Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Michael Connarty Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion that every analyst I have read denies. The lack of investment—the amount of money held in corporate bank accounts that is not being invested—is a major problem for this economy, so where does he get the evidence of this rising confidence in investment?
Mr Tyrie
I have not brought all the survey data along with me, but I can supply it to the hon. Gentleman if he is interested. He makes a valid point, which is that there is a lot more work to be done fully to restore confidence to the point that is needed to unlock cash piles on the balance sheets of some of Britain’s larger businesses. For smaller businesses, investment is often not taking place at the level we would like, although it is much better, because the small and medium-sized enterprise lending market is still relatively weak. The banks are not supplying them with the resources they need. We desperately need to break down what still amounts to a banking cartel on lending. We need to get to the point where these small firms—the new firms that create so much wealth in Britain—can get access to the lending they need.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Budget statement was very interesting, because it was an attempt to rewrite the Chancellor’s last five years. It is strange that the Chancellor forgets where he started, what he promised, and what he tried to do. He came into office five years ago with austerity max. That was his solution. He was going to drive out the deficit by slashing public sector expenditure—and he was applauded to the rooftops by Conservative Back Benchers. Within a year, the economy had stalled, we lost our triple A credit rating and the Chancellor panicked. What did he do? Strangely, he stole Labour’s plan B. He realised that he had to bring something other than austerity and cuts into the economy, because of the damage that they were doing. That is a lesson that the eurozone could learn, because it is doing the same thing across Europe now, with its obsession with austerity and cuts.
The Chancellor brought in some other measures. For example, he started to tax. For the past five-year period, 18% of his deficit cutting has been done by raising taxation and 82% by cuts. That is still the wrong balance, but at least it gave him some income with which to start to give incentives to the business community and to consumers to try to raise the economy.
The Chancellor got to a position where he had halfway run his race. If someone said to me, “I’m going to run a mile,” but then wanted a medal because they had run half a mile, I do not think they would get a medal. Yet he stood up today wanting applause from everyone on the Back Benches—he got it from his own side—for having failed to reach his own target! It is an amazing situation in politics, where someone sets out to do something, fails to do it and then tells us what a wonderful job he has done. The reason, of course, is that he is trying to put a gloss on his failure. A lot of the things that have happened in the economy have not been because of the Government; they have been despite the Government.
It is very important to look at where the Chancellor got his money from. He got it by taxing the low and middle-income people in this country. How can anyone expect the people of the UK to applaud the Government when it is the people who have felt the pain? The Government will never be able to justify to the vast majority of my constituents—and, I think, the people of the UK—cutting tax by 5% for those earning more than £150,000 a year. We get people saying that that is worth £40,000 to a millionaire, but the main thing is that it was unfair, it was unnecessary and it was playing to an ideology, not to practical economics. Why the Chancellor should think for a minute that he should get any applause for that, I do not know. He will get none in my constituency, even from the very hard-working people earning decent wages, for example in the oil and gas industry.
The Government have been telling us a mythology today. They expect people to believe it, but I have been listening to the commentators outside the Chamber and they are not buying it. This has been a feeble Budget, with little bits here and little bits there. How does one spend £6 billion, yet do very little to incentivise the people of this country? Just follow the Chancellor’s words. There is nothing there, as far as I can see, to help people.
The Budget, as far as I am concerned, is based on another mythology: the mythology of the unemployment level. They keep saying, “The unemployment level in your constituency, or in this constituency, has fallen.” If that was true, it would be fine. But it is not true. The unemployment claimant level has fallen. What has happened is that large numbers of people in the support system have been put on employment and support allowance and are not counted towards the claimant count. Massive numbers of my constituents tell me about the sanctioned people in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) elucidated that so well, with the number of examples she gave.
The example that struck me most was the person who, in the past couple of months, died of starvation. He was a person with a mental health problem, who had been sanctioned because he had not turned up for various signing on regimes. He had £3.66 in his pocket. The care worker who found him said that even murderers do not starve to death in this country, but people who cannot help themselves are sanctioned for three months. That is three months without any form of income. There are no other places to go. The supply of loans that used to exist have dried up. People live in absolute dire poverty.
I found a woman with three children who, because of a break-up in her relationship, went from summer to Christmas without any money from the local Department for Work and Pensions. She lived on her family allowance and by borrowing from everyone she could find to keep her alive. Eventually, she came to my surgery in tears, absolutely howling, looking at a Christmas with no money in her pocket and no one else to borrow from. That is the reality of this so-called unemployment fall. A massive number of people—the figure I have heard is as many as 1 million—have been sanctioned off benefits and are living below the breadline. That is not because they are not seeking employment, but because they despair. They give up. They try again, they try again. They are told, “That is not enough, fill your book in.” They keep trying, but are always told, “That is not enough.” That is not the economy that I particularly want to see.
The Chancellor said that he is going to do something for people on low wages. That is another joke. Government Members sneer and laugh when people talk and shout about zero-hours contracts or part-time employment, but that is the reality. I watch and wonder sometimes if they have any moral fibre in them. The reality for my constituents—I have taken up these cases—is exemplified by Burton’s Biscuits, which said, “We don’t have zero-hours contracts. We guarantee 150 hours a year.” No one can live on that.
The problem with what the Chancellor is trying to sell is that we are not buying it. It is a hard life out there for ordinary families, and what we need is a Budget from a Labour Government that says, “You build the economy up from below. You do not trickle down from above.” Every statistic shows that we have failed to grow because we still rely on trickle-down economics. We need a Labour Government with a better plan for our people—one that puts the people and my constituents at the bottom level first, so that they can work their way up, not a plan that gives to millionaires in the hope that they will trickle it down.
HGV Road User Levy Bill
Michael Connarty Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond
I hope that I am about to address exactly that point. I welcome the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk to his place, because he raised the point about the levy rebate, which I hope my opening remarks have addressed.
The BVLRA estimates that rebating the charge in tenths rather than twelfths might cost its members, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has said, up to £2.7 million a year. That estimate is on the high side, to say the least, because the BVRLA assumes that half the refunds would be for vehicles in the most expensive levy band, whereas, in fact, only 4% of the UK fleet is in that band. Most UK vehicles—83%—are in bands costing between 36% and 65% less. I would therefore question whether the cost is as high as estimated.
The BVRLA also assumes that all refunds are claimed in the 10th month of the VED cycle for each vehicle, which is a worst-case scenario. In fact, there is a peak in vehicle disposals at around month three or four of the cycle, reflecting the fact that vehicles are often purchased in September and sold in January, to deal with Christmas business. The loss for any vehicle at this point is some 60% or 70% less than the worst-case figure.
We estimate that most vehicles will lose in the region of between £30 and £50 when delicensed. That is not a regular event, but it would happen, for example, when a vehicle is sold. The loss therefore needs to be set in the context of the vehicle’s whole lifetime, which can be about 10 years. For example, a typical vehicle that lasts 10 years and is sold twice during that period at a typical stage in the VED-levy cycle would incur between £60 and £100 in rebate costs over its life, because the loss is incurred only when the vehicle is sold or delicensed for other reasons. That cost equates to about £6 a year. Operators can avoid that cost by selling the vehicle taxed or by disposing of it only at the end of the VED-levy cycle so that there is no amount to reclaim.
As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, the BVRLA gave oral evidence to the Committee and raised this point, but it did not give it the prominence that it has been given subsequently. I am pleased that we have been able to discuss it today because it did not feature in our discussion about levy rebates. I am pleased that I have been able to clear the point up. The BVRLA could have submitted written evidence on this point to the Committee, but it did not. It is helpful that it has been raised by way of amendment this afternoon.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The point I raised on instinct, on looking at the Bill, was that this was not a level playing field between those who come into the UK and pay the levy, and those who are in the UK and pay duty and now the levy. Although the Minister has said that the loss will be 70% less than the worst-case scenario and only about £6, it is still not a level playing field. There will be a loss for the leasing companies in the UK. The companies say that the loss will be £2.7 million a year. If it is 70% of £2.7 million a year, it is still a large hit for British business.
Stephen Hammond
As I have said, the figure of £2.7 million is predicated on half the vehicles in the fleet being in the largest band, whereas only 4% are in that band. There will be a very small loss, if there is a loss at all. The £2.7 million figure is clearly an overestimate.
I seek to persuade the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that under the amendment, all rebating would be done under clause 7(4), which is designed for shorter periods of time than one year. Rebating the annual levy under that subsection would not resolve the tenths versus twelfths issue, but it would allow some foreign operators to drive on the UK’s roads for free for up to two months when they purchase an annual levy. That is because, as we discussed in Committee, they would be able to claim a rebate for whole outstanding months at the monthly levy rate, rather than at the discounted rate.
As well as the potential for free use of the roads, a further consequence of using clause 7(4) as the rebating mechanism would be to allow anyone to make a claim for more than they had paid, without ever driving on the UK’s roads. For example, if an operator purchased a levy starting at a future point in time, say 1 February, and immediately asked for a rebate, they would be able to claim 12 times the monthly rate because the levy period would not have started. That would contrast with the actual cost of the 12-month levy, which is discounted to 10 times the monthly rate.
The consequential amendments would mean that clause 7(4) could also be used for annual rebating and would remove the references to clause 7(3) in clause 7(8), which deals with the level of the rebate. Given the unintended consequences of providing updates only through clause 7(4), and given the relatively small value of the typical loss, which is incurred only if the vehicle is delicensed or sold, we do not propose to change the rebating formula from tenths to twelfths.
I will keep the situation under review. I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will withdraw the amendment.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I want to raise a couple of issues just to put them on the record. We have had a debate, and eventually an agreement, not to press any of the worthy amendments to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, the Bill has been a long time in gestation, going back to our time in office. People wanted to see something done, a point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and felt strongly that there was an imbalance and a disadvantage to the UK haulage business for many reasons, including diesel prices and the lack of any contribution to our road network.
Some of the points that have been raised are sound. Kent county council made an excellent contribution to the argument for hypothecation on the basis that a large percentage of the vehicles coming into the UK use its road system that it then has to maintain. Given that the Government are now in the ludicrous position of rate-capping every council—they call it council tax freezing; it is rate capping—the money available to Kent through the normal levy powers is diminishing, so it was looking to see whether this measure would bring some money into its coffers to help it to maintain its roads. However, we are told that it will all go into the Consolidated Fund—into the back pocket of the Treasury.
A colleague from the north-east of England made a good case for the need to upgrade the poor quality roads in the north-east of England. The point was made very well that to drive from Scotland to Tyneside, a major European hub for roll-on/roll-off transport and tourism, it is necessary to drive down what is virtually a country road for about 20 or 30 miles. I have done that journey and can verify that feeling of having lost my way because there is no decent road network leading to that major port. I can see why hypothecation would make a lot of sense. I made a bid for hypothecation for a major bridge project in Avon gorge in my constituency, a choke point where accidents happen all the time. It was decided, however, that there would be no hypothecation.
I still question the decision that the money raised should all go to the Consolidated Fund. There are two points about that. One of those points is to level the playing field up in terms of making charges on those from abroad who use the roads, and who at the moment do not do pay. However, everyone who gave evidence from the Freight Transport Association made a bid for some, if not all, of that money to be put into the road network. The idea that some of that money will go into the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and some into registration recognition cameras is a small point in policing, but that does not raise the quality of the road network, which is what the transport companies were speaking about.
The question we need to ask over the years is whether the money going into the Consolidated Fund comes out at the other end so as to benefit the road user in any way, particularly heavy goods vehicles, which deliver goods to the shops, homes and companies in this country. That is one question that I leave to be considered over time. It should be looked at in the review that the Minister kindly offered during the debate on the amendments. I like the idea of reviews, because although I am sure the Bill is grand and well thought through, there is always the law of unintended consequences to be taken into account.
The second thing I want to address is the question dealt with by our amendments today. In reading the Bill, one thing was clear to me. I do not know the kind of transport detail that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others seem to know—including, possibly, the Chair of the Transport Committee—but I have a large number of heavy goods vehicle depots in my constituency, in and around Grangemouth, which is the only recognised totally inter-modal hub in Scotland. It has road, rail and a major shipping port—the biggest container base in Scotland. People tell me that cashing in their HGV licence at particular times can be sensible business; the problem now is that they have to work out how to cash it in at the same time as not losing money on the levy. I know that the Minister said that the figure of £2.7 million that the leasing companies gave us was high—possibly every vehicle had to be in the worst category, and so on. The point I was asking about was the principle and what, on first look, I thought was a dislocation between the fact that someone who does not come into the UK and does not pay their levy—because they are not coming in—faces a zero sum and the fact that someone with a British-registered vehicle who pays the levy but cashes it in at the wrong time will be out of pocket.
The Minister says the figure turns out to be only £6 a year. That may be the case, and that may all right for the industry. However, the industry would not have rung the alarm bells—it perhaps rang a bigger bell that it should have—if it had not felt that there was some justification being made for the concept of placing an imposition on UK hauliers. That was not the point of the Bill; the point was to place an imposition entirely on non-British-registered vehicles coming into the country. If, as a consequence, we put an imposition on what is an already very burdensome industry to work in, with the cost of diesel and all the regulations that have to be faced—I get it all the time, and I sympathise with Malcolm’s, Russell’s and all the others based in my constituency who tell me they carry small amounts, but over a large number of vehicles and a large number of trips, which makes them uncompetitive compared with others coming into the country—we will have failed in what we set out to do. We set out to level the playing field up, not push UK road hauliers up a bit further so that they do not bridge the gap to the point intended by the levy.
We need to ensure that the review is a serious promise from the Minister—that he will look at the consequences and at the figures at the end of the year, and that every year he will talk to the people in the road haulage industry and see whether we have got it right. I commend him and his team for bringing the Bill forward. I know it is difficult—it was difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse when we were in government to do this—and the Minister has marched a long mile. I just hope that he will continue seriously to review the unintended consequences of the clauses that we were concerned about and that, at the end of the day, if they need amending, he will come back and amend them on the Floor of the House.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I, too, commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I fear that it will be lost in the media tomorrow, given the previous business in the Chamber today. However, the wider population would welcome the Bill. When I speak to hauliers across my constituency, I know that they are grateful for the freezing of fuel duty, but this Bill starts levelling the playing field up.
I hear what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said about hypothecation and Kent, and all the rest of it, but I would make this argument. People might think that the High Peak is a little rural backwater, but believe you me, they probably all walk, sit and drive on the limestone that comes from our area. If we are going to hypothecate, which I do not think we should, I would argue for more money because our roads get so much stick from the wagons that carry that limestone.
Michael Connarty
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I support him on that point, because the roads are in a terrible state throughout the whole country.
HGV Road User Levy Bill
Michael Connarty Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
Drivers will know that they have to pay the levy before they come into the country. If they fail to pay, the measures available to the enforcement agencies will be used. I make no apology for that. If they think that they will be here for three days, they should pay for three days.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Connarty
Who will be fined? Will it be the driver or the owner of the vehicle? If it is a hired vehicle, who will suffer the fine?
Mr McLoughlin
The driver is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle that he is driving is covered. He is in charge of the vehicle.
The penalty is currently set at £200 and would also be paid in situations where the levy had been underpaid—if someone had declared a lower vehicle weight limit, for example, or the wrong number of axles. Clause 13 inserts the offence in schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which lists the offences for which fixed penalties can be given.
Where there is frequent non-compliance by a specific vehicle or haulage company, clause 11 will allow for the imposition of a fine up to category 5 on the standard scale—currently £5,000—when someone is convicted of failing to pay the levy. I hope that those measures, coupled with active enforcement, will be seen as a suitable deterrent. Collected fine revenues will be paid into the Consolidated Fund; there was a lot of debate on that when we discussed the Ways and Means resolution.
I am sure the House will agree that by creating fair competition for the UK haulage industry, the Bill will help finally to put right a wrong. I commend the Bill to the House. It is well overdue and should have been introduced some time ago.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I am pleased to make a declaration: I have no interests apart from looking after the interests of my constituents. Hon. Members have said that it is time to level the playing field for road haulage in the UK, but to use more thematically correct imagery, it is time to smooth out the anti-competitive bumps faced by UK haulage companies on the road to European markets.
The Bill will not deal with many anti-competitive burdens placed on the many road haulage companies in my constituency and many others. Grangemouth, which is in my constituency, and which is the only EU-recognised inter-modal transport hub in Scotland, and the many communities along the M9, M8 and M876 triangle with employment in road haulage suffer from damaging high taxation on road fuel. Competitor haulage companies from mainland Europe use that fuel price advantage to collect and deliver in the UK, even in Scotland. The Government must look at that seriously if we are really to level out those bumps.
I know hon. Members want to get on with the debate quickly and that they have discussed the Bill between one another many times, but my constituents probably do not know the Bill’s contents. They know that, currently, operators of UK-registered heavy goods vehicles pay charges or tolls in most European countries—as they tell me every time I meet them—but that foreign-registered HGVs do not pay to use the UK road network. The imbalance is unfair to UK HGV operators.
The Bill will seek to address that by introducing a levy for using UK road networks for all HGV vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over. The requirement to pay the levy will apply to all categories of public road in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. The levy will range from £85 a year for the smallest HGV to £1,000 for the largest. The idea is to link the charge to the amount of damage caused on the roads by different types of HGVs.
The Bill states that UK-registered HGVs will pay the levy for the same period and in the same transaction that they pay vehicle excise duty, which means that they will pay annually. However, foreign-registered vehicles can pay the levy daily, weekly, monthly or annually, which strikes me as an imbalance, because road haulage companies do not have their vehicles on the road all the time. If paying only when they are on the roads is good enough for foreign vehicles, why should that not be so for UK vehicles?
The Bill states that there will be an associated reduction for UK-registered HGVs in the amount of vehicle excise duty that is payable. That is intended to mean that the vast majority of UK-based hauliers will pay no more than they pay currently. However, if 10 million vehicles use the road and pay the levy, and suddenly 15 million or 20 million start to use the roads, why should the 10 million not pay less than they paid previously? Is this just another way for the Government to make money for the Exchequer, and not a way to advantage current road users?
Robert Flello
The intention is that UK hauliers should not pay more, but one of my concerns is that there is no guarantee of that. Some of the numbers I have seen suggest that some UK hauliers will end up paying more. That hardly seems like smoothing out the bumps—quite the reverse.
Michael Connarty
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is looking over my shoulder from a distance, but I was about to express that exact concern. The Government have failed to devise a scheme that protects all UK-based hauliers, because EU rules mean that vehicle excise duty cannot be set low enough to compensate all Britain’s HGV users.
I have a number of other concerns, which I am sure will be addressed in Committee. The Bill states that no British road haulier will be worse off as a result of the reform, but I would like to see detailed figures on how much the Government expect to raise from the exercise and on how it will be disbursed. Could some of the money be disbursed to keep vehicle licence duty down for UK heavy goods vehicles? Clearly, the Government need to look at whether they can reduce vehicle excise duty in some way.
Why are UK hauliers set to pay the levy one year before non-UK hauliers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
indicated dissent.
Michael Connarty
The Minister is indicating that that is not the case. If he is about to tell me that the levy will come in at exactly the same time for everyone, that would be a vast improvement.
Stephen Hammond
The Secretary of State confirmed that this afternoon in his opening remarks, and I confirmed that in the Ways and Means debate on 23 October. The only possibility of that not happening would be if there is a minor delay to the procurement of the database, but the reality is that we have moved it so that there will be simultaneous introduction.
Michael Connarty
I congratulate the Opposition Front Bench on winning that battle before it has even begun. That was a cause for concern for the Opposition, so I am pleased if that has now been swept away by their good offices and oration. It was an issue only a few days ago.
Will the Minister look again at whether there is a way to enable UK-based drivers to have the same options for payment as non-UK-based drivers? I made this point earlier. Why should it be that those not based in the UK will pay weekly, monthly or daily, but UK owners will pay every day, whether they run a vehicle or not? That seems to be somewhat strange.
Returning to the question of how to police the Bill, I have serious concerns. How does the UK guarantee collection of the fines—a point I made to the Minister? He indicated that it would be the driver who would be responsible. The reality is that the driver will be changed the next time the vehicle is sent into the country. The driver could be changed again, again and again. We are talking about a massive permutation of drivers. I have been attached to the police scheme twice in this place and have spent time with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. One difficulty we have is that people come into the country with the deliberate intention of stealing. They are brought to court, bailed and then disappear—they never come back to the country. Someone else will turn up in that or a similar vehicle to steal once again.
Is the Minister trying to tell us that they will be able to catch the driver, and that the next time the vehicle comes into the country it will not have a different driver? It is all right when there is a family car, and either the Minister or the Minister’s wife could have been driving the car when they were fined, as happened in the case involving a former member of the coalition Government, but it is not the same with a heavy goods vehicle. The owner can change the driver every single day, so why is it not the owner of the vehicle who gets fined? The fine would not be able to be avoided then.
Robert Flello
Does that not come back to the point that if the owner of the vehicle lives in another country, then without the cross-border ability to pursue the owner of the vehicle, the money will be collected from nowhere?
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend must have unbelievable eyesight, because I am just about to come on to that very point. It is clear that some Government Members argue that we should extract ourselves from arrangements such as the European arrest warrant. In reality, however, whether it is the vehicle owner or even the driver it may be that we have to extract the person, who is a criminal if they are breaking the law, from another country by using the European arrest warrant. If we withdraw from the European arrest warrant agreement, how will we pursue such people among the 500 million people who live in the EU?
Michael Connarty
I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman who declared his interest earlier.
Andrew Bridgen
If the driver is not fined, it should not necessarily be the owner, but the registered operator of the vehicle. The registered operator may or may not be the owner—it is a technicality.
Michael Connarty
In the same way that I am pursuing the idea of looking at the supply chain so that human trafficking and modern day slavery can be eradicated by looking at the companies who eventually get the goods, I also think that the owner of the vehicle should discipline and instruct their employees to ensure that they do not break the law. There has to be some way of dealing with this so that we can pursue the vehicles. We have a major problem if we stick with the driver.
Michael Connarty
I will not take another intervention—people want to get on to other business today. These matters must be discussed in some detail in Committee. If we have a situation where there is no European framework through which we can arrest people—the European arrest warrant—then the Bill will come to naught.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for being gracious in giving way. I want, through him, to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question I asked in the Ways and Means debate, the same question the Secretary of State perhaps misunderstood and answered, when I raised it earlier, by referring to European trade rules. I hope that the Minister, in his response to my hon. Friend’s very good point, will be able to clarify what will happen now that we do not have cross-border enforcement, because the Government have opted out of it.
Michael Connarty
There will be a lot of things that, if the Government opt out of them, will collapse around our ears. I hope, in making these points, that I am providing positive criticism, because I would like to see the Bill emerge in a perfect form, or as perfect as it can possibly be. I welcome the Bill in principle, and hauliers in my constituency welcome the idea behind it, but we must make sure that it comes out of Committee in a form so that it will do what is intended to do, and is not just a precursor to road pricing for everyone in the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Connarty Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Villiers
My understanding is that the directorate-general for competition at the European Commission has been informed, and that the Office of Fair Trading is in contact with the parties and the Commission on the proposed sale.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
That was a very feeble answer from the Minister of State. Does she realise what British Airways is doing at the moment? To give an example, a 9.15 pm flight that I was supposed to take left at 10.36, after two other flights to City airport had been cancelled. It arrived after the Heathrow Express had left and I got home at 1.15 in the morning. That is what BA is doing now. This is not a question of competition. I want the Minister to tell the EU that it is not acceptable to the people of Scotland for BA to take over the BMI franchise. It will do what it is doing now and destroy the service from Edinburgh to this city.
Justine Greening
I would be very happy to do so. My hon. Friend is quite right, on behalf of the community he represents, to want to look at how high-speed rail can benefit that community, and I am happy to have those discussions with him.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
T7. First, let me thank the Secretary of State for the response from her Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to my letter about people pulling horse boxes over seven and a half tonnes, which we have found prevents people who go to gymkhanas with their children, for example, in a larger vehicle from being able to do so, because they cannot fit in a rest period. Can she give me any idea of how long it will take for the derogation that she is seeking from the EU to allow people to carry more than one or two horses to gymkhanas in the summer?
Justine Greening
Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact timeline, I can assure him that we are working hard on this matter, and he was quite right to raise it in the first place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Connarty Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Norman Baker
The previous Government consulted on that very option, and only 23% of respondents were in favour of it, compared with a majority in favour of administration at county council level—the scheme that has now been adopted. The concern is that if the scheme were administered centrally, it might have an impact on the discretionary concessions offered by district councils. We could end up with a national system and local negotiations, thereby increasing administration costs.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the decision to have a concessionary scheme in England had consequential effects on funding in Scotland through the Barnett formula. The scheme is already underfunded by the Scottish Government, so may I have an assurance that there will be no further cuts in funding in Scotland through the effect on the Barnett formula?
Norman Baker
I am happy to say that I am not an expert on the Barnett formula, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the spending review.