Flooding
Debate between Maria Eagle and Henry Smith(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Eagle
I will say a little about climate change later in my remarks, but the hon. Lady has certainly made her point.
After the Prime Minister became involved, one by one the measures that had been resisted for weeks have finally been announced: vital assistance from the armed forces; funding to help households, businesses and farms, although much of the detail needs to be clarified; council tax exemptions, after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition forced a welcome U-turn; and a hastily convened meeting with the insurance industry, although it is far from clear what that meeting has delivered in terms of faster payouts. Those measures should have been put in place when the water levels first rose, at the end of last year.
A great many questions still need to be answered about the assistance that is available. For example, the Business Secretary has suggested that VAT on flood repairs should be reduced. Perhaps the Communities Secretary can clarify matters and say whether that suggestion is now Government policy, or was it just being floated as part of the Liberal Democrats’ so-called differentiation strategy?
After the floods of 2007, half of those who were forced to leave their homes were back in them within six months, yet many of those people had to wait much longer for the money needed to sort out the damage. I hope that the Communities Secretary will update the House on what discussions with the insurance industry have led to. In particular, can he say whether the Government agree with the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a new industry standard, because taking 12 months to complete a claim seems far too long?
There is still a lack of clarity on the time scale for restoring the rail link between Exeter and Newton Abbot, following the collapse at Dawlish. Initially, it was claimed that the work could be completed within six weeks, but now we are told that the line may not reopen until mid-April. With up to £20 million a day being lost by businesses, I hope that the Communities Secretary will provide an update on efforts to achieve an earlier reopening of this vital transport link.
We have heard nothing from Ministers on what specific steps the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking to help our fishing fleets, particularly in the south-west. Many fishermen have been unable to work since Christmas and consequently now face a desperate financial crisis. After two months of no fishing, damaged boats and lost equipment, the Communities Secretary will, I hope, provide some clarity on what help will be available to that vital British industry.
There are growing concerns about the impact on the tourism industry, which is vital for the economy of the south-west in particular. It is reported that a quarter of all tourism operators have experienced cancellations, and 40% have seen fewer forward bookings during a vital period for organising summer breaks. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is responding to the debate, can set out what the Government have done to ensure that people are aware that all parts of Britain are open for business.
Ministers continue to be silent about whether or not an application is to be made to the European Union solidarity fund. After the 2007 floods, the previous Government successfully secured £110 million as a contribution to the cost of recovery. After the UK special abatement mechanism, the net value is £31 million. Considering that that is more than the total extra money announced for this year, it is surprising that securing that funding does not appear to be a priority. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure the House that some kind of anti-EU political dogma is not standing in the way. We look forward to hearing what he can tell us about what is going on.
The Government were caught sleeping on the job when the severe weather first hit the country in December, but the roots of this failure go back to the ill-judged decision made by the Government after the 2010 election significantly to reduce the funding available for flood protection. The budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to be cut, but it is a question of what the priorities ought to be. A decision was made to target the flood defences budget, despite all the evidence that investing in flood defences saves more than it costs.
Maria Eagle
I will not give way. I have given way on a number of occasions, and I want to make progress.
This reckless short-termism is set to cost the country more than the cuts were intended to save. The Pitt review commissioned by Labour after the 2007 floods made it clear that investment in flood protection needed to rise, and by time of the 2010-11 Budget set by Labour, funding had gone up from £500 million a year to £670.1 million, yet by 2011-12, in the first Budget set by the coalition Government, that had been cut to £573 million, which is a reduction of £97 million—a 17% real-terms cut.
Maria Eagle
The reductions to flood defence spending were not just numbers on a spreadsheet, but actual planned flood defence projects.
Maria Eagle
No, not at this time. [Interruption.] I have given way relatively generously, so I do not think I should be criticised for saying no on one occasion.
In total, 290 shovel-ready flood defence projects were cancelled and 966 delayed as a result of those decisions. Appallingly, these appear to have included 13 schemes along the Thames and 67 in the south-west. Does not that highlight the cost of the Government’s misguided approach? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also cut more than 40% from his Department’s budget for domestic climate change initiatives last year. Therefore, just 0.7% or £17.2million of the Environment Department’s budget is now dedicated to preparing or adapting Britain for the impact of climate change, and his is the lead Department. Of course, we only know this thanks to an freedom of information request, because the Secretary of State sought to disguise the cut by lumping it in with the funding to meet our obligations to the international climate fund.
Before these floods hit, Ministers were about to make yet another ill thought through decision that would have reduced the country’s ability to cope with major flood incidents. In addition to the 600 Environment Agency staff lost since 2010, we know from leaked briefings that a further 557 flooding staff were due to be cut this year. The Prime Minister has said that
“those aren’t plans that are going to be put in place”.
Yet it is far from clear whether this means that there will be no further job losses in the agency, or whether the commitment relates only to those working directly on flood protection. Neither is it clear for how long this commitment remains valid. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the situation and give us some further information on this.
There have been some disgraceful attempts by Ministers to place the blame for some of these decisions at the door of the Environment Agency, not least by the Communities Secretary himself. Yet, as the chairman of the Environment Agency has made clear,
“a limit on the amount we can contribute to any individual scheme, determined by a benefit-to-cost rule imposed on us by the Treasury”
was placed on the agency.
I hope that the Communities Secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that the cost-benefit ratio rules imposed on flood defence schemes will be reviewed. I hope that he will also accept, in hindsight, that Ministers should not have sought to evade responsibility for their own decisions.
The Pitt review set out 92 separate recommendations, all but one for the Government, and significant progress on their implementation was being made at the time of the last election, yet when this Government came to office in 2010, some recommendations that had been implemented were reversed. The Cabinet committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forum were both abolished. Then in January 2012, the Government published what was entitled a “final progress report”, despite 46 recommendations not having been fully implemented. We urgently need clarity on the progress—or lack of it—that has been made since January 2012. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider his previous refusal to agree to our call for a new update to be brought before Parliament.
The Government have demonstrated a complete lack of urgency in securing the legal basis for the proposed flood reinsurance scheme. Thanks to three years of inaction from Ministers, this scheme will not be in place until 2015 at the earliest. As we have warned throughout the passage of the Water Bill, which is still being considered in another place, the scheme is deeply flawed. In Committee, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House voted down Labour amendments to improve the Bill. Those amendments included requiring Ministers to consult the Committee on Climate Change on the number of properties that might need to be added to the scheme in future; incentivising owners of at-risk properties to invest in flood protection measures; enabling people to search whether or not a property is included in the scheme; and establishing an appeal mechanism for those excluded—all measures opposed by the Government.
A balance has to be struck, of course, between the cost of the levy on other households and the scope of the scheme. However, the significant number of exemptions from the scheme continues to be of real concern and controversy, not least for tenants and leaseholders. In the light of the recent floods and the fact that the Water Bill has not completed its passage through both Houses, I hope that the Minister might consider agreeing to cross-party talks on those issues. It is vital that we ensure that the Flood Re insurance scheme is fit for purpose over the long term.
Rising Cost of Transport
Debate between Maria Eagle and Henry Smith(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Eagle
No, I think once is enough.
Together with the rising costs of housing, fuel and food, the rising cost of transport is adding to the cost-of-living crisis now making life much tougher for households across Britain. Yet Transport Ministers and the Government are so out of touch with the pressures that families are under that they are making it easier for private train companies and bus companies to hike fares and increase their profits—
Maria Eagle
I will in a moment. These companies are doing that off the back of struggling commuters and passengers. The pain is not yet over. This year, we are set to see even greater pressure from the rising cost of transport as the Government unveil their rail fares and ticketing review, with proposals for even higher fares at the times when most people need to travel.
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Even now, this Government could put that right by simply removing that power from the train companies, as we did in office. I invite the Secretary of State, who is relatively new to his job, to consider that.
We have Transport Ministers and a Government who are so out of touch with the pressures that families are under that they are making it easier for the private train and bus companies to hike fares and increase their profits off the back of struggling commuters and passengers.
Henry Smith
I am grateful that my persistence has paid off. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge the considerable investment in rail? For example, my constituency has a £26 million upgrade of Three Bridges station, a £53 million upgrade of Gatwick station and extra rolling stock from Thameslink and Southern. The travelling public are seeing real improvements.
Maria Eagle
I acknowledge that over a number of years, under the current Government and the previous Government, there has been big investment in rail travel. That is a good thing and I do not deny that.
Maria Eagle
No. Those are the changes to fares and ticketing that passengers want, not the Government’s approach, which seems to be more about what is in the best interests of the train companies, not commuters.
If the Government are out of touch with the impact of fare rises on commuters, Ministers are even more woefully out of touch with the consequences for bus fares and services of their funding decisions since the election. When they set out plans to cut 28% of funding from local transport and axe a fifth of the direct support for bus services, Ministers claimed, incredibly, that that could be done without an impact on fares. The Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes, told the House:
“When I spoke to the industry following the spending review announcement, it indicated that the cut was so minimal that it hoped that it could absorb it without fares having to rise, which is what we hope will happen.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 953.]
What incredible naivety.
For the subsequent two years, those who rely on local bus services have had to listen to the Minister, with his fingers in his ears, denying all knowledge of the consequences of the cuts. At Transport questions last April, he said of bus services that
“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]
At Transport questions in November, he again refused to accept the truth when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) warned him of the higher fares and reduced services in communities up and down the country.
We now have the truth, because the Government have had to publish the annual bus statistics for 2011-12. They clearly show an average increase in bus fares of 6.5% in England and an even higher average increase of 7.6% in non-metropolitan areas. Those are increases of more than double the rate of inflation on services that are relied on by some of the poorest in our communities.
Civil Aviation Bill
Debate between Maria Eagle and Henry Smith(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are plenty of people who seek to read coded messages in what the Government do, or do not do, and in how they change their proposals, so in that respect there is a concern that the Government need to address.
If the Government’s green credentials had not already worn so thin, no ulterior motive might have been seen in their decision, but there will be considerable suspicion that it is yet another example of giving in to vested interests, coming on top of the Government’s failure to reassert the aviation emissions targets that we set in government, let alone to listen to the calls to look seriously at the UK’s share of international emissions and to include both in the UK’s carbon budgets. When the obligation on other sectors is to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, the aviation industry has agreed to work towards achieving the lower target of the same reduction but compared with 2005 levels. However, the industry believes that it can achieve the same reduction compared with 2000 levels. On that basis, we believe that the Committee on Climate Change should advise on the case for a tougher target. It is clear that the Bill sends out completely the wrong signal to industry.
The CAA, airport operators, airlines and National Air Traffic Services have a shared responsibility to achieve those goals. In addition to the original proposed duty on environmental and planning law, which has been deleted, there is surely a case for considering the practicality of using this Bill to reaffirm the shared responsibility on meeting emissions targets that have been agreed. That should be explored during the passage of the Bill.
The public should certainly be better informed about the environmental effects, including through emissions and noise, of civil aviation in the UK and about the measures that are being taken to limit the adverse environmental effects. I want to take this opportunity to welcome the CAA’s decision to open a three-month consultation on its environmental role and performance. The chief executive, Andrew Haines, has said that he is determined to work with the sector to help it manage its environmental footprint and realise its potential growth. He is clear that
“unless the sector faces its environmental impact head-on, it will not be allowed to grow.”
He is right to have set the goals to
“contribute to a cleaner and quieter aviation industry, improve airspace design through new operational measures, influence the environment debate and enhance consumer understanding of the environmental impact of flying.”
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady not concede that airport operators, such as the operator of Gatwick airport in my constituency, have for many years done an awful lot to ensure that there are environmental enhancements, such as through the Gatwick area conservation committee, which has made a positive difference locally?
Maria Eagle
I do concede that. I do not think that the aviation industry has anything to fear from closer scrutiny of the way in which it deals with these issues. I just want to ensure that this Bill does not send the wrong signals to industry and make it more difficult to do what many operators are starting to do in any event.
In addition to the revision of the statutory purpose of the CAA and its secondary duties, it is right that the Bill aligns the powers of the CAA with those of the Office of Fair Trading. That provides consistency with the approach taken for other regulated industries, including energy, water, telecoms and rail. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are concerns about the impact on competition of the sale of airlines and the slots that transfer ownership as a result. The recently agreed sale of British Midland International by Lufthansa to International Airlines Group has raised considerable worries, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, about the impact on short-haul domestic routes and the price implications for passengers. The Government have to date refused to take those concerns seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have referred the sale of BMI to the OFT.
Aviation Industry
Debate between Maria Eagle and Henry Smith(13 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), first, on securing this debate on the future of aviation, which has clearly been in demand from other Members—we have had an excellent debate—and, secondly, on the birth of his granddaughter, Rosie, who will think that she is the centre of the universe by the time she is old enough to read Hansard. I also welcome you, Mr Gale; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Our aviation industry is central to our economic prosperity and should be a key driver of the growth without which we have no prospect of emerging from the dangerous economic situation in which we find ourselves. The industry contributes more than £11 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product—more than 1% of the total—and supports up to 200,000 jobs directly and 600,000 indirectly across the UK.
I regret, however, that just as the Government do not have a credible strategy for growth, neither have they yet managed to set out a credible strategy for aviation, let alone set out the role that aviation could play in improving our economic situation. For a crucial sector on which our economy depends, the reaction from business to the Government’s decision not to set out an aviation strategy until the latter part of this Parliament has ranged from incredulity to plain bemusement.
I would much rather that we were not in opposition—it is a deeply frustrating place to be, as the Minister may recall—but the one thing that it provides is the time and space to develop ideas for the future, as well as some detailed plans. However, after 13 years in opposition, it is clear to the industry and to the wider business world that this Government came to office without such plans.
We have had lots of consultations, relentless industry engagement, scoping documents and taskforces. That is all very laudable, yet none of it makes up for the lack of a policy, let alone a strategy. With the economy on the brink, holding out the prospect of a policy late in the latter part of a five-year Parliament is, frankly, not good enough. It represents a total failure to prepare for government, and Members do not have to take my word for that. The chairman of the Airport Operators Association, Ed Anderson, has said that, while the industry knows what the Government are against,
“we are not sure yet what it is in favour of”,
and he went on to describe “better not bigger” as an “election slogan”, saying:
“Better not bigger doesn’t constitute a strategy.”
The Government also face international criticism. The chief executive of the International Air Transport Association, Giovanni Bisignani, has been quoted as saying that the Government seem
“intent on destroying its competitiveness with a policy agenda focused on increasing costs and limiting capacity growth.”
Sir David Rowlands, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Transport, has described the Government’s policy as “mildly extraordinary”, which is damning criticism from somebody from the higher reaches of the mandarinate.
Baroness Valentine, speaking for London First, said in another place earlier this year that
“government seems content for aviation policy to drift.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 872.]
She has also said, most damningly, that
“the Government’s aviation strategy is damaging our economy and enhancing that of our EU rivals.”
We have heard that criticism echoed by some Members who have contributed to today’s debate.
Maria Eagle
In a moment.
I am sure that the Minister saw the letter in The Times earlier this year signed by 74 senior business leaders. Setting a long-term strategic direction for aviation in London, the wider south-east and across the country is a vital part of delivering the growth and jobs that the country needs, and the letter concluded:
“All options must be considered, short term and long term, to address growing demand.”
We agree with them, which is why earlier this month, in a speech to the Airport Operators Association, I made an offer to the Government, which I am happy to repeat today. We are willing to take the politics out of aviation, put aside party differences and work together on a joint aviation policy for the good of the nation. As I have said, this is a clear, unambiguous offer, with no catch.
Aviation matters to our country—every Member who has spoken in this debate has said so—and to businesses and families throughout the country. It is an industry that needs stability for the long term, and a long-term plan that straddles Parliaments and Governments and that is capable of surviving after fruition.
In addition to the Government’s more immediate work that they must conclude—that is fine—I believe that the best way forward is the establishment of a cross-party commission to set out our long-term aviation strategy for a generation or more. We should not have rows from one Parliament to the next about an element of the strategy, but set out a long-term plan. We must not repeat the party political wrangling that turned the proposed third runway at Heathrow into a political football. We must also agree that we will then stick to that agreed strategy, whatever the outcome of the next election.
Any terms of reference for such a cross-party examination of capacity will inevitably start with an understanding that the answer for the south-east will not be to fall back on the proposed third runway at Heathrow. We have accepted that the local environmental impact means that that is off the agenda. The cross-party body must have the freedom to look at all options for growth, including in the south-east, while prioritising making the best use of existing runways and airports. A bigger prize is available for us all if we put political battles to one side and develop a long-term strategy for aviation to which everybody can sign up. It is time to move on and find an alternative way forward.
I should like the Minister to clarify the Government’s position on two further issues: first, the link between high-speed rail and aviation; and secondly, emissions from aviation. We have offered Ministers our clear, cross-party support for the high-speed rail line that we proposed when in government. I have been clear that we will work with the rest of the House to deliver the legislation needed to take forward that vital project. We fully accept that there is simply no other credible way to tackle the growing capacity issues on our existing main rail lines. We have, however, argued that there is a clear case for connecting the new high-speed rail line directly to Heathrow from the start. The Opposition and the Government agree that the line should connect to Heathrow; the only debate is over whether that happens from the start, or via a costly, multi-billion pound spur, tacked on at a later date.
As we have argued, taking the line via our major hub airport opens up the prospect of private sector funding, potentially saving the taxpayer billions. It would lead to a new route that made better use of existing transport corridors and better protected the area of outstanding natural beauty that the current proposal crosses. It would also open up the opportunity to connect to the Great Western main line, thus bringing the benefits of the high-speed line to the south-west and Wales and increasing connectivity for the south-west to Heathrow.
Creating a major new transport hub to the west of London at Heathrow—rather than several miles away at a site with other, inadequate transport connections—that mirrors the hub in the east at Stratford represents the joined-up thinking that is too often lacking in our transport infrastructure planning. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are looking at that alternative proposal.
Our proposal is one that the Minister herself supported when she was the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and I suspect that she still sees its merit. I hope that she will indicate a willingness to look again at it. She has our support as she seeks to do better at persuading her new Secretary of State of the merits of the case than was possible with the previous Secretary of State.
On carbon emissions, I hope the Minister agrees that we will simply not achieve the goal set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels, unless aviation does more. That is why we believe that future aviation growth must go hand in hand with a greater cut in aviation emissions than we agreed when we were in government.
The Government have failed even to re-affirm their commitment to the existing emissions target for aviation that we set in government. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to do that today and that she will support our call for the Energy and Climate Change Committee to set out what it would mean for aviation to go further and ask it to update accordingly the carbon budgets that have been set.
I hope that the Minister will agree with us that, in principle, international aviation should be included as well, once the Committee produces its advice on accounting methodology. As the Minister will know, the industry’s sustainable aviation road map makes it clear that, by 2050, it is possible to get absolute emissions down to levels seen at the turn of the century, even as passenger numbers are projected to grow by a factor of three, so we all agree that it is possible to do more. Therefore, this should be seen not as a threat but as an opportunity. Fuel efficiency improvements in aircraft engines and air frames, improvements in air operations, both in more fuel-efficient practices and air traffic management, and the use of alternative fuels produced sustainably—all those things can make a contribution. The UK should be at the forefront of developing the new technologies that enable the aviation industry to thrive, while reducing emissions.
I again thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively and make up for the Government’s failure to date to provide an aviation strategy, which this country so badly needs.