Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Guy Opperman and Stephen Phillips

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

When this Government came to office in 2010, they faced immediate and terrifying problems. Listening to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, that seems to have been forgotten. The prudence of the policies that have been pursued by the Government over the past four years has done much to make us forget what we knew at the time—that this country had been brought to the brink of bankruptcy by a Labour Government who, in their 13 years in office, borrowed more money than all their predecessors put together since the foundation of the Bank of England.

If we are never again to repeat the mistakes of the past, we must not forget where this country found itself in 2010, as we should not forget that the authors of the crisis that this country faced are now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and who would again be king, notwithstanding their clear demonstration in their handling of the British economy in their time in office, that they are unfit to hold it.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Given that the Opposition have opposed every budgetary and welfare cut throughout this Parliament thus far, why should we ask the public to believe them now, particularly given what the shadow team say in private?

[Stephen Phillips]

I do not know what the shadow Chancellor and his Treasury shadow team say in private. I do know that when I talk to people in my constituency, they have not forgotten that the authors of the troubles that we found ourselves in and that we are still recovering from and will be for a considerable time are those who again want to hold the reins of power.

Speed Limits (Rural Lincolnshire)

Debate between Guy Opperman and Stephen Phillips

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The existence of speed limits on our roads does a huge amount to reduce road deaths and accidents, and appropriate speed limits, particularly in residential areas, offer clear benefits in safety. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, a vehicle travelling at 20 mph at the onset of an incident will stop in time to avoid a child who is running out three car-lengths in front, while the same vehicle travelling at 25 mph—only 5 mph faster—will still be travelling at 18 mph at the three-car-lengths marker. A pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 18 mph is likely to suffer at least serious injury, and at that speed the effect on a child is roughly the same as the effect of falling backwards out of a first-floor window. A pedestrian who is struck at 20 mph has a 97% chance of survival; at 30 mph the figure is 80%; and at 35 mph it falls to 50%. It is plainly not appropriate for low speed limits to operate on every road, even in residential areas, but, as those in communities throughout my constituency tell me repeatedly, the setting and enforcement of proper limits in areas where pedestrians are likely to be found are critical to survivability rates.

The Government’s responsibility in all this is to set national default speed limits for different types of roads, and the present policy recognises—as it should—that residential areas need lower limits. However, local authorities can set different speed limits on roads where local needs and considerations suggest that the default limit is not appropriate. Many people living in a number of villages in my constituency say that their local speed limits are too high, and that Lincolnshire county council will not listen to their representations and lower them.

The current Government guidelines clearly state that although 30 mph is the standard speed limit for urban areas, a 40 mph limit may be used where appropriate. Roads considered suitable for 40 mph limits are those that are regarded as higher-quality suburban roads, or roads on the outskirts of urban areas where there is little development. Roads considered suitable for 40 mph limits should be wider than a standard urban street, and should have parking and waiting restrictions in operation and buildings set back from the road. There should be enough space for people on bikes, on horses and on foot to be segregated from the traffic, and there should be adequate crossing places.

Those guidelines, however, are not always followed. For instance, they do not apply, or have not applied, in the village of Fulbeck in my constituency. Fulbeck is bisected by a section of A road with a 40 mph limit, which is inappropriate. The village amenities are on both sides of the road. There is, for example, a popular children’s playground on one side, while the majority of dwellings are on the other. Children and elderly people struggle to cross what is a very busy road with blind bends, which is used by many heavy goods vehicles. Even fit adult villagers feel that they are taking their lives in their hands when they try to cross the road, and motorists are too often misled in a manner that leads to traffic incidents. Only this week, we saw a car leave the road. It is plain to all that the existing 40 mph limit in Fulbeck is simply too high, but my efforts—and those of villagers—to have it reduced to 30 mph have been to no avail, despite Government guidance that that should be the standard speed limit in all villages.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on securing a debate that is very important to Lincolnshire. As a result of my campaign in the Allendale road in Hexham, we reduced the speed limit outside a school to 20 mph. Is that not exactly the sort of campaign that the Government should be encouraging? Should not Government guidance strongly recommend the lowering of speed limits in the vicinity of primary schools in particular?

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend has made an important and valuable point. I am making general points about speed limits in villages, but there is a very good case for them to be even lower near schools. In parts of my constituency, there are 20 mph advisory speed limits. I think that those should be encouraged, and I hope the Minister will confirm that they will be.

The Government’s present guidelines also state that in exceptional circumstances—which must, by definition, be rare—a 50 mph limit may be used on higher-quality roads where there is little or no roadside development. Among the roads considered most suitable for that limit are primary distributors with segregated junctions and pedestrian facilities. They would usually be dual carriageway roads or bypasses that have become partially built up. Again, however—at least in Lincolnshire—many of my constituents feel that the guidelines are not being followed, and that there are 50 mph speed limits in residential areas where plainly they should not be.

One section of the B1188, which runs through Branston, is a good example. It carries in excess of 12,000 vehicles per day, more than many of the A roads that serve Lincoln. None the less, there is a 50 mph limit, despite the existence of a double bend with limited visibility and access to farmyards and residential properties on it. The combined cycle and pedestrian path on this stretch is narrow and in poor condition, and, in the vicinity of the double bend, it is adjacent to the carriageway, with no kerb or verge to protect users. Indeed, it is in such poor condition that many cyclists prefer to use the road, further increasing the risk of collision.

A 50 mph limit is also in place through West Willoughby, a small village on a main A road in my constituency, where the road has a blind bend with private and farm entrances, a bus stop in each direction, and a post box on one side only. There is also a blind summit just outside the village, which considerably restricts the view of drivers both travelling on the main road and trying to turn out on to it. Slow and large farm vehicles are of course a particular hazard in that area.

In both those cases, there has been no reduction in speed limits in accordance with the Government’s guidelines, despite strong urging from me and the communities affected. In those cases, as in that of Fulbeck, I would like the Minister to undertake to come to the communities concerned and to look at the situation with me and do all he can to persuade the county council to follow the guidance his Department has given.

I have already mentioned the fact—and it is a fact—that Government guidelines are clear that a village should have a 30 mph speed limit. The present policy in Lincolnshire simply does not allow for that, and instead counter-intuitively insists that a mean speed calculation be used to set the limit. In effect, speed limits are endorsing what are often dangerous speeds through residential village areas.

In the case of West Willoughby a mean speed calculation meant a reduction from the national speed limit to 50 mph, but anyone who has been through the village will know that that is still too fast for sight stopping distances on the blind bend. Current policy in Lincolnshire does not allow that to be taken into account, however. Indeed, so defective is the policy in its present formulation that it removes the possibility of any discretionary decisions by highways officers, meaning that obvious dangers cannot be considered when they clearly should be.

The mean speed method of establishing limits is ridiculous. In the course of calculating the mean speed, a recording of vehicle speeds is taken for a week, but that includes the speeds of drivers breaking the limit. Figures provided by Lincolnshire county council from one recording in West Willoughby gave an average of 800 vehicles a day exceeding the national speed limit of 60 mph, with 70 of them exceeding 70 mph. The mean speed is therefore pushed up by those breaking the law, and if that is used to set speed limits, that is clearly potty. If Government guidelines are to suggest the use of mean speeds for calculating speed limits, the methodology should be associated with rural open roads alone, not those passing through villages. I hope the Minister will tell me that he will make that clear to the county council.

In October 2011, I joined local campaigners from Fulbeck and West Willoughby in meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who was then the responsible Minister in the Department for Transport. He agreed with us that no effective response has been made to local concerns for years and that action was needed. What is needed now is for the current Minister to get involved directly. I hope he will be able to tell me this evening that that is what he proposes to do.

I accept that there are particular circumstances associated with the county in which I make my home, namely the lack of trunk roads and the high number of small villages scattered in ribbon developments. That necessarily means that efficiency will dictate higher speed limits on open roads than might be the case in urban settings, but to suggest that it should dictate the same in village situations is to run the risk that the safety of my constituents will be trumped by the need to keep traffic moving between major population centres, which I could not accept.

I know that the Government are undertaking a general review of their guidelines to local authorities on local speed limits. I therefore want the Minister to tell me that he will listen to the points made by me and my constituents, and that if common sense based on guidance issued by his Department is ignored, as is too often the case at present, he will act to make the guidance on village speed limits binding. Only then will I feel that I have done what I can to ensure the safety on Lincolnshire’s roads of those whom I was sent to this House to represent.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Guy Opperman and Stephen Phillips

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I think I am unique in this House in that I have had a great deal of experience in clinical negligence and have practised for the best part of 12 years almost exclusively on behalf of claimants. I have conducted well over 100 clinical negligence cases, against a multitude of general practitioners, hospital trusts and the like. They were primarily insurance-backed or conditional fee arrangement cases, although some of them were occasionally legal aid cases. I believe that, in the great tradition of the Government, I have still been unpaid for some of that work, notwithstanding the fact that I have not completed any work as a lawyer since I was elected in May 2010. So I should declare an interest in that I believe I have some legal aid fees outstanding, not that I am pressuring the Minister in any way to beat a path to my clerks and my chambers to pay the bill.

I should also declare an interest as a former lecturer and a member of Action against Medical Accidents—AvMA. I have written extensively on this area and am a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. I have given instructions to a multitude of different hospitals up and down the country, assisting them on how they can avoid clinical negligence claims. I was retained as counsel for several hospital and trust institutions, advising on how to avoid these claims and how to move forward. I should also declare an interest in that I am part of the team pushing for a culture of openness and have met the hon. Member who so very helpfully saved my life in May, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). So I have also conducted an in-depth study of the NHS over the past six months in a way that I did not expect when I was first elected.

My final declaration is that I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who occupies part of a seat that I fought in 2005 of the Lleyn valley and peninsula in what was Caernarfon. I know that he is an outstanding MP and barrister and I have great respect for the points that he makes, as I do for the submissions and proposals of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner).

Let me address the proposals of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd regarding the duty to come clean. It must surely be the case that NHS authorities should come clean at an early stage and I endorse some of the comments that were made about this being something to be addressed not so much in the Bill as in the NHS’s culture and approach. I regret to say that I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) about this, and I have a copy of an article that I wrote for an Association of Personal Injury Lawyers publication on this exact point. In my experience there is ample evidence of isolated examples of an NHS trust deliberately defending a claim on an ongoing basis in the hope that the relevant individual goes away. That is a serious allegation to make, but it is not just me who says it—cases have been reported. I recommend very highly the amazingly well-written edition of APIL PI Focus, volume 20, issue 3, which I co-authored, which addresses that particular point.

[Stephen Phillips]

I make it clear for the fourth time that I have no experience in this area, and I have no doubt that such cases exist, but are they not exactly the sort of case that the civil procedure rules were introduced to deal with? Judges have powers to ensure equality of arms and if defendants behave badly they ought to be punished accordingly.

[Guy Opperman]

I totally endorse that point and such defendants are punished accordingly, particularly in the punitive elements of costs when they are assessed. There are punitive factors that my hon. and learned Friend as a judge would know one is able to impose in a civil court whereby—[Interruption.] I accept that he is not a civil judge—it shows. There is an ability to punish the offending NHS institution or doctor, but the fair point that has been raised and must be addressed is that the powers that would exist to a civil judge, were my hon. and learned Friend to be one, would arise quite far down the track in civil litigation and not at the outset. I come back to the legitimate and fair point that we should address this issue to NHS trusts and particularly to two types of individual, including, first, to chief executives. Regrettably, there are examples of a failure of leadership by chief executives because, clearly, they are mindful of their budgets and they do not like the idea of a culture of openness in which mistakes are admitted. In those circumstances, whether implicitly or directly, efforts are made to suppress litigation against NHS trusts.

The second group of individuals who should be involved is doctors and consultants. Because theirs is such a hierarchical profession, instead of having a culture of openness in which mistakes are readily admitted, there is, sadly, from time to time—I have professional experience of this—a failure to admit mistakes. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will sadly and tragically have discovered—and I have been involved in several such meetings—there is a post-operative debrief within the health service.

Fuel Costs

Debate between Guy Opperman and Stephen Phillips

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

This has been an interesting debate for a number of reasons. However, I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) for missing the opening part of his remarks in introducing the debate.

The issue of fuel costs touches not only those living in regions that the devolved Administrations are largely responsible for governing, but many rural constituencies across the country, and certainly my constituents and members of the public across Lincolnshire. The reason is that it costs—and has done for a long time—a great deal of money to run a car, given the current fuel prices. However, a car is not a luxury to my constituents and people living not only in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but in rural parts of England. In those places, a car is a necessity. Owing to the state of public transport, people cannot live their lives without at least one car—certainly, they could not do so without great difficulty.

Much of my constituency is made up of rural areas dotted with small villages and farms, which means that I live in a beautiful part of the country. However, it also means that it takes a great deal of time to get to the doctor’s, the supermarket or anywhere else that one needs to get to in order to live one’s ordinary life. Public transport has got worse over the past few years, and will continue to get worse owing to the state of the deficit left by the previous Government and the need for this Government to deal with it. That will not be conducive to better public transport over the next few years, and will exacerbate the problems caused by high fuel prices.

I would like to echo a point made by the Economic Secretary. The Labour Government left us with the worst possible fiscal position. The simple fact is that we are paying debt interest of £120 million a day in circumstances where 1p on fuel raises only £500 million. It does not take a very good mathematician to work out that were we not paying that debt, we would not need the level of fuel duty or VAT that we do—with all that that has meant for the current fuel crisis. I heard no apology in the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) or explanation of why we have been left with this debt legacy and of what it means, in the context of this debate, for my constituents and others all over rural Britain who are paying the price for the previous Government’s failure, inter alia, through the cost of fuel.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend think that it was right for the leader of the Labour party to indicate that he would not have implemented the previous two fuel rises in the current circumstances?

[Stephen Phillips]

I have not seen the comments made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). However, he was at the heart of the previous Administration, with all that that meant for the legacy inherited by this Government. Whatever opportunism Labour Members pursued—we saw it last week during the forestry debate from a party that sold off 25,000 acres of forest without any guarantees of rights of public access—we understand that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. However, I do not understand many of his policies, and I do not expect that I understand this one any better than any of the others.

We have heard about two mechanisms that might serve to address some of the difficulties associated with current high fuel prices. The first is the derogation. The Government have done more to take that forward during the few short months they have been in office than the previous Government did during the entire time they were in office. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and his predecessor who have done so much work on this matter. It is gratifying that we at last have a Government who are beginning to take this issue seriously and to negotiate on it in Europe. I hope that in due course we will see this derogation.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to hear from the Exchequer Secretary that the pilot, whatever that might be, is rolled out not just in the remote rural areas referred to in the amendment—the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles and the Isles of Scilly—but in areas of England affected by high fuel prices.