Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Martin Vickers

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

3. What scrutiny of the official development assistance budget the National Audit Office has undertaken in the last 12 months.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

The NAO audits the financial statements of the Department for International Development annually, and it issued an unqualified opinion on the Department’s accounts for 2015-16. The NAO also produces a number of reports each year on different aspects of DFID’s expenditure. It last reported specifically on official development assistance in 2015. Its January 2015 report, “Managing the Official Development Assistance target”, looked at DFID’s management of its increased budget and at the target to spend 0.7% of the UK’s gross national income on overseas aid.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that our constituents in Lincolnshire have growing concerns about the aid budget. They will be reassured that the NAO is looking closely at it. Can he commit the NAO to looking much more robustly at many of the aid projects, which are of growing concern to our constituents?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the NAO will indeed look robustly at all aspects of DFID’s expenditure. For instance, its reports on the CDC and on St Helena both identified challenges for DFID in overseeing expenditure outside its core area of expertise. The Public Accounts Committee’s report on St Helena concluded:

“Thus far, the Department has unquestionably failed the residents of St Helena and the British taxpayer.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Martin Vickers

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

4. What assessment the NAO has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on its work.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The National Audit Office uses its resources to provide direct support to Parliament and stands ready to support parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. In my humble view, there should be more, not less, parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. The NAO is keeping in close touch with Departments as their preparations for exiting the EU develop. This will be a major task for Departments and is likely to include additional work for the NAO, not least the audit of the new Department for Exiting the European Union.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The NAO’s scrutiny will focus initially on the capacity and capability of Departments to deliver an effective and efficient exit process. The NAO will work with all Departments to assess the potential impact of exiting the European Union on their financial performance and position. The NAO is already the auditor of the new Department for Exiting the European Union and will work with it and the Treasury to ensure efficiency.

[Martin Vickers]

Following the rather over-pessimistic forecast that we heard about yesterday from the Office for Budget Responsibility, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be interesting to have another independent assessment from the NAO, which might show a more optimistic post-Brexit forecast?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The National Audit Office will not actually assess any economic effects of exiting the EU, but what it can do is ensure that the civil service carries out its task with due diligence and efficiency. I am confident that our civil service, which is one of the most efficient in the world, will do the job properly. The NAO is certainly one of the best auditors in the world, and we will make this process work efficiently and smoothly as best we can.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Edward Leigh and Martin Vickers

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like many Members who have already spoken, my contribution centres on rail services, in particular the recent decision by the Office of Rail and Road not to approve an application for direct services from Cleethorpes through to London King’s Cross.

To provide historical context, I happen to have an Eastern Region timetable for 1964, and Members should be aware that there were at that time two direct services from Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. But before Opposition Members get excited and say, “That was in the nationalised British Rail days,” I should also point out that actually in 1992 British Rail announced it was scrapping the direct services from Cleethorpes.

Since then, although the service has improved in the sense that it is more regular, it does involve a change. The Government have repeatedly pointed out that if we are to improve the local economy and extend growth, we will need greater transport connectivity. The Humber region has the largest port complex in the country and it is developing the offshore renewables sector. Calls for regular direct services are supported by business and industry, the chamber of commerce and the two local enterprise partnerships to which the local authorities belong.

Two years ago, GNER lodged an application with the regulator to operate four daily trains between Cleethorpes, Grimsby and King’s Cross via Scunthorpe and Doncaster. I recognise the need to regulate capacity on a network that is already overcrowded, but I question whether the rules and regulations that govern the regulator actually work in the best interests of passengers. Perhaps they work more to protect the market share of the train operating companies.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The direct line to London from Cleethorpes that my hon. Friend has mentioned, which was scrapped in 1992, ran through Market Rasen in my constituency. Since 1992, therefore, the good people of the town of Market Rasen and its catchment area of nearly 60 square miles have had no direct service to London at all. Is it not incumbent on the Government and the rail regulator to consider the interests not only of the big operators but of the local people? Can we have a delegation to the new Secretary of State to try to impress on him the need to serve rural lines?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention. He has stolen one of my lines: I was going to conclude by asking for a delegation to go to the new Secretary of State and to the rail Minister.

The rail regulator operates under criteria set down by the privatisation legislation, which state that the regulator must promote improvements in railway service performance, protect the interests of users of railway services, promote the use of the network for passengers and goods and promote competition for the benefit of rail users. The criteria go on to state:

“We would not expect to approve competing services that would be primarily abstractive of the incumbent’s revenue”.

In other words, it is there to protect the market share of the big franchise holders such as Virgin East Coast. I understand that the franchise holders pay an enormous fee to the Government for the privilege of operating the east coast main line or any other line, but I question whether the present criteria operate in the best interests of the passenger.

The regulator, in its decision letter, goes on to state:

“We have a long-standing policy of not approving new open access services that we consider are ‘primarily abstractive’”—.

that is to say, services that would abstract funding from the main operator. I repeat that this sounds far more like protecting the operators than providing better services for passengers. In the decision letter, the regulator refers specifically to the application to run services to Cleethorpes, stating:

“These financial impacts would have been reduced had the application focused on serving…just the Cleethorpes line”.

Because the application included additional services into Yorkshire, serving the Bradford and Halifax area, that would have impacted too greatly on other operators. The letter continues:

“On balancing our statutory duties, particularly those to promote improvements in railway service performance, protect user interests and promote competition against our duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s funds, we saw the abstraction as a significant adverse impact for this option.”

New rolling stock is coming into the network, thanks to the improvements and investment that the Government and the train operators are making in the coming years. That will release rolling stock that is currently in use elsewhere for use on secondary main line services. Services through Market Rasen and Lincoln going through to Grimsby and Cleethorpes suffer because they are not part of the electrified network, and there is only a limited number of diesel units available to serve those routes. However, some new bimodal units are becoming available that will be able to run the last few miles under diesel power. This is an ideal opportunity to extend services to places such as Cleethorpes.

Hints from the rail regulator suggest that it sees the difficulties in the present system and would like to accept more open access operations, but as I have said, the criteria are restricting it at the moment. The new rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), successfully campaigned for direct services to his Blackpool constituency, off the west coast main line, so he ought to be sympathetic to the requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), me and others in northern Lincolnshire for improved services.

When the Secretary of State for Transport introduced the privatisation legislation in 1992, he said:

“Our objective is to improve the quality of railway services by creating many new opportunities for private sector involvement. This will mean more competition, greater efficiency and a wider choice of services more closely tailored to what customers want.”

I think that that has been achieved in part. As I have said, the services into my area have been vastly improved compared with the British Rail days, but we have a long way to go. Customers are rightly demanding more and better services. I urge the Department for Transport to drop its opposition to new long-distance open access services on routes that are not currently served by direct services. We need not only better access to the London network but improved east-west connections, and I urge the Minister to pass my concerns on to the Secretary of State for Transport and tell him that it is time to put passengers ahead of the train operating companies.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Edward Leigh and Martin Vickers

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Those of us with long local government experience never expected any Government to deliver devolution to this extent. I welcome what the present Government are doing, and I know that it is welcomed in local government throughout the country. For many years Governments of both colours drew more and more powers to the centre, and it is extremely pleasing to see that being reversed.

I have been a supporter of elected mayors for many years. In my own authority, I tried to secure a petition with the required 5% support 12 or 13 years ago. The problem is that that percentage is very difficult to achieve if a small number of people are involved, and particularly difficult to achieve within the 12-month period that is specified in the current legislation.

Elected mayors are often very unpopular with sitting councillors, who see them as a threat to their cosy arrangements whereby the roundabout turns and either the Tories or Labour take over. I think that where that resistance still exists, we need to allow residents—the general public—to initiate a petition with the modest threshold of 1% that is proposed in new clause 30, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). I think that that would encourage local people to support an elected mayor, or at least to kick-start the journey towards securing one by initiating the referendum process when resistance is high in the local authority.

We may be seeing proof of the rule that if Back Benchers remain consistent, some Government at some time or other will eventually agree with them. Over the last 15 years or so we have seen both sides of the House run hot and cold on the issue of elected mayors, but those of us—such as my hon. Friend and me—who remain consistent can now put up the flags and welcome the fact that the Government are moving towards the idea of not just elected mayors, but elected mayors with even more power than we anticipated. I hope that the Government will at least give a clear indication that they will look favourably on our proposal to reduce the threshold and give power to local residents.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That is all very well, but in the case of a large rural county such as Lincolnshire, it would be quite wrong for the Government to say, “If you want devo-max, you must have a mayor.” It makes sense to have a mayor of London, Birmingham or Manchester, but it does not make sense to have a mayor of a large rural county.

[Martin Vickers]

I see the logic of that, but my hon. Friend will know that in greater Lincolnshire the authorities have already come together and put a proposal forward, although they have not gone for the full package. I hope they eventually will, just as I hope that eventually the combined authorities emerging from this process will evolve into a super-unitary authority headed by an elected mayor. My hon. Friend would make an admirable mayor of Lincolnshire—governor of Lincolnshire, even.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

High commissioner.

[Martin Vickers]

Yes, high commissioner for Lincolnshire.

When I was reading the amendments, I was struck by new clause 32(3)(c) which talks about

“all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life”.

I shall therefore conclude by praising the Government for withdrawing their proposal to devolve powers on Sunday trading to local authorities or elected mayors. It would have been a retrograde step that would have hit many hard-working families that run the corner shop, the newsagents and so on—just the sort of people the Government should be looking after. I welcome that and praise the Government—and praising the Government is a good point to conclude on.