Cost of Public Transport
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have a lot of speakers: we have 10 to get in. I am not going to put a time limit in place, as I think we can help each other. If Members have up to two minutes each, we will get everybody in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The next two speakers may have one minute each.
Airports Commission: Final Report
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Mathias
I am coming to the end of my speech.
The report does not include the hypothesis that as we move forward we may not want a hub airport. It does not consider that regional airports might want the competition that an expanded Heathrow would remove. If we are looking for a hub airport, then the Gatwick airport option shows the same economic benefits with less environmental impact. As we all know, the report does not consider a hub airport outwith an urban area—perhaps in an estuary.
Before the Government make a decision, I want them to consider this: Heathrow, with a night flight ban that it will not accept, with the ban on further expansion that the report calls for, and with a problem of environmental impact that it cannot address even with two runways, cannot be the hub it aspires to be. In 2009, the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, said, “no ifs, no buts, no third runway.” This report is 342 pages of ifs and buts. It is not a solution for the UK’s future aviation needs. Before the Government make their decision, I urge them to remember the Prime Minister’s promise.
Boris Johnson
That is a fair question. The answer is that this is plainly a national issue. Nobody in Scotland would wish to be disadvantaged, and the construction of a third runway at Heathrow being the only option would disadvantage communities not just in Scotland but in other regional cities in the United Kingdom, which would lose connectivity as a result of our taking the wrong route.
As I say, by 2030, Heathrow runway 3 would be full and the pressure would be on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) rightly said in his excellent speech, the pressure would be overwhelming, come 2030, for us to build a fourth runway at Heathrow, which would be a total environmental catastrophe. Where would we be then? What would we have done? We would have blighted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Londoners—not just those who are under the existing flightpath but people in Pimlico, people in New Cross, people in south London, people in Chelsea, people in Shepherd’s Bush and people in Hammersmith, who have no idea of the scourge that will be visited upon them by this appalling decision. We would have greatly worsened air quality in the greatest city on earth, in breach of our international obligations. We would have spent colossal sums of taxpayers’ money to create a short-term solution that did not address the problem of Britain’s lack of connectivity. Were we to make that mistake, we would find ourselves having to address the same long-term questions that we seem determined to shirk now.
That is why I think it is time to pause, to avoid making a disastrous mistake. There are other, better, more practical solutions on the table. The House knows what they are. I do not have time to rehearse them now, but they are infinitely preferable. They do deliver the long-term solutions, they are environmentally sensitive, they do enhance the competitiveness and the connectivity of this country, and, by the way, they could be achieved at a roughly comparable cost.
The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he said, in 2009, that he wanted to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. He was right to commit us. I voted for that and many people here were elected on that manifesto. It was right—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am going to have to drop the time limit to five minutes. I call Fiona Mactaggart.
John Mc Nally
Will this ever get built? I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee, and according to the evidence of one Lord—I cannot remember his name—it will never be built, and the whole £20 million spent on consultation will prove totally useless. What makes the hon. Gentleman think that, in perhaps three, four or five years, we will not end up with more long-haul flights coming in and circling and circling, while regional airports get further squeezed out? Now—
Mark Menzies
With Blackpool airport in my constituency, I am a passionate believer in regional airports, so I will not bow to the hon. Gentleman on that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If we can shave a minute off each Front-Bench speech, Adam Afriyie will get his five minutes.
High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is good that these points made by homeowners have been addressed. On Old Oak Common, what compensation is available to residents in Wells House Road and Midland Terrace in NW10, because they say that their suburban way of life will be demolished? Their gardens are being compulsorily purchased and then they will also have to deal with noise, disruption and all sorts of other things for 10 years. Whatever compensation scheme—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You can sit down and relax for a second, as I want to try to be helpful. The hon. Lady has just come in and normally I would just let that go, but we must have short interventions. If she wants to catch my eye to speak, I am more than happy for that to happen. That might be a good way to address this, but we must have short interventions as this debate will last only an hour and a half. Wherever I can be helpful, I will be.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes precisely the point that has already been raised by many residents about the existing provision before the hybrid Bill Committee. The additional provisions in AP2 will also allow them to have that say, so that, if necessary, mitigation can be put in place to lessen the impact of construction traffic and to look at alternative routes for traffic and other such things. I have been down the line of route, and I do understand many of the problems. Indeed, I was in Slough on Sunday, and saw the site from the train. I know exactly where it is located.
Michael Fabricant
The hon. Lady will recall that the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who was a doughty campaigner against HS2, had particular concerns about Euston. Has she given any consideration to the Mayor of London’s comment that, even if the changes can be made at Euston, it will be extremely difficult to get people on to London transport—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that I might be able to help. This motion does not relate to Euston, so we do not need to go into that now.
Lilian Greenwood
I will take your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are undoubtedly issues to be tackled at Euston. Three times now the residents of Camden have been presented with different plans for Euston station, with all the uncertainty that brings. Their treatment has clearly been inadequate, and I urge the Minister to shed a little light on when we can expect those additional provisions—I hope that I am still in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that a number of my hon. Friends have not been informed of the fact that the additional provisions would affect their constituencies? I know from discussions with a number of Members that they have had no communication from HS2 Ltd, or indeed from the Department, and consequently have had only one day’s notice that the changes are being debated. I know that the changes are a cause of concern to a number of hon. Friends. That situation is unacceptable, so I hope that the Minister will take it up with officials. The situation must not be repeated when further additional provisions are brought before the House.
Mr Jim Cunningham
As I said, and I hope my hon. Friend agrees, Ministers should look again at the compensation package. I have constituents who will not get a penny out of this. In particular, it lowers the value of their housing. They are just outside the catchment area and have been treated very unfairly; they cannot qualify for compensation from anybody.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are straying outside the area of discussion, which is very tight. There are MPs who want to discuss areas of theirs that are affected. I want to be as generous as I can, but it would be wrong of me to allow us to move into areas that are not for discussion today.
Lilian Greenwood
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
The Committee rightly acknowledged that decisions made on compensation for phase 1 may have consequences for the compensation arrangements for phase 2. The Government’s delay in finalising the route for phase 2 is causing planning blight. In the Committee’s words, “the incoming Administration”—it was speaking in March—
“should make an early decision on whether to proceed with Phase Two and, if it decides to proceed, quickly finalise the Phase Two route.”
That was two months ago. Will the Minister explain why a decision on phase 2 has been delayed, and will he commit to making a final decision by the end of the year?
We welcome the opportunity that the additional provision mechanism offers to refine the route, but as we look to the Government’s record it is difficult to resist a verdict of “Must do better.” Labour Members continue to support this important project and will continue to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny when it enters Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You do not need to answer that, because unfortunately we are having a very tight debate. As important as it may be to your constituents, the fact is that we are discussing the constituents affected by the route that is being talked about today. Unfortunately, I cannot allow the debate to wander further than where we are at the moment.
Drew Hendry
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Notwithstanding that, I think there are points—especially in local and national economies—that have to be developed through participation. We heard earlier that projects that have been designed can be improved, and the Minister said we need to avoid minor errors; he covered that earlier in terms of the report. We also need to avoid major errors, so I ask him to put more constituents at ease, to go a little further with additional provisions and to listen to the demands of the people of Scotland. He should ensure there is another alignment much further north of the west midlands and make sure that Scotland is connected.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am trying to be helpful. Quite rightly, you are the SNP spokesperson, but even the spokesperson must stick to what we are discussing. It is not a free for all, unfortunately.
Andy Slaughter
I will give way to the Minister in a moment. There will be room for more of “Boris’s mini-Manhattans”, which is what we will be graced with: these sky-high blocks of flats—all of which are empty, all of which are sold overseas and all of which are safe deposit boxes for dirty money from abroad—that will loom over Wormwood Scrubs for the foreseeable future.
Mr Goodwill
I wish that that were the cheapest option. We considered a number of options including North Pole East, the Crossrail depot, Reading, Southall, Ealing and Langley. Langley was the best option, as all the others involved operational issues, but it was certainly not the cheapest .
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Never has the gap between the Chancellor’s rhetoric and the reality of people’s lives been greater than it was today. This is a Budget that people will not believe from a Government who are not on their side. Because of the Government’s record, because of their instincts, because of their plans for the future and because the Chancellor, most extraordinarily, made no mention of investment in our national health service and our vital public services, this is a Budget that people will not believe from a Government they do not trust.
This Chancellor has failed the working families of Britain. For the first time since the 1920s, people are earning less at the end of a Government than they were at the beginning. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Quite rightly, I expected the Chancellor to be heard, and I certainly expect the same courtesy to be extended to the Leader of the Opposition.
Edward Miliband
People are £1,600 a year worse off. The next generation has seen wages plummet and tuition fees treble. The Government have built fewer homes than at any time in the past 100 years. It is certainly not a truly national recovery when there are more zero-hours contracts than the populations of Glasgow, Leeds and Cardiff combined. That is the reality of the lives of working people. These are the facts. These are the inconvenient truths of this Chancellor’s record. It is a recovery for the few from a Government of the few.
The Chancellor chose to make a number of references to me today. Let me just tell him that we are not going to take lessons on fairness from the trust fund Chancellor and the Bullingdon club Prime Minister. Not for the first time, this is a Budget from this Chancellor that simply will not be believed.
We support the change on the personal allowance, but on tax he gives with one hand and takes far more away with the other. Nobody believes this Chancellor when he says that he will cut their taxes, because that is not what has happened. Not only are wages down by £1,600, but taxes are up—24 tax rises. As a result of his measures, families are worse off by £1,127 a year, on average, which is equivalent to 8p on the basic rate of income tax. That is the reality behind a Budget that cannot be believed. Everyone knows what is coming if the Government get back in charge: another rise in VAT, the tax the Tories love to raise. Of course, in the finest Tory tradition, the lesson is this: deny it before an election and jack it up afterwards.
On living standards, which the Chancellor made much of in his speech, he knows that, as the official measure from the Office for National Statistics shows, people are clearly worse off under him, so he had a bright idea: invent a new measure of living standards to prove that what people know from their wallets and pockets to be true is somehow not true. People do not need a new measure that pretends they are better off; they need a new Government to make them better off. That is the reality behind a Budget that cannot be believed.
What about low pay, which the Chancellor also talked about in his speech? He poses today as the friend of the low-paid. You could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. There is too much noise coming from the back row. Mr Shelbrooke, do not think that I cannot see you just because you have moved position. The last thing I need is for you to explode. That would be good neither for you, nor for the Chamber.
Edward Miliband
I am bound to ask, whatever happened to the promise of a £7 minimum wage this year? The Chancellor made much of that 18 months ago, but he has broken that promise. The idea of this Chancellor boasting about a 20p rise in the minimum wage, expecting low-paid workers to be grateful: that is the reality behind a Budget that cannot be believed. Of course, the Chancellor does not just claim to be a friend of the low-paid; he now claims to be a friend of the north. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will not keep saying that I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition; I expect everybody to hear the Leader of the Opposition.
Edward Miliband
On the specifics, we are pleased that the Chancellor has adopted our policy of councils being able to keep 100% of business rates, but why not for every council right across the country? Why is he doing it for just one? [Interruption.] Oh, he has done it for two, says the Chief Secretary, helpfully. Is it not great? The Liberal Democrats locked in the boot of the Conservative party.
Let us talk about what the Chancellor has done to the north of England. Let us test whether he is a friend of the north—75% bigger cuts to local government budgets in the north than in the rest of the country. In the north-west, 400,000 working families have seen their tax credits cut. That is more than any other region. In the north-east the Chancellor is spending £1 on transport for every £25 he spends in London. He spent time in his speech praising northern councils. Let us see what northern councils have to say about him. He talked about Leeds. This is what the leader of Leeds council said—[Interruption.] Yes, Labour. The Chancellor was praising northern councils in his statement. Let us see what they have to say. The leader of Leeds council says that the Chancellor “fails to deliver the devolution we need. This Government is no friend of the north.”
For the interests—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. This is getting seriously out of hand. [Interruption.] Just a moment. He can shout all day. I have already looked at Mr Hands. He may hide behind Sir Tony, but we all know where he is. His voice carries and I know where he is sat. Sir Tony may move, but I recognise the voice. [Interruption.] I do not need any more help. All I will say to those on the Government Benches is let us listen. Let us get to the end because, as I said earlier, our constituents want to hear what both sides wish to say.
Edward Miliband
Joe Anderson, the mayor of Liverpool, said that the Chancellor has “bludgeoned Liverpool. We’ve had 58% of our funding taken away. Even Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask when he robbed people.” That is what he thinks of the Chancellor. [Interruption.] Hon. Members ask why I do not quote Conservative leaders. In the interests of balance, I would have liked to quote a Conservative leader of a northern city, but there are none, and with these two—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—in charge, there never will be.
The Chancellor spoke about tax avoidance in his statement, but the gap between what is owed and what is collected is up, not down, and no wonder. He has not acted on tax havens, despite the Prime Minister’s promises. He did not act on HSBC. In fact, he appointed the chairman as a Minister. What about hedge funds? Those were strangely absent from the Chancellor’s statement. Where was the action on stamp duty avoidance? It is costing well over £l billion a year. Of course the Government cannot act on hedge funds because they bankroll the Tory party. The Chancellor cannot act because they own him, lock, stock and barrel. The Conservative party is now just the political wing of the tax avoidance industry.
The biggest sleight of hand of all is on the deficit. The Chancellor was rewriting history today. Five years ago, the Prime Minister said: “We will balance the books in five years”—no ifs, no buts, no maybes, just like the immigration pledge. Today, the Chancellor comes along to boast that he has halved the deficit, but that is not what the Prime Minister used to say about halving the deficit. He said that would be “completely inadequate”. Let me get this straight—it has gone from completely inadequate to a great triumph. I do not think that will wash with people. The only thing long-term about the Chancellor’s plan is that it will take nearly twice as long to balance the books. And it cannot be believed—[Interruption.]
Edward Miliband
It cannot be believed, because we have heard it all before—five years of promising a recovery for all, five years of delivering a recovery for the few, and now the Chancellor asks us to believe it all over again. The most unbelievable thing of all is the Government’s claim that we are “all in it together”. They say yes to the bedroom tax, no to the mansion tax. Food banks are on the rise, bank bonuses are in the billions. Taxes are up for working families, taxes are cut for millionaires. The best thing one can say about the Chancellor and the Prime Minister is that when the removal vans turn up, they will be in it together.
The Chancellor’s failure on living standards, on tax and on the deficit are all linked. That is because our economy is too unproductive, too unbalanced and too insecure. There are some things that he did not mention in his statement today. Our productivity gap with the rest of the G7 is now the worst for a quarter of a century—on his watch. He talked again today about rebalancing, but the rebalancing that he promised has not happened. The Chancellor’s target for exports is set to be missed by over £300 billion. On this Budget’s figures, he has overseen the slowest recovery for 100 years. That is the reality behind the Budget that cannot be believed.
For all the window dressing today, the Government cannot tackle insecurity at work, because they think that is how we compete. They cannot make work pay, because they believe low pay is the way that we succeed. They cannot build an economy for working families, because they think wealth flows from the top. Not for the first time, the chairman of the Conservative party perfectly summed up Tory philosophy in his celebrated handbook, “Stinking Rich 3”. I am not sure what happened to “Stinking Rich 1 and 2”.
The Chancellor announced a number of measures on savings and it is important that we look at the detail of these changes. We want people to have more flexibility, including on annuities. He talked about advice in the annuity market. It is incredibly important that advice is available quickly because there are rip-off merchants ready to pounce. We know that it has happened before—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Williamson, you are this side of Mr Miliband. I can see you very easily.
Edward Miliband
This is a serious issue. We know that it has happened before. It happened in the 1980s—a dreadful mis-selling scandal—and the Chancellor needs to get proper regulation in place on these issues. We will look at the changes that he spoke about.
The glaring omission from this Budget statement was the national health service and public spending. It was an extraordinary admission. Where was that discussion of the national health service and investment in public services? It is time that we looked at the reality of this Government’s spending plans, because this is the Budget that cannot be believed. The Chancellor does not want us to know it, but he had an extreme spending plan yesterday and he has an extreme spending plan today. It is here in the Red Book in black and white. Page 69 shows his plan for extreme cuts in the next Parliament. Table 2.4 of the Red Book shows that he is trying to hide big cuts between 2015-16 and 2018, so let me tell the House what the Chancellor tried to hide. His plans are for at least as many cuts in the next Parliament as in this one, and the pace of cuts in the next few years will be faster than the cuts in the past few years.
Here is the thing, and it is important that the country knows it: the Chancellor came along today to try to suggest that the pain was over, but if the Conservatives get back, it is not. Their failure on the deficit means that they are planning massive cuts—billions of pounds of cuts—in the next Parliament.
You might ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, what is the evidence for it. There is a lot of evidence. Let us start with what the Prime Minister said in his education speech. He said they were going to cut early years, they were going to cut schools, and they were going to cut colleges: cuts in education spending. Short-changing education today means we cannot build a recovery for all tomorrow.
The position is most worrying of all on the national health service. The massive cuts that the Government have announced—all their Members will have to go and justify this to their constituents—mean that colossal cuts will be planned, and I emphasise “planned”, in defence, in policing, and in local government. But they will not be able to deliver those cuts, so they will end up cutting the national health service. That is the secret plan that dare not speak its name today. The Chancellor did not tell us—[Interruption.] You can tell they are really worried about it. The Chancellor did not tell us that his plans also continue massive cuts to social care. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The defence Minister and I do not want to fall out. If there are some letters to sign on her desk, that might be better if she cannot keep quiet.
Edward Miliband
They did not tell us that their plans involve massive cuts to social care as well. We have already, in this Parliament, seen hundreds of thousands fewer elderly people being cared for. What is the lesson? If you devastate social care, you betray the elderly and pile unsustainable pressure on our national health service—and these two are coming along and promising more of the same. That is why they cannot be trusted on the national health service.
Building a truly national recovery needs a new Government. We will not sit by when people are on zero-hours contracts month after month, year after year. Instead we will legislate for a new principle that if someone does regular hours they get a regular contract. The Chancellor talked about the minimum wage. Let us talk about what has happened on the minimum wage. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Williamson, be helpful to the Chamber, or I will be unhelpful to you, and I do not want to get to that stage. Let us hear Ed Miliband.
Edward Miliband
The minimum wage has gone up by just 70p in this Parliament. A Labour Government will raise it by more than double that to a minimum wage of more than £8 an hour. And we will have a real industrial policy.
The Chancellor has been a particularly malign influence in this Government on climate change. The Prime Minister used to claim that he believed in climate change. I have to say that it is extraordinary, even by his standards, to put a wind turbine on your roof and then want a moratorium on wind turbines. I know he is a stranger to consistency, but even by his standards that is going some. We will end the dabbling with climate change denial and have a proper green investment bank.
A Labour Government will support the young, not make them pay the price of hard times. We will ensure that every major Government contract will guarantee apprenticeships. We will cut tuition fees to £6,000 to reduce the burden of debt on young people—and let the Deputy Prime Minister defend his broken promises on the doorstep.
All of this will be underpinned by a balanced plan that cuts the deficit every year, protects education and health, and has fairer taxes—yes, I do believe in a progressive tax system—by reversing the Chancellor’s millionaires’ tax cut, introducing a mansion tax to fund the NHS, and abolishing the vindictive, unfair bedroom tax that he imposed. That is what a Labour Budget would do, from a Labour Government who know that Britain succeeds only when working families succeed.
Now we know the choice at the election. We have seen five years of falling living standards, young people paying the price of hard times, and the NHS going backwards. This Budget did not solve the problems facing working families; it confirmed them. Britain needs a better plan—a plan for working families. Britain needs a Labour Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I suggest to the House that I do not put a time limit on, but I expect Members to take up to 10 minutes and no longer, and then we shall get everybody in. I call Andrew Tyrie.
Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.
Bob Blackman
Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.
On new clause 2, the issue of securing consent for the disposal of land owned by TfL is well established in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It includes a statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The sponsors of the Bill therefore consider that further consent would be unnecessary and undesirable.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Let me help with the debate, which we want to get under way. Mr Corbyn, I want you to save your speech for when you seek to catch my eye, rather than use it now on an intervention.
Bob Blackman
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and the point behind it. On behalf of the—
Bob Blackman
I will not take any more interventions, as we have gone on long enough—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have no idea. It is not for the Chair to judge, thank goodness, and I do not need a crystal ball to work it out. The good thing is that the hon. Gentleman has at least made it clear that he does not want to take any more interventions and he wants to get his speech under way.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I hope it is a point of order. I know you would not wish to waste the Chair’s time, Mr Corbyn, because I want to call you to speak.
Jeremy Corbyn
I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is the sponsor of the Bill and responsible for conducting it through the House. Is it normal for the sponsor of a Bill to give way so that legitimate questions and concerns can be raised and answered?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thought my judgment was correct: that is not a point of order. You are after a point of clarification, but that is not up to me. It is up to the sponsor of the Bill whether he wishes to give way. He has been courteous and given way a couple of times. Perhaps if he is allowed to speak for a little longer, I can call the Opposition spokesman and then some Back Benchers. I would like to do that and hear what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has to say.
Bob Blackman
On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 21 to 29.
George Galloway
I can think of only one reason why they would be so opposed—public outrage would result. I am absolutely sure, in respect of the Earls Court development, to which I am about to turn, that had the public been properly informed about its development, public opposition to what in many respects is an act of vandalism would not have permitted the development—or at least the political cost would have been much higher.
On the subject of transparency, the promoter of the Bill is simply wrong. He said he was against a list because it would be too expensive, but then, in the same breath, he said that there was a list, and he prayed in aid the existence of a Greater London assembly. However, the assembly’s budget committee, no less, told the Committee—the House of Commons—that it had had to go to law, through freedom of information searches, to force Transport for London, which nominally it is supposed to supervise, to give it any information at all. So transparency is definitely not the middle name of Transport for London, and as long as that is the case, a suspicion will linger that grand theft auto is the game.
We have a right to say that if a public authority—in this case, Transport for London—is to get into bed with the private sector, the bed partners should be reputable and transparent and located here in Britain and paying tax in Britain. We know that in the case of Earls Court that is not true. Why do companies locate in the Channel Islands? Because they prefer the climate, or because they prefer the opaque nature of taxation matters there? Surely we all know, given what has happened over the past few years, exactly why these cowboy developers locate themselves as far from public scrutiny, media scrutiny and the rest as they possibly can.
I said that I would turn to Earls Court and I shall, but I notice that the brother of the Mayor has just left the Chamber. I had wanted him to be here when I said this. Forgive me, I have to say it: if public authorities and elected figures are going to play fast and loose, potentially, with large sums of public money, it is crucial that the public have trust in that institution or those public figures, but I do not believe that that trust exits when it comes to Transport for London or the current Mayor. I can speak ill of him now, but perhaps not in the new Parliament, should he be elected—no doubt you would be on your feet, Mr Deputy Speaker, and telling me to sit down. However, I do not believe that the conduct of public affairs by Boris Johnson over the past five years, or four years—of course he is going to continue breaking a promise in both offices—or the conduct of Transport for London—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying. I allowed him some leeway in this group of amendments, but it certainly does not cover the election of the Mayor of London, which is something we will pass over when this goes through. We need to stick to the new clauses and amendments.
George Galloway
I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker.
That leads me to my last point. The Earls Court exhibition centre was a particular favourite of mine—I declare that interest: I have skated in it, I have shopped for my ideal home in it, I have listened to Bob Dylan in it several times. It was an act of vandalism to have it closed, but even worse was the loss of hundreds of TfL jobs—skilled jobs, real jobs, jobs that most Members have no idea how to do, jobs where men and women make things and fix things. Those jobs were cleansed out of central London. That was an absolute outrage.
Even worse than that is the fact that hundreds and hundreds of affordable homes were cleansed from Earls Court to be replaced by apartments so lavish and so expensive that even Members of Parliament could not afford to live in them, let alone the local people whose housing stock was devastated at a stroke. That was all done with virtually no public scrutiny or accountability, and certainly no offer was made to other public authorities for the use of this land, as was the case prior to legislation in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said.
It really is an outrage—but it is, we fear, a sign of things to come. If this new clause is not passed and these amendments are not taken on board—no concession has been made from the other side—we fear that a sweetheart relationship between TfL and the Mayor, any Mayor, will exist to the detriment of the railway workers and of the bus workers whom I was proud to represent here in Parliament for many years as an MP sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. Local people, whose homes are razed as a result of these sweetheart deals, will be disadvantaged. What will be prejudiced most of all is the strategic need to keep London moving smoothly, economically and cheaply for the millions who depend on public transport.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Time is running out, but we are speaking to specific amendments and I do not want us to get into a general debate about the general election. We will be doing that soon enough—if we have not already been doing it for 12 months.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the reasoned way in which he has made his points. The reality is, however, that there is already a clear procedure for the disposal of former operational land. There is no need to go into the kind of detail set out in new clause 2. For that reason, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and all the other amendments in the group.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
John McDonnell
I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, leave out paragraph (2).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 5, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—
(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and
(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”
Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert
“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 15, page 2, leave out clause 4.
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:
(a) the Greater London Assembly
(b) the London boroughs
(c) the City of London
(d) passenger representative bodies, and
(e) relevant trades unions.”
Amendment 11, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.
Amendment 12, page 2, line 41, leave out
“including the creation of priority as between changes.”
Amendment 13, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment 30, page 3, line 13, leave out
“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) TfL shall not charge any property for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) unless—
(a) it has consulted the Greater London Assembly and published the results of that consultation, or
(b) the property falls within a category identified in the Schedule to this Act.”
Amendment 31, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6A) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6B) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include—
(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and
(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.
(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6D)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”
Amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) TfL shall conduct a review, and publish a report, after 12 months of the operation of the s49 Transport for London Act 2008 powers, as amended by this section, of the use and impact of those powers in relation to investment by subsidiaries of TfL in derivatives in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.
(6) Each subsidiary of TfL shall publish a report each year of the use made of the powers under s49 of the Transport for London Act 2008, as amended by this section, in relation to investments made in derivatives, or equivalent instruments, in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.”
John McDonnell
May I say at this stage that I would like to press amendments 1 and 33 to a Division? Amendment 1 straightforwardly takes out paragraph (2) from the preamble of the Bill. Paragraph (2) refers to the powers set out in clause 4. I will then turn to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on.
Amendment 1 is consequential to amendment 15. What they do is delete the powers of Transport for London, set out in the Bill, to borrow by giving securities in the way prescribed in clause 4. The amendments strike at one of the main objectives of the Bill. Even if we took out clause 4, and even clause 5, we would still retain clause 7, which I support. Clause 7 concerns the mitigation of risk through hedging powers to be provided to Transport for London.
I want to delete clause 4, to which amendments 1 and 15 relate, because I do not consider that it should be part of a private Bill. The purpose of the clause and the scale of the potential financial responsibility levied on London council tax payers and taxpayers militate against this being a private Bill; it should be a public Bill. Clause 4 should not stand in the Bill.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Miller
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she referred to a letter that she claims to have sent to the members of the Committee. I have checked my file—everything was sent electronically—and no such letter arrived in my office. I would be grateful if a copy of the letter could be made available to Members now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has clarified what he believes to be the position. The Minister may or may not wish to comment.
Amber Rudd
The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another copy.
The industry will need to show how it has complied with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators will need to publish evidence detailing how these commitments are being met. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied.
On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning and environmental permitting processes are already in place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the concerns that have been raised by the new clause.
New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of the application for environmental permits, the EA will require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they would pose an environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public register.
I have already announced that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to publish information about chemicals it requires operators to disclose.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has referred to the potential for further amendments to be introduced. I know we have had an iterative process here this afternoon, to put it mildly, but even I did not think there would be scope for the Government to introduce further amendments in this House. Will you rule on this issue and clarify whether the Minister is making a statement correctly or incorrectly?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Let me help by saying that it would be possible for the Lords to look at that and do something about the Bill at that stage.
Joan Walley
I am interested in that point of order because it sets out for us the situation we are in: we are going to be voting today in this House on something that is not before us, in the hope that the concerns that we do not have time to raise can then be addressed by amendments in the other place. That is just not the right way to make good legislation.
I am conscious that so many Members wish to speak, so let me just say that there should be a moratorium, that the Government have overlooked the needs of people all over the country and that without that public support this policy and this haste—going all out for fracking—is just a failed policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—National Infrastructure Commission—
‘(1) There shall be an independent National Infrastructure Commission.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the appointment, duties, functions and staffing of the National Infrastructure Commission.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may make provision for any consequential matter that the Secretary of State considers is necessary to establish the National Infrastructure Commission.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) In this section—
“National infrastructure” means infrastructure of strategic significance in or relating to the sectors including—
(a) transport covering ports, transport networks (including railways and roads) and aviation;
(b) energy;
(c) flood defences;
(d) hazardous waste;
(e) telecommunications;
(f) water; and
(g) such other sectors as are prescribed.”
New clause 12—Abolition of the Planning Inspectorate—
‘(1) The Planning Inspectorate is abolished.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), all the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are transferred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
(3) The functions of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to Wales are transferred to Welsh Ministers.
New clause 16—Use classes and demolition: drinking establishments—
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 3(6) add—
“(n) as a drinking establishment.”
(3) In the Schedule, leave out “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”.
(4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) is amended as follows.
(5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 under Class A: Permitted Development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 add—
“(c) the building subject to demolition is classed as a drinking establishment”.”
The purpose of this New Clause is to aim to ensure that any proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Currently such buildings can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted.
New clause 20—Community right of appeal—
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a planning authority grants an application for planning permissions and—
(a) the authority has publicised the application as not according with the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or
(b) the application is not supported by policies in an emerging development plan;
certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) below are met.
(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permissions in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—
(a) the ward councillors for the area who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority, or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity;
(b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum by two thirds majority voting, as defined in Section 61F, covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates is situated; or
(c) any overview and scrutiny committee by two thirds majority voting.
(2C) The conditions are:
(a) the application falls within the definition of “major development”;
(b) the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment;
(c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission.”
(3) Section 79 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “planning authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;
(b) in subsection (6), after “determination”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78 (2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 79 (2B)).
(4) In this section—
“emerging” means a development plan that is being examined by the Secretary of State, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage; and
“major development” means cases within categories defined in guidance produced by the Secretary of State.”
Government amendments 84, 45 and 46.
Amendment 53, page 27, line 9, in clause 28, at end insert
“provided that any designated property, rights or liabilities to be transferred pursuant to a scheme—
(a) have been classified as surplus;
(b) do not compromise land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment;
(c) do not extinguish any public right of way;
(d) are subject to transparent reporting of all aspects of the transaction to the Land Registry; and
(e) shall be subject to a test of viability that is underpinned by guidance and an open book approach.”
Government amendment 85.
Amendment 52, page 34, line 2, leave out clauses 30 to 32.
Amendment 54, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end insert
“and shall relate to buildings or developments of any size”.
Amendment 67, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end insert—
“(e) carbon abatement offsite must only be considered exceptionally, where:
(i) it has been demonstrated that the carbon abatement can not reasonably be met on the development site, and
(ii) the homes on the development site achieve a high standard of energy efficiency.”
Amendment 71, page 35, line 5, in clause 33, at end insert
“and where the requirement cannot reasonably be met on the building site.”
Amendment 72, page 36, line 21, in clause 33, at end insert—
‘(7) No variation to the requirement of the building regulations in respect of a building’s contribution to or effect on emissions of carbon dioxide may be made solely by regard to the number of buildings on any particular building site.”
Government amendments 91 to 93, 95, 100, 102 and 104 to 106.
Amendment 74, page 128, line 2, in schedule 8, leave out from “sharing” to end of line 4 and insert
“do not change its appearance.”
Amendment 75, page 132, line 20, in schedule 8, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 118, page 165, line 28, in schedule 8, leave out “or other vegetation”.
Amendment 119, page 165, line 30, in Schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.
Amendment 120, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.
Amendment 121, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, leave out from “lopped” to second “to” in line 42.
Amendment 122, page 166, line 2, in schedule 8, leave out
“or cutting back of the vegetation”.
Amendment 123, page 166, line 11, in schedule 8, leave out from “lopped” to end of line 12.
Amendment 124, page 166, line 13, in schedule 8, leave out “or cuts back vegetation”.
Amendment 125, page 166, line 16, in schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.
Amendment 126, page 166, line 24, in schedule 8, leave out
“or cutting back of the vegetation”.
Government amendments 107 and 108.
Stephen Williams
The group touches on an incredibly wide range of issues, but I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments and new clauses that have aroused significant interest across the House.
Government new clause 14 relates to the Greater London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I promised him that I would look urgently at the legislative options available to address this important issue. We have concluded that it is necessary to make a minor change to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and have therefore proposed the new clause.
The new clause removes a prohibition in section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act preventing the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by its functional body, Transport for London, if it relates to housing and regeneration. We are making this change to the 1999 Act because the GLA has said that, because TfL’s powers are wide-ranging, they preclude the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport related. This includes expenditure on transport elements of projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in London, which the GLA has been responsible for since 1 April 2012, when it took on the roles, land and contracts of the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency in London. The new clause will apply in relation to expenditure incurred by the GLA before, as well as after, the coming into force of the new clause, because it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the GLA should have powers equivalent to those of the LDA and HCA following the Localism Act 2011. Making this change to the 1999 Act is therefore essential to ensure that the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London.
Government amendment 95 provides for new clause 14 to extend to England and Wales only, and Government amendment 102 provides for the amendment to the 1999 Act to come into force on the day the Act is passed. Government amendment 85 relates to clause 29 and will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by the HCA, GLA and mayoral development corporations can develop and use land without being affected by easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 29 will bring the position of purchasers of land from the HCA, GLA and MDCs into line with those currently enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I welcome the Bill because I believe infrastructure is the key to our economy and recovery. I managed to secure £123 million-worth of investment for a link to the M6 motorway in my constituency. That road has been discussed for 60 years. My constituents can now see that vital route being built, and are grateful to the Department for Transport for giving the road the green light, if hon. Members will excuse the pun.
The road has brought with it an upgrade to the port, a footprint for the third nuclear power station in Heysham, and countless contracts for business in the White Lund industrial estate, not to mention a projected rise in house prices in the area. My constituents know only too well the benefits of infrastructure to our local economy.
No area in the country should be left to stand still, and I welcome the Government’s ambitions for a northern powerhouse. My constituents welcome the Chancellor’s vision, because they believe that too many of our past Governments’ policies have benefited only the south of our country. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There seems to be some kind of noise. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s phone or is something else being picked up?
David Morris
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the Bill’s sentiments, which allow for long-term funding for strategic road building projects. A much needed strategic link in my constituency is a transport tunnel under the bay towards the Furness peninsula. A transport tunnel on that scale is the obvious next step as an extension, or phase 2, of the M6 link project. It would not only link the M6 to the port and nuclear power stations in Heysham, but create a streamlined route for access across the bay to the nuclear installations and BAE Systems on the Cumbrian coast. I want a tunnel that would allow two-way traffic between Heysham and Barrow. Currently that journey takes approximately one hour and 30 minutes, but a tunnel would cut it to 20 or 30 minutes maximum, saving more than two thirds of the journey time and freeing up traffic on the road in a vast rural area.
The inspiration for such a tunnel is twofold. For many years various groups have discussed how to link those two strategic areas, and there have been suggestions of a cableway across the bay and a barrage bridge over the sands. Before the economic downturn in 2007, £800 million was reportedly on the table from the Bank of Scotland to construct a barrage, but due to Morecambe bay being designated a site of special scientific interest and a habitat for rare birds and wildlife, the idea never became a reality. It shows, however, that there is commercial interest in linking the two areas.
Early this year I was approached by National Grid, which as part of connecting new energy installations in Cumbria came up with the idea of a power cable under Morecambe bay. The idea is currently under consultation. National Grid believes that as the tunnel would go under the sands and would not disrupt wildlife, it will not come up against the same environmental constraints as the barrage project did. National Grid invited me to Willesden junction in London to see the power tunnel that is being built underneath us right now, and to show me the technology it used. I was fascinated by the visit, which showed me that the technology for a tunnel not only exists in this country, but that it is being utilised as we speak. We have some of the best tunnelling experts in the world, and if a power tunnel can be built under the sands there is no reason why a transport tunnel would not be a viable option.
In my constituency, funding is becoming a bottleneck. Since becoming Member of Parliament I have secured more than £700 million of investment from the Government, and the area is booming with business. Opening the area further to the Furness peninsula would greatly benefit the many manufacturing and energy companies on my side of the bay and the peninsula. On the Cumbrian coast we have BAE Systems, Sellafield, and the National Nuclear Laboratory. If workers at Heysham power station in my constituency could access those sites more easily, it would create greater scope for the sites to work together. A tunnel would create more employment opportunities in science and technology for young people in my constituency. Both areas have expertise in energy and engineering, and if they linked together it would create an Aberdeen effect for skilled workers in both areas.
Due to the M6 link, Heysham port is receiving an upgrade to enable it to process larger and bigger ships. A faster link to Furness would mean that more companies on the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland and Cumbria would be able to use the port, creating more jobs and economic benefits for the area. A link under the bay would also help the local University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. Under the last Government the hospital faced many problems, and recent reports suggest that the biggest factor holding the trust back was the locations of the two sites. Lancaster and Barrow are not naturally linked, and it is a long and stressful journey to travel between the two. It is difficult to transport staff and patients between the two sites, and even more difficult to practise a joined-up approach. A tunnel would halve the journey between the two sites, allowing them to work more easily and closely together.
The tunnel would go not fully into Barrow but across the coast to Heysham where it would join the existing road network. Residents from both sides of the bay have contacted me in recent weeks to express their support for the scheme, and it seems to have captured public imagination. For such a project to go ahead we would need private entities to come forward and agree to proceed with it. As I said earlier, £800 million was on the table for a barrage about five years ago, and there is no reason why such a project should not attract the same investment again.
I am in talks with the local enterprise partnership in Lancashire, and hope that it will fund a feasibility study. I will meet representatives from it in the next few weeks to discuss the proposal further. The transport tunnel is a huge undertaking that will require a considerable amount of investment, but I have a can-do attitude and firmly believe that after securing funding for the M6 link project after 60 years of deliberation, no scheme is too big to be delivered. I look for guidance from my right hon. Friend the Minister as to how the tunnel could become reality and economically boost Morecambe and Lunesdale, and how this Bill can help my constituency become more of a part of the Chancellor’s northern powerhouse.
Local Bus Services
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is clear that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) is an optimist, looking forward to a Labour Administration next year. I cannot say I share his optimism on that.
Opposition day debates inevitably result in Opposition parties choosing a subject for debate in which they can make what they hope will be points that resonate with their voters, and attack the Government. I have to say that if that was the aim today, it has been a pretty weak attempt. We all recognise the importance of bus services: they provide access to work, hospitals and leisure facilities; and it is important that we mention that they provide essential services in rural areas and are vital to the countryside economy.
Do we need more regulation in order to achieve a solution? Of course, the Labour solution is always to produce more regulation. I am not wholly opposed to regulation—I recognise that some is necessary, and as long as the system works and is affordable, that is fine by me—but the key to better bus services is surely co-operation between local authorities and the private sector: it is partnership working.
I query the reference that was made to the loss of 1,300 bus routes. I suspect that some routes have in fact been merged, and I can give a number of examples. One of my own local authorities, in co-operation with Stagecoach, has just gone through that process.
We have heard that Opposition Members want London-style powers to make improvements. Of course, one cannot plan bus services in Cleethorpes, Barton-on-Humber or Fleetwood in the same way as those in our big cities, most notably London. Big cities are very different from the provinces and rural areas, and need different solutions. Is it seriously suggested that bus services under the control of cash-strapped local authorities will produce stable or even lower fares, better services and newer vehicles? What we need is bus operators that are prepared to innovate with ticketing initiatives and fare schemes.
Partnerships do work. I was a North East Lincolnshire council cabinet member for a number of years, and my brief included transport. I was involved in a number of quality partnership arrangements and here, I congratulate the previous Labour Government. One of those initiatives was the Kickstart scheme, which I believe was initially developed by Stagecoach and taken on board by that Government. A Stagecoach document states that the Kickstart scheme was
“driven by the entrepreneurial expertise of bus operators, who carry the business risk and have an incentive to grow passenger volumes, rather than by local authority planners.”
The document acknowledges:
“Central and local government already play a key role in developing non-commercial, socially necessary bus services by working in partnership with bus operators and providing public support.”
In that way, improvements can be made. It goes on to describe Kickstart as a concept involving
“a contract between the bus operator and Government which commits to a specified level of service linked to an agreed public investment profile”
and the risk being
“carried by the bus operator, rather than perpetual subsidy”.
I am sure that we have all had experiences in our constituencies of battles to get a grant to keep a particular service running for two or three years, knowing that we will get the political brickbats when the grant runs out. Such services are usually unsustainable without some cost to the public purse. Schemes such as Kickstart, which put the onus on the operator, are therefore crucial. The Stagecoach document goes on to state:
“The Kickstart fund would cover the difference between the projected revenue and cost of the project. However, the risk would be borne by the bus operator, so that if passenger volumes and revenue do not rise in line with projections…the bus operator would…absorb the loss.”
That is key, particularly in these cash-strapped days.
There are risks attached to subsidy. Any form of subsidy could tempt the less-than-scrupulous operator to, shall we say, adjust the figures to show a less profitable or unprofitable situation. The operator could then go to the local authority, which would feel obliged to say, “Yes, we can’t do without that service because the village would be cut off”. The subsidy would duly arrive, and a year or two later—or perhaps just months later—the operator would come back and say, “I’m afraid we’re going to have to stop the service in the evenings and on Sundays because the subsidy just isn’t enough.” This would, in effect, be a form of blackmail for the local authority.
We are all familiar with phone-and-ride and dial-a-ride schemes. These are community initiatives that are usually set up by local authorities, sometimes in partnership with bus operators. They are an essential lifeline for members of the public, particularly those who are disabled or who have difficulty accessing essential facilities. Certainly—
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
Interestingly, we seem to be hearing arguments in favour of quality contracts being imposed by central Government. I am not sure whether that is what the Opposition are after, but it seems rather odd to take away local authorities’ decision making. Buses are extraordinarily important, as everyone who has spoken today has said. The question is: what are we going to do? I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) express her admiration for TfL, but the idea that we could somehow magically roll out that model across the rest of the country seems a little ambitious to me.
As we know, people are usually disabled more by their environment than by their physical condition. We have seen in rural areas a disabling of young people who do not have much money; they are unable to go anywhere or do anything because they cannot afford to drive a car. That is why it is so important to promote the policy of making it affordable for young people to be able to take a bus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) talked about so ably.
However, there are difficulties. How do we provide a bus service in an area where one large bus might have to travel several miles with only one passenger on board, and how do we make that affordable? That is the difference between subsidies for London buses and subsidies for rural buses. A subsidy for a London bus means that most of the time it will have a significant number of passengers, whereas the same subsidy for a rural bus means trying to make up for the fact that at times it will have no passengers on board. The situations are so different that they cannot possibly have the same solution. The further we get from a major town, the truer that becomes, and when we get to some parts of Somerset and Cornwall the whole situation has changed completely.
There are some answers: more bus shelters; bus shelters with areas for bicycles; feeder routes, with smaller buses feeding on to larger buses; and using local voluntary groups to try to fill the gap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) explained. However, we definitely need to look at totally different solutions for rural areas, rather than thinking that we can impose a policy that works in urban areas. Part of that is obviously about devolving more decision making to local parish and borough councils. However, we cannot simply sit in this House, click our fingers and have a solution for rural bus services. It is more important to look for a solution there than to look for it anywhere else, because there are no alternatives and the distances are far larger. A person in a city can walk 2 miles for a job, but there is no way someone in the country can walk 10 miles for a job.
Another consideration for disabled people, particularly blind people, is the lack of audio-visual solutions on buses. For some extraordinary reason, every bus company quotes thousand and thousands of pounds for the cost of retrofitting a bus in that way. We know that we can get quite a simple system to make announcements of that sort. My noble Friend Baroness Kramer has set up an audio-visual competition—we will have the results soon—to come up with a solution to make it far cheaper to retrofit buses. That is something the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association supports. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will take note of the results of that competition and help us roll it out across the country.
Returning to quality bus contracts, they can pose a significant financial risk to local authorities, and it seems that nobody arguing for them today has mentioned that. It could also squeeze out small companies, and I think that it is vital that we encourage small companies to take part in this. My personal preference is for quality partnership schemes to allow for the best aspects of a quality contract without the risks and reduced competition for smaller companies. I commend many of these ideas to the House. I would like to see a cross-party investigation into how buses can be improved, rather than argue about whether to have a quality contract, a quality partnership, less regulation or more regulation. We need a solution, not an argument.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Pat Glass. It would be helpful to Front-Bench spokesmen if she could shave a minute off her time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have received a report from the Tellers in the Aye Lobby from the earlier Division at 4.11 pm. They inform me that the number of those voting Aye was erroneously reported as 248 instead of 238. The Ayes were 238; the Noes were 287.
Cycling
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I help both parties for a moment? We are well behind time and a lot of people are also interested in bees. I know that it is important to get to the end of this, Minister, but I do want to come to a conclusion.
Mark Lazarowicz
On railway stations, will the Minister examine the question I raised about Edinburgh Waverley and perhaps come back to me on it later? I know it relates to Scotland but there is wider interest in it. It is an important point affecting passengers throughout the UK.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree, and I very much appreciate what the right hon. Lady said in her speech.
There are measures to deal with environmental damage. I mentioned floating slab track to deal with vibration, but there are also noise barriers disguised by foliage and tunnelling where necessary. All sorts of things can be done: they cost a bit extra, but they make the project much more acceptable. Getting the line right in the first instance is absolutely fundamental, and many of my good friends tell me that the line is not right, especially north of Birmingham, but also between London and Birmingham. All sorts of details need to be argued, which will take the Committee a long time. HS2 is a much bigger project than Crossrail, and the Crossrail Bill Committee took two years. We met every week, and there were lots and lots of petitions. There will be many more for HS2, so we are looking at a big job.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned speed, and recently there was talk about reducing the maximum speed from 250 mph to 183 mph—or 300 kph—and going at the speed of HS1. It was an arbitrary decision—“Oh well, let’s just reduce the speed”—which changes a lot of suggested journey times. I have spoken in the House about journey times, and criticised the project in that regard, as it seems that someone can just make a quick decision—“Oh well, we won’t go there. We’ll decide to change the speed.” There is a problem with high-speed trains, which cannot go round tight curves as they would fall off the track. Curves have to be gradual and of a large radius, which causes all sorts of problems. That does not apply to trains on standard rail, with a speed of up to 125 mph or 135 mph.
Raising the speed from 300 kph to 250 mph demands a tremendous increase in energy. Energy costs are much greater at higher speed, and extra emissions from power stations required to drive electric trains are disproportionately increased. Optimum railway speeds are much lower—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Quite a few more Members want to speak and I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman’s speech to turn into a Second Reading speech. I would have thought that the motions are more important at this stage.
Kelvin Hopkins
I shall conclude in a moment as I have basically made my points.
I would be happy to support all the amendments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham were they ever put to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take them into account. I am also in favour of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, who is not her place, and all the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that we see some common sense in the long run.