Private Members’ Bills

Debate between Charles Walker and Thomas Docherty

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those observations. First, we are sticking with Fridays because a year ago the House took a view that it wanted Back-Bench business to remain on Fridays. It would not be for the Committee to suggest moving such Bills from Fridays 12 months after the House decided not to go down that route.

As for calling the business Back-Bench Bills as opposed to private Members’ Bills, that is again entirely for the House to decide. These are just recommendations; we are not going to force them on the House or demand that it adopt them. It is entirely for the House to come to a view on the many recommendations in the report, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will put his arguments forcefully at that moment.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

May I say what an excellent job the Chairman does of chairing the Procedure Committee? However, given the number of people in the Chamber to hear his eloquent remarks, does he not think that it would be helpful if the Government found sufficient time at the earliest opportunity for the whole report to be debated at some length?

[Mr Walker]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Leader of the House is positively chomping at the bit to find time for the report to be debated, because he is a great reformer and is entirely reform-minded. Indeed, I feel that I am presenting these reforms today with his support, which is extremely exciting and very welcome.

Dairy Industry

Debate between Charles Walker and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

A lot of hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so I will make myself immediately unpopular by saying that, outside the two opening speeches and the ministerial and shadow ministerial speeches at the end, you will have a six-minute limitation. You can take less time, but you will have six minutes. We will give you one injury time for one intervention.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker. To put a time limit on speeches was a courageous decision for someone who is currently running for office.

I welcome the new Minister to his post. He may know that the last Liberal Minister to hold the farming brief was Auberon Herbert, who was President of the Board of Agriculture between 1914 and 1915. However, that does not bode well for the current Minister because Herbert only held his post for one year and did not survive the forming of a coalition Government. None the less, I wish the Minister well in the post.

I am sure that hon. Members wish to pay tribute to the outgoing Agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice). While he and I may not always have agreed, he did his best and will be sadly missed by the farming industry and by members of the Environment and Rural Affairs Committee.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). We served together on the Select Committee, and as many Members know, he is a mine of information on agriculture. He and I have combined on more than one occasion to ensure that our farmers’ voices have been heard in Parliament. He is a real champion of Devon farmers and regularly makes the case that Devon cream is far superior to Cornish cream. With your permission, Mr Walker, he will sum up at the end of the debate.

A number of important debates are taking place in the House today, and I appreciate that Members might not be able to stay for the whole of this debate. None the less, I thank everyone for coming along.

Members will know that despite the favourable market conditions, the UK dairy sector has been a source of dispute for a number of years. During the summer, the public campaign led by dairy farmers to protest against large cuts in milk prices captured the British public’s imagination. The profile generated by that campaign combined with the lobbying and overwhelming support from all parts of the House have resulted in some significant progress. Indeed, more than 70 parliamentarians went to the National Farmers Union’s dairy summit in July. Several retailers that were identified as not doing enough to support the dairy farmers took belated steps to address some of the unsustainable prices that they paid for their milk. That has helped processors either rescind or reverse the effects of their proposed August milk price cuts. Many of the same retailers have made commitments to address their long-term pricing models for liquid milk. That is very welcome.

In recent days, Arla Foods has committed itself to a 2.5p per litre rise, and today Müller-Wiseman has announced that it will raise its price to 29p per litre. Agreement has been reached between farming unions and Dairy UK on a voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts. However, the industry still suffers from systemic problems that need to be addressed. As the NFU has warned this week, if we do not take action, recent progress will be nothing more than a sticking-plaster solution.

The milk supply industry is not made up simply of producers and processors. Supermarkets also have an important role to play in ensuring fair prices. It is simplistic to portray all retailers as the villains of the piece; the situation is much more complex. Some retailers, such as Tesco and Sainsbury’s, have taken progressive steps in the liquid milk sector, with dedicated pools of producers, and they should be congratulated.

The cheese market remains much more challenging for farmers, however. I hope that one outcome of the code will be to increase transparency in the pricing of milk going to make cheese. Last year, the Select Committee took evidence from Tesco for our report on the dairy industry. We found dishonest its arguments on why it does not provide the same support for farmers who produce milk for the cheese market. It is ludicrous to suggest that there is not enough stability in demand for a workable contract for cheese.

The Select Committee was clear that if supermarkets such as Tesco continue to rip off farmers, the Government should be prepared to step in. Tesco is by no means the worst offender, and I am disappointed to have to report that we are repeatedly told that the Co-op provides the worst deal to dairy farmers. It is vital that customers and Co-op Members apply pressure to those retailers to provide a fairer share of the retail value to their suppliers.

The recent crisis was brought about by the reckless actions of Asda, which was selling milk at a loss-leading price of eight pints for £2, which is less than the price of bottled water. That in turn sparked a price war, which inevitably led to a cut in the price being paid to farmers. While supermarkets have seen quarter on quarter rises in their profits, many farmers have been pushed to the brink. Although I welcome moves by Morrisons, Asda and the Co-op belatedly to increase their price, they have a responsibility to ensure that we have a sustainable dairy industry now and in the future.

High-Speed Rail

Debate between Charles Walker and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) suggested that when both Front-Bench teams are in agreement, we should count the spoons. Given that I broadly agree with him, I am not sure what we should be counting. Hopefully, as a member of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and a former Network Rail employee who worked on a number of civil engineering and major projects, I will bring something to this debate.

The past 30 years of rail infrastructure projects in the UK have been somewhat chequered. There are some great successes: we have reopened a number of rail lines; reconnected communities; and brought social and economic benefits to large parts of the United Kingdom, and a permanent link to mainland Europe. Those are, I hope, benefits in everyone’s eyes. However, we have had some significant failures in those rail projects. Each one has been over budget, if we look at what the politicians claimed originally and the actual bill the taxpayer received. Many require ongoing subsidy and many communities have been blighted, including one in my area, thanks to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway.

The hon. Gentleman was right to make a point about budgets. This is not a party political point. The channel tunnel came in desperately over budget, and there has been talk about ongoing problems with High Speed 1. To look at a small-scale project, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, which only involved the reopening of seven miles of track, went from being £20 million originally to £77 million when it was finally delivered, and compensation cases are still to be resolved. The Airdrie Bathgate project, which I helped to deliver, was £40 million when it was first mooted and £300 million when it was actually delivered. For that reason alone, I do not believe a single figure that has been bandied around for the cost of any section of HS2 and its successor projects.

If the line reaches Edinburgh, a whole new station would have to be constructed, because Edinburgh cannot take high-speed rail. The current station is right in the city centre and there is no capacity left for any more track or platforms. That means that a whole new set of connecting track would need to be laid from the parkway station that would be required to the network, and those costs have not been worked out.

The question is: who benefits from high-speed rail? It only works if it travels great distances between stops. It needs to get up to high speed to make the time savings. This is a blindingly obvious thing to say, but every time we add a stop, it adds several minutes to the journey. That is not just because the train has to slow down and pick up speed again, but because passengers have to get off and on the train.

I hope that the Minister will learn from successive Ministers, both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, that leadership is required. When a route is set out, she must not give in to the very eloquent lobbying that she will get from many Members who will say, “Of course I support it, but you need to add my local area to it.” The line can only work if it is genuinely high-speed and connects only the great conurbations. I doubt that either Warrington or even Carlisle will qualify on those grounds, despite the eloquent cases that will be made for them.

The Minister must recognise that we need to have rolling stock in place before we start to build. One of the great reasons for the failure of the Edinburgh airport rail link was that Ministers in Scotland tried to build a rail link under a live airport without any clear sense of what the rolling stock would actually look like. For instance, for safety reasons, it is impossible to send a diesel train underground, and a whole network would need to be electrified. That project floundered because it was impossible to find suitable rolling stock that worked anywhere in the world. One of my great concerns about High Speed 2 and its successors is that I have not heard a clear articulation of what the required rolling stock is. Perhaps when the Minister responds to the debate she can say whether the Government have identified suitable rolling stock that actually exists somewhere on track, rather than on paper.

I sound a final note of caution about the independence of the business case. The Minister is fully aware of the ongoing dispute between the TSSA and Network Rail, which she has been helping to mediate. That dispute is about the past leadership of Iain Coucher, the former chief executive of Network Rail. I do not wish to detain the House, but there are some very serious concerns about Mr Coucher’s financial practices and about why he has spent so much taxpayers’ money lobbying for a high-speed rail project. I hope that the Minister will give a cast-iron guarantee that Mr Coucher and his associates will play no part in the delivery of high-speed rail, if and when it goes ahead.

In conclusion—I am trying to stick to your six-minute limit, Mr Walker—there are five key things that the Minister must demonstrate for this project to go ahead. First, there must be robust and independent analysis of the business case and the time savings. Secondly, clear leadership must be given on delivery. Thirdly, there must be no compromises on stations once the route is set out. Fourthly, there must be rolling stock that actually exists on track somewhere, rather than in someone’s head. Fifthly, there must be honesty about ongoing costs for the subsidy of the line of route and the rolling stock.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Graham Evans. Six minutes.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall keep my remarks brief as I understand that the Prime Minister might be rushing back to make a statement to the House about the commercialisation of Downing street following the revelations from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) earlier this evening. I understand that the Liberal Democrats have a large campaign debt to pay off from Oldham East and Saddleworth.

May I gently tease colleagues on the Government Benches about the importance of referring to the United Kingdom when speaking about our nation state? I am sure all colleagues are aware that we are not just England or Britain; we are the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) helpfully referred to an earlier edition of “Erskine May” with reference to the shouting of the phrase “Shame!” from a sedentary position. It might help the House if I clarify that that applied up to the 19th edition of “Erskine May”. Since then, I am advised, the term has been removed from “Erskine May” and is therefore, I imagine, legitimate.

Addressing new clause 4 and the associated amendments which, as “Erskine May” says, is the purpose of the debate, I shall tackle head-on the question whether the Opposition support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. It is well known that we did not oppose Second Reading because we support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. Our specific objections have been not just to the length—four or five years—but to some of the technical issues, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have tabled a series of tidying-up amendments, as we would describe them, although I understand that not every hon. Member supports that principle.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As a matter of interest, how will the hon. Gentleman vote on Third Reading tonight?

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not like to leave the House in suspense, but on this one occasion hon. Members will have to wait and see how many of our amendments the Government are prepared to accept. Clearly, if the Minister accepts all the considered amendments that we have offered, we would be more than happy to give strong consideration to supporting Third Reading. I look forward to the Minister’s reply shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that is a perfectly healthy thing to happen? We do not elect Prime Ministers here; we elect parties and the Prime Minister is simply a Member of Parliament who comes from the victorious party or the coalition.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a completely sensible point that goes to the heart of some of our arguments tonight. I will give a specific example, because there has been some discussion of the fact that none of those cases was the direct result of a no-confidence vote. I remind the House that in 1940 the Government of the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, fell on what is largely accepted to have effectively been a vote of no confidence. It was a no-confidence vote by any other name. As the Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Leader of the House have accepted, under their proposals there could be a no-confidence motion that is not officially stamped as such. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1940 the House did not prorogue. There was simply a change of Administration, and a short time later a coalition Government were formed involving all three parties. In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Chamberlain Government, there was no coalition, and nor was the House prorogued.