, President Karzai appointed Mohammad Younis Qanuni as first Vice-President, to replace the late Marshal Fahim. Qanuni’s appointment was approved by Parliament, as required by the constitution, on 25 March.
In March the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) published its review into five of DFID Afghanistan’s bilateral programmes from the growth and livelihoods sectors. This included three projects in Helmand, two of which have now closed. DFID has welcomed the report and its recommendations as part of its post-2014 planning process. The Department is taking account of the issues raised by ICAI in its work to reduce poverty in Afghanistan over the long term.
On 20 March, insurgents attacked the Serena hotel in Kabul, targeting guests celebrating Nowruz (new year). Nine people were killed in the attack, including an Afghan journalist and his family. This killing and the murder of a dual-national Swedish/British journalist on 11 March, prompted the Afghan journalist community to enact a 15-day blackout on any reporting of insurgent messages, to extend over the election period.
On 20 March I announced the closure of the UK-led Helmand provincial reconstruction team (PRT). This is in line with President Karzai’s request that all PRTs across Afghanistan are to close by the end of 2014 in keeping with the process of transition to an Afghan lead. UK forces continued the redeployment of personnel and equipment in central Helmand, with the closure of forward operating base Price on 15 March. This leaves just Camp Bastion and observation post Sterga 2 with a UK presence in the region. Taskforce Helmand has begun the process of integration with HQ Regional Command (Southwest), and ceased to operate a separate HQ from 1 April.
I welcome the presidential and provincial elections that took place on 5 April. These will be covered in April’s parliamentary report.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website (www.gov. k/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports).
Migration Advisory Committee (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 6 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 27 March 2012 I announced in Parliament, through a written ministerial statement—Official Report, column 128WS—the commencement of the triennial review of the Migration Advisory Committee. I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The Migration Advisory Committee provides independent and evidence-based advice to Government on migration issues.
The review concludes that the functions performed by the Migration Advisory Committee are still required and that it should be retained as a non-departmental public body. The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the body in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes some recommendations in this respect; these will be implemented shortly.
The full report of the review of the Migration Advisory Committee can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the House Library.
Access for All (Funding)
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
Improving access to Great Britain’s railway stations is a key priority for this Government and so, despite the deficit, we have confirmed that the Access for All programme will continue. The existing programme will deliver an accessible, step-free route at more than 150 key stations by March 2015 and has already delivered smaller scale accessibility improvements at more than 1,100 stations through the small schemes fund.
I am therefore pleased to announce the stations which will benefit from the additional £100 million we have made available to extend the Access for All programme from 2015 until 2019. The selected stations will, subject to a feasible design being possible, receive an accessible route into the station and to and between each platform.
The stations due to benefit are:
Alfreton
Barry Town
Barnes
Battersea Park
Blackhorse Road
Blairhill
Cathays
Chatham
Cheltenham Spa
Elgin
Garforth
Godalming
Grays
Hamilton Central
Hebden Bridge
Hither Green
Kidsgrove
Leyland
Lichfield Trent Valley
Liverpool Central
Llanelli
Luton
Manningtree
Market Harborough
Northallerton
Peckham Rye
Penrith (North Lakes)
Petts Wood
Queen’s Park
Seven Sisters
Southend East
St Mary Cray
Streatham
Theale
Tottenham Hale
Trefforest
Virginia Water
Walton-on-Thames
Warwick
West Hampstead
Weston-super-Mare
Whitton
All work at the stations is due to be completed by the end of rail control period 5 in 2019. These measures will make a real difference to people’s lives, not only opening up access to leisure and employment for disabled rail passengers but making it easier for those with heavy luggage or children in buggies to use the network.
Contingencies Fund Advance
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I hereby give notice of the Department for Transports’ intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The Department requires an advance to meet an urgent cash requirement pending parliamentary approval of the main estimate 2014-15.
It was announced on 23 April that Network Rail borrowing directly from Government rather than issuing debt in its own name would provide better value for money for the taxpayer. The Department for Transport has included in total £6,500,000,000 in the main estimate 2014-15 for this change in borrowing arrangements—this amount includes £550,000,000 which will be taken as a Contingency Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for capital of £550,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in the main estimate 2014-15 for the Department for Transport. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £550,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid immediately following Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation Bill in July.
Ultra-low Emission Vehicles
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am pleased to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced today the key elements of a comprehensive package of measures to support ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) between 2015 and 2020. This follows the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2013 spending round that the Government will make £500 million available to support ULEVs in this period.
The outline package of measures confirms the UK Government’s strong commitment to making the UK a premier location for the design, manufacture and adoption of ULEVs. It aims to provide a long-term, stable and comprehensive policy framework backed by a significant funding commitment. The package gives certainty on grant support for consumer incentives, provides funding for vital infrastructure, recognises the importance of other vehicle sectors including buses, taxis and HGVs and provides guaranteed funding for ULEV-specific R and D. It also encourages innovative measures from cities to turn their areas into exemplars for ULEV take-up.
Key elements include:
At least £200 million for the continuation of the plug-in car grant, with the grant cap remaining at £5,000 per car until a review in 2017, or the first 50,000 vehicles, whichever is the sooner;
£100 million for ULEV-specific R and D;
£35 million for a new city scheme competition, to support flagship cities in introducing innovative local measures;
£20 million for ULEV taxis;
£30 million for low-emission buses;
£32 million for infrastructure including rapid chargers;
£31 million for other ULEV types including vans; and
£4 million for HGV gas refuelling infrastructure.
I can confirm that the Government are also seeking to adopt a flexible approach. Not all the £500 million funding is allocated here, and minimum allocations are given which could be extended to reflect market conditions. Many elements of the package, including the consumer incentives, are also subject to securing the necessary state aid approvals from Europe.
More information on the package can be found at, www.gov.uk/olev and further detail will be made available by autumn 2014.