A14 (Tolling Proposals)

David Ruffley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Coffey]

I support my hon. Friend’s sentiments. The wider impact does not seem to have been assessed. In fact, there appears to be an assumption in the Government, which I think is wrong, that demand for using the A14 is completely inelastic to the toll. In fact, as the Department will know, there are basically two types of hauliers: first, those that definitely need to arrive on time; and secondly, those for whom cash flow is key. Adding to the cost of coming in and out of Suffolk and other parts of East Anglia creates a risk to our economy. This is an issue not just for Felixstowe, but for other parts of Ipswich, for Bury St Edmunds and for Haverhill, as well as for Lowestoft, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on a superb speech. She is saying everything that I would say.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address the Chair and not turn his back?

[Mr Ruffley]

My hon. Friend asks why there was not greater consultation with Suffolk. Does she agree that now, because, as she mentioned, other A roads in our region and other regions are not being tolled, there is a risk that there will be an A road apartheid in Suffolk—discrimination against business users, and other travellers into the county? Could that be deleterious to logistics companies in Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and Needham Market, in my constituency, and, equally importantly, in the golden triangle of Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge? That is one of the engine rooms of growth for the whole nation.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister realises that we are united across the county in our concern about the economic impact on the county and region, particularly in the light of our growth industries. My hon. Friend put that well.

To go into a little more detail, there were various options with the original consultation and it seems that we have taken up option 3, which includes the Huntingdon southern bypass scheme and removal of the A14 bridge, and whose estimated cost is £687 million, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.15 and 2.26 million vehicle hours saved; and option 5, which also includes the bypass and would retain the trunked A14 through Huntingdon, with the addition of local roads.

The estimated cost of option 5 is £1.2 billion, nearly double that of option 3, with a BCR of 3.49 and 2.98 million vehicle hours saved. In both cases the eastbound saving is 19 minutes and the westbound saving is 14. The document gave, as a reason for introducing local access roads, allowing tolling to be put in more easily; so it seems that the scheme has been designed to make tolling easier, although introducing those local roads would increase complexity and cost at the Girton junction. The combination of the two options is coming out at £1.5 billion, but that sum is also due to enhancements to the A1, which were never part of the original proposals.

There are several issues to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) wants to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. The A14 needs to be improved. I thank the Government for investing so heavily in that key route for our region and for UK plc. However, users feel that they already pay their share; they do not want to be singled out to pay a toll while other parts of the road network continue to be fully financed.

I am proud to support the “No Toll Tax on Suffolk” campaign of the Suffolk chamber of commerce; it has gathered much momentum. I also welcome the backing of Suffolk county council, Suffolk Coastal district council, New Anglia local enterprise partnership and other business organisations. I am sure that the Minister will write to me if he cannot answer all the questions, but I ask him to listen to the concerns being put to him, because the issue is rousing Suffolk as we speak.

Civil Aviation Bill

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Given that the Government have no plans to protect access to the hubs, I would like to ask a question in reference to clause 6. Access to the hubs of Heathrow and Gatwick is important for Belfast City airport and Aldergrove International airport. Ever mindful that air transport is a volatile business, the matter was debated in another place through an amendment tabled by Lord Empey. Referring to a report by Birmingham MEP Philip Bradbourn, the noble Lord said:

“It was drawn up in April this year and, I believe, was passed by the European Parliament in May. The report, ‘considers it essential for regional airports to have access to hubs’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1252.]

Lord Empey advanced that view in his amendment, which was not accepted.

I raise the point because on 6 November, Jim Nicholson MEP tabled two amendments to a proposed European regulation. I do not intend to read out the text of amendment 45 in its entirety, but it is about the slot allocation system established in 1993, and states in italics:

“In addition it is important that access to hub airports from regional airports should be maintained where such routes are essential to the economy of that region.”

That amendment was adopted by the European Parliament, as was amendment 178, which, after the provision,

“The coordinator shall set up a pool, which shall contain all the slots. All new slot capacity determined pursuant to Article 3(3) shall be placed in the pool”

would add,

“This procedure shall be without prejudice to regional airports connectivity to hub airports. If such connectivity is undermined Member States shall be permitted to intervene.”

After all that lead-in, my question to the Minister is quite simple. Will he assure this House that he will support those amendments, which will protect access to the hubs and give life and continuity to Belfast City and Aldergrove International airports, when they come from Europe to this House?

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly in this short debate. Amendment 3, which relates to clause 2, refers to

“the need to secure that each holder of a licence… is able to take reasonable measures to reduce, control or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the airport to which the licence relates”.

I would like to quiz the Minister on the meaning of “environmental effects”, because I am a strong supporter of an estuary airport solution and very much opposed to the idea of a third, or conceivably a fourth, runway at Heathrow.

It seems fairly clear that aviation pollution from Heathrow, if the airport was extended, would compound an already poor state of affairs. There are about 50 early deaths a year as a result of pollution, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has calculated that the number could climb to 150 if a third runway is built. We also know that the prevailing winds at Heathrow are south-westerly and that pollution from the airport already spreads over a huge swathe of north London.

Finally, we also know that noise from Heathrow accounts for 95% of all the noise impacting people from London airports and that around 725,000 people live under the flight path and experience noise in excess of 55 dB. If Heathrow is extended, we can expect all those environmental impacts to be exacerbated. Will the Minister indicate whether the rather welcome amendment, which would require adverse environmental effects to be mitigated, will include the list I have just given?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

There is not much more to say after that contribution, except that the key issues of noise and emissions pollution are absolutely critical to my constituents and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to a much wider area of the south-east. That is why I welcome the amendments, wherever they were drafted—I think forensics could prove where they come from.

The key issue for my constituents is how the targets will be set, monitored and reported. It would be useful if the Minister clarified what role this House will have in monitoring the implementation of this legislation. In the past we have received the CAA’s annual reports and individual determinations but, given that the legislation represents a significant break, I think that a regular report from the Secretary of State would be extremely useful, even if it was only an annual report. We could then have a full debate on the Floor of the House to monitor issues such as the environmental impact.

Cost of Living

David Ruffley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of the previous Government left a message to say that there was no more money. That is the legacy this Government are dealing with. We will take fuel poverty seriously. My predecessor commissioned a report to ensure we have proper targets and measurements of fuel poverty. John Hills has produced a welcome report, on which we will consult—[Interruption.] We have plenty of policies to tackle fuel poverty and I will come to them, but we want to ensure we are tackling the real thing, not the fake one.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Raising the personal allowance to £9,200 is worth about £220 in cash to the average basic taxpayer. It also takes many low-paid people out of tax altogether. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is one way of protecting people, particularly the low paid, from the rising cost of living?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By next April, we will have saved a two-earner family on the basic rate of tax more than £1,000 a year in income tax. That is a policy to help people on low pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady raises the issue of the comprehensive spending review. Of course, we have had to introduce these measures as a result of decisions taken by the last Labour Government, which she supported, which have left this country in a parlous financial condition and meant that we have had to address this significant deficit. As a Government, we have been looking at equality impact assessments of the decisions in the spending review. It is interesting to note that when the Opposition spokeswoman on these matters was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the then Labour Government did precisely zero equality impact assessments. They made no proper assessment of the equality impact of their decisions.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

6. When she plans to begin her proposed consultation on a new system for flexible parental leave.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

The Government are committed to encouraging shared parenting and making the workplace more family friendly. We will launch a consultation in due course on the design of a new system of flexible shared parental leave.

[Mr Ruffley]

There is a Brussels-inspired proposal to hike maternity pay to full pay for the first 20 weeks at a cost of £2.5 billion, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, which would be unaffordable for the British taxpayer and for small and medium-sized businesses. Given that we already have one of the best maternity rights regimes in Europe, will the Secretary of State tell Brussels where to get off and begin to repatriate employment and social legislation back to this place?

[Maria Miller]

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment at the outcome of the first reading vote in the European Parliament. The measures that have been put forward are highly regressive and we do not support them. They would cost the UK at least £2.4 billion a year.