Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Mark Reckless and Jackie Doyle-Price

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we bite the bullet now and lay the foundations for future security. If we delay, we will be asking for more contributions from taxpayers and workers themselves, so it makes perfect sense to deal with the problem. We cannot postpone the inevitable, and Government Members are not prepared to do so.

I am sure that many Members will have received representations on these issues. Most of those that I have received have come from police officers who are worried about the changes. Most public sector employees have recognised that the terms under which they were paying into their pensions were not sustainable in the longer term, not least because they have seen what happened to the pension provision of their friends and family members in the private sector. People in the private sector would have to contribute more than a third of their salary each year to get an equivalent pension, so I am not surprised that only a third of public sector workers voted to strike over this issue last November.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I understand that the public schemes are generally generous in comparison with those in the private sector, but does my hon. Friend have a view on the relative generosity of the police scheme, on which we have received a lot of representations? The police clearly have quite a high pension, but they pay a large amount in. Is it fair that they have had to pay so much more than civil servants, for example, whose contribution is much smaller?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We will benefit from an examination of the individual schemes in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made several good points about the financial sustainability of the local government scheme compared with others. We need to look at what we expect of all our public servants in the round, and the issues raised about the police are quite persuasive. We need to look in detail at what we are proposing not just for public sector workers as a group, but for individual worker groups. We also need to remind public sector workers who are witnessing the debate that their accrued rights are protected, and that there will be protection for those who are within 10 years of retirement.

The Bill will deliver sustainable public service pensions. It will almost halve the cost to taxpayers, and it will rightly ensure that public sector workers continue to receive the best available pensions. It provides a good deal for the taxpayer and for public servants, and I am happy to support it.

Aviation

Debate between Mark Reckless and Jackie Doyle-Price

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and to have the Minister respond to the debate.

My interest in airports first came about because, at a time when many boys want to be train drivers, my younger brother had an ambition to be an airport manager. Consequently, whenever we went on holiday, my indulgent parents would take us to the airport four or five hours before we needed to be there, and my brother would go around and catalogue the catering outlets and investigate the cleaning rosters. I was delighted, a few years later, when he decided that he actually wanted to be a doctor.

As an economist, I worked for a short period on airline alliances, but my most significant involvement with aviation came 10 years ago when, following a leak in the Financial Times a few months earlier, the then Labour Government published the “South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study”—SERAS—which proposed an airport twice the size of Heathrow at a location it described as Cliffe, in the constituency I now represent. Then as now, many felt that that was a stalking horse to make airport expansion elsewhere seem more attractive by comparison.

Our first response was to look at that airport study, which we noted excluded any consideration of Gatwick expansion, on the basis that there was a planning agreement, and it looked no further at that idea at all. I was sort of blooded on that issue when I first asked whether that decision was perhaps irrational and something that would be questioned by the courts. Initially, a judicial review was proposed, which ultimately led to the Labour Government being forced to consider the case for a second runway at Gatwick, even though they had previously decided against it.

The debate that took place showed that an estuary airport would be environmentally devastating, and that the economics simply did not add up. I and many others were delighted to campaign with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Friends of North Kent Marshes, and many others who made the case that having a huge airport in the middle of Europe’s leading wetland landscape, with its millions of birds, was probably not a good idea.

The assumption by some that no people live in that area and that there would be no opposition was put paid to by more than 20,000 people who live on the broader Hoo peninsula, and who would suffer egregiously from such an airport. In addition, large numbers of people live on both sides of the estuary, and any flights taking off in a westerly direction would create new flight paths over heavily populated areas of London. The idea that such an airport would somehow be a problem-free solution that people would not complain about is, to coin a phrase, for the birds.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

To follow on from that, one point made by advocates of the estuary solution is that the area is crying out for new jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that ignores the economic growth that is already happening, particularly in south Essex, with the expansion of the port? That is the future of the estuary—ports, not airports.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I congratulate her on her work in campaigning for economic development in her area. The fundamental point is that although jobs might be created—I do not deny that there would be a lot of jobs; perhaps 200,000, as some estimates suggest—they would come 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and would be almost entirely taken by a vast migration of people who would be forced to uproot themselves, perhaps from around Heathrow, and move to a new area. In terms of Government engineering, I cannot see the case for that in a free society.

Thames River Crossings

Debate between Mark Reckless and Jackie Doyle-Price

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am grateful for the opportunity to address that point. I have been less than compromising in my attitude towards the Thames estuary airport, but I think the hon. Gentleman's point about more crossings is that we need a much more long-term approach to our national road infrastructure. I remind him that his Government looked at this issue in 2009 but parked it because it was too difficult. When we consider road infrastructure issues, there is often a natural nimby tendency. We all want to represent our voters’ interests, but we need the courage to have the debate and think about what is really important for the long term. If we do not have that, we will be putting much-needed jobs at risk, and we cannot afford to do that right now. Generally, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that we must look at where the traffic need is likely to be in the long term.

However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on ports policy, taking into account where shipping will arrive in the future can open up opportunities to reduce road journeys. We need to look creatively at how we move things around, taking a joined-up approach. The issue of the airport is interesting because, if truth be known, that debate has been taking place, championed by its enthusiasts, without any thought as to the impact on shipping and wider infrastructure outside London.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

We heard yesterday very little support for the Thames estuary airport proposition, but one proposal has been floated, with very little detail to it, by Lord Foster, which would cost at least £50 billion. He is looking to include a bridge, a barrage and various other things. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that is an absolutely preposterous proposal?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am on record as describing that proposal as pie in the sky, and I have not seen anything to change that opinion.

Getting back to the issue of crossings rather than airports, we clearly need more crossings east of Blackwall, and I am delighted that the Minister is not going to duck the issue for a moment longer and that firm proposals will be made. I am not quite sure that I will entirely like what he has to propose, but we have already had a number of robust exchanges on this and I am sure there will be many more.

As I mentioned, the priority must be a new crossing in east London. One can see, just by driving through it, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse would confirm, that what has really been missing is a link between the north and south circulars. That will unlock opportunities in east London. The area between the ExCeL centre and London city airport is within minutes of central London and it is staggering that it has not really benefited from more development. I am therefore delighted that the Government have put their support behind the Mayor of London’s proposal for the new crossing linking Greenwich and Silvertown. I gather that the tunnel will have the capacity to carry up to 2,500 vehicles an hour—a significant increase in capacity, but not enough. As I said, I believe the crossing will divert some of the congestion from Dartford, and since the Mayor of London is determined to complete the crossing within a decade, it is obviously an extremely positive development for the capital and for road users within the M25.

I know, however, that the Minister’s main priority is the new crossing in the lower Thames. The previous Government also concluded that such a crossing was necessary. I gather that on every working day the Dartford crossing is operating at capacity, and because of those volumes, even with the removal of toll barriers and the introduction of free flow and the consequent increase in capacity that that will deliver, by 2031 the crossing will be at capacity again. Given how long it takes for this country to build major infrastructure projects, clearly we must make a decision now if we are to be ready to meet those future demands.

As I said, although I welcome the crossing, its ultimate location is of central importance to my constituents in Thurrock. Although, as far as the Department is concerned, the Dartford crossing is part of the national road infrastructure, its impact is local. It has air quality consequences for my constituents. It causes congestion, particularly when there are queues to access the crossing at junction 30/31 of the M25, and I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that improvements to that junction are extremely necessary to maximise the efficiency of the existing road network. That is also felt by the business community, given the importance of the logistics industry and the opportunities for job creation in that sector. The need to ensure that traffic moves will determine the degree to which the local economy can grow.

I shall run through some of the options, to get on record some of the concerns that my constituents have. One option is to link Gravesend and East Tilbury; I believe it is being championed by Kent county council. That option has aroused considerable opposition from my constituents. It would require the destruction of huge swathes of green belt in Thurrock to make way for a new motorway. As Thurrock already hosts the M25, the Dartford crossing and the A13, residents are extremely unhappy at the prospect of more green belt being dug up to build new roads, and the Thurrock Gazette recently collected many thousands of signatures for a petition to that effect which I presented to the House last year. I recall that when the previous Government looked at that option it had the weakest business case for alleviating congestion at Dartford.

Another option is for a crossing between Swanscombe and Tilbury. This would have the advantage of joining an existing road that has some spare capacity, but there is a serious question over whether it could cope with the capacity generated by a new crossing. The third option is for an additional crossing at Dartford. This is perhaps the one that generates the most concern, given the volume of traffic we currently struggle with. Given that the M25 is being widened to five lanes in each direction, it is clear that the traffic will bottleneck at Dartford, where the provision is only four lanes in each direction.

We desperately need the improvements that the changes at junction 30 will deliver to deal with the current situation, as the existing road infrastructure cannot support current volumes, let alone an additional crossing adjacent to the existing one. We need an assurance from the Minister that the consequences for Thurrock will be fully considered as the Government review the options. Given Thurrock’s position as a logistics hub, the road infrastructure simply must function adequately so that our traffic can get around.

There will of course be massive benefits if new infrastructure can be achieved, but I would like to put on the record three criteria that I would like the Minister to take on board when considering the options. We want assurances: first, that the new crossing will not result in the destruction of Thurrock’s green belt for the purpose of constructing new motorways; secondly, that it will not add additional traffic volumes to our already overcrowded road network; and thirdly, that it will alleviate congestion at the Dartford crossing. Clearly, the degree to which the new crossing interacts with the existing road network will determine the degree to which congestion is alleviated. Without these assurances, there will be extremely strong opposition in Thurrock to a new crossing.

There are a number of other issues, and perhaps myths, that the Minister needs to address as the debate moves forward. Many of my constituents believe that the new crossing should be further east, effectively creating a new outer circular. It is difficult to see where such a crossing could be constructed, given the width of the Thames further along the estuary and the cost implications that that would have for a new crossing, be it a tunnel or bridge, but it is important that those options are considered before they are rejected or accepted. I have also mentioned that much of the demand is generated by the volume of heavy goods vehicle traffic from Dover, so we need to be imaginative about how we can divert some of that away from the crossing, not only by having a new crossing, but perhaps by transporting more by ship.

Finally, my constituents often tell me that there would be no need for an additional crossing if the tolls were removed. They believe that the toll barriers are the principal source of congestion. I do not believe that their removal is a solution for the long term, but the Government need to make the case for why expansion is necessary so that we take everyone with us on the need to invest in this road infrastructure. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I am sure that this will not be the last time we debate the matter, but having the debate is important because, ultimately, it will lead to a better final decision on where the crossing will be.