Rail (East Anglia)

Debate between Peter Bone and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sorry that the Minister felt the need to spell that out, because she is wrong. She is cutting money from planned rail investment, and there will be an impact when hon. Members seek investment. I look forward to hearing what she has to say on the high-level output specification and what it means for not only East Anglia, but other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has said that she was reassured that

“it is not on the Government’s Agenda to reduce passenger rail services.”

She will surely hope, therefore, that the Government do not follow the model they adopted when they issued the west coast invitation to tender. The document allowed bidders to reduce daily stops at stations by up to 10%. Any reduction in service would be compounded by the McNulty report’s ticket office closures in the counties represented here today. Colchester Town in Essex, Thetford in Norfolk, and Whittlesford Parkway in Cambridgeshire, to give just a few examples, all face having their staff withdrawn. I am sure that the hon. Lady, having secured the debate, will also put pressure on her Government to ensure that existing services in East Anglia are protected. [Interruption.]

Passengers are already feeling the pinch. Services are overcrowded, and the Government have decided to increase fares by 3% above the retail prices index for the remainder of the Parliament. They have also given train operating companies the freedom to average out the rise, leading to fare rises of up to 11% next January. When personal and family budgets are under great pressure, with some commuters paying as much as £4,000 or £5,000 for their annual travel, the Government should be on the side of East Anglia’s commuters, not vested interests in the rail industry. [Interruption.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. If Mr Shelbrooke wants to intervene, would he mind standing, rather than grunting from a sedentary position?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Mr Bone.

It is regrettable that the Government have added to the uncertainty about the future of East Anglia’s rail network. When National Express ceased to operate East Anglia rail earlier this year, the Government should have entrusted the franchise to public ownership through Directly Operated Railways, thereby providing stability in the run up to the Olympics. A two-year private tender with no long-term security or incentive for investment was not the solution East Anglia needed.

The Government’s tendering process in East Anglia also raises questions about their commitment to devolution. It is clear from the prospectus, and hon. Members’ contributions today, that there is local appetite for greater involvement in guiding infrastructure spending and delivery in East Anglia. We, in Labour, wish to promote that spirit by working more closely with local authorities to deliver a better transport system. The Government have already entered into negotiations with transport authorities in the north of England on potentially devolving responsibility for railway operations in that region. Why not do the same in East Anglia?

I urge the Government to listen to the calls in the prospectus to strengthen transport links to Stansted airport. Half of all passengers arrive at Stansted by public transport—the highest proportion for any major airport in the UK. Better transport links could help to relieve airport capacity constraints in Greater London without the environmental costs associated with other proposals. The Government are locked in distracting internal arguments on Heathrow expansion and fantasy islands in the middle of the Thames, but would it not be better to listen to those arguments instead?

In conclusion, I welcome the publication of the document and the spirit in which it was compiled. We want closer working between local authorities and other representatives, and we would back them with genuine devolved powers over transport spending. Discussions with the Department for Transport must now begin. There are many other worthy projects to consider at a time when capital budgets have been cut too far and too fast. Nevertheless, the report’s authors must be commended for the case that they have made on behalf of East Anglia, and I wish them all the best in their endeavours.

Education

Debate between Peter Bone and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker?

I understand that the pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate was often a cheerful occasion. Unfortunately, the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance does not lend itself to festive cheer. In fact, it has much more of the Dickensian Christmas about it. Perhaps the House can imagine the Minister trudging back to his Department through the snow and sitting in his office, where he is visited by the ghosts of Christmases past, present and future.

In Christmas past, the jolly folk of the Department for Children, Schools and Families invested in young people. There were rosy cheeks and smiling faces as extra teachers and teaching assistants were employed to work in brand new school buildings up and down the country. What would the ghost of Christmas present reveal? If he took the Minister on a journey to Nottingham, he would see more than 4,000 learners in receipt of EMA worrying about their futures. Half of them might be aware that the Government’s cuts mean that if they want to go on to university, they can expect to end up with debts of £30,000 or £40,000 when they graduate. They might also have seen last month’s increase in the number of 16 to 24-year-olds out of work, which took the youth unemployment total to 943,000—almost 20% —and one of the highest figures since records began in 1992. The other half might be wondering how they will manage the second year of their course once the EMA is withdrawn, and how they will cope without this essential help with the cost of travelling to college and with materials, books and lunches.

The Minister might also see Malcolm Cowgill, principal of Castle college in Nottingham, writing to his local MP to say:

“I believe that the Department for Education has made the wrong decision, that disadvantaged young people in Nottingham will suffer as a result of this decision, and that Ministers’ ambitions to raise the participation age to 18 will fail. I am concerned students will continue to enrol but the extra burden of earning additional money will mean more students withdraw mid-course and do not achieve their aims.”

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful argument, but would it not be better to concentrate the support on the 12% who say that they would not continue in education if they did not get the EMA, rather than spread it out among all young people?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The vast majority of those who receive EMA receive it at the highest level and are from the most disadvantaged families. They need that extra money. Whether they would stay in education or not, it is an important part of supporting them while they continue with their studies.

The Minister might also see my young constituent Kyle Simpson, a talented swimmer who is training for 22 hours a week, before and after college and competing at weekends, emailing his MP to say:

“My mum needs all the money she can get for my training fees. Education Maintenance Allowance really helped me and gave me an incentive to be at college and do my best. Now I don’t know what to do”.

The Minister might see New college in Nottingham, which has found that the EMA has increased participation, reduced the drop-out rate by 9% and seen success rates 8 % higher among those who receive it. The college concluded that without help to fund their travel, many learners would not be able to stay in further education or choose the course that was best for them. He might also hear the college’s principal Geoff Hall, who says:

“Education maintenance allowance has not only helped participation, it has also improved success. Surely this is too big a step, surely it should be phased so that we can take time to measure the impact?”

And what of Christmas future? If the Business Secretary does not bring down the Government, it could look very bleak indeed, including reduced social mobility, especially among those from ethnic minorities or one-parent families; fewer young people going on to further education or successfully completing their courses; and even higher youth unemployment, meaning another lost generation without the skills and education needed to secure the jobs of the future. Of course, it is not too late. Just as Scrooge realised the error of his ways, the Minister could still change his mind. After all, the Prime Minister has done so on school sports funding. The Minister can still decide not to decimate support for the most disadvantaged. I hope he will take the opportunity to spread a little Christmas cheer and agree to think again about this unfair, unproductive and unnecessary cut.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Lilian Greenwood

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I have said, I do not wish to prevent peddling. Obviously, it is great news to hear that people can go from such humble starts to building up great retail establishments.

This is a procedural motion, so I do not want to debate the merits of these Bills, which have already been examined in some detail. I have been looking at the history of the Nottingham City Council Bill since it was introduced in 2007—it obviously precedes my being in this House—and it is clear that there has already been considerable debate on these matters. I understand that it has been through First, Second and Third Readings in this place and was awaiting its Second Reading in the Lords. As there has been considerable cross-party support for these Bills at each stage in the Commons, and as there has been considerable debate on these matters over the past two and a half years, there is a strong case for their being revived and allowed to complete the parliamentary process.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her speech; she is attracting me towards her point of view. However, could she outline what level of support there is for the revival of this Bill and what organisations in the city support it?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Unfortunately, I do not have the full details, but I know that it has been debated over many hours, and I am sure that that information was placed before the House at those times. I will be happy to go back and look at that, but I do not have it to hand at this moment.

There is a strong case for looking at this legislation again. It has clearly been subject to a lot of debate, and surely its revival should be allowed in order for it to complete the parliamentary process, with the opportunity for further debate and consideration in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. The interventions from the Nottingham Members have been quite helpful in determining the House’s view, and if a Member from that area wanted to leap to their feet to intervene—

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

Ah.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sure that those in Nottingham would be very happy to have further discussion and to approach the issue in a spirit of compromise. This is an important Bill for our city, and I would be happy to talk at length another time about the many reasons why we need it.

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that most helpful intervention.