Infrastructure

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I direct the hon. Lady to read the OBR report, which mentions a number of reasons, not least the eurozone crisis. She might like to read that report for herself.

I should respond to the points hon. Members have raised in the debate. Many accusations were made by Opposition Members. They said that, had they won the election, they would have miraculously invested more. The reality is that, had they won the election, they would have continued borrowing recklessly, which would have led to much higher interest rates. They would probably have led this country into the hands of the International Monetary Fund once again, which seems to be their speciality.

Let us look at Labour’s March 2010 Budget. It shows that the previous Government planned to cut capital spending by 6% compared with our latest plans. In fact, in nominal terms, they planned to cut capital spending by 22% between 2010 and 2014. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a good point, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) dismissed. Let me read to her the words of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). In July 2010, he said the previous Government would have halved the share of national income going into capital spending. That is the truth, and Labour Members want to deny it.

Meanwhile, this Government have overseen an increase in total investment in infrastructure from £29 billion a year, which was the level between 2005 and 2010, to £33 billion a year between 2010 and 2012. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor unveiled a further £5.5 billion of investment, including £1.5 billion for the strategic road network.

Hon. Members are aware that the vast majority of spending needs to come from the private sector. That is why we have taken measures to target and support investment—measures such as the UK guarantee scheme, which will provide up to £40 billion of support to critical infrastructure.

[John Healey]

In an answer last month on the guarantee scheme, the Financial Secretary told me:

“No project has been guaranteed under the UK Guarantee Scheme at this stage.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 981W.]

However, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor said:

“I can today confirm a £1 billion loan and a guarantee to extend the Northern line to Battersea power station and support a new development on a similar scale to the Olympic park.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 876.]

Does that not show the uncertainty and confusion at the heart of the Government’s infrastructure failures? Who is right: the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly made a point earlier about the action the Government have taken to implement the guarantee scheme. Of the £40 billion of guarantees available, about £10 billion have pre-qualified but are not yet issued, and there has been an offer of a £1 billion guarantee for the Northern line extension project to Battersea. That is substantial progress since Royal Assent to the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 in October 2012.

The Government are working tirelessly to encourage further investment, not just from overseas, but from pension funds. However, the debate should not focus solely on the amount of money we secure for projects. We should also focus on how to ensure the best possible return on those investments—a point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). That is why the Government are running a cost review to reduce infrastructure costs by a target 15%, and why we have reviewed and reformed PF1 and launched PF2. The Government are investing wisely, collaboratively and efficiently.

Some Labour Members would have us believe that our investment is resulting in no action. I found it strange to hear the criticism that our investment has resulted in no spades in the ground. As the Financial Secretary told us earlier, a number of projects are already up and running. For example, major flood risk infrastructure projects have been completed in Nottingham, Truro and Keswick, and four new major road projects and 16 local transport schemes are under construction.

This is a Government with a long-term strategy for infrastructure. Our national infrastructure plan—the first time a Government have set out such a plan—identifies 550 projects with a value of more than £310 billion. It has seen us publish an investment pipeline that gives certainty to investors, which is absolutely key; prioritise projects through the creation of a top 40 list; and utilise a dedicated Cabinet Committee to ensure infrastructure delivery. The Opposition motion alludes to Sir John Armitt’s review into long-term infrastructure. Given the important and valuable role he played in the Olympics, I am sure it will be an interesting read and I will look at his recommendations. I am also sure that his advice will be considered, balanced and politically neutral. I would be very surprised if it were influenced by the shadow Chancellor in any way.

We have recently appointed our own Olympic expert to the role of Commercial Secretary. Lord Deighton is overseeing a review of Whitehall’s ability to deliver infrastructure, to increase commercial expertise across Government. We are enhancing the mandate of Infrastructure UK, increasing its capability to make sure that projects are delivered. Those steps show that this is a Government committed to investing in infrastructure projects and a Government committed to delivering infrastructure projects.

Let me turn briefly to two points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). They talked about the importance of rail investment and alluded to making greater investment in regional aviation. They made powerful cases and that is something the Government will look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood asked whether I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further—I would be very pleased to do so.

In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. I am sure we all want to see improved infrastructure in our constituencies and in the UK as a whole. While the Opposition have no answers for the challenges our country faces, this Government are getting on with the job. I therefore urge Members to reject the Opposition’s motion and to back the Government’s amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I hope that he is also reassured by the commitment I have just given.

I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley and Golders Green and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for their input on this issue in Committee.

[John Healey]

I welcome that commitment. The Minister said that the information should be provided “to some scheme members”. May I urge him to take a maximalist approach and make sure that the maximum reasonable number of members get the most regular and at least annual information that will allow them to understand the scheme better and to plan for retirement and manage it better as well?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree. All scheme members, one way or the other, should receive annual information. That is the type of amendment we will table in the other place. However, there are different types of members of schemes, such as deferred members and active members. That needs to be taken into account when they receive that information.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I was expecting a lot more than that from the hon. Lady. I am proud that this Government have already cut the deficit her Government left behind by a quarter. That is a significant achievement. The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds West, said she was unable to commit to keeping the CPI change we have introduced to public sector pensions beyond the term of this Parliament. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, that would leave a black hole in the public finances of up to £250 billion in current GDP terms over the next 50 years. I look forward to hearing how the Opposition plan to fill that black hole.

[John Healey]

The Minister spoke warmly about his father and trade unions. Which trade unions support this Bill as it currently stands? Can he name even one?

[Sajid Javid]

Since we received the first interim report from Lord Hutton, we have been in negotiations with trade union representatives from almost all the major trade unions. I am pleased to say that most of them have taken a very constructive approach. As I said, trade unions that represent two thirds of trade union members have accepted the schemes we have put forward.

These reforms are not easy, but they are the right thing to do for the long term because they are in everybody’s interests. We must stop the cost of these pensions spiralling out of control. I shall now turn to some of the issues raised today.

Several Members, including the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), mentioned the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. The reality is that we are all living longer and enjoying healthier lives in retirement. The average 60-year-old is now expected to live 10 years longer than in the 1970s. Pension ages of 60 and 65 were set in times when people spent only a few years in retirement, but that is no longer the case. Some fortunate people spend more years drawing their pension than earning their salary. If everyone is living longer, it is only fair that people work a bit longer, too; otherwise we will be asking those in the private sector to work longer and pay more so that those in the public sector can retire earlier having paid less. We cannot ask those people to pay twice over—once for their own pensions and once for those of public servants.

Let me be clear, however: this Government are not forcing anybody to work for longer. As now, it will remain possible to retire earlier than the normal pension age and draw a reduced pension, subject to any minimum age rules that exist. Of course, any benefits from the current schemes can be assessed in full and reduced at the current pension age for those schemes.

Secondly, I must remind the House that the Government have honoured their commitment to protect the rights of those closest to retirement. The Chief Secretary has made it clear that people who were 10 years or less from their normal pension age on 1 April 2012 will see no change in their pension. The Bill delivers that in clause 16.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that there is no way I can tell him that. I cannot predict the future; he may be able to do so, but I am not. I can tell him that there have already been expressions of interest from more than 50 project sponsors and that the Government have entered into negotiations with a number of them, but no final decisions have yet been made. He will also know that, in the national infrastructure plan published last year, the Government identified numerous key projects worth more than £200 billion, so there could be a substantial number of projects.

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the point that he was good enough to respond to earlier. He said that there would be charges as part of the project costs and that, therefore, there would be no net cost for consultants to advise the Treasury’s Infrastructure UK team. Does that also apply to consultants who may be required to advise other Departments as part of this due diligence process? Will there be a net cost to those Departments for such advice?

[Sajid Javid]

Because of the charges that the Government will make for the guarantees, we anticipate that there will be no net cost. Of course, that cannot be absolutely guaranteed, because our current projected cost profile may change, but it is anticipated that the income will cover most of the costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I am more than happy to discuss this in further detail with him at a later stage.

[John Healey]

The Minister was boasting before the last interventions about near-record-low interest rates of 1.9%. What does he think about the judgment of that by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who was trusted and appointed by the Chancellor to be his party’s member of the LIBOR investigation committee? He said:

“The reason we have a low interest rate is because the economy is absolutely screwed.”

[Sajid Javid]

We have low interest rates because, for once, we have a Government who actually understand public finances. Less than an hour ago, the shadow Financial Secretary, in introducing his latest amendment, said that he was concerned about the use of taxpayers’ money—I had to have a little chuckle to myself, because what happened to that during 13 years of Labour government? Our national debt tripled. He also talked about clawbacks, and there is one clawback I would be interested to learn about. When the previous Government sold off our precious gold reserves, did they negotiate a clawback at that point? I do not think so.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Given the absence of Scottish and Welsh nationalists, may I ask the Minister whether decisions on projects in Scotland and Wales will be made in Scotland and Wales?

[Sajid Javid]

All decisions covered by the Bill will be made by the United Kingdom Government: by the UK Treasury, or by relevant Secretaries of State. However, when projects clearly relate to devolved regions, the Government will work very closely with the relevant Departments in those regions.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a thoughtful speech containing some very good points, but I must take issue with one of her closing comments. I believe she said that one of the problems with the Bill was that it placed restrictions on spending. It does place restrictions on spending, because this Government are very keen on restrictions on spending. The previous Government lost sight of that, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The purpose of the Bill is to establish a structure to provide guarantees for credit-worthy projects in the private sector. Of course the Government will work very closely, step by step, with the private-sector promoters of each of the projects, and if one of the companies feels that it has a viable project that the Government should consider, it will be encouraged to discuss it with the Treasury. A specific Treasury team called Infrastructure UK, which was set up a couple of years ago, is full of specialists who understand infrastructure and have a great deal of experience. It will be keen to look at every single project, and if the hon. Gentleman has one in mind he should please present it as soon as possible.

The two myths that I heard from the Opposition—

[John Healey]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is answering the questions that come up. Will Infrastructure UK look at every project and proposal for these borrowing guarantees?

[Sajid Javid]

It will consider every project that comes its way, but that does not mean it will agree to support every one. However, it is willing to look at every project and to come back with an answer on each.

Future of the NHS

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the growing concerns over the Government’s handling of the NHS and the effect its policies are having on hospitals and patient care; and calls on the Government to uphold the Coalition Agreement promise to stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS which have got in the way of patient care, to use the present pause in the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill to make fundamental changes, including dropping the damaging and unjustified market-based approach, and to concentrate efforts instead on achieving sound efficiencies, better clinical quality and improved integration of services.

We have called this debate after the Prime Minister was forced to order an unprecedented pause in his health legislation last month. He was forced to do so because of the growing criticism, confusion and crisis of confidence over the Government’s NHS reorganisation. It was unprecedented because he told his Health Secretary to stop what he was doing while 45 others on the NHS Future Forum work out what he should be doing. It looks as though the Prime Minister is listening to anybody and everybody on the NHS except the Health Secretary.

We have called this debate after the Deputy Prime Minister’s flagship policy was sunk in the AV referendum last week. He is now trying to find a replacement, and claims that changes to the Health and Social Care Bill are his new No. 1 priority. The Deputy Prime Minister and his party are up to their necks in the Tory NHS plans. He and the Prime Minister co-signed the foreword to the White Paper last summer, and he signed off the NHS legislation in Cabinet before Christmas. He and his Lib Dem MPs have backed the Bill at every stage in Parliament. In Committee, his Lib Dem Health Minister led the rejection of Labour’s amendments—the amendments that he now says he wants to make.

Now that the Lib Dems are making many of the arguments that Labour has been making since early autumn, people may ask what the Deputy Prime Minister has been doing for the past year, when he changed his mind and why. People may suspect that the deal he is stitching together has more to do with saving his party than safeguarding the NHS.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he still believes that the Government’s plans are “consistent, coherent and comprehensive”? If not, when did he change his mind?

[John Healey]

Indeed, they are comprehensive, consistent and coherent, and they are wrong.

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between John Healey and Sajid Javid

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right: this reorganisation and legislation leave no part of the NHS untouched. One big concern is that when GPs are making both rationing and referral decisions at the same time, patients will start to ask whether their GP is making a judgment about their treatment in their best interests or in the best interests of his or her budget and consortia business. That can hit at the trust at the heart of the patient-doctor relationship.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so generously. He has mentioned the Labour manifesto twice, and I just happen to have a copy of it. It says that Labour will support a

“role for the independent sector”,

encourage any willing provider, make all hospitals foundation trusts and give them the

“freedom to…increase their private services”.

On that basis, will he explain why he and the leader of the Labour party, who I believe to have been the author of that manifesto, are reneging on that position?

[John Healey]

We were doing what the manifesto said before the election. [Interruption.] We were doing it where the private sector and competition could add capacity to clear waiting lists, or do something new that the NHS was not doing. We did it in circumstances that were carefully planned, properly managed and always publicly accountable. If the hon. Gentleman is going to swallow the guff from those on his Front Bench that this is somehow an evolution of Labour’s policy, he will have to ask the Health Secretary why he needs legislation that is more than three times longer than the Act that set up the NHS in the first place.

Why do we say what we do in the motion before the House? In truth, this is a Tory reorganisation, and the legislation has been mis-sold. It is not just about getting GPs to lead commissioning or looking to cut layers of management; it is setting up the NHS as a full-scale market driven by the power of the competition regulator and the force of competition law. The reorganisation and legislation is designed to break up the NHS, open up all areas of the NHS to private health companies, remove requirements for proper openness, scrutiny and accountability to the public and to Parliament, and make the NHS subject to both UK and European competition law. The Tories are driving the free market political ideology through the heart of the NHS.