Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Anne Main Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the other trap that many Labour colleagues fall into, which is arguing that the people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. They knew precisely what they were voting for. They knew it would be tough, but they put the interests of the country before short-term economic advantage. I believe that the Government are negotiating to get the best deal for Britain and one that will be to the long-term benefit of our country.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at hearing the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) say that any attempt to restrict the supply of workers coming in from the EU would be resisted? Labour Members’ support for a customs union and their not wanting any restriction on the freedom of movement of workers shows that they are in denial about leaving the European Union.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend has correctly identified that Labour Members are all over the place on this subject. There was no shortage of “Project Fear” in debates during the referendum campaign—people knew they were voting for something that would be very tough for this country—but, by and large, they voted because they understood the facts. I turn again to the point that Labour colleagues often make, which is that people did not know what they were voting for. Yes, they did: they were intelligent enough to understand the arguments, and to say otherwise is to insult the many people in Yorkshire and the north-east who voted to leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is a delight to follow the optimistic and upbeat speech from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I welcome this Bill as a modest, appropriate and measured move by the Government to make provision in case there is not a comprehensive free trade deal with the European Union. I am surprised that the Opposition have not actually stated their case. They sound as though they are just not in favour of the Bill at all but, judging by the absence of Opposition Members, I presume they are not going to vote against it. However, I cannot believe that the Bill is not something we would all welcome. A failure to plan is a plan to fail, so why would we not want this Bill?

The UK is an outward-looking, global trading nation, and I believe this will only be more the case after we leave the EU. As many Members have said, trade with the European Union is important—crucially, it is important to both sides. It goes without saying that it is in the EU’s best interests to maintain the current liberalised trade by road between the UK and the rest of the EU, and it is also in our interests to maintain that situation. We have heard all the statistics about the huge trade deficit with the EU—£72 billion in 2017—and how much that trade means in respect of the movement of goods across the UK. This shows just how crucial smooth access to the UK market for EU countries is. Many businesses across the continent sell their goods into the UK and, more often than not, they transport those goods here by road. We have all rehearsed the statistics as to why we need this modest measure to deliver that access and they are well in our brains now.

As the Prime Minister said,

“No deal is better than a bad deal”.

We cannot allow our UK hauliers to be left high and dry if we are offered a bad deal—if the EU does not come to a common-sense agreement, although we all believe it will do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he is confident about that, and I share his confidence. The UK must make provision to allow for the outcome and this Bill does just that—it is a sensible piece of legislation.

This issue, like many others the House deals with, has significance in my constituency. Our proximity to London means that several haulage companies are based there, operating across the UK and into EU countries. In essence, the Bill is one that we hope we will never have need to call on. It is our backstop—our insurance position —and it therefore should have a fair wind and sail through its Second Reading tonight. I cannot understand the negativity we have heard from Opposition Members, who somehow interpret the Bill as being a massive piece of legislation that gives huge powers to the Secretary of State. I see it as exactly the opposite: something that is tidied away in case we should ever need it, although I share the Secretary of State’s confidence that we will not need this Bill.

Luton Airport Expansion

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for securing this debate so early in his career. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has said, the issue has been rumbling on for a very long time. I will be brief because we need answers from the Minister.

First, I want to pay tribute to STAQS—St Albans Quieter Skies—which does terrific work on noise pollution, and to LADACAN, the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. When I was first elected in 2005 my postbag was largely untroubled by complaints about aircraft noise, but that is not the case now. I accept, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, the ongoing benefits to business and leisure users of having a good local airport with routes that are efficient and least disruptive to residents. My constituents understand the need for air traffic, but feel that the noise burden is not shared fairly or equally.

There has been a 150% increase in complaints since the RNAV—area navigation—route was introduced in August 2015. The RNAV route dictates that easterly departures are directed in a narrow corridor over north St Albans and Sandridge. That change alone, although well-intentioned, has concentrated the pain of noise felt by residents across the affected district. As my hon. Friend has said, Luton airport is owned by London Luton Airport Ltd on behalf of Luton Borough Council. As my residents would point out, that makes it its own judge and jury.

In 2013, Luton council’s development committee voted to permit capacity expansion to double to 18 million passengers, along with a package of planning conditions designed to mitigate environmental impact. The decision was based on promises that quieter aircraft would be gradually introduced. Everything has happened far faster than projected, and the noise mitigation has not made any difference.

I shall cut my remarks short and simply say that I have visited my constituents’ homes and gardens at different times of the day. There is a calculated noise decibel level by Luton airport’s own noise monitoring, which was taken over a 16-hour day and apparently equates to something between a quiet office and a bedroom. Standing in my constituents’ gardens, that is not the experience of the residents. An average over a 16-hour day was given when noise can be felt in different ways. At 6 o’clock in the morning I am aware of the noise far more than at 10 o’clock in the morning when my washing machine and dishwasher are going. So the average masks the true life experience of residents and it is bogus.

My constituents need to know that something will be done as soon as possible. Expansion cannot go ahead if strong protections against further noise pollution are not deliverable and guaranteed. Luton airport cannot keep on being its own judge and jury.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Main]

I am sorry; my right hon. Friend has made two interventions and I am already cutting my remarks short.

I want the Government to step in and take a keen and active interest in the future development of this airport. Residents who have had the noise monitoring kit cannot accept that 47 decibels is a true reflection of the interruption in their lives, their sleep patterns, and enjoyment of their own gardens. I therefore ask the Minister to take a real interest in this issue and listen to what residents say.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. We can safely assume that he could afford a 90-minute debate, given the local interest. I welcome the chance to respond to the points he has made. I sympathise with his concerns and will do my best to answer his points in the time available.

My crash course in Luton airport this morning and learning all about it has revealed that it has seen its 44th consecutive month of growth, with passenger numbers in 2016 16% higher than in 2015. Such growth is clearly continuing. The airport has 13 airlines operating regular scheduled and charter flights and six operating cargo routes. It is a busy major airport that flies to more than 30 countries with 70 destinations and 128 routes. It is the only London airport offering a scheduled service on 24 of those routes. It is a key employer in the local area, supporting around 30,000 jobs, putting £1.5 billion into the economy and around £500 million into the local economy surrounding the airport. All of that indicates that, as all Members have said this morning, it is an important and worthwhile contributor to the local economy. However, that does not obviate the points that Members make about the impact on local people’s lives.

We have started the process of developing a new aviation strategy, setting out the long-term direction for aviation policy to 2050 and beyond. The strategy will focus on consumers and cover the whole country. It will look at where Government could and should make a difference. Last year, we published a call for evidence that asked for views on a number of issues based around six objectives, which will be further consulted on in the coming year. The objectives will include ensuring that any new strategy addresses the impacts of aviation on local communities and the environment.

As part of the call for evidence consultation, the Government proposed that airports throughout the UK, including Luton airport, make the best use of their existing runways subject to environmental issues being addressed. We received a vast number of responses, as I am sure hon. Members can imagine, which we are currently analysing and to which we will respond shortly.

We warmly welcome the ambition of airports to respond to local and regional demand, and to invest in infrastructure to enable services to more destinations, with better facilities and more choice for passengers. That is particularly the case at Luton airport, where passengers are beginning to see the benefits of a £150 million investment programme, transforming the airport and passenger experience by expanding the terminal and passenger lounge, and building a new multi-storey car park.

[Mrs Main]

My constituents describe this as the stiletto effect: the area navigation route concentrates the pain in a very sharp area. I know that that is the Government’s policy. Can it be looked at? A large amount of pain in a small group is not fair.

[Paul Maynard]

I welcome that intervention. I was about to stop describing the positives of Luton airport and move on to the more controversial aspects, one of which is how the Government’s new approach to airspaces will hopefully address some of the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. I will come on to that shortly, if I may.

First, I would like to deal with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden about who will take decisions on the expansion. I understand the concern that Luton Borough Council may take those decisions at the same time as being the airport’s owner. I am more than happy to confirm that, as a nationally significant infrastructure project, it will be a decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate, with reference back to the Secretary of State. Under section 23 of the Planning Act 2008, all airport expansion decisions that seek to increase their planning cap by more than 10 million passengers per year are required to follow the development consent order process and are considered nationally significant infrastructure projects. Such projects are subject to Government approvals as part of that process.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden and for St Albans (Mrs Main) both asked what the Government’s position will be regarding any further expansion of passenger numbers beyond 18 million without the imposition of much greater conditions regarding noise concerns, flight route changes, and the use of airspace overall. We strongly recognise that noise disturbance from aircraft is of concern to local communities, and can be more pronounced at a time when an airport is experiencing growth. I know that the airport is already looking at trying to implement a higher performance-based standard on its westerly departure route heading to the English south coast. The main purpose of that measure is to reduce the overall noise impact of the route, including near the village of Sandridge—a particular hotspot for noise complaints. I understand that it may be consulted on later in the year. I urge hon. Members to engage with the airport to ensure that that occurs.

The Government’s role is to ensure that the right balance is struck between the environmental impacts and the economic and consumer benefits that aviation growth can deliver. All three Members who have spoken recognised that there are both benefits and negatives to having an airport in close proximity. We believe that noise is best managed at a local level and that Government involvement should be limited to strategic decisions. It is worth bearing in mind that Luton airport’s existing noise restrictions, set at a local level, are on the whole stricter than those set by the Government for the three designated London airports.

In line with the Government’s airspace policy published in October last year, any proposed flight path changes as a result of expansion will have to go through an options analysis. That will enable communities to engage with a transparent airspace change process and ensure that options such as multiple routes are considered for noise mitigation. That is a fundamental change in how we approach the concerns Members have expressed today. For example, there will be new metrics for assessing those impacts, including impacts on health and quality of life. There will be a new call-in power for the Secretary of State, applicable in airspace changes of strategic national importance, which provides, in my view, a democratic backstop for which communities have been calling. There will also be changes to compensation to ensure that impacts are properly reflected in what local people receive.

In addition, the Government have committed to establishing an independent commission on civil aviation noise to ensure that the noise impacts of airspace changes are properly considered, and to give communities a greater stake in noise management. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) pointed out, the people who live under the flight path are the experts. I always believe that we should listen to the experts when formulating policy. As somebody who grew up under the flight path from Manchester, I am more than aware of what it can be like to have planes overhead continually. The policies that we have introduced address the impacts of noise for those living underneath flight paths; will enable airspace modernisation; will give the opportunity to make the most of quiet and modern aircraft; will provide more predictable periods of relief from noise; and—critically in the south-east—will reduce the need for stacking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made a point about asking for further information from Luton Borough Council on its plans to help to fund and support local infrastructure. The Government have set out the framework through which airports can plan for and lead improvement, growth and expansion, critically including surface access. Central to that is the fact that the airport is best placed to lead on surface access issues, including proposed infrastructure developments for the airport, in partnership with local enterprise partnerships, local authorities, business groups, passenger groups, and critically local communities. The current aviation policy framework recommends that each airport develops its own surface access strategy in collaboration with those stakeholders, and sets them out in an airport master plan and associated surface access strategy. The new aviation strategy on which the Department is consulting will ask how the Government can support the planning and delivery of improved surface access to meet passengers’ needs.

Passengers travelling to Luton airport by rail will benefit from the brand new light rail system, due for completion in 2020. That new £225 million rail link will replace the existing shuttle bus service and provide a direct link from Luton Airport Parkway station to the airport terminal. At Luton airport, the Government have also funded improvements connecting the M1 spur to the wider motorway network at the £30 million new junction 10a, helping to reduce congestion. Furthermore, and perhaps most pertinent to the points that my hon. Friend made, the south-east midlands local enterprise partnership has also secured more than £21 million of funding to improve local road access for passengers and for planned development around Luton airport.

My hon. Friend’s final point was one raised by all hon. Members: the importance of rebuilding trust between airports and local communities, not just regarding the expansion of passenger numbers, but more generally, addressing historical issues. I understand that the publication of the vision document by the airport owner—that is, Luton Borough Council—is the first step in quite a lengthy process. The council will have to undertake further consultations with local communities in both Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, and with other stakeholders this year. That will include the airport operators as well. The plan is not theirs, but the council’s—the airport owner, as opposed to the operators.

We recognise that those who live closest to airports bear a burden of the costs. The Government’s current policy objective is to encourage the aviation industry and local stakeholders to strengthen and streamline the way in which they work together, particularly at local level. The airport is already actively engaging with its local community, both directly and through the statutory London Luton Airport Consultative Committee. Furthermore, I assure my hon. Friend that projects subject to the development consent order process as well as local planning processes have to go through multiple consultation stages, during which his constituents and other stakeholders will be welcome to interact and have their say. That will be a new process for Luton airport, which has not had to go through that before.

In conclusion, we are committed to building a successful aviation industry, which is why our strategy is designed to look forward as far as 2050. We have to put the passenger at the heart of that, but also to ensure that we address the needs of the wider industry as well as the communities around the airports. I hope my comments today reassure my hon. Friend on some of the key points, and will perhaps give him some further avenues to pursue in working with the airport to improve the lives of people in his community, and those of other hon. Members. I thank everyone for their attendance and attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Thameslink

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Thameslink passenger services.

A recent customer satisfaction survey on commuter trains by Which? ranked Thameslink third from bottom. Thameslink registered an approval rating of just 32%; it was ranked above only the beleaguered Southern and Southeastern. I want to make the Minister aware of that passenger dissatisfaction today and suggest some improvements.

My constituents report cancellations and delays almost every day on the network. Over the last twelve months, trains have been plagued with technical problems. One constituent told me that last year alone he counted 15 broken-down trains on his journeys, including two on the same day, 14 August. Cancellations are often made at short notice. They cause later trains to be extremely busy, which makes it difficult for passengers to get on or off, giving rise to what have been called cattle-truck conditions and meaning that trains often cannot stop at their planned stations. Constituents tell me that on a bad day, which is not unusual, it takes them about two hours to get from London to St Albans, despite the 19 to 22 minutes timetabled for peak-time journeys. I have been told of constituents who have given up their jobs because they cannot afford the extra childcare—some nurseries charge an extra £50 per hour’s delay—or are unable to see their children in the evening. Many are consistently late for work despite leaving home earlier and earlier.

The Train Suffragettes are 500 mostly female parents in my constituency who were so fed up with the poor service they receive that they set up a group to show their collective unhappiness. They have shared with me their terrible experiences trying to balance work in London with family life in St Albans. They have missed school plays and parents’ meetings and rarely get to put their children to bed. Persistent delays have driven many of them to quit their jobs, and some have even moved away from the Thameslink line altogether. One mum told me:

“After calling in favours too many times from too many people and being late for nursery pick-ups three times in one week alone (once where I was actually stuck on the train for an hour with no phone signal and so unable to call anyone at the nursery), I quit my job in the city in October. Financially a difficult decision but I’d had a skinful of the stress of the commute, wondering if my train home would be on time or if I would have to sprint from the office to get the earlier train, which was often cancelled too.”

A lot of technical problems have been reported with the new Siemens 700 trains, mainly with electrics, software and heating. The doors often fail to open, especially at St Pancras, because they are now controlled by the driver; one day a train sat at the station for about 20 minutes because the driver could not open the doors. I know that Thameslink is aware of those problems. There has been some welcome recent progress, including an increase in Govia Thameslink’s public performance measurement from 60% to 83%, but that is still well below the national average of 88.95%.

Over the last year, Network Rail was responsible for 54% of delays, Thameslink for 42%, and other causes for 4%. We appreciate that ongoing Network Rail works have an impact on the line, but that is no excuse for rail services not to provide a reliable timetabled service or to try to deliver improvements to it. My constituents not only suffer a poor service but get far less generous compensation than Southern Rail passengers when incidents occur. That cannot be acceptable. Network Rail should have better lines of communication with Govia and passengers. People need to know as quickly as possible why they have been delayed and what they can do to avoid disruption.

In the 2016-17 financial year, one in 11 trains run by GTR was cancelled or more than 30 minutes late—the worst performance of all the rail operators in the country. In period 3 of 2016-17, GTR had a cancellation and significant lateness percentage of 15.7%, compared with a 5.7% national average. In period 3 of 2017-18, GTR had a considerably reduced failure rate of 6.6%, but that is still nearly double the national average of 3.7%.

In my first debate on this matter in 2012, I said that First Capital Connect, which then held the franchise—it has now been replaced by Govia—was ranked

“lowest in the country, including value for money, punctuality, sufficient room on trains, satisfaction with the stations and how the train operating companies…dealt with the delays.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 342WH.]

Five years on, despite the change of franchise, nothing has changed. GTR still consistently ranks among the operators with the lowest customer satisfaction public performance measures.

The failings that other hon. Members and I raised five years ago remain failings today. Something must be done to improve Govia passenger services for all those who rely on them. It is a simple premise that to deliver an efficient, mobile workforce, we need a decent, well run and affordable rail transport service. People of all ages expect a rail service fit for the 21st century. The travelling public are being asked to pay ever more for their rail fares, and we in Parliament must ask serious questions about the services they are experiencing up and down the country.

I could not speak in a debate on commuter train services in my constituency without referring to the shadow being cast by the Radlett rail freight proposal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and I believe may have a catastrophic impact on the already hugely inadequate commuter service. The application for this strategic rail freight site started in 2006. In December 2016—10 years after assurances were given that access would be granted—Network Rail said that it would be in a position to confirm an “efficient scheduling strategy” once the capability and capacity analysis team completed its evaluation. However, it responded only last week, and its response, which was about essential works disruption and pathing, raises far more questions than it answers.

The Government’s national policy statement on national networks in 2014 identified London and the south-east as the areas with busiest passenger services, with passenger carriage set to increase by 46.1% by 2033. Moreover, the Department for Transport’s 2016 rail freight strategy said:

“Rail freight services operate in response to customer and supply chain demands, making it more challenging to plan for freight services than passenger services, which tend to run to a regular timetable and route.”

Commuters in my constituency certainly wish passenger services would run to a regular timetable and route.

Will the Minister guarantee that the proposed strategic rail freight interchange will not add further delays and cancellations for my constituents, who are already at breaking point? Will he undertake to scrutinise any plans to deliver the site link tunnel, and will he test those plans against the potential disruption to services? I am concerned that the significant rail works necessary to deliver the site will mean a protracted period of disruption that cannot be justified by the site’s limitations. In case the Minister is not aware, the site is in a village with no motorway access. It has a life span of 30 years and is constrained from expansion, unlike the expansion forecast for passenger services. This inadequate proposal cannot be allowed to interfere with the exciting prospect of better and more frequent passenger services for my constituents.

What can be done to improve the current situation? Commuter groups such as the Train Suffragettes in St Albans have suggested changes that would go a long way towards improving the overall service that passengers receive. The first is a consistent and user-friendly refund system to allow passengers to reclaim expenditure, including taxi costs incurred because of delays and cancellations. The second is opening station ticket barriers when there have been delays, in order to ease platform congestion, which is often described as being at a dangerous level.

The third suggestion, which is vital, is to improve communication at all levels. Passengers are fed up with being in the dark when trains have been delayed or cancelled. They have suggested following the model of the London underground, where—as I am sure the Minister is aware—when a tube is held in a tunnel, the driver immediately makes an announcement to let passengers know the reason for delay and how long a wait is anticipated. When a tube station is closed, the driver will helpfully suggest alternative connecting routes for passengers.

The fourth suggestion, which is regularly raised, relates to communication between drivers and staff at stations—St Albans station in my case. Passengers need to be able to speak to station staff to find out exactly what is going on and what has caused the delay or cancellation.

Finally, passengers demand that fares be reduced, or at least frozen, until Thameslink vastly improves the service on the line. I called for the same thing in 2012, but five years later the catastrophic situation that my constituents are experiencing is exactly the same. We also face the impact of the strategic rail freight interchange’s disruptions being put into the mix. I suggest that we are on our knees in St Albans, and the Minister needs to take drastic action now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, in this crucial debate. We have seen the passion presented by all hon. Members on the challenges that their constituents face not just day by day, but week by week, month by month and year by year. The sheer dissatisfaction, frustration and misery that commuters have had to put up with for such a long time shows that resolution is crucial. The passenger must be listened to. We have obviously heard about the disruption brought not only to the commute, but to family life. I give all credit to parents who try to arrange childcare under the best of circumstances, but when they face an unreliable train service as well, the pressures are immense. All hon. Members have articulated that well this afternoon.

When passengers turn into activists and take action against what should be a normal part of their routine and daily life—such as the Train Suffragettes and others I know as well—it really shows that the whole rail system is in meltdown and has to be addressed. As we have heard, it is not just about train operating companies, because this has been a sustained problem across the network for such a long time. However, Thameslink particularly stands out. It has the second-lowest level of passenger satisfaction, at 73%—only Southern, at 65%, is behind—and has issues with punctuality and reliability, as we have heard. Southeastern trains are also not delivering for passengers, which is now spreading to Northern as well. With regard to Thameslink, things have not improved for several years now. When a staggering 23% are satisfied with how the company has dealt with delays, it really shows that it is left wanting, as has the whole situation.

What we have really picked up on today are the consequences of that unreliability, the infrastructure problems, the desperate need for investment and the massive overcrowding issues. The overcapacity issue will not going away, as more housing developments will put further strain on the network. We have also heard about challenges with the choice of destination, the obvious need for improvements right across the network and the impact that late or cancelled trains have on commuters.

It is important that we listen to these real frustrations. We cannot allow the situation to continue in which the Government point fingers but do not lift one to sort out what is happening. We know that there is real chaos in the way the franchise was set up, as was rightly highlighted when the Gibb report was debated in the main Chamber on 4 July. We know that there needs to be effective governance over the whole structure, which has been lacking, to ensure that issues are addressed expediently and that proper dispute resolution mechanisms are put in also. At the forefront of everything, we need to make sure that passengers’ concerns are addressed and that their safety is safeguarded. We also heard about access needs, and the fact that some train journeys are simply impossible for passengers with disabilities.

Another point that was rightly raised was the financial cost to passengers. We have seen rail prices go up by 27% since 2010 on this rail network, which is the most expensive not only in the UK but in the whole of Europe, meaning that passengers are having to pick up the cost of this failed network. We are expecting further price increases in August, and we have heard the figure of 4%—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. We need certainty on pricing; all passengers, whether on Thameslink or other networks, really want to know what is happening on pricing. The Opposition believe that price rises should be capped in line with the consumer prices index. We have heard different answers from different Ministers from the Department: we have heard that price rises will continue to be capped in line with the retail prices index; we have heard twice from the Minister that pricing is under review; and we have also heard that things will be kept as they are this year—but that does not say what will happen next year. Passengers need clarity on pricing.

We need to make sure that we move forward with smart ticketing, which we heard several contributions on. Where are we at with part-time smart ticketing, which will impact on many of those parents? It is an equality issue and we need to move forward on it. We also need to make sure that we see greater flexibility in smart ticketing, including the extension of the Oyster card. With the technology that is in place, how is delay repay being rolled out on the Oyster card? There are opportunities there. Of the amount of money that the network gains, only a minimal amount reaches the customer. The process of trying to reclaim after a delay is difficult.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Many of my passengers say that they do not want to have to claim; they simply want the service they have paid for. Delay repay is better, but on the other hand the service needs to improve, because otherwise they just get money back for a bad service. That is not what they want; they want the journey they were guaranteed.

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. However, we also need to ensure that, where there has been a delay, passengers are properly compensated, given that they have paid so much for the privilege of travelling on that network. Between 2010 and 2015, the train operating company generated £575 million from Network Rail for infrastructure delays, yet only £73 million went to passengers, so we have to question who benefits. Again, it comes back to governance over the system, which is poor. That comes up many times. It is a theme that is repeated in every aspect of how the franchise works. The franchise has failed passengers. We need to see delay repay extended so that the customer can be compensated automatically, as opposed to trying to seek out that compensation.

We also need to look at what has happened with the Thameslink programme. It was first put in place in 2006, so those years are moving forward. We need to see that the objectives now being met are not at the inconvenience of passengers—such as major track work, signalling and station remodelling, improvements to the lines approaching London Bridge and the overhead lines north of St Pancras. The programme was very ambitious, but without proper governance it has not been realised. On the issue of capacity, as 24 trains an hour move through the core of central London, the risks increase. We cannot even get the service moving right at the moment. We need to hear from the Minister what mitigation is being put in place to reduce risk and ensure that trains run on time and that passengers reach their destinations on time. About 14,500 additional passengers will use that network.

The Gibb report goes further on the issues that need to be addressed across the networks. It also addresses GTR’s responsibilities and Network Rail. The issues it identified include rail renewal, switching and sleeper renewal. The list goes on to talk about telecoms and cable signalling and dealing with things such as vegetation, earthworks and fencing—it is comprehensive. We need to ensure that the improvement programme is put in place and delivered by 2018. We do not want the stop-start approach to maintenance and development. We want to see the investment running into the CP6 funding round from 2019. What exactly is the Minister doing to make sure there is ongoing investment in the railway?

We must thank Chris Gibb for his report, but we must also note the responsibility to move forward on many of the problems experienced across the Thameslink network. We also need to address the issues raised by the Transport Select Committee, which has identified how poorly the franchise has been established. The relationships do not work between the train operator, Network Rail and the passenger. That must be put right. Changing an operator does not change the environment, which is so important. It is right that the Committee highlighted the problems with the initial structuring of the franchise, the inadequate planning that was put in place, weaknesses in the franchising handover period, infrastructure and rolling stock failures, mismanagement, and poor industrial relations.

I want to talk about industrial relations, because it is so important that these issues are addressed. We have people working on the rail network who are seriously concerned about passenger safety and access. We have heard about the overcrowding, which increases risk, and the real challenges on the network. More commuters will be using the line and it is vital that public safety comes first. The unions have been clear that this is not a dispute about money; their concern is about public safety.

I have spoken to train drivers in the last couple of days, and they say it is vital that they have a second pair of eyes. If they miss something, the other person can help pick it up. They say it is vital that there is someone there to deal with incidents, whatever they may be, because it is unpredictable. It could be a driver falling ill, a fatality on the rails, a terrorist attack, derailment or a crash, women’s safety at night or antisocial behaviour disturbing other customers. Of course, guards play a much wider role in maximising revenue collection and providing passengers with a wider service. We have heard today how important that service is, particularly with the line of communication, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. They can let passengers know information, be the first port of call and be the passengers’ champion when needed.

I urge the Minister to address those vital issues. We must get the rostering right to ensure that the trains run on time and address the issues in this dispute. This is not rocket science; the dispute is simple to resolve. I know, as a negotiator, that the Minister just needs to sit down and make sure the guards are in place and can continue with their role. It is incumbent on him to sort this out. I know it is not beyond his wit, and I trust he will do so.

In conclusion, we have heard about the painful experiences of commuters. We must remember that the whole rail network is there as a service—a public service—to help passengers continue with their employment opportunities and their daily lives. It is absolutely right that focus is now brought on the way the franchises and relationships are not operating and that that is worked through, to bring the service back to customers. That is why the Labour party believes that public services now need to be a public accountability, in public ownership. For far too long, decisions have been made away from the passenger. We want to see the passenger at the heart of those decisions, putting safety and service needs at the forefront and building the structures around the passenger.

I have heard all the frustrations, and Labour will take those on board and work with passengers to make sure that we can provide the service needed in the future. We will keep the pressure on the Government, as the passengers’ voice throughout this process.

Taxi Trade

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and I welcome him to his place in the House. He brings with him considerable expertise on this topic and others, and he will be a great representative for the people of Bedford. He anticipates what I am going to say about cross-border hiring and the cap on private hire numbers. However, before I do that, I want briefly to pick up one issue that has been floating around for some time but has yet to be addressed properly.

The Government recognised that the pace of change in the taxi and private hire industry necessitated some change to legislation and regulations, so they asked the Law Commission to do some work on that. In 2014, the Law Commission produced a report, including a draft Bill, in which it identified plying for hire as one of the grey areas in need of clarification by legislation.

Many hon. Members will know that under existing regulations licensed taxi drivers in London have to undergo about 8,000 hours of training to pass the knowledge, and only licensed taxi drivers are allowed to ply for hire by picking up from a rank or in response to someone hailing a cab. With the introduction of new technology, there are people effectively hailing private hire vehicles all the time through the click of a button, and that is causing real anger and anxiety on the part of licensed taxi drivers. It is not simply that people feel that the existing law is being flouted. There is a lack of clarity about how we move forward when things have changed, with new technology platforms.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. My local taxi drivers have shown me where they can locate 15 or 16 Uber cabs sitting around St Albans in car parks. Because they are hailed from the station, that does not count as plying for hire, but it is—it is touting for business but being on another street. Surely that cannot be allowed.

[Wes Streeting]

I agree. Actually, in some cases, Uber cars use taxi ranks constantly on the streets of central London. There are real issues about how the existing law is enforced and there is a need to clarify it. In our report, we strongly supported those who made representations, particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and other trade unions, including Unite, for which Mike Hedges gave evidence to our panel. We need Ministers to clarify their position on the two-tier system by issuing a formal response to the Law Commission’s 2014 report and by introducing a legally enforceable statutory definition of plying for hire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.

I like this quote from GMB section secretary, Andy Peters:

“It appears that London has become the licensing centre to send London minicabs all over the UK rendering local councils redundant in taxi licensing.”

That about sums it up. In St Albans we have reliable and heavily regulated taxi licensing, but my local taxi drivers have said, “What is the point of being licensed with St Albans if TfL can license drivers?” TfL does not seem to have such high standards. We have heard from other speakers that if someone has lost their licence in one area, they will be denied a licence elsewhere. But it seems TfL is not so picky, because someone denied a licence in St Albans was told to try TfL, which is dreadful. The cost to register with TfL for a private hire driver’s licence is £250 plus a medical fee, and registering a vehicle costs an additional £100, so that is a total of £350. In St Albans, the cost to register for a private hire licence is £420.50 plus a medical fee, and registering a vehicle costs an additional £300, so that is £720.50 plus a medical fee. There is also a driver’s knowledge test, which is £95 for a first attempt and £64 thereafter.

It does not take a mathematician to work out that someone might as well hop down the road to London and get a TfL licence if there is no way of stopping drivers coming from there to St Albans, where our drivers are heavily regulated. St Albans drivers have told me that if they infringe their driving licence in any way, shape or form, the licensing authority jumps on them. If there is no point in having our licensing regulations, everybody might as well be licensed with TfL and then work all over the place.

It worries me enormously that when I talk to St Albans District Council, it says that although it is trying to work with London, TfL and Uber vehicles are allowed to come to the district to collect or drop off pre-booked jobs. My taxi drivers have shown me an app that shows where all the Uber cars are, and they are not simply dropping off in St Albans and heading back. They are stopping there. They come first thing in the morning and hover about until someone is looking to book a taxi. I told my local taxi drivers that the problem is young people saying, “I’ll get an Uber cab. It’s cheaper.” But it is cheaper because Uber is not obeying the rules. It is outside the licensing rules and touting for business. It claims to offer a journey within six minutes, but if the driver is supposed to be in London when they start a journey, they could not possibly be in St Albans in six minutes. They hover around in supermarkets and nearby roads and offer cheaper fares.

My council has stated:

“During enforcement checks any TFL or UBER vehicles that are found in the District without pre-booked jobs are advised to go back to the area that they are licensed. We have found that the amount of TFL and UBER vehicles...has declined”

when enforcement happens. That is the equivalent of swatting a fly off the rump of a horse. A taxi driver who is in the wrong area is simply asked to go back to where they are supposed to be. Nothing happens as a consequence, so they are all back within a few days. There are not enough licensing officers in St Albans, paid for by the heavy licensing fee, to ensure that we can keep those drivers out of the area. So we have a situation in which my local taxi drivers, many of whom are Bangladeshi, are faced with losing their livelihood.

There are big complaints when Tesco or other such companies move into areas and mop up all the trade. Local authorities can protect themselves from big rapacious companies that hoover up all the vacant premises and suppress other small operators in the area. It seems to me particularly poor form, then, that London can spew out licences and the taxi drivers can go off and, in effect, operate remotely. They are not obeying the spirit of the law, and they certainly have a detrimental impact on taxi facilities in areas such as mine. It worries me that local authorities that can stop numerous shop premises being turned into coffee shops because they think that would alter the area’s feel and offer, or deny Tesco a huge superstore because they feel it would draw trade from the city centre, cannot deny a fleet of rapacious Uber taxi drivers in my constituency the right to hover around in the car park, sucking the lifeblood from taxi services.

Maureen, who operates for Gold Line in St Albans, said to me much the same as the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has said: there should be strict rules that a job must be started in the area where a driver is licensed. There are obviously a lot of journeys from St Albans to Luton and Heathrow airports, and there is no thought of stopping people going out of area, but when a taxi driver turns up in an area and hovers about all day, that is completely outside the regulations that cover their licensed hire vehicle. I am told that operating outside the licensing provision also has the potential to negate their insurance, so young people who think getting into these cars is the cheap option might find, if they were in a car crash or some other kind of accident, that they were not insured.

Unite the union has spearheaded a cross-border taxi campaign against Uber. Frankly I do not care whether the firm concerned is Uber or anyone else. What I am saying is not anti-Uber; it is anti-unfairness in the taxi trade. As for just shooing away taxi drivers who are meant to be licensed and operating in a proper fashion but are found hovering where they are not supposed to be, no licensing authority in the country can afford to be shooing out Uber drivers full-time. If those drivers do not behave and Transport for London will not do anything about it, the Government need to do something. I ask the Minister to look at the matter as a serious issue of unfair business competition and health and safety.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Most of what inspires me goes back to the time of Jesus Christ, so I do not think the fact that something goes back a long way is necessarily indicative that it is inappropriate, but I certainly want to make sure that it is fit for purpose. Part of the job of government is to make sure that the legislative framework that we operate in is suitable for the changing circumstances, as I described. If they are as dynamic as the hon. Member for Ilford North and I suggest, we certainly need to review these matters regularly and thoroughly. He is right that in the light of that changing landscape, we need to look at such things closely.

I am aware of the changing landscape of the taxi and private hire market, and the impact that changes in the way people engage services have for the public and on traditional business models, which, in my own use of taxis, I personally prefer. It is right that we address some of the specific issues raised in the report, and I shall try to do that in the short time available to me. Having said all that, using an app to request a taxi or a private hire vehicle is increasingly popular with the public and has the potential to change the structure of the market significantly. There is a taste for a certain kind of access to a certain kind of vehicle. That is an undeniable fact. I see it among people I know—friends and others—although personally, I prefer to hail a taxi. I like the theatre of that, as well as the quality that it ends in, but that is not the way that everybody goes about their lives and business, and we have to face that reality. Given that appetite, the important thing is that we are mindful of the disadvantages that it might bring too.

It is the case that in addition to accepting pre-booked journeys, taxi drivers have the exclusive right to ply for hire in the area in which they are licensed. This is the fundamental difference in the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, and underpins the requirement for taxi drivers to have the geographical knowledge that is indicated, in London at least, by the knowledge—the acquisition of detailed understanding of the character and geography of our city.

The all-party parliamentary group recommends that the Government introduce a legally enforceable statutory definition of plying for hire. That will, of course, be considered, but the Law Commission’s view was that it was not practical to define plying for hire:

“No statutory list of factors could be sufficiently determinative to give clear guidance, leaving many of the current grey areas unresolved.”

I welcome the recent efforts of Transport for London to ensure that competition within the taxi and private hire market is fair. Private hire vehicles do not have the hard-earned right to ply for hire, and I wholeheartedly endorse action against those who break the law. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Transport for London has quadrupled the number of dedicated compliance officers on the street, meaning that there are now more than 250. Not only do those enforcement officers ensure fair play among legitimate parties, they play a vital role in preventing unlicensed, unvetted, uninsured and unsafe drivers and vehicles from circumventing the regulations and stealing business from the legitimate trade.

[Mrs Main]

The thing is that those officers do not come into the areas where Uber drivers licensed by TfL operate, so the one or two officers in my area have all the responsibility for driving them out.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is true; my hon. Friend makes a valid point about the scope and powers of those missioned with doing what I described. I am certainly prepared to consider both of those things in direct response to this debate. If these debates are to be meaningful, they must take policy further forward; they must not simply be repetition of the status quo or an opportunity for Ministers to read out speeches written for them by other people. We will certainly consider those matters particularly.

Clearly, we place premium importance on passenger safety, and points have been made about that; again, I will re-examine those matters in some detail. The Department has undertaken to monitor the adoption of the recommendations made in the statutory guidance, and I assure all here today that I will give the matter my personal attention. I will be judged on what I do, rather than what I say, so I serve notice on all taxi and PHV licensing authorities that I will be asking those that do not adopt the recommendations made as a result of consultation and engagement why not and for what reasons. I will write to all licensing authorities accordingly as a result of this brief debate.

A point was made about access for disabled people. That point has been raised previously, and I return to it—indeed, I had a discussion this morning with the Minister responsible in my Department about this very subject. We want to say more about it quickly, and we will do so; we have been considering it for some time, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) will know. Again, we have been partly catalysed by the fresh opportunity that this debate gives us to consider these matters.

The other thing that I commit to is further discussion with the all-party group. I invite the hon. Member for Ilford North to come to my Department to explore each of the detailed recommendations in the report. Time does not permit me to go into them now, but I am happy to have a dialogue with him to see what more can be done. By the way, there are some contentious things in the report. I do not want to give the impression that I have read it assuming that it is all fine and dandy. The issue of the difference between licensed vehicles and licensed drivers is—I say this in the kindest, most general way possible—fudged in the report, and we need to explore it. To say that there were 88,000 vehicle licences and 120 licences issued to people is a slight misrepresentation of the facts. I could go on; there is the effect on congestion as well. Light goods vehicles and other vehicles may well do more damage in terms of congestion than the growing number of private hire vehicles, and we need to explore that. However, the report is a useful and valuable contribution to the debate, and we will discuss it and be inspired by much of what it says.

In addition to all of that, there is more work to be done. I have established a working party to look at licensing, and I am extremely keen to deal with the inconsistencies across licensing authorities. There is a strong case for considering the cross-border issues; they are not straightforward, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but we must consider them closely. As I have mentioned, I am keen to move forward on accessibility and how disabled people must sometimes, for example, endure drivers not being prepared to take guide dogs in taxis. That is not acceptable, and it cannot be allowed to continue. The checks put in place by licensing authorities must be thorough and consistent to ensure safety.

I have repeatedly stressed my admiration for black cabs, but I hope also to recognise that it is a dynamic marketplace where technology has changed, and I will continue to do so. To return to the fundamental message that I want to articulate in this short debate, it is important that the framework that we have put in place is fit for purpose, recognises those changes and preserves the best of what we have now.

There will be a working party, consideration of licensing and cross-border issues, and an urgent meeting with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the report. I am prepared to go further and meet the Mayor of London, representatives of the London taxi trade and, of course, Uber. Devising a plan for the future will require us all to work together for the common good.

I started with Burke, so I will end with Disraeli, who said:

“The secret of success is constancy to purpose.”

My purpose is to get this right, not for its own sake but for the effect that it has on all those who work in the industry and all those who use taxis and private hire vehicles. Our responsibility—indeed, I go further—our duty is to ensure that that is done thoughtfully, carefully and effectively. In securing this debate, the hon. Gentleman has aided that purpose.

Car Insurance: Young People

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, and congratulate the lead petitioner and all the people who signed the petition.

I represent a rural constituency of 200 square miles, where the car is an essential way of life, particularly for the young, for whom getting out and engaging has never been more important, given the advent of social media and their ability to communicate while on their own in their bedrooms. It is vital that we do everything we can to let them get out and about and interact with the world around them. That is more important now than it was when I was young. We talk in this place, rightly, about social mobility. In rural environments where people’s ability to access public transport, let alone pay for it, is somewhat restricted by the loss of bus services and other difficulties, it is hugely important for our young people to be able to go out to work, earn money and get a foot on the ladder, because without that ability, they may be held back and not climb the ladder.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on leading off this debate. We ended up in a discussion about whether tests have become easier. As we get older, we tend to slip into the mode of saying, “It was much harder in my day.” When I learned to drive and took my test, I did not have to reverse into a space—I found that to be a drawback when I moved to London—and I was not required to sit a written exam, as our young people are, so I might argue that tests have actually got harder. I remember being asked by my examiner what green meant at a traffic light. If the test has got harder than that, things are getting better.

I shall focus on the need for the insurance market and perhaps the Government, through incentives, to ensure that premiums are based on specific risk rather than a specific class, which is how young people are currently grouped.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech—I hope that I can contribute to this debate—but premiums actually are not based solely on risk. It used to be the case, a while ago, that young men paid higher premiums than young women. Of course, we were told that that was discriminatory, but it actually reflected risk—that is what the statistics said. Sadly, a lot of young women’s premiums had to rise to ensure that everything was fair and equal. I do not think that premiums are always based on risk—other things sometimes come into play.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I wholeheartedly agree. The Transport Committee and the Petitions Committee met jointly to hear evidence. We heard from the head of research at the RAC, who said that

“insurance costs are based on four main things: the cost of the vehicle; the likelihood of theft; the cost of available claims generally, if you were to make a claim; and the risk of the individual.”

It is absolutely clear that, on average, 17-year-old boys present twice the risk of 17-year-old girls, yet no price differential at all is offered. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there was such a differential, but prices had to be equalised as a result of the gender directive. Of course, in life, prices tend to go up rather than down. To a certain extent, she makes a point that I wanted to make—we should look at individuals’ performance risk and price insurance comparatively. In the United States of America, where the insurance market is much more tightly regulated, there is a requirement to look at specific risk rather than a class. Will the Minister consider whether the time is right to look at this issue from a regulatory perspective?

A 17-year-old new driver is 40% more likely to have an accident than an 18-year-old, yet I dare say that premiums do not fall by 40% in that year, because there is a tendency to look just at age. I received information from one of the telematics companies that seems to suggest that, by the time people reach 29, men and women present the same risk, and the curve drops dramatically.

At the moment, pricing is measured crudely for young people. Insurers tend to look at young people as students who live at home, drive small cars and have no driving experience, and therefore make no allowance for their performance. That is why telematics is such an exciting concept. The advent of telematics means that, rather than putting in place a cap that does not bear any relation to risk, insurers can reward good drivers and penalise people who do not drive so safely. With more telematics in place, 1,000 accidents involving death or serious injuries would be averted, so I dare to suggest that the cost to the Government would reduce. Telematics have developed to such an extent that the software can talk to emergency services to warn them of an event. We all know that early response to an emergency can save lives and, if we are crude about it, money, including for the state.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what we can all do and what the Government can do to incentivise the development of telematics. Given the cost savings that I mentioned, is there a case for insurance premium tax to be reduced for drivers who use telematics? VAT is charged on the box that is required to use telematics, which reduces the cost benefits, so, again, could some exemption be made as far as that is concerned?

The insurers’ discount rate was changed from 2.5% to minus 0.7%. Although that happened after the petition was started, the petitioners would maintain that their insurance premiums were high enough as they were. Unfortunately for the Transport Committee, that change was a live issue for insurers when we heard evidence. I am pleased that the Government have decided to look again at that rate, but we made the point to representatives of the insurers and the Association of British Insurers that their attempt to state that the change would cause young people’s insurance premiums to double was rather crude given that they did not seem to have research to bear that out. Actually, I do not believe they have provided the research that they promised to the Committee. We should perhaps always go hard on insurers and work hard to ensure that the evidence for the claims that they put out—they always say they are based on evidence, yet we do not see that evidence—is in the public domain, so that pricing for young people is demonstrably linked to the risk that they pose as individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, in this important debate. While I disagree with capping fees, it is immensely important that we look at how the insurance industry treats our young drivers, because as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), it is not treating them fairly. A lot of things have come into play since the gender directive. We all remember the adverts with pink ladies and all the rest of it, where young ladies and women could get car insurance that reflected the risks they were likely to encounter, and surely that is what insurance should be about.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) said, we have all been young drivers. We were all pretty young and stupid then, and we learnt to drive as we went along. I am certain that every single one of us had a few near-misses or skirmishes with gate posts—there were none of the reversing sensors that we may have now. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, this has been going on for a very long time. There is nothing new in young people being more likely to make mistakes and slip-ups.

May I say that I have the best and most beautiful constituency? But I think I also have the worst roads. Previously, roads certainly did not have the craters—they are not potholes—we have in Hertfordshire and many other parts of the country. Road maintenance must be part of this. Road markings are often poor or obliterated, lighting is often poor and vegetation is often not cut back. That is all part of the picture for young and inexperienced drivers. If a road hazard sign has been defaced or is not visible because of vegetation, that is no help to a young, inexperienced driver.

Insurance companies are getting away with murder. We have not mentioned the fact that there are criminals who ram the back of cars—and who better to target than a young person in a scruffy old car? There are people who cry wolf about injuries that they certainly did not experience. All that has been factored in and spread across premiums. All of us have been in the position where our driving was a little rockier than it might have been. Perhaps now we should accept that insurance should spread across the whole age group, and that is where I find sympathy with the direction of the petition.

I am worried that this is a social mobility issue as much as anything else. In constituencies such as mine, where the average house price is more than £550,000 and where £1,200 does not rent an awful lot of property, young people who want to leave home or get jobs are priced further out. The golden rule is: the nearer the train station—which has wonderful links to London—the more expensive the rental. As a result, if young people—this is up to age 25—leave home, perhaps when they are in relationships, they are forced further and further away. The majority of my economically active constituents will go to London; there is a huge amount of churn in my constituency. People who are less economically advantaged commute in from areas where rents are less expensive, to do some of the key jobs of such constituencies, on a lower pay grade. So there is the perverse situation where people with less in their pocket, who live in areas where car theft is potentially more likely, are penalised for coming to do care work or other essential jobs in my constituency, because they have to drive in from further away. The whole picture needs to be taken into account by the insurance industry.

It seems unfair that, because of the high rents in areas such as mine, young drivers who have to rent in a less salubrious place than they might like—I am sure we all want to live in a nice area—should then have that weighted in their car insurance, because of the actions of those who come into that area and decide to deface, take or wreck their car, or use it for a criminal purpose. I do not believe that the insurance companies play a fair game. That is why the drift of the petition is extremely important.

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, but is she worried, as I am, that where people live is not the only factor in the situation? The additional premiums force young people to buy older cars, and if they do that, they are generally buying cars that are less safe.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, but for many young people the price of the car is the least of their worries. A fairly reasonable little runaround can be had for less than £1,000, which is about 50% of the cost of insuring the thing. They buy older cars because they have to, but unfortunately those may not have all the gizmos that make them safer or easier to drive, such as the reverse parking sensors that I mentioned. Those are beyond the wildest dreams of many young people, without—this is the thrust of my comments—the bank of mum and dad. I am a bank of mum and dad, as I am sure are many of the right hon. and hon. Members taking part in the debate.

My son is 21—and probably will not thank me for mentioning him in the debate. We bought him his car and paid the insurance premiums. We helped him with petrol when he was 18 and studying for his A-levels, because I did not want him to worry about whether he could pay for his car, and I wanted him to get to places safely. I have four children, who are all grown up now, but, particularly in the case of my daughters, I did not want them to be at the mercy of a bus that might not turn up if they had been to entertainment away from where we live.

Many a parent has such a dilemma. Often, perversely, the safest way for young people to get home at night is to drive. Buses often do not run into the rural areas, of which there are some in my constituency. Let us be reasonable: if young people are out, at 20, a 10 o’clock curfew is not going to happen, is it? That is what makes me say that insurance premiums should be spread between all of us. Parents want our young people to get home. We want people to be able to rent a property or a room further out. To bring the argument back to my 21-year-old son, he has gone on to a higher level apprenticeship, and he could not have got access to it, up in Macclesfield, if he could not drive. It is vital—otherwise, many people would not be able to take up opportunities such as apprenticeships or other work that they wanted to do. Mention has been made of carers working in rural environments; such opportunities are not open to young people if premiums are so high.

Eighty-six per cent. of St Albans residents have access to a car or van, which is above the county average, and 89% of residents aged over 17 have a full driving licence. The roads in my area are incredibly congested. Therefore, not only is there competition to get to the jobs and to live in areas that people can afford but they are dicing with the M25 and the M1, some of the biggest and most difficult stretches of motorway in the country. Some of the comments that have been made in the debate about expanding people’s driving experience are hugely important.

I am concerned that, as with many aspects of life, if someone’s parents can afford it, they will be able to afford to be mobile and live somewhere affordable. The children of those parents will have opportunities that other young people do not have. Perversely, although in areas such as mine there is a deficit of blue-collar workers —there is no trouble in finding a job in St Albans, which has almost zero unemployment if a young person wants to work in such industries as caring or hospitality—people in those jobs probably do not live in St Albans. The point I am making is for young people everywhere, because not everyone has access to the bank of mum and dad.

This a question of whether we are truly interested in equality—in this case, equality of opportunity. The insurance companies are having a merry game of it. I know that this debate is about young people and not elderly people, but, believe me, there are a lot of bashed up cars in Waitrose car parks as a result of people suddenly taking on the delights of an automatic car, because they are rather elderly and their hip or knee does not want to press a clutch any more. I can say that because my eldest son works in Waitrose, and it is amazing how often it happens. I am sure that many people will have seen similar things. The elderly are driving for far longer than they would have years ago. They, too, are forced into it by a lack of bus services and so on, but in many cases people who go over to an automatic car have problems with the premiums.

We accept that there are times in our lives when a bump and a dink are more likely to happen. I would like a more pragmatic approach from the insurance companies. They need to be more accountable and to justify the way premiums work. It is disgraceful to just accept a set of statistics that says, “If a person is a young driver, they’re more likely to have an accident; therefore, we’ll just price certain young people out of being mobile.” I would not want to think that young people can be in the privileged position of being free to go where they want only if they happen to have a bank of mum and dad. We should all be concerned about that, because there will be huge parts of the country where young people will probably drive without insurance, and that is the worst possible thing for everybody.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to speak in the debate.

I must declare an interest as a 25-year-old driver who has just renewed his car insurance. It was not as bad as I thought it would be, which is good to report. I do not expect any hon. Members present today to lend me their car, for any amount of money, but the fact that 185,000 people signed the petition shows how much of an issue insurance is for young people. I grew up in and represent a rural area and I know how important cars are to enable young people to get around for work, leisure and social life. In rural Aberdeenshire, much of that takes place in Aberdeen, and people need a car to get there. I used to have to walk for 40 minutes to get the bus before I could drive, so this is a real issue.

The increased use of cars in every aspect of young people’s lives does increase risk. However, like any other age group, young people are not all the same; there are good drivers and bad drivers. Obviously, the statistics show that young people are more likely to have an accident, but as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, using black boxes to measure the driving ability of individuals is so important. The son of one of my members of staff has just passed his driving test and has a black box in his car; he refuses to let his mum use the car because she puts the bad driving statistics up. It is important to say that not all bad drivers are young drivers and not all novice drivers are young drivers, although the cost of insurance tends to go down once somebody reaches 25.

Car insurance costs rose by 102% from 1994 to 2011; as has been mentioned, that is in no small part due to whiplash claims, which now add approximately 20% to each policy. That is particularly damaging to young people—96% of young drivers now think they are being priced off the road. The issue is further compounded by the increase in the standard rate of insurance premium tax from 10% to 12% from June, which will hit individuals with the highest insurance premiums hardest: young people and those living in high-crime areas. That, along with a whole lot of other things, is hurting people.

It has been said that millennials—my generation—will probably be the first generation who are worse off than those who came before them. We have to look at that as a whole when it comes to premiums for young drivers. Obviously, many jobs require individuals to be able to drive; I would not be able to do my job if I could not drive. Being able to drive can still be the difference between successfully securing a job and failing to secure one.

As has been said, the issue is fundamentally about social mobility. Making longer distance travel easier for those without access to quick, regular or close-by public transport could increase their chances of employment. Another problem that young people face, particularly in rural areas, is sometimes having to wait up to five months to get a driving test. As hon. Members will imagine, that increases their frustration and also means that they have to spend more money on taking top-up tests.

I would like to see powers in this area devolved so that they can be better tailored to rural areas in Scotland and Scottish drivers. I learned to drive when I was 16 in a field with my grandpa, who is a farmer and a former Member; unfortunately, it did not help me to pass my test first time. However, I thought what my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) said about 14 year-olds being taught how to drive in school was interesting. I was taught how to cycle in school time—I did my cycling proficiency test in primary school; I do not know how many other hon. Members did that—so I thought that idea was interesting and should be considered more widely.

I have disagreed with some points that have been made, such as preventing younger people from driving at night. Where I come from in the north-east of Scotland—

[Mrs Main]

It is dark all the time.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson]

It is dark all the time—absolutely. In winter, it gets light after 8 o’clock in the morning and gets dark at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Not driving at night would be a real issue and prevent a lot of young people from working.

The constituency that I represent, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has the second highest number of road deaths in the UK, for which there are a number of reasons. Councils, the police, the fire service and the Scottish ambulance service in Grampian run a programme called “Safe Drive Stay Alive”. It has been going for 11 or 12 years; it was certainly on when I was at school. It brings local schools together and shows them a presentation that, to be honest, is pretty horrific. It has graphic images of car accidents, speeches from people who have lost loved ones and speeches from people who have been paralysed by car accidents.

The programme has a huge impact on young drivers, and to some extent I think it is effective in scaring young people into realising that, when they are learning to drive and when they pass their test, they are in charge of a machine that can quite easily kill somebody. It is important to emphasise that learning how to pass a test is not the same as learning how to drive; I am still learning how to drive to some extent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. My other concern about that proposal is this. We encourage people to car share, but if, for example, students were forced to drive their own cars individually instead of getting into a car with a group of other students to go off to college for lectures or whatever they were going to do, we would be increasing the number of cars on the road, which in areas such as mine is the last thing anyone wants.

[Richard Burden]

The hon. Lady is right: all aspects of graduated licensing need to be considered. A menu of different kinds of graduated licensing could be brought in. I will say this, though. Although it is right to be aware of the drawbacks of the different kinds, it is also the case that, in a number of other countries, the introduction of different forms of graduated licensing has promoted road safety and reduced the prevalence of new drivers and, in particular, young drivers being involved in incidents. That is why many safety organisations, the insurance industry and, indeed, research from the Government’s own Transport Research Laboratory have said that it needs to be considered seriously.

We are back to why we need a Green Paper. A Green Paper is just that. It is not a blueprint or a set of specific proposals; it is a discussion document that lays out the kinds of option that need to be looked at and the kinds of area where Government action may be necessary, and puts that out to consultation. Given that the insurance industry, road safety campaigners and so many others have been calling for this for years and given that the Government themselves felt in 2013 that producing a Green Paper was the right thing to do, I simply do not see why we are still waiting for one to be published.

On road safety, there have been important initiatives in relation to the practical driving test: the greater focus on independent driving, including the use of sat-nav, as well as time spent on high-speed roads other than motorways. Anything that allows examiners to make a better assessment of a candidate’s ability to drive on all types of road is important. All those things should be able to reduce the number of casualties and collisions on our roads.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay was right in one of the first things he said: all too often, the driving test tests a driver’s ability to pass the test, rather than their ability to drive. That is why we can be much more imaginative about how the driving test is developed. Part of that goes back to whether graduated licensing could come into it. It also raises questions about whether speed awareness can be incorporated more into the process of learning to drive, and whether the concept of appropriate speed, as well as the concept of speed limits, could form part of it.

Of course, hon. Members have also been right to say that, beyond the question of the test itself and learning for the test, there can be all sorts of other initiatives in relation to early driving to promote the idea that, when a young person gets their provisional licence, that will not necessarily be the first time they have sat in the driving seat of a car and been able to get some experience. I was really interested to hear about the early drive courses that take place up in Duns and the involvement of John Cleland. It is interesting that they are taking place in Duns: Charterhall was of course the circuit where one of the most famous racing drivers of all time, Jim Clark, learned his craft. I am absolutely convinced that that kind of early drive course can help.

At the other end of the scale is the “Safe Drive Stay Alive” initiative talked about by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson), who speaks for the Scottish National party. I have seen the work of “Safe Drive Stay Alive” and the impact of the really graphic way in which it portrays what happens if we lose a loved one in a road incident—the impact that that can have on young people in schools. Again, it is right that we support something that can contribute to reducing the number of incidents.

This issue has to be tackled on so many different fronts. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) was right to draw attention to the Transport Committee’s work on enforcement, because part of the picture is ensuring that the regulations that we have are properly enforced. It is very difficult to reconcile proper enforcement, on which the Transport Committee has done some really important work, with the cuts in the number of traffic police; they have been cut by about one third outside London. If we want to make our roads safer, part of that is about the way we train our drivers, part of it is about the way they are examined and part of it is about the technology available in motor vehicles, but a vital part of it is how we enforce the laws that are there. Frankly, the cuts we have seen in traffic policing are incompatible with that.

Another thing that is part of the equation and that we need to bear in mind is the question of road safety targets. If I am right that the strategy we need to employ to make our roads safer involves different agencies—examiners, local authorities, the police, the insurance industry and many others—is it not time that we have shared responsibility for making our roads safer? In other parts of the world and international bodies that we are part of, road safety targets are seen as something should be supported. We used to have road safety targets in this country until they were abolished by the coalition Government. They played an important role in focusing minds, and contributed indirectly to the fall in the number of people killed or seriously injured as recorded in the casualty statistics that we had in this country—those statistics are now sadly starting to level-off and there are worrying signs that they are starting to go in the other direction.

This has been a constructive debate and some important points have been made. There is no silver bullet. In conclusion, the elements that could help to address the issues we have talked about today are as follows. In the insurance industry, we could see far greater transparency at both policy level and the individual level. On the governmental level, it is time we had a Green Paper on young drivers so that Government can have a rounded look at what is required. That could, and should, include the potential of telematics and graduated driver licensing for improving safety on our roads and reducing incidents among young people. It is important that we get the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill right to ensure that it leads to the reduction of premiums for automated vehicles, and not the opposite. It is important that we look imaginatively at improvements to the driving test and at ways of educating young drivers before they have their provisional licence and in post-test learning. We need to ensure that the right numbers of traffic police are there to enforce the laws we have, and it is time that we brought back road safety targets so that we can have a vision for zero being killed or seriously injured on our roads. Other countries have piloted and pioneered “Vision Zero” and there is no reason why we should not have it as well. Bringing in road safety targets is a direct way in which we can contribute to a strategy for achieving that vision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to clarify that he was not asking for the test to be made easier; that is absolutely correct.

Colleagues from Northern Ireland, who are no longer in their place, made contributions. This is an entirely devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and my responsibilities do not extend there.

We heard from colleagues about the insurance market and how benefits can be passed on. It is important that we see all the signs of a good, thriving, competitive market, including people shopping around and competition on price and service. We do see that, but we also see inertia. From April this year, changes to the Financial Conduct Authority rules will require insurers to disclose last year’s premium to the policyholder at the point of renewal, which should incentivise shopping around. The randomised controlled trials certainly showed that that prompted up to 18% more people to switch provider or negotiate a lower premium. It would be wise of me to consider following that example, rather than trying to renew on the very last day, as I did this year, only to find an enormous hike in my premium, unlike the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.

The issue of targets has been raised; it is raised frequently. I have no desire to reintroduce targets. They can help in other countries, as they have helped in our past, but the Government’s clear determination to make progress on road safety is evident in the road safety statement that we published, the initiative in the autumn statement to channel funding into the 50 least safe stretches of road in our country and the changes that we made to the penalties for mobile phone use, which came into effect this month. By the way, that is most important; we know that 60% of people killed or seriously injured in an incident involving a mobile phone are younger drivers. This is about cultural change, and we are seeking it with the penalty change.

I will not consider reintroducing targets. If targets were the right answer to policy, then policy making would become remarkably simple, which I do not think it is. Frankly—to make a political point, which has not been done in this debate—if targets were the answer to everything, Gordon Brown would have left us a very well-governed country, which I do not think he did. Policy is a little more complicated than targets.

At the heart of this debate is the potential cap on insurance premiums. It is a long-standing principle that insurers set their premiums according to their assessment of the risks involved, notwithstanding my hon. Friends’ point about gender.

[Mrs Main]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that. Is there any opportunity for us to consider the gender directive? If we are truly interpreting risk, suddenly hiking premiums for young women seems unfair.

[Andrew Jones]

Not right now, but who knows where the future will take us? We have some idea, but the detail will still need to be filled in. Opportunities will certainly arise and that may well be one of them.

I want us to get to the point where individuals are assessed according to their risk and where the Government do all we can to de-risk driving and incentivise safe driving. Motor insurers use a wide range of criteria to assess the potential risk associated with a quotation, including the age and driving experience of the applicant, the type of vehicle and where it is kept. The level of premiums is a commercial matter for individual insurers, because they use their own funds to underwrite the policies they issue. It is critical that the insurance industry takes such decisions for itself; the Government should not seek to control that market. However, I confirm to all who signed the petition, and to Mr Parker, its originator, that I am extremely sympathetic to their point. I hope that the explanations of our actions that I have given demonstrate our commitment to making progress.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Allen]

Mrs Main, I understand that it is in order to talk about the other clauses remaining to the House to discuss, including new clause 29, at this point, but I am happy to stand corrected.

[The Temporary Chair (Mrs Anne Main)]

I am reliably informed that new clause 29 is in the next group.

[Mr Allen]

In which case I sit corrected.

[The Temporary Chair]

Does the Minister wish to come back in at this point?

[Andrew Jones]

indicated dissent.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 34 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Reed]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 29—The Local Government Independence Code—

‘(1) There shall be a Code, to be known as “the Local Government Independence Code”, the principal purpose of which shall be to define and regulate the relationship between central and local government.

(2) A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with the functions of a local authority, or of the Secretary of State or other public authority in relation to any local authority, must take into account the provisions of the Code.

(3) Schedule (The Local Government Independence Code) which—

(a) sets out the terms of the Code,

(b) makes provision about the application of the Code, and requires public authorities, including central and local government, to comply with the Code,

(c) makes provision for amending the Code,

(d) requires that, where it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which ensures compliance with the Code, and makes provision for the amending of legislation where it is found not to be compatible with the Code,

(e) makes provision about remedial orders to amend legislation,

(f) makes provision for Ministers to make, or refuse to make, a statement that a Bill is compatible with the Code,

(g) amends the Parliament Act 1911 so as to exclude any Bill seeking to amend this Act from the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911,

(h) provides for amendments which are consequential on the making of the Code to certain enactments relating to local authorities, and

(i) requires the Secretary of State to provide for the review of provisions in pre-commencement legislation to assess their compatibility with the provisions of the Code,

has effect.”

The intention of this new Clause is to define the independence of local government and to regulate the relationship between local and central government in England by means of a statutory Code.

New clause 30—Reduction in petition threshold—

‘(1) The Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 34(4) (minimum number of local government electors for a local authority’s area who must support any petition presented to the authority), for “5 per cent” substitute “1 per cent”.’

This amendment would reduce the minimum number of local government electors for a local authority’s area who must support any petition presented to the authority from 5 per cent to 1 per cent.

New clause 31—Mayors of combined authorities: Further functions—

‘(1) After section 107E of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (inserted by section 6 above) insert—

“107F Functions of mayors: alcohol pricing

(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for a mayor of a mayoral combined authority to have the power to set a minimum unit price for alcohol that is sold within that combined authority area.

(2) An order made under subsection (1) above must include a provision that such a power may be exercised by a mayor only following a consultation which includes local residents on the proposed level of the minimum unit price for alcohol.”’

New clause 32—Devolution to combined authorities: the family test—

‘(1) As soon as practicable after 31 March each year a mayoral combined authority in England shall produce and publish a report setting out its performance in applying the family test headings set out in subsection (3) over the most recent year to 31 March.

(2) In applying the family test, the mayoral combined authority must consider the impact of its policies and performance under each of the family test headings set out in subsection (3) and consider any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(3) The family test headings are—

(a) family formation;

(b) families going through key transitions such as becoming parents, getting married, fostering or adopting, bereavement, redundancy, new caring responsibilities or the onset of a long-term health condition;

(c) all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, including with respect to parenting and other caring responsibilities;

(d) families before, during and after couple separation; and

(e) those families most at risk of deterioration of relationship quality and breakdown.

(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of the mayoral combined authority shall review the report within four months of its publication.

(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral combined authorities on applying the family test and on reporting on the test.”

This new Clause would require mayoral combined authorities in England to report annually on their performance in relation to the DWP’s Family Test (October 2014) and for an overview and scrutiny committee to examine the contents of the report.

New clause 33—Parish Councils: Power of parish council to sell electricity—

‘In Section 44 (1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 insert “11” between “1” and “16”.’

This amendment will allow parish councils to be able to sell electricity that it generates.

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.’

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.

New clause 37—Disqualification for election and holding office as a Member of a local authority—

‘In section 80 (1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972, omit “for a period of not less than three months without the option of a fine”.’

This New Clause would extend the current disqualification regime to councillors sentenced to any custodial sentence (including a suspended sentence), instead of applying only to councillors sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least three months.

New clause 38—Enabling devolution to joint committees in London—

‘(1) Following a written request from either—

(a) a voluntary joint committee of London councils, or

(b) a voluntary joint committee of London councils and the Mayor of London,

the Secretary of State may by order make arrangements for a function of a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department to be delegated to that joint committee, formed under Section 101 of the 1972 Local Government Act.

(2) The voluntary joint committee may make such provision as is necessary in relation to—

(a) voting powers required to protect minority interests;

(b) the membership and process for individual authorities to enter or leave;

(c) the executive arrangements of the joint committee;

(d) arrangements for the administration and transfer of property and other liabilities.

(3) A request made under subsection (1) above must have the agreement of all constituent members of the joint committee.

(4) In this section—

“London councils” means

(a) London borough councils, and

(b) the Common Council of the City of London;

“joint committee” has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1972;

“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.

(5) A function is eligible for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—

(a) it does not consist of a power to make regulations or other instruments of a legislative character or a power to fix fees or charges, and

(b) the Secretary of State considers that it can be appropriately exercised by the joint committee.

(6) No delegation under subsection (1) above, and no variation of a delegation under subsection (1) above can be made without the agreement of all constituent members of the relevant voluntary joint committee.

(7) Before making or varying a delegation under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) London borough councils;

(b) The Common Council of the City of London;

(c) The Mayor of London (in the case of a joint committee of London councils and the Mayor of London).

(8) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the transfer from the Crown to the relevant joint committee of such property, rights or liabilities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to the discharge of the function delegated under subsection (1).

(9) If an order made under this section would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.’

This clause would support further devolution of Ministerial functions to London by providing 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 councils and the Mayor through an appropriately constituted joint committee.

New clause 39—Environmental consideration—

‘No later than three months after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare guidance on effective strategic planning for combined authorities including in the areas of—

(a) mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of climate change;

(b) natural resource use including water management;

(c) delivery of low-carbon energy sources and infrastructure;

(d) landscape-scale conservation, including green infrastructure.’

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.

New schedule 2—The Local Government Independence Code—

‘1 Chapter 4ZA and Chapter 4A of Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 are repealed.

2 (1) This Code—

(a) defines the relationship between central government and local authorities; and

(b) makes provision about the financial independence and conduct of local authorities.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Code shall affect the rights of individuals; and individuals may continue to seek judicial review of any action by a public authority which they regard as unjust or as infringing their rights.

Local Autonomy and Local Self-Government

3 (1) Local authorities’ accountability is to their electorates.

(2) Local authorities are autonomous, democratically-elected bodies which independently decide upon, administer and regulate public affairs and deal with all matters of concern within their boundaries to the extent that such matters are not the statutory responsibility of another body.

(3) Local authorities shall continue to operate within the rule of law.

(4) Local authorities shall continue to operate with full legal personality and under a general power of competence. Subject to sub-paragraph (4), local authorities may pass measures on matters affecting the affairs and interests of their area.

Scope of Local Government

4 (1) The powers and responsibilities of local authorities will continue to be prescribed by statute.

(2) Local authorities shall have power to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not statutorily excluded from their competence or assigned to another body.

(3) Central government may not propose actions which are intended to, or may reasonably be regarded as being likely to, infringe the independence of local government, as defined in this Code, or affect local government generally or any local authority, unless local government generally, or the local authority concerned, consents.

Inter-Governmental Activities

5 Central government and local authorities shall establish joint inspection regimes to set and monitor the standards of services supplied or secured by them.

Territorial Autonomy

6 The geographical boundary of a local authority can be altered only by a proposal from the local authority itself or from its electorate. Local authorities must make arrangements for their electorates to put forward such proposals for consideration. Any such locally-inspired proposal for boundary changes, whether initiated directly by the authority or by the electorate of the authority, must be developed with the involvement of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and shall be subject to approval of the electorate of the area concerned, under arrangements made by the local authority concerned and approved by the Electoral Commission.

Council Governmental Systems

7 (1) The electorate of each local authority, through methods agreed by the local authority concerned, shall have the power to choose that authority‘s internal political decision-making systems. The systems concerned shall include a directly elected mayor and cabinet, a cabinet and leader, a committee system, or any other political decision-making arrangement which the electorate may decide is appropriate.

(2) The electorate of each local authority, through methods agreed by their local authorities, may, after a process of consultation carried out by the local authority concerned, agree to and adopt any electoral system for use in elections to that authority.

Local Government Financial Integrity

8 (1) Local authorities shall be financially independent of central government, save as otherwise provided for in this Code.

(2) Central government may not place any restriction on decisions by local authorities about the exercise of their financial powers.

(3) The distribution of central government funds between local authorities shall continue on the basis of existing equalisation arrangements. Distribution will continue to be based on the principle of ensuring fairness and balance between local authorities. The basis on which this distribution is carried out must continue to be made public.

(4) Each local authority shall receive from central government a guaranteed share of the annual yield of income tax, as follows. Central government must in each financial year assign to the Secretary of State responsible for the distribution of central government funds between local authorities an amount of money equivalent to the yield from ten pence in the pound of income tax. The Secretary of State must make arrangements to inform each taxpayer in England of the amount of their income tax which makes up the central government funding distributed to English local authorities as a whole.

(5) The amount of the income tax yield referred to in paragraph 8(4) shall be re-negotiated between central and local government whenever service provision responsibilities are transferred between central government and local authorities.

(6) Local authorities may raise additional sources of income in their areas in any way they wish, and with the consent of their electorates as expressed through arrangements to be determined and put in place by the local authority concerned.

(7) Local authorities shall be able to raise any loans, bonds or other financial instruments which their credit rating allows and as independent entities will be exclusively responsible for their repayment. All local authorities shall operate “a balanced budget” so that in any one financial year all outgoings, including interest repayments on borrowings, shall not exceed income.

(8) Central government may not cap, or in any other way limit, local authorities’ taxation powers.

(9) The financial transparency standards that apply to central government shall apply to local authorities.

(10) Central government and local authorities may contract with each other in order to pursue their own policy objectives.

Local Authorities’ right to co-operate and associate

9 (1) Local authorities are entitled, in pursuit of any undertaking, to co-operate in any way with any other persons, including local authorities, public and private bodies, voluntary, charity or third-sector organisations, and financial, commercial or private enterprises.

(2) Where more than one local authority is responsible for services in a geographic area, those local authorities shall co-operate so as to maximise the well-being of those living or working in that area.

(3) Local authorities may join any association for the protection and promotion of their common interests and may belong to an international association of any sort.

Decision-making

10 The administration of any local referendum or other vote on proposals put forward by the electorate of any local authority, or other local decision-making processes involving a public vote, shall adhere to standards set by the Electoral Commission; and those responsible for the conduct of any such decision-making processes shall be accountable to the Electoral Commission for their performance against those standards.

Legal Protection of Local Government

11 Local authorities may seek a judicial remedy in order to secure the free exercise of their powers, and any other principles of local self-government or individual rights contained within this Code or otherwise enshrined in law.

Application of and Compliance with the Code: acts of public authorities

12 It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is not in compliance with the Code.

13 Paragraph 12 does not apply to an act of a local authority if—

(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or

(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.

14 In this Schedule “public authority” includes central government, local authorities and any other person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either House of Parliament or persons exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament; and “an act” includes a failure to act.

Proceedings

15 (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by paragraph 12 may—

(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or

(b) rely on the Code in any legal proceedings.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) “appropriate court or tribunal” means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and proceedings against an authority include a counterclaim or similar proceeding.

(3) If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant must have a sufficient interest in relation to the act.

(4) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or

(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.

(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) “legal proceedings” includes—

(a) proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority; and

(b) an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.

(6) Nothing in this Act creates a criminal offence.

(7) In this paragraph “person” includes a local authority.

Judicial remedies

16 (1) In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.

(2) But damages may be awarded only by a court which has power to award damages, or to order the payment of compensation, in civil proceedings.

(3) No award of damages is to be made unless, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, including—

(a) any other relief or remedy granted, or order made, in relation to the act in question (by that or any other court), and

(b) the consequences of any decision (of that or any other court) in respect of that act, the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made.

(4) In this paragraph—

“court” includes a tribunal;

“damages” means damages for an unlawful act of a public authority; and

“unlawful” means unlawful under paragraph 15.

Amendment of the Code

17 (1) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments to the Code as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such local authorities,

(b) such representatives of local government, and

(c) such other persons (if any), as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Any orders for amendments made by the Secretary of State are subject to the procedures set out in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this Schedule.

Limits on power of Secretary of State to amend the Code

18 (1) The Secretary of State may not make provision under paragraph 16(1) unless the Secretary of State considers that the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied in relation to that provision.

(2) Those conditions are that—

(a) the provision does not reduce the powers or discretion of local authorities unless the Secretary of State objectively considers that the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision;

(b) the provision does not remove any necessary protection for local government or breach the obligations arising under the European Charter of Local Self-Government; and

(c) an order under paragraph 16(1) may not make provision to abolish or vary any tax.

Procedure for orders under paragraph 1

19 (1) If, as a result of any consultation required by paragraph 16(2), it appears to the Secretary of State that it is appropriate to change all or any part of the Secretary of State‘s proposals, the Secretary of State must undertake such further consultation with respect to the changes as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) If, after the conclusion of the consultation required by paragraph 16(2), the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under paragraph 16(1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) a draft of the order, and

(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals and giving details of—

(i) the Secretary of State‘s reasons for considering that the conditions in paragraph 17(2) are satisfied in relation to the proposals,

(ii) any consultation undertaken under paragraph 16(2),

(iii) any representations received as a result of the consultation, and

(iv) any changes made as a result of those representations.

Super-affirmative resolution procedure

20 (1) A super-affirmative resolution procedure shall apply in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order, as follows.

(2) The Minister must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft order.

(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—

(a) stating whether any representations were made under sub-paragraph (2)(a), and

(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.

(4) The Minister may, after the laying of such a statement, make an order in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under sub-paragraph (3) and before the draft order is approved by that House under sub-paragraph (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.

(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under sub-paragraph (5) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under sub-paragraph (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order consisting of a revised version of the draft order, the Minister must lay before Parliament—

(a) a revised draft order; and

(b) a statement giving details of—

(i) any representations made under sub-paragraph (2)(a); and

(ii) the revisions proposed.

(8) The Minister may, after laying a revised draft order and statement under sub-paragraph (7), make an order in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(9) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under sub-paragraph (7) and before it is approved by that House under sub-paragraph (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.

(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under sub-paragraph (9) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may, be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under sub-paragraph (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(11) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (8) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.

(12) In this schedule the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under sub-paragraph(4).

(13) In calculating any period of days for the purposes of this section, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.

21 A resolution of either House is valid for the purposes of this schedule if, and only if, the motion for the resolution—

(a) is agreed without a division; or

(b) is passed on a division in which the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two-thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).

Interpretation of Legislation

22 (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code.

(2) This paragraph—

(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;

(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and

(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.

Declaration of Incompatibility

23 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with the Code.

(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with the Code, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.

(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of subordinate legislation, made in the exercise of a power conferred by primary legislation, is compatible with a provision of the Code.

(4) If the court is satisfied—

(a) that the provision is incompatible with the Code, and

(b) that (disregarding any possibility of revocation) the primary legislation concerned prevents removal of the incompatibility, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.

(5) In this paragraph “court” means the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeal; and the High Court.

(6) A declaration under this paragraph (“a declaration of incompatibility”)—

(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and

(b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.

Power to take remedial action

24 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a provision of legislation has been declared under paragraph 22 to be incompatible with the Code and, if an appeal lies—

(i) all persons who may appeal have stated in writing that they do not intend to do so;

(ii) the time for bringing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been brought within that time; or

(iii) an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned; or

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that, having regard to any finding of his under section 5(1) of the Localism Act 2011, a provision of legislation is incompatible with the Code.

(2) If a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.

(3) If, in the case of subordinate legislation, a Minister of the Crown considers that—

(a) it is necessary to amend the primary legislation under which the subordinate legislation in question was made, in order to enable the incompatibility to be removed, and

(b) there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this paragraph, he may by means of a remedial order make such amendments to the primary legislation as he considers necessary.

(4) This paragraph also applies where the provision in question is in subordinate legislation and has been quashed, or declared invalid, by reason of incompatibility with the Code and the Minister proposes to proceed under paragraph 25(b).

(5) If the legislation is an Order in Council, the power conferred by sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is exercisable by Her Majesty in Council.

Remedial Orders

25 (1) A remedial order may—

(a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate;

(b) be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which it is made;

(c) make provision for the delegation of specific functions;

(d) make different provision for different cases.

(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a) includes—

(a) power to amend primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision); and

(b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision).

(3) A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects.

(4) No person is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect of a remedial order.

Procedure

26 No remedial order may be made unless—

(a) a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament made after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid; or

(b) it is declared in the order that it appears to the person making it that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so approved.

Orders laid in draft

27 (1) No draft may be laid under paragraph 25(a) unless—

(a) the person proposing to make the order has laid before Parliament a document which contains a draft of the proposed order and the required information; and

(b) the period of 60 days, beginning with the day on which the document required by this sub-paragraph was laid, has ended.

(2) If representations have been made during that period, the draft laid under paragraph 25(a) must be accompanied by a statement containing—

(a) a summary of the representations; and

(b) if, as a result of the representations, the proposed order has been changed, details of the changes.

Urgent cases

28 (1) If a remedial order (“the original order“) is made without being approved in draft, the person making it must lay it before Parliament, accompanied by the required information, after it is made.

(2) If representations have been made during the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, the person making it must (after the end of that period) lay before Parliament a statement containing—

(a) a summary of the representations; and

(b) if, as a result of the representations, he considers it appropriate to make changes to the original order, details of the changes.

(3) If sub-paragraph (2)(b) applies, the person making the statement must—

(a) make a further remedial order replacing the original order; and

(b) lay the replacement order before Parliament.

(4) If, at the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, a resolution has not been passed by each House approving the original or replacement order, the order ceases to have effect (but without that affecting anything previously done under either order or the power to make a fresh remedial order).

Definitions

29 In this Schedule—

“representations” means representations about a remedial order (or proposed remedial order) made to the person making (or proposing to make) it and includes any relevant Parliamentary report or resolution; and

“required information” means—

(a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order (or proposed order) seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and

(b) a statement of the reasons for proceeding under paragraph (23) and for making an order in those terms.

Calculating periods

30 In calculating any period for the purposes of this Schedule, no account is to be taken of any time during which—

(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued; or

(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

Statements of Compatibility

31 (1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—

(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the provisions of the Code (“a statement of compatibility”); or

(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

Amendment to the Parliament Act 1911

32 In section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 the words “or a Bill seeking to amend the Local Government Independence Code Act” shall be inserted after the words “maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years”.

Amendments to other Enactments

33 (6A) The general power of competence includes the power to raise revenue through any method including although not limited to local taxation, levies and duties.”

34 Schedule 6 of the Localism Act 2011 is repealed.

Duty to review provisions in primary and subordinate legislation

35 (1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, make provision by Order to provide for the review of all provisions in pre-commencement primary and subordinate legislation to assess their compatibility with the provisions of the Code.

(2) The order must include—

(a) provision requiring the review of the compatibility of pre- commencement legislation to be completed within a five year period, commencing with the date of passing of this Act;

(b) provision for incompatible pre-commencement legislation to cease to have effect no later than the end of a seven year period, commencing with the date of passing of this Act.

(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes provision requiring the person to consider whether the objectives which it was the purpose of the legislation to achieve remain appropriate and, if so, whether they could be achieved in another way.

36 (1) In this schedule, “pre-commencement legislation” means a provision that—

(a) is contained in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which this Act is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under any other Act and comes into force before the commencement of section 1 of this Act.

(2) Subordinate legislation under paragraph (35)1 may make transitional, consequential, incidental or supplementary provision or savings in connection with such provision.’

This new Schedule provides details relating to implementation of the new Clause on the Local Government Independence Code.

[Mr Reed]

I understand that it is appropriate briefly to mention the issue of Sunday trading when talking about this group. Last month, the Prime Minister declared at the Dispatch Box:

“we will be putting”—

it—

“in front of the House, in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill”—[Official Report, 21 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 947.]

That was despite the fact that in April he wrote that he had no plans to change the Sunday trading laws and that

“the current system provides a reasonable balance.”

That measure is not before us today; the Government clearly could not get the support that they need. Could we hear from the Minister whether the Government are now ruling it out in this Bill entirely?

[The Temporary Chair]

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the provision is not there and that we cannot debate what is not before the Committee.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Reed]

As I understand it, the Local Government Association estimates that the Housing and Planning Bill includes some 30 new centralising measures. Given that that Bill is being sponsored by the same Secretary of State as the devolution Bill, does that not cast doubt on his commitment to devolution?

[The Temporary Chairman (Mrs Anne Main)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a fair point about devolution and taking back powers, but the shadow Minister is straying down a path that will not be fruitful.

[Mr Betts]

I will try to get back on to the straight and narrow, Mrs Main.

My point is that we need a time of reflection, with a discussion between Government, local government and this House about the framework for the constitutional relationships between the centre and local authorities of whatever kind, including combined authorities, so that we can look at the balance of powers and perhaps put down some markers or mechanisms for ensuring that the devolution we all support today is not taken back tomorrow. We need something of that kind. A constitutional convention has been mentioned—the Government may not like those words, but we need some mechanism to enable that to happen.

My second point is about fiscal devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) quoted the report from the Select Committee in the last Parliament, and the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) was a member of the Committee. We produced the report on an all-party basis. We followed the London Finance Commission, which was promoted by the Mayor of London and supported by the London boroughs. By and large, we agreed the report, albeit with some embellishments, with the London Finance Commission, and we had support from the core cities, but it was almost dismissed by the Government as an irrelevancy—something that they did not want to pursue.

I am pleased that the Government are looking at the total localisation of business rates. How they do that will be critical, including dealing with the issue of rewarding councils that get more development in their areas and at the same time protecting those areas where development is not as easy to achieve. Achieving some element of redistribution in the mechanism will be key. Nevertheless, the Government have accepted the need for some more fiscal devolution in principle. They now need to consider how it can be right that any increase in the one tax over which local government has total control—the council tax—is restricted by the need for a referendum. No other tax raised by central Government requires a referendum on any increase. I did not agree with the previous Government’s policy on council tax capping—I refused to vote for that on several occasions, as it is a very centralist policy.

The tax also has not been revalued for 25 years. That is nonsense. The council tax is the one tax over which local government has some degree of control, but it does not control the bands. There must be some flexibility there to recognise the extraordinary difference between amount of tax paid and the value of houses in the top and bottom bands. The difference in the values of the houses is much wider than the amount of council tax paid. Local councils need more flexibility and the ability to control that. As the London Finance Commission said, and the Select Committee agreed, let us also look at stamp duty and other property taxes. Let us consider giving local councils freedom to set business rates. I know that the Government want to bring in some freedoms, but they could go wider. Could local government have a right to be allocated a certain percentage of income tax?

Those are all ideas. All I am saying to the Government is that once this wave of devolution is going through, with cross-party support and local councils entering into it and putting in bids, can we at least have some indication that they will step back at some point and have a serious look at wider fiscal devolution? Ultimately, simply giving to local councils the power to spend money that has been handed out from the centre is not real devolution at all. It is power to spend the money the Chancellor gives out. What councils need for real devolution is the greater power to raise that money in the first place.

--- 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.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Some of these will be less expensive—indeed, that is one of the purposes of some of the changes we have suggested—and other changes will be within the budget that we have outlined, so there will be no need to have an overall increase in the budget. HS2 Ltd did, however, make provision, when planning for this project, for some changes that it expected the Select Committee may propose. I might expand on that a little later in my comments.

It should also be recognised that the changes set out in the additional provision are only a fraction of those that we have made to the scheme to address petitioner concerns. Many changes can be made within the existing Bill powers and so do not require an additional provision. Those include changes such as improved noise mitigation at Wendover and mitigations of the impacts on Bechstein’s bats—a species of vesper bats—in Sheephouse Wood in Buckinghamshire. The Bechstein bat is a particularly at-risk species and it is important that we protect the woodland habitat it uses.

The overall phase 1 budget is not expected to increase as a result of those changes, including the Euston proposals. Many of the changes come at no additional cost, some actually produce small savings and others are absorbed by the contingency set aside at the outset specifically for the purpose of addressing petitioner issues. If this motion is successfully passed, both these additional provisions will go through the same process, although the timings will be different for each. The relevant additional provision, an environmental statement describing the likely significant environmental effects of these changes and a supplementary environmental statement describing any new or different significant environmental effects of other proposed changes that do not require a change to Bill powers will be deposited in Parliament, council offices and libraries in affected areas. For the additional provision affecting Camden, these documents start to be deposited tomorrow. For the additional provision affecting other areas of the route, these documents will be deposited from 12 October.

A public consultation on the environmental statement will be held. The responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading. For the additional provision affecting Camden, the consultation will run from tomorrow until 6 November, and for the other additional provision, the consultation will run from mid-October.

There will also be a petitioning period for those directly and specially—to use that term again—affected by the changes in this additional provision to submit petitions against them. The petitioning period will run as usual for four weeks. For the additional provision affecting Camden, it will begin on Friday 25 September and end on Friday 23 October for all petitioners. For the other additional provision, the petitioning period will begin in mid-October for all petitioners. Newspaper notices will be published in national and local newspapers over two consecutive weeks following the deposit of each additional provision alerting the public to the changes and to the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation as appropriate.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

To ensure that enough people are aware of the additional petitioning process, will my hon. Friend explain how people who are visually impaired or who might not have access to the local and national newspapers will get the information about these new changes?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will look into what we can do to ensure that people who are visually impaired can access the information. For the vast majority of people affected by the changes, they will be no surprise. In many cases, we have made them in negotiation with the landowner or other interested parties, including local authorities. Indeed, some of them respond to petitions so there will be delight that the changes have been proposed, although other people who might be affected might well want to petition about them.

Taken as a whole, these two additional provisions mark a major step towards completion of the hybrid Bill’s progress through the Select Committee. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to seize the opportunity that a redeveloped Euston station offers not only to the local area but to the nation as a whole. They also demonstrate our willingness to respond to the concerns of petitioners and the Select Committee to make beneficial changes to the project, and I therefore commend them to the House.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and I pay tribute to her for her work on this issue and her call for the moratorium, with which I agree. We have the problem of using too many fossil fuels; despite knowing the harm that climate change is causing and is going to continue to cause, we still see a thirst to have more and more of them. The solution has to look different. Perhaps in the future it will be nuclear fusion—who knows? We are 25 years away from that, as we have been for about 50 years. We have to reach a situation where we have renewables and other low-carbon energy sources, and energy efficiency, so that we use less energy, be it for heating, transport or anything else.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way only the once.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is no obligation to make sure that renewables are considered as part of large major infrastructure projects?

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed; we should be seeing a quest for more renewables. One of my concerns about the dash for fracking and for gas is that it can be seen as a substitute for a dash for renewables and other low-carbon technologies, which is where we have to get to. That is what worries me about all this. When we know from study after study of the huge amounts of fossil fuels that we have to leave in the earth because we simply cannot afford the harm that would come from burning them, why go to a mass effort to legislate to say that we have to take as much as possible out of the ground? That is not the right way to go. Carbon emissions, be they carbon dioxide or methane, are the biggest problems with shale gas and fracking.

It is very interesting to look at the scientific evidence on the comparison with liquefied natural gas. A comment was made about my constituent Dave MacKay and the range of carbon emissions. What he found was that the range of carbon emissions from shale gas overlaps with that from liquefied natural gas. There is no guarantee that we will see a reduction as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

No—I am sorry, but I am short of time.

Labour’s new clause 19 does not offer the kind of protection it pretends to offer. It certainly does not offer any kind of moratorium, and it will be interesting to see whether Labour supports a moratorium. That is what people are asking for, hence the importance of new clause 9.

In summary, the big point is that it is simply not compatible with our climate change objectives to be exploring for yet more fossil fuels and to start a whole new fossil fuel industry as fracking does. By the time fracking comes on stream in 10 or 15 years, it simply will not be possible to be compatible with our CO₂ objectives. For those reasons, we must have a vote on new clause 9.

[Mrs Main]

I welcome new clause 7 and the Minister’s comments on new clause 19(a), (e) and (m). I have chalk streams in my constituency; they are a valuable water resource. The public need reassurance about contamination or pollution of such special sites, as they are rare resources in our country.

[Dr Whitehead]

I rise to voice my support for new clause 19, which I believe provides a substantial series of baseline starting points for any fracking to take place. If those baselines are not in place, no fracking takes place. That is my understanding of the new clause and it seems to me to provide very substantial protection indeed.

I am also concerned about the cumulation of fracking over a period. I tabled a new clause which addresses that. If we have substantial and extensive fracking to the extent that is envisaged in the Government’s rush for fracking, we may well find that we have 18,000 or 20,000 wells across the country, perhaps more than half of those in two particular parts of the country, with virtually no environmental safeguards on the cumulation of those arrangements, even if there are some environmental safeguards on individual fracking enterprises as they go forward. It is essential that should there be any cumulation of fracking, those safeguards are in place. New clause 19 provides protection both in the individual exploration phase and in the production phase. I would like to see—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I shall take a minute to tell hon. Members that we all need to see pubs protected and to see them thrive. What the Minister has done today is to say that if 21 people in a community want to protect their pub, they can do so and they can afford it protection under the planning laws. If a pub cannot get 21 people to support it, it is not financially viable. There is no need to have extra red tape and regulation as proposed in new clause 16. The Minister has, simply and succinctly, put the power back in the hands of pub goers, pub lovers and beer drinkers, and I commend him for doing so.

[Mrs Main]

My plea to the Minister is to consider issuing new guidance that will put an obligation on commercial buildings to have zero-carbon or low-carbon emissions. In my constituency, it is possible to have 3.5 million square feet of rail freight interchange, and not one single green initiative is necessary. We are considering such an obligation for homes, and we should be considering it for commercial premises too. Will the Minister please issue some guidance to be used during the planning process?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Like many people here this evening—

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am a little disappointed, because I wrote to the Public Bill Committee and asked whether it would consider an amendment, but I gather there was not time for it to do so. This is probably the only time I can raise the matter I want to mention today because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the debates will be quite crowded. When there are huge pieces of infrastructure work such as the proposed 3.5 million square foot rail freight development in my constituency, there is no obligation on developers at least to consider green, environmental measures. It is a loss that we will not get to debate that today.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but I think that probably relates to amendments that it might have been in someone’s mind to table, but which have not yet been tabled and do not relate directly to the programme motion. However, the hon. Lady has opted for an elastic interpretation of the terms of the motion, and she has got her points on the record, so I hope she is content.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Of the 20.8 km of the route that passes through the Chilterns, only 3.3 km will be on the surface—at the moment the rest will be below ground level. I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, and that is something we need to bear in mind. She is right that her constituents benefited directly from the M40, and that was paid for by taxpayers across the whole country, rather than just by those in that area. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), as she has not yet intervened.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My constituency is not directly affected but my constituents have concerns about this, which have not been helped by the fact that the Major Projects Authority’s report on the risk has been suppressed or vetoed. If we are going to have projects like this, greater transparency is needed in respect of them.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I cannot think of an infrastructure project that has had more reports on it than this one. I set out my reasons for withholding the MPA report: it is important for civil servants to be able to speak freely and in confidence to Ministers. I made a full statement on that particular matter at the time I took the decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I understand that the pressing issue in south Wales in particular at the moment is the electrification of the Cardiff valley lines. I would hope that that is at the top of everybody’s in-tray to try to sort that out, because there seems to have been some sort of miscommunication, to put it charitably.

[Mrs Main]

To take the hon. Lady back a few moments, has she actually seen the major projects report on risk, which has been vetoed, and does she believe it should be vetoed?

[Mary Creagh]

No. I am not a Government Minister, so I have not seen it. The hon. Lady will have to ask her colleague the Secretary of State to share its contents with her.

[Mrs Main]

Should it be vetoed?

[Mary Creagh]

That is a decision for the Government and they have taken it. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have put that question to the Secretary of State.

I want Sir David Higgins and his team to look carefully at how High Speed 2 integrates with our national strategic road network to minimise travel disruption during construction and operations. Network Rail’s future investment plans must be aligned to maximise benefits to the north. We need an integrated transport system for the UK.

As the Bill proceeds through Parliament, Labour will continue to hold the Government to account to keep costs down. Across the country, our constituents face a cost of living crisis. In this time of austerity, it was right for my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor to call the Government to account for their mismanagement of this project. We know that construction costs in the UK are higher than for comparable projects elsewhere in Europe. They must be rigorously controlled.

Let us look at how the project has been managed. The Government inherited a detailed plan for HS2 from the previous Labour Government, but Labour’s brainchild has been sadly neglected. Four years of delays and mismanagement have caused costs to rise. First, the Government split the project into two phases for financial reasons, which has delayed the benefits of the line to the midlands and the north. Secondly, their review of strategic alternatives took 18 months, and costs have continued to rise as time scales have slipped. Thirdly, their initial consultation on property compensation was a lesson in incompetence: the process had to be rerun after a High Court judge ruled that it was

“so unfair as to be unlawful”.

Fourthly, the Government did not launch the consultation on phase 2 of the route until July 2013; yet it was being worked on when we were in power three years previously, so what was the hold-up?