High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

Let me say right away that the majority of the amendments are technical clarifications, corrections and updated references. The Government accept all the amendments to the Bill made by the Lords. I will provide some comment on the amendments of substance. Before I do so, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Lords for its scrutiny of the Bill. I pay particular gratitude to Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon for having very skilfully steered the passage of the Bill through the other place, and to my noble Friends Lord Viscount Younger and Baroness Buscombe for their diligent work in assisting Lord Ahmad during the Lords stages of the Bill. It would be most remiss of me not also to thank Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe for his distinguished chairmanship of the Select Committee that considered the petitions against the Bill in the Lords, and to thank the other members of the Committee.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 were introduced by the Lords Select Committee and concern the removal of a strip of land in the Chelmsley Wood area of Solihull from the Bill. The Government were proposing to acquire the land to re-provide public open space for local residents. However, the Lords Select Committee concluded that this was not necessary. As we set out in the Government’s response to the Lords Select Committee report, the Government regret that that means that the residents of Chelmsley Wood are to lose permanently a portion of public open space, but we will be working with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to consider, within the limits and the powers of the Bill, reasonable ways in which to reduce the temporary impact of construction and the permanent impacts of the operation of the railway. Clearly, any solutions agreed that fall outside the limits and powers of the Bill will be for Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to deliver in its role as the local planning authority.

Lords amendment 4 was also introduced by the Lords Select Committee. It removes the power in clause 48 that made provisions for the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for regeneration purposes related to High Speed 2. It was always intended that the power would be used only as a backstop if commercial negotiations failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion and if a significant regeneration opportunity would otherwise be lost. However, the Lords felt that given the broad nature of the powers and the fact that local authorities already had similar powers, it was unnecessary for the Government to take the powers. The Government accept that ruling and will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that opportunities for regeneration arising from phase 1 of HS2 are not missed.

Amendments 3, 51 and 52 introduce a new clause and schedule in relation to traffic regulation orders. TROs are a mechanism for local highways authorities to impose temporary or permanent restrictions on the use of highways in their areas in order to control traffic. Local highways authorities will need to make a range of TROs in relation to the construction of HS2. They will also need to ensure that they do not make TROs that conflict with the construction of HS2. The amendments ensure that local highways authorities will be required to consult with the Secretary of State for Transport before making any orders that affect either a specific road identified for use by HS2 or other roads related to HS2 construction works. This will avoid TROs being made that might otherwise inadvertently cause problems for the construction of phase 1 of HS2.

The amendments also allow the Secretary of State, if required, to make TROs himself and prohibit or revoke TROs that unnecessarily hinder the delivery of the railway. These powers are similar to those that the Secretary of State already has under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and will ensure that TROs necessary to deliver phase 1 of HS2 in a timely and economic manner can be made.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I appreciate that there would be a desire, particularly in central London, to prevent any local transport authority, whether the local authority or Transport for London, from frustrating the building of the railway, but will the Minister give an assurance that the Secretary of State’s powers will be used sparingly? In London we already have democratically elected authorities, through the local authorities and Transport for London, that are able to represent the public interest in this regard, so it is a slight concern that the Secretary of State could use the powers less sparingly than might be desirable for democratic accountability.

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point and I can give him the assurance he is looking for. The powers would only ever be used in a very sparing way, as he suggests is appropriate. Basically, the right way forward is for HS2 and the Department and local highways authorities to work together to agree some kind of consensus; these are just powers that might be necessary should situations arise. An example of success in that would be Camden, where there has been agreement between the borough council and the Department and HS2 Ltd on how to take forward the TROs required.

--- Later in debate ---

As the Bill is completing its stages in this House, this will be the last opportunity that I have to raise these concerns on behalf of my constituents. I hope that the Government and the Minister will respect the spirit of the points that have been made and commit to an ongoing dialogue so that mitigation of the consequences can be as great as possible. The battle leaves this House, but for my constituents it will go on for many, many years to come. I will be proud to stand up for their interests for the duration of that period.

[Mark Field]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words. I had not intended to speak, partly because HS2 does not go through my constituency, but I have a lot of sympathy with right hon. and hon. Friends and Members whose constituencies are directly affected. As an MP in central London, I have had Crossrail going through my constituency in the past decade or so. I have made several hundred enemies by not opposing that scheme, but it is clearly a scheme that is very much in the national interest. I am afraid that that does not apply as much to the rail scheme we are discussing.

Where I would disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) is that I do think that the Government have done their level best to make sure that we have legislation that has allowed people to have their say. I know that the outcome is not what she wanted, or indeed what many other right hon. and hon. Members wanted. I hope that the Minister will very much take on board the comments of my constituency neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). This has got to be the beginning of a process, not the end of a process. The issue of an ongoing dialogue with constituents who are going to be affected by this in the London Borough of Camden and, indeed, throughout the UK must be at the forefront of the Government’s mind.

While we should support large-scale infrastructure projects that are going to work—whatever one thinks of HS2, there are clearly designed to be benefits in that regard—the disruption will clearly be very profound. One of my particular concerns in relation to London is that we also hope to have Crossrail 2. I am already getting letters from constituents within the City of Westminster who are very concerned about the impact that that will have. We must remember that the efforts made by the Government in relation to HS2 will set a precedent for the way in which they deal with those who will be affected by another big infrastructure project such as Crossrail 2.

I fear that there has been a missed opportunity, but not in relation to the amendments. As I have said, I give credit to the Government for their work in getting this hybrid Bill together. We should all support large-scale infrastructure projects that are in the national interest, but whether or not this is the right way forward has been far more open to question. The one thing that the Government can do for those many Britons who will be affected by it directly—whether they are in the midlands, further north or, indeed, in central London—is ensure that they keep their interests at the forefront of their mind as and when the building work commences; otherwise, life will be made incredibly difficult for them. We need to do our level best to ensure that, if the national interest is to be served by an infrastructure project, Ministers keep the mitigation of the disruption at the forefront of their minds and that, although the legislative process is coming to an end, this is not the end of those considerations.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words. I suspect that the boundary commissioners will have a part to play in ensuring that I work very closely with my constituency neighbour to make sure that all people in central London are properly represented in the many years ahead.

[Andrew Jones]

There are quite a lot of questions to answer. This has been a very helpful final debate on the Bill and I will try to answer colleagues’ questions, some of which had themes in common.

I will address the questions in no particular order. Several Members have said that it is important that we maintain and commit to an ongoing dialogue. I am happy to make that commitment. I do not view this as the end of a process; I view it as the end of one phase of a process and the start of another. We go from a project in development to a project in delivery, and that will require more dialogue, not less, particularly as we work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has just said, to keep mitigation at the forefront of our minds during the construction process. I am happy to make that commitment —there is no doubt about that.

Many people have also been concerned about the hybrid Bill process. The locus standi rules are set by the House, not by the Government, but the House is considering the hybrid Bill procedure. That review is under way and I am sure that it will consider colleagues’ views on whether they were able to participate and petition in the other place. I know that those petitioning arrangements caused much frustration and, indeed, confusion among our constituents. The process is not straightforward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I am always happy to meet hon. Members. I know that level crossing safety is a particular concern across the country. Every level crossing has its own characteristics and difficulties, so I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this case.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

There is obviously no cause for complacency in relation to disabled access, but it is worth putting it on record that in the past 15 years there has been a sea change on our railways; I certainly see that from a London and home counties perspective. While I hope that we can continue this progress on disabled access, substantial improvements have been made in recent years.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to indicate the progress that has been made. However, we cannot accept a situation where some of our busiest stations remain inaccessible, so work will have to continue into the next rail period and beyond. I intend to keep up the pressure on Network Rail and train operating companies, as I am sure Members across the House will, too.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the final report of the Airports Commission.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate, and I thank the Members who supported the application and those who are present today. This is an important subject that requires scrutiny before the Government make their decision. I pay tribute to my colleagues from neighbouring constituencies, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who are assiduous campaigners on the issue of airport expansion.

The Airports Commission’s report came out in July, after two years and about £20 million. Many UK families were preparing to go on holiday at that time, perhaps using their local UK airport. After two years, like many people, I wanted a report that would look forward and be about our UK aviation needs. Like many people, I was disappointed. The report is filled with ifs and buts, and it is shrouded in fog. Many residents of my constituency—I pay tribute to Teddington action group—have found fault with much of the analysis, and many councils, such as Richmond, Wandsworth, Hillingdon and Windsor and Maidenhead, have found fault with the data.

The report’s conclusion in favour of expansion at Heathrow will not serve the UK’s aviation needs. To start with, let us look at connectivity. The interim report stated that a third runway at Heathrow would be at maximum capacity by 2050. The final report advises against a fourth runway, so how can that be a long-term option for the UK’s aviation needs?

The report shows a decrease in domestic destinations, from seven to four—bad luck for Scotland and Ireland, and not good news for the northern powerhouse. Again, the third runway at Heathrow is not a good option for the UK’s long-term aviation needs. The table in the report implies that there may be 12 extra long-haul destinations. However, some analysts say that if we compare the expanded Heathrow of three runways with Heathrow in the summer of 2015, with two runways, we see that the actual increase in long-haul destinations is but one. On the increase by more than 250,000 in flights to and from Heathrow, the report says the slots will be

“in the morning and peak evening periods”

when residents will be most affected.

On the cost, again, we are shrouded in fog. The independent economic review said: “we counsel caution”. Other analysts talk of “double accounting”. The report mentions aeronautical charges, but the airlines say that Heathrow currently charges too much in landing fees and that they would not pay extra charges. There is also a reference to extra costs for surface access. When the Environmental Audit Committee was deliberating with the chief executive, it could not work out exactly how many billions of pounds would be required and whether the taxpayer would pay or Heathrow would pay. Would it be £20 billion or £5 billion? The report refers to a congestion charge, not costed out. It mentions access schemes for the M4 and the M25, again not costed out.

Let us look at the effect on residents. The report says that the noise will be dispersed with an expanded Heathrow. To me, that just means that more people will be affected. It says that the noise impact will be at current levels, yet current levels, for my constituency, are intolerable, as has been demonstrated by Teddington action group. Transport for London says that 1 million people may be affected by an expanded Heathrow. Heathrow is already the worst airport in Europe for noise pollution. With a third runway, it would be worse than Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich and Madrid. Beyond that, it would be worse than Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich and Madrid combined. This is not the way forward for the UK’s aviation needs.

The report talks of a night flight ban, which the chief executive refuses to accept, even though it is not a total night flight ban but a quasi-night flight ban that does not conform to World Health Organisation standards. In any case, if there can be a night flight ban, or a quasi-night flight ban, with three runways, why cannot my constituents have a night flight ban tonight, with two runways? Already, on average, there are 16 flights between 4.30 am and 6 am—it is intolerable.

The report talks about an authority to liaise with the community. It points out that there is no trust between Heathrow airport and the community now, so why would a third runway increase trust? It mentions a noise levy—would that be borne by the passengers or the airlines?—but my residents are not interested in a noise levy; they are interested in a good night’s sleep.

The report talks about air quality, and in this respect there is less fog, because it says that the expansion of Heathrow is

“contingent on…performance on air quality.”

But Heathrow cannot manage air quality with two runways, so how will it manage with three? Why does the report compare the nitrous dioxide levels at Heathrow with those of the worst road in London? Why does it not compare them with the EU levels—the legal levels?

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the need to invest in and support regional airports. Birmingham is our second city and we should support it, but I am worried that the report, if its recommendations are accepted, will not allow that to happen. Flight capacity in this part of the country could also be increased through a new runway at Gatwick airport. That would result in not only jobs, which that part of the country is always in need of, and growth, but, just as importantly, more competition for Heathrow airport. We want a better Heathrow airport, not a bigger one.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

This is the last time I will give way, because I need to make progress.

[Mark Field]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Like him, I am a central London MP, and a third runway would definitely affect my constituents, particularly with regard to air quality. I very much agree with them on that. However, why does he think the Davies commission was so categorical in its conclusion that it did not take the view that there should be a third runway at Gatwick? It was very clear about that. I personally would have preferred that, but that is not what the independent commission has suggested.

[Sadiq Khan]

Davies ruled out the proposed fantasy estuary airport on an island, because it is nonsense, but he did not rule out a new runway at Gatwick. It is important for us to understand the benefits of a new runway at Gatwick airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will continue because I have a lot to cover.

Heathrow Airport Ltd may be winning on the amount spent on PR, but this Parliament has a duty to assess the optimum solution, not be swayed by marketing rhetoric.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

I look forward to an interesting discussion this afternoon. I hope it will be similar in tone to the discussion we had on the previous day in Committee and that we are able to explore issues of concern to hon. Members. I hope that in the bulk of cases we find consensus, areas on which the House agrees, on the devolution agenda that I think many of us believe to be in the interests not just of this place but of our constituents—the people we represent who send us here to do the work we do.

I wish to oppose clause 20 and I shall also speak to clause 21 and new clauses 3 and 9. Clause 20 was inserted against the Government’s wishes following a lively debate in the other place. It amends section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by lowering the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for the local government franchise in England and Wales. That means that 16 to 18-year-olds could vote in all elections based on this local government franchise. In England and Wales, those would include local government elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections for the Greater London Authority and Mayor, and elections to the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment would also mean that 16 to 18-year-olds could vote in local neighbourhood planning referendums, council tax referendums and referendums on local authority governance arrangements.

I have considered carefully the arguments that have been set out in earlier considerations of the Bill, both here on Second Reading and in the other place. I am of course also aware of very similar arguments that have been made in relation to the franchise in Parliament’s consideration of the European Union Referendum Bill— a Bill that I follow closely for reasons of personal interest.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I agree with the Government’s view—I do not think the voting age should be lowered at all—but will the Minister give at least some consideration to the idea that there is a distinction between a normal election and a referendum, given the permanence or longer period for which a referendum would hold sway? Again, it is not a view I entirely agree with, but I think there are some colleagues even on this side of the House who would make a distinction between the two. Perhaps he could go into some detail on why the Government feel that that distinction should not be made.

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go off topic. The European Union Referendum Bill has had a debate on this matter and has come to a conclusion to express the will of this place on the age of the franchise. I know this issue is of interest to a number of Members. Referendums are different from elections of other sorts, but I do not think that the difference is such that the concession should be made, certainly not through the vehicle of this particular Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

I very much agree with what the Minister says, particularly the way in which he has enunciated it. Particularly in the past 10 to 15 years, in many areas—smoking, using sunbeds, drinking—the age limit has been raised rather than lowered. Insofar as we can try to have a sense of working together and agreeing a single age, if anything we are moving in an upward rather than a downward direction. This leads to the question—I say this only because my late mother’s first vote was in an East Germany election in the 1950s and the electoral age in that part of Europe at that time was 14—why not 14, 12 or 10, rather than 16, as is being proposed?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go further down the path of debating the specifics of different ages, but he makes a fundamental and important point: we have different ages for different things. These matters need to be considered fully and in the round. Change should not be brought piecemeal or as an adjunct to a Bill. It would have to be done in a carefully considered way after proper and thorough debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I strongly support the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, and I am very disappointed that the Government are proposing to remove it from the Bill. The Minister’s argument seemed to be “It is all horribly complicated, and this is not the right place to discuss it”, but I could not identify any particularly strong argument for why it is the wrong thing to do, and why 16 and 17-year-olds should not be given the right to exercise the vote like the rest of us.

I was interested by the intervention from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Indeed, I was encouraged by it, because the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recognise that there was some argument for 16-year-olds to have a say on some issues. However, he drew a distinction between referendums and voting in elections on a continuing basis. I think that he should go with his logic. If there is a case for young people to have a say in the future of their country, or on other big issues that are put before the country in referendums, surely there is a case for them to have the right to a say on who is elected as their local councillor. How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman sustain the logic of allowing a vote on a big national issue of enormous import while denying a vote on representation in a local community?

[Mark Field]

In fairness, I think that I should clarify my position. I am against the idea of reducing the voting age, period, but I also think there is some logic that suggests that a referendum is a somewhat different sort of plebiscite from a routine election. It may happen only every 40 years, as in the case of the European referendum, and, although I suspect that we shall not have to wait quite so long for the next referendum in Scotland, there was at least the prospect of our waiting for a generation or more in connection with a referendum-related issue.

A broader point, however—and I thought the Minister had made it fairly clear—is that this would be a pretty important change in our franchising arrangements. It is not a measure that should be sneaked through as an additional clause in a Bill emanating from the House of Lords, or, indeed, from the House of Commons. It requires a broader analysis. I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s view—and I hope that we shall engage in some fertile discussion during the course of this Parliament —but the notion that a major change can be brought about simply by an amendment during the consideration of a Bill does not strike me as the right way to deal with the entirety of our franchising system.

[Norman Lamb]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important issue, but I hope he will understand that those of us who are convinced of the case for change should take every opportunity to argue that case, and this is one such opportunity. Because we recognise that the world will not cave in, and that many positive consequences will flow from the measure, we see no difficulty in including it in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred to the Scottish referendum, which engendered an extraordinary level of engagement among young people. I do not think that any Conservative Member suggested that the young people who voted in that referendum did not know what they were talking about, or that they ought not to have the right to a say. If Conservative Members believe, on reflection—given what happened in the Scottish referendum—that it was right for those young people to have a say, they should stick with the logic of that, and accept the case for including the measure in the Bill.

It is interesting to note that the turnout among people between the ages of 16 and 18 was very high in Scotland. I understand that, according to an Electoral Commission report that was published in December 2014, the turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%, as opposed to 54% among 18 to 24-year-olds. Given the opportunity, they engaged in the democratic process very readily, and I think we should all welcome that.

[Norman Lamb]

I accept that it was a highly unusual event in terms of the degree of excitement and enthusiasm that it engendered across the population. I am simply making the point that the world did not cave in because 16 and 17-year-olds had had a vote in that referendum, and I do not think it would cave in if we gave people in the same age group the right to a say in who becomes their local representative on their local authority.

[Mark Field]

Perhaps we are more sanguine about the events of 18 September 2014 with hindsight. It might have been very different had the result been a close-run thing, and had there been any suggestion that a change in the franchise of this magnitude might have been decisive in the overall result. That clearly was not the case: lest we forget, I remind the House that the referendum was lost by 10.6 percentage points, although the SNP does not remind us of that very regularly. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the world has not fallen in, but I think that the referendum would have been a lot more controversial had the result been a very close-run thing, and had there been any suggestion that that franchise change might have had a distinct impact on the result.

[Norman Lamb]

I was on the same side as the right hon. Gentleman in the referendum. I am half Scottish, and I passionately wanted Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. However, I am also a democrat. I accept the will of the people following a vote in a referendum of that sort, and I accept the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to be part of the decision-making process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

No, I am referring of course to the application of income tax to people’s employment rights. To take that argument to its logical conclusion, it would of course be ridiculous to suggest that a four-year-old should have the right to vote. I also made the point that someone who can join Her Majesty’s armed forces and defend this country has no right to vote on the critical decisions this country makes. The case is clearly very powerful.

This change would also have a beneficial impact. The shadow Minister talked about the extent of young people’s engagement in politics. I would draw a distinction. All my experiences show that young people are very interested in political issues, but they are totally disillusioned with, and disengaged from, the political process, and this would be one way of addressing that.

The problem goes further. David Willetts, a highly respected former Conservative Cabinet Minister, has made a powerful case about the broken generational contract. He talks about generational unfairness. As all of us in this House know, whether or not we are prepared to admit it, that older people tend to vote in greater numbers and that drives the manifestos of political parties, which in turn drives the deal that different members of our society get from the Governments of this country. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) agreeing with that point. That problem becomes worse if young people aged 16 and 17 are denied a say and political parties are not forced to listen and think about the interests of young people when shaping their manifestos. Their manifestos will consequently address the needs of older people, which, of course, have to be met, but we also have to ensure that there is, as David Willetts says, generational fairness. That is denied by not giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.

[Mark Field]

I entirely agree that inter-generational unfairness is a major issue that all of us in the political class will have to face before too long, but is not the real problem one that would not be solved by clause 20 or reducing the voting age: the real trouble is that very few people under the age of 35 bother to vote? The turnout level, even in the Scottish referendum, for 18 to 35-year-olds is much lower than for others. The truth for any political party is that there are twice as many voters over the age of 55 than under the age of 35 and they are twice as likely to vote, so there is four times the bang for the buck, as some would say.

[Norman Lamb]

I think there is a progressive struggling to get out. I can tell that the right hon. Gentleman wants to support this. He sees the argument in favour and he rightly points to the low engagement of people under the age of 25, but we have to ask ourselves why. During their teenage years young people are denied any involvement in our political process. Perhaps, as happened in Scotland with the referendum, if we give them the opportunity to have their say at an earlier age and if we start to teach more about the political process in our schools, they might understand that by participating they get a greater say in society and their interests may be better met.

[Norman Lamb]

I agree, and I think it is condescending in the extreme to suggest that someone aged 17 is not capable of making a decision about, for example—in the context of this Bill—who their local councillor should be, for goodness’ sake. Ultimately, that is what the Conservative party is saying—that they cannot be trusted to vote to elect their local councillor.

[Mark Field]

Perhaps this would-be progressive could have a stab at answering that point. I do not think that anyone denies that there will be a minimum voting age and therefore an arbitrary cut-off, and I guess all the Government are saying is that, all things considered, including issues such as the drinking of alcohol, driving and smoking, 18 seems a pretty sensible cut-off date, rather than 16. I fundamentally believe that, as well as having a right to vote, there is a responsibility to be engaged in politics. I suspect that, again, 18 is a slightly better arbitrary cut-off point than 16—or any other number we might wish to pluck from the sky.

[Norman Lamb]

I accept that where we draw the line is arbitrary to a degree, but I would tempt the right hon. Gentleman to be a rebel on this, because I think that deep down his instincts are with giving people aged 16 and 17 a vote. Where his party is choosing to place that arbitrary line will deny 16 and 17-year-olds the right to elect their local councillor in their communities. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about that for more than a moment, surely he will agree that that is ridiculous.

I have gone on for too long, and I apologise for that. I urge the great right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to have the courage of his convictions and I urge all Members to join those of us who will vote to retain clause 20 in the Bill.

London Black Cabs

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of black cabs in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. We have an hour and a half for the debate and I know that a number of people want to speak, so I will keep my remarks quite short and to the point.

Black cabs are an iconic part of London and are famous around the world. The first horse-drawn hackney coaches appeared in London during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and the first taxi rank was installed in the Strand just over 400 years ago. The famous knowledge was started in 1884. Today there are 25,000 black cabs in London. They remain a vital part of the capital’s transport system and play a key role in keeping London moving.

For me, black cabs are one of the things that make London stand out. Their value is not necessarily quantifiable but is huge and real, all the same. I am reassured, for example, by the fact that taxi drivers have had rigorous background checks. I like the fact that they know every nook and cranny of our capital. For many people visiting our country, our unique taxis are the first thing they see and their drivers are the first people they meet and talk to. I would think nothing, personally, of depositing any one of my children in a black cab at any time, as I would know absolutely that they would be safe. It is hard to put a number on all that, but it is worth something.

The tragedy is that black cabs’ days could soon be numbered. If trends continue, I do not think that there is any doubt that they will be extinct in a matter of years. I will briefly explain why. Transport for London’s rules enforce a two-tier system for taxis in London. London’s black cabs can ply for hire and wait at ranks. Their fares are set by TfL, as are their stringent service standards. The reason they are licensed to pick up anyone from the street is that TfL has confidence that the drivers and vehicles are safe and the price is fair. Private hire vehicles, on the other hand, have to be pre-booked, so cannot legally ply for hire. Their fares are not set by TfL and their drivers do not pass the knowledge or do advanced driver courses. PHVs have less regulation because customers book them in advance and so know what deal they are getting and what service they can expect.

That system largely worked fine until recently, but the emergence of Uber has turned it on its head. The speed of the Uber app means that its cars are effectively hailed by users, and no one can reasonably argue that they do not also ply for hire, picking up people straight from the street. The one key advantage enjoyed by black cabs has simply evaporated.

I have been told recently by people who think of themselves as free marketeers that we should not intervene—we should let progress have its way and let the market decide. But that is not an honest position to take, for the simple reason that the black cab trade in London is not a free market and never has been. Costs are piled on to the black cab by regulation. They are the most regulated taxis in the world by far. Black cab drivers’ fares are set for them by TfL and they are told which vehicles they are allowed to drive. Their vehicles must have a turning circle of 8.535 metres, a partition separating passenger from driver, an overall length of no more than 5 metres, a flat door in the passenger compartment with a minimum height limit and an approved taxi meter, and must be able to accommodate a person in a wheelchair.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying, equally, we do have technological change, and Uber is part of that. Given that Uber is now in this highly regulated black cab market, is there not a perfectly good Conservative argument that suggests that the amount of regulations for our black cabs should be reduced to make them more competitive?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend up to a point; I will come to that shortly, but I do not think it will be enough. Deregulating the black cabs to put them on a genuinely level playing field with Uber and the like would logically mean the end of the black cab. That is the decision we need to make, but it is not one I would be happy with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will be making a similar point shortly. We need to look at that issue.

The bottom line is that we need to find a way of maintaining the two-tier system. I know that some within the black cab trade are calling for a mandatory five-minute period between booking and pick up to try to maintain the divide. I understand why that would work, and there is a strong case for it, but I worry that it would alienate—even infuriate—customers, who would not understand why it was happening. I understand that a similar mechanism has been brought in in New York, and there has been a considerable customer backlash there, which has been felt by the Mayor, who introduced the scheme, and whose popularity has been collapsing as a consequence.

[Mark Field]

I want to touch on the issue of choice, which my hon. Friend has raised. One of my concerns about the black cab’s protected position is that we hear voices saying that we should outlaw Uber and ban pedicabs. Could my hon. Friend give some indication of where he stands on both those issues? Would such an approach be detrimental to consumer choice, or would it be the right way to protect the market?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely do not want to deny people the choice they clearly want and need in London. There is therefore no question of banning Uber, but there is a need for more clarity in the regulatory system. That is the point I will be making shortly, and I hope my right hon. Friend will intervene as I continue.

I am sceptical of the five-minute rule proposal, but I hope the Government will commit to working with TfL to urgently define what “ply for hire” actually means. For the black cabs, their customers and London generally, that cannot remain the grey area it is today.

More broadly, the Government need to address the issue of the sheer number of cabs in London, which the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned. In August, there were a staggering 86,500 minicab drivers in London—a 46% increase in just five years. That number grows by more than 1,000 every month, with obvious congestion and air quality implications. That needs to be addressed, and we need to take a view on the private hire vehicle trade’s carrying capacity in London.

While few people want to see the end of Uber—I absolutely do not want to, because Uber does innovate and provide choice—there is no doubt that standards need to be raised. That view was shared by the overwhelming majority of respondents to a YouGov poll the other day, 62% of whom said they would like a higher standard applied to private hire vehicles and to Uber in particular.

For instance, the Government should, in my view, require all minicab companies to take out fleet-wide insurance policies to guarantee consumer safety. That does not seem an unreasonable request, and TfL has confirmed to me that it regularly repeat-catches uninsured drivers. Drivers should have a basic geographical knowledge—not the knowledge, because that would be unrealistic, but a basic grasp of London. They should also be required to have at least a basic command of the English language. TfL is looking closely at that, too, and we will hear in the next few weeks where it has got with that.

Uber fares are generally low, but in times of need—as we saw during the recent tube strikes—those prices escalate out of all proportion. In some cases, there was a 300% increase. What, if anything, do the Government believe should be put in place to protect consumers against such price surging?

There are also concerns about Uber’s corporate behaviour. For instance, Uber enjoys a significant price advantage by not paying UK corporation tax, because jobs are booked through the Netherlands. Despite Uber being a $50 billion company, its drivers earn far less than the London living wage; in some cases, they earn a lot less than the minimum wage. Drivers are self-employed, as with most minicab services, but the risk is that Uber’s model is depressing fares to unsustainable levels, and that also needs to be looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Edward. You have clearly heard me speak before.

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who said how well known and iconic the black cab is around the world. Famously, at the closing ceremony of the Olympics, there was much comment about George Michael’s bad choice of song, but Ray Davies of The Kinks made the right choice when he entered the stadium in a black cab. Ray Davies got it right, and George Michael got it wrong.

The hon. Gentleman was right to comment on the positive things about black cabs. They are fully accessible to wheelchair users, providing a service to disabled passengers who may have few other ways of getting about. As the father of two daughters, I also fully understand his comment about how safe we feel putting our children in a black cab, knowing the checks that take place before someone is allowed to drive one.

It is worth reminding ourselves of why black cab drivers—particularly the London ones—are considered some of the most qualified in the world. They undergo extensive criminal checks, including by the Disclosure and Barring Service. Medical checks are also undertaken. People have to pass a Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency assessment. They also have to receive a licence from both TfL, which is run by the Mayor of London, and the Metropolitan Police Service. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they have to pass the knowledge. Hon. Members may not fully appreciate this, but the test requires drivers to learn more than 300 basic routes, more than 25,000 streets, and approximately 20,000 landmarks and places of public interest. The other requirement is that black cab drivers must have a high-standard vehicle.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of what has happened as a consequence of the failure to regulate the change that is taking place because of innovation and of the failure to adapt. We do not have a level playing field, and the Minister will need to tell us why, over the past five years—indeed, the past seven years—TfL and the Government have failed to enforce existing legislation, or to provide new regulations, to ensure that new entrants to the market operate fairly.

What is the consequence of the failure of TfL and the Government to act? The number of drivers licensed by TfL fell by more than 500 in the last year alone, to about 25,000. Worse, the number of people applying to be taxi drivers and to undertake the knowledge is the lowest in more than 20 years. When we speak to black cab drivers, they confirm that their income has dropped by about 20% during the day and by about 35% during the night shift.

At the same time, the number of private hire vehicles licensed by TfL has grown at the rate of 600 a week. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are now 86,500. He also mentioned that there has been a 46.1% increase since 2010. At those levels, the number of private hire vehicles in London will reach more than 105,000 over the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, that not only leads to problems with congestion, pollution and illegal parking, but will lead to the death of the black cab as we know it.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman presents a slightly bleak picture of the prospects and concerns of black cab drivers. Can he suggest how consumers feel? It strikes me that many Londoners and many tourists coming to London feel that there is now a vast array of options at relatively cost-effective prices. Does he feel that that is important, and how will he try to marry the two interests, in his mayoralty campaign?

[Sadiq Khan]

Consumers may think it is great to get cheap meat, until they realise it is horse meat; they may think it is great to get a cheap builder, until the house falls down; they may think private hire vehicles are cheap but, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, they want to feel safe. We need to make sure that drivers speak basic English, have basic geographical knowledge and are properly insured. Choice is important, but the job of parliamentarians, and of those who aspire to be the Mayor of London, is to make sure that there is proper regulation of those who run public transport—and I consider black cabs and private hire vehicles a form of public transport.

The key answers that we need are not platitudes; we need to know what Government and those who run TfL can do. I have several questions for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)]

I have a long-standing family interest in the subject of the debate. My father ran Carbodies, which some right hon. and hon. Members may know about, from the time when taxis were made in this country. My husband Jamie took over after my father’s death and ran the company for a short while. He led the changeover to the taxis with full disability access that we have today.

As has been said, the black London taxi is as iconic to London as red buses and red post boxes. As we have heard from both sides of the House today, black cabs of London are renowned the world over for their high standards and because of the knowledge—and of course for their full disability access. Londoners can be proud of leading the world in that. Licensed black taxis can take wheelchairs, prams, trolleys and heavy suitcases, and get the passenger safely to their destination using the fastest route. The drivers do not need to check the sat-nav to know the back streets, and if there is a disruption or change in the traffic, as happens frequently in London, they have alternative routes in their head. They do not have to rely on intermittent technology. As we have heard, those taxi drivers are fully vetted, insured, and licensed, and regularly checked; and that applies not just to the drivers, but the vehicles as well.

Licensed taxi drivers have invested heavily in their profession. Very few industries require two to four years’ unpaid training, followed by the purchase or lease of a vehicle. Our black cab drivers are very committed to their trade. However, we have to appreciate that technology has begun to catch up, and TfL, the regulator, has seen an enormous increase in requests for private hire licences, as we have heard; but who are all the applicants, and why are there so many requests for minicab licences? There are now almost 90,000 minicab drivers in London, and only 25,000 licensed black cab drivers. The imbalance can be seen immediately; what is the reason for it? I believe that if we want our gold standard licensed taxi drivers, we need a level playing field. The regulations cannot be all on one side. We make the drivers and the vehicles go through hoops, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said, and meet very high standards; and those standards must apply across the board, to other vehicles and to their drivers. Why are minicab drivers signing up at such a rate?

[Mark Field]

Arguably the opposite case could be made, which is that there have traditionally been huge barriers to entry for black cabs, and that now we are in a modern world, where more and more people want to become taxi drivers and where there is the incentive of Uber technology, so that a high level of regulation is against consumers’ interests and will make it much more expensive to get into London cabs. That is not my personal view, but it is an argument that could readily be made. I have a sense that satisfaction levels among those who use cabs in the capital city—black cabs or others—is pretty high.

[Victoria Borwick]

I welcome that point. It is right: people want to use a safe vehicle that has been properly assessed, as everyone has said. Technology has moved on, so we must support the gold standard of our taxi drivers. Becoming a licensed taxi driver does not have such an appeal any more. Is that because of the barriers or because the investment and time is entirely on one side? TfL should look at its regulations and how it promotes the licensed taxi trade. It allows the competitors to charge what they want, and use any booking and charging methods they want; but over the years restrictions have been put on our taxi drivers, and they should be reviewed.

London has the advantage of being a friendly city. We have built on the Olympics, and have proved it time and again; we are working together for full disability access for the whole of London, in new homes and transport infrastructure such as Crossrail. It all has full disability access. Every new bus, every new train and every carriage is disabled accessible. All vehicles licensed by TfL for the public should be disabled accessible, take credit cards and alternative methods of payment, and be tracked and trackable to continue to provide the level of safety, as has been mentioned here today, that is unique to our taxi trade and our traditional taxi drivers. In the longer term, when we have proven technology, we should support the trade to move to more environmentally friendly vehicles.

I ask the Minister to re-examine the governance and regulations of the taxi trade and minicab vehicles, so that we can provide our excellent licensed taxis and ensure that this remains a worthwhile profession for those wishing to sign on to the high standards that have been spoken about this morning.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and congratulate him on his elevation.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have some sympathy with the broad thrust of his views. There is a risk that Transport for London could become over-leveraged and that land, which is very scarce in London, might be misused when it could be used for purposes connected with housing in particular.

I have a wider concern, however. I fear that there will be increasing hostility in other parts of the United Kingdom towards large-scale infrastructure investment here in London. Whether we like it or not, Transport for London is the only mechanism that allows us to drive that vital infrastructure forward, for the good of the capital and the good of all its residents, current and future.

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point, which I will try to address when we turn to the specific amendments. I thought there were issues on which we could have had compromise; the main thrust of the first group of amendments is to secure openness, transparency and, most importantly, a consultative decision-making process. I have sat down with each of the petitioners. The whole point of these amendments is the need for consultative engagement by TfL and its subsidiaries when dealing with sites in their areas.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The development of an electronic communications code in part 7 has been closely followed in my constituency, because all too often the standard of infrastructure in the City of London and surrounding areas as regards mobile telephone coverage and broadband lags behind that which commercial tenants nowadays expect to find in a world-leading business district. It is vitally important that this situation be improved if London is to keep up with its global rivals in established sectors and in the emerging tech industries. In particular, we cannot allow the business heart of the capital to be left behind in state-of-the-art technology such as fibre optics and 4G—and eventually 5G when that arrives.

New rights to upgrade and share communications infrastructure could play a very important part in improving that situation. Could we introduce a simpler procedure for landowners to require the removal or repositioning of equipment, where necessary, in order to enable redevelopment to proceed? That might sound counter-intuitive, but at present, especially in areas such as the City of London with very high rates of development, there is a strong incentive for landowners to resist the installation of equipment such as telephone masts in the first place if they fear that the presence of that equipment will obstruct future redevelopment of the site.

I entirely understand the reaction by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), to the late tabling of amendments dealing with the communications code, now removed by amendment 91, and the fact that further time is required to consider the new code. That is necessary; let us get the code right if we can. It is also important to ensure that the code strikes an appropriate balance between landowners and network operators, because only by so doing will it be effective in bringing about the expanded coverage that we all so desperately require. I hope, however, that the process will not take too long, and that we can move forward swiftly with the introduction of a new code, having taken account of the views expressed by industry representatives.

[Mr Hayes]

Just for clarity, the Government will move ahead with the reform of the communications code. We will begin a full consultation in the next few weeks, with a view to bringing forward draft legislation, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend gave: to ensure that we have the agreement of all those who are most directly involved or affected and to ensure that there is agreement across the House.

[Mark Field]

I am very encouraged by the Minister’s words and I know that that will be true of many of my commercial constituents, as it were.

I ask the Government to consider two other things as this important work continues. The first is the position of infrastructure that has been installed before the new code comes into force, whenever that is. As I understand it, the new rules will not apply automatically to such dated infrastructure. Although I understand the reluctance of the Government to interfere in pre-existing legal relationships, I suggest that it would be beneficial to find some means of encouraging existing infrastructure to be brought under the new code as swiftly as possible.

Secondly, there are numerous cases in the City of London in which lengthy wrangling between freeholders and network operators over the terms and conditions for the grant of the necessary consents has delayed the installation of mobile masts or broadband facilities by several months. In the most serious instances, that has prevented business tenants from taking possession of new offices on time or forced businesses to occupy new office space with no functioning communications. Naturally, this is principally a matter of negotiation between private parties, and I would not expect any Government to interfere in such issues, so there are rightly limits to the extent to which they can furnish a solution.

However, when the Bill is enacted, there will be an opportunity under the code for the relevant industry bodies, which have been referred to, to encourage the adoption of model terms and conditions to deal with the issue. Although that is not a complete answer, it would be a constructive step and I hope that it is taken. The City of London corporation has held positive meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the matter and will be looking to provide further support where possible, potentially in conjunction with the Greater London authority.

I have spoken before in this House about the need to ensure that adequate investment in the electricity distribution network can be made to meet tomorrow’s demand for new connections, without imposing unreasonable costs on today’s consumers. This is not the occasion to delve into the intricacies of the matter. Suffice it to say that the need for action is increasingly pressing. In relation to my constituency, I am aware that the Government are working with interested parties such as Ofgem, UK Power Networks, the Greater London authority and the City of London corporation with a view to developing new models that might enable the necessary upfront investment to be delivered, with the costs being recouped from customers over time as new connections are made. It is not yet clear whether the amendments that were made in Committee to extend the second-comer rules to independent connection providers will prove directly relevant to that work, but if so, they are to be welcomed.

In conclusion, I commend the Government for the attention they have given to this important matter in part 7. I urge them to continue that focus to ensure that we get it right. As with telecommunications as a whole, this is a crucial, bread-and-butter issue when it comes to London’s future competitiveness as a commercial centre.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that 99.9% of taxi drivers, if not more, provide a fantastic service to many of the public. A lot of taxi drivers go beyond their duty, at times. We are not here to have a go at taxi drivers—quite the opposite. We are here to support them and the industry as a whole.

I am not sure why on earth the three new clauses to the Deregulation Bill were tabled. It is beyond me. If it is believed that there is a need for legislation, and if that is contentious, perhaps it is in everyone’s best interest to consult the people who work in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) eloquently said, the Cabinet Office suggests that there should be at least 12 weeks’ consultation for any contentious legislation.

Where was the consultation in the present case? Why has there been none? There were 10 days’ consultation—what on earth was the reason for that? I know the Minister will give a full-hearted answer to that question; I just will not be sure about it. What I am sure about is that when the coalition Government come forward with legislation—particularly to do with the Deregulation Bill—it will never be good news for the people working in an industry. I am positive that that is true about the issue we are debating.

The Law Commission is currently drafting a Bill, which is due by the end of April. Is it not slightly confusing that the Government should have commissioned it to draft that Bill and that before it has even been published they have tabled amendments to the Deregulation Bill? It is fair to ask why those reforms have been made in a rush, as last-minute and very contentious—and questionable—new clauses to the Deregulation Bill. I see the Minister smiling. I am sure that he has the right answers, and we all want to hear that the changes are in everyone’s best interest.

The Minister has ignored everyone who works in the industry—the people in the trade, and the trade unions, which have been asking for meetings to discuss the matter: Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which take the health and safety of the general public seriously. There have been no consultations with the trade unions or the trade. There is just a cabal of people from Government who want to push through legislation against ordinary working people.

I appeal to the Minister to recognise that there is a threat to passenger safety. The Government’s reforms to licences could increase the number of unlicensed drivers. That is something that no one here wants. Unlicensed drivers who can masquerade as legitimate present a huge problem for the general public. I am like anyone else: I have been in the city centre and needed a cab—it need not even be a city centre, but could be somewhere quite isolated. If someone calls for a cab they need to be confident that the driver of the vehicle that comes is a licensed driver for an organisation that they can have full confidence in.

Even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned, someone rolled out of the pub—and there are no MPs who do that, by the way—slightly inebriated at night in the city centre, and there was a taxi there, I am sure they would not knock on the window politely and say, “Excuse me, is this for Mr Ian Lavery of 42 Chiltern close? Sorry, what is your licence number?” That just does not happen. That is why we must ensure that the safety of the public who use the services is paramount.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) raised an important point about subcontracting. There have been problems in the past, and legislation has been passed about disabled people in cabs, which has been positive, to be fair. However, there will be problems. I want to raise the issue of rogue drivers. What problems might arise? Someone—perhaps a disabled person—who did not have confidence in a particular firm might ring another, but if that firm could subcontract without permission, someone from it could turn up in an isolated place to pick up the individual or group. The problems could be immense, and that is not what we want.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My understanding of what the Law Commission is trying to do is not that the broad thrust will be deregulatory at all. In my central London constituency, we have great concern about pedicabs and stretch limousines—two matters that the Law Commission recommends should be brought within the scope of taxi and private hire regulation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is desirable that the Law Commission should stick to that position and include pedicabs in the scope of regulation, rather than taking a deregulatory approach such as he has described?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and other coalition Members have made similar remarks. It has been suggested that the Law Commission report should be looked at. There has not been any consultation about input into that, and it has not yet been published. People have not yet had the opportunity for input, as the hon. Gentleman was perhaps suggesting they should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I expect the Law Commission to come up with a lot of positive suggestions and a lot of recommendations on removing some of the more archaic aspects of the existing legislation. I do not expect any of what is being proposed to contradict in any way that report. We have had to weigh up the case for finding a suitable opportunity to look at pragmatic changes in the immediacy rather than looking at the possibility of waiting until everything is reviewed. The Government have chosen to operate and act pragmatically, and to introduce limited measures at this point, because it is clear that the care we are taking to introduce the amendments will make life easier for small businesses and allow them to remove some restrictions that are completely unnecessary. That opportunity has been presented by the Deregulation Bill. It allows us to make immediate progress to assist both taxi and private hire businesses.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right. This issue is a frustration for us all. As I mentioned in my earlier intervention, I would like pedicabs to be brought within the scope of regulation and the Law Commission is quite keen that they be regulated. But clearly, once the Law Commission reports, it will take some time before a Bill gets on to the statute books. I say to all Opposition Members that it surely makes sense that elements of deregulation that apply to all small businesses, whether in the private hire vehicle industry or elsewhere, should become apparent sooner rather than later, given that it will probably be, I fear, the next Parliament before we can get the fruit of the Law Commission’s work into a Bill that, I hope, all of us will be able to support in Parliament going forward.

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The measures that we are introducing via the Deregulation Bill will apply in England outside London and Wales. They represent the first part of a longer journey towards a deregulated trade. As I said, my hon. Friend is right. I remember in the last Parliament arguing in this very Chamber that pedicabs should be regulated and the member of the Government saying that they should not be. Perhaps there has been a change of view on regulation. I see this as the first part of a journey that my hon. Friend is right to say is likely to take longer than the lifetime of this Parliament, because of the necessary review of the Law Commission report. Let me just state this on the record. I do expect there to be more comprehensive reforms. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake extensive consultation, and it has done that. I referred earlier to the more than 3,000 responses that there have been already. It is worth stating on the record that each of the measures that we propose we have already discussed in detail with the Law Commission.

Parking (Westminster)

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament the issue of Westminster council’s parking controls, and particularly the most recent round of proposals, which have generated more controversy than almost any local government matter in recent years. Although I am conscious that much of what is proposed and under discussion relates to the west end—it is good to see the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) here today—I make no apology for introducing the debate. I have no wish to step on the hon. Gentleman’s toes, but Westminster council’s parking policies have an impact far wider than that specific local dimension.

There are two reasons for that: one—and this is one of the themes on which I look forward to the Minister’s response—is that the issue of parking income, and how it is generated and distributed, has a wider context in relation to the agenda of revenue-raising and local taxation. Therefore, everyone in the local authority of the London borough of Westminster has a legitimate interest in how that income is generated and used. Indeed, the wider issues of congestion, displacement and road management are for everyone in the community. Secondly, what happens to the economy of central London is a legitimate matter of concern for us all, since millions of Londoners are affected in their capacity as employees, workers, shoppers, business men and women, worshippers and people who enjoy the cultural and recreational opportunities that central London offers. It is in that context that the Westminster parking proposals have generated such an exceptional level of media interest, particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the Evening Standard. The Evening Standard has, I think, grasped what the majority party on Westminster council seems not to have grasped—that Westminster’s financial problems cannot be solved by any means to hand, without a proper recognition of the impact on the wider economy of London.

To put my cards on the table, I entirely accept that parking income is a legitimate source of revenue-raising for local government, particularly given the severe constraints on the raising of income by other means, and the critical importance of maintaining services for residents. However, the law is clear on the issue, and the law, common sense and political calculation all demand honesty and transparency in the process, as well as that the charges should be fair and proportionate. There has not been adequate honesty and transparency about Westminster council’s financial pressures, and councillors have been found out. They have not told it straight to local people, but instead have given the impression that they have discovered the philosopher’s stone—a way to provide comprehensive, quality services without an adequate tax base.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Lady recognises, I think, the fact that there were considerable legal constraints on the making of the proposed—now shelved—parking changes on the grounds of the finances that were required. There was a big campaign to make a case, which I think was legitimate, about congestion; but no one was fooled about an important element of the proposals being driven by the desire to raise more money in times of financial constraint. Would the hon. Lady prefer a much more transparent approach, not just in Westminster but across local government, which would allow an open debate about precisely those problems—the issue of going down the route of increased parking costs, which would affect everyone in the vicinity, or potential cuts in adult and child services, which are the sorts of things she and I know all too well affect many providers in the City of Westminster today?

[Ms Buck]

There are several issues there, and I shall return to one or two of them, but, yes, we need a broader debate about the role of charging income, property taxation and other forms of income generation by local government. There is no question but that charging has a role to play; but, as the Minister will no doubt confirm, there are particular constraints on the way parking income can be used for revenue generation. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has confirmed what the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier about the suspicion that the charges are being used for revenue generation, rather than parking and traffic management. That is not what parking revenue is supposed to be about.

[Mark Field]

I think that a perfectly legitimate case was made for traffic management, and concerns about congestion. However, had there not been the big financial constraints, there might not have been such a desire to proceed so quickly. The trouble was, the legislation is so prescriptive that to make the case on financial grounds would have killed it off at the outset. Therefore, much more emphasis was placed on the issue of congestion.

[Ms Buck]

The hon. Gentleman is almost making my argument for me. We should have a debate about charging income, which could include the proper role of parking income in a local authority’s tax base. That would be fine; but within the present legal constraints we are where we are, and however we approach the matter we need a mature, transparent and honest debate about services and income. That has been spectacularly missing. As I have said, the political fallout from what has happened has been catastrophic for Westminster council. Whether or not the current leader has, as I believe, been the first victim of that miscalculation—it remains to be seen whether he will be the last—a great deal of collateral damage has none the less been done to the council.

To recap on the facts, Westminster council’s plans to ban free evening and Sunday parking on single yellow lines in the west end for more than 8,400 cars have provoked an unprecedented coalition of opposition. They have united the Churches and casinos and the trade unions and big business. They have brought together local residents, visitors to the west end, and those who earn their living there, and united all the major political parties. Indeed, Westminster council has achieved the near impossible—it has found the one thing that Boris Johnson, Brian Paddick and Ken Livingstone all agree on.

The council said that the new charges and the single yellow line parking ban are designed to increase the turnover of cars parking in the area, and to make it easier for those driving into the heart of London to find a parking space; but everyone knows that the real reason is to raise the expected £7 million a year that the charges will raise for a council whose cash reserves have fallen by £60 million in the past two years, as Government cuts have bitten and reduced its room for manoeuvre. As Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has said:

“It’s completely mad what Westminster are doing. It will be damaging to business. I’m afraid, as far as I understand the matter, there is a financial issue here for Westminster. In other words, they need the revenue.”

As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Transport has said—and I should be interested to have the Minister’s clarification of this—

“I’m sure when Westminster thought about what they were going to do with those parking charges they had a sense they might be able to put some extra money in their coffers that they could probably use on public services”.

As I understand that quotation, the Transport Secretary clearly accepts that the local authority was acting at least at the borders, and possibly beyond the borders, of legality. Does the Minister agree with the Mayor of London and the Transport Secretary about Westminster’s true motives, and, in view of that, what is the Department’s line on how to respond, and on what constraints there should be on the proper use of parking revenue?

[Mark Field]

I confess I look forward to the fulsome praise that the hon. Lady will give to the words of the Mayor of London in the next 107 days, in the run-up to the mayoral election. I do not think there is any suggestion of illegality. Surely the primary purpose of the changes was related to traffic management and congestion, but the hon. Lady and the Transport Secretary are right to suggest that there was also a secondary purpose. That would not make the proposals illegal or illegitimate, but the public at large were not going to be fooled, and they felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes when the latter priority was denied entirely.

[Ms Buck]

I will let that pass; those are the hon. Gentleman’s views.

In addition to the question about the proper role of parking income as a source of revenue, the issue that has probably generated the greatest controversy is the risk that the parking charges would present to the central London economy. The independent City forecaster, the Centre for Economics and Business Research, has estimated that the parking charges would cost the west end £800 million a year and threaten more than 5,000 jobs. It is suggested that 9% of the £9.2 billion central London night-time and Sunday economy could disappear as customers and workers are put off by the new charges. The research found that the biggest losses of turnover would be felt by restaurants, bars, pubs and cafes at £330 million, followed by theatres, cinemas, casinos and other places of entertainment at £314 million, and then retailers at £145 million. Recent research by the Society of London Theatre revealed that 16% of London theatregoers used cars to visit the theatre. For those over 55, it was more than 20%, with the reasons being more about access and security than the availability of public transport. Some 90% of London’s theatre ticket revenue was generated within the borough of Westminster. Westminster’s proposals would still, although delayed, continue to put at risk some 14.5% of total theatre income, or approximately £72 million a year.

Baroness Valentine, the chief executive of the business group London First, said:

“At a time when the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors are all suffering from the protracted slowdown and reduced consumer confidence and spending, introducing measures that will further discourage customers from coming into central London seems perverse. Westminster’s businesses should not be the unwilling guinea pigs in an experiment of which the outcome could be highly damaging to their viability.”

Mary Portas, appointed by the Government as a high street adviser, as well as being a local resident, said:

“Parking is just one of the issues that comes up time and time again. It’s one of the biggest things that stops flow, and for retailers and restaurants it stops their trade. This is just sheer madness”.

Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s high street adviser?

There are of course a great many individuals, too, who are low-income employees working in the night-time economy and who have raised concerns about the impact on them at a time when night transport is by no means always available. That raises real concerns about safety, particularly for women travelling at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning.

In addition to the impact on business, the Minister will know that some 15,000 people attend churches of all denominations on a Sunday in Westminster, many of whose families used to live in the west end. They see it as part of the family tradition to worship in a west end church. Major Ray Brown of the Salvation Army in Oxford street made the case in clear and unambiguous terms. He said that

“Westminster Council have taken a very short-sighted decision to seriously damage hundreds of years of church community action and spiritual activity for the sake of a quick financial gain. For some members and volunteers at The Salvation Army, this means having to face the terrible decision of having to leave the church they have been involved in all their lives”.

Does the Minister believe that curtailing the Church’s community action is in line with the Prime Minister’s big society vision?

These new charges were originally due to be introduced in early December 2011, just weeks before Christmas, but thanks to pressure from west end retailers and Labour councillors, Westminster reluctantly agreed to postpone implementation until January. Meanwhile, west end restaurateurs, retailers, residents and Churches came together to fund legal action against the council. On 14 December, the High Court ordered Westminster council to halt plans to introduce west end parking charges until the judicial review application is heard in March. In a scathing decision, Mr Justice Collins highlighted

“substantial damage to businesses and churches”

and “far too limited” consultation as reasons why the council should not be allowed to introduce the new charges until the judicial review has been heard.

Sensing it was losing the argument, Westminster council leader Colin Barrow promised to listen more in the future and to delay implementation of the new charges until after the 2012 Olympics and the diamond jubilee celebrations. However, just nine days later, at 3.30 pm on 23 December, Councillor Barrow stopped listening and the council announced that it would be axing 1,200 single yellow line parking spaces under the guise of helping the elderly and the disabled cross the road more easily. Of course, everybody supports double yellow lines at dropped kerbs in order to make crossing the road safer for the disabled, the elderly and parents, but Westminster council’s proposals go way beyond just protecting dropped kerbs from parked cars. They were used as an excuse to remove 5 miles of safe evening parking from the west end, and were a deliberate attempt to get round the High Court ban on implementing plans to remove more than 8,400 free parking spaces on single yellow lines.

Then, just last week, Westminster council dropped another bombshell when it became clear that figures on the number of parking spaces that would be lost through the council’s plans were not accurate. Originally we were given to understand that 1,700 yellow line parking spaces would be lost through the council’s proposals, when the real figure was actually more than 8,400. That is a 500% difference. The significance of this monumental blunder is fundamental. The council had no idea how many parking spaces would be lost when it took the decision in August 2011 to ban parking on single yellow lines in the evening and on Sundays. Nor did the council have the correct figures when it consulted residents and businesses before and after the decision.

The leader of the Westminster Labour group, Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, has written to the council’s director of legal services to point out the obvious implications of this admission. He said:

“At the time the Cabinet agreed the proposals in August 2011 Members were not provided with any information on the number of single yellow line parking spaces that would be lost. Cabinet members were therefore unable to give proper consideration to all the material facts. Members were not informed of a figure for lost parking spaces until nearly 2 months later…The Council’s further public consultation that ran up until early December 2011 did not provide any figures on the number of single yellow line parking places to be lost and the only figure in the public domain during the consultation period was the incorrect figure of 1,700 provided by the Council”.

Whatever happens next—it is hard to see how the proposed charges can survive the leadership contest that Councillor Barrow has unleashed—Westminster’s problems are not over. Either the highest profile charging row in recent memory will lead to reinstatement, or a financial crisis looms, to be dealt with by a council weakened in trust and credibility. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I believe that the policy disaster that has befallen Westminster has much wider ramifications for local government finance, and those need to be addressed too.

We all believe that parking and car use in inner cities has to be controlled and managed, but any changes with impacts and ramifications such as these need to be handled on the basis of accurate data, and with effective consultation. The changes need to take with them public trust and confidence. I am sorry to say that Westminster council has lost that trust and confidence, with major implications for the wider economy, and is in danger of undermining this Government’s and future Governments’ more thoughtful approaches to traffic management and parking. If the council will not act effectively to get itself out of the hole it has dug, I look to the Minister to assure us that the Government will step in.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Howarth. I apologise that the Minister responsible for local government is not here. I am stepping in on his behalf. He is in Newcastle, although I know that he would have liked to have been at this debate. Some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) may need to be dealt with by letter.

As the hon. Lady knows as a former Under-Secretary of State for Transport, it would be wrong and improper for me to get drawn into the decisions of the judicial review. I stress that some of the comments she made seemed to pre-empt what the judges at the judicial review will look into. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in his place.

Very unusually for me, I am going to read. I normally know my brief well enough not to need to do so.

The Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling surrounding the proposed changes by Westminster council. It is difficult not to be, given what is in the local press and on the local news. The strong views expressed, and the concerns raised by residents and businesses in Westminster, show just how important issues such as this are, not just for Westminster, but across the country as a whole. It is essential that local authorities do all they can to get the balance right and to develop and maintain an effective parking and traffic management strategy that serves the interests of all stakeholders in as fair and equitable a way as possible.

There will be a little repetition, for which I apologise, but it is important that the Government set out their position. Among other things, Westminster has to strive to understand the needs of industry, shops, restaurants, clubs, theatres and Churches, as the hon. Lady alluded to, as well as the needs of the employees, customers and residents in the area affected.

[Mark Field]

It is also worth stressing, and this point perhaps relates to something that the hon. Lady said, that the west end and the centre of London seem to belong to more than just one or two constituencies. It is fair to say that relatively few of my constituents—my residential constituents—wrote to me about this scheme and of those who did a number were in favour of it. However, it is also the case that a lot of businesses, particularly independent businesses, are implacably opposed to the scheme. There are specific issues in Westminster because of the nature of our local authority, which means that this scheme has become a higher-profile issue and aspects of it would not necessarily be transferrable to other local authorities throughout the country; I disagree with the hon. Lady that they would be transferrable.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The character of this part of town—a town in which I was born and brought up—is unique in the country. However, I will come on to the issues relating to parking and parking spaces, and revenues that are surplus to the cost of creating those parking spaces. They are important issues, and they were the issues that the hon. Lady was referring to.

Many people choose to travel by public transport, but many others usually use their car or van. Also, parking spaces are clearly limited, both on and off the street, and there is considerable demand for road space in one of the busiest areas not only in London but in the country. Without doubt, congestion—one of the areas covered in my portfolio—is a real problem. I can understand the competing concerns that the local authority in Westminster has to address. There are very difficult issues that need to be addressed when developing appropriate parking strategies in such circumstances.

The hon. Lady referred to the fact that Mary Portas produced a report for the Government on high streets, recommending that local areas should implement free controlled parking schemes in their town centres wherever possible. However, I am not certain that such a scheme would work brilliantly within Westminster, for obvious reasons.

The Portas review points out that the high street is in serious threat of decline. No matter where we look around the country we can see that, and Westminster is no exception. Town centre shopping is affected by the internet and out-of-town stores. The number of shops in the country as a whole has gone down by 25,000 during the past 10 years, so it is not something that has just suddenly happened, and Opposition parties cannot blame everything on the current Government; that decline has been going on for some considerable time. The case that Mary Portas makes in her report is that a range of measures—not just parking measures—should be used to encourage people to use secondary and main high streets, and it is an absolutely important case.

However, as the hon. Lady said, the report by Mary Portas indicates the crucial role of parking in making an area vibrant, and I think that that is the biggest point that we have heard today. The Government agree with the report by Mary Portas on that. I am not saying whether the Government fully agree with the comments that the hon. Lady said that Mary Portas had made, because I have not actually seen those comments, but I am sure that Mary Portas is more than capable of standing up for her own comments. So we are encouraging local authorities to look closely at how parking provision and charges work.

The Government understand that these issues have a massive effect. So, in January 2011, we amended the national planning guidance to remove Whitehall restrictions that imposed maximum numbers of parking places in new residential developments; to change a policy that inhibited competition between council areas, so that one parking charge would be imposed and another would not, which related to in and out of town centre developments; to introduce a policy that parking enforcement should be proportionate, and I stress proportionate; to remove the policy that encouraged councils to set car parking charges to discourage the use of cars; and to increase support for electric car power-charging infrastructure in parking areas.

The Government’s draft national planning policy framework follows through on those changes by removing the restrictions that impose maximum numbers of parking spaces in new non-residential developments. That will also relieve pressure on on-street parking.

As we know, Westminster council has now postponed its plans until beyond the Olympics and the jubilee celebrations. The Government welcome that decision, but we will wait—I think everyone will wait—for the judicial review to reach its own conclusions. It is up to Westminster council—if we believe in localism, we must leave it to the council—to come forward and make its decisions, based on the guidance that it has.

We appreciate Westminster council keeping Department for Transport Ministers fully informed, and council representatives have had several meetings and conversations with Ministers; I myself had a phone conversation yesterday with Westminster’s chief whip, Mr Caplan, about this debate. I understand that Westminster council has agreed to use the intervening period to discuss its policy and to continue to listen to the concerns of residents, visitors and businesses, who I am sure also want to find solutions to the ongoing pressures that the hon. Lady alluded to in her speech. The key is achieving a sustainable economy for the residents and the businesses together, and that is something that we all want to achieve.

It would perhaps be useful if I provided some context and said where Westminster is in the legal framework; the hon. Lady referred to the legal framework. The Department issues operational guidance to local authorities on parking policy and enforcement. That guidance was revised in November 2010, and it supports and complements the statutory guidance published under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to which local authorities must have regard—I stress the word “must”.

Local authorities have long been responsible for managing all on-street parking and some off-street parking, and their relevant powers were first laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes an explicit duty on local authorities when they are carrying out these functions to manage their network so as to reduce congestion and disruption, and to appoint a traffic manager.

Following the provisions for authorities to manage parking that are laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1991 significantly changed the way that on-street parking restrictions are enforced. Before the 1991 Act, the police and traffic wardens were responsible for enforcement, and income from fixed penalty notices specifically went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the police found that the impact of parking enforcement on the resources of a number of forces supported the idea that another agency should take responsibility for such enforcement.

The potential road safety and congestion implications of a lack of enforcement were unacceptable, so the 1991 Act made it mandatory for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of non-endorsable parking contraventions; in other words, parking fines where a driver does not receive points on their licence. In London, boroughs were responsible for enforcement of such fines and some other authorities also enforced such fines. The legal framework for enforcement authorities is now contained in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Now you know, Mr Howarth, why I am reading it and not trying to do this from memory.

High-speed Rail

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I will take both those things on board, and indeed I will be in Birmingham tomorrow. When we look at high-speed rail in other countries, we see that the countries that have had the most success with it are those that have looked at projects more broadly, so we must ensure that HS2 provides broader connectivity than just to the areas it drops in at.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is fair to recognise that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) makes a valid point about Euston station and the rail capacity of that particular area. Has the Secretary of State given any particular thought to the idea that there should be a nodal link at Old Oak Common, which would link up Crossrail and HS2, thereby ensuring that a large amount of the traffic that would otherwise get caught up in Euston is enabled to go through central London via a different route?

[Justine Greening]

I think that is such a good idea, which is precisely why it is part of the plan.