Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The only statutory air quality limit the UK is currently failing to meet is on roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. Members will be aware of our plans to combat air pollution. A £3.5 billion investment has already been set aside, but we are now working with 61 local authorities to tackle their exceedances. I have directed local authorities, including Sheffield, to achieve compliance in the shortest possible time. Some £495 million has been specifically set aside for those councils, but I will take legal action if necessary to make sure that councils do what they need to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will know that at least 4.5 million children are growing up in areas with unsafe levels of particulate matters, with long-term implications for their health. UNICEF is now calling for the Government to introduce legally binding limits to meet the World Health Organisation recommended limit values for air pollution by 2025. Will Ministers consult UNICEF to discuss how that can be achieved?

[Dr Coffey]

The issue of particulate matter has grabbed my attention ever since I became a Minister in this Department. It is soot and dust, in essence, and one of our challenges is that a lot of particulate matter is naturally generated; for example, it is sand or sea salt. There are a number of different issues that we need to tackle, and we will continue to work with local authorities to bring the level of particulate matter down, because the Government are very conscious that we need to make sure that the most vulnerable in society, including children who are still of growing age, get the best possible start in life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The United Kingdom complies with the EU legislation for nearly all air pollutants, but faces challenges in achieving nitrogen dioxide limits, along with 16 other EU member states. That is why we have committed more than £2 billion since 2011 to reduce transport emissions and the autumn statement provided a further £290 million to support greener transport. We should all recognise that air quality is actually improving, but we recognise that we need to go further and faster and will be consulting on a new national plan by 24 April.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but I believe the Secretary of State is aware of the GB Freight Route rail scheme, which will take up to 5 million lorry journeys off Britain’s roads each year, save thousands of tonnes of emissions, and radically improve air quality. Will she and her Ministers use their good offices to press the case for GB Freight Route in Government?

Age-related Tax Allowances

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 9th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to age-related tax allowances.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. We have been allocated three hours, but my speech will not last that long or anything like it. I am, however, pleased to have the opportunity to speak about age-related tax allowances, setting them in their historical context and in the context of today’s pension provision.

I first declare an interest as a person of pensionable age and as chair of the parliamentary support group of the National Pensioners Convention, the radical and progressive campaigning organisation that has been fighting to advance the cause of pensioners for more than 30 years.

The NPC’s first president was Jack Jones, the late and great former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. Forty years ago, I worked for Jack Jones as a TUC staff member servicing the TUC’s transport industries committee, of which Jack was the chair. Jack had no equal in his principled commitment to the pensioners’ movement, such that, when he retired from his union’s leadership, he donated his entire leaving gift of some thousands of pounds to the National Pensioners Convention.

Speaking today, I am acutely conscious of the history of the NPC and of the struggles of the pensioner movement over the decades. Today’s debate has been prompted by the online petition on age-related allowances initiated by Arthur Streatfield on behalf of the NPC and all pensioners. The petition was signed by considerably more than 114,000 people before its closure in March, and it demonstrated the strength of feeling generated by the Government’s freeze on age-related allowances announced in the Chancellor’s March 2012 Budget.

I speak not only for myself or the active members of the National Pensioners Convention—even the thousands who signed the petition are only a fraction of those affected—as we in this House should always be conscious of the fact that there are more than 11 million pensioners in Britain, or nearly 20,000 per parliamentary constituency. Pensioners are among those who follow politics most closely and are some of our most well-informed electors. They are most likely to vote in elections, so we would all be wise to take proper and full account of their views.

The moral case for pensioners and their interests, however, is most important. They have spent a lifetime serving the economy in employment, sometimes serving the country in times of war, and giving their all in raising families. Elderly pensioners often become frail and live on low incomes; they have earned the right to be treated well by the society to which they have given so much. We should respect and care for our elders and ensure that they have the incomes necessary to live in comfort and security.

I have a few things to say on the timing of today’s debate. It was originally tabled to take place before the freeze on the age-related personal tax allowances had come into force, but the proroguing of Parliament, and the Queen’s Speech, denied us that opportunity. By the time the Backbench Business Committee had been re-elected and was able to allocate time, we had reached the summer recess. Although a debate may now seem something of an afterthought, it at least gives MPs the chance to discuss the matter in detail, which was never the case when the Chancellor made his initial announcement. It also provides us with the opportunity to see how the policy relates to the much wider issue of older people and the effect of austerity on their living standards and general well-being.

For decades there has been an acknowledgement of the need to provide additional support through the taxation system to older people in retirement. In 1925, old-age relief was introduced to help those aged over 64 with incomes of £500 a year or less. The Chancellor at the time, Winston Churchill, said that the modest savings of pensioners should be exempt from tax. The basis of today’s age-related allowance was introduced in 1975, and in 1987 further assistance was given by the introduction of an increased allowance for taxpayers aged over 80—reduced to those aged over 75 in 1989.

The decision by the Chancellor in the March 2012 Budget to freeze the age-related tax allowances, therefore, not only went against a widely held consensus that had been in place for more than 50 years, but caused serious concern about the future income levels of older people throughout the UK. The Chancellor announced in the House that he would freeze the age-related allowances from 6 April 2013 at the level of £10,500 for someone aged 65 to 74 and at £10,660 for someone aged 75 or over until those allowances aligned with the ordinary personal allowance. People retiring after that date—in effect, those born after 5 April 1948—are therefore to receive a lower personal tax allowance of £9,205, which is £1,295 less than they would have been expecting. It is estimated that the measure will save the Exchequer £3.3 billion by 2016-17 and, according to Treasury figures, will result in 4.4 million existing tax-paying pensioners losing between £63 and £83 a year, while future pensioners will suffer a loss of between £285 and £322 a year after tax.

Understandably, the announcement caught the headlines the following day, but it came as a surprise to many, and it was unexpected for a number of reasons. Only the year before, the Chancellor had told the House that the allowances would continue to rise for the lifetime of the Parliament in line with the retail prices index. There was no indication that he was preparing a change of policy. Twelve months later, he clearly decided to break that promise.

Astonishingly, while announcing a freeze on the tax allowances of pensioners at the same time, the Chancellor said that he would give those earning more than £150,000 a year a 5% cut in their tax rate, from 50% to 45%, which was an enormous windfall to those on the highest incomes. Someone on an income of £1 million taxable at the highest rate stood to benefit to the tune of £50,000 a year. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that older people felt as if those on modest incomes, seeing the purchasing power of their tax relief decreasing, were effectively subsidising a tax cut for the super-rich and for better-off pensioners. One blatant unfairness arising from the Chancellor’s decision was that while pensioners with annual incomes of less than £25,000 saw their tax bills rise, those with incomes in excess of £29,000 saw their tax relief increase by £268.

At the time of the announcement, there had been much erroneous nonsense in the media suggesting that older people had somehow escaped the effects of the Government’s austerity measures and that they needed to feel the pain just like everyone else. Think-tanks such as the Intergenerational Foundation and the Nuffield Foundation were quick to point out that older people were a burden on society’s finances, and individual politicians from the Deputy Prime Minister to the shadow Chancellor mentioned how universal benefits would have to be taken away from Britain’s apparently greedy older generation.

Since 2010, an argument has been put in some quarters suggesting that we can no longer afford older people. No doubt that background noise had some influence on the Chancellor’s decision in the 2012 Budget. The revenue collected by the state from older people, however, whether directly through a range of taxes or through costs that older people bear that would otherwise be paid by the state, adds up to a staggering £175.8 billion every year, compared with total expenditure on older people through pensions, welfare payments and health care of £136.2 billion. The overall net contribution by pensioners to the economy is, therefore, almost £40 billion and is estimated to rise to almost £75 billion by 2030. Most importantly, that is more than enough to pay for the current range of age-related benefits, as well as the personal tax allowances that we are debating today.

We have only to look at the voluntary and charitable sector to see how older people are keeping many of its organisations going, and how without them many of the networks of support that hold our communities together would start to crumble. Not only that, but millions of working families rely on the help of grandparents to provide unpaid child care, enabling parents to go out to work. Through volunteering, caring and of course paying taxes, Britain’s pensioners continue to give back to the country, rather than simply taking from it, as some would have us believe. As history often shows, however, an economic crisis can provide the conditions in which sections of society are scapegoated and blamed for the problems that we face. This time it appears to be pensioners and the elderly who are being targeted as the source of our economic woes, rather than the activities of a largely unregulated and irresponsible finance industry and the feeble Government policies to deal with it.

One of the biggest problems with the debate over the freeze on age-related tax allowances has been the myths that it has promoted. Following the Chancellor’s Budget statement, the newspapers dubbed the freeze the “granny tax”, although the truth is that around 60% of those affected are men. It has been widely acknowledged that our poorest pensioners tend to be women, many of whom do not even have enough income to pay any tax at all. A lifetime of caring responsibilities, or of part-time or low-paid work, means that many of them now struggle on less than £10,500 a year. Even the inadequate minimum wage would give people an income of over £12,800. Therefore, many older women are among the 6 million pensioners in this country who do not pay tax because they simply do not have enough money. To argue that they have escaped austerity when they have been living in austerity for years is outrageous nonsense. To suggest that someone on £15,000 is well off and can afford to face an increase in their tax bill when older people are facing many other financial pressures is either naive or callous, or both.

The inflationary impact on older people is higher than that which the country as a whole is experiencing, largely because pensioners spend a greater proportion of their limited income on things whose cost is rising fastest, such as food, fuel and health. It is estimated that average living costs for those over 75 have risen by 6.2%, which is considerably higher than the official consumer prices index would suggest.

The Chancellor was disingenuous to suggest that the freeze in the tax allowance was a mere simplification of the taxation system, when many people rightly saw it as a tax increase. Within hours of the Budget, a petition was set up on the Government’s website by retired civil servant Arthur Streatfield and was promoted by the National Pensioners Convention. I pay tribute to the NPC for its work in bringing this issue to the fore and for promoting tirelessly over the years other issues, such as pensions, social care, fuel poverty and universal benefits. I am grateful to it for its advice and assistance to me for today’s debate.

When the petition was launched, NPC’s general secretary, Dot Gibson, said:

“Since the Budget announcement, we have been inundated by messages from pensioners like Arthur who are outraged that the Chancellor has given a tax cut to those earning over £150,000 whilst pensioners on little more than £11,000 are having their tax allowance frozen. There has been a lot of nonsense about pensioners having been cushioned from the government’s austerity measures, but they’ve already seen cuts to their winter fuel allowance, a reduction of their state pension increase because it’s now linked to the lower Consumer Price Index rather than the Retail Price Index, rationing of care services in the community, closure of day care centres, changes to disability benefits and caps on housing support.”

Dot continued:

“It’s time we came out fighting and this petition is just the start. The government needs to recognise that older people are an asset not a burden. We not only need to reverse this latest attack, but also to campaign for higher state pensions, proper care and an end to fuel poverty.”

I absolutely agree with Dot.

In the Government’s mid-term spending review on 26 June, the Chancellor announced that universal benefits for older people, such as the winter fuel allowance and the concessionary bus pass, would for the first time be included in an overall cap on welfare spending. That seems to be just a way of cutting universal benefits by the back door. At the same time, the Department for Work and Pensions released figures showing that between 1.9 and 2.1 million older people are living below the official poverty line, and the older the age of the pensioner, the greater the likelihood of low income.

Pensioners living in a household where someone is disabled are almost three times as likely to suffer material deprivation as those living in a household where no one is disabled. Pensioners from minority backgrounds—there are many in my constituency—are also more likely to live on low incomes. When more than 1 million pensioners tell the DWP that they would be unable to pay an unexpected bill of £200, it speaks volumes about the need for a higher basic state pension for everyone and the need to take another look at the decision to freeze age-related tax allowances.

Despite what many might assume, we do not treat our older people with sufficient dignity. The UK state pension remains among the least adequate in Europe, with the risk of poverty among older people ranked fourth of the 28 EU countries. Some 5.6 million older people have savings of £10,000 or less. Nearly 2.5 million pensioner households live in fuel poverty and spend more than 10% of their income on fuel. That figure is rising. Almost a quarter of all pensioners—24%—do not go out at least once a month; 41% do not take a holiday away from home; 10% are unable to have their hair cut regularly; 5 million older people consider the television to be their only source of company; and one in 10 pensioners say they feel completely cut off from society, family and friends. That does not strike me as an impressive advertisement for Britain being a great place in which to grow old.

Despite that picture, the Chancellor’s decision to freeze age-related personal tax allowances has, for at least the next few years, penalised more than 4 million older people who are already struggling to cope. I agree there is merit in the long-term policy objective of securing a single personal tax allowance based on income rather than age, but it must be recognised that age-related personal tax allowances were designed to help with the additional expenses, such as home maintenance, that older people face. Such allowances will continue to be relevant for as long as the state pension remains disgracefully inadequate.

We have as a society recognised the need to provide additional assistance to older people because they face additional challenges brought on by ageing. We also recognise that after a lifetime of contributing to society, which continues in retirement, there are ways in which older people should be rewarded and justly so.

If the Chancellor had thought a bit harder, he might have realised that a much fairer way of achieving a change in the personal tax allowances would have been to uprate age-related allowances by inflation, and increase the under-65 allowance by more than inflation so that over time the two would eventually harmonise and older people would continue to get an increase in their allowance.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that one of the Government’s aims is to simplify tax allowances and have one allowance regardless of how old someone is. Is it sensible for an hon. Member over 65 to have higher take-home pay, simply because of age, than someone under 65?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I did not intend to make a speech, but a year or so ago I co-authored a policy to try to simplify allowances and national insurance. I will not dwell on that today, but I thought it was important to put on record the fact that I support the Government’s proposals to simplify taxation, which is what this policy does.

I have received criticism from constituents because a quarter of them are over 65, which is a higher proportion than 10 years ago. Suffolk Coastal, like many coastal areas, is a place where many people choose to retire, partly because they are attracted by its wonderful scenery, lifestyle and so on. It is important to say that we will do what we can to help pensioners on low incomes, and also to make a start on tax simplification, which I believe this policy does.

I understand why the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) outlined pensioners’ concerns, including about inflation, but I am proud of what the Government have done, including by introducing the triple lock on pensions, meaning that they will rise by a minimum of 2.5%, by the consumer prices index or by average earnings, and through the pension reforms that will come into place in a few years whereby we move to a flat-rate system so that people will not be penalised for saving towards their own pension. That will also remove the burden of, and the embarrassment that some people feel about, trying to seek help through means-testing, credits and so on. I do not recognise the suggestion that the Government are turning their back on pensioners.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with interest, but the fact is that some pensioners—more granddads than grannies, if I may say, and as a granddad myself, I feel this personally—will find that their incomes reduce as a result of the Government’s 2012 Budget, while those on the highest incomes will see their incomes increase. Is it right for pensioners on low incomes to see their income transferred to those on the highest incomes?

[Dr Coffey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but my understanding is that people will not be affected in cash terms, although they may be in real terms.

There is a significant increase in the number of people who continue to work beyond the age of 65. Some might say that that indicates that there is a pensions crisis as people cannot afford to stop working. It might be true that people have got used to a certain income and that, as other costs have risen, they continue to work if they can do so. They have been helped by the Government’s revolutionary change of scrapping the default retirement age, which was controversial on many fronts. To a large extent, people are working longer because we are healthier and living longer, which is why it is fixed in law that the default pension age will increase regularly.

As people will be working longer, I come back to the rather simplistic point of why somebody should have different take-home pay simply on the basis of their age, rather than any other criteria. I recognise that a number of people who have unearned income will be affected, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the age allowance is phased out when people’s income is above a certain amount.

I support the Government on the initiative. I do not believe in any way that old people are a burden—they are certainly not; they are an asset. However, everyone should do their bit to ensure that we continue to have a tax system that rewards appropriate levels of work and those who have worked, and we should continue to try to simplify the tax system as a whole. Although the hon. Gentleman talked about levelling up allowances, it has not been the policy of the Labour Opposition—or, certainly, of the previous Labour Government—significantly to increase tax allowances, as the coalition Government have done. We will get to an allowance of £10,000 sooner rather than later, and who knows what all the parties will offer in their 2015 manifestos? It was sensible to move to one tax allowance, on which point I shall conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. Friend.

Network Rail

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I was delighted to secure the debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). On behalf of us all, I would like to ask the Minister to pass on our best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has responsibility for rail, who has sadly had an accident. I understand that she is back on her feet. I hope that she makes a swift recovery. I know she is very resilient, but I hope she gets the rest she needs to make a full recovery.

Network Rail is 10-years-old this year. We all know how, why and when it came into existence. It is timely and appropriate to have this debate, especially as just over a month ago the Office of Rail Regulation served a notice of breach of licence to Network Rail on two fronts: on long-distance rail and on freight rail services. I have a particular interest in freight rail, which I will come to later in my speech.

One point that has been well expressed—I will try not to repeat too many points that have already been made—is that there has been some progress with Sir David Higgins. However, that does not mean that his job already requires significant six-figure bonuses. I am sure I am not the only person whose eyebrows were raised on understanding that that would be the case. I encourage the remuneration committee of Network Rail to consider carefully—having received those two breaches and considering the ongoing challenges that our constituents face—whether that bonus would be appropriate. I have no problem at all with rewarding success, but I cannot say at the moment that there has been great success on our rail network.

Since the debate was announced, I have had a very quick response from Network Rail. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans, because I understand that she would not meet with Network Rail until the debate had taken place. I did meet people from Network Rail. It was fantastic that my original query from last summer, which I followed up in October and again in January, was finally answered—good news. It also gave me the opportunity to meet Dave Ward, who has been put in charge of the East Anglia region. He talked about some of the changes that have already happened, and what he plans to do. I will give praise where praise is due: I like some of the changes that have been proposed. However, the proof will be in the pudding.

I want to mention briefly factors beyond control, which have been talked about. Perhaps this is degenerating the debate, but Network Rail has often been called “Not work rail” or “Network fail”. The wrong kind of leaves and the wrong kind of snow—these factors are difficult and I accept that. Extraordinary incidents will happen; for example, burst water mains. Cable theft has been a growing problem. The Government have responded. That response perhaps took longer than everybody wanted, but they have done the right thing in tabling an amendment on tackling metal theft, which will include aspects of cable theft. Network Rail could have done more itself to assess the security of its own lines, whether through technology, or through the good old-fashioned use of people to check what is going on. Indeed, Mr Ward suggested to me that he is spending £2 million on security patrols to try to ensure that such theft does not happen, or at least that it is reduced, and I welcome that.

I also want to mention two Members who cannot be here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who also helped to secure the debate, is opening the wing of a hospital, or something like that, in Ipswich. I pay tribute to his relentless work in trying to improve and secure investment for the greater Anglia area. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has already spoken about the challenges for that line, so I will not repeat them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has also been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) on the Norwich in 90 and the Suffolk in 60 campaigns, bringing together MPs from across all three counties to ensure that we get a better service.

The other hon. Member who cannot be here is my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney). He also has to meet constituents today, and he wanted me to plug the fact that he is fed up with Network Rail. Anyone who has ever been to Lincoln will know that the railway line dissects it. He believes that the latest proposals for freight will mean that the level crossing will be closed for 40 minutes in every hour in daylight hours. He does not think that that is acceptable, and that is a fair point.

On issues of cost and time, we have heard some interesting ideas about what the right thing to do is. Is the right thing to go back to integration, or is it to introduce more competition? My first interaction with Network Rail came about after we lost the hourly service, which had been agreed before I became the Member of Parliament. Passengers had to change trains—there was no through train all the way to Lowestoft and they had to change at Ipswich. That meant that passengers who were not so mobile, or those with heavy luggage, had to be escorted across the tracks. On a very tight connection time of perhaps less than six minutes, that did not always feel very safe or ideal. In fact, passengers ended up going outside the canopy and out into the open elements. Wet or icy weather added to the problem.

Network Rail was supposed to build a footbridge and lifts. It did so, but they were several months late and cost £2.7 million. I understand that £1 million a lift is the going rate, which leads me on to a general point. Everything from Network Rail seems to be costed in units of £1 million: do we want a level crossing? “Yeah, that will be £1 million.” A new academy school building is being built and more children will use a particular route on the way to school. Network Rail has lodged an objection in respect of Runnacles Way, because children walk across there. A bridge is required, which might cost £1 million, or it might cost £2 million. Meanwhile, someone who has been doing some contracting work for the Environment Agency—which used to have the same problem in my view; everything was very expensive—reckons that he can build the bridge for approximately £150,000.

We should not accept that everything costs £1 million or more. That is why I was encouraged by the changes—I think it is called the devolution principle—that allow directors to take control of their regions. The Network Rail group that currently does a lot of small projects will be opened up. Pilots are being conducted to find out whether other firms can bid for tender. Indeed, Abellio, the new franchisee that comes online within the week, has said that it would strongly consider doing that; it does maintenance projects in the Netherlands. That presents an opportunity, but without the complexity that adds cost through procurement, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said. However, we need to do something about value for money. We should not accept that the cost of everything is in units of £1 million. Network Rail pulled its finger out with the floods in Cumbria and rebuilt a station in three days, which was fantastic. I would love to see that happen everywhere.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady is making a strong point about cost. British Rail used to have cash-limited projects that worked within cash limits. The engineers and the directly employed people said, “How do we do this as cheaply as possible? We have to work within the cash limits and we want to do the best job possible.” That actually worked, and is one of the reasons why cost was low in BR’s day.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman has more experience than me on those matters. Some interesting ideas are coming out today—I am sure that the Minister will take note of them—about building not just to spec, but being part of the design solution, and about other activities being constrained within a budget.

I should like to thank Network Rail, Suffolk county council and the Government for putting aside the money to ensure that we get the Beccles loop, which will reintroduce an hourly service all the way through to Lowestoft, as opposed to our only getting trains every two hours beyond a certain point. That improvement should be in by the end of this year.

Level crossings are a big challenge in my constituency. I respect the ambition of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to see no level crossings at all, but I do not believe it is feasible. I live in a rural area with nine stations and 50 crossings, but many of those are bridges built a long time ago, back in Victorian times. Of the 27 level crossings in my constituency, only 11 have automated barriers. Eight have to be opened by hand. People drive up, get out of their car and walk to the gates, use the phone, open both gates, drive over, and then come back and close the gates. Those are the examples we could find; we have been doing a bit of research. I have used such a crossing and, as hon. Members can imagine, I have avoided using that route again.

In eight places there are just lights, with no barriers at all. Two of those are on A roads, one with 15,000 traffic movements per day. There have not been that many accidents, but I am not sure whether that is due to the design or people’s patience. It is such a crossing that I have been chasing Network Rail about—the one that will cost £1 million for installing two barriers—and I am delighted to say that I was told that it would be done by 2013. I am delighted that Network Rail has committed to doing that, but its challenge is to try to do that more cheaply. I want the response paper to contain something about how we are going to tackle some of those matters. The example that I have mentioned is not the only level crossing that is needed.

In a rural area, I would rather have routes than roads blocked off. If there were an insistence on there being no level crossings at all—just an underpass or bridge—quite a lot of mobility within rural areas would be compromised. It is about taking a risk-based approach and seeing whether we can do something about some of the crossings where people have to get in and out of their cars, and so on.

I welcome the change in who can bid for work, which will be piloted. I understand that Anglia will be part of that pilot. However, it is critical that there is transparency. I want Network Rail to report on how many projects are internal and external. Starting to show value for money and the percentage, or value, of work being done externally would be a useful barometer.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady claims that Waveney is a Tory area. At the moment it has a Conservative MP, but it had a splendid Labour MP for the previous 14 years, and it currently has a hung council, which is effectively Labour-controlled.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. My point is that aspirational targets may be set by the Government, but councils deliver. Waveney was Conservative-controlled when making that change, and is still Conservative-controlled.