High Speed 2

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Before I call the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to move her motion, eight Members have notified me that they intend to speak, and I suspect many more may wish to intervene. We only have an hour. I do not want to limit the key points that anyone wishes to make, but if we can have a little brevity, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the business case for High Speed 2.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, in my first debate as a Back Bencher in more than five years. I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss one of the biggest concerns for many of my constituents, and to outline why I believe that the business case for High Speed 2 must be urgently reviewed by the Government.

I first became aware of HS2 when it was proposed in 2009 by the then Labour Government. Investment in infrastructure, creating jobs and growth, improving travel times between our major cities, and closing the north-south divide were all put forward as reasons in favour of the UK’s second high-speed train line. However, those supposed benefits unravelled one by one, and it quickly became apparent that HS2 is not the right infrastructure project, will not improve point-to-point travel times, and will not close the north-south divide. It will create jobs, yes, but at an eye-wateringly expensive rate, far beyond what we might expect from a similar project.

Those of us who expressed concerns about HS2 even while it was still in consultation were dismissed by others as nimbys and told that we were flat wrong about the wider benefits that HS2 would bring to the north. I was then and continue to be willing to be proved wrong, but with the delay to the notice to proceed, growing concerns about the project’s spiralling costs, ongoing engineering and design difficulties and, even now, the rumours that the line past Birmingham might never be built, it is high time for the project to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it will actually deliver for taxpayers.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Stewart Hosie

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly hope, and I think all of my right hon. and hon. Friends hope, that my hon. Friend will be here when we come back to this place. He is extremely young, and I am sure he will still be around. Yes, it is in the Bill that this is the home of our Parliament and that we will certainly be back here.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House is being very generous in giving way. I agree with much of what she has said. The Bill sets up the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body, and we are not going oppose that. She is also right that we need to work from somewhere, and of course we need value for money. May I ask her, however, whether she regrets not going back to look again at a new build in central London, which was of course the cheapest of all the options when the original assessments were done?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the House of Commons Commission. He certainly worked very closely with the other Commission members to consider the options available. I can say to him specifically that, since the appalling terror incident two years ago, a security review has been carried out, and it was very clear that parliamentarians, particularly elected Members of Parliament, need to be within the secure perimeter of the Palace at all times during the day, so for reasons of security as well as cost-effectiveness, the decision was taken to go with the Richmond House development.

I would now like to make a bit of progress, and particularly to address the fact that there are some who want to see this place become a museum. That would not of itself absolve us of our responsibility for restoration and renewal. The Palace is part of the UNESCO Westminster world heritage site. It is our obligation to maintain it, and the health and safety concerns of this Palace will need to be addressed regardless. Even if we were to move to a new permanent location, these works would still need doing. We cannot simply wash our hands of it. It is also worth remembering that when the Palace was finished in 1870—with debating Chambers, Lobbies, Committee Rooms and offices—it was purpose-built to serve as the home of Parliament. It would obviously be incredibly expensive permanently to relocate Parliament elsewhere. It would mean uprooting the Government Departments and agencies based around Westminster, and the cost of doing that would, frankly, be eye-watering. That is why the Government are committed to making progress with R and R, and why we have supported Parliament in bringing forward this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because of course this project is a parliamentary project; it is not a project for Government. Very specifically, I have taken steps to ensure that the Bill will succeed any changes of leadership, any changes of Government, so that we will be back in here in the 2030s, under the sponsorship and leadership of Parliament as a House. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Consultation—cross-party, cross-House—is absolutely key to the success of this project, because there is no doubt that by the mid-2030s, even the next leader of the Conservative party may still not be around.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Leader of the House for what she said about estimates being laid, so that at least there will be clarity about how much we intend to spend. However, she will be aware of the difficulty debating the current estimates, when we can talk about anything except for the actual estimate. May we have an assurance that when these estimates are laid, we will be able to discuss the actual sums of money, not simply what they will be spent on?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. In essence, the Estimates Commission will be made up of parliamentarians, with lay member support, and those estimates will be laid before the House of Commons for debate and approval, with commentary from HM Treasury. Also, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the outline business case, which will be the initial proposal for deliverables and costs, will come before Parliament for it to vote on, and that should take place during 2021. I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that this House will have the opportunity to vote on, and debate, the finances; but I will perhaps provide him with further advice on that outside the Chamber, so that I can understand exactly the point that he is trying to solve.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Stewart Hosie

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

All I can say is, nice try.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I have a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous, but who recently applied for a job with a UK Government Department. She has, among other qualifications, an A in higher maths and a B in advanced higher maths. This is a higher standard than an English A-level, yet she was told by Capita, which did the initial sifting, that she did not have the requisite qualifications. May we have a written statement from the Leader of the House, directing the attention of Ministers, HR managers and Capita to an explanation of the value of all qualifications sat by school pupils in the UK, including in Scotland? While she is answering, will she take the opportunity to congratulate the Scottish pupils who have just done their prelims—mock exams in England—and are now studying for their highers and advanced highers before the summer?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted to congratulate all students, in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who have just taken mocks and preliminaries. I wish them every success with their exams in the summer. I congratulate in particular the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who sounds as if she has done extraordinarily well in her maths highers. I sincerely hope that she will be rewarded with a good role. He makes a very important point. It is not clear to me whether he is suggesting that perhaps Capita has not understood the way that the grading system works.

[Stewart Hosie]

indicated assent.

[Andrea Leadsom]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about this specific case I can take it up on his behalf, or he could raise it directly with the Secretary of State for Education, who I am sure would be very keen to take it up on his behalf.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Stewart Hosie

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry to have to ask for further details, but I shall be happy to take the matter up with the Department for Health if the hon. Lady would like to write to me about it.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Like many Members, I have had occasion to sign off referrals to ombudsman services. In most instances, the determinations —matters can only be accepted or rejected—are sufficient for my constituents, but they cannot be appealed against. May we have a debate in Government time on the working of ombudsman services, and, in particular, on what recourse constituents may have if they believe that full or essential details concerning their case were not fully taken into consideration when the determinations were reached?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, having myself come across cases that seemed to have extraordinary outcomes. I think that this would be an ideal subject for a Select Committee inquiry—it is the sort of issue on which evidence really does need to be provided. I am also conscious that different ombudsmen deal with different types of activity. While the matter seems ideal for a Select Committee inquiry, I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman separately if he thinks that another route would be better.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

One might also make the case that the United States, with a fiscal stimulus programme, is borrowing money at negative real terms percentages. It has engaged in fiscal stimulus, not in the cut-and-burn approach of the UK Government, and, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) says, the US has succeeded where the UK is failing.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the US economy is not the same as the British economy. The US benefits enormously from being a foreign reserve currency, for example, so the situation is very different, and we cannot simply equate what happened in the US with what happened in the UK.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady is obviously right that we cannot draw a direct comparison, and that is why I would not draw a direct comparison with the yield rates paid in Japan, but the point I was making is that it is wrong for any politician, particularly the Chancellor, to imply that a credit rating agency’s score is in any way related, or correlates directly, to the real yield that a Government pay.

Of all the things that the Chancellor could have done in the Budget but did not, the failure to act on the rising price of fuel was the most disgraceful. The previous Government were awful on fuel. They introduced the fuel duty escalator and opposed the introduction of a fair fuel regulator at every turn, but this Government, notwithstanding the rhetoric before the election, are little better.

Let us understand what this Government’s fair fuel stabiliser actually does. Fuel continues to rise by inflation and will, as confirmed today, when the price of oil is high, rise by inflation-plus—an escalator—when the price is low. A real fuel duty stabiliser would see the duty rate fall when the price rose, precisely because the UK Government already receive a VAT windfall at the pump or a North sea windfall at source in order to pay for it. Given the scale of the North sea windfall in particular, with £70 billion forecast over six years in last year’s Budget, which was £17 billion more than was identified the previous November, the failure to tackle properly the rising cost of fuel genuinely is a disgrace.

This year the forecast revenue for the six years from 2011 onwards is almost £50 billion, but that is based on a price for this year and the next two years of $111, $118 and $112 a barrel. The spot price today is $124.7, so we can safely conclude that, as usual, the UK Government’s assessment of North sea revenues will be understated. There is more than enough money to tackle the rising price of fuel properly, and not as this Government have done.

It has been described as pernicious already today; it is a pernicious measure to be cemented, I think, in future policy—I am talking about the unfairness of the proposal for regional pay. It will be extraordinary if the same person doing the same job in the same office with the same clients is paid differently in different parts of the country. I am very pleased indeed that the measure will not apply to Scottish Government civil servants, although I suspect that there will be huge resistance to the proposal from UK civil servants working outwith London.