Amendment of the Law

Owen Smith Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

rose—

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I will not give way; I am still replying to an intervention. The worst thing that Britain could do right now is to listen to the siren voices of the Opposition. They are very good at criticising, but they have absolutely no credible alternative, and that is probably the key message that will come across to the public who are watching this debate.

From easing access to credit and bringing down the cost of borrowing for small businesses, to cutting corporation tax and reforming the planning system, the measures set out in this Budget will help to get growth back into our economy. They will also help to rebalance the economy by supporting our companies—wealth creators shifting UK plc from a spend-and-borrow path under the previous Government to a make-and-sell future under this one.

[Owen Smith]

Will the Minister confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that next year the volume of investment by British companies in the UK will go down by 0.7%—that is, 7% down on the previous year’s estimate? Is that right?

[Justine Greening]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the whole OBR report, he will realise that Britain is an economy that operates in a global marketplace. Of course, his solution to the challenges faced in that global marketplace is to go and join all the countries that are facing problems, not to tackle our own economic crisis that his party left us. I assume that most, if not all the interventions that I get from Labour Members will be cherry-picked statistics that offer no alternative solutions to the challenges facing Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the 4.7 million pensioners who will be impacted by the age-related allowances policy will not be pleased to learn that the House of Commons Library note on the Budget concludes that they will be between £80 and £280 worse off in real terms as a result of its provisions?

[Mr Jackson]

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies disagrees profoundly with the hon. Gentleman, and believes that the proposals are both morally and financially right and progressive. The hon. Gentleman will therefore have to try again later.

I support the planning regime reforms and the liberalisation of the national planning policy framework. I was delighted to hear about the regional policy and the expansion of airports in the south-east as well. We are currently losing our competitive advantage to Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle. I am delighted, too, that the Chancellor resisted the temptation to limit further tax relief on higher-rate pension contributions. That would have been an attack on thrift and prudence. We in Cambridgeshire are very pleased with the news about the A14 and the Get Britain Building and Growing Places funding. Moreover, I have been campaigning for quite some time for residential estate investment trusts for social housing, and the previous Government did nothing about that in 13 years.

It would be wrong to say that I am happy with every measure in the Budget. There were some missed opportunities and missed steps. Fuel duty is an issue that will return—as it would do for any Chancellor and Government. I understand why changes were not made this time, but my constituents’ petrol bills are hurting, and using a car is a necessity, not a luxury. Air passenger duty must be looked at again, too. It has increased 360% in the last seven years. Because of the major impact on transportation and tourism, I hope that the Chancellor will revisit that issue. I should declare an interest: Thomas Cook has a headquarters in my constituency.

The House will know that I had very serious concerns about the child benefit policy, but the Chancellor has listened and taken them on board. We have addressed the cliff-edge issue, although there is still the anomaly of the two earners as opposed to the one earner; we should regard that as a work in progress. My constituents are also asking why our European Union contribution has increased between the pre-Budget report and this Budget. It may be a function of reduced co-payment of funds for EU projects. If we are all in this together, however, that should include the European Union, so we must look at that issue.

I was very disappointed that, once again, the Budget did not contain a policy to recognise marriage in the tax system. For probably as little as £800 million—less than a third of the £3 billion we spent on taking people out of lower rate tax, in order to appease, as it were, our Liberal Democrat friends—we could have given a tax break to married couples with children under 3. I am sorry that that did not happen.

Things will be tough over the next few years. Restoring economic health after the 13 years of the last Labour Government—years of waste, profligacy and creating a client state—was never going to be easy. Once again, the job of getting the finances of this country straight and of building a great Britain and a strong economy falls to a Conservative Government, and I believe that this Chancellor has proved he is up to the task.

Rail Fares

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Transport infrastructure is one of the most important and pressing aspects of economic renewal. It is one of the keys to seeing the real improvements in our economy, the growth in jobs and the economic development that we all need. That is perhaps particularly true in some of the, as it were, post-industrial parts of Britain, such as my constituency in the south Wales valleys. Rail there has always enormously important. Indeed, it is perhaps more important right now than during any period in the last century, and arguably since the 19th century.

That is why I welcome the Government’s infrastructure investment decisions. I welcome the announcement about electrification of the Great Western line between London and Cardiff, although I deplore the fact that the Government have not recognised the excellent business case for going as far as Swansea. I also welcome the decision to take forward, in conjunction with the National Assembly Government, a business case to consider electrification of the valleys and the creation there of a so-called metro system. The reason that is so important is that travel to work in urban metropolitan centres such as Cardiff from their hinterlands is the key to the economic regeneration of places such as Pontypridd, the seat I represent. I urge the Minister to consider that business case carefully when it comes forward and to look on it favourably, because doing so would be a genuinely bold and imaginative step, and a key to change.

Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), the former Transport Minister, that we cannot say that all is ill with our railways right now. They are, without a doubt, more efficient, cleaner and less dangerous than they were before the Labour Government. It is Labour investment and Labour management of the rail system that led to those changes, in particular the way we effectively negotiated franchises, which—not always, but in the main—led to investment and improvement. Indeed, I commend the current Government for taking forward that infrastructure legacy.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that the terms of reference for the previous Great Western franchise put the service at the wrong stage, in effect applying a lower common denominator and thereby regressing the service? The new franchise needs to start from the current level and quality of service, so that we can encourage value for money and progress, instead of the rather problematic issues that we have encountered with First Great Western in recent years.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to say that it was, of course, the Labour Government who managed that franchise, such that we called in Great Western and demanded the changes that it made and that it adopt special measures.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Labour Government did make some attempt to fix the problems, but they created them, because they let the franchise in the first place.

[Owen Smith]

In truth, the problems we have with the railways are in large measure precisely due to the fragmentation that resulted from the botched privatisation of our rail industry. That is the reality.

The way we have debated this issue today—in particular, the way the Secretary of State took the opportunity, uncharacteristically perhaps, to make a lot of heavy-handed party political points—does not serve our constituents and rail travellers well. This is too important an economic issue, as she will know from her time on the Treasury Bench, for us to play knockabout politics with it. The key issue that the Opposition are raising today is affordability. Very simply, given that it is so important for many of our constituents that they are able to take advantage of the improved, more efficient and cleaner train services that are now available, those services must be affordable. That is why we are concerned about the large fare increases in the recent round, although Arriva Trains Wales has commendably kept down a lot of its fares across parts of my patch to RPI plus 1. On the Great Western line, however, there has been a worrying increase of 10% in the cost of travelling between Cardiff and London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said. That will make businesses and commuters think hard about whether they can continue to travel on that vital line for commerce and commuting.

It is important that the public understand that this Government took a decision to repeal the ban on flexing fares that the Labour Government put in place. That measure was introduced as a result of the economically straitened times in which we found ourselves in 2009. Lord Adonis made that decision to try to address the issue of affordability, and it is party political point scoring to suggest that the fact it was negotiated as a legal contract for one year was indicative of a longer-term intention. There is no read-across in that respect, and the Secretary of State would do well to take Lord Adonis at his word when he put it in writing to the Select Committee that he intended to continue the practice while we remained in economic difficulty.

What has changed since 2009? People are harder up than they were. Things have not got easier for my constituents or for those of the Secretary of State; they have got harder. That is why the Government should have thought long and hard about how they could justify taking a decision that might be in the interests of the train operators but is not in the interests of the travelling public. That was fundamentally the wrong decision for them to take.

I welcome the common sense that we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood today about the need for a cross-party review of our rail services. The fares are too complicated, and the system is too complicated. The flexing at peak times across different parts of the country is also too complicated. Many people end up paying higher fares than they ought to, because the system is engineered in such a way that they cannot access the cheapest fares. We have seen this with the energy companies as well. They rig the market in their favour by making it utterly impenetrable to ordinary people, and it is the same on the railways. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must look into those issues, and at the underpinning question of the nature of the structure—the ownership principles—of the railway industry. We cannot simply say that there is no alternative, and we cannot get into a tawdry, tedious knockabout over whether this or that issue represents a spending commitment. That is just point scoring, and we need a much more fundamental discussion about the nature of our rail services. We need a Government who are going to act in the interests of the people, not just those of their people.

High-speed Rail

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. When the north Wales main line is electrified, a small number of trains—one or two a day, for example—could be diverted off the main track at Crewe or another convenient point to travel along that track. A passenger would therefore be able to travel from continental Europe to Rhyl, Bangor or, indeed, my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course, I would also argue for the inclusion of Wrexham directly. Wales, and north Wales in particular, is on the periphery of Europe, but a high-quality transport plan could bring us into real contention for business.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is ahead of me because she is talking about the benefits that HS2 will bring to north Wales passengers via Crewe. Does she agree that the Secretary of State for Wales does not need to look as far as Lille for evidence of that? She could merely talk to the Secretary of State for Transport—her colleague in the Cabinet room. In an answer to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), he said that HS2 will bring significant benefits to north Wales rail passengers, with all the obvious economic benefits that my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Technically, there is nothing to stop such a plan in the long term. High-speed trains in France make some journeys across regular track, such as to Cannes. If the routes of Brussels to Bangor, Rotterdam to Rhyl, or Frankfurt to Flint sound a bit far-fetched, that is evidence of how inaccessible some of our towns are perceived to be.

Severn Crossings Toll

Owen Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This, again, has been an interesting and worthwhile debate—certainly worth while from my perspective, not least because it gives me the opportunity to say that I, too, find it utterly inexplicable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the former Secretary of State for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Wales again, is not in the other place. However, it is a delight for us to be able to enjoy his wisdom for a few more years in this House.

The Severn bridges are a hugely strategic part of the infrastructure of Wales. The Select Committee report was extremely timely because it addressed, as we have not seen addressed in the House, that question of their strategic importance. Furthermore, important post-2017 decisions, to which hon. Members referred earlier, beckon whichever Government are in power when the bridge comes into public ownership.

I hope that the Government learn from some of the things revealed by the report, which affords us an opportunity to be taught about how important infrastructural developments, such as the second Severn bridge, might be financed in future. That development came at the outset of the debate on private finance initiatives—very different PFI structures are put in place for infrastructure these days—but, clearly, lessons can be learned, in particular about the contractual nature of the agreement made between the Government and whoever is developing things.

The report gave us the opportunity to explore, although not really get to the bottom of, the economic impact of the bridge tolls on Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked at length about the inevitable economic consequence of what I think we all agree is a high toll, obliging people looking to trade and travel across the bridge to commit extra resources. That must, at some level, be an impediment to developing trade between Wales and England and to developing the Welsh economy.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The policy of the previous Welsh Government was to seek responsibility for the bridges at the end of the concessionary period. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the people of Wales what the policy of the new Welsh Government is? If the rhetoric of standing up for Wales is to be believed, surely gaining control over the main supply route into Wales would be a main objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

That is a question to be addressed to Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Labour First Minister in Cardiff. I am delighted that he will be in charge, because I shared some of the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West about the evidence that we heard from the man who was hitherto responsible for economic development—the leader of Plaid Cymru.

Having said that, I think it is important that we look to the Government—had the Labour Administration remained in power, we would also have done this—to forge a better understanding of and a joint interest in how the bridge is managed post-2017. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will consider carefully how to ensure that the Assembly has a full role to play in that, because its interest is clearly considerable. On another matter, I hope to hear positive noises from the Minister that the Department for Transport will carefully consider the economic analysis that the Assembly is undertaking, so that we may better understand the impact that the bridge tolls have on trade, tourism and transport in Wales.

The report shed some light on some of the issues—particularly the murky economics of the bridge—but not as much as we would have liked, although it provided greater insight into how it was paid for initially, what the financial structures were, and how the company proposes to make money. It will hand the bridge back when it has taken £1 billion in revenue. The report did not give us total satisfaction in explaining the volume of profit that the company will make at the end of the day, and I agree that the opacity was deplorable. I hope that one of the lessons we learn is that future financial deals leading to the building of important pieces of infrastructure should be more transparent. Given the Minister’s candour when addressing the Committee, I am sure that he will agree.

We had a bit more clarity about ownership of the bridge. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) was correct in saying that the French have no interest in it, because I think they have a bit. More importantly, the Americans have a big interest, because the banks that ultimately sit at the back of ownership are, by and large, American. We have a bit more understanding about the concession agreement and its shortcomings. Lastly, we had significant insight into the reason for the prehistoric technology on the bridge, the principal reason being the concession agreement; into the lack of incentive for the company to invest—it would trim its profit; and into the Government’s inability to mandate the company to invest to move the technology into the 21st century.

I want to ask the Minister some questions about that. In his forthright evidence to the Committee, he referred to the technology, rather colourfully, as having to

“queue up in some kind of Soviet system”.

I agree entirely. He also, interestingly, hinted that he proposed to reopen negotiations with Severn River Crossing to explore how investment might take place in the period before the bridge becomes publicly owned, so that taxpayers are not entirely saddled with that bill. However, he acknowledged that if the company invested, the Government, under the terms of the contract, would have to compensate it up front for making the investment and incurring the loss.

I would like an update from the Minister, today if possible, on where those negotiations are and whether the Welsh people may expect changes and further improvements in the technology before 2017—or whether, as I fear, the public purse will end up bearing the cost of taking the bridge into the 21st century and thereafter. I encourage the Minister to be as robust with Severn River Crossing as he normally is in his exchanges in the House.

The Minister may be able to help us with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and the pledge that the Conservative party made at the election—to offset the cost of freezing the toll to the tune of £29 million in the unlikely event that they won the election in Wales. Thankfully, they did not, but many of us were surprised at the time that such a promise could be made. It prompts the question whether there were conversations between the Conservative-led Administration at Westminster and the Conservatives in Wales that allowed them to make that statement or whether, as he implied from a sedentary position earlier, the Minister knew nothing about it. Perhaps he will clarify that.

I suspect that the Minister did not know much about it. If he did, will he confirm that, irrespective of who won the election, the Assembly could not unilaterally have agreed to pay Severn River Crossing the money to make up the shortfall if it had broken the current contract to fix the toll increase annually, predicated on the retail prices index? Surely renegotiation would have been necessary between the Government at Westminster, who are one part of the contract, and Severn Severn Crossing. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how it would work if the current Assembly Administration wanted to pursue a similar policy. Would that be possible? Would the Government be open to that, or is it off the table?

As the Minister is here, I have a final and slightly cheeky point. I thank him on behalf of the people of Wales for the announcement of the U-turn on the coastguards. He is the Minister responsible for that, and it is welcome. I urge him to think again about the Driving Standards Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Perhaps we could have some U-turns on those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I have asked for a note, but it has not arrived. It might do—hint, hint—in the time left. I cannot understand the difference, I must admit. Clearly, car sharing is going on. It happens on the routes that go from where I used to live in Essex into London. We commend car sharing. We want people to share cars, because it reduces emissions and makes travel much more cost-effective for people. I do not understand how the concession agreement would be affected in that respect, but I am sure that the lawyers will tell me why I am wrong—as always, I am being as honest as I can.

The hon. Member for Newport East made a couple of other points earlier. I have already touched on how price freezing and tolling would work. In the Select Committee evidence session, I talked about whether there is more technology that we can use to make things much easier for the communities on both sides of the border and for industry and at the same time to sweat the asset more, as we are doing with managed motorways. In other words, are we getting the best out of the bridge? Clearly, the toll process is causing delays.

We are committed to free-flow tolling at the Dartford river crossing. We made an announcement about that in the spending round, and I made an announcement about it to the Select Committee. There are real technical issues about using automatic number plate recognition, which is what we intend to use. It is similar to what the congestion charge scheme in London uses. There is an enforcement issue, particularly in relation to overseas vehicles. We intend to get that right at Dartford before we introduce the system. However, I can see no logical reason why it could not be introduced at the Severn river crossing.

The problem, of course, is the cost and who bears it. That is what the hon. Member for Pontypridd was alluding to. Let us be honest: why would the company set up in the context of the concession agreement to make this profit say to me, “Okay, Minister, we’ll spend X million pounds doing this for you,” rather than saying, “Will you pay for it?” or “We’ll use our rights to go further in the concessionary period.”

The truth is that by the time we fully implement ANPR and free-flow technology at Dartford, we will be into 2013, not least because of the construction work that needs to be done. Doing free-flow tolling sounds simple, but it is not. Otherwise, people would be hurtling through and we would have speed issues and so on. We will not be that far away from the conclusions about what will happen post the concession. I think that the negotiations will have to include what we would expect a modern tolling system to involve in the 21st century. The issue will arise once we have rolled out the system and done everything that we need to do at Dartford. The last thing that the Select Committee would want me to do is to say yes, we’ll definitely be able to roll it out in 2015 or ’16—in the latter part of this Parliament—if we have not got it running right. I am confident that we can do that, because the technology is there.

I think that we were all sceptical when the congestion charge was introduced in London. The issue was not the rights and wrongs of it, but whether it would work. It does work. The main issue is enforcement in relation to foreign-registered vehicles. I was with representatives of Transport for London only today, working out how we can deal with that.

[Owen Smith]

I want to clarify what the Minister has just said, because it was very interesting. Is he suggesting that some negotiations have taken place already between the Department for Transport and the company and that, subject to the technology being made failsafe at Dartford, an agreement might be struck whereby the Government would be prepared to compensate the company for introducing free-flow technology on the bridge before 2017? Is that what he was implying?

[Mike Penning]

No. That would be a spending commitment, and I do not have the authority in my lowly position to dream of ever giving one. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to put words into my mouth, but the answer is no. The only way of funding that before 2017 would be through the concessionaire, and the discussion would be about whether it is willing to fund it under the existing contract—I doubt whether it would be. If we did not allow the company to increase the toll, it would look for an extension or—this is within the contract, and it would have every right to do so—to seek compensation from the Treasury. That, too, is unlikely.

By a miracle, a document has appeared before me. It says that SRC is prepared to negotiate extending the TAG scheme for car sharing. Naturally, however, it will not want to be financially worse off. That may not fully answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport East, but it is the best that I can do. I want to be as open as I can about this. I shall write to SRC saying what I was told during the debate and asking the company to clarify its position. I shall share that information with colleagues. It is only right and proper to do so.

I realise that I still have plenty of time, but I have no intention of filibustering—not least because Members wish to disappear. However, I have a speaking engagement in London this evening, so I am more than happy to continue.

In conclusion, I welcome the Committee’s report, and I shall work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government in analysing the economic effect of tolling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth rightly pointed out, there is little hard evidence that the bridges have had an economic effect. I do not say that they have not, but the Committee made extensive efforts to find evidence and did not, despite Chinese whispers among local communities. As I have said, the Welsh Assembly has publicised the fact that some 700 companies have located in the region over the past 40 years, long before the Welsh Assembly was formed, so something must be right. I believe that that evidence is shown on the Assembly website.

I realise that the crossing is a vital piece of national infrastructure. I am proud that my portfolio predominantly covers the whole of this great nation of ours. It is for me to work with and alongside the various devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. At the same time, however, I must ensure that they understand that it is a Department for Transport piece of infrastructure—a Westminster one—despite knowing how emotive it is to the local communities in Wales and those on the other side of the bridge in England.

I have listened carefully to the hauliers. I listen to them nearly every day, and they are an amazing group of people. Perhaps I think that because I hold an HGV licence and used to drive lorries when a fireman—like most firemen, I used to drive part-time when off duty.

The key is fairness. If tolls continue beyond the existing agreement, and if free-flow tolling comes in, it would be wrong in my opinion that the tolls should remain one-way. That unfairness would have to be addressed if we had free-flow tolling and if the toll was increased. A number of truck drivers have told me that they go into Wales one way and come out the other because of the toll. Not only is the Treasury losing income, but it is another unfairness that needs to be addressed, although it is difficult to deal with it now, because of the way it is set up.

I hope that I have not delayed anyone’s journey home. Indeed, we will finish a fraction early. I hope that I have answered most questions, at least in general terms. I have been as honest as I can, as I was when giving evidence to the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the Committee on its conclusions, even if we do not fully agree on certain aspects. I was interested to note that all who are here today are Welsh MPs, yet the subject has a significant effect on the UK as a whole.