Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

The 17% cash uplift over the next three years exceeds what we have been asked for by a number of stakeholders in the sector. I have conceded at this Dispatch Box many times that the sector is under pressure. The additional moneys that we have come forward with will help to alleviate that and will make a big difference. In Lancashire, the figure is not 17% over three years; it is 18% over three years.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Minister is quite right that central Government are providing extra money for essential care and allowing local councils to raise a precept on the council tax for social care. How will the Government ensure that councils actually spend that money on social care?

[David Mowat]

Much of the money will go through the better care fund and there is conditionality on that. We expect councils to spend this money, as they have requested it, on social care and we believe that that will be the case. We understand the pressures and have acted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

As I said earlier, local engagement with all stakeholders is necessary. The STP for Cheshire and Merseyside will be published tomorrow. It is essential for local authorities to engage in it as it evolves, and it is essential for MPs to engage in it—as critical friends—to make the plans better.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T9. According to a report published recently by the British Lung Foundation, 1.2 million people are suffering from and have been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, while many more sufferers have not been diagnosed. Will the Minister support the establishment of an independent respiratory taskforce to help diagnosis and improve lung health for everyone?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

The principal thing that we need to do with Lyme disease is to make progress on diagnosis, treatment and transmission through a definitive approach. When the results of the study that I mentioned are published, of course they will be available across all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to improve NHS procurement.

Draft Warrington (Electoral Changes) Order 2016

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Warrington (Electoral Changes) Order 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I apologise to Members who probably think that they have better things to do on a Tuesday afternoon than talk about boundary changes in my constituency, but there are issues here. We all complain about boundaries, and although I recognise that the Boundary Commission has a tough job, it is right that it is accountable, and if it is not accountable to Parliament, what is Parliament for?

Before I go on to explain the issue, I point out that one of the by-products of the review in Warrington is a ballot paper, which I hold up for the Committee to see, that is likely to have on it 50 names, from which, three months from now, we will ask electors to choose 12. I will pass the paper around, so that colleagues can see it. I shall explain how and why that has happened, and why it is not satisfactory.

Boundary reviews can be emotional. This is not a party issue; the review covered two constituencies, mine and that of the hon. Member for Warrington North. My constituency is south of the ship canal. Warrington council is Labour-dominated: 42 of the 57 seats are Labour, and only five Tory. The area that we are talking mostly about today is south of the ship canal, where eleven out of 12 seats are Conservative or, in most cases, Liberal Democrat. So this is not about party politics; it is about what is right. I will talk about why we had to have the review—the starting point—the process that was followed, the result and the consequences, and the action that I hope the commission’s representative will take to sort the matter out at least in the short term.

As I said, the starting point is the two constituencies of Warrington North and Warrington South. The unitary council has 57 councillors spread over 22 wards. Equally significantly, there are 17 parish councils in Warrington, many of them very ancient. The parish council boundaries were, as one would expect and as is normal, aligned with the ward boundaries. Broadly speaking then, parish councillors are within wards or, as in certain instances, wards are within parishes, but the boundaries are aligned and there is no patchwork.

Although Warrington is a new town, there are a number of villages to the north and south with their own characteristics and identities. Lymm in Cheshire is a large village, with perhaps 10,000 people. To give a little historical perspective, a village called Thelwall was founded in 923 by Alfred the Great’s son. I do not think that Alfred the Great, or his son, should have too much bearing on how we draw our boundaries, but I make the point that these are ancient communities, and we are not just talking about how to divide up a town into different areas.

We needed the review because the town has grown—the 57 councillors need to become 58—and over time the ward boundaries have got out of kilter. That triggered a review under the Electoral Commission criteria. It started in May 2015, with the aim of putting in place new boundaries for the unitary and parish councils by 2016—that is, by the time of the elections coming up in three months, which will be the last in Warrington until 2020, as a result of their being all-out elections.

Everybody was happy that there should be a review and the criteria for such reviews are set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Members who might not be familiar with that Act might like to know that it establishes three criteria. First, the boundaries should be within 10% of each other. Secondly, they should maintain community identity. Thirdly, they should be a mechanism for convenient and effective local government. As for which is the most important, the Act says that there should be the “best balance” between them. That implies that they are all relevant and it is not necessarily right to focus on one rather than on all three together.

The council put in a submission to start the process of reviewing how to get 58 councillors, how to maintain a better split between the wards and how to ensure that the parish boundaries continued to be aligned to the ward boundaries. The submission had support from all three major parties on the council. I think it is accepted that it maintained the integrity of the villages, but it is also true that it did not totally meet the 10% rule. Two of the 22 wards would have had a percentage slightly different from the 10% de minimus that the Act sets out.

We then went into the process and the Boundary Commission followed its normal procedure. In my view and that of many of us involved in the process, it ignored all but the quantitative criterion—that is, it ignored the two qualitative criteria of the need for community identity and for convenient and effective local government. As a consequence, it came up with a proposal that is better than the council’s in terms of the quantitative criterion, but not greatly so. In the commission’s proposal, two of the 22 wards are also outside the plus or minus 10%, although it is also fair to say that the delta is lower. If that was the only criterion, the Boundary Commission’s submission would have been better.

The cost of getting that balance of plus or minus 10% slightly better has been extremely heavy in terms of its impact on the community and on the quality of governance, particularly south of the ship canal. I contend that the review, to all intents and purposes, used only one of the three criteria and is therefore arguably illegal under the 2009 Act. I want to talk about a couple of the issues. The first comes under the second criterion, that is, the impact on local communities. I mentioned earlier that there are a patchwork of villages surrounding the town, and the way that the boundaries have been reset rolls those villages back into the town. Lymm and Thelwall have been combined, as have Walton and Stockton Heath, Hatton and Appleton and Grappenhall and Appleton Thorn. This is a minor point, but the commission did not even rename any of the wards to acknowledge the continuing existence of some of those villages, which would have been a very small thing to give away, even if it had wanted to maintain the arithmetic of what it put together.

The third criterion is effective local governance, and at the start of the process, all parties had alignment between the parishes and the wards. If someone was a parish councillor for a ward, they would know who their borough councillors were, and so on. At the end of this process, there is no alignment. For example, Grappenhall parish council is now in three unitary wards of Appleton, Lymm and Grappenhall. Stockton Heath parish council is now in three unitary wards of Grappenhall, Appleton and Stockton Heath. There is no alignment between unitary borough council wards and the parish council wards, many of which have been there for more than 100 years. Similar issues exist in other councils, such as Walton and Appleton.

That is not the end of the problems. The next issue is the ward sizes that were determined in the Boundary Commission’s review. In Stockton Heath, it was determined that the ward would be made up of two sub-wards, one with 12 members and one with three members. In Appleton, it was three sub-wards, one with 10, one with one and one with two. No parish council in the whole of Warrington has been exempt from having ward sizes of fewer than six members. Many members of the Committee will have been councillors in their careers and will know that if a ward has 12 members, it is difficult to divvy up the work. A councillor must ask, “Do I do that or does he do that? Who is in charge of reviewing that?” That is what they are faced with in Stockton Heath—in Appleton it is 10—and in every parish in Warrington there are at least six members. It is hard to claim that that represents an adequate response to the third criteria of effective local governance.

Then we come to elections. If we have a 12-member ward, it is not hard to predict that the ballot paper could potentially have 50 names on it and we will be asking electors to select 12 names from those 50. That would be no mean feat, leaving aside the environmental issues of the size of the ballot paper and the need to stuff it into an envelope. It will cause problems, because people will put 13 crosses instead of 12. I said 50 names, but it could be 40, depending on how many candidates each of the major parties puts up. But it is a risk and—unless it was an attempt to get into the “Guinness World Records” book—it could potentially make Warrington in these elections resemble something out of a banana republic. In fact, I do not think many banana republics would have ballot papers with 50 names on them, from which electors had to choose 12—I may be wrong. I certainly do not think—although other hon. Members may wish to correct me—that any other part of the UK has ever held an election with a ballot paper of up to, or possibly more than, 50 names from which 12 must be selected.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a case for Warrington on the ludicrous solution that the Boundary Commission has come up with. My council had experience of working with the commission in 2014 to change the ward boundaries in north-west Leicestershire, and we went the other way and now have 38 single-seat wards, which is far more satisfactory for the electorate and for by-elections. We are having a by-election at the moment and, with just 1,000 or 1,100 houses in a ward, it can be done cheaply. It would be very expensive to replace an existing councillor in a 12-seat ward.

[David Mowat]

That is a good point. I had not considered the by-election point, but I agree with my hon. Friend.

It is fair to say that I am talking about parish elections. It may be that the commission makes the point that it is possible for the council to fix the boundaries by performing a local community governance review. Indeed, that is what would normally happen—the council would do that, realign the boundaries, make the parishes fit the unitary system and all would be well. The unique aspect of what has happened in Warrington is that there is no time for that to happen before the all-out elections in May. That process would take, given the statutory consultation periods required, between nine and 12 months. It cannot happen before May. I do not think the Boundary Commission intended for that to be the case, because its initial response was that that remedy was available to the council. The problem is that the remedy is not available to the council in time for the elections in May and, as a consequence, we will have the absurdity of the ballot paper that I have described.

In summary, we have two issues of substance here. First, the criteria used for the unitary review did not properly take into account the qualitative requirements of the 2009 Act in terms of community cohesion or effective local governance. As a result, there was a mishmash and an unsatisfactory answer, particularly south of the Manchester ship canal. Secondly, an unintended consequence of the non-alignment with the parish and unitary boundaries, along with an inability to fix it in time for the all-out elections that are coming up, has led to an absurd situation.

That brings the Electoral Commission into disrepute, as well as the Government: people do not understand what the commission is, and think that it is the Government, and they blame me because I am representative of the Government, as they think that it is something to do with me. All in all, that is unsatisfactory, so I would request that the commissioner withdraw the measure. I understand that there is no power to alter the order, but it should be withdrawn and resubmitted in three months’ time. We should go ahead with elections on the old boundaries, and we would have time to fix the absurdity of the ballot paper before the next all-out elections.

I look forward to hearing the response from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon, who speaks on behalf of the commissioners, but in the meantime I should like to ask him a number of questions. Did anyone from the Boundary Commission visit the south of Warrington as part of the review, particularly the villages concerned, or was the whole thing done by someone in Millbank with a GPS system, a map and a photocopier? We have asked for clarification on that, but we have not received it. Does he agree that the 2009 Act stipulates three criteria, with a requirement to find the best balance between them? The review focuses purely on one quantitative criterion, which is potentially illegal under the Act. How many similar reviews of boundaries made no changes whatsoever between the draft and the final version? A point made to me by a number of councillors was that it was unusual not to have any changes to a boundary change review between the draft and the final version, but that was the case here and even meant renaming unitary wards to ensure that village names did not die out.

Does my hon. Friend consider that 10 or 12-member wards represent best practice in this country or anywhere else, and does he further consider that having ballot papers with up to 50 names is an acceptable way to hold elections? Pre-empting his response, given that it is not, is that not a failure under the third criterion in the 2009 Act? I shall conclude by requesting that the order is withdrawn and resubmitted after the election, enabling us to have a proper election on boundaries that are accepted. We should fix this mess after that has happened.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I have been an MP for four years, and this is the fourth debate on HS2 in which I have participated. I have spoken in support of the project in all of them and I will do so again tonight, although it would be fair to say that if we were debating the current phase 2 route, which is out to consultation—I have high hopes of changes, particularly to the part north of Manchester, for which there is no business case—I would have difficulty supporting it, but I do support the Bill before us today.

Before I set out the reasons for my support, however, I will state four reasons why we should not go ahead with the project. We should not go ahead with it simply because it has been 120 years since we built a railway line north of Manchester. That, in itself, is a silly reason. We should not proceed with it simply because our infrastructure investment over the past two or three decades has been massively skewed towards London. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who talked about the diversion of resources away from other projects that HS2 could cause—an anxiety that did not appear to apply for Crossrail 1 or Crossrail 2, which together would cost about the same as HS2. In any event, we should not go ahead with the wrong project just because we previously spent too much in London. Nor should we do it because other countries done it more than we have: Turkey might have 1,500 miles, but perhaps the Turks and everyone else is wrong and perhaps our way is the right way.

We should proceed if and only if three things apply. The first is that the business case must be robust and solid.

[Andrew Bridgen]

It is not.

[David Mowat]

I have a sense of déjà vu. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and I have had this dialogue before. The cost-benefit ratio is 2.4, higher than it was for the Jubilee line when that project started and higher than it currently is for Crossrail. We should go ahead only if the cash flow can be afforded without diverting resources away from other activities. Roughly speaking, the cash flow for HS2 is £2 billion a year, and it kicks in as Crossrail comes to an end and HS2 picks it up. That is reasonable. There is no evidence that HS2 is starving other projects and activities of investment. I believe that HS2 involves something in the order of 20% of total rail investment over the next two decades.

The third condition is that there must be transformational benefits from the project. We do not have time to go into them in detail, but there is a great deal of evidence, from the councils and the chambers of commerce of the north, that the regions will be transformed. Whether we are talking about the Greengauge 21 report or the Peat Marwick report, 40,000 jobs at a minimum will be generated in the north-west, and my constituents will get many of them.

All in all, whether HS2 goes ahead boils down to whether we believe that there is a capacity crunch. If we do not think that there will be one because we will all miraculously be using video conferencing over the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, it would probably be wrong to go ahead with the project. The fact is, however, that over the last 15 years, the requirement for long-distance train journeys in the UK has increased by roughly 5% a year. The HS2 business case assumes that that will decrease to 1.6% a year—a conservative estimate in many ways. I believe that the capacity crunch is the main reason for proceeding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), who is not in his place, made a perfectly reasonable point about double-decker trains. My understanding is that the changes to the west coast main line to make that happen would be so restrictive as well as expensive that the line would not work in the meantime. We know how difficult it was during the last upgrade from Rugby to the north.

I want the Minister to give some thought to the reservation about phase 2 that I expressed earlier, which would have made it difficult—in fact, impossible—for me to support the Bill. I refer to the absurdity of building 40 miles of track north of Manchester apparently for no other reason than to get to a depot in Wigan. The cost is £1 billion without contingency, and I could find not one benefit in the business case that would contribute to that cost. I hope that people from HS2 are listening to me. There is a phrase, “value engineering”, which means that one engineers and designs where the value will come from. It has manifestly not occurred in respect of the Wigan link. I hope, believe and trust that that will be looked at.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and I shall deal with the issue of capacity later in my speech.

The cost-benefit ratios are questionable. As has already been pointed out, the assumption is that all time spent on trains is wasted time, so the figures are based on the extraordinary idea that when someone goes on a train they do not do any work. Anyone who travels on our railways will know that that is certainly not the case. It should also be noted that, compared to our European neighbours, journey times between first and second cities are considerably shorter in the UK. The journey time between Birmingham and London is already half that of high-speed rail travel in France and Spain.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend makes the point that others have made—that the business case does not properly reflect productive time, iPads and all the rest of it. Page 51 of the business case addresses that point explicitly, stating that if trains are overcrowded, people who are standing will not be able to work on PCs. The business case would be better if it took that into account.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I shall deal with the issue of capacity later in my speech and hope to address it then.

When it comes to saving time—this point has been made several times today—I have never met a business person in my career who has said that the reason why their business is not thriving is that they cannot get to London quickly enough.

Another argument cited is that HS2 will rebalance our economy. I agree with that argument, as I believe that it will rebalance our economy, but further in favour of the London and south-east. Indeed, no serious academics support the view that HS2 will reduce the north-south divide. For weekend and leisure travel, for instance, which is the more likely scenario—that more families will travel from London to spend an evening in Birmingham or Manchester, or that families from Birmingham and Manchester will use the route to spend time and money in London? I suggest to hon. and right hon. Members that the latter is the more likely scenario, and that HS2 will simply suck more money from the regions into London and the south-east.

I therefore appeal to all Members to think very carefully about whether they are acting in the best interests of their constituents in supporting the signing of a blank cheque for this white elephant of a project, which is already forecast to cost every constituency in the country £75 million, and which, given the expected further overruns, could easily end up costing each constituency more than £100 million. Are Members prepared to support a scheme that will inevitably suck money away from transport schemes that could benefit their own constituencies? As for the issue of capacity, figures show that the west coast main line has the capacity for the 100% increase in passenger numbers that was proposed by FirstGroup when it submitted its franchise bid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to tackle (a) unauthorised development and (b) illegal encampments.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the powers of local authorities to deal with illegal Traveller sites.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

We have renewed councils’ powers to deal with illegal and unauthorised encampments. On 28 August, we sent new guidance to council leaders on how to best use these existing powers. We will also consult on giving councils greater freedom to stop unauthorised development related to caravans.

School Funding

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and David Mowat

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even a modest increase in the budgets of low-funded local education authorities would make a significant difference to the education that could be offered to children?

Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, Leicestershire is the lowest-funded area in the country. Coalville, the most deprived town in Leicestershire, is in my constituency. Even in the centre of Coalville there is below average take-up for free school meals, so we will not benefit from the pupil premium to the extent that the Government might expect. There are a lot of proud people out there and they are reluctant to take up free school meals because a great stigma is attached to them.

[David Mowat]

I agree. Clearly, every hon. Member has places in their constituencies that are deeply deprived and lose out in this regard.

It is said that it is difficult to put in place a national formula, but I do not think it is. An exercise to decide the inputs to the national formula, indices of deprivation, London weighting and historical issues could take place over a long period. Several things could be done, and I find it difficult to understand why they have not been, because there is a precedent in a national formula for health funding. The way in which all our primary care trusts are funded is driven by the ACRA formula—called after the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation—which appears to work reasonably well. A characteristic of the ACRA formula is that it gives different numbers and numbers that one might not want to adjust to immediately because they are too far up or down in the next year. The Department of Health deals with that with what it calls a direction of travel adjustment—adjustment to the correct number takes place over a number of years. I see no difficulty in the education community doing something similar because, as I said, no one is asking for the problem to be fixed quickly. We want to know that there is a direction of travel and that over the next decade, say, it will be sorted out.

Finally, I very much support our policy and what we are doing with academies and free schools. For me and for people in my constituency on the wrong end of the formula, however, the funding issue is more potent. It is disappointing that our Front Bench is on the same side as the teaching unions, which should give Ministers pause for thought. We are asking not for the problem to be fixed now but for a start to be made.