Rising Cost of Transport

Debate between Louise Ellman and Kwasi Kwarteng

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Transport is a vital issue. It is essential for people to get to work and to get to social amenities. That is why it is so important that we debate not just the provision of transport itself, but the cost—because transport has to be affordable if it is to be put to best use. I shall confine my comments to the rail service, and I shall refer to some of the findings of the Transport Committee’s report on rail, which was recently published. There will be an opportunity tomorrow to debate the Select Committee’s report on bus services, and I hope there will be the same number of Members in Westminster Hall tomorrow afternoon as there are in this Chamber today.

It is important to note that rail is, in fact, increasingly popular. The number of people travelling by rail has doubled in recent years, while the amount of freight carriage has increased by about 40%. There is rising concern, however, about fare levels. I assume that that explains why the Government’s proposal to increase regulated fares by an average of RPI plus 3% was reduced to RPI plus 1%—because of the public outcry and concern about increased fares. It is also true that the Government are implementing a policy—indeed, they inherited it—whereby passengers were expected to pay an increasingly higher percentage of the cost of rail than the taxpayer. Important issues remain about how this policy is applied, about the cost of running the railways, about how efficiencies can be achieved and about how costs and the allocation of subsidies can be assessed.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady made an important point in saying that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in government and Labour decided to shift to some degree the cost of rail transport from the taxpayer to the passenger. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) did not comment on the issue from the Front Bench, so I was wondering what level of subsidy and what proportion of the cost should be borne by the passenger?

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Debate between Louise Ellman and Kwasi Kwarteng

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I certainly hope that the aspirations of the people of the region that have been raised by the Arab spring are realised and that the lives of people throughout that region, and, indeed, beyond it, are improved. It is significant to note that before the Arab spring took place, there was very little, if any, coverage in the national media of the atrocities and lack of democracy that were a reality in those countries. Indeed, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights failed to condemn what was happening in those countries, which perhaps places a big question mark over the efficiency of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

This is a wide-ranging debate, and I would like to comment on a number of areas. First, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the situation in Yemen. I know that the commitments made by the President to take action to bring democracy to the country are doubted by many people. I hope that the British Government will do all they can to ensure that the promises materialise and that the current regime will be replaced by a democratic one that reflects the interests of the people of Yemen.

Iran—not, of course, an Arab country—has been mentioned as an important player a number of times in this debate. I urge our Government to look at the plight of the Baha’i people in Iran and to note the continued persecution and new wave of arrests of the Baha’i minority. It is wrong that what is happening to that minority group is ignored by far too much of the world. I ask Ministers to make a statement about what they going to do to try to ensure that the Baha’i people are not intimidated or persecuted as they are now.

I shall also comment on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute and how I hope matters might be pressed so that justice can be achieved. The context of everything I want to say is that I firmly believe that the only way in which justice can be brought both to Palestinians and Israelis is to have two states of Israel and Palestine with negotiated borders, with an agreed settlement on refugees and an agreed sharing of Jerusalem. These objectives are not as far away as many people may believe. Indeed, a number of significant negotiations have come very close indeed to finding resolutions to those difficult issues. As I say, those issues will be resolved only by detailed negotiations between the parties concerned. It is right that the Quartet and others try to assist the negotiations, but a lasting solution can be brought about only by agreement between those two main parties. Calls for boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment will not bring peace and will not bring security. Direct negotiations are the only way.

It is a common call for there to be an end of the occupation to resolve this dispute. Indeed, I am opposed to occupation—the occupation of one people by another has to be bad both for the occupied as well as the occupiers—but too often ignored in debates on this issue is the fact that Israel has withdrawn from lands it occupied in its defensive war in 1967, when its existence was threatened by the armies of Arab states around it. Israel has withdrawn from territories it occupied, in response to offers of peace. Perhaps the best example was in 1979, when Israel withdrew from the whole of Sinai as part of a negotiated agreement with Egypt. Until now—and, we hope, in the future, although sadly there seems to be a question mark over this—there has been peace between Egypt and Israel. It has often been described as a cold peace, but it is nevertheless a peace. In 1994, Israel reached agreement with Jordan, which has also continued. Israel has withdrawn from territories occupied when threats were made to its very existence and peace has resulted from it. It is also the case that Israel has withdrawn from other territories it occupied as a result of attacks, but peace has not been the result.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Given what is happening in Egypt at the moment, what is the hon. Lady’s sense of the Israeli position regarding the peace treaty and what might happen in Egypt? Given her extensive knowledge, will she inform us of her opinion on this issue?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I understand that Israel fervently wishes to maintain its peace treaty with Egypt. However, it is concerned about statements that have been made by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which suggest that it would like to review or, indeed, drop the treaty. Israel wishes to maintain it, and I hope that that can be achieved.

Israel has withdrawn from territories that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, and the consequence of that withdrawal has not been peace. In 2000, Israel correctly withdrew completely from south Lebanon. The consequence of that was the occupation of the area by the Iran-backed Hezbollah, followed by attacks on Israeli citizens. Although it was a correct withdrawal from occupied territory, it did not lead to peace.

More recently, in 2005, the Israelis correctly withdraw all their 8,000 settlers and military personnel from Gaza. As we all know only too well, the result of that was not peace but the election of Hamas—refusing to recognise Israel’s existence—and the firing of thousands of rockets and other missiles on Israeli civilians in Sderot, Be’er Sheva, Ashkelon and Ashdod. The withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza, which I fully support, did not lead to peace.

People talk as though withdrawal and the end of occupation inevitably lead to peace. I stress again that I am against occupation, but in those two instances at least, when Israel has withdrawn from lands that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, peace has not been automatic. Moreover, when people advocate the withdrawal of Israelis from occupied lands, it is not always clear exactly which occupied lands they are talking about. Are they talking about 1967 or about 1948? Here in London a few months ago, on al-Quds day, it was evident what was meant by many of the campaigners against Israel’s policies and against Israel itself. One illustration of that was a big placard held up by a young child, bearing the unfortunate words “For world peace, Israel must be destroyed”. That is hardly conducive to efforts to find a solution.

I also note that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s logo features a map that does not depict Israel as existing at all. When I hear calls from that organisation for Israel to end its occupation, I question what it really means. Is it talking about a negotiated solution to the problem of land that is occupied as a result of attacks on Israel in 1967, or is it talking about there being no Israel at all? We must know what people mean, in what context they are speaking and where they are coming from if we are to assess the validity of the criticisms that they are making at any given time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

The state of Israel exists, and has every right to exist. Indeed, I know of no other country in the world in respect of which when its future is discussed questions are raised about the existence of the state itself. I agree that the state of Palestine, which does not exist at present, ought to be set up, but it can only be set up side by side with Israel on the basis of detailed negotiations about borders, refugees and Jerusalem.

Discussions have taken place, following past negotiations which ultimately failed, about the issue of Palestinian refugees. The solution to that problem can only come about by agreement between the parties, and on the basis that Palestinian refugees are to be able to return to a Palestinian state and, by agreement, to Israel and in agreed numbers, with compensation to be offered. I note that the critics of Israel often talk about the right of return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel, rather than to Palestine. That, of course, is simply code for the destruction of the state of Israel, but that distinction is seldom recognised.

There is a lack of balance in discussions on this issue. I am, for instance, increasingly concerned about the attempts to demonise and delegitimise the state of Israel. The term “Zionism” is now used as a term of abuse, which is wholly unacceptable. Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people for a homeland in the state of Israel. Like all national movements, it contains a range of individuals and parties with very different views. Zionism is not a term of abuse, and when it is used as such, that illustrates the demonisation of the state of Israel itself.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady mentions Zionism in the context of the creation of the state of Israel, but does she recognise that that term does not quite mean support for the state of Israel in today’s political context?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and agree with what he said.

I am also increasingly concerned about the loose use of language, which is leading to a creeping anti-Semitism in this country and elsewhere, causing increasing concern among the Jewish community. I was extremely concerned to see on the website of the Liverpool Friends of Palestine a cartoon—this was viewed on 9 September—headed “The power of Zionists”. It depicts a stereotypical Jewish man—a man with a large hook nose holding a Jewish emblem in his hand—pointing to an American soldier under the heading, “Join the United States army” and at the bottom it says “and fight for Israel”. That cartoon could have come out of Nazi literature, given the depiction and the heading “The power of Zionists”. I was appalled to see that and although it has now been removed from the Liverpool Friends of Palestine website, I must ask how it came to be there and what kind of thought was behind it. I gather that it is not a solitary example of what is happening on websites of similar groups.

Some years ago, the New Statesman had a front cover with the big headline “A Kosher Conspiracy?” Underneath that headline was a cartoon depiction of a Jewish symbol—an Israeli Magen David—piercing the British Union Jack, among other things, thus raising the old anti-Semitic allegation that Jewish people are not sincere citizens of their country. After considerable controversy, and some weeks later, the editor said that he had no understanding of what he was doing when that was published, that he did not mean it to be done in the way it was done and that he did not know it was reminiscent of Nazi literature and old stereotypes, and he apologised for it. That occurred some years ago, but this loose language is now going rather further.

I read with increasing concern an article by Deborah Orr in The Guardian on 19 October about the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from his captivity with Hamas. After long, hard bargaining, the Israeli Government eventually decided that the only way they could secure his release was by accepting the proposed deal from Hamas that more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners should be released. The fact that the Israeli Government accepted that has been controversial in Israel for a lot of reasons, including the fact that among those 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released in exchange were extremely serious terrorists and murderers, including those who sent the bombs to the young people in the pizza parlours of Jerusalem and to the old people at the Passover service at the Park hotel in Netanya, and those responsible for many other atrocities. The Israeli Government felt that they should strike that deal because they felt that realistically it was the only way in which Gilad Shalit would be released.

I was appalled when I read Deborah Orr’s article in The Guardian, which was entitled “Is an Israeli life really more important than a Palestinian’s?” When talking about the background to the situation, she said:

“At the same time…there is something abject in their”—

the Israelis’—

“eagerness to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe—that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.”

That is basic anti-Semitism.

I am sure that Deborah Orr is not anti-Semitic, and indeed, she later published an apology of sorts, in which she stated:

“Last week, I upset a lot of people by suggesting Zionists saw themselves as ‘chosen’. My words were badly chosen and poorly used, and I’m sorry for it.”

Deborah Orr did say that, but just as I was concerned a number of years ago when the New Statesman felt that it was perfectly in order to have the sort of front page it had—one headlined “A Kosher Conspiracy?” and questioning Jewish people’s loyalty to their country, the United Kingdom—I am concerned that Deborah Orr, not an anti-Semite, thought it was all right to write about Zionists in terms of the word “chosen” in that derogatory manner, when the Israeli Government had done all they could do to secure the release of a soldier. The conditions came from Hamas, not from the Israelis. These are all great warning signs that loose language is now causing more anti-Semitism to be around and to cause disquiet within British society.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady has alluded to references in sections of the British media. My concern is ensuring that she would not besmirch the entire range of British media with the accusation of anti-Semitism, because that is a grave charge. I just wanted clarification on that.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not refer to the whole of the British media. I made my comments in relation to one instance in the New Statesman and I referred to Deborah Orr’s article in The Guardian. I also note that the editor of its readers’ section has recently acknowledged that the way in which The Guardian has used these words has helped to encourage the growth of anti-Semitism. My comments are very specific: they related to the journals and articles that I mentioned. This is not about the British media as a whole, which do not all share this weakness and looseness of language.

What matters most is that there should be a resolution to the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my contribution, which is that the only way to bring that about, on the basis of two states living side by side in security and peace, is through a resumption of direct negotiations. I hope that our Government will continue to do all they can to ensure that that comes about.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between Louise Ellman and Kwasi Kwarteng

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The headlines in the debate on the comprehensive spending review have concentrated mainly on justified concerns about cuts to family support, welfare and housing. However, in my contribution I wish to focus on some of the main questions about transport.

Transport is vital to most of what happens in this country. It is vital to economic development, to enabling people to get to work and to quality of life. It enables people to lead full lives and guards against social exclusion. I welcome the headlines in the settlement on transport, including the focus on some specific investments which is very welcome, but I wish to draw the House’s attention to some major issues that need much fuller investigation.

The first is that of fairness in investment and regeneration—with the accompanying jobs—across the country. At the moment, transport investment in London per head is three times higher than in other regions. It is unclear whether the proposals in the settlement will change that or simply exacerbate the difference. I welcome the announcement that Crossrail will go ahead. I know how important that is in London—and it has national implications—but there is an ominous silence about the go-ahead in a proper timescale for electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool line. I noted the strange answer from the Secretary of State for Transport this morning, which avoided the issue completely. We have had no clarity about electrification on the Great Western line or whether the northern hub will go ahead in the way envisaged. All those projects are important for economic regeneration and have implications for the release and provision of rolling stock across the north. We need much clearer and quicker answers to those questions.

Great concern has also been expressed about the dramatic fare increases in the settlement. The increase in train fares could see the fare from Manchester to London increase from just over £65 to £88—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Ellman]

I am sorry, but I have very little time and other hon. Members wish to speak.

Bus fares often do not get sufficient attention, but many lower-income people depend on buses to get to work and local amenities. But there will be a severe cut in bus services’ operators grant, which could mean higher bus fares and fewer bus services. The cut in that grant combined with cuts in revenue support to local authorities could mean that less money is available to enable buses to be provided where services are needed for social reasons rather than to make increased profits for the bus operating companies. We have had very little clarity about what that means.

Another important matter that has not been mentioned by Government Transport Ministers concerns the implications of a settlement on the critical issue of road safety. One of the unrecognised success stories of recent years has been the big reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. Every single death and serious injury is a tragedy for the individuals and their families, but it is significant that, in the past year alone, there has been a 12% reduction in the number of people killed on our roads. The reason for that reduction is that local and central Government have combined in a number of measures to make our roads safer.

It is extremely disturbing, therefore, that we now have a cut in—an elimination of, in some cases—the specific grants to local authorities that enable them to go ahead with road safety schemes, together with a change in national direction and the abolition, I understand, and the complete axing of the previous Government’s effective public education campaign on road safety. That combination of Government and local action was very important in reducing the number of road casualties. Has any thought been given to how the cuts in this spending will affect the number of deaths on our roads? That is critical.

I am also extremely concerned about the difficulties facing strategic road schemes under the new arrangements. Such schemes matter because they bring jobs and economic benefits to local areas, but the projects currently decided on through the regional allocations now have nowhere to go and, from the Transport Secretary’s written statement today, it seems clear that he too has no answers. Local economic partnerships are no substitute for proper regional thinking that cuts across local authorities and provides vital economic lifelines—by giving access to ports, for example.