Rail Fares

Debate between Gordon Henderson and Mark Reckless

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern because my constituents have a similar problem. The franchise agreement with Southeastern also set out the level of subsidy that it would receive. That is important because the subsidy started at £139.9 million in year one, reducing to £24.7 million by year seven. In year eight, Southeastern will be expected to pay a premium of £9.3 million to the Department for Transport. It does not take a genius to work out that if the Government expect Southeastern to pay them a premium, rail fares will have to rise to fund it.

Who negotiated that franchise agreement? The Labour Government did. Indeed, their stated policy was to recruit more of the cost of the rail service from those who use it, rather than relying on the general taxpayer to subsidise it. It is, therefore, hypocritical in the extreme for Labour Members to complain now about a system of rail fare pricing that they introduced and supported. I greatly fear that spiralling rail fares will have a detrimental effect on commuters in my constituency, and will directly hit hard-working families who are already struggling. The increases will hit even harder people who have recently lost their jobs, such as those at Thamesteel who will have to commute some distance to find a job.

[Mark Reckless]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is particularly difficult because Kent has some of the lowest average incomes in the south-east yet some of the highest commuter fares? The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned costs in her constituency, but the cost of commuting from Chatham, which is only 30 miles away, is about £100. Brighton is almost 50 miles away, yet the cost is almost the same.

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The cost per mile of rail travel from our part of Kent is one of the highest in the country, and commuters in my constituency have had to put up with that for a number of years. That is the issue I wish to address, and I welcome the Transport Secretary’s offer to meet Kent MPs. Although he is not present in the Chamber, I assure him that at that meeting I will press for help for commuters in my constituency.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am in a difficult position. I support the sentiment of the motion but oppose the motive behind it. For that reason, I will abstain, as I hope will all my fellow Kent MPs.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Gordon Henderson and Mark Reckless

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. The point is that Sunday is special; the 1994 Act recognised that by providing for certain opening hours for large stores, and certain opening hours for small stores. I am not looking to change that; the Bill looks to change that for eight weeks this year. That is all that I am objecting to.

As I have mentioned, my wife had a couple of small shops; they closed because she could no longer face the competition from supermarkets that were moving into selling non-food goods, and the type of fancy goods and gifts that she sold, so perhaps I ought to declare an interest.

There is something else that puzzles me. We have been given assurances by the Front Benchers, but if it is true that it is important to suspend the restrictions because only large shops will be able to cater to the needs of visitors who come for the Olympics and Paralympics, why does the suspension have to take in the whole of England and Wales? I simply do not understand that. I appreciate fully that loads of visitors might stream into Stratford and the borough during the Olympics, but I cannot see that happening in Sheffield, Stourbridge, Swansea, Sittingbourne or Sheerness. Unless the Government intend to lay on buses that go from Stratford straight to Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey, bringing thousands of people down to shop in Black Cat and other places—we would be grateful for that—I do not see why the measures have to apply nationwide, rather than being restricted to London.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

On the contrary, will we not be looking for a significant boost in north Kent from the Olympics? We have Ebbsfleet in the area, and in the Rochester and Strood constituency we are very much looking forward to the Olympics and the business opportunities generated from them.

[Gordon Henderson]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, as he is well aware, but I think he is being a little naive if he thinks thousands upon thousands of people will be streaming out of London down to the Medway towns. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect I am not.

There may be an argument for holding a debate on the principle of changing the current restrictions on Sunday trading, and that debate might convince me to support it. There might even be an argument for undertaking a trial period to test the water. But, of course, this is not such a debate, or so we are led to believe. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister have given assurances from the Front Bench that the Bill is a temporary measure, but frankly, I am not convinced. I believe that this proposal is nothing less than a trial run for a permanent relaxation of the restrictions. If it can be proved that sales have increased significantly during the trial period, pressure will no doubt follow for the 1994 Act to be repealed once and for all. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect I am not wrong, which is why I cannot and will not support the Bill.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Gordon Henderson and Mark Reckless

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), I support the motion. I do so because it is unacceptable that unelected European judges think that they can tell elected Members of this British Parliament how we should treat British criminals who break British laws. I am sure that the vast majority of people in Britain find quite unpalatable the idea that we should allow the vote to prisoners convicted of such serious crimes as murder, rape and paedophilia—certainly the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency share that view.

We must remember that prisoners are incarcerated in secure prisons because they are considered to be a danger to the public and that they are in prison as punishment for their crimes. That punishment should include not only the loss of freedom, but the loss of certain rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. One such right is the ability to vote in elections, and I very much hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House vote for the motion in large numbers. Doing so will make it very clear to the European Court of Human Rights that if a British citizen commits a crime serious enough to warrant incarceration in prison, that person will lose not only his or her freedom, but the privilege of voting in elections during their incarceration.

However, despite my passionate opposition to prisoners having the vote, I recognise the difficulty faced by the Government. It is clear that Ministers do not want to give votes to prisoners, but they feel obliged to abide by the ECHR ruling. A number of suggestions have been made as to how the Government could solve their dilemma and I wish to add my two-penn’orth. First, let us consider what we hope to achieve when we put people in prison.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this House may assist the Government to get out of this dilemma by passing this motion, and that may set a positive precedent for dealing with the European Union and similar issues? If the Government do not succeed in getting agreement to reduce the EU budget, for example, this House should pass a motion resolving to do so, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.

[Gordon Henderson]

It would be very odd if I did not agree with my hon. Friend.

The first reason for putting people in prison is to punish them, but there is a second reason, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Claire Perry) and for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who are not in their places. That second reason is to rehabilitate people, so that after they are released they are not subsequently locked up again. Although I totally oppose allowing prisoners to vote while they are incarcerated in a secure prison, there is an argument for allowing them to vote once they are transferred to an open prison as part of their release back into society. If Ministers want a way out of the fix in which they find themselves, they should accept the motion, as I shall, as a starting point. However, in addition to the categories of prisoner for whom the vote is currently allowed, which are set out in the motion, they should add a category of all prisoners incarcerated in an open prison, including those transferred from a secure prison as part of their release programme.

Such an approach would have a number of advantages. First, it would obey the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling by giving the vote to the majority of prisoners at some stage in their sentence. Secondly, it would allow the vote to those convicted of relatively minor offences and sent to open prison. Thirdly, it would address the arguments of those who claim that giving the vote to prisoners would encourage them to become useful members of society—which it does. Fourthly, it would deny the vote to those convicted of the most heinous crimes until they had served most of their sentence and were about to be released back into the community, when they would get the vote anyway.

I do not want prisoners to have the vote under any circumstances, but I understand the problem that the Government face and I ask them, if they feel forced to give any prisoner the vote, to consider what I believe would be a reasonable compromise.