North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Debate between Louise Ellman and Martin Horwood

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[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Israel has withdrawn from territories that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, and the consequence of that withdrawal has not been peace.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 I stress again that I am against occupation, but in those two instances at least, when Israel has withdrawn from lands that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, peace has not been automatic.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.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand the genuine anxieties that the hon. Lady is voicing. However, she must accept that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have made it clear that they are talking about negotiation more or less on the 1967 borders, and that anything beyond the 1967 borders of Palestine must therefore be Israel. That is an implicit, if not explicit, recognition of Israel’s absolute right to exist. By responding so aggressively to the peaceful and diplomatic approach to the United Nations made by the Fatah administration—by responding with extended settlements and threats to the economic and financial viability of the Palestinian Authority—Israel is surely playing into the hands of the very extremists, bomb-makers and rocket-makers to whom the hon. Lady is referring.

[Mrs Ellman]

I acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority has played a constructive role in the attempt to make progress. That is clear from the way in which it has worked with the Quartet and others on the west bank, the dramatic increase in prosperity there, and the way in which—again, working with the Quartet—it has developed its security forces and the civil administration. That could easily and quickly make Palestine into a viable and successful country, if only the political negotiations could make progress. I also think it important for the Palestinian Authority to recognise that the solution lies in urgent negotiations rather than declarations at the United Nations which, in practice, will not solve any of the practical and difficult problems that need to be addressed. The Palestinian Authority should be urged to return to those negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

It would be highly desirable for Hamas to change its position. Indeed, it is essential that it does so in order to enable proper negotiations to proceed on the basis of there being two states.

[Martin Horwood]

Is there not an instructive example from our own country, however, in the way in which we drew Sinn Fein and the IRA into the process of negotiation and eventually a settlement even while there was still some violence going on, and even while those organisations were still committed to the abolition of the Province of Northern Ireland and to its incorporation into the Irish state? That political issue was resolved only at the very end of the negotiations, with the signing of the Good Friday agreement. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we should be trying to draw Hamas into the democratic process and the negotiating process, and not setting preconditions that even we ourselves did not set in our own peace process?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sinn Fein only became part of the peace process—indeed, it did not become part of it directly—when it changed its position in respect of recognition, and I also do not recall that it had a theological basis of hatred for the British state.

[Martin Horwood]

I am sure the hon. Lady will remember that the mantra during the Northern Ireland peace process was that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. The final commitments only came right at the end of the process.

[Mrs Ellman]

The whole process brought about changes, but there was acceptance only when Sinn Fein changed its position, and I repeat that I am not aware of its having had a theological determination to eliminate the existence of the British state. Hamas not only has a theological determination to eliminate the state of Israel, but is acting on that by sending its rockets over.

Rail Investment

Debate between Louise Ellman and Martin Horwood

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Indeed, electrification has been promised between London and Didcot, Oxford and Newbury; but there is no promise and no confirmation of electrification of the line into Wales. In December, the Secretary of State told us that discussions were ongoing with the Welsh Assembly Government, but what will happen is still unclear. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the impact of the delay—is it a delay or a postponement, or is it a cancellation?—on the Welsh economy. In addition, the ongoing saga of the inter-city trains has implications for electrification on the line, to which I shall refer later.

The Committee’s report also advocated the electrification of the midland main line that links Sheffield and London. It is unclear what progress is being made there. It is clear that enhancing our rail network represents a worth-while investment of public funds, with economic regeneration and environmental benefits. The comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends reinforce that point.

It is not only investment that is important. It is equally important that we secure value for money for the public purse. The previous Government asked Sir Roy McNulty to study the rail industry and to consider how to secure better value for money. It is unacceptable that our rail industry is up to 40% more expensive than its European comparators, as the Office of Rail Regulation discovered. Sir Roy published his interim findings in December 2010. Promisingly, he has identified potential savings of up to £1 billion, which he believes can be achieved without cutting services. Like the rail industry, my Committee awaits Sir Roy’s final report with great interest. Certainly there is a mood for change, and it is important that the Government seize this window of opportunity to make improvements.

The interim findings of the McNulty review suggest that the way forward is a greater alignment of incentives between the different players in the industry. The Government have already set up a high-level group with the industry to examine the options for Network Rail and train operators to work together more efficiently. I would be grateful if the Minister were to elaborate on the options that the Government are considering, and whether those aspirations will result in real long-term savings to the industry, without compromising passenger safety or service provision.

The Secretary of State has promised a White Paper on the future structure of the industry, following the findings of the McNulty review. I hope that it will spell out the Government’s broad longer-term strategy for the rail industry. Do the Government share the previous Government’s aspiration that increasing capacity on the rail network must be at the heart of their strategy? As passenger numbers and the amount of freight carried by rail continue to grow, we need to increase capacity. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the issue of overcrowding remains a serious problem on parts of the network, particularly at peak times. Overcrowding is a consequence of success and must not be ignored, and neither must its related health and safety issues, which are often hidden.

Giving evidence to the Committee in October 2009, the Office of Rail Regulation forecast that passenger numbers would double over the next 25 to 30 years. Alleviating capacity constraints must be at the heart of any strategy on the future of the rail network. Will the Minister tell us something about the White Paper that is expected soon? What sorts of policy initiatives will it contain and what kind of consultation will it be subject to?

The Committee recognised that rail was important for the environment, economy and regeneration. I was concerned to see that in January, when the Department published its report “Public Attitudes towards Climate Change and the Impact of Transport”, it did not mention rail. I hope that that was an unfortunate omission. None the less, I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government recognise the environmental benefits of increasing rail travel.

I come now to the important issue of rail fares. The Government have announced that regulated rail fares will rise from RPI plus 1% to RPI plus 3% from 2012 to 2015. Disturbingly, they have stated that train operators should actively look to manage overcrowding through the fare box; in other words through increasing fares.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am reluctant to correct the hon. Lady as she is giving an expert explanation of the Select Committee’s point of view. None the less, will she not accept that although rail fares can rise by that amount, they will not necessarily do so?

[Mrs Ellman]

I do not totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will explain why in a moment. My concern is that it now appears to be a deliberate Government policy to drive people off rail by increasing fares. Indeed, it seems rather perverse. It is true that Government policy is to increase fares by an average of RPI plus 3% . I must stress, though, that that is not an actual increase; it is an average. The reality could be a rise of RPI plus 8% for individual fares, which is a very great increase indeed. For example, the annual season ticket between Bournemouth and London would increase by £211 at RPI plus 3%, but by £645 if RPI plus 8% was applied, which is possible under the Government’s formula.

Current forecasts for the third quarter of 2011 are that RPI could be 3.9%, the base against which RPI for the following year is assessed. That means fares could rise by an average of 6.9% in 2012, with individual fares increasing by up to 11.9%. Those are significant increases and a matter of great concern. We all recognise that there are economic and financial problems, but it is disturbing to think that there could now be a national policy to price people off rail. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that concern.

Transport (CSR)

Debate between Louise Ellman and Martin Horwood

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in relation to transport. I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Transport, in her place this afternoon. I look forward to hearing her comments and, hopefully, her replies to the questions that I raise. I am also pleased to see here today my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I congratulate him on his new position as shadow Transport Minister. He will bring to the post considerable expertise in the transport field.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that transport infrastructure is vital in supporting economic growth. The Department has described it as an engine for growth. Repeated statements and announcements have emphasised the Government’s commitment to transport, and long-term investment in transport, in supporting our economy. Indeed, good transport links are essential to the movement of goods and people both locally and around the country. We cannot have a successful economy without a good transport infrastructure. However, we need good infrastructure throughout the country. Although I support continued investment in transport in the south and south-east, it must not be at the cost of investment in the north and other parts of the country. I will return to that theme a little later on.

I support what the Government are saying about the importance of investing in transport infrastructure for our future. Looking at the detail of the comprehensive spending review in relation to transport, however, it is apparent that there are many important questions that need to be asked and pursued.

In relation to rail, I am pleased that some commitments previously entered into have been maintained; indeed, it would have been very difficult to abandon them. I am particularly pleased that the allocation to Network Rail and to rail, 2009 to 2014, has been maintained, and that the essential part of the investment in Crossrail has also been honoured. A saving of £1 billion has been found. None the less, that cannot disguise the fact that there are to be major cuts to the transport budget.

According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, the overall cut over the four years of the comprehensive spending review comes to 15% in real terms overall. Capital spending is down 11% and resource spending down 21%. Those are major cuts and come on top of the in-year cuts in 2010-11.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. The Labour party submission to the comprehensive spending review suggested that cuts in unprotected Departments such as transport should average no more than 20%. Actually, they have averaged out rather less than that and the Department for Transport significantly less. If she is arguing for even lower cuts in transport budgets, which Departments does she suggest should make greater ones?

[Mrs Ellman]

The purpose of today’s debate is to focus on transport and the implications of the comprehensive spending review for transport services. Indeed, that is the remit of the Transport Committee, so I am concentrating on transport today.

According to the Passenger Transport Executive Group, capital funding for local transport outside London was cut by 19% in 2010-11. It is true that the outcome could have been worse, and comparisons have been drawn with other Departments, but that does not hide the severity of the cuts that will be put in place. There are to be new funds from which transport projects could be supported. The regional growth fund, which started off as a business fund to replace the budgets of the regional development agencies, has been expanded to include transport and some housing projects, and there is to be a local sustainable transport fund. There is no way in which those two funds can even start to replace some of the major cuts that are contained in the comprehensive spending review figures.

At the moment, my Committee is considering the relationship between spending on transport and economic growth. One issue it is considering is the distribution of transport investment around the country. Three times as much transport investment per head is made in London and the south-east as in the northern regions and the midlands. How will the comprehensive spending review impact on the distribution of that transport investment? Will such disparity be reduced or increased? I am very interested to know the answer and whether such an assessment is thought to be important. In relation to budgets, it is extremely important to consider the impact on places around the country as well as nationally.

Many transport schemes are strategic rather than local in nature. In the past, business-led regional development agencies, working with Government offices for the regions, have enabled local government, working with business, to decide on regional priorities and to make representations to Government. That will end. The Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the proposed local economic partnerships will not be sufficient on their own to replace those arrangements. He told the Transport Committee only yesterday that he thought that local economic partnerships—I do not know whether he knew exactly how they would be put together—would need to work together, or some other arrangement might be required to look at those very same projects. To my concern, he also said that he did not think that that would be achieved until the end of the Parliament. If those alternative arrangements happen and they do not take place until the end of the Parliament, will the Minister tell us how regional rather than local priorities will be determined? Will the decisions on such projects become centralised? What are the arrangements to be? We cannot wait until the end of the Parliament to know the answers.

Let me turn to roads investment. There are some big questions to raise on the implications of the Budget on roads. The budget for road maintenance is to be reduced by 20%, which is a big reduction. We are told that that will be achieved by efficiency savings rather than by cutting back on important maintenance. We all know that if routine maintenance is not done when it is required, a lot more will be required to be spent at a later date. What kind of mechanisms are in place to monitor how that reduction is to be met? Will it be through efficiency savings or will it mean that important maintenance on our roads is simply not done?

The Highways Agency’s capital budget is to be cut by around 50%. That is also a matter of great concern. Seven schemes have been cancelled and the much needed upgrade of the A14 has been sent back to the drawing board. Does that mean the end of major new road-building in Great Britain? It would be helpful to know whether the major cutbacks in that sector are to do with the problems of our times—the Government’s wish to move very quickly to remove the deficit—or a basic change in transport policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the methodology was not flawed. It was changed in March, and the now leader of the Labour party, the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, rightly presided over that change, which this Government, who took office shortly afterwards, took up. I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to be careful about his calculations.

As far as the other airports are concerned, it is very important that aviation is constrained across the European Union, and indeed around the world, as part of our assault on the threat of climate change. Unless the hon. Gentleman is challenging the methodology used by Sir Nicholas Stern—now Lord Stern—in his review, which was commissioned by the previous leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister, he will have to explain what methodology he would use to reflect the true economic cost of the threat of climate change. The methodology has been widely accepted in business and by investors and is now part of business calculations, and the use by the previous Government—until they changed their mind at the very last minute—of an incorrect and adulterated version of the cost of carbon, deviated from good business practice, apart from anything else.

On assessing project impact, I recommend that Ministers look carefully at the new approach to appraisal—NATA—assessment framework, and ensure that environmental and quality-of-life benefits are properly reflected. My noble Friend Lord Bradshaw in another place has made some very valuable and typically learned critiques of NATA, and I commend them to Ministers.

On railways, Ministers can be very happy indeed. The overall balance of investment in the Department will shift from 49 to 60% for rail by 2014-15, and that is exactly the right direction of travel. I am delighted that major projects such as Crossrail, Thameslink, the tube upgrades and, of course, High Speed 2 are all secure and that High Speed 2 in particular will, assuming that it is extended to Scotland, in the very long term deliver substantial reductions in aviation within the UK. I take the points made by other hon. Members on this earlier, but High Speed 2 is a very important contribution to rebalancing and making more environmentally friendly our whole approach to transport; that has been the experience of high-speed rail wherever it has been introduced around the world in competition with aviation.

Today, significant investment in new rolling stock was announced, with 600 new carriages for Crossrail and 1,200 for Thameslink, which in turn will free up hundreds of electric carriages for redeployment on newly electrified routes elsewhere and help to make the case for those new routes economic, which is very important. That, in turn, will free up diesel rolling stock for other routes, and help to support their economics. We have had additional announcements on developments at Reading, Birmingham New Street and other stations, on the east coast and midland main lines, and in Manchester and south Wales, and the confirmation, which is very important to colleagues in Scotland, that the inter-city express programme has been narrowed to two options, both of which include absolutely through services, and do not therefore raise the prospect of parts of Scotland being cut off by the need to change trains.

I would also welcome the schemes previously announced by the Department, which are reflected in the settlement for light rail, trams and ultra-light rail schemes. Those mentioned are Greater Manchester Metrolink, the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway upgrade and the Tyne and Wear metro upgrade, and there are plenty of others that we could consider. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) made a very powerful case for Leeds, and the Leeds new generation transport scheme is in the development pool, which means that it has a fair chance of success. I wish him well in putting forward a strong case for the Leeds light rail system.

There are other schemes even further into the future, and I must mention the ultra-light rail system being fought for in Gloucestershire. We recognise that it is a long way off in terms of public funding, but important steps can be taken to support it. Most obviously, since it is intended that the system will reuse railway lines that were closed down by Dr Beeching, Ministers could look, perhaps with the Department for Communities and Local Government, at the new planning framework to ensure that nothing is done that prejudices such development. That would be an important way to support the future development of ultra-light rail.

On roads, I welcome many of the announcements, including the confirmation that support for electric car-charging infrastructure will go ahead. With the possibility of “hybrid hybrid vehicles”—those that run on electric batteries until the batteries run out and then revert to more conventional hybrid vehicle technology—we might be within sight of escaping the chicken and egg situation, in which the car-charging points cannot be rolled out until the electric vehicles are there to produce the demand for them, but the demand for the electric vehicles cannot be there until there are charging points. There is now the prospect of beginning to move forward in the electric car market, and the Government’s clear support for that is very important.

I am pleased that the main focus of the Department’s spending is shifting more towards maintenance and away from new roads, but the Liberal Democrats might have gone further and looked rather more critically at many of the other new road projects. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said about the M60 project. It certainly sounds as though the Highways Agency’s consultation process has left a very great deal to be desired in that case, and could be critically looked at again. I also suggest that Ministers cast a particularly critical eye over the suggested upgrade of the junctions between the M4 and the M5 in my part of the world. I travelled the M4 and the M5 recently by car, and found no particular problems at the junctions or with the interaction between the two motorways, so I am not sure what the justification for the project is. I urge Ministers to keep all new motorway projects under very close review.

Not all road projects are bad, however. The Mersey gateway bridge project, which is in the supported pool and is therefore certainly being given a fair wind by the Government, could substantially reduce carbon emissions by increasing walking and cycling and considerably shortening car journeys in Merseyside. It would obviously also bring economic benefits. One last comment on roads is that with snow and ice possibly being a topical issue even before the end of the week, it is very welcome that the Local Government Association reports substantial extra investment in the provision of grit by local authorities, but I urge Ministers to keep a weather eye on that because we have seen some disasters in the past, when grit has run out. Grit suppliers particularly need to be encouraged to maintain supplies to local government as a high priority.

I am concerned about buses. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who emphasised the importance of the number of bus users in the country. Some 5 billion to 6 billion bus journeys are undertaken a year. The bus sector faces a potential triple whammy from the CSR. There is an admittedly modest reduction in the bus service operator grant, but the maintenance of the concessionary fares scheme is an important political commitment, which I support in principle. In fact, I should like it to be extended to 16 to 18-year-olds, in line with the policy of the UK Youth Parliament. That scheme is imposed on local authorities in a way that is inflexible for them and they have no way to control its costs. Its incorporation into the formula grant in future will lead local authorities to make some difficult choices about how to spend money locally. Since local authorities also subsidise many bus routes, those three things could combine and put a lot of local bus services at risk. That would damage our commitment to public transport and greener transport and would put rural bus services in particular at risk, which would not be welcome. Will Ministers meet their colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government and local council leaders from the Local Government Association, urgently to discuss the likely impact of the CSR on the bus sector?

Some responses could be made to the threat to the bus sector that do not involve spending large amounts of public money. It is instructive that bus journeys in London are on an upward trend, whereas bus journeys in the rest of the country are on a downward trend. Those of us outside London might mention the probably well deserved but quite generous subsidy that public transport in London gets relative to the rest of the country. But we could also mention the Oyster card and the use of smart technology, which makes it easier for people to use buses in London and the enormously better marketing and provision of information about routes in London at every bus stop and online. Certainly, that is in sharp contrast to the situation in Gloucestershire and many other parts of the country, which makes buses virtually incomprehensible and difficult for consumers to use reliably.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the distinction between the rise of bus services in London and, until recently, reduced use in the rest of the country is attributable largely to the fact that deregulation was never applied in London in the same way as it was in the rest of the country? Does he agree that the provisions in the Local Transport Act 2008 to give local authorities more powers over bus operators must be implemented?

[Martin Horwood]

Deregulation played a role. In terms of the co-ordinated provision of information and marketing and selling bus transport to local populations, it is much more difficult in areas where buses have been so comprehensively deregulated. I do not think that the renationalisation of bus services nationwide is likely. Much as I would love to overturn some of Mrs Thatcher’s legacies, we probably should not concentrate on that one.

My point is that there are solutions to trying to support commercially viable bus routes, or making those routes more commercially viable, that do not necessarily involve large sums of public money and might be about smarter and more intelligent policy locally.

I should like to highlight two local issues. On the Dartford crossing, a small but locally important part of the CSR will maintain the toll regime for its 150,000 users a day. I understand the Government’s case for that, because it is part of an investment in future transport provision in that area and traffic management will be improved, and so on. But the original idea was that the toll would cease when the Dartford crossing had been paid for. I am afraid that it has now been paid for, so there is some fairly justifiable anger locally that this is continuing.

The Minister knows that none of my speeches are complete without a reference to the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line in the south-west of England. That is potentially the only rail project that the Government might cancel, which would be regrettable. It is important to the west of England and south Wales, and to Welsh Members and, I suspect, to my neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).