Thomas Cook

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is part of the cross-departmental taskforce, to make sure that that happens and I will continue to take a keen interest in the matter myself.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My constituents and many, many other constituents across the country have been affected by this awful situation. What I do not understand is the fact that this Government and the Opposition, and pretty much everyone, have recognised that we need new legislation. Why the heck do we have to wait for a new Queen’s Speech? Why can we not have emergency legislation next week?

[Grant Shapps]

This has been the most interesting part of this afternoon. As has been discussed, we have an airline insolvency review that has now reported, and there seems to be a very strong desire across the House to do something with that. So let us talk about it.

Offshore Helicopter Safety

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered offshore helicopter safety.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. As many of us are aware, the oil and gas industry remains very significant to our economy. Tens of millions of barrels are produced every year and hundreds of billions of pounds have found their way to the public purse in taxes over the years. The industry employs huge numbers of people, and I think we can be proud of what has been achieved, although many of us would have preferred to see Governments through the ’80s create some form of sovereign wealth fund to support our country in the leaner years, rather than squandering much of that money on tax cuts for the rich.

I am here to make the case for an independent public inquiry into the discredited offshore helicopter system and for much-needed reforms to the regulatory framework. Helicopter transport is the lifeblood of the offshore oil and gas industry, transporting some 50,000 workers to their workplace. The remoteness and number of North sea installations make helicopters the only viable mode of transport. Some of the issues I will raise about the maximising economic recovery policy and about commerciality might have been more appropriately addressed to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I trust that if the Minister cannot address them today, he will work with fellow Ministers to do so in writing.

It is important to recall the tragic statistics of recent times. Thirty-three offshore workers and helicopter crew have died as a result of accidents across the North sea in the past 10 years, and 65 workers and crew have been rescued in that time. In the UK sector, there have been five helicopter accidents, two of which were fatal, taking the lives of 20 workers and crew. All the incidents have involved the Super Puma models H225 or AS332L2.

Three of the incidents, including the one that killed 16 workers and crew on 1 April 2009, were attributable to technical failures of the main rotor gearbox. The Super Puma fleet was grounded in October 2012 and had just returned to UK continental shelf operations when an AS332L2 ditched in the sea off Sumburgh on 23 August 2013, with the loss of four lives. A month after the August 2013 incident, the Civil Aviation Authority launched a strategic review of offshore helicopter operations, resulting in the publication of CAP 1145 on 20 February 2014. That is the regulator’s sole official response to date to the series of tragic incidents and close calls involving Super Pumas between 2009 and 2013.

Super Pumas returned in the North sea in 2015, but have been grounded since May 2016, following a fatal accident in Norway on 29 April 2016 that caused the deaths of all 13 crew and passengers on board. The helicopter involved was an H225 Super Puma. The final Accident Investigation Board Norway report in July could not establish the cause of the fatigue fracture in the gearbox-operated rotor that led to catastrophic mechanical failure, but it still managed to publish 12 recommendations. They included criticism of Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency for failures to act effectively on recommendations on fault detection systems from the April 2009 incident in the UK sector.

The overall impression for the North sea workforce was that once again the Super Puma had failed, with deadly consequences. The trade unions, particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Unite, sit on the committees and bodies established to promote higher safety standards in the industry, including helicopter operations. They share my concerns about this area of aviation regulation and are fully supportive of an independent public inquiry. That is not only a priority for those offshore workers on oil and gas installations that are still in production. The emergence of offshore wind as a growing element of the energy mix and the decommissioning of 1970s and 1980s-era infrastructure will require helicopter transport to deliver the workforce safely to the job and back home again for the next 10 years or more. Those workers are very much affected, too.

As an aside, I am told by the Prospect union that the withdrawal of helicopters has other impacts, with pilots and engineers losing out on personal licence payments when a helicopter is withdrawn for safety reasons. Will the Minister tell me how the pay of those workers can be protected?

We know that the manufacturer of the Super Puma, Airbus, has ceased production of the AS332L2. The Super Puma family, however, contributed to Airbus’s successful sales in 2018, with orders received for 17 Super Pumas, including the H225. Once known as the workhorse of the North sea, there is next to no prospect of it returning in either the UK or Norwegian sectors, yet that extraordinary collapse in confidence in one section of the offshore industry has merited little if any comment from the Government.

I met the Civil Aviation Authority last September and outlined my concerns regarding the Super Puma and the need for the CAA to be much clearer on its position. Due to the requirements it says it has in place, it told me that no one can see the Super Pumas re-entering service in the foreseeable future, even though the CAA had cleared them for use. What model will replace the Super Pumas and the S-92s in the long run? The Bell 525 is thought to be the only heavy model capable of operating in the North sea. Industry figures are being invited to Texas to view the new model, but it is still to be licensed for commercial sale by the Federal Aviation Agency in the United States. No other heavy model is at such an advanced stage of development. The RMT estimates that it will take nearly two years to complete, so there is no prospect of new helicopters in the North sea until late 2020.

What assessment have the Government made of the new helicopter models for the North sea market? Is there sufficient capacity in the market? Is the existing fleet in the North sea being stretched to the limit, resulting in more and more downtime, as appears to be the case? We know from worker testimonials that there are problems with resource and downtime. One group gave an example. They checked in at 6.45 am, but due to technical issues, the workers ended up spending 12 hours in the heliport. The following day, that happened again. Workers had been there for a total of 22 hours. There is a long way to go before we can reasonably expect workers to be confident in the equipment—in this case, the helicopters—that is provided for them to be able to carry out their work.

While the CAA’s CAP 1145 document improved breathing apparatus, seating configuration and window design—I believe the windows are made bigger so that people can escape more easily—the perception among many offshore workers is that CAP 1145 is too heavily weighted towards survivability in a crash, rather than crash prevention.

In correspondence with the Government on the matter, I have received a series of broad-brush replies that have done nothing to address my core concerns or those of offshore workers in my Stockton North constituency—many people in my constituency work in the North sea—and elsewhere. The Minister said in an answer to my written question on commercial pressures:

“Offshore helicopter services provide a vital link to ensure the viability of the UK’s oil and gas industry. High standards of air safety are a fundamental concern in ensuring these services are commercially viable.”

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am interested that he has referred to the large number of oil and gas rig workers across the country. I imagine that in practically every constituency, someone will work in this line of work. Their safety is paramount.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is most certainly so. I bid for this debate because of the importance of this issue to people across the entire country who are involved in the industry.

In answer to my written question, the Minister went on to say:

“Through the Aviation Strategy, the Government will look at its role in supporting the commercial success of operators whilst balancing this against environmental and safety concerns.”

That is all very laudable, but it should be noted that the Government’s aviation strategy, like their maritime strategy, is for the next 30 years, yet the latest consultation document, which was published just in December, makes no mention whatever of offshore helicopter transport. Can the Minister explain that omission? If he cannot, offshore workers could be forgiven for thinking that their concerns are being brushed under the carpet.

The Transport Committee’s 2014 report found that the CAA review, which led to CAP 1145, said that the Government

“did not consider the evidence that commercial pressure impacts on helicopter safety in sufficient depth.”

The Government must convene a full independent public inquiry to investigate commercial pressures on helicopter safety in the North sea operating environment. That inquiry must examine the role and effectiveness of the CAA.

Car Insurance

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 207616 relating to changes to car insurance.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

The petition asks for insurance to be based on the car itself, instead of on the individuals who drive it. The petition reads:

“In some countries, such as America and Portugal, insurance is based on vehicle itself instead of being based on the individual who drives it. This is an effective method for families and friends as they are able to share a car without paying for multiple insurances.”

The petition then gives as an example the following scenario:

“3 friends go on a night out in the same car, they all have driving licenses, but only one of them is insured on the car. 2 of them are under the influence of alcohol and incapable of driving, including the car owner. If the car was insured on itself, the sober friend could drive it legally. However, because each individual is insured on the car, no one would be able to drive it as it would be illegal.”

As of this morning, 56,200 people had signed the petition. On behalf of the House of Commons Petitions Committee, I thank Rita Rocha Vidrago, the creator of the petition, and all of its signatories. Observers of the work of the Petitions Committee—I hope there are many around—will note that that falls short of the 100,000-plus signatories that many of the petitions that our Committee schedules for debate receive. However, the number of signatories to this petition is still significant, especially as it proposes quite a specialist solution to a range of problems relating to car insurance. There are certainly enough issues relating to car insurance.

The issue raised specifically in the petition is the cost of car insurance, but there is also the related issue of drivers who drive while uninsured. I believe that the petition provides a serious attempt to deal with that critical issue—a problem that is a nightmare to all who have ever been in an accident involving an uninsured driver.

The Government have responded to the petition, with the Department for Transport stating:

“The Government has no plans to change the motor insurance system to require vehicles themselves, rather than the use of a vehicle, to be insured.”

The Government are pretty trenchant in their response—in fact, very trenchant:

“There are a variety of approaches to motor insurance taken around the world, and the UK Government is not alone in requiring the use of a vehicle to be insured.

The current motor insurance system of insuring individual drivers, rather than cars, does not prevent named drivers from being added to an insurance policy for shorter or longer periods of time. This allows for friends or relatives who share a car to be included on one insurance policy.

The price of insurance depends on a range of factors, including many which are specific to the person driving; for example, driving history (whether the driver has had previous claims or unspent convictions for drink driving, for example), the use they make of the vehicle (for example, for commuting or business use), and their years of driving experience.

If insurers had to cover the vehicle itself and were not able to take driver-specific factors into account in their pricing, then the cost of insurance would likely rise for those with a good driving record and history of driving safely.”

That is the Government’s response, which I hope we will hear the Minister develop later.

That all gives rise to the question: how much further in-depth consideration should we grant the petition? To my mind, there are three key issues in respect of motor vehicles and insurance. First, how does the proposal impact on the cost to the consumer purchasing the insurance? Secondly, does it help people in the unfortunate situation of being injured by another party? That relates specifically to individuals driving without insurance. While the guilty party may be punished through the law, that rarely helps the innocent party with their car repair costs. Finally, and vitally, does the policy help or hinder road safety? I will not go through those questions in sequence in this debate, but they are worthy of our consideration.

To move on to evidence-based research, the Association of British Insurers found that on average, young drivers spend about 10% of their salaries on insuring their cars. It is therefore clear that action needs to be taken to stem rising motor insurance premiums. Analysis by the Association of British Insurers shows that drivers aged between 18 and 21 are paying an average of £973 for comprehensive car cover. Rising motor insurance bills, resulting from a range of factors including the way in which compensation payouts are calculated and a resurgence in whiplash-style claims, are hitting younger drivers hardest.

There have been many concerns about the car insurance industry, and the integrity of the market has been questioned. As a result of complaints about the sector, the Competition Commission investigated and concluded in 2013 that there were

“features of the UK market for motor insurance and related goods or services that, either alone or in combination, prevent, restrict or distort competition such that there are adverse effects on competition.”

A research paper by the House of Commons Library about the motor insurance industry notes that many people consider the UK car insurance market to be dysfunctional. The paper cites the unpredictable rise and fall of insurance premiums. The research also references the relationship between the industry and car hire, repair and legal claims firms, which some view with suspicion.

I understand the frustration of the petitioner and the many signatories at high car insurance premiums and what could be viewed as the inflexibility of the UK insurance market. A different system—one that means that if a car is insured, anyone with a valid driving licence can drive it—certainly seems to offer one solution to the UK’s sometimes complicated and expensive system, but let me consider that further.

The cost of insuring a car is calculated using a variety of factors. Driver-specific factors include the driver’s age and experience, their road safety history, where they use and keep the car, and how often they use it. Since December 2012, car insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of gender. Factors that depend on the car itself include its power and value. Insurance companies seek to set premium rates such that total premium income at least matches the total amount paid out in claims. Under that system, the people deemed the least likely to have an accident and to claim on their insurance pay the least, while those considered at greatest risk of making an insurance claim pay the highest premiums.

If insurance followed the car, rather than the driver, key driver-specific factors used to calculate risks could not be used. That could mean that drivers with a history of driving safely would have to pay higher premiums. That would be likely, as insurance companies would be unable to recover the costs of paying out claims by charging the drivers at greatest risk. It could give rise to an unfair and expensive system that would not reward safe drivers at all.

The petition states that if insurance was on the car alone and was not driver-specific, friends and family would be able to share a car

“without paying for multiple insurances.”

In reality, is that not de facto the case under the current motor insurance system? Named drivers can be added to insurance policies, allowing more than one person to be insured to drive the same car. The main driver uses the car most frequently, while named drivers use it less—none the less, they can use it frequently. That great oracle beloved of so many, the price comparison website MoneySuperMarket.com, has research showing that 35% of young drivers who are the main driver on their own insurance have a named driver on their insurance, thereby making their premiums up to 13% cheaper.

Car hire firms work on the basis that a car is insured such that anyone can use it. Many business fleets are insured on a similar basis. However, in both cases there will be a variety of restrictions. Hire cars are often only available to those over 25. While fleet operators have extensive bargaining power, there will still be restrictions: the person driving a business car will, for instance, usually have to be over a certain age and an employee of the firm.

Under some fully comprehensive driving insurance policies, one’s own insurance means that it is possible to drive someone else’s car—with their permission, naturally. However, restrictions are often placed on that type of benefit. When driving a car that is not one’s own, cover is often on a third-party basis, so insurance will pay only for damage to other vehicles or property. Another possible type of insurance is for temporary cover on another person’s vehicle.

The petition cites the USA and Portugal as countries with a motor insurance system that requires insurance only of the car and not the driver. Such a principle is out there, and it is good to examine, and sometimes to copy, effective working practices from other countries. I certainly believe that that is worth doing here; however, I strike a note of caution, because on closer inspection the motor insurance model in both those countries is more complicated than it first appears.

In the United States of America, liability insurance follows the driver and covers them when they drive a vehicle other than their own. All states apart from New Hampshire require at least liability insurance. Comprehensive and collision auto insurance are tied to the vehicle; however, if someone other than the insured drives a vehicle covered by comprehensive insurance and is not listed as a covered driver, they may not be covered in an accident.

In Portugal, the vehicle and not the individual is insured; however, vehicles are generally insured to be driven by specific categories of driver. For example, if a car were insured for a category of drivers aged over 45, a sober driver aged under 45 would not be eligible to drive it. In Portugal, it is possible to insure a car with comprehensive cover for any driver. In practice, however, the driver often has to be over 30. Research from the Library suggests that comprehensive cover can be harder to get in Portugal than in the UK.

Driving without insurance in the UK is illegal—and quite right, too. Even if our model of insurance changed, I have no doubt that driving without insurance would remain illegal. The police can give a fixed penalty of £300 and six penalty points to someone caught driving a vehicle that they are not insured to drive. If the case goes to court, the uninsured driver can be made to pay an unlimited fine and be disqualified from driving.

The police also have the power to seize and, in some cases, destroy the vehicle that is being driven uninsured. There is a strong case for that practice. It encourages safe driving and compensates innocent parties for any injuries or damage to their vehicles or property as a result of a motor accident.

Although I extol some aspects of the current system, the Government need to take action to deal with rapidly rising premiums. We are not short of journalists and researchers who have made that point. In 2015, James Delingpole of The Spectator expressed it thus:

“The car insurance industry is a disgusting racket. It’s designed so that as many industries as possible can get their snouts in the trough.”

That may be hyperbole, but there is a definite need for cartel-like issues—or at least, the perception of cartel-like issues—to be examined. Reform of the motor insurance sector is necessary. I have little doubt that high insurance premiums and the perceived unfairness of the sector are leading to demand for change.

The petition does not provide a silver-bullet solution, although it is worthy of discussion and contains some interesting ideas. However, even if the petition’s answer is not the very best on offer, the Government should look seriously at it and other suggestions, including introducing graduated driving licences, freezing the rate of insurance premium tax and implementing planned reforms to the way in which lower-value, whiplash-style claims are handled. It is abundantly clear that the status quo on motor insurance premiums is not an option, and on that the Government must act. I thank the petitioners for bringing the issue to this Chamber today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

Again, I want to put on the record my thanks and those of the Petition Committee to the creator of the petition and to its signatories. It is rare in this place to have an in-depth discussion on car insurance. In my seven and three-quarter years as a Member I cannot remember a time when we have looked at car insurance and, in the same breath, road safety, but today’s debate has done that.

I want to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for her comments on the graduated licence. As she was speaking I thought back to my time as a sixth former when some friends who had passed their driving tests before me kindly offered to take me round the roads and country lanes of north Wales. It was an immensely enjoyable experience and absolutely useless in terms of driving practice to pass a test. I failed my driving test on three occasions until I went to university and passed on the streets of Bristol. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that there is a very strong case for a graduated licence. I also agree about the alcohol restrictions of which she spoke. I hope that if that idea ever sees the light of day we could see car insurance premiums for young people reduced, and also greater safety on our roads, which cannot come a day too soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) mentioned a Green Paper, which I would welcome. The Minister has not exactly ruled it out and I hope that that might be considered in future. In today’s debate we have been able to look at car insurance and the critical issue of road safety in the round. I whole- heartedly thank again the creator of the petition and all the signatories who made that possible for us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 207616 relating to changes to car insurance.

HS2 Update

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As I said earlier, our goal is to work to deliver that three-hour journey time we talked about, and that has the effect of bringing high-speed rail to Scotland. We have to use taxpayers’ money wisely, and we have to find the right balance in this project, but I want this project to work for Scotland as well, and I will do everything I can to make sure that happens.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that local authorities in north Wales have been very supportive of HS2, but please can he assure my constituents that there will be good train links between the Crewe hub and the Wrexham area, because that is very important for us all?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely expect that to be the case. Of course, the benefit of taking the current express trains off the main line is that it provides the opportunity for better services from north Wales to other parts of the country, so those services in north Wales are one of the potential real beneficiaries of this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do agree, but there is obviously responsibility for a system of railway maintenance and improvement, which is very important. Through the private sector we have seen vast improvements in our railway service. At the time of privatisation of our railways, there were 750 million people a year using trains; last year there were 1.6 billion and that figure is growing year on year. So I do not have to be convinced about the advantages of a system that has evolved over a number of years, using the private sector. I will consider any other ways in which we can involve the private sector in providing better railway services for our constituents.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

22. Network Rail has confirmed that it has considered selling up to 18 major stations and a number of other assets as it struggles to plug a £2.5 billion budget black hole. Would the Secretary of State like to comment on that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady talks about a £2.5 billion black hole. We are investing over this railway period some £38 billion in Network Rail. If Network Rail is sitting on certain assets, should it consider disposing of some of them so that we can carry on improving the overall system? Yes, it should. I do not see anything wrong with that. Indeed, a number of asset sales took place under the previous Government too.

Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Mine will be but a short contribution to the debate. I would like to put on record the thanks of very many Members to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this Bill and raising an incredibly important issue that affects the day-to-day lives of so many people, especially those who are blind or have visual disabilities.

I have received representations from a number of constituents on this issue, as have many of us, but I was struck in particular by what one of them said, a gentleman by the name of Ian Stewart Jones who began lobbying in one of our local newspapers. He said:

“I suggest…people contact their…MPs…so we can put an end to this very selfish practice.”

That is quite interesting, because many people who park on pavements do not see it as selfish. It is sometimes the easy thing to do. For those of us who are not very good at parking—or, rather, who are atrocious at it—it sometimes seems the best option, as we choreograph our little vehicles into what we think is the best and easiest place to park, so it is interesting to see that word “selfish”.

We can imagine the difficulties that many people face because of this practice, and I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman quote the sheer number of organisations that support his Bill. I did not take them all down, but they include the RNIB, Guide Dogs, the National Pensioners Federation, Living Streets, the Local Government Association and so many more, so it is fair to say that there is already a wide consensus in civic society and in the representative groups he listed that support the Bill.

I appreciate that there will now be further consultation, discussion and the like, but I would like to put on record a plea that this measure not be forgotten, because I was very struck by that description of parking on pavements as a selfish practice. I can imagine it is also a very demeaning practice for people who want to get on with their day-to-day lives, but who face being knocked over and having to bump against vehicles—who face the general degradation that, quite frankly, most of us would not put up with for even 20 minutes. I therefore urge Ministers and all Members to recognise this as an important and serious Bill. We often talk in this place about equality, diversity, equal chances and all the rest of it, and this Bill is at the heart of what we mean by that. It is a practical manifestation of it. Whatever happens at the next stage, I urge that it not be forgotten. In one form or another, the Bill needs to proceed.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

Absolutely. That reflects the consensus we are trying to build around the Bill. Ours are the very actions of a listening Government working on a cross-party basis to deliver in everyone’s interests. Bristol was the only city to vote for a mayor in the mayoral referendums held in May 2012. We have considered the argument made, among others, by the hon. Lady—that the people of Bristol should have the same opportunity as those in other areas to petition for a change in governance arrangements. Clause 21 effectively places the people of Bristol in the same position they would be in had the mayoral referendum in 2012 been triggered by a resolution of the council or the receipt of a valid petition. Having carefully considered these arguments, we are prepared to see the people of Bristol in this position, and hence we support clause 21.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Minister has spoken about consensus. Of course, one issue, connected with the Bill, on which there is great consensus is the Government’s proposals to amend the Sunday trading laws—the great consensus being that we should not do it. Will he confirm that those proposals are not coming back, either in this Bill or in any other way?

[James Wharton]

I hear the hon. Lady’s comments, although I am not sure to which clause we are here to debate she refers. More generally, we always talk to hon. Members across the House and listen to the views of the public at large to determine the best course of action, but the issue she raises is not before the Committee this afternoon. As to what will happen in the future, she tempts me to go further than I can.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would amend section 36 of the Representation of People Act 1983 to allow local areas to alter their systems for the election of councillors. His enthusiasm to push the boundaries of devolution, throughout our consideration of the Bill and more generally, has not gone unnoticed by Ministers or, I am sure, Opposition Members. When we last met in Committee, he flagged up the proposition that councils should be free to decide their own electoral arrangements in conjunction with their people. He suggested they should be able to have a debate and come to a decision.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s interest in voter engagement, which, as I have said, we all share, and I note the devolutionary nature of his proposals, under which a council could decide its own electoral system. That said, he will be unsurprised to learn that I have some concerns about how such complex proposals would work in practice and whether there is an appetite for them. Local councillors are currently elected under the first-past-the-post system, which is a well-recognised and straightforward system, as we saw in the outcome of the referendum to change to the alternative vote system in 2011. I accept that that was in relation to UK parliamentary elections, but two thirds of voters chose first past the post over the alternative vote, suggesting there is no public consensus for change.

I have concerns about the potential confusion caused by the possibility of voting systems changing from one poll to the next. We can imagine the pressures that councils and councillors could come under in considering the systems they might wish to employ. There would be a natural desire to consider, or attempt to second-guess, whether there might be some political advantage in adopting a different set of arrangements or sticking with the existing tried and tested ones. Even if appropriate safeguards could be introduced, which themselves would add to the complexity of the arrangements, the practical processes of switching voting systems would still be complex and costly. For example, a change to the single transferrable vote could, in many cases, require a major re-warding of an entire local authority area.

These concerns might not be insurmountable, but the proposal represents a fundamental change to the building blocks of our democratic processes and would require significant consideration, development and consensus, and I am clear that the Bill, although both devolutionary and enabling, is not the right vehicle for such a change. On raising the proposal last time, the hon. Gentleman suspected that the idea might need to brew a little. He will sense from my comments that I believe it has brewed nowhere near enough. I therefore ask that he does not push it to a Division.

Finally, I turn to new clause 9, which would introduce a requirement through regulations for local government electors in an area to approve certain boundary and structural changes via a referendum. The boundary and structural changes involved relate to the establishment of new unitary local authorities, the merger of authorities or movement from one authority area to another. Clause 16 already gives the Secretary of State wide regulation-making powers regarding structures and boundaries. The regulations will allow modification of the existing processes, as provided for in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, for making changes such as merging councils or moving to more unitary structures. These regulations can be made only where all the affected councils agree. I doubt it would be right to include a requirement for a referendum, and nor do I believe referendums to be sound practically in this context.

Our democracy is founded on the traditions and principles of representative democracy, which have served us well and stood the test of time. In general, we believe that decisions on public matters are made most effectively by those democratically elected to represent the area affected. All past experience suggests that this is the case with changes to local authority boundaries and structures. The democratically elected local representatives are best placed to take local decisions on these issues. Of course, they will want to take account of the views of the electorate—of those who live and work there, of businesses, of those who contribute to the life of local communities. However, how they seek these views—the kind of consultation exercises they undertake—is a matter for them. It is not for the Government to tell elected representatives how to undertake their roles.

Hence, it would not be right to require referendums—to require a particular way of ascertaining the views of local people—or for the result of such an exercise to determine the decision on proposed boundary or structural change. The referendums envisaged by the new clause would not be sound in practice. First, it would only require a referendum in a part of the area—the part becoming unitary, for example—yet such a change would have implications for the surrounding areas, so I am not clear that this approach would be right in any event. Secondly, such boundary and structural changes are almost invariably part of some wider reform. To present the question as simply one about some council structure or boundary risks being misleading and oversimplifying complex arguments. With those explanations, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), after what I am sure will be an interesting discussion, will not press his new clause.

In conclusion, I have explained that the Government cannot support new clauses 3 and 9. We are content for clause 21 to stand part of the Bill, but we are opposed to clause 20.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

We have not finalised the route, so it might be premature to have that meeting. As I have said, we will update the House before the end of the year. At that point, it will be very appropriate to meet a number of communities up and down the line of route.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s policies on increasing access to public transport for disabled passengers.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s policies on increasing access to public transport for disabled passengers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

We have made significant progress on increasing access. By the end of the year, we expect around 75% of rail journeys to start or end at a step-free station. That is an increase from around 50% when the Access for All programme started. That programme will deliver 151 step-free routes at stations this year. On the buses, only 57% met accessibility regulations in 2009-10. That number is now nearly 90% and rising.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I know that every Member of the House will want to congratulate the friends of Chirk station on their sterling work and the Labour Welsh Government for the massive investment in that station, which means that it will be totally accessible to disabled people from the end of next month. Many of us are very concerned, however, about the slashing of funding for the Access for All programme by 42%. It is a basic programme that provides ramps, lifts and the like. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are doing that and why they have not changed their mind?

[Andrew Jones]

I am aware of the installation of the new footbridge at Chirk station, which will vastly improve the facilities there, but I do not recognise what the hon. Lady says. The Access for All programme has been a great success. We are building on the success of the programme that was launched by the previous Government. So far, £386 million has been spent and about 1,200 stations have benefited from smaller-scale improvements. To build on the success, a further £160 million of funding has been allocated in the last year, which will extend the scheme to a further 68 stations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Representing a rural area, I am well aware of the problems of pensioners with concessionary travel passes but no buses to use them on when, in some cases, evening or weekend services have been withdrawn. The Government are contributing more than 40% of the farebox through subsidies to buses in various ways, and we are committed to improving local bus services wherever we can, working in conjunction with local authorities.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

12. What research he has conducted into the effect on the number of deaths and serious injuries of increasing HGV speed limits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The Department for Transport commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory specifically to assess the possible effects of raising the national speed limit for heavy goods vehicles and bringing them in line with those set for other large vehicles, such as coaches and cars towing caravans. In addition, the Department conducted analysis related to the national speed limit changes using its internal well established and peer-reviewed national transport model and also considered a substantial body of existing research into the various effects of speed changes on road safety.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but many of us are very concerned about this proposal. The plan is to raise HGV speed limits on single carriageways when the Minister’s own impact assessment makes it clear that that is likely to increase deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I know that the Minister sometimes comes up with very good ideas, but this is daft and dangerous. I urge her to reconsider in the light of the new evidence.

[Claire Perry]

No decision is taken by me—I speak as a keen cyclist and someone with young children who are out on the roads—and my Department without careful consideration of the impact on road safety. Those speed limits have been in operation since 1960, since when technology in our road traffic and HGV fleet has advanced dramatically, and deaths and injuries caused by HGVs have declined substantially. We have assessed the deaths that might occur from the change, but we have also assessed the impact of not needing to overtake platooning lorries driving far below speed limits that already apply to other large vehicles such as coaches and caravans. I suggest that the hon. Lady speaks to hauliers in her constituency, such as Williams Haulage, which deliver vital services for the country. They are investing in safe-truck technology and they really welcome the changes.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I missed that last bit about this morning, but the report we have had and the Treasury analysis show that the benefits will accrue to Yorkshire and west Yorkshire, including my city and my hon. Friend’s town of Huddersfield. One of the key points of the Higgins report is that full investment in east-west rail links across the Pennines is one of the great prizes that HS2 can bring to our area.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

In view of the fact that the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and many other nations have a high-speed link, does my hon. Friend not think it is high time that this country had one? It is about not just those areas that will actually get the link, but interconnecting areas, so people in north Wales and mid-Wales will also benefit from the Crewe link. We have to look at the budget, but surely it is high time to get on with it. That is why people in Wales who do not back everything the Labour party says, such as Professor Stuart Cole, are backing it.

[Mary Creagh]

The benefits of increased connectivity for north Wales cannot be overstated, given the potential for new railway links to towns and cities that currently have no direct rail link to London, and I will now address that in greater detail.

HS2 frees up capacity on the existing network. The full route will provide up to 18 long-distance train services into London every hour, which is the equivalent of a new green motorway. It will separate long-distance trains from local commuter services and freight and free up capacity on the network. That free capacity will bring new commuter services into London from areas of significant housing growth, including Milton Keynes, Luton, Northampton, Peterborough and Corby. The free capacity could also provide more direct, long-distance services to London from places such as Blackpool, Shrewsbury and Bradford.