Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I have been very open with the House. I have made two or three statements to it about the incident involving the west coast main line, and I have commissioned two reports that have broadly been welcomed, I think, by the House. Both those who wrote the reports have given evidence to the Transport Committee, during which, Sam Laidlaw, who wrote the report on what went wrong in the Department, said that Ministers were not made aware.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for being so open with the House about this matter. It is an issue not just about the cost to the public purse, but about the potential for franchises to be delayed. In my constituency in Deal, we want a hard-won commuting high-speed service to be made an all-day high-speed service. Will he tell us what the impact of the delay might be?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said, two reports were conducted, one by Sam Laidlaw and the other by Richard Brown. I published the latter last week, and in the near future will make a statement to the House about how I intend to implement Mr Brown’s recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

6. What recent consideration he has given to the procedure for private Members’ Bills; and if he will make a statement.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Hon. Members will be aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the procedure for private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend gave evidence to the Committee yesterday and raised a number of issues relating to the timing procedures and motivation for private Members’ Bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give evidence on behalf of the Government in due course.

[Charlie Elphicke]

As a tool for prompting dialogue and discussion or for the furtherance of a parliamentary campaign, private Members’ Bills are really useful, but many Members think that the way in which Friday sittings work is little short of a farce. Should programming and the tools used for Government legislation be applied to private Members’ legislation, to enable votes to take place and more legislation to be passed?

[Tom Brake]

Many Members have experienced some frustrations regarding the private Members’ Bill process. I know that the hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion to the Procedure Committee along the lines of his question, but he will be aware that existing procedures of the House allow for a closure to be sought on debates and to impose time limits on speeches. He will be aware that sometimes when a Member presents a private Member’s Bill there will be other ways of ensuring that it is reflected in Government legislation, in the way that his proposed measures on children and families will be reflected in that Bill.

Cruise Market (Competition)

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

At the outset, I pay tribute to all the right hon. and hon. Members who called for this important debate. I draw the Minister’s attention to the cross-party nature and geographical spread represented by those present. This is not simply Southampton versus Liverpool; it is about the principles of fair application of competition rules wherever they are applied. The issue relates to all parts of the country. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). There are very few things that can bring together the south coast ports of Southampton and Portsmouth, so I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) cannot be here, but she has expressed sympathy on the matter before.

I direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members much further north to the Scottish satirical writer, Thomas Carlyle, who said:

“Our life is not really a mutual helpfulness; but rather, it’s fair competition cloaked under due laws of war”.

That is why so many hon. Members here today are flummoxed or angry, or both, at the different application of due laws of war to different parts of the country, to different ports and to different port operators. Those due laws of war are not simply set down by a very British sense of fair play and a desire to see a level playing field—or whatever the equivalent nautical term is—but are clearly set out in European competition rules designed to ensure that state aid is not available to give an unfair advantage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, which is also of significant concern to the people of Dover and its very successful cruise turnaround business. When it comes to state aid, should not the entire £19 million be repaid?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and for standing up for the cruise business in Dover. He makes an interesting point, which I will move on to later.

I have an unashamed loyalty to my home port of Southampton, the second-largest cruise port in Europe and the embarkation point of a cruise voyage for 720,000 passengers a year. Southampton is not a port that is afraid of competition. It is not afraid to invest private money to provide the facilities required for a thriving and expanding cruise business. As port director Doug Morrison, who has taken the time to be here today, has said on more than one occasion:

“We believe in fair competition. We do not fear Liverpool and competition, but it is simply not right.”

Of course, that is what our debate is about: ensuring that competition in the cruise industry is on an equal footing, and that a leg-up to one port is not an iceberg to another.

European competition rules on state aid are clear. The European Commission website devotes a considerable number of words to explaining them. Why does that come as no surprise? The Commission seems to be very good at devoting a considerable number of words to many things, but perhaps less good at applying those ideals when it comes to the crunch. I will quote those words to the Minister:

“Sometimes Government authorities spend public money supporting local industries or individual companies. This gives them an unfair advantage over similar sectors in other EU countries. In other words, it damages competition and distorts trade...It is the Commission’s job to prevent this,”

which seems a fairly unequivocal statement to me. It does not say that the Commission’s job is to sit back and allow market distortion. No—it is the Commission’s specific job to prevent it. However, first it must apparently ask some questions. That is fair enough, and I would like to take hon. Members and the Minister through those questions and ask whether they have been rigorously asked and responded to in relation to the UK cruise market.

Have state authorities given support, for example, in the form of grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, holdings in companies, or goods and services provided on preferential terms? The answer strikes me as a big yes in the case of the port of Liverpool, which has received £19 million in grant and been asked to pay back only somewhere between £8.8 million and £12.6 million. Has such aid been available to other port operators in the UK, or has investment and expansion in their cruise facilities been without such support and advantage?

Is the support likely to affect trade between EU countries? Arguably, yes again. Barcelona and Venice are two of the leading ports in southern Europe, and a significant proportion of the UK cruise market heads directly to the Mediterranean. Clearly, therefore, there is potential for an impact. Of course, it is not only ports on the Mediterranean, but other European ports, too. For the past two years, the port of Copenhagen, primarily hosting departures to the Norwegian fjords and the Baltic, has been rated as Europe’s leading cruise port at the world travel awards. In Southampton, we might have a view on that, but it would come as no surprise to learn that cruises from Liverpool might reasonably be expected to head in that direction as well.

Southampton has been shortlisted at the world travel awards for the past four years, and I am pleased to see that it is nominated again for 2012. I have no doubt that the other ports shortlisted this year, which range from Las Palmas in Gran Canaria to Stockholm in Sweden, are all extremely concerned about the state aid to the Liverpool cruise terminal, which could have a very detrimental effect on the business they have worked so hard to attract. It is a market that continues to expand, as one in every eight British package holidays sold is a cruise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is partly about good faith and trusting that the port of Liverpool and Liverpool city council will abide by conditions and rules that are set for them.

By 2008, Liverpool city council had launched its first attempt to lift the conditions, and the conclusion, after a detailed assessment by the Department for Transport, was that the change of use to turnaround cruises would have an

“unfair and adverse effect on competition between Liverpool and other cruise ports. It would be unfair to allow one port to benefit when competitors have found, or would have to find, private money to achieve the same objective.”

And so to today. The Government have decided, “based on independent advice”—even though that advice is from First Economics, a consultancy that freely admits it is not expert in either competition or the cruise industry—that they will withdraw their objection to removing the funding condition and Liverpool being used for turnaround calls, provided Liverpool repays either £8.8 million upfront or £12.6 million over 15 years. None of the European regional development fund money would have to be paid back, but—this is crucial and goes back to the good faith argument—state aid clearance from the European Commission would have to be secured.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is happening is astonishingly high-handed? The project has gone ahead regardless, without state aid clearance having been obtained. I note that no Member of Parliament representing Liverpool is in the Chamber.

Port of Dover

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the future of the port of Dover. In Dover and Deal in my constituency, the port of Dover is a cornerstone of the local economy. It dominates the seafront and is a key facility for the ferry industry, which employs around 5,000 people, and it serves as nationally important transport infrastructure. The port is a major asset of the town of Dover.

For all those reasons the future of the port is considered to be critical by people of my constituency, yet there is much concern about the port, which is more formally known as the Dover Harbour Board. The catalyst for the deep concern about the future of the port was its being put up for sale in the dying days of the Labour Government. That came as a shock to my electors, who do not want to see the port sold off to the French or anyone else. They see the port, nestled as it is at the foot of the white cliffs of Dover, as the English border. They feel that the port, every bit as much as Buckingham palace, Big Ben or Stonehenge, should remain for ever England. That view is shared by people up and down the country.

The privatisation move made people think more deeply about how things were going at the port. The more they thought about it, the more concerned they became. First, there is great concern that the harbour board has been in conflict with its key customers, the ferry companies. The board has been seeking to increase mooring fees by a third in a serious downturn. Moreover, the ferry companies feel that they have provided the harbour board with £60 million for investment in infrastructure, which they feel has not been made. The situation has resulted in litigation and has injected much acrimony and uncertainty into the local economy of a town that has more than its fair share of deprivation.

Secondly, the business at the port has not been doing very well in recent years. In 2008, the turnover of the harbour board was £60.774 million; by 2011, it had fallen by 10% to £54.74 million. In 2008, the operating profit was £15.53 million; by 2011, it had fallen to £9.868 million—a fall in profits of 34%. One might think that that was just down to a general reduction in traffic because of the economic downturn, but the figures give the lie to that notion. They show that more traffic has been going to the channel tunnel. In 2008, Dover accounted for 65% of cross-channel freight; by 2011, the figure was down to 62%. In 2008, 61% of cross-channel cars went through Dover; today, the figure is just 54%. In 2008, 64% of cross-channel coaches went through Dover; by 2011, the figure had fallen to 60%. Reflecting on those figures, people rightly feel that the harbour board should be working together with its key customers to win market share and beat the competition. It should certainly not find itself in conflict with its key customers.

There are also concerns about pay in the boardroom. In 2007, the compensation of the harbour board in total was £402,000. By 2011, it had risen to £546,000—a rise of 36%, at a time when wages across the country had barely risen at all and when operating profits had fallen by pretty much the same percentage. That concern has been increased because the port’s turnover and profits have fallen over the period, and the harbour board has been sacking hundreds of long-serving port workers. There are also concerns about infrastructure maintenance, as the Dolphin jetty recently collapsed.

Overall, my electors feel that the current situation at the port is simply not acceptable. They sense that there has been a record of failure and a promise of more. They feel that there is a lack of accountability, partnership and co-operation to deliver the best future for Dover. There has been a lack of partnership with the port’s stakeholders. My electors do not want to see the port sold off; they want it to be more of a success, and to see greater investment in the infrastructure and regeneration of the seafront. Regeneration is particularly needed in the western part of the port, around the now derelict harbour station. Regeneration is key to making the best of Dover. We are talking about a beautiful regency town that was lost in the cross-channel shelling of the second world war. Regenerating the seafront is overdue, and, if effected properly, could make Dover a jewel in the crown of the nation once again.

That was the situation that I was confronted with on my election to serve the people of Dover and Deal in 2010. My electors wanted to see investment, but no sell-off. The harbour board is a public body—it is a quango of the Department for Transport—so it has the ability to raise funds, albeit with great difficulty, because they come on to the national balance sheet. My electors wanted to see greater partnership and greater accountability to the residential and business community. They also wanted to bring forward regeneration and investment. As it was in 2010, so it is today. For that reason, it is clear to me that the community and businesses should get together and buy the port. The Prime Minister came into office promising the big society and a community right to buy. It is for that reason that the People’s Port Trust was set up: to take over the port. The People’s Port Trust was set up as a charitable mutual society, like a building society or trade union. Anyone living or working in the Dover district can join for just £10.

Funding was raised in the City of London to buy the port, in the same way that one would buy a house with a mortgage. The revenues would be underpinned by the ferry companies, ensuring the lowest possible cost of funds and the lowest possible mooring fees for the hard-pressed ferry operators, which have been suffering from predatory pricing by the state aid-backed channel tunnel. The People’s Port Trust directors are highly skilled, and include people such as Sir Patrick Sheehy, who ran British American Tobacco, the multi-billion pound cigarette combine, and Algy Cluff, the entrepreneur who opened up the North sea to oil exploration back in the 1970s. The funding commitments have been made by serious institutions in the City of London; this is a serious bid by a community that is serious about having greater control over its future.

Buying the port would ensure that it would remain forever England, and that it would be safeguarded by the community for the nation in perpetuity. Buying the port would ensure the accountability of its board to the community and businesses. It would reconnect the port with the community, and especially the ferry companies, which provide many thousands of local jobs and almost all the moneys that the port has. The People’s Port Trust would ensure that there would be a real focus on investment and regeneration under a costed plan for the long term, in contrast to the vague promises put forward by the harbour board in its plan to take forward the privatisation that Labour was so determined to see.

That Dover should become the people’s port and a landmark of the Prime Minister’s big society is the clear, settled will of the community—a will demonstrated by 98% voting in favour of the people’s port in a statutory local referendum, and a will and motivation underlined by the fact that the People’s Port Trust now has more than 1,000 members. The question is how the will of the community and local businesses can be implemented. The harbour board has remained determined in its desire to follow through the privatisation policy of the last Labour Government, but there is now a different Government. This Government do not need slavishly to follow the sell-off plan of the previous Government.

That brings me to a number of questions about the future. As the Government appoint the harbour board members, could they not exercise their control to enjoin the harbour board to work more closely with the community and businesses on the new big society plan that the community so clearly wishes to see? In the past, directors of the harbour board have been appointed by the Department under the old-style quango appointment system involving the great and the good. In some cases, it seems that the harbour board has largely been left to choose its own directors. That has led it to become provider-focused, and not sufficiently customer or community-focused.

Would it not be possible to have community and business involvement in making future appointments in an open and transparent appointment process in which the Department appoints the brightest and best through open competition? That would enable the port to become more customer and community-focused. There is an opportunity coming up to make that happen. The chairman of the harbour board retires at the end of this year, and its chief executive retires next year. Those appointments are key to how the harbour board operates and behaves, and they are made by the Department. Will the Department consider making the appointments under the new, open and competitive process that I am suggesting?

Moving to the privatisation process that is now under way, I understand that, once started, it is hard to stop. The Ports Act 1991 was aimed at selling off ports, rather than not selling them off. The process has dragged on, however. The harbour board has been slow to put proposals to Minsters for a decision to be made. It keeps changing its submission and seeking further bites of the cherry. It was meant to submit its final proposal earlier this year, but it has still not done so. It is claimed that the proposal will be tabled in July. Will Ministers ensure that if the proposal is not made in July, the process will be brought to an end? This matters, because the people of Dover need to know what the future of the port will be. The uncertainty is having a negative impact on the local economy.

There is, of course, an alternative to privatisation. It is for Ministers to use the new powers contained in the Public Bodies Act 2011. Those powers would enable the harbour board quango to be reformed. In that way, the community port proposal could be taken forward and implemented. I understand that Ministers do not believe that they can use those powers unless or until the privatisation process has been completed, whether it is accepted or rejected. I want to ask whether Ministers have taken independent legal advice on that matter, because it seems to me that, as the Public Bodies Act 2011 was passed after the Ports Act 1991, the Public Bodies Act can trump the Ports Act. Ministers could therefore start the process to reform the port under the Public Bodies Act, as Parliament has given them powers to do so more recently than it gave them powers to make a decision under the Ports Act.

That matters because, given the behaviour of the harbour board, few people in my constituency seriously believe that the harbour board should be allowed to make any decision on the future of the port of Dover. They feel that the Department should take direct control and work with the community and businesses to find a more positive way forward—ideally, the one involving the people’s port, because that is the people’s will and the mandate that I have received as the constituency Member of Parliament.

I hope the Minister will consider these matters and will be able at least to consider some of the points I have raised this evening. I hope that it is understood that, as the Member of Parliament for Dover, my aim is to deliver a stronger future for Dover, to see the long-desired regeneration of Dover and renewed economic success for a town that has not had its fair share of jobs and money in recent times, and to ensure that an asset that is important to the nation as a whole is managed more effectively in the future for the benefit of the community and of our country. If we get the right future for the port, Dover could be a town transformed into the jewel of the nation’s crown that it always used to be. That is the future that I and the community wish to see.

Amendment of the Law

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock]

I am glad the Secretary of State asks me that. I would expect a little more humility from the Government given that on their own plans they are set to borrow £150 billion more. We strongly believe that the cuts we do not accept represent a false economy that will act as a drag on the nation’s growth and stop us returning to the prosperity that this country desperately needs.

The Government’s priorities are not with the family who are struggling to make ends meet, with the small business that wants to create more jobs or with the employee who wants to be able to afford to turn up to work in the morning.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I am not going to give way at the moment because the Secretary of State has taken up the hon. Gentleman’s time.

On all those counts, Wednesday’s Budget was a great disappointment. I will give the Secretary of State one thing: at least she is consistent. When we dig beneath her unrealistic claims that everything will be peachy, we see that she is not gearing up to deliver jam tomorrow after the pain today. Instead, with the Budget the Government set out this week, motorists, train passengers and bus users will be squeezed today, tomorrow and for years into the future. The effect will be a decade-long drag on jobs and growth, with the prospect of drivers and commuters being priced out of getting to work, or left stranded at a bus stop wondering why the service has been axed.

The Chancellor offered nothing to hard-pressed motorists this week. In fact, he has made things worse. He has raised the prospect of finding new ways to make things harder in future. Even from the comfort of No. 11 Downing street, the Chancellor cannot have failed to hear the growing calls for some relief on fuel taxation. If he refused to listen, it was the Secretary of State’s job to prise open his ears and tell him just how hard it is for Britain’s motorists. In the Budget negotiations, however, she secured diddly squat—[Interruption.] Instead, faced with rising and record petrol prices, she set her face against calls for relief in fuel tax, including the call for a temporary—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall take that as a lesson.

Faced with record and rising fuel prices, the Secretary of State set her face against all calls for relief, including the Opposition call for a temporary VAT cut.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this April petrol duty will be a full 10p lower than it would have been under the previous Government’s plans. That will save the average family £144 and be a massive benefit—a far greater benefit than if Labour had remained in office.

[John Woodcock]

That shows just how out of touch the hon. Gentleman and Government Members are. I would like to see him go to the forecourt in his constituency, or any forecourt around the country, and say, “Let’s welcome the further rise in fuel taxation that you’re getting this week. What a great job the Government are doing in keeping fuel prices down!”

Families in Britain, worried by energy bills, clobbered by spiralling rail fares and made poorer by cuts to tax credits, are, thanks to this Secretary of State’s inaction, once again being squeezed even harder at the fuel pump. There is pain today and pain tomorrow. The ultimate victims are jobs and growth, and the nation’s return to prosperity. What is the Chancellor offering motorists in return for their growing fuel bills? He is offering only vague promises, which might well turn out to be yet another ratchet with precious little reward.

The National Audit Office has warned the Government that they are creating a vicious cycle of deteriorating roads and higher long-term costs. A plague of potholes is making our road network less safe for all users, less green and more congested. The road network is a brake on, and not an agent of, jobs and growth. There is no movement on the cuts already set for local roads—that is good news on potholes but bad news for everyone else—but what about our trunk roads, which the Secretary of State mentioned? We need long-term strategic investment in the road network, and we also need to look at how we lever in that investment, but Britain’s drivers and cyclists will have little confidence after seeing Ministers tying themselves in knots in recent days.

Before the Prime Minister’s speech on infrastructure on Monday, those pesky anonymous briefers, who seem to be everywhere in this Government—good luck in trying to catch them, Mr Speaker—said that tolling would be considered only for brand new roads. However, in the speech, “new roads” became “new capacity”. We now know for certain that charging is being considered when improvements take place on existing roads because the Budget document confirms it. We are told that the shortlist of options include “widening some sections” of the A14,

“rationalising access to the route, and improving the route of the southern bypass for Huntingdon.”

In other words, the A14 will be not a new road, but the existing one with added tolling.

Britain’s motorists, already squeezed to breaking point, demand plain speaking from the Government, so I will give the Secretary of State another opportunity. Will she tell us what will constitute a capacity improvement on an existing road that could lead to tolling? Will that include an extra lane, a contra flow, a new slip road, a roundabout or a bollard? Motorists deserve to know what the Government have in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Well, you know. [Laughter.] I am here all week.

The Chancellor told us on Wednesday that the country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the south-east. He is right, but his words would carry more weight had the Government not spent the past two years dithering and delaying on producing any sort of aviation strategy. What did we actually get this week? We got not one but two further delays. First, the Chancellor announced that the strategy that the Department for Transport’s business plan told us to expect in March will now appear late this summer; and now the Secretary of State seems to have put back the date even further to this winter or next spring—more dithering, more delay, while competitor hubs in continental Europe get on with providing new capacity that could transform their economies.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will not give way any more because I am running on and I want to give other Members time to speak.

The Government came to power with just one policy on aviation capacity—to abandon the Heathrow third runway. Since the election, the Government have come up with no practical thinking on alternatives. Instead, they seem to have outsourced their aviation strategy down the river to a Mayor who is more interested in trying to grab attention than in finding a plan that will work. That is no way to treat a vital economic driver that is critical to the country’s future growth.

As the Secretary of State is well aware, the plans for an airport in the Thames estuary are being met with a barrage of opposition from the area, including from her own party’s MPs and councillors. She would be even clearer on that if, like my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, she had been to north Kent and talked to local people in the areas affected. The idea of building a new airport from scratch in the Thames estuary is a huge distraction from the real need for airport capacity here and now. It is obvious why so many people, but apparently not the Secretary of State, see an estuary airport as a complete non-starter—there is the impact on local communities, the destruction of internationally important habitats, the safety threat from explosive-laden wrecks, a liquefied petroleum gas terminal and a huge offshore wind farm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which explains why this Budget has had consensus support and been viewed from a positive perspective by business organisations across the country.

We should be talking a paradigm that involves tax and spending, not just tax. There has been too much focus in the last few months on cutting or increasing taxes, when we should be talking about expenditure. Are we really asking the public to believe that a net 6.8% reduction in public expenditure over the comprehensive spending review period is enough to rebalance the economy when we saw a 53% real-terms growth in public expenditure between 2000 and 2010? We were spending £450 billion just 10 years ago on public services, and we are now spending £702 billion. Are we getting value for money for our constituents and our taxpayers?

Of course, Conservative Members will not let the electorate forget the disastrous and poisonous economic legacy left to us by the Labour party—to the extent that we have to pay £120 million a day in debt interest and are £47.6 billion a year in debt this year. As I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, had Labour remained in office, they would have had to borrow another £200 billion. They left us a structural debt in a period of economic growth. They left us a situation in which individual net borrowing doubled in just six years, while we have massive sectoral imbalances and a systemic dependency on debt. That was Labour’s legacy.

Labour Members still have no economic credibility; if they were a party with a cogent and coherent narrative on the economy, they would pledge to reinstate the 50p tax rate and reverse the policy on freezing age-related allowances. They do neither because they are opportunistic and they know that if they were elected to government, they would need the money.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is being far too generous in saying the Opposition are being opportunistic. They are going back to the 1970s class warfare old Labour that they used to be, and they have forgotten all the modernisation they achieved in 1997.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party will not make progress with the electorate until it does two things: apologise for the debt millstone they left to our children and grandchildren, and develop a policy that is not written on the back of a fag packet.

I welcome the cut in corporation tax, which gives us the fourth lowest such tax rate in the G20. I welcome the reduction in the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p, too, as the 50p rate was damaging competitiveness and not collecting the sums it should have collected, and was an impediment to entrepreneurial activity and business growth in our country.

Let us nail the myth about taking poorer working people out of tax. It is a Conservative policy, enunciated by Lord Forsyth in the tax commission in 2005, and restated by Lords Saatchi and Tebbit. It is a Conservative policy to boost people’s incomes because we trust them to spend their money wisely.

I also support the policy on age-related allowances. There is consensus on the issue of generational fairness—even the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) will agree with me about that—and this Government have a very good record on provision for pensioners, including the largest ever cash rise in the basic state pension from April this year, the uprating of the pension credit guarantee, and the help with fuel bills for poorer pensioners. We have a much better story to tell on that than the last Labour Government had, with their ridiculous and insulting 75p pension rise in 2000.

Rail Reform

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen huge increases in passenger demand. What we have heard today is really a battle between the Government Members representing common sense and the Opposition Members, representing the past.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s determination to put the customer first. Does she agree that for too long the railway industry has been imprisoned by provider interest, whether greedy, bank-owned train leasing companies, bonus-hungry managers or dinosaurs and luddites from the trade unions, while the previous Government walked on by? Is it any wonder that our railways are among the most expensive in Europe?

[Justine Greening]

In many respects it has been an impossible situation, and certainly one that cannot continue. We cannot allow £3.5 billion of inefficiency a year to go unchecked and always to be paid for by taxpayers and fare payers. That is what this document and this strategy are all about tackling.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

To be clear, the commitment in the coalition agreement still stands, but we recognise that maintaining a competitive international hub airport is incredibly important, which is why we have agreed to publish a call for evidence alongside the new aviation policy framework in March.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I urge the Secretary of State in considering aircraft capacity to look first at the possibilities of expanding existing airports east of London, rather than building new ones, and at how the lower Thames crossing could assist with infrastructure?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to point out two things. First, we need to look at our transport system as a whole. It is about getting around, and that can involve not only aviation but railways and roads. Secondly, the matter of the hub airport is incredibly important. It is also a medium to long-term issue. We received more than 600 responses to our original scoping document. We are considering those and will take some of them forward in the strategy document we will publish in March.

Rail Fares

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I am arguing that it is important to have a national understanding of peak hours, so that passengers are not clobbered and do not have to wait until what seems like a long time after normal peak hours in order to get on a train home. That would be an improvement, and it would clarify the system. People would not be caught out as they frequently are, and they would not be inconvenienced by having to wait for hours after their meeting has finished in order to get on a train home.

If this Government are not going to stand up to the train companies and take on vested interests, we will. Those are all ideas that we are looking at seriously.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No, I am going to make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No. This is a shortened debate, and I want to give people time to make their speeches, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make some progress. I have already spoken for a little longer than I would have hoped, and that is partly because I have taken interventions.

The Government need to be tougher not just on train companies, but on private bus operators. While train fares grab the headlines, most people’s experience of transport is in fact the local bus. For many, the bus is a lifeline: for those without a car; for older people who no longer drive or may never have done so; and for our young people, for whom the bus is their only way to get around, especially if mum or dad do not have a car or work all hours. Yet quietly, and without much fanfare, throughout the country there is a catastrophe facing bus services, with services being cut and fares rising. Again, that is thanks to decisions made by the Government. Their unwillingness to take on the vested interests in our transport industry is holding back the reform that is required.

In the spending review, the Government have made three decisions that have hit bus services. First, they have cut councils’ local transport funding by 28%—and front-loaded it. that has meant the end of support for many subsidised routes, and the end of ring-fencing has placed further pressure on councils—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way to him once and I need to conclude.

The issue is not only about the level of spending; we need the proper regulation of bus services, not least when they rely on public subsidy. Having made these cuts, the Government are powerless to influence bus fares or to protect bus services because they are unwilling to stand up to the private bus operators and to take on the failure of bus deregulation outside London. In London, we have control over fare levels and we can regulate bus routes, or we could if we had a Mayor of London who was not choosing to let bus fares spiral out of control. It is time to consider the right way to reverse bus deregulation across England. We should give new powers to local communities to deliver bus services in the way that best suits them.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am coming to a conclusion so I will not.

Whether it is the increase in rail and bus fares or the rise in the cost of fuel, this Government are allowing the costs of transport to spiral, adding to the cost-of-living pressures faced by families. The Government have failed to tackle those increases not because of the deficit, but because they are unwilling to stand up to vested interests. They are failing to stand up to the train companies, letting train fares rocket by up to 11%. They are failing to stand up to the bus companies and to look at the best way to re-regulate the industry outside London. They are failing to stand up to the banks and impose a bonus tax, adding to the high cost of fuel. As a result there are rising transport costs, which are adding to the pressure on households up and down the country. This Government are too out of touch to do anything about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I only have six minutes and the Minister will have plenty of time to wind up at the end of the debate.

I hope that the Secretary of State will not take the same path as has been followed in Scotland, where the SNP Government—for the first time since the 1960s and Beeching—are threatening to close stations, including Kennishead in my constituency, even as passenger numbers are increasing there and throughout the network. That is a disgraceful approach for any so-called progressive Government to take, and I hope that the Secretary of State will make a commitment that she will not close stations or lines in the rest of the country.

It is too easy to criticise rail services and forget some of the major advances that have been made since privatisation, but at the crucial interface between train and customer, there is a growing crisis of affordability—on the personal level, rather than the national taxpayer level.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Adonis policy was for one year only. Was that not an election year? I am sure that most people would agree that that is the kind of cynicism that used to characterise the previous Government and it is a good thing that we have got rid of that.

[Mr Harris]

Most fare-paying passengers would not agree that it is a good thing that that policy was got rid of, because they are paying more as a result. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman represents constituents who are very wealthy and can afford to pay unlimited increases in fares. If he is claiming that it was a cynical manoeuvre by Lord Adonis, he has clearly never met him. It was officials who recommended that the agreement should be for one year. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that a Secretary of State should ignore legal advice? That is disgraceful and completely misrepresents what the then Secretary of State and Labour Government were doing for rail passengers.

National Policy Statements

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

This motion is brought before the House on the day that the Chancellor has unveiled his national infrastructure plan on which the UK’s economic recovery is supposed to rest. I have to say that those are grand hopes for a 150-page wish list with little coherence and even less sense of how it will be delivered. Although it is welcome that the House is getting the chance to debate the national policy statement on ports—an important innovation pioneered by the previous Government and made possible by the passage of the Planning Act 2008—it is time that Ministers faced up to the opportunities that are being missed because of failure to join up key decision making on transport infrastructure.

First, though, let me say what we support. We are pleased that national policy statements are going ahead and that Ministers have chosen to accept the Transport Committee’s recommendation that debates on them should take place in Government time.

We have heard today, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, that Britain faces continued stagnation. Unfortunately, it will take more than a national policy statement on ports, no matter how finely crafted, to return our flatlining economy to health. However, although not sufficient, thriving ports are necessary to any recovery. Any successful route out of these doldrums will require an economic rebalancing that includes Britain’s exporting more to the rest of the world.

With about 90% of world trade taking place by sea, we need more than ever to ensure that Britain has sufficient modern, efficient port capacity that is capable of handling the size of ships and containers that are coming to dominate global trade. That port capacity needs to be linked to a land-based transport network that provides reliable and efficient links for exported and imported goods. That means having fast and free-flowing road links to major ports and increasing capacity on key rail routes, not only in relation to train paths but to enhancing the loading gauge to allow larger containers to be carried. That is why the last Labour Government worked with Network Rail to allow containers of 9 feet 6 inches to be carried between Southampton and the midlands. Today’s statement on rail freight interchanges is therefore welcome.

Our ports are essential to this island nation. They are part of our heritage and our future as a global trader. In 2010, the UK’s ports handled 512 million tonnes of freight, making our ports sector the largest of any in Europe. Ports and directly related services account for about 58,000 jobs, widely distributed across the country. From Immingham to Southampton and from the Medway to Liverpool, ports are at the centre of local economies.

We support the principles behind the policy statement in that port expansion is essential economically but must be conducted in ways that benefit local economies, drive regeneration and are environmentally sensitive. That is because businesses seeking new markets will be looking to the new Administration to deliver on the significant expansions consented to by the previous Government: a two thirds increase in the handling capacity at Felixstowe, consented to in 2006; the London gateway port that the Minister mentioned, handling up to 3.5 million containers a year and consented to in 2007; a doubling of capacity at Liverpool, also consented to in 2007; and further major expansions given the green light at Bathside bay in Harwich, at Teesport, and at Bristol.

Although we agree with the underlying principles of the statement and will therefore support its approval, the way in which it has been presented exposes serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to planning transport infrastructure. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and make changes so that their already disjointed infrastructure planning does not deteriorate further.

The need to link ports with other infrastructure projects, particularly in road and rail, is obvious. However, the Minister has not given a satisfactory explanation of why he has ignored the recommendation of the Transport Committee to integrate the NPS on ports with the promised NPS on national networks.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Eddington report was published in 2006 or 2007. The previous Government did not get on with improving road infrastructure to the ports. I say gently that it is a bit rich for him to criticise this Government for not moving more quickly on that.

[John Woodcock]

Progress was made, but unquestionably more needs to be done. I think that it was incumbent on the incoming Government to respond positively to the recommendations made by the Transport Committee just before the last election. It is a matter of great regret that they have not done so.

The Government have chosen to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, yet the entire statement is written on the basis that the IPC exists. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in winding up, if he has time, or in writing if necessary, whether the end date that he gave of April next year is a firm date or simply a target, and whether that change will require further consultation on the NPS.

The House is being asked to approve the NPS without reference to wider ports policy, most notably on ownership models, including mutualisation. As the Minister is well aware, that is of great interest to many Members and local communities, most notably around Dover and the trust ports. The lack of any guidance on ownership and changes of status in the NPS demonstrates why it is not a substitute for a proper ports policy. I hope that the Minister, whom it is an unexpected pleasure to see today, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will commit to coming before the House with a comprehensive statement on ports policy, in which the NPS sits.

It is unfortunate that the statement gives such limited consideration to the economic and social impacts of port development proposals, particularly on local employment. After the fiasco of the Thameslink procurement process, Ministers claim to be alive to these issues, yet they seem to be little more than an afterthought in this document.

The Transport Committee recommended that the statement should include preference for port development to reduce inland road transport, yet that is missing from the statement. It contains no wider policy on how to achieve a reduction in the reliance on road freight. We hope that Ministers will consider revising the NPS to ensure that development decisions are taken in a way that specifically promotes and encourages a modal shift for onward transportation away from roads and on to rail and coastal shipping.

On climate change, there is little in the NPS on emissions. The Government need to make it clear whether they will accept the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to include the UK’s share of shipping emissions in the 2050 target.

Finally, we support and welcome the growing demand from the offshore energy sector for additional port capacity, including in my constituency of Barrow and Furness. The Government need to take a more proactive role to ensure that the UK takes a larger slice of this booming market. That is referenced in the NPS, but there is little detail. Will the Minister say how the Government intend actively to promote the potential for ports in the offshore energy sector?

The statement shows some progress but, with the economy flagging, the Government need to raise their game on ports and infrastructure across the piece.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The NPS is extraordinarily important. Representing Dover, I know just how important it is. Only today, the approval has been announced of a plan for the development of the western docks at Dover. It is a gold-plated plan on a rather larger scale than it needs to be, with a price tag of £400 million of investment, and the application has taken getting on for five years to go through the system—an awfully long time. Although the planned capacity will possibly not be needed until 2025 or 2030, owing to the economic difficulties that the country has faced in recent years, and although a gold-plated scheme certainly is not needed, it is an important step forward for the development of the port of Dover. It is much easier to amend an application once permission has been granted than to make a new one.

The fact that it has taken so long for the application finally to be approved underlines the need for a far swifter system of getting applications passed and sorted out. As the Transport Committee made clear in its report, there have been calls from business interests and others for major infrastructure projects to be handled properly, not with extensive public inquiries and long drawn-out decision-making processes but in a shorter and sharper way—something a bit less than the terminal 5 or Sizewell B inquiry nightmares. The NPS is therefore extraordinarily welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was right that the application at Dibden bay took a long time and got thrown out. It took four years, and I believe that it cost the applicant some £45 million, so that was dead money. That makes no sense whatever. The new, swifter method will be much better.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), rightly made the point that it is desirable to consider the wider aspects of the matter. My understanding is that the NPS is more focused on planning applications for ports than on whether development rights will be granted. I agree with him that, some years on from the Eddington report, which was produced back in 2006, not a lot has happened to the road infrastructure to ports. Although I picked him up for making a slightly partisan point about that, the fundamental point was accurate. We in Dover have been waiting for the upgrade of the A2, which is an important potential artery to the port. It was in the roads programme back in 1997, but was taken out and has not yet got back in. We have been waiting for that road to be dualled and upgraded for years, but it has not happened. We feel very strongly about that, and the Eddington report was fundamentally correct on the matter.

I turn to the NPS itself. The contents page reveals a massive focus on the environmental side of things. There are sections on, for instance, the environmental impact assessment, habitats and species regulations, pollution control, climate change control, biodiversity—so the list goes on. There is, one suspects, a greater concern about flood risks, coastal change and all the environmental things—including, I dare say, the lesser-spotted shellfish—than on socio-economic impacts, tourism and, above all, regeneration.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I totally agree with the point that my hon. Friend has just made, and I wish to highlight one example in my constituency. The port facilities have existed for more than 100 years, and they offer every opportunity for growth and more jobs. However, they sit close to sites of special scientific interest, which are impeding that development. The fact that those SSSIs have been sitting close to that port development for so long surely illustrates that nature is resilient enough to accept port expansion.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fundamentally good point.

We need to think harder about the people involved. We need to consider ownership models, as the shadow Minister said, but also regeneration, tourism, jobs and money. We need to think about strengthening and boosting our economy, and making the most of our ports, just as much as we think about the environmental side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

As a constituency MP I recognise the supreme importance of the turnaround facility to Liverpool. However, I also recognise that a reasoned judgment has to be made on the proper way in which to go ahead. The statements that the hon. Gentleman made about Liverpool’s intentions are not accurate, but this is not the place in which to pursue the detail of that. I hope that a reasonable decision is made. Liverpool City council has made an offer to deal with the very point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but that is for somebody else in another place to address. I simply ask for reason to be applied to resolve the issue.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do not want to intrude on the private grief between Southampton and Liverpool. I represent Dover, which has a little less cruise business. It is also further away and can take a more dispassionate position. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that there is something of a state aid issue here and that that needs to be handled with extreme care?

[Mrs Ellman]

The state aid issue is a matter that will have to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. After discussing it with all the relevant parties, I hope that a reasoned judgment can be made.

Earlier today, when the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he referred to the regional economic significance of ports and made reference to the support that he intended to give to developments in the Mersey and the Manchester ship canal in relation to Peel Holdings. It is because ports have such an important economic effect on a region that the issues that I raise are so significant and I hope that the Government are able to consider them.

In light of the time that has elapsed since the report was compiled by the Committee under the previous Government and the changes and statements that have been made, I believe that the port statement should not be opposed. None the less, I want to hear from the Minister about how he will address some of the outstanding issues that I have raised tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

1. What assessment she has made of the effects on women workers of proposed reforms of parental leave.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the effects on women workers of proposed reforms of parental leave.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

Our proposals for a new system of parental leave will protect mothers’ rights while giving families more choice and flexibility over how they can share their work and caring responsibilities. The proposals mean that working mothers will be better able to keep in touch with their employer, and they will also aid career progression for working mothers and help to tackle pregnancy discrimination.

[Charlie Elphicke]

One of the key problems faced by working mothers is the gender pay gap, which is a shocking thing. Will these reforms help to reduce the gender pay gap?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I think that the reforms will reduce the gender pay gap, because the division of caring responsibilities between parents is one of the underlying issues. The current arrangements for parental leave reflect an expectation that the mother will stay at home and care for the children. Those arrangements urgently need reform. Although we will use a range of approaches to reduce the gender pay gap, this is an important element.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, Sir Roy McNulty is conducting a review of value for money in the rail industry. One of his preliminary findings is that we need better alignment of interests between train operators and the infrastructure operator. Network Rail has responded to those recommendations, unprompted, by announcing that it will give greater autonomy to its regional route managing directors. I think that is a step in the right direction.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On 23 March, the people of Dover will vote in a referendum on whether they want a people’s port big society change in Dover. If the people vote for the big society, will the Secretary of State help to implement it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

My hon. Friend is tenacious in his work for the people of Dover. As he knows, the Minister of State is still looking at the proposals for Dover, and at this time it would be improper for me to say any more.