Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

I look forward to an interesting discussion this afternoon. I hope it will be similar in tone to the discussion we had on the previous day in Committee and that we are able to explore issues of concern to hon. Members. I hope that in the bulk of cases we find consensus, areas on which the House agrees, on the devolution agenda that I think many of us believe to be in the interests not just of this place but of our constituents—the people we represent who send us here to do the work we do.

I wish to oppose clause 20 and I shall also speak to clause 21 and new clauses 3 and 9. Clause 20 was inserted against the Government’s wishes following a lively debate in the other place. It amends section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by lowering the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for the local government franchise in England and Wales. That means that 16 to 18-year-olds could vote in all elections based on this local government franchise. In England and Wales, those would include local government elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections for the Greater London Authority and Mayor, and elections to the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment would also mean that 16 to 18-year-olds could vote in local neighbourhood planning referendums, council tax referendums and referendums on local authority governance arrangements.

I have considered carefully the arguments that have been set out in earlier considerations of the Bill, both here on Second Reading and in the other place. I am of course also aware of very similar arguments that have been made in relation to the franchise in Parliament’s consideration of the European Union Referendum Bill— a Bill that I follow closely for reasons of personal interest.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I agree with the Government’s view—I do not think the voting age should be lowered at all—but will the Minister give at least some consideration to the idea that there is a distinction between a normal election and a referendum, given the permanence or longer period for which a referendum would hold sway? Again, it is not a view I entirely agree with, but I think there are some colleagues even on this side of the House who would make a distinction between the two. Perhaps he could go into some detail on why the Government feel that that distinction should not be made.

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go off topic. The European Union Referendum Bill has had a debate on this matter and has come to a conclusion to express the will of this place on the age of the franchise. I know this issue is of interest to a number of Members. Referendums are different from elections of other sorts, but I do not think that the difference is such that the concession should be made, certainly not through the vehicle of this particular Bill.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has at least indicated that there is a debate to be had about lowering the voting age and I wonder whether, secretly, he might actually agree with the proposition. Will the Minister explain what the dangers are of reducing the voting age to 16? The world did not cave in when people were given the vote at 16 in the Scottish referendum.

[James Wharton]

The right hon. Gentleman can speculate on whether the Secretary of State might agree or not. I can tell him that I certainly do not, but I recognise there is a time and a place for such matters as this to be debated. I will set out some of my thoughts on the appropriateness of the Bill or otherwise for that debate today in the comments I will now come to, although I feel that this is not necessarily that time and place, as I will explain.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that there is a lot of desire to see an extension of participation in our processes? My Select Committee produced a very fulsome report in the previous Parliament, which outlined proposals such as electronic voting and votes for 16 to 18-year olds. The Minister’s position is very clear: he does not want to do this at the moment. However, will he consider the possibility, as we devolve power to local government, that, in certain discrete pilot areas that request it, there could be experiments with the 16 to 18-year-old franchise?

[James Wharton]

I admire the creativity of hon. Members who wish to find ways to pursue this matter. I do not feel that it is appropriate to do so in this the Bill, for reasons I will go on to explain, but I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. It is undeniable that there is a debate to be had on the issue. There are views on both sides of the argument. It is, I think, the view of nearly all right hon. and hon. Members that we would like greater participation and involvement in our democratic processes. Whether lowering the franchise is the right way of going about it is rather less clearly agreed across the House. Indeed, it is an area about which I have significant reservations. I have, however, considered carefully the arguments set out with regard to the Bill.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that we did not place in our manifesto any wish to change the voting age, so we have no manifesto mandate, and that when Labour was in office for 13 years with big majorities it never thought it a good idea to change the voting age?

[James Wharton]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Conservative Members did not stand on that proposal in the manifesto. Opposition Members from a variety of parties did so. It may be argued, therefore, that this issue has been decided by democratic processes already. However, I recognise, as I have said, there is a debate to be had. We may come to different conclusions, but my contention today is that, valid though that debate may be, the Bill is not the vehicle through which such a change should be delivered.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Wharton]

I would like to make a little progress and then I will give way to more hon. Members who want to have their say on this issue.

Lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections in England and Wales would be a major change to the fundamental building blocks of our democracy. The right starting point for making such change would be that those democratically elected to represent the people of this country should consider all the issues involved. Before such a step, we shall seek the views of those we represent. We should seek to recognise where public opinion stands on the issue, and how to maintain and strengthen confidence in ensuring that elections are free and fair. We should carefully discuss the issues and, having weighed the arguments and recognised where consensus and opinion lies across the country, only then would we decide whether or not to make such a change.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that if we were to go down the route of 16 to 17-year-olds having the vote, logic would dictate that they should also be able to stand for Parliament, stand as a councillor or stand as an elected mayor? Is that something he would support?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a need for a joined-up approach in such matters. There is a need to ensure that any change is fully considered in the context of all the other things we place age restrictions on—all the other things that we do or do not allow people to do at different ages, often for very good reasons. Whether that is buying cigarettes or alcohol, using a sunbed, voting, standing for Parliament or driving a car, we have different ages for different things for long-established reasons. Those ages are not set in stone, but they are in place for a very good reason in principle. There is a debate to be had, but the conclusion of that debate is not foregone.

[Mark Field]

I very much agree with what the Minister says, particularly the way in which he has enunciated it. Particularly in the past 10 to 15 years, in many areas—smoking, using sunbeds, drinking—the age limit has been raised rather than lowered. Insofar as we can try to have a sense of working together and agreeing a single age, if anything we are moving in an upward rather than a downward direction. This leads to the question—I say this only because my late mother’s first vote was in an East Germany election in the 1950s and the electoral age in that part of Europe at that time was 14—why not 14, 12 or 10, rather than 16, as is being proposed?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go further down the path of debating the specifics of different ages, but he makes a fundamental and important point: we have different ages for different things. These matters need to be considered fully and in the round. Change should not be brought piecemeal or as an adjunct to a Bill. It would have to be done in a carefully considered way after proper and thorough debate.

[Norman Lamb]

rose—

[James Wharton]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I really must move on.

[Norman Lamb]

How does the Minister, who accepts that there is a debate to be had, intend to facilitate that debate so that we can have it perhaps during this Parliament?

[James Wharton]

I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman says, but this debate has been ongoing for some time in our democratic process. I said earlier that at least two Opposition parties stood with it in their manifesto, but they were not successful at that last election. I am talking today about the progress I want this Bill to make. His point is well made, but it is not going to tempt me to go further today.

A broader issue underlies the clause: the transition from childhood to adulthood; the interplay between the different limits, age ranges and restrictions, which we have discussed already; and the desire to further the cause of democratic engagement and how to do it. This complex issue deserves the most serious attention, but it should not be an adjunct to this Bill on devolution, the purpose of which is to meet our manifesto commitment and deliver for areas affected. For those reasons, we do not support the clause. It is not the right place to insert such a significant legislative and constitutional change.

After careful consideration, we have concluded that clause 21 should stand part of the Bill. It was also inserted in the other place, against the then wishes of the Government, and removes section 9NA of the Local Government Act 2000, which currently provides that, where a council has been required to hold a mayoral referendum under an order made by the Secretary of State, and where that referendum has been successful and a mayor has been duly elected, the mayoral model of governance cannot subsequently be changed except by a further Act of Parliament. This provision currently applies solely to Bristol.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

On behalf of all parties in Bristol, I am grateful for the recommendation to retain clause 21, which, as I said the last time we discussed this in Committee, enshrines a fundamental democratic principle by giving the people of Bristol continued control over the system for determining their elected representatives.

[James Wharton]

Absolutely. That reflects the consensus we are trying to build around the Bill. Ours are the very actions of a listening Government working on a cross-party basis to deliver in everyone’s interests. Bristol was the only city to vote for a mayor in the mayoral referendums held in May 2012. We have considered the argument made, among others, by the hon. Lady—that the people of Bristol should have the same opportunity as those in other areas to petition for a change in governance arrangements. Clause 21 effectively places the people of Bristol in the same position they would be in had the mayoral referendum in 2012 been triggered by a resolution of the council or the receipt of a valid petition. Having carefully considered these arguments, we are prepared to see the people of Bristol in this position, and hence we support clause 21.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Minister has spoken about consensus. Of course, one issue, connected with the Bill, on which there is great consensus is the Government’s proposals to amend the Sunday trading laws—the great consensus being that we should not do it. Will he confirm that those proposals are not coming back, either in this Bill or in any other way?

[James Wharton]

I hear the hon. Lady’s comments, although I am not sure to which clause we are here to debate she refers. More generally, we always talk to hon. Members across the House and listen to the views of the public at large to determine the best course of action, but the issue she raises is not before the Committee this afternoon. As to what will happen in the future, she tempts me to go further than I can.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would amend section 36 of the Representation of People Act 1983 to allow local areas to alter their systems for the election of councillors. His enthusiasm to push the boundaries of devolution, throughout our consideration of the Bill and more generally, has not gone unnoticed by Ministers or, I am sure, Opposition Members. When we last met in Committee, he flagged up the proposition that councils should be free to decide their own electoral arrangements in conjunction with their people. He suggested they should be able to have a debate and come to a decision.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s interest in voter engagement, which, as I have said, we all share, and I note the devolutionary nature of his proposals, under which a council could decide its own electoral system. That said, he will be unsurprised to learn that I have some concerns about how such complex proposals would work in practice and whether there is an appetite for them. Local councillors are currently elected under the first-past-the-post system, which is a well-recognised and straightforward system, as we saw in the outcome of the referendum to change to the alternative vote system in 2011. I accept that that was in relation to UK parliamentary elections, but two thirds of voters chose first past the post over the alternative vote, suggesting there is no public consensus for change.

I have concerns about the potential confusion caused by the possibility of voting systems changing from one poll to the next. We can imagine the pressures that councils and councillors could come under in considering the systems they might wish to employ. There would be a natural desire to consider, or attempt to second-guess, whether there might be some political advantage in adopting a different set of arrangements or sticking with the existing tried and tested ones. Even if appropriate safeguards could be introduced, which themselves would add to the complexity of the arrangements, the practical processes of switching voting systems would still be complex and costly. For example, a change to the single transferrable vote could, in many cases, require a major re-warding of an entire local authority area.

These concerns might not be insurmountable, but the proposal represents a fundamental change to the building blocks of our democratic processes and would require significant consideration, development and consensus, and I am clear that the Bill, although both devolutionary and enabling, is not the right vehicle for such a change. On raising the proposal last time, the hon. Gentleman suspected that the idea might need to brew a little. He will sense from my comments that I believe it has brewed nowhere near enough. I therefore ask that he does not push it to a Division.

Finally, I turn to new clause 9, which would introduce a requirement through regulations for local government electors in an area to approve certain boundary and structural changes via a referendum. The boundary and structural changes involved relate to the establishment of new unitary local authorities, the merger of authorities or movement from one authority area to another. Clause 16 already gives the Secretary of State wide regulation-making powers regarding structures and boundaries. The regulations will allow modification of the existing processes, as provided for in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, for making changes such as merging councils or moving to more unitary structures. These regulations can be made only where all the affected councils agree. I doubt it would be right to include a requirement for a referendum, and nor do I believe referendums to be sound practically in this context.

Our democracy is founded on the traditions and principles of representative democracy, which have served us well and stood the test of time. In general, we believe that decisions on public matters are made most effectively by those democratically elected to represent the area affected. All past experience suggests that this is the case with changes to local authority boundaries and structures. The democratically elected local representatives are best placed to take local decisions on these issues. Of course, they will want to take account of the views of the electorate—of those who live and work there, of businesses, of those who contribute to the life of local communities. However, how they seek these views—the kind of consultation exercises they undertake—is a matter for them. It is not for the Government to tell elected representatives how to undertake their roles.

Hence, it would not be right to require referendums—to require a particular way of ascertaining the views of local people—or for the result of such an exercise to determine the decision on proposed boundary or structural change. The referendums envisaged by the new clause would not be sound in practice. First, it would only require a referendum in a part of the area—the part becoming unitary, for example—yet such a change would have implications for the surrounding areas, so I am not clear that this approach would be right in any event. Secondly, such boundary and structural changes are almost invariably part of some wider reform. To present the question as simply one about some council structure or boundary risks being misleading and oversimplifying complex arguments. With those explanations, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), after what I am sure will be an interesting discussion, will not press his new clause.

In conclusion, I have explained that the Government cannot support new clauses 3 and 9. We are content for clause 21 to stand part of the Bill, but we are opposed to clause 20.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear that the Government are in listening mode. I am pleased about clause 21, but I hope that the Government will now listen to the arguments in favour of clause 20 and reducing the voting age to 16 in local government elections.

More than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK are denied any part in our democratic process. In recent years, pressure has developed to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. The Electoral Reform Society has argued for it, and in 2006 the Power commission was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to find out what was happening to British democracy and why people were disengaged from politics.

The commission drew up a set of proposals and recommendations to increase political participation and it presented them in a final report, “Power to the People”. One recommendation was to lower the voting and candidacy age to 16, with the exception of candidacy for the House of Lords. The Power commission explained its recommendation thus:

“Our own experience and evidence suggests that just as with the wider population, when young people are faced with a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offers them a real chance of influence, they do so with enthusiasm and with responsibility. We recognise that few people take an interest in a sphere of life or an area from which they have been deliberately excluded.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I shall make a few brief points about this part of the Bill. I spoke in an earlier debate, in which I trailed what I am about to say now. I am one of those who believes that we should allow voting at 16, but I do not think that this Bill is the correct vehicle for achieving that.

This is perhaps a case of having the courage of my convictions. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) also mentioned that. I have to tell him that people often confuse the names of our constituencies; I am often called the “Member for Norfolk North”, and I am sure the same thing happens the other way round. We are close geographically, and we also share a lot on the substance and the values in today’s debate, except that I see the courage of my convictions on engaging young people in politics as residing in doing the job properly, instead of doing it piecemeal. I shall therefore be speaking against clause 20.

As the Minister said, something coming merely by way of an amendment is not the way to do the job well. As other Conservative Members have said, omitting that much larger debate about the various ages of majority in this country does not do the job well either—and nor does failing to speak to young people as we take on this debate. After all, if it is about anything, it should be about them.

[James Wharton]

Although we do not necessarily agree on where this issue should go, I sense that we agree that if this step were to be taken—I do not necessarily support it—it should be after a proper process, in a way that will last the test of time and have real support across the House and from those affected by it. It should not be done via an amendment to a Bill that is about something altogether different.

[Chloe Smith]

I agree with the Minister, but perhaps I may put the question back to him, as the right hon. Member for North Norfolk did, by saying that perhaps we could discuss when we ought to have that debate. A natural follow-on from the various contributions that have been made today is moving on to have that debate properly. As I suspect the Minister will tell me, that is for another Minister to answer, but no doubt he will pass the message on.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) cited comments by Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservatives in Scotland. I am a big fan of hers, as many people are, even if the hon. Lady is not among them. As she said, Ruth Davidson has changed her view on votes at 16. Like me, Ruth Davidson also comes to the conclusion that this ought to be done for all elections. It does a disservice to this important reform to do it piecemeal and not to give it the respect of a full debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous reader of my speeches, even more so than I am, and he will see that on Second Reading and a number of occasions subsequently I paid tribute to the Secretary of State for his determination to bring devolution to its present state. It is an extremely good foundation for my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on the Front Bench to build on in 2020.

I am surprised that we have got to this point in the debate today without anyone mentioning that devolution deals have been announced. I am surprised that the Minister has not mentioned that. I do hope word does not get back to the Chancellor about his omitting to mention the deals in Liverpool and the west midlands, in addition to the deals in Sheffield, the north-east and the Tees valley. I hope deals are rapidly on the way in my area—Nottingham/Nottinghamshire and Derby/Derbyshire. I believe there are 38 potential deals, covering up to 80% of the population.

It may seem odd for someone on the Opposition Benches—I hope I am regarded as all-party on this issue—to point out that there are large areas, Conservative areas, rural areas, county areas, that have been left out of the party. If this is to be a genuinely democratic change of the order of developing national Parliaments and assemblies—a change that will lead to a federal United Kingdom, as my hon. Friends on the Front Bench said in The Huffington Post this morning—we cannot leave our friends in the rural areas, whether they are Conservative or not, out of the equation.

[James Wharton]

It is important to find areas of agreement. Although on the issue of devolution the hon. Gentleman tempts me to go further than I am currently predisposed to go, and he would no doubt go much further than I might want to, it is important to put on record that he is right about rural areas. We have the deal with Cornwall and we are working with many other areas to reach deals which will include many rural areas in county deals. This is a process of making bespoke deals for individual areas. That means that they will be different and it will take time, but we are determined to deliver them.

[Mr Allen]

I genuinely wish the Minister well in that. I am sure he has followed the debates in the Conservative councillors network over the past 36 hours as closely as I have. It is important that everyone shares in the benefits of devolution and is enabled to make the sort of decisions that they feel are appropriate, rather than those that Whitehall considers appropriate.

The Minister tells me that I am pushing the process a little too fast and a little too hard. We have had such debates since the 1830s, and people have argued that we should not rush things. Fancy giving working men the vote! Fancy giving women the vote! For heaven’s sake, if that ever happens to our democracy, what next? Now, my goodness, there is the brand new issue, which nobody has ever thought of before, of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. We should revel in the fact that there are people in our country still desperate to use the franchise. It should be extended to them and that should be done sensibly.

I refer the Minister to the report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I see a number of distinguished former members of the Committee, even sitting close behind the Minister. The report came up with an array of possibilities for extending participation and extending our franchise, such as online voting and 16 and 17-year-old voters. There were many other proposals, but Mr Crausby would rule me out of order, were I to venture into them. Sometimes in a political career there are moments of opportunity and they are very rare. The Minister is a young man starting out on his political career. He may not be the Minister on the next devolution Bill, which is sure to happen before 2020. I hope he is, because he will have gained massive experience from taking the Bill through on this occasion, but he should seize the opportunity to push it a little further than the officials might like. That is a political lesson that we could all share.

[James Wharton]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s wise and considered words on devolution issues, even if we do not always reach the same conclusions. I am particularly interested in what might be a glimmer of agreement between us on the issue of voting age. We may not agree on what the voting age should be, but he said that any change should be carried out in a sensible way. Does he think, therefore, that a proper process should be used rather than an amendment to a Bill such as this—in other words, that there would have to be full and detailed consideration, with proper consultation taking into account many of the issues that hon. Members have raised, so that any such fundamental change, were it to be made, would be long-lasting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

Absolutely, Mrs Main, although the Minister was courteous enough to respond to a point on this issue earlier in the debate and it would be helpful to know that the Government are not proposing to bring it back on Report next week.

New clause 24 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Devolution without fiscal powers is not ambitious enough. As Labour said on day one of this Committee, allowing councils greater fiscal powers would allow them to build greater stability into the system. The Government should commit to providing devolved regions with the resources they need, so that they are not being set up to fail. The Bill cannot just be a means of devolving the blame for cuts made in No. 11 Downing Street; devolution is a much bigger agenda than that, and we have heard support for that view from Members in all parts of the House during this afternoon’s debate and during the passage of this Bill. There are problems with the funding of regional economic growth: local enterprise partnerships can be inefficient; and local areas need long-term commitment and resources from the Government. Regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, were able to make single three-year funding agreements.

[James Wharton]

I am responsible for LEPs, and I recognise that there are some great LEPs and others that can be improved. The hon. Gentleman says that they can be inefficient, but will he say which ones he is talking about, because I will then have a look?

[Mr Reed]

I am not going to name individual LEPs at this stage in the debate. If the Minister talks to LEPs, he will find that they agree with my view. I used to sit on the board of a LEP until three years ago. They have access to much smaller budgets than RDAs could have and to far too many small funding pots. The model is too fragmented and too short term. I suggest that he speaks to some of the LEPs if he does not think that there is room for improvement along those lines, because I think he will hear from them what he has been hearing from me this afternoon. What the LEPs are looking for and what they need is longer-term horizons if they are to act more strategically. The Government need to understand the need for more local decision making and fewer centrally imposed constraints, and making these changes to LEPs would be a step forward in allowing that to happen.

England’s local government finance settlement is one of the most centralised anywhere in the world. Councils lack the freedom they need to innovate to the maximum and to spend as much as they would like on local priorities. Even London, which is currently more devolved than anywhere else in the country, is reliant on central Government for three quarters of its funding. That compares with figures of just 30% in New York and 25% in Berlin. London is a world city and it is competing with other world cities that have much more control over their own destinies. London does not need to be kept on such a tight leash, and nor do the other cities and regions across the United Kingdom that also hope to grow their roles in the future.

The Communities and Local Government Committee concluded that local authorities in England have limited control over local taxation and, as a consequence, rely by comparison disproportionately on central Government funding. New clause 24 does not prescribe a particular settlement, but calls on the Secretary of State to publish a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers that is in keeping with the approach that the Government have taken throughout this Bill including, but not limited to, setting and re-evaluating local tax rates banding and discounts. We would like the Government at least to consider allowing councils to add additional council tax bands at the top and the bottom of the scale. That would allow for very large properties to be charged more and for smaller properties to be charged less, which is a move towards a more progressive model of taxation.

I have some experience in this area. Before I came to this House, I was leader of Lambeth council. We froze council tax for six years after taking over from a Tory-Liberal Democrat administration that had pushed up council tax by 24% in a single year. The Government need not worry about profligate Tory or Lib Dem councils behaving in that way, because they are accountable to their local electorate. However, that should not be used as an excuse to prevent more localisation together with a fair equalisation mechanism operating across the country. I hope that we will hear more about that during the autumn statement in just a few weeks’ time. The Bill strikes me as another appropriate place to be putting in some of those measures to drive forward the devolution agenda and the ability of local councils to ensure that they have the resources that they need to exercise fully the powers that they will increasingly be acquiring.

The Government can and should go further. They are devolving some of the powers, but little of the money. Devolution without the resources to make it work is not ambitious devolution; it is devolution where the Secretary of State remains the puppet master pulling all the strings, too often afraid to let go.

On new clause 34, we welcome the fact that new sub-national transport bodies must consult adjoining authorities before making a proposal. On transport, the Government have recognised that the devolution of powers to combined authorities concerns neighbouring authorities that are not part of those combined authorities, but are affected by their decisions. I am thinking about areas such as Plymouth in relation to Cornwall, Chesterfield in relation to Sheffield, and Warrington in relation to Greater Manchester. This is an important principle, but it extends to other areas beyond transport.

Decisions made over health, for example, could have an impact on neighbouring populations. I am thinking about proposals for hospital closures, new hospitals, and reconfiguration of regional or strategic health services. Decisions over Sunday trading could also have an effect should those plans go ahead—of course I hope that they will not.

New clause 36 would ensure that regard is given to neighbouring authorities affected by devolution deals. It would be on the same principle as the Government’s new clause 34, so I cannot imagine what objection the Government might have to it. If we want to build support for devolution and not to fuel resentment, this clause needs to be included, and we intend to test the will of the Committee on it by pressing it to a vote.

Finally, let me turn to new clause 39 on environmental considerations. This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to set out guidance on how co-operation between combined authorities can be strengthened to mitigate environmental problems and develop green infrastructure. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has carried out an assessment of the current devolution proposals and found that there is an appetite among local councils for greater co-operation on environmental priorities.

The duty to co-operate is not currently strong enough, and local planning can fail to take into consideration the ability of the community to build a positive vision for the local environment. Such changes would strengthen and improve this Bill. I am interested to hear the Government’s position on them when the Minister has an opportunity to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[James Wharton]

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on this group of amendments. I have listened to the debate and, while I understand a number of the points raised, I am afraid I cannot support any of the new clauses, as I will endeavour to explain.

I will begin with new clause 24, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers. By the end of this Parliament the local government sector will retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local government services. For the first time in decades, local areas will see the full direct benefit of business rate growth in their area. We wish to end the merry-go-round of clawing back local taxes to Whitehall and handing them out again in the form of grants. We will, of course, however, maintain redistribution between councils so that local authorities do not lose out.

We will be working with local authorities over the coming days and weeks on this ambitious agenda. It is our intention to devolve far-reaching powers within a framework of strong, accountable, transparent governance, and strong delivery capability. We will be setting out our detailed proposals in due course and, in light of this, I hope all parts of the House would agree that this new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers, is unnecessary. I recognise the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on this new clause, and his desire to see at the end of this process a period of reflection and consideration. I think there is merit in what he says. We will see how things progress, but certainly we will need to look at the totality of what has been done before deciding what next steps may ultimately then follow.

New clause 29 and accompanying new schedule 2 would provide for a local government independence code, defining the relationship between central Government and local authorities, and would make provision about their financial independence and conduct. Such codification is somewhat contrary to our constitutional traditions, and I do not think we need to go down the route set out by this new clause. We always want clarity in the deals we do—we always want to have discussions with local government about the future they see for themselves—but we see no need for what would be a very restraining and unnecessarily legalistic approach to the relationship between central and local government. We will, of course, look to the future, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) asked. He is an ambitious advocate of devolution in all its guises and where it can go, and I look forward to having, I am sure, many more debates in future about this topic with him.

New clause 30 seeks to reduce the minimum percentage of local government electors in a local authority area required for a petition to trigger a referendum on its governance model. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) have spoken eloquently on this issue. It is an issue that I know they care about. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes, famed for his consistency, is of course someone who stands by his beliefs and is, I think, in line and in tune with the sentiment of what the Government are doing in this area on this occasion. However, I cannot suggest we should support his new clause because the Local Government Act 2000 gives both the Secretary of State, and Welsh Ministers where relevant in Wales, a power to make regulations concerning public petitions in relation to whether a local authority should hold a referendum about changing its governance arrangements, for example to adopt a directly elected mayor. The regulations can already specify the minimum number of electors who must sign a petition for it to be valid, and the default position if the regulations do not specify any such threshold is 5%, which is also the current threshold for England. I have listened to hon. Members’ arguments, and I am happy to have further discussions about the actions the Government should take in the exercise of those powers, but I do not think it necessary to make this amendment to the Bill at this time.

New clause 31 would allow the Secretary of State, by order, to give power to the mayor of a combined authority to set a minimum unit price for alcohol sold in the combined authority area, with the mayor’s power being exercisable only following consultation on the proposed level of that price. The Government have recently undertaken a nationwide consultation on the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol, which raised a number of issues, including the potential economic impact of minimum unit pricing and the possibility of unintended impacts on businesses. The new clause’s proposed piecemeal, localised minimum alcohol pricing would risk consumers simply travelling outside the area of the authority to purchase cheaper alcohol in a neighbouring area.

I understand that in Scotland the policy of minimum unit pricing for alcohol has been legally challenged, and that the European Court of Justice has yet to express a final view. The introduction of a minimum unit price therefore remains under consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has made clear his desire to see the policy pursued, but for the reasons I have outlined we have no plans to devolve the matter at this time. We will therefore oppose the new clause.

New clause 32 seeks to introduce a requirement for mayoral combined authorities to publish annual reports about their performance in applying elements of the family test. The family test applies to the development of central Government policy. It recognises the fundamental impacts that central Government decisions can have on families and introduces an explicit family perspective into the policy-making process. However, it would not be devolutionary to start prescribing in detail how mayors or combined authorities should go about exercising their functions. We therefore have no plans to require mayoral combined authorities to apply a family test—a test that was in fact designed to be applied to policy decisions with national impact.

Turning to new clause 33, I want to start by saying that we value the important role of parish councils and that we support local government in innovating and achieving value for money, especially when such money is reinvested into communities. The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked some specific questions, which I shall now answer, on the powers of parishes to sell electricity that they generate. A specific example would involve electricity generated from renewable sources.

There is no need to amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to enable the sale of electricity generated by parish councils. Through the general power of competence in section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 and through section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, it is already possible for parish councils to sell the electricity they generate, depending on the circumstances. I suspect that the new clause was tabled to seek clarity, and should my comments not provide sufficient clarity I shall of course be happy to speak to interested Members after the debate to ensure that any concerns are properly addressed.

I turn now to new clause 36, tabled by Labour Members, which would require a combined authority with devolved functions to consider the impact on neighbouring local authority areas. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary or appropriate. The statute provides that combined authorities must exercise their functions in relation to their area. That area, of course, is the area that Parliament has approved when establishing the combined authority. It is an area that equally has enabled the combined authority to satisfy the statutory tests—that is, it is an area in which, if functions are exercised, that exercise of functions will result in an improvement compared with what would otherwise be the case. Indeed, the Bill provides that functions cannot be devolved to a combined authority if the Secretary of State does not consider that that would lead to an improvement in the exercise of statutory functions in the combined authority’s area.

The new clause seeks to provide some further requirement about how, once established, a combined authority should go about the exercise of the functions devolved to it. As with local authorities, combined authorities must take their decisions having regard to all relevant considerations. Just as local authorities cannot be blind to the impact of their decisions beyond their boundaries, nor can combined authorities; and just as local authorities are able to form joint committees with neighbouring authorities to manage activities that could have an impact beyond their areas, so can combined authorities. Hence, as I have said, the proposed new clause is neither necessary nor appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has also tabled new clause 37, which would amend section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 so that a councillor who received any sentence of imprisonment, including a suspended one, would be disqualified. At present, a councillor is disqualified only if they have received a sentence of imprisonment, suspended or not, of not less than three months without the option of a fine.

Previous Governments have recognised that section 80 needs to be updated, not least to take account of modern sentencing guidelines, and we agree that change is necessary. Many things have changed since 1972, and this section is in need of amendment. At the beginning of this year, the Electoral Commission’s report “Standing for election in the UK” recommended that the Government clarify and update the law relating to the qualifications for local government elections. Our strong preference is to consult on change, and to work with colleagues in the local government sector and the Electoral Commission in considering the scope of section 80, rather than make piecemeal amendments through this Bill. This work will include not only reviewing and possibly amending the rules of disqualification relating to sentencing, but reviewing other rules about the qualification for standing for election, including rules about employees standing for election and about residence. I would like to thank my hon. Friend for bringing this proposal to the attention of the Committee. I know that he has a pressing constituency issue, which he explored in his comments and which highlights the need to make progress. I hope, however, that he will recognise that it is important that that is done in a considered and sensible way, as well as in a timely way, and that an amendment to this Bill is not the appropriate way to do that at this time.

New clause 38 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and it relates to London. I recognise the work that has gone into it. It is an interesting clause that clearly seeks to raise an important point that matters not only to him but to Members from across the House who take an interest in devolution and such matters in London. If accepted, the clause would enable ministerial functions to be devolved to voluntary joint committees of London councils and to such committees acting jointly with the Mayor of London. I understand from his explanatory statement that the purpose of the amendment is to provide

“for decision-making arrangements to enable operational delegation to groups of London local authorities and for the strategic governance of devolved responsibilities to be shared between London authorities and the Mayor through an appropriately constituted joint committee.”

We have always made it clear that for functions to be devolved to local authorities arrangements ensuring strong and clear accountability must be put in place. The new clause appears to be an attempt to formalise joint committee arrangements, while making it clear that London authorities will have the freedom to enter into their own constitutional arrangements for joint committees, including arrangements involving the Mayor of London. We do not believe that the informal nature of the proposed arrangements provides the strong and clear accountability that would support the devolution of the functions of either a Minister or a Department to a joint committee. However, I do recognise that giving more substance to multi-borough partnerships, which are already delivering innovative pilots in the areas of health, employment and skills, could help provide clearer lines of accountability and enable them to take on more ambitious programmes in the future. I am happy, therefore, for departmental officials to work with London further to explore options and I am of course happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend after the progress that we hope this Bill will have made today.

Finally, new clause 39 seeks to place in the Bill a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare guidance for combined authorities on effective strategic planning for environmental problems and green infrastructure no later than three months after the passing of this Act. As with some of the other amendments we have discussed today, providing for central prescription in this way goes against what this Bill is about; we are engaged in the business of reversing many years of centralisation.

With that, and the explanations I have given on the other provisions in this group, I hope that hon. Members will not push their amendments to a vote. The Government intend to resist them. We have had another interesting, useful and productive discussion on a wide range of issues in this group. It has informed the debate about devolution more generally in a helpful and productive way. On that basis, I hope we can continue to build consensus, can deliver this Bill and can deliver on our commitments.

[Mr Steve Reed]

I agree with the Minister that this has been a good, interesting and productive debate. He says he is in listening mode. I am not sure he is hearing quite as much as we might have hoped, but I recognise his intention to build consensus, which is necessary for the important, incremental, constitutional change we have before us this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) put forward some proposals that have cross-party support and that would enable further and faster devolution for London. I hear what the Minister says, and I welcome his intention to work with London government and London councils to find a way to make these proposals work, because otherwise the complexity of London government will pull London back from the forefront of progress towards devolution across the country. We cannot consider London as a job done just because London was out there first.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made some very important points about fiscal devolution, which must be a central part of any devolution package; otherwise, what we are doing is merely a charade. Even if the Minister is not able or willing to bring forward proposals in this Bill, we hope that the matter forms part of future legislation as we move towards a more devolved settlement across the country.

I regret the Minister’s comments on new clause 36. Our proposals aim to help devolution to work better. Areas on the periphery of combined authorities should not be excluded from decisions that directly affect them. Our proposal merely creates the right to be consulted, which the Government have conceded when it comes to transport. They should consider it for matters of equal importance such as health. We will seek to push that new clause to the vote, but not new clause 39.

I note that the Minister did not respond to the issue of whether he would rule out Sunday trading from any future stages of this Bill. His silence will lead Members to draw their own conclusions about what is coming.

Having reflected on all the comments in the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 24.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Regard to Neighbouring Authorities

In exercising a devolved function, combined authorities must have regard to any significant direct impact on the population of neighbouring authorities.” .—(Mr Steve Reed.)

This clause raises the concerns of some authorities which neighbour devolved authorities and ensures that combined authorities which have devolved functions give regard to the possible impact on neighbouring populations, particularly over issues such as transport and health.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

I beg to move amendment 16, page 19, line 8, after “of” insert “, or made under,”

This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under clause 22 of the Bill includes a power to make provision that is consequential on instruments made under the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mrs Anne Main)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 22 stand part.

Schedule 4 stand part.

Clause 23 stand part.

Clause 24 stand part.

Government amendment 17.

Clause 25 stand part.

[James Wharton]

Knowing as I do that hon. Members are familiar with the content and scope of the amendments and that there is, I believe, broad agreement across the Committee, I have no desire to speak at length unless Members wish me to do so. I hope that the amendments will secure the approval of the Committee.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 26, page 34, line 22, at end insert—

“Local Government Act 1972

A1 The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.

A2 In section 100E (application of Part 5A to committees and sub-committees), in subsection (3) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(bba) a committee in place by virtue of section 107D(3)(c)(ii) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(bbb) a joint committee in place by virtue of section 107DA of that Act;”.”

A3 In section 101 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities)—

(a) after subsection (1C) insert—

“(1D) A combined authority may not arrange for the discharge of any functions under subsection (1) if, or to the extent that, the function is a mayoral function of a mayor for the area of the authority.

(1E) “Mayoral function” has the meaning given by section 107F(7) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”;

(b) after subsection (5B) insert—

“(5C) Arrangements under subsection (5) by two or more local authorities with respect to the discharge of any of their functions cease to have effect with respect to that function if, or to the extent that, the function becomes a general function of a mayor for the area of a combined authority.

(5D) Subsection (5C) does not prevent arrangements under subsection (5) being entered into in respect of that function by virtue of section 107DA of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (joint exercise of general functions).

(5E) In subsection (5C), “general functions” has the meaning given in section 107D(2) of that Act.”

This amendment provides for the cessation of existing joint committee arrangements where a combined authority function becomes a mayoral function in the combined authority, and for a committee established by section 107D(3)(c)(ii) or 107DA of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to be treated as a committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Amendment 62, page 34, line 22, at end insert—

“Local Government Act 1972

A1 The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.

A2 In section 100J (application of Part 5A to new authorities etc)—

(a) in subsection (1) after paragraph (be) insert—

“(bf) a sub-national transport body;”;

(b) in subsection (3), after “(be),” insert “(bf),”;

(c) in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) after “joint authority,” insert “a sub-national transport body,”.

A3 In section 101 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities), in subsection (13) after “combined authority,” insert “a sub-national transport body,”.

A4 In section 270 (general provisions as to interpretation), in subsection (1) after the definition of “specified papers” insert—

““sub-national transport body” means a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;”.

Local Government Act 1985

A5 The Local Government Act 1985 is amended as follows.

A6 In section 72 (accounts and audit), for subsection (5) substitute—

“(5) Any reference in this section to a new authority includes a reference to—

(a) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority;

(b) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”

A7 In section 73 (financial administration), in subsection (2) after “reference to” insert “—

(a) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;

(b) ”.”

This amendment makes consequential amendments regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies to make provision about the admission to the meetings of these bodies; to allow them to make arrangements for the discharge of their functions; and to impose a requirement to keep a general fund and to appoint a chief finance officer.

Amendment 63, page 34, line 31, at end insert—

“Local Government and Housing Act 1989

1A (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (designation and reports of head of paid service), in subsection (6)(a) for “, (ja) and (jb)” substitute “and (ja) to (jc)”.

(3) In section 13 (voting rights of members of certain committees: England and Wales), in the definition of “relevant authority” in subsection (9), for “(jb)” substitute “(jc)”.

(4) In section 20 (duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders), in subsection (4)(a) for “(jb)” substitute “(jc)”.

(5) In section 21 (interpretation of Part 1 of Act), in subsection (1) after paragraph (jb) insert—

“(jc) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;”.

Railways Act 1993

1B (1) Section 24A of the Railways Act 1993 (Secretary of State franchise exemptions: operator agreements) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after sub-paragraph (i) insert—

(ia) an STB,”;

(b) in paragraph (b), after “Executive” insert “, an STB”;

(c) in paragraph (c)(i), after “Executive” insert “, STB”;

(d) in paragraph (c)(ii), after “Executive” insert “, STB”.

(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant company”, after “Executive” insert “, an STB”;

(b) in paragraph (b) of that definition, after “Executive” insert “, an STB”;

(c) after that definition insert—

““STB” means a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.”

Local Government Act 1999

1C In section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value authorities), in subsection (1) after paragraph (hb) insert—

“(hc) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;”.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

1D In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), in Part 2 (local government: England and Wales), after paragraph 28 insert—

28A A sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.””

This amendment makes consequential amendments regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies so that the requirement to designate a head of paid service and a monitoring officer, and in relation to political balance of committees, will apply to these bodies; to make provision in connection with railway asset protection etc; and to provide for these bodies to be best value authorities and to be subject to the FOI regime.

Amendment 30, page 34, line 35, leave out “In section 91 (exercise of local authority functions),” and insert “(1) Section 91 (exercise of local authority functions) is amended as follows.

‘(2) ”

This makes a technical drafting amendment to the provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill which amends section 91 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Amendment 31, page 34, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (4)—

(a) omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a);

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) for the function to be exercisable by the EPB and the local authority jointly, or

(d) for the function to be exercisable by the EPB jointly with the local authority but also continue to be exercisable by the local authority alone.”

This amends paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill to add new provision in subsection (4) of section 91 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The amendments enable an order under Part 6 of the 2009 Act conferring local authority functions on a combined authority to require that both authorities exercise the functions concerned jointly.

Amendment 27, page 35, line 43, at end insert—

‘( ) After subsection (1) insert—

(1A) In relation to an order under Schedule 5B, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.”

This amendment provides for an order made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to be able to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision in support of such an order.

Amendment 28, page 36, line 2, at end insert—

10A In section 116 (consequential amendments), after subsection (1) insert—

(1A) In relation to an order under Schedule 5B, subsection (1) has effect as if the references to the Secretary of State were references to the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.”

This amendment provides that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can, in consequence of an order made under Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, make provision in consequence of any provision made.

Amendment 64, page 36, line 27, at end insert—

“Equality Act 2010

12A In Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities), in Part 1 (general), after the entry “A joint authority established under Part 4 of that Act for an area in England (including, by virtue of section 77(9) of the Local Transport Act 2008, an Integrated Transport Authority established under Part 5 of that Act of 2008)” insert—

“A sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.””

This amendment makes a consequential amendment regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies so that these bodies will be subject to the public sector equality duty.

Amendment 65, page 37, line 8, at end insert—

“Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014

18 (1) The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 40 (access to local government meetings and documents), in subsection (6) after paragraph (j) insert—

“(ja) a sub-national transport body,”.

(3) In section 44 (interpretation of Act), in subsection (1) after the definition of “special trustees for a hospital” insert—

““sub-national transport body” means a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.”.

(4) In Schedule 2 (relevant authorities), after paragraph 28 insert—

28A A sub-national transport body.”” —(James Wharton.)

This amendment makes a consequential amendment regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies so that the transparency requirements for accounting and auditing and access to meetings and documents will be applied to these bodies.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Short title

Amendment made: 17, page 20, line 3, leave out subsection (2)—(James Wharton.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

Amendment made: 66, line 5, after “functions;” insert

“to confer power to establish, and to make provision about, sub-national transport bodies;”—(James Wharton.)

This amendment makes consequential amendments to the long title of the Bill to incorporate a reference to establish and make provision regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 14 October).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported; Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

Transport (Tees Valley)

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. One glance at a road atlas will show the complete absence of blue roads—motorways. We need one or two of them in our region.

The industrial might of the Tees Valley is a key component of the north-east of England’s manufacturing prowess. London apart, our region is the only one in the UK that consistently makes a positive contribution to our balance of payments. We lead the way in advanced manufacturing and export-led growth.

Tees Valley’s integrated chemical complex at Wilton, Billingham and Seal Sands is the biggest in the UK and second-largest in Europe. It sits alongside the steel industry—two vital foundation industries side by side. The Tees Valley economy contributes significantly to the north. It contributes some £11.5 billion of gross value added to the national economy every year. We have a thriving digital and creative industries cluster, which grew faster than that in any other LEP area in 2014. We have a 280,000-strong highly skilled work force, and a small businesses base of more than 14,500 firms.

We also have the UK’s third largest port, Teesport, which provides an international gateway, distributing products across the country and abroad. As a contemporary sign of its vitality and importance, PD Ports has just signed a seven-year contract with Sahaviriya Steel Industries for the continued shipping of its steel products.

Our leading colleges, our universities and national knowledge centres are at the forefront of skills development and innovation. Tees Valley also has an international airport, albeit one that is crying out for investment and redevelopment—we look to Peel airports to better develop the airport services—and we have direct road and rail routes to key locations across the north.

There is a consensus on the importance of reducing the UK’s trade deficit and rebalancing the economy. If that is to be achieved, it is important that Tees Valley and its mighty industries play their full role. Exciting developments in the energy-intensive industries hold great potential for our region and our country. Strictly subject to the science being right and there being verifiable safeguards, hydraulic fracturing and coal gasification have enormous potential for our future energy and industrial requirements. There is not time this evening to go into the detail, but subject to those safeguards, the future could be truly exciting. The major beneficiaries from the syngas so derived are the energy-intensive industries, and none more so than those on Teesside.

I must mention the Teesside Collective, a pioneering infrastructure project comprised of a cluster of leading industrial players—BOC, Lotte Chemical UK, SSI and GrowHow—which offers a compelling opportunity for the UK to progress its industrial and environmental interests at the same time. Work is already under way for the development of a business case for deploying industrial carbon capture and storage in the Teesside cluster. It will be completed later this year. Tees Valley is in the right place at the right time to become the industrial carbon capture storage leader in Europe. It is therefore essential that the Government provide the necessary support that such key foundation industries need, which in turn will allow our manufacturing industries to compete on a global stage. Good rail and road infrastructure for freight and passengers is essential to all of that.

On 17 January, the Secretary of State for Transport attended the launch in Leeds of Transport in the North, a body of regional leaders tasked with drawing up and delivering a comprehensive programme of strategic investment to transform the north’s infrastructure, and helping to maximise growth. I argue that, if that particular body is to properly speak on the transport needs of the north, it is wholly inappropriate if Tees Valley does not sit alongside the five cities on the board.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing what is a very important debate. I think across the House we can all agree that it is in the interests of the areas we represent to talk up Teesside and the great things happening there: steelmaking is back, train-making is coming and investment is coming in. This is a very important cross-party point: Tees Valley LEP needs to be represented, as those other bodies are, to give our area the strong voice it needs. I want to voice my support and to make it very clear that this is something that unites MPs from different parties, and council leaders and groups, in support. We need to ensure our voice is strong and heard.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we are speaking with one voice for Tees Valley and I am grateful to him for his support.

Quite simply, the Tees Valley transport infrastructure, opposite the existing and future needs of businesses and communities, is lacking in key areas, and those deficits need to be addressed if we are to capitalise on the terrific potential of our region. Undoubtedly, Tees Valley is not configured like the self-styled core cities, but it has its own unique configuration and status that warrants a seat at the table. The Minister will be aware of the excellent inclusive outcomes that have been achieved in the governance arrangements for Rail North, and I hope he will agree with me that it would be entirely sensible to take that sort of inclusive approach in terms of the board of Transport for the North. I urge the Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure that Tees Valley has a seat.

It is regrettable that the state cannot currently compete alongside private companies for rail franchises, but putting that argument to one side for another day I am nevertheless pleased that on the awarding of the new franchise the business case has been won for the reintroduction of a direct Middlesbrough to London rail service, so I need not repeat it. Clearly, the economic growth that this will deliver is unarguable. The disappointment is that the service will come into being only in five years’ time in 2020. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) for meeting me to discuss this matter last week. I would like to think that she was persuaded by the veracity of the case for accelerating the start of the service. I hope that Virgin East Coast can find ways and seize whatever opportunities present to bring forward the start date of the service.

Turning to a matter that concerns Network Rail, just over a year ago the main entrance to Middlesbrough station was closed because of structural difficulties with the Victorian cloister buildings that sit underneath the station main car park. This means there is now no vehicular or indeed pedestrian access to the station from the main southerly aspect, because of the inherent dangers. A year on, plans are now being progressed to board up the frontage, install signage and prepare alternative parking arrangements while architects and engineers go about preparing plans for reconstruction and development. All well and good, but this is all simply far too slow. The people of Middlesbrough deserve better than this. They pay their taxes, unlike some HSBC super wealthy customers. I can only look on with envy at the £895 million redevelopment of Reading station. It looks fantastic and is entirely fit for purpose in the modern railway age. Back in Middlesbrough, however, progress is painfully slow. The town’s people are incredibly patient—they’ve had practice. Indeed, while Dresden, Frankfurt and Berlin were all rebuilt in the aftermath of the second world war, Middlesbrough railway station’s beautiful glass and steel-domed roof was destroyed by the bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe in 1942 and we are still waiting for it to be put back. I urge the Minister in turn to press home the need with Network Rail for much greater urgency and I plead for better communication. It surely cannot be too much to ask for there to be a dedicated website to explain directly to the public what the problem is, what they are doing about it and how long it will all take to put right.

Turning to Darlington railway station, which is the sub-region’s east coast mainline hub, there are significant encumbrances, but their resolution will facilitate significant developmental opportunities. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) will not mind me trespassing, but the entrapment of the local west-east line out of Darlington station, between the north and southbound lines of the east coast, causes immense difficulties in terms of managing the competing traffic demands. It is also a source of congestion and delay for the east coast service itself. The accepted solution is to move the local line from its current configuration and relocate it free of the mainline crossover. Not only will that improve both local and long-haul services, it will free up a major commercial developmental opportunity within the station itself.

All that was brought into stark reality for me just two weeks ago, when changing trains from the King’s Cross Darlington train for the Darlington-Middlesbrough train. The local train was a Pacer train—perhaps one of the worst in the fleet with the metal-framed bus seats. There was a problem with the points, and there were no trains in or out of Darlington for more than an hour. On a bitterly cold evening, the choice facing passengers was to step out on the freezing platform or to wait in their seats and suffer the dreadful poisonous diesel fumes coming into the carriages. That these are our travelling conditions some 200 years after George Stephenson created the first passenger railway in the very town of Darlington simply beggars belief.

My plea to the Minister is that we get rid of these cattle trucks as quickly as possible and replace them with some decent forms of transportation. David Higgins, the CEO of HS2, has himself said that if the good people of the south of England were asked to tolerate such appalling rolling stock, there would be riots. The time for change is long past. I know that the Secretary of State has been pressed on this, but they need to go, and to go quickly.

With more than 70% of major local businesses internationally owned, we remain globally competitive by offering effective transport links and resilient infrastructure. Undoubtedly, rail connectivity needs to be improved, and electrification across the north of England is crucial to this objective. While the TransPennine and Northern franchises have yet to be awarded, it is absolutely essential for the vitality of Tees Valley, the entire northern region and the UK as a whole that good and direct links be preserved and developed right across the north to include direct services from Middlesbrough to Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool.

The argument for electrification has long since been won. I shall not recite the environmental and economic justifications, but the benefits to Tees Valley would be enormous. Much is said about the interconnectivity of our core cities, and rightly so. We have to address that issue, but the same principle applies to interconnectivity within regions such as the north-east and sub-regions such as Tees Valley. It currently takes up to one hour and 36 minutes to travel between Middlesbrough on the Tees and Newcastle on the Tyne—a distance of 40 miles by road between the two major conurbations; and it takes 53 minutes to travel from Saltburn to Darlington by way of a bone-shaking Pacer that has no part in modern-day transport in one of the richest countries on the planet. Mo Farah would give it a good run for its money! I know that the electrification taskforce will report imminently, but I trust that the Minister will agree that the case has been more than made that electrification from the east coast main line from Northallerton through to Teesport is a top priority.

The concept of the Tees Valley metro has been on the stocks for some considerable time, but only electrification of the existing sub-regional network could make it feasible. A light rail or tram system would be trans- formational for Tees Valley.

The way in which bus services are currently delivered is encapsulated in the stories I hear when I speak to Avanta, which is charged with delivering the Work programme. It tells me that far too often it can source entry level work at places such as Teesport and elsewhere across Tees Valley, only for it to prove impossible for the client physically to travel to such places of work at the times the businesses need them and/or to get home again. Quite frankly, we do not have a public transport system worthy of the name.

My constituents in places such as Berwick Hills tell me of the lack of buses to get to the hospital. It is essential that when powers are devolved to combined authorities they include the re-regulation of buses, in the way that benefits London, and mandatory comprehensive transport coverage for accessing health services and other key destinations. A truly integrated transport system must be one where bus, road and rail services coalesce around the needs of our businesses and communities.

East Coast Main Line

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think the person who has just spoken is the hon. Member for Huddersfield, yet we heard not a single welcome for the new train service to Huddersfield. He would rather talk about dogma than celebrate the first direct link to his area since 1960. That sums up the Labour party 100%: it is the Labour party of Kinnock, rather than Blair or Brown.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

More trains; more investment; more money back for taxpayers; a link for Thornaby, in my constituency; a link for Middlesbrough; trains built down the road in Aycliffe—does my right hon. Friend agree that this is good news not just for passengers and taxpayers, but for the economy of Teesside?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed it is. The decision by Hitachi to base its plant in the north-east, bringing more than 700 new jobs to the area, has been universally welcomed.

Transport in the North-East

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on securing this important debate.

Much of the discussion so far has focused on buses, so I will start with a couple of comments to the Minister to ensure that the Government are aware of what has been happening with buses in Stockton. In the past two years the borough council has decided to remove the remaining subsidies for bus routes. The immediate decision taken by the bus companies was that we would lose a significant number of routes—in my constituency specifically, we lost those servicing Hartburn in west Stockton and some of the villages to the south-east of Stockton, including Hilton, Maltby and Kirklevington. That, of course, caused significant concern, and we had well-attended public meetings to discuss the impact. I must admit that my experience of dealing with the issue as a Member of Parliament was mixed. I was, and am, critical of the borough council’s decision to remove the subsidies entirely and in a very short time. When it is investing more than £30 million in Stockton high street—investment that is welcome—it is somewhat ironic that, by saving a few tens of thousands of pounds, it is actually stopping people visiting the high streets it wants to attract business to.

On Hartburn and West Stockton, we were able, with local councillors, to have a fruitful and positive discussion with bus operators. We were able to look at where routes could be changed and where profitability could be found and to retain bus services pretty much at the level they were at before. That was a good example of where a subsidy was removed and where a service, as a result of some intelligent thinking, was retained and improved for the residents who rely on it.

Sadly, that was much more difficult in the villages, and we have more or less lost a number of services to many of the villages I represent. What has happened in one half of one borough underlines some of the complexity of the challenge when it comes to providing one aspect of public transport—bus routes. We need different things in different areas; we need different solutions for different communities, and a one-size-fits-all approach invariably will not work.

I welcome talk of an Oyster card-style system. Those who do not always support what I say in politics have occasionally accused me of being a little Teessider. However, I would suggest that I am a big Teessider—I think we are a great place—and I think there could be great co-operation on this issue right across the north of England. The more broadly we can spread such a system, and the better and more convenient the services we can provide for our constituents, the better that will be. The initiative is very welcome, and I would support it. I hope, therefore, that the combined authority in the north-east is talking to the local enterprise partnership and the authorities in Teesside and the Tees valley. I hope the various bodies with interest in the issue can co-operate to deliver for all our constituents.

I would also like to touch on the issue of roads and to put on record—I have not yet had chance to do so in the House—my thanks to the Government for the investment we have secured in roads in Stockton South. Specifically, the link road between Thornaby road and the A174 is being dualled, following a significant grant from Government pinch point funding, which is contributing towards the cost. Parts of Ingleby way and Myton way, which are part of Ingleby Barwick, a large and growing private housing estate in my constituency, will be dualled to ease traffic flow. That will bring significant benefits not only in terms of access to, and egress from, the estate, but for constituents whose residential roads have been used as rat runs to skip queuing traffic in places such as The Rings in Ingleby Barwick, where there have been significant problems. Those problems will, I hope, be alleviated, thanks to investment from the local growth fund by our local enterprise partnership, which is doing a good job, and because of the decision taken by Ministers, who have recognised the needs that exist in the part of the north-east I represent.

Significant investment is also going into Eaglescliffe station in my constituency. Rail is, of course, an important link between the north-east and the rest of the country. Whenever possible, I take the train up and down the country. An open-access service run by Grand Central—now owned by Arriva—goes from the station and starts in Sunderland. The service is welcome, and it does a good job. Looking around the room, I see a number of colleagues who use the service as regularly as I do. Eaglescliffe station has never quite caught up to its new role, with its direct link to London, but investment is finally going in. We are getting a new waiting room and extended car parking facilities, and a lot of good work is being done.

If the Minister is in the north of England, I would encourage him to take the time to visit and to see what is being done. I would stress to Northern Rail that it is important that this work is done in a timely manner. As to the actual process of construction, I have never been able fully to understand how it takes six months to double the size of a relatively small car park, although I am going on a site visit to be convinced that it does take that long. In the meantime, however, the work causes my constituents significant inconvenience. That aside, I would welcome a visit from the Minister at some point so that he can see some of the investment that is going in and the great things we are doing with rail and other transport in my constituency, in Teesside and across the north-east.

We are talking broadly about north-east transport, and the final issue I want to raise is our airport. When I say “our airport”, I mean Durham Tees Valley airport, or Teesside airport, in the south of the region. Of course, the north-east has Newcastle airport and Teesside airport. In recent years, Newcastle airport has been somewhat more successful than Teesside airport, which has been trending ever so slightly unwelcomely downwards since about 2007 and is in a fragile state.

Peel, the owner, is making many of the right noises about investing there, but I have two concerns to put on record. One is the obvious point that Peel wants to sell part of the airport for housing so that it can invest in the rest of the airport. The airport should be run as an airport; the land is there to be an airport, not to be turned into a housing estate. Although I recognise the need for a financially viable and workable model, I am concerned about the proposals.

Significantly, the owners are also trying to offload pension liabilities on to the local authorities, which are shareholders in the airport. Indeed, they are pushing hard for the local authorities to accept the liabilities. The only situation in which any benefit would arise from the local authorities accepting the liabilities, as far as I have been able to ascertain from looking at the information that is available—Peel would, of course, still be paying—is if staff were to lose their jobs and the airport were to close. In that case, responsibility for making up the overall shortfall would fall to the local authorities, rather than to Peel. I stress to the local authorities that have shares in Teesside airport to be very careful indeed, in public money terms, about what they accept and to be wary of Peel’s overall intentions. While I hope those intentions are good, and I support Peel in the things it is doing to try to maintain the airport as an airport and to make it a success, we must be careful not to allow the fragility of the situation to be used to bully public authorities into making decisions they probably should not make in the long-term interest of taxpayers in my constituency and across Teesside. Instead, we must ensure Peel has the greatest possible incentive to keep the airport as an airport.

We have lots of great opportunities in the north-east. I welcome many of the investments the Government have made in my constituency, and I am grateful for them. They will improve the lives and transport options of my constituents. I welcome this debate, and I hope that, where we can find consensus, we can work across parties and across our region to deliver improvements for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As we pointed out earlier in Question Time, we are making significant investment in the whole railway system. That will come sooner than HS2. We are spending £37.5 billion between 2014 and 2019. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also talked to me about the line my hon. Friend has just referred to, and I will be looking at how improvements can be made to that line as well.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

T2. Pinch-point funding for our road network is very important. Ingleby Barwick in my constituency has significant traffic issues, especially where the A174 meets Thornaby road. Will the Secretary of State work with me to find a solution to make life a bit better for my constituents?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I certainly will work with my hon. Friend and meet to discuss this scheme with him. It was part of the applications made originally for the local pinch-point fund, but it did not fall in the first round of that. The scheme was very successful and over-subscribed, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking hard at ways in which we might go further, and I will be happy to talk to him about his particular scheme.

Transport and the Economy

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Like many Members who represent constituencies far away from London, I spend a lot of time travelling on public transport—in my case, over three hours twice a week on the train down from Eaglescliffe in Stockton South. I am therefore aware of the importance of transport for regions such as the north-east and the vital role it plays in our regional economies, so I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about transport and the economy and the Select Committee report.

The report makes a number of interesting observations and recommendations. It recognises the importance of transport to our economy. That is key at the current time, when driving economic growth is so vital. It also stresses the importance of our international gateways, both airports and ports. The Government must focus on those gateways and thereby maximise the economic benefits to the country.

Airports are important not only as international hubs, but as regional hubs. Our regional airports are very important to local economies across the UK. In the north-east, we have Newcastle airport and Teesside airport. The latter lies partly in my constituency and partly in that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), while a small part also lies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Recently, it has been discussed in the House on several occasions, as it has faced a challenging time of late. There has now been good news, however. It has been bought by Peel, a company that was involved previously. It has made clear its commitment to run Teesside airport as a successful passenger airport. That is precisely what people in communities across Teesside, the wider north-east area and north Yorkshire who use and rely on its services want.

In a Civil Aviation Bill debate I raised this topic and asked whether the Government could use the licensing conditions they apply to major strategic airports to require them to retain slots for Teesside. In this debate, I shall explore another possible means by which to address the problem: the public service obligation. Will the Minister share his thoughts on the possibility of using that? Under EU Council regulation 2408/92, the Republic of Ireland established public service obligations between Dublin and Kerry, Galway, Sligo, Knock, Donegal and Londonderry commencing in 2008. This can be done; it is quite possible for a Government with the right strategic view to consider the needs of regional airports and, within existing EU regulations, establish PSOs that can protect them and enable them to prosper.

In December 2007, a Transport Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question that it was for regional bodies to apply for a PSO for Teesside airport. In February 2010, in a reply to Lord Bates, the relevant Minister in the other place confirmed that no application had been received at that time from the regional development agency, One North East. That failure by the RDA to engage constructively in finding a way to protect important routes between the north-east and the capital reflects some of the challenges that Teesside airport faces today. We have an opportunity to revisit whether a PSO should be given to Teesside airport.

High Speed 2 is not quite set to come up to the north-east yet, although we hope it will do so one day, as it is an important infrastructure investment that the Government are committed to making. They have recognised the economic benefits that reduced travel times between the capital and the regions can bring. Teesside falls just outside the envelope that will benefit from HS2, and I suspect that other hon. Members will agree with me when I say that we have the opportunity to make the argument that we should examine whether a PSO for Teesside should be introduced for the period until that gap is filled—until HS2 extends further north and benefits the community that I represent, along with those of other hon. Members in the region.

I therefore wish to ask the Minister and the Department this: in the light of the answers given by Ministers in 2007 that it is for regional agencies to make a PSO request and in the light of the confirmation given in 2010 that no such request had been made, what would happen if the local enterprise partnership requested a PSO for Teesside airport? A single LEP now covers the entire airport site, even though it is in a number of constituencies, so if such a request were made, supported by local councils, business leaders and, no doubt, hon. Members, would the Government examine it? Will they consider that option? Will they constructively work with me and others to deliver it, so that the future of this important airport, which has so much potential to be a driver for our regional economy, can not only be secured in the long term, but improved to deliver a better service to my constituents? That would allow my weekly journeys down to London and back up to my constituency to be shortened somewhat from the three and a bit hours they take today. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and would be grateful for confirmation on that point, so that I can pursue the matter with the LEP. I hope that a constructive way forward can be found for this important regional asset.

Civil Aviation Bill

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who spoke eloquently about a range of subjects and touched on the licensing issues arising from this Bill, which I, too, hope to speak about. It is also a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who spoke so clearly and persuasively about her constituency. Having visited Feltham and Heston only quite recently, and given its close proximity to Heathrow, I have no doubt that she will take a long-standing interest in aviation matters.

I welcome this Bill, which is a long overdue measure to tackle some of the problems arising from outdated regulation that our aviation industry faces. There are a number of good measures in the Bill. In such a monopolistic market, it is important that the Government should set out a clear set of regulations to ensure that passengers get the best deal. This Bill goes a long way towards delivering that, notwithstanding the range of comments made by Members from across the House this evening.

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the Bill is the commentary on, and the rules set out for, the role of the Civil Aviation Authority. Clause 1, chapter 1—one of the first things in the legislation—says:

“The CAA must carry out its functions under this Chapter in a manner which it considers will further the interests of users of air transport services regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of airport operation services.”

We are presented in this Bill with an opportunity to look at how we deliver aviation services right across the country and, in particular, what might be done to secure the future of some of our regional airports. In their comments on the draft legislation, members of the Transport Committee raised concern that regional airports do not always feature as highly or prominently as they perhaps should. They are a vital part of our economy. They produce an extremely important economic boost for the areas in which they are based, but they are also important for transport right across the UK.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about regional airports. He is absolutely right that we need to encourage investment in regional airports to get our economy growing. Does he not also think that investment in regional airports in the north is probably more important than investment in regional airports in the south-east, in moving us away from the north-south divide, which is having an impact on our economy in the north?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Transport Committee, has, in true expert fashion, predicted much of what I want to say. Later I will touch on some of the points that he eloquently raises.

The regional issue, which is so important for those of us in the north, as well as those in the south-west—indeed, it is important for those in any part of the country that is that much further from the capital—should not and will not go away. My constituency is served by Teesside airport, which covers three constituencies: Sedgefield—I see the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) in the Chamber—Stockton North and my constituency of Stockton South. Teesside airport has quite a long and interesting history, which I will not dwell on, although the recent history, which is relevant to what I want to say, sadly shows a certain level of decline. In 2006, around 1 million passengers went through the airport; in 2011, the figure was fewer than 200,000.

When I say Teesside airport, some hon. Members look at me with a little confusion, because they will have heard it referred to as Durham Tees Valley airport. A few years ago the name was changed, against much local opposition and amid much local concern. As far as I can tell, whether by looking at maps or historical records, Tees valley as a geographical area does not exist, and Durham is rather a long way away from the airport. None the less, Teesside international airport was officially renamed Durham Tees Valley airport. As a local MP, I raised the issue over the summer. Indeed, I was involved in a campaign to change the name back to Teesside airport, because I know that the issue concerns many of my constituents and those in surrounding areas. Indeed, the Evening Gazette, an excellent local daily newspaper, ran the campaign quite prominently and, certainly recently, it was the second most subscribed to and commented on campaign that it had run. The campaign sparked off a great deal of comment and contributions from local people, because it goes to the heart of some of the challenges we face in that sub-region of the north-east, the strength of identity in Teesside and the value that local people place on it. However, a name alone would not change the future trajectory of an airport or its business or economic success.

[Nigel Mills]

I rise to give my hon. Friend some hope for his campaign. A few years ago, East Midlands airport changed its name to Nottingham East Midlands airport, in the face of huge opposition in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, which jointly fund the airport. The name was eventually changed back to East Midlands airport, so such campaigns can be successful.

[James Wharton]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I hope that in the fullness of time that is exactly what will happen. However, there is a more pressing issue, which is relevant to today, than simply the name of the airport, important as that is: the airport has recently been put up for sale.

Again, I will not go through too much of the detail of how the airport got into that position—the hon. Member for Sedgefield recounted much of the recent history earlier—but I can say with absolute certainty that the fact that it has been put up for sale is a cause of great concern for many of my constituents. We know—I know, as a local person and a local MP, and my constituents know—that only recently Teesside airport was vibrant and successful. It was a highly successful sub-regional transport hub that provided not only international flights, but quick and easy domestic flights down to London Heathrow. Those flights were provided by BMI—British Midland International—and when that service was withdrawn, that had a serious detrimental impact on what has proved to be the airport’s long-term future.

The issue was raised, at some length and on a number of occasions, by the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) when he was Regional Minister, under the last Government. He campaigned diligently to have Heathrow slots reinstated for Teesside, on the basis that it was an important domestic route that would put passenger flow through the airport and play an important part in providing an economic transport boost to that part of the north-east. He campaigned hard, although sadly unsuccessfully. This is a cross-party issue, with, I believe, cross-party support.

That brings me to some of the specific parts of the Bill before us today. Subsection (1)(b) of clause 18, which deals with what the CAA has to take into account in putting conditions on an airport’s licence, refers to

“such other conditions as the CAA considers necessary or expedient having regard to the CAA’s duties under section 1,”

which I have already mentioned, and which include those relating to the continuity and range of airport services that passengers must be able to enjoy. In addition, clause 1(3) says:

“In performing its duties under subsections (1)…the CAA must have regard to…(d) any guidance issued to the CAA by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Chapter”.

It is my contention that this Bill opens the door for the Secretary of State to instruct the CAA, through the guidance issued, that it must give proper attention and pay heed to the overall economic needs of the sub-region in the north-east.

I accept that this issue has been visited before. As I have mentioned, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East raised it a number of times when he was Regional Minister on behalf of the region as a whole. However, there is a new factor that should now be taken into account: the Government’s recent announcement—a welcome announcement for the economy in the north—that High Speed 2 is to go ahead. At the moment, HS2 goes up as far as Leeds. It will provide some travel time benefits for those travelling down from the north-east, but it does not yet reach stations in the north-east of England. I am sure that in the fulness of time it will do so. Indeed, I and other hon. Members—on a cross-party basis and across the north-east—will no doubt be making the case for investment to bring high-speed rail as far north as is necessary for our constituents to benefit from the economic opportunities that it provides.

None the less, in the foreseeable future, high-speed will not come up as far as Teesside, Newcastle or the north-east region at all. Therefore, although the Government have recognised, through their investment in HS2, the value of cutting journey times to the capital and ensuring that our country—and our nation—is as interconnected as possible, with high quality, high-speed journeys from north to south, they have not yet come up with a proposal that would help to bridge the gap that little bit further north, in the areas and communities that I and so many colleagues across the House represent.

HS2 therefore provides an opportunity for the Secretary of State to consider whether provision should be made for Teesside airport to be given particular weighting to ensure that it has a slot at Heathrow. Teesside will feel the benefits that HS2 will bring to the north, but not quite as acutely as those living in Leeds, for example, or in places from which they can travel to the stations that it will serve directly. Those benefits have been recognised by the Government, and the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the opportunity to set criteria that would allow the CAA to take into account the need for faster travel times from Teesside airport and from that part of the north-east that I represent.

This is both my appeal and my question to the Minister. My appeal is that the Department consider whether the guidance that will be issued under the Bill should take special account of Teesside’s unique position, just outside the envelope of HS2, so that it could benefit from regular, high-speed connectivity with the capital. My question is whether that interpretation of the Bill is accurate, and whether that option would be open to the Secretary of State if the proposals should become law. If it is not, I urge the Government to consider amending the Bill. If it is accurate, I am sure that colleagues across Teesside and the north-east will join me in urging the Secretary of State to ensure that the provisions are used to maximum effect to take into account the needs and views of individuals and businesses in my constituency and in the surrounding communities. They have used Teesside airport over many years and they have been well served by an excellent, local, well-managed service on their doorstep and offered a range of flights. Sadly, however, that service has gone into what I hope is a short-term decline in recent years. I ask for action to be taken, and for the Government to deliver the Heathrow route that would bring great benefit to the people whom I am proud to represent.

Noise Reduction (M54)

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Where motorways cut through urban areas or pass close to communities, the Government should be duty bound to do everything within their power to reduce the impact. If they wish to cultivate a positive image of infrastructure improvements—that they need not have a detrimental effect on people’s lives—they should take every step to ensure that the effects are minimised at every level. I must confess that I would like the barriers, which my hon. Friend mentioned, to be in place from the start of the M6 all the way past Manchester, but I am unsure whether the Minister will give so generously of sound barriers. Local communities often demand them, and the Government should always do everything within their power to ensure that local communities get them. I particularly ask the Minister to ensure that such measures are put in place for junction 2 and the flyover, along with noise-reducing or whisper tarmac.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is so important to his constituents. It is typical of his approach that, having been at the forefront of the campaign to deliver the Jaguar Land Rover investment for his constituency, with colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), he now follows through to ensure that it happens in a way that benefits his constituents most effectively. In the Department for Transport’s forward spending plan, £310 million was taken out of resource funding for road resurfacing and management, but £150 million is being invested in capital spending. Is that capital spending not exactly the sort of spending that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) is calling for to improve the road and deliver a better quality of life for the constituency he so ably represents?

[Gavin Williamson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He makes a valid point; there is a danger that the Department for Transport wants to spend all its money in the Chilterns, and we do not want that. We want to ensure that it goes to the west midlands and further afield. I hope that the Minister will assure us that some money will be spent on the M54 and many other such schemes in the west midlands.

I ask that the Minister assures my constituents that everything will be done to protect residents during the construction phase of the flyover, not only in Coven Heath, but much further afield, so that the impact of the Jaguar Land Rover plant and the i54 is minimised at all costs. Will he urgently look at the whole motorway, from the M6 to junction 2 onwards, to assure my constituents that low-noise, low-impact whisper tarmac will be used when the road surface is replaced, to ensure that they do not have to hear the roar of the M54? Will he ensure that we do not have the travesty of a concrete slab motorway surface all the way from junction 2 to Telford? Will it be properly surfaced with low-noise, low-impact tarmac, thus enhancing and improving the lives of many people, not only in my constituency, but along the length of the M54?

I hope that the Minister can assure me that the use of silent or low-noise tarmac along the whole motorway will be considered in the maintenance schedule. When will that be planned over the next few years? Those assurances will give my constituents hope that the Government will act to improve their quality of life.

Tees Valley Rail Transport

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Tees Valley is a distinct area of the country with a population of more than 750,000 people. It is well defined, with the sea to the east, 20 to 30 miles of open County Durham countryside to the north, the dales and Pennines to the west, and a vast area of sparsely populated north Yorkshire to the south. It has long been defined as a coherent economic area. It was no accident that the Tees Valley local enterprise partnership was quickly established, as a similar body already existed. Despite the substantial population, the area has a slight identity crisis. It is often referred to as a city region by policy makers, but it contains no cities or even one dominant town. Middlesbrough is currently applying for city status.

Steam-powered passenger rail transport actually started in Tees Valley between Stockton and Darlington in 1825, hauled by George Stephenson’s engine, “Locomotion”. Some 185 years later, we cannot even go directly from Stockton to Darlington on a train. There is a passenger rail system, but it is poorly co-ordinated, has insufficient trains and badly needs investment. New station stops are needed to reflect developments since the lines were built. This has been recognised for many years by the local and regional planning authorities. Finally, in 2009, a first tranche of investment in a Tees Valley metro system was approved. However, after less than £5 million was drawn down, the remaining £24 million was postponed by the present Government. The importance of the project to the area was shown by the fact that a first phase was resubmitted to round 1 of the regional growth fund. Unfortunately, the bid was unsuccessful.

My speech today will cover three main areas: the need to get a good passenger metro system in Tees Valley; the importance of freight investment; and the need for a long-term vision, including further use of existing lines and possible new lines. Settlements in Tees Valley are there mainly due to manufacturing industry. Decline of industry in the last few decades has left much of the area at the wrong end of all the socio-economic league tables. For example, a study by the BBC and Experian in 2010 looked at 324 areas of the UK in terms of economic strength. It placed Hartlepool borough 314th, Redcar and Cleveland 319th and Middlesbrough, arguably the largest town in England, in last place at 324th. Middlesbrough also has the third lowest number of businesses per thousand residents in the country. It is precisely because the area has been performing badly in recent years in respect of socio-economic indicators that there is a need for a modern, long-lasting rail network to aid regeneration.

There are many promising signals. Teesside university was UK university of the year for 2009-10, and that has helped fuel a rapid growth in digital and media industries. Teesside remains a key UK centre for process industries and is emerging as a major centre of green technology research and manufacturing. Teesport is a thriving, growing port. Darlington is a growing commercial centre, aided by the presence of the Student Loans Company and Teachers’ Pensions. If we are to restore the north-east to the economic hub it once was and can be again, improving rail infrastructure is vital.

Existing passenger rail in the core area is in the shape of a cross, with a north-south Hartlepool to Nunthorpe line intersecting the east-west Darlington to Saltburn line at both Thornaby and Middlesbrough. This area should be the first target of a metro system. There are 21 stations in the core area. Some are very poorly served, including the one near the airport at which only one train stops every week. Despite the patchy service, usage has grown over the past 10 years. More than 2 million people a year use Darlington station, which gives access to the east coast main line and other national services.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

My fellow Teesside MP—I still do not like “Tees Valley”—has already touched on a key concern for our part of the north-east, which is the future viability of our airport. An effective rail transport system, making proper use of the station at the airport, would be an important piece of the puzzle in bringing Teesside airport—as I still insist on calling it—back into use and making it successful once again. The airport, which is on the boundary of my constituency, has a new owner, looking to do exciting things. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I hope that the Minister will consider that, as part of an integrated package, rail transport could also revive our air transport links.

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely, because I am about to talk more about the airport. I fully support his comments. It is essential that the airport is better served, and a frequent light rail service operating in the core area would help to change the economic fortunes of Tees Valley.

The use of rail services has continued to grow, despite the patchy service: last year, footfall increased by just less than 50,000; and in the past 10 years, the average increase in footfall overall has been 58%. Refurbished stations have shown the biggest increases, some in excess of 100%. The increase in passengers, along with huge further potential demand, means that new lines, trains and infrastructure are needed to meet the needs of residents and businesses.

Investment in existing stations is vital. For example, establishing a proper link to the airport is vital: Durham Tees Valley airport, or Teesside as it is still shown on departure boards all over the world, must be the passenger airport in Britain worst served by public transport, but the train line passes just half a mile from the terminal. Eaglescliffe station now has a main line service to London, but no information displays and only two small bus shelters for passengers. Redcar station needs investment as a gateway to the town and the new college and civic developments, and Darlington station needs investment to improve access to new educational and economic developments. The Redcar and Darlington schemes were included in the regional growth fund round 1 bid. The last new station in the area was Longbeck near Marske-by-the-Sea in 1985.

There are clear possibilities for further new stops on the existing lines. Some examples include Teesside park, for access to the new shopping area and the Tees barrage leisure facilities; Middlehaven, for the major new commercial developments and the Riverside stadium, home of Middlesbrough football club; and the James Cook university hospital, which is the major acute hospital for the area. Traffic to and from the hospital is a big source of congestion on one of the main access roads to Middlesbrough, and there are chronic parking problems at the site. Providing a good rail service would help to reduce such problems. The existing lines run close by, and a new station for the hospital was also part of the initial regional growth fund bid.

A number of other residential and commercial developments are current or planned along those routes, opening further possibilities for new stations, such as at Morton Palms, Darlington, and The Ings, Redcar. A further key need is to ensure that the new enterprise zone recently announced by the Government is well served by public transport. It is almost certain to be close to those rail routes.

I will now move on to freight. Teesport has recently been ranked variously as between the second and fourth largest port in the country, depending on the amount of industrial activity in the area. As well as serving the bulk process industries and being an import terminal for cars, Teesport has a rapidly growing container business, with giant new warehouses serving Tesco and Asda. The excellent facilities at Teesport mean that process industries inland also use the import/export facilities, and such industrial materials normally require shipment by rail.

The port has been successfully driving economic and employment growth. For example, 1,100 jobs have been created since 2007 and further exciting developments are planned. However, the existing connecting rail facilities need upgrading—for example, to provide clearance for modern 9-foot 6-inch containers—which is strategically important for the country. A successful Teesport backed by good rail facilities will help to reduce lorry use by millions of miles, bringing economic and environmental benefits. As part of the regional growth fund round 1, a gauge clearance project was submitted, which is vital to continuing the rapid, port-based economic growth. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of getting more bulk freight off the roads and on to the railways.

The longer term vision includes more use of lines joining the core area and possible new lines. To the west, Darlington connects to Bishop Auckland via four other stations, including the former rolling stock manufacturing town of Shildon and, following the Hitachi announcement, the new rolling stock manufacturing town of Newton Aycliffe. The line from Eaglescliffe to Northallerton passes through the large population centre of Yarm-on-Tees, which I believe is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). Beyond Nunthorpe, the line passes into the north Yorkshire moors and on to Whitby. Services on that line are always likely to be more of a leisure activity, but the first station is Great Ayton and most people in that area work in Tees Valley.

Finally, beyond Saltburn, part of the old Yorkshire coast line to Scarborough still exists as a freight-only line as far as the Boulby potash mine. The potash mine received money to expand in the regional growth fund round 1 and is a major local employer. I have recently been approached by an operator who is considering restoring a passenger service along the line to include the east Cleveland settlements it passes through, including North Skelton, Brotton, Skinningrove and Loftus. Use of all such existing lines to better connect people to the core Tees Valley services and opportunities should be part of our vision.

Serious discussion is also going on about reopening the old Nunthorpe to Guisborough branch line. Although the track has been lifted, the route is virtually intact as a walkway, and Guisborough has expanded to be a large centre of population, with most of the people working in Tees Valley. They are a large contributor to the heavy south-to-north road congestion at peak times. A rail service would reduce the current pressure to invest in new road solutions—some road-building proposals even involve taking land from the National Trust at Orenby hall.

More speculative would be the construction of other new lines and a Tees crossing nearer the river mouth. Redcar to Hartlepool is only seven miles as the crow flies, but the need to go a long way upriver to cross by road or rail means that their local economies are largely disconnected. A Tees crossing remains a dream for many in the long term. Where new lines are not economical, better co-ordinated bus services are needed to link centres of population to the rail network, for example from the Greater Eston area.

I appreciate that investment requires funds, but I urge the Minister to consider carefully the issue of fares. The UK already has some of the highest fares in the world. I live close to Redcar East station and, to travel one stop to the centre of town, the fare is only slightly less than a taxi fare—for just two people, a taxi would be the cheaper option for most short journeys locally. For long trips, we risk incentivising people to do the wrong thing. For my trip to Parliament each week, it is already cheaper to drive at 40p a mile than to buy a standard class open return train ticket. I hope that the Minister will recognise that fares must remain reasonable, as mentioned in the coalition agreement, and that continued public investment in the railways is in the country’s interest. That is the view taken by Governments in almost every developed country.

As I hope that I have illustrated, it is vital that Tees Valley receives the short-term investment it desperately needs to improve passenger and freight rail transport. Investment without a long-term vision, however, will not deliver the results that the people throughout the region want, so it is important that a long-term strategy is put in place to manage investment over time and to build the infrastructure needed. Tees Valley is an area with enormous potential to drive major growth in the UK economy. I hope that this debate has helped further the cause for improving Tees Valley rail transport, and I strongly urge the Minister to support the upgrades that are so badly needed.

Intercity Express and Rail Electrification

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

It is a matter for hon. Members whether they see their glasses as half empty or half full, but I am pleased to see the Government busily topping glasses up. As a representative of a north-east constituency, I am also pleased to say that last week we had the excellent news that Teesside Cast Products was being sold to SSI—Sahaviriya Steel Industries—and now we have today’s announcement from the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a vote of confidence—not just by the private sector, but by the Government—in the skills and abilities of those working in manufacturing right across the north-east?

[Mr Hammond]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: it is a vote of confidence in UK manufacturing. This Government are committed to rebalancing the economy, reviving manufacturing and reasserting the value of Britain’s manufacturing skills base, and both announcements play to that theme.