Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I rise to support amendments 14, 16 to 23, 15 and 24 to 28, which are in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Amendment 14, which is very straightforward, would ensure that a local transport authority could not make a franchise scheme if passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendments 16 to 23 are mainly drafting amendments, but it is important that a franchising authority should be satisfied, rather than that it should just have considered the issues in a franchising assessment. As we heard in the debates on clause 4, it is clear that franchising should not be an easy option. A local transport authority should not be allowed to take a simple punt at franchising without having given full and detailed consideration to all the other options available. There will of course be other options, not least the partnership arrangements that we have looked at, and to which we will surely return in the near future.

The Bill contains stringent tests, but I think it would be very easy for a local authority to say that it has considered whether a proposed franchise regime would contribute to its transport policies; whether it has the capability and resources to operate the scheme; or, just as importantly, whether it can afford the scheme and that it represents value for money for local taxpayers—in other words, our constituents. It is quite another thing, however, for the authority to say that it is satisfied that its proposals will do these things. Surely, given the importance of the step the local authority is proposing to take in implementing a franchise scheme, it is not too much to ask whether it is convinced that its proposals will do exactly what they intend. That is what my group of amendments sets out to achieve.

Amendment 15 simply complements amendment 14, although it looks at the issue from a slightly different angle. I will not say anything more about amendment 15, except that we cannot really have amendment 14 without amendment 15. Amendment 15 requires a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of a proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why those benefits can be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 24, probably the most important amendment in this group, is all about compensation. The key is to bring into play a degree of fairness. The Bill is silent on the matter of compensation and I think that is wrong. I know what the Minister will say in his response. He will probably say that he will go along with the Transport Committee when it said in its recent report that there is no case for compensating operators who lose their business. I am fully aware that compensation would not have been available under a quality contract scheme, but the days of quality contracts are severely numbered. The fact that there was no compensation under that scheme does not mean to say that it is not right to have compensation for the new arrangements. The loss of business would be bad enough for the large plcs, which would have to redeploy their staff and their assets, but what about the smaller operators?

[Graham Stringer]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain—so far, he has not done so—on what basis compensation would be given when every bus company is able to compete to run buses via a franchising process?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I am not an expert on this, but the small and medium-sized bus companies in my constituency tell me that they are very concerned indeed. They have established their businesses on the back of a lot of hard work, and they have taken a lot of risks. One company that came to see me said that its directors had re-mortgaged their homes and invested their life savings to ensure that the company grew. They stand to lose—not because they have not performed properly, not because they are a bad company, and not because the passengers have decided that they no longer want to use those services—if they do not win a bid to continue to do what they have been doing successfully for many years. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is a fair measure and I ask the Minister to consider it.

The wider point is this: what message does it send to businesses looking to invest in the UK? We want businesses to come to the UK to invest. We should be saying to them, “You’ve come to the UK to invest, and if local authorities take your business off you there will at least be some compensation.” This measure will, in the longer term, represent good value for the taxpayer, because it shows that taxpayers’ money will be put to a good use. If businesses are put out of business because of measures in the Bill, then surely there should be some recourse to compensation.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the importance of delivering value for money for the taxpayer. In the north-east, as in many parts of the country, there is not good value for the taxpayer. The Competition Commission has shown that a very limited number of bus operators have a monopoly over our services. The competition that was meant to follow deregulation has not materialised. This is not good value for the taxpayer. The Bill would allow smaller operators to break into a market on which the big boys currently have a stranglehold.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I can judge only on the basis of what is going on in my area, but I hope that the Minister will take into account what she said. I want more competition and more small operators. There are a lot of big operators around; I want to see the small ones flourishing. It is certainly the case in Norfolk that the small operators, companies such as Norfolk Green, were able to move in on routes and bring a new culture and new service ethic into place—it has done a fantastic job. I defer to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who knows a lot about this subject, but these operators have been able to get more customers on to routes and even to re-open routes that had previously been closed down.

[Andy Burnham]

The trouble with what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that it has not worked that way under the current regime; passenger numbers have gone down in Greater Manchester. My worry is that he seems to be speaking for the bus companies rather than for the travelling public—that is what it sounds like to me. Can he assure me that this is not a wrecking amendment? Is he hoping that the fear of paying compensation will persuade local authorities not even to try to use these powers because they cannot afford to pay that compensation? Is that what he is trying to do?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to wreck the Bill in any way or do anything that is untoward. I am simply trying to make sure that SMEs are treated fairly.

Let me move on quickly to amendment 25. It is a simple amendment that is designed to ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority has no commercial interest in or association with the franchising authority that might create or could be perceived to create—perception is very important as well—a conflict of interest. I very much hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. It is reasonably anodyne, but quite important. I urge him to look at it very carefully indeed.

Amendments 26 and 27 are quite small amendments, too, but they are important. If a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, should it be permitted to come back to that scheme the following year, the year after that or indeed within months? I suggest that it should not. These amendments to clause 4 would prevent the authority from coming back with fresh proposals within five years.

In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:

“I know how much business values certainty and stability”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 908.]

I think he was right. One thing that business dreads is uncertainty, which affects investment plans, recruitment decisions and the way that businesses, particularly SMEs, conduct their everyday activities. Bus operators are understandably and justifiably concerned that some of these measures could put their businesses under threat—in the worst-case scenario, with the franchise authority coming back to the franchise time and again within the five-year period. We want to create a situation in which there is a workable franchise scheme and the franchise authority cannot keep chipping away at it.

These amendments are not vital, they would also help local authorities. We know that the burdens on local authorities are growing the whole time. They are under massive pressure to deliver better services and better value for money, whether it be in respect of refuse collection, care for the elderly, street lighting, planning and so on, with ever-dwindling resources. The local authority might have a lot of pressure put on it by its elected members or other bodies to devote time and energy to bringing back a franchise exercise that was not progressed in the first place, which I think would be a mistake.

[Andy Burnham]

I would like clarification and reassurance from the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me as if the combined effect of these amendments is to open up some confusion, to create possibilities for bus operators to use legal challenge, and to delay and tie the hands of the combined authority in the case of Greater Manchester and in other combined authorities elsewhere. Can he be absolutely clear that that is not what he is trying to do? It sounds to me for all the world as if that is the real intent behind these amendments.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. I remember asking him questions in past times, when he was a Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, and we have engaged in debates in Committee. I assure him that I do not intend to do what he has suggested. I think that small and medium-sized enterprises and the smaller bus companies will support the amendments.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the very fact of having the opportunity to take franchising powers enables local authorities to put pressure on operators, not all of which are small and medium-sized companies—in fact, most of them are very large—in order to bring them into partnership arrangements? If a local authority does not have the potential to develop franchising schemes, many operators will not seriously enter into negotiations on either advanced quality or enhanced partnerships.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I was under the impression that authorities had those powers anyway, but the Minister will obviously have heard what the hon. Lady has said. It is up to the Minister to listen to what we have said, and then to make a decision.

I now want to say something about amendment 28. I will be brief, because I have already taken up a fair amount of the House’s time. The amendment would allow fares structures to be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme only if all the operators involved agreed. The key issue is the ability of commercial bus operators to set their own fares, which is an important feature of a deregulated market. Of course fares structures are set competitively. In the same way, a commercial enterprise looks at what its competitors are charging, and structures its own charges accordingly. The competition authorities have introduced important safeguards to ensure that bus companies do not collude to stitch up the market and set fares at levels that disadvantage passengers. There are checks and balances, and that is extremely important.

[Ian Mearns]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying seems to suggest that the powers of a local authority, or collection of local authorities, in the areas that he represents would be less than those currently enjoyed by the voters of London when it comes to oversight of the running of an integrated transport system. Why should electors in all the other parts of England have an inferior set of arrangements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a huge amount of respect—that I have listened to bus operators and passengers in my constituency. We now have more bus services in our remote communities and villages that we did, say, 20 years ago, when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was standing for election to a rural Norfolk seat—and he nearly won that seat in 1997; I think it was Mid Norfolk—because SMEs have stepped up to the plate.

I have taken enough of the House’s time. Let me simply say this to the Minister. I believe that the amendments go a modest way towards improving the Bill, without undermining or sabotaging parts of it. I think that they will help bus operators—especially the smaller ones—and passengers and local authorities by providing clarity.

[Mrs Ellman]

I want to talk about the new clauses and amendments relating to franchising, including amendments 14 to 23, 26 and 27.

The strength of the Bill lies in devolution, and its proposal that decisions on how to provide local bus services should be devolved to local transport authorities, which should consider what works best in their areas. It is important to remember that the Bill has come about because of dissatisfaction among members of the public—people who want to use buses—with the way in which the current system operates. There have been a number of attempts to change the Transport Act 1985, which deregulated transport services, but none of those attempts —which have been made under successive Governments—has resolved the problem. The Bill is important because it tries to address the difficulties that the public have experienced, and to create a thriving bus sector.

The Transport Committee examined the Bill in detail from the perspective of passengers. We welcomed the possibility of new and smaller entrants to the bus market, but what worries me about the new clauses and amendments is they may prevent the proposed devolution from taking place. There are two aspects of that. The first relates to combined authority areas with directly elected mayors having the power to proceed with franchising. There is a lack of clarity about the regulations that will be introduced, or imposed, to impede the ability of the mayors to do that. Will it be an absolute right, or will onerous, complex and perhaps unknown regulation be imposed? I hope that the Minister will clarify that issue, because it relates to a fundamental part of the Bill.

Secondly, the Bill proposes that transport authorities in areas that are not run by combined authorities with directly elected mayors may have powers to introduce franchising in certain circumstances. The amendments make that proposal extremely complex. It would be impossible to assess whether the transport authorities would be able to proceed with franchising if they wished to do so. The Transport Committee looked at good practice, and concluded that transport authorities should consider existing ways of operating in partnership with operators before moving to a franchising system, but we did not think that that should be part of the regulations. This proposal introduces new hurdles, but it is not fully specified what those hurdles are, or—this is equally important—how they would be assessed before the authority could adopt the franchising system. That, I believe, strikes at the heart of the Bill.

The Bill is intended to improve transport services in localities and devolve to local transport authorities the ability to act on the needs of their areas, but the hurdles introduced by the amendments might enable future Ministers to impede its objectives, and I am sure that present-day Ministers would not wish that to happen. I am extremely concerned about the amendments. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what they mean, and will make clear whether the Government intend franchising to go ahead, as they have stated, without introducing complex hurdles which would make the proposed system extremely difficult to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

We do not think that it will be a requirement to pay compensation, but an authority that goes down the route of developing a franchising model will of course be free to offer payments as it sees fit. It is not Government policy that such compensation will be mandatory.

Amendments 16 to 23, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk would require a franchising authority to be satisfied of, rather than to consider, certain matters when making its assessment of a proposed franchising scheme. That is a significant distinction. The assessment as set out in the Bill does not require the authority to pass certain tests or to prove that franchising would achieve certain outcomes. Instead, it reflects the standard approach for public sector investment decisions of requiring a view to be taken on the overall merits of the scheme.

That is a deliberate move away from the quality contract scheme process, under which no local transport authority has established a franchising system. A requirement for a franchising authority to satisfy itself that franchising will deliver certain outcomes risks raising an impossible hurdle. It would be difficult for authorities to satisfy themselves with certainty, as their analysis, by its very nature, will be based on assumptions and projections about the future. The amendments therefore risk making the Bill unworkable in practice. We agreed to deliver as part of our devolution commitments franchising powers that would be more usable than the existing quality contract schemes, and that is what the Bill does. I hope that, on the basis of the explanations I have given, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will not press amendments 16 to 24.

In addition to requiring a franchising authority to prepare an assessment, the Bill requires the authority to obtain a report from a qualified auditor. In relation to the consideration of affordability and value for money, the report must set out whether the authority has used information and conducted an analysis of sufficient quality. The authority must publish the auditor’s report as part of its consultation process. Amendments 2 and 3 make it absolutely clear that the auditor appointed for this purpose must be independent. It has always been our intention that the auditor should be independent, but we wanted to make that absolutely clear and put it beyond any doubt. Amendment 3 imposes duties on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the matters that a franchising authority is to take into account when selecting an auditor and on the criteria to be taken into account by an auditor in reaching a view on the relevant aspects of the authority’s assessment. An authority or auditor must have regard to such guidance.

I am happy to say that I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk on amendment 2. He may be surprised to hear that I also agree with the principle behind amendment 25, but the nuances of how independence from the authority can be demonstrated are better addressed through guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. That is the thinking behind amendment 3. For example, amendment 25 would require an auditor to have five years of independence from the authority, which could be difficult to deliver. For the combined authority of Manchester, for example, it would have to be demonstrated that none of the bigger accountancy firms had dealt with any of the constituent authorities on any issue over the past five years, which could be quite a challenge. However, the principle of independence has absolutely been in the Government’s thinking since the beginning. I support that principle, which is behind my hon. Friend’s amendment, and that is why I hope that he will feel able to withdraw amendment 25.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on amendment 25, but will it be possible to include the spirit of the amendment in the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue? If he can give an undertaking that that could happen, I would be prepared to withdraw amendment 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend is correct yet again. Interestingly, much of the discussion in Committee was about moving competition from on the road to off the road. I think we agree that in areas where there has not been competition, franchising would be far from a less competitive system. People in London talk about just how competitive the system is, so no Government Member should be worried about a lack of competition. My fear—this is why it is so important that we have protection for the workforce—is that if we are not careful, competition can bring the risk of a race to the bottom. That is why we believe that we should have the provisions that we have just debated. I think the evidence is clear that the franchising system would benefit from having municipals as an alternative.

The conclusion of the Opposition is that banning local authorities from running their own bus companies is slightly unworthy of the spirit behind the Bill. The evidence is clear that they work for bus passengers and are able to put social values at the heart of what they do. This measure has drawn the attention of the public more strongly than other parts of the Bill. It has rightly brought a strong reaction from local councils across the country. They do not understand why they should be prevented from doing something that they strongly believe is in the interests of their local constituents. Some trade unionists feel strongly about this measure, as do passengers, and I pay particular tribute to the organisation We Own It, which has campaigned strongly against it. We believe that this is a petty measure that sits uneasily with the rest of the Bill, and I urge the Government to look at it again and accept our amendment today.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I just wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments in the previous group. I was not quick enough on my feet to catch your eye at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been in this place long enough to know that one should quit when in front. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that my amendment 25 is going to be incorporated in the guidance and for the useful reassurances he has given me on amendments 15, 26, 27 and 28. I was disappointed on the issue of compensation, but, as he pointed out, there can indeed be scope for the authorities to compensate if need be. On that basis, I will not seek to press those amendments to a vote, although I say so a touch belatedly.

[Mrs Ellman]

I rise to support amendment 1, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). This is all about devolution and local transport authorities deciding what is best for their areas. No good reason has been put forward for not permitting new municipal operators as an option. The Government have expressed concern about possible conflicts of interest, but that cannot be taken seriously. We need look no further than the experience in Nottingham, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and in Reading to see that there is the perfect ability—this has already been done in those areas—for the proper distance to be established between the local authority as a local authority and the transport operator as an operator in terms of letting out franchises. The Bill is about giving more local choice, and it is entirely unjustifiable to remove from local authorities the option of having a municipal operator. The Department has found a way to put forward complex regulations on franchising and if it still has concerns about this topic, regulations could also be introduced on setting up municipal bus operations. I therefore urge the Government to think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

In fact, we are strengthening the law in this area. The Government tabled an amendment to the Bill that became the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to allow the issuing of statutory guidance to licensing authorities. That is obviously work in progress. This is a critical issue which is taken seriously by the Department and also by the Home Office, and action is clearly being taken.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to improve the road system in east England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

My hon. Friend is well aware of the investment that we have made in the A47, which affects his constituency and indeed mine, to some degree. I know that he has been a consistent and effective campaigner for improvements to the road, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to complete those improvements.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Given that nearly 30 years ago, back in 1988, the then Transport Secretary promised to dual the entire length of the A47, will the Minister give serious priority to the six schemes that are currently planned, and ensure that they start as soon as possible?

[Mr Hayes]

There is indeed a series of schemes for improvements along the road, particularly in the parts where it could be dualled, and, as my hon. Friend will know, Highways England is looking into the matter. However, I think that I should meet my hon. Friend on the road, with representatives of Highways England and my officials, to look at the specificity of this, because I owe him and the House that at least.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I must confess that I feel like a queue-jumper, because I added my name and the Government’s support to new clause 19 and amendment 15 only last night. I will be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) will want to expand on them and to explain why his case was so convincing and compelling. It is another example of how our new railway will be delivered not only on a cross-party basis in this House, but with the support of the great cities of the midlands and the north.

I welcome new clause 19 on vocational qualifications. I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that we utilise the opportunities that HS2 will create for skills and jobs, which is why we have invested in the National College for High Speed Rail. New clause 19 will further bolster the importance of delivering skills as part of the development of HS2. As such, the Government support it becoming part of the Bill.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he needs to get on. Does he agree that it is important that the National Construction College and the Construction Industry Training Board are closely involved in this skills initiative?

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.

Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.

Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled, with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.

New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.

In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2 a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It was disheartening to hear the Minister dismiss my amendments in this group before hearing what I had to say, although I am grateful to him for acknowledging that over the past six years I have fought for my constituents and their rights and interests in the face of opposition from many people outside this House. My new clauses in this group are practical and sensible and will, I think, assist my constituents and others up and down the line.

New clause 1 is about local authority finance. Local authorities the length of the HS2 route have received no extra help to support their work on this major infrastructure project. The burden on my two local councils, Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council, has been enormous, but the new clause would also apply to other councils.

Buckinghamshire County Council is naturally concerned that without central Government intervention and help its costs will continue to escalate. If the last six years are anything to go by, they certainly will. The county council’s outturn figure for 2015-16 is nearly £520,000 for costs relating to the legal petitioning process, engagement with HS2 Ltd and getting the best deal for Buckinghamshire residents. The council has just submitted the recharge to HS2 Ltd on the current memorandum of understanding and can recoup barely £10,000 for the last year. Why must taxpayers in Chesham and Amersham and elsewhere not only pay for this railway to be built, but pay again through their council tax for their local authorities to carry out inescapable pre and post-construction work for which they get very little help or none at all? Over the past six years, Chiltern District Council has spent nearly £1.18 million on complying with HS2 requirements —a huge amount for a district authority.

Councils have paid out literally millions in the past six years. The costs will only grow during the construction phase and there is no guarantee that local authorities will be fully recompensed. They would appreciate a clear, legally enforceable commitment from the Government that the extra burden will be recognised, particularly in the light of the local government finance settlement. My county, Buckinghamshire, was heavily affected by the settlement. It was only through myself and other Buckinghamshire MPs making very strong representations that we got some increased moneys for our local authorities. If accepted, new clause 1 would ensure security for our local authorities along the whole route where service agreements do not provide additional funding, received by the end of the year. The Minister should appreciate that I am asking for statutory and legally enforceable requirements because there is great distrust of the process so far. I think it is essential to enshrine the provision in statute, so that it is legally enforceable.

New clause 2 is designed to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee pressed HS2 hard on reimbursement to highways authorities regarding damage to verges, culverts, drains, inspection covers and so on, and the company gave a very positive response? New clause 2 is a belt-and-braces provision. Does she agree that HS2 has already given quite firm commitments?

[Mrs Gillan]

I appreciate the work my hon. Friend did on the Select Committee. He is correct that there are undertakings, but they are not enforceable and I am afraid that HS2 does not have a good track record of either keeping good records and accurate information or of following through on its promises, hence my decision to table the new clauses. If HS2 is in good faith going to adhere to those undertakings, it should have no fear of their being put in the Bill. That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the new clauses to be accepted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I absolutely accept that point. I just point out that rail passenger satisfaction is up 3 percentage points over the country. The challenge we have is that, behind the national numbers, there are some lines, such as his Brighton main line, on which customers are absolutely not getting the punctuality and the service they deserve. That is why we are so committed to getting Network Rail and the franchise holder to work together. There is no blame; we want the two of them to work together to improve the service.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

T5. Does the rail Minister agree that capital improvements to the Ely North junction and the nearby crossing are crucial to securing improved services on the line between King’s Cross and King’s Lynn, thus unlocking more economic growth along the route? Will she and her colleagues work with me to help to secure this crucial investment?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have left me in no doubt about the value of the Ely North junction upgrade work. I am disappointed that this work will not be completed until after 2019. As a result of discussions that he and others have organised, I am now more confident that the preparatory work the project needs can go ahead sooner, with funding coming from a variety of sources. I have committed my Department to work with him and the local team.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, alongside battery electric vehicles, have the potential to play an important role in decarbonising road transport. The Government began working with the industry in 2012 through the UK H₂Mobility programme, developing a road map for hydrogen-based transport. It has a big role in the future.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

T8. Is the Secretary of State aware that, back in the 17th century, the port of King’s Lynn was the fourth largest in the country and has been thriving ever since? Now, however, it is under severe threat from a pernicious and job-destroying European port services regulation. What are the Secretary of State and his Ministers going to do to make the EU see sense and withdraw this unwanted regulation?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I have always made it clear that this regulation is not required to fix a problem in the UK because we already have a competitive port sector with competition between ports. The general approach adopted by Council addressed many of our concerns, particularly the competitive market exemption. What is interesting is that this week, while a number of amendments were passed in the European Parliament’s transport committee, the mandate to go forward into trialogues was not given. At the moment, the regulation has run into the deep sand, and I hope it will remain there.

Road Investment Strategy

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady, the Chairman of the Select Committee, says that this is a renewed announcement. Yes, the figure was set out last year but we are now putting the flesh on the bones in terms of what that figure will buy. I know that her Committee will want to look at the figures in more detail, but when she looks at what we are doing, she will recognise that we have struck a good balance across the whole country. She makes the point about what has happened historically regarding investment in London, but those figures are made larger by the huge investment in Crossrail. I am also keen to see investment in the rest of the country, spread across the whole of England.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the announcement of investment in the A47. Is the Secretary of State aware that that artery is vital not only to our regional economic success but to west Norfolk’s future? Now that the road has been designated a key strategic route, does he agree that today’s announcement should be a precursor to the dualling of the whole route?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have already been accused of being over-ambitious. I am sure that my hon. Friend will repeatedly make the case for the dualling of the whole of that route, but the plans that we have outlined today will go a long way towards providing some of the shorter-term improvements for the road.

A47

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this vital debate. I will be brief; I will try to stick to the eight minutes.

The A47, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is of key strategic importance. It is the second most important road that links Norfolk to the rest of the region and the rest of the country. Now that, as colleagues have pointed out, the A11 is almost complete, it is essential that we turn our attention to the A47. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland pointed out, it is very patchy in terms of dualling. I think that less than one quarter is dualled. That makes it an inherently dangerous road. I shall touch on the overall situation on the A47 first and then consider a number of specific cases in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) was right to flag up safety first of all, because we are talking about people’s lives. When we have sporadic sections of dual carriageway, all the safety experts agree that when people come off those dual carriageway sections, traffic is moving that much faster and there will be more accidents; drivers will take more risks. The situation can be exacerbated by slow-moving agricultural vehicles or bad weather. I will come on to a number of unfortunate incidents in my own constituency recently, but there cannot be a single junction along the entire length of the A47 from Lowestoft through to Leicester that has not seen an appalling crash or a fatality in the past 25 or 30 years.

Then we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland pointed out, blighted communities. We have villages that are cut in half by the A47. When my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South was a schoolboy, there was less traffic on the roads in the villages that he knew very well, and in the villages that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) referred to, there was less traffic, but we now have a very busy trunk road and villages on which there has been a serious impact. I will come on to that in a moment.

One of the very important themes of the debate is the underlying benefit of this road to the local economy. If it is improved, that will have a huge impact on the economy not just of Norfolk, but of the wider region. Norfolk is growing. In fact, unemployment in all our constituencies has come down very sharply. The average now is under 3%. In my constituency, 500 new jobs have been created in the past year. Those jobs have gone to real people who now have a brighter future.

Let us consider some of the key sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about the energy sector. I would add to that other sectors. Obviously, tourism has been mentioned. There is also advanced engineering, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) will talk about the IT, biotech and life sciences revolution that is benefiting Norwich. There can be a cascade impact from that revolution on other, smaller towns such as King’s Lynn, Wisbech and Dereham if we get the infrastructure that can support existing businesses and attract new businesses into the area.

I have looked at various forecasts of the additional economic benefit to Norfolk from a dualled A47. The figure goes up to more than £1 billion a year if we have an entirely dualled A47, because that will enhance existing businesses, bring in new investment, create new jobs and bring all the other benefits that come from infrastructure that can underpin what is already a fast-growing economy.

I want to talk about two specific villages in my constituency, but before doing so, I point out to the Minister that people’s hopes have been raised in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about the time when there was only one small stretch of dual carriageway in Norfolk. I think that he mentioned 1984, but in 1978 the South Lynn bypass was built and it was dual carriageway. That raised people’s hopes that we would see a significant amount of dualling along the A47. Then in 1989 we had “Roads for Prosperity”, the Paul Channon White Paper, which promised that the entire length of the A47 would be dualled over the next 10 years but in any event by the turn of the century—by the year 2000. We know that that has not happened. We have had some small improvements; we have had some significant investments—don’t get me wrong. In the intervening time, we have had the Thorney bypass. We have had the section of dualling on the A47 between King’s Lynn and Wisbech, which is highly welcome and has benefited my constituency enormously. However, there has not been a whole-route strategy or any real determination by successive Governments to get a grip of the A47 and give it the priority that it needs.

As I said, I want to talk about two villages in my constituency. On 26 March, there was a tragic triple fatality in the village of East Winch, which is east of King’s Lynn. Obviously, a police investigation is ongoing and an inquest will take place, but what happened was that a car was in a head-on collision with a lorry in the middle of the section of road going through East Winch. I do not want to speculate on what caused the accident on a day when conditions were quite good, but I know that the speed limit as people go through the village is 50 mph. It should be reduced to 40 mph. I have written to the Minister about that. A reduction in the speed limit to 40 mph would make very little difference to the flow of traffic going through the village, but it could make it that much safer for local residents, because there are a number of junctions on that stretch of road. The villagers in East Winch, day in, day out, are witnessing near misses, and we had that tragedy on 26 March. I know that we are looking at the strategy of the route, but I urge the Minister to look very urgently at that section of the road.

Unfortunately, that crash was followed a few days later by a very serious collision in Middleton, which is slightly to the west of East Winch. Mercifully, no one was killed, but it was a very serious accident on a stretch of road going through Middleton. The village is absolutely cut in half. There is the school and the village hall on one side of the road and most of the houses on the other. I am very grateful to the Department for Transport for installing a pelican crossing near Station road a couple of years ago. That has been of huge benefit to the village, but we do need to have the 40 mph limit reduced to 30 mph.

However, what we need above all else, as colleagues have said, is an overall, whole-route strategy. We want the Minister today to give us some more information about exactly where his feasibility study is going. I am certainly concerned about what we heard the other day, which was that the study is not currently planning to assess all sections of the road, so, for example, the section between Dereham and Swaffham has been omitted. We want from the Minister a firm commitment that he agrees with us that the entire length of the A47 must be dualled. We do not expect that to happen tomorrow, but we need a commitment from the Government that they will dual this road and, furthermore, that they will announce very soon a number of specific dualling schemes along the route and, in the meantime, a number of smaller schemes to enhance safety and to make the lives of our constituents that much more bearable.

I think that the case is overwhelming. The Minister will see that there is huge support, not just among MPs but among all the local authorities and other organisations. We have an incredibly strong case, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Cycling

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. What she said about the miracle improvements to one’s health is fascinating. A lot of money will be spent in the conurbations and in London, but does she agree that it is important that rural areas are not neglected in the great drive to get more people cycling? Does she also agree that cyclists are obviously at a big disadvantage on small rural lanes? We need more rural speed limits and more investment in safer highways in rural areas.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend. Rural speed limits are important. In fact, the introduction of networks of 40 mph speed limits on rural roads had a great benefit in Holland. There is a lot of evidence to support their use, but this is about money. I welcome the £10 a head in the eight cities that will benefit and the spending in, for example, the Dartmoor national park in my part of the world, but that is not what the report called for. Our report called for £10 a head nationally and for us to think of the benefits—a real, lasting legacy—that that could achieve.

However, this is also about speed, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Let us look at the benefits we would see if we had 20 mph speed limits in urban areas. Too often, highways departments look at accident data before making decisions about speed limits. However, we all know that parents will not let their children cycle in the first place if they do not feel they are safe, and the perception of safety is strongly linked to the speed at which the traffic is travelling. We should look at speed limits across the board. I recently visited Falcon Park in Torbay, which is a park home development with many elderly residents who cannot walk down the road, let alone cross it, because of high-speed traffic. In any other residential area, the speed limit would have been reduced to 30 mph.

This is not only about 20 mph limits in towns and cities on a network of roads; it is about reducing speed across the board and assessing our priorities. Whom do we prioritise? Are we prioritising vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists, or are we prioritising the motorist and speed? We need to change our priorities completely to achieve that. It does not take a great deal of money to reduce speed limits—everyone recognises that there is a financial imperative—but the issue is not just reducing the speed limit, but enforcing it. We heard shocking evidence in our inquiry about a level of complacency towards enforcement. What discussions have taken place across Departments to ensure that welcome changes in the issuing of fixed penalty notices for careless driving will be extended to penalising people who breach speed limits directly? It is immediate consequences that will drive change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bellingham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Holland. Indeed, I have holidayed there many times, too. Local councils there are very much aware of the need to ensure that new schemes are cycle-friendly. Is he aware that in some areas, including mine, there are problems with community infrastructure funding schemes? These can result in very safe school cycling routes being converted into a dedicated bus route, with no alternative cycle route being put in place. Does he agree that when these community infrastructure funding schemes are put in place, alternative like-for-like cycle-friendly arrangements should be made?

[Simon Danczuk]

That is an excellent point, and it leads on to my next one. I have been cycling in the United Kingdom, primarily in Rochdale, for just six months now, and I have encountered many good examples of provision for cycling. The Rochdale canal, for example, has a great cycling path, but even that can be seen to be falling into disrepair. The work was done some years ago and needs re-doing. Kingsway business park, a new development, caters very well for cyclists, but not all new schemes have cycling provision designed into them. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need for that to happen.

A47 (Upgrading and Dualling)

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The A47 is a strategic route of national and regional importance to the East Anglian and the Norfolk economies. I am delighted to have an opportunity to raise the subject in the House, and to encourage and thank the Minister for his support for the work of all the Norfolk Members and others in the region; highlight the importance of the proposed works to our local economy and the national economy; and seek further reassurance from the Minister on some of the points on which he reassured me when we met before Christmas.

Let me first thank the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Transport for their encouragement. Last summer we went to see the Minister’s predecessor as roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who told us that historically the road had not been supported by the regional development agency and that we had our work cut out to make the case. The Government’s approach now is to invite local parties to set out a clear business plan for roads, and to make the case that Government investment will be more than matched by significant co-investment along the route.

I am delighted to say that the county council, New Anglia—the local enterprise partnership—and all the local Members of Parliament and business organisations came together to produce a report that set out exactly what the Government had asked for: a business plan for the route entitled “A47—Gateway to Growth”. I am delighted that that document was so well received by the Government, and grateful to the Minister and his officials for their support for it.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I am delighted that he has supported the Minister, who has taken a great interest in the issue. We in west Norfolk were delighted by the Minister’s recent announcement that we would indeed be given the Middleton crossing for which we had been pushing for a long time. Does my hon. Friend agree that the A47 really does need more dualling to ensure that Norfolk fulfils its full potential? He may be aware that the White Paper “Roads for Prosperity”—published in 1988, before he was born—recommended that the entire road should be dualled. After all those years, we really must make more progress.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful and important point, to which I am sure the Minister will want to respond.

I have initiated this debate in order to highlight the key strategic importance of this route to our economy, to raise its profile nationally and to build the momentum of the important campaign and the work that is taking place locally. The road is of key strategic importance to our region and our nation, but it is also a dangerous route for those who use and cross it. I believe, and I know that the other local Members believe, that it could act as a catalyst, enabling East Anglia to become a genuine centre for innovation and enterprise focused on the greater Norwich economy. I hope that the Minister will provide further reassurance this evening that the Government will make the route a priority in the next round of funding, will look kindly on my request for pinch-point funds, and will view sympathetically my concern about some of the bottlenecks that need particularly urgent attention because they have the greatest potential to unlock growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which serves to remind me that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who could not be present tonight and who is also muted by virtue of being on the Front Bench, has asked me to pass on this comment:

“The A47 is an important road for Norwich businesses and households. I support the campaign for its improvement because it will bring more jobs to the city and around the county.”

Norfolk has waited for infrastructure improvements for a long time, and now, like the No. 11 bus, many have come at once: the A11 is being dualled; there is substantial investment in our rail network as a result of our putting together our Anglian rail prospectus; and the Government are funding fast broadband. All of that comes not before time, because our county is ready to rise and meet the challenge of a rebalanced economy. With the necessary infrastructure in place, we will be able to do so.

The A47 is now the most pressing and urgent infrastructure issue in our county. It is the blocked artery that runs across it from east to west, linking our economy to the midlands and allowing goods to be moved in and out. We have major ports of international significance on our east coast, and in and around Great Yarmouth there is an increasingly significant energy cluster. It is lamentable that this road was not prioritised by the RDA, and many of us may wonder why on earth not.

My personal interest is obvious. The A47 runs right through the middle of my Mid Norfolk constituency and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has highlighted, its intermittent dualling presents great dangers to all its users and to those in the rural economy who seek not to use the A47, but to cross it, whether on bicycle, horse or tractor. I know from my own experiences of cycling the route before the last election just how dangerous it is. At this point I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), who recently drove the route in a union flag-bedecked Mini from east to west to highlight its importance.

My other interest in this issue is as the Government’s adviser on life sciences. I have talked before in this Chamber about the potential of the Norwich research park, an increasingly globally recognised centre of science and research in three of the most exciting global markets: food, medicine and energy. Its companies pioneer some of the most exciting science in the country, such as the blight-resistant potato and the Lotus car I recently saw that is fuelled by biofuels created from agricultural waste.

Norwich is a centre of life sciences, but it sits out deep in the last county not to be connected properly to the national trunk road system, and with no non-stop links through to the rail network. It is a county that desperately needs infrastructure if it is to be allowed to play its part in the Government’s mission to rebalance our economy.

The truth is that this is a trans-European route of economic significance that has been neglected for far too long. The lack of connectivity and poor development are holding back the whole Norfolk economy. With investment in our infrastructure, we can spread growth around and reduce the amount that we in government have to spend on welfare and on tackling the problems of social and economic exclusion that flow from poor infrastructure.

The opportunity is significant. As the business plan makes clear, with a programme of targeted improvements we can transform the 105 miles of the A47 into a truly strategic national and international link, linking our region to central and northern Europe and to the midlands and the north of England, and linking our regional clusters—Cambridge, Norwich, Yarmouth and Ipswich—of innovation and science and new business growth. As the business plan makes clear, over the 20 years for which it sets out the programme of work, we have the potential to generate 10,000 jobs, to increase the economic output of our county by £390 million a year, to attract private investment worth more than £800 million, to recruit an extra 500 investment-related jobs and to cut journey times by 30 minutes, delivering savings of £42 million to road users. These are significant numbers, and they are not, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know, plucked out of the air but put together by professional consultants and officials at the county council and the LEP who constructed the business case. Of course, these works will also dramatically improve safety for users and for those crossing the route.

Importantly, the document sets out a series of regional benefits across the route. In King’s Lynn, in the west, where the focus is on regeneration, the plan envisages 750 new jobs, £15 million of private investment and 400 new dwellings.

[Mr Bellingham]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning King’s Lynn. Obviously, Norwich has the most phenomenal potential and is going to move forward, and King’s Lynn wants to do the same. If King’s Lynn is connected to Norwich by an improved A47, it will really be a part of that economic regeneration. That is why this is so important not just for links to the rest of the country, but within Norfolk itself.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend is a passionate and effective advocate for King’s Lynn and that area, and he has done extraordinary work in putting it on the map, both through rail and now through road. He makes an excellent point: by connecting these centres, we not only improve the national economy but help to tackle problems of exclusion and deprivation locally.

The business plan makes clear the economic benefits in Norwich: 5,000 jobs, £240 million in additional private investment and an extra 2,500 dwellings. For Great Yarmouth—represented admirably by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, who has to sit silent on the Front Bench and listen to me describe the benefits in his own constituency—the figures are 3,865 jobs, £227 million in private investment, and 200 dwellings.

It is not least for that reason that the business plan has had such support from the local business community. Richard Marks, managing director of John Lewis in Norwich, said:

“Norwich is growing its reputation as a retail destination…we support the proposals which will help improve communication across the county”.

Matthew Jones, chief operating officer of Norwich research park, said:

“The NRP fully supports the plans for improving the A47 which are essential to achieving the huge potential of the park to drive economic growth and development of the greater Norwich area”.

Phil Gadd, contracts director at Norwich airport, said:

“The world can fly to Norwich. However, it cannot access the region. We need to improve the A47”

as a strategic gateway. The chairman of the Mid Norfolk branch of the Federation of Small Businesses said:

“I regularly use the A47, if I could just save 15 minutes every day and everyone else using the A47 could do the same, that equates to thousands of hours every year.”