Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by exploding the austerity myth, the so-called “mess Labour left behind”, which is repeated ad nauseam on the Government Benches. The myth is Labour’s excessive public expenditure. The reality is that on the eve of the 2008 international financial crisis, public spending was almost exactly the same as it was in the later years of the chancellorship of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), when public expenditure stood at 39% of GDP.

It is absurd to suggest that Labour created a worldwide economic crisis. Indeed, the current Chancellor called for less regulation of the banking sector—the very banks that caused the problems we are still dealing with—in the months preceding the crash. William Keegan, the distinguished economic commentator, wrote recently that

“for all the apparent political success the Chancellor and his colleagues have had in making people believe them, the charge simply does not stand up.”

We have seen something similar in Scotland: reality turned on its head, facts switched into fallacy, rhetoric in place of reality. Last week, the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” report showed that with the SNP’s fetish for fiscal autonomy, and even including a geographical share of declining oil revenue, the amount of revenue raised in Scotland would be significantly less than the total Scottish expenditure by both the Scottish and UK Governments—a deficit of £6.5 billion. This is more than half of what is spent on the NHS in Scotland each year, and the equivalent of every person in Scotland losing £800. “So what?”, they say. Crushing the standard of living for pensioners and further impoverishing the struggling; destroying the life chances of young people and inflicting more hardship on hard-working families; putting at risk the NHS; lowering the educational opportunities for Scots; cuts to tax credits, child benefit and pensions; a harder future with less support and even less hope—all this, we are led to believe, is a price worth paying for the imposition of an ideology. In Holyrood, the obsession is with independence and its painful precursor, fiscal autonomy. With this coalition, as we have seen again today, the ideological obsession continues—personified by the Chancellor, whose Budget aims to cut public expenditure, reduce taxes for the rich and deliver for the few, not the many.

People are hurting. The Chancellor failed miserably to meet his own deficit target. My constituents are suffering from declining incomes and failing to find work. Hard-working families in my constituency are on average £1,600 a year worse off than they were in 2010. Stagnant wages, with low-paid and insecure work, are the reality for many of the people I represent. Of course they are hurting. Some 1.4 million people in Britain are on zero-hours contracts, with some of them reliant on text messages to tell them how many hours of work they will get that week. The truth is that unemployment has been replaced by underemployment, with the state subsidising businesses profiting from the low wages they pay their workers. As a result, tax receipts are more than £68 billion lower and receipts from national insurance contributions £27.3 billion lower than they were expected to be five years ago.

The working poor are increasing in number in our country, and many of them are forced to rely on food banks just to survive. The Trussell Trust told us that in 2009 we had one food bank in Scotland, but today we have 48. I want to live in a society where there is no need for food banks. In my constituency, unemployment is at 3.8% and youth unemployment at 5.3%—both well above the UK average. The average income in my constituency is lower than the UK average, and 3,785 children live in poverty. Government support is not a dispensable luxury; it is a necessity in order to survive, and for some it is simply not enough.

Great progress was made under the last Labour Government, and we should not underestimate it. More has to be done, and I believe more will be done. My constituents and the rest of the country simply cannot endure another five years under the Tories. I have great faith that on 7 May our country, the United Kingdom, will choose to be governed fairly—and that means a Labour Government.

Helicopters (North Sea)

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. This is a short debate, which I intend to use to put on record the major reasons why the Department for Transport should order a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the offshore oil and gas helicopter transport system.

The North sea oil and gas industry is crucial to the UK economy. The industry and its supply chain claim 440,000 employees, around 30,000 of whom work offshore. Its investment this year will be in excess of £13 billion. It is an extremely important industry. Because of the hostile environment of the North sea, the only reasonable method of transport to and from offshore installations is by helicopter. Since 1976, there have been 13 helicopter-related incidents, in which 118 people have died. In addition to those, there were a further seven fatalities in an incident in Morecambe bay in 2006.

In the past four years, we have had five separate incidents. In three of those, the helicopter ditched in the North sea, thankfully without any fatalities, but on 1 April 2009, 16 people died when a Super Puma L2 aircraft crashed near Peterhead, and on 23 August this year, four people died when a Super Puma AS332 crashed off Sumburgh. In all five incidents, various models of the Super Puma aircraft were involved. That aircraft is the workhorse of the North sea industry, and it should be no surprise that those successive incidents have wrecked the morale and confidence of offshore workers and their families, as shown by a recent survey undertaken by Unite the union.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I declare an interest, in that my nephew, Alan Lawson, was involved in a helicopter crash on 18 February 2009. The helicopter landed in the North sea in the most dreadful conditions. Fortunately, all the people on the helicopter, including Alan, survived, but I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on pursuing these matters as tenaciously as he is, because I know from the sidelines of the terrible trauma that the family of that young man—my sister’s son—experienced. The matter still has not been resolved, and I want my hon. Friend to be reassured that there is great support for the marvellous work that he is doing.

[Mr Doran]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks—I promise I did not pay him.

There are many reasons why an inquiry is necessary, but I will focus on three principal reasons. First, the relationship between the oil industry and the helicopter industry needs to be considered in some detail. The Competition Commission carried out an inquiry into the industry in 2003 and recognised at that time:

“Oil companies are much larger and commercially stronger organisations than the helicopter operators”,

and

“oil companies had become more determined to force down their supply costs.”

That statement is accurate, but it is an understatement of the true position. The contracts reached by the oil industry with helicopter and other service companies are very one-sided. The contractor has obligations for a period. In the case of the helicopter operators, it is usually for five years, whereas the oil majors can change the contract terms at any time. When the oil price dips, oil companies look at their supply contracts. In the late 1990s, when the oil price was consistently low, many supply chain companies, including helicopter operators, had their contracted prices cut severely. In one helicopter company with which I had discussions, the cut was 20%. Something similar happened five or six years ago when the oil price dropped again. The practice is common in the North sea, but it is very difficult to see how a helicopter company, when its prices are cut without notice to that extent, can respond and at the same time maintain the maintenance and other costs that are crucial to the safety of the service.

I do not know whether the Civil Aviation Authority is aware of that practice. It should be, because significant cuts in income and elsewhere could severely restrict an operator’s ability to maintain safe standards. We should all know whether the CAA takes into account the huge imbalance between the oil industry client and the helicopter operators.

Given the importance of the transport industry in the North sea, it does not seem appropriate, at least to me, that the helicopter companies are treated in exactly the same way as any other supplier. The service is far too important. The huge imbalance between the oil and gas companies and the helicopter contractors should not be allowed to prejudice safety. The relationship should be subjected to the most intense scrutiny. Given the recent international agreement with Iran, a drop in the oil price is foreseeable when Iranian oil comes back into the market. It is worth emphasising that as a good example of how volatile the oil price can be.

The second issue to consider is the significant disparity in how different helicopter companies operate, particularly in how helicopters are maintained, the training of engineers and other staff and company cultures generally. I have spoken with a number of employees of different companies, and it is clear that training regimes, the number of flight hours and procedures vary considerably between companies. This is not the place to go into that in detail, but the available evidence suggests that the CAA should be taking a stricter line in its scrutiny of individual companies, their practices and their safety culture.

Electric Vehicles (Vulnerable Road Users)

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on securing this important and timely debate.

Let me start by declaring an interest. Guide Dogs runs a centre at Forfar, in my constituency, and it is very popular and well supported locally. Trainee guide dogs are a common sight around the boroughs of Angus, and many of the centre’s supporters have asked me to make their views known today. However, I must confess that I also drive a hybrid car—one of the vehicles concerns have been raised about.

As others have said, hybrid and especially electric vehicles were pretty much a niche market until recently, but they are clearly beginning to take off, with many major car makers bringing out models. On my way into Parliament, I noted that Nissan has many posters around Westminster tube station, including a prominent one for the Leaf electric car—the hon. Lady will be pleased to see that. Anyone who has switched on a TV recently cannot have avoided the massive advertising campaigns BMW and Audi have mounted for new electric and hybrid vehicles. Charging stations are now appearing in our cities and particularly at motorway service stations, which is a sure sign that the industry expects a sizeable take-up of such vehicles in the relatively near future.

Guide Dogs is therefore right to raise concerns, and it is a good time to look at this issue, as it is still developing. What has happened is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. For environmental reasons, we all want to see the greater take-up of these vehicles, but we now find that they may pose a serious danger for the blind or partially sighted. Guide Dogs cites a statistic showing that quiet hybrid and electric vehicles are 25% more likely than conventional vehicles to be involved in a collision with a pedestrian because pedestrians might not hear them coming. Although the debate is about the blind and partially sighted, other groups—particularly the elderly, youngsters and cyclists—are also affected.

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) mentioned pedestrian crossings, but the danger may, paradoxically, be greater on roads in less busy areas where pedestrian crossings have no audible signals. In the centre of London, people would cross the road only at a pedestrian crossing—at least if they had any sense—and most crossings have audible signals. In relatively quiet areas—in small villages or towns such as those in my constituency—there may not even be a pedestrian crossing. Not only may someone who has to cross the road not hear an electric vehicle coming, but there will be nothing to tell the driver someone may be on the road.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a well-informed and comprehensive speech. I came to the debate because I was encouraged to do so by two constituents, who very much share his concerns and those that were expressed earlier. Given the, happily, increasing number of hearing dogs, does he agree that the problem we are discussing goes beyond the important group he mentioned—blind people with guide dogs? People with hearing dogs are also puzzled by what is happening.

[Mr Weir]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Members have pointed to other groups that are affected. Clearly, Guide Dogs has been leading on this issue for its constituency of blind and partially sighted people, and it has made much of the running, but he is right that the problem is much wider.

I took part in a previous Guide Dogs campaign, on the issue of shared streets. At that point, the organisation was concerned by moves in many areas to remove defined kerbs and to allow the intermingling of vehicles and pedestrians, the idea being that each would be more aware of the other and take more care. As part of that campaign, Guide Dogs took me to a shared street, put a very effective blindfold on me and asked me to cross the street. The only thing that would give any indication of the presence of a vehicle was noise. It was a terrifying experience, although I knew it was temporary, and I could take off my blindfold at the end. There were also people there to make sure no one ran me over, although if they had been from the opposition, they might not have done so. The point, however, is that a blind or partially sighted person in a shared street might not even know they had gone on to the road, let alone hear a vehicle coming. That is a very dangerous situation.

It would be terrifying for someone who could not see vehicles to know that they might also be unable to hear some vehicles; effectively, they would have no way of knowing whether those vehicles were on the road, and they would take a major risk crossing any road, but that is what blind and partially sighted people may face every day. There is also a greater onus on drivers of hybrid and electric vehicles to take care and to ensure they see any people on the road. There is an issue for such drivers, as well as for people crossing the road.

Guide Dogs suggests that the way to deal with the problem would be to fit vehicles with an acoustic vehicle alerting system, which ensures that all vehicles are audibly detectable. That has been done in the USA and Japan, it has been investigated by a UN commission. That is an eminently sensible precaution, and if it is implemented now, it will ensure that the vast majority of these vehicles are fitted with devices as they come on the market, just as the industry takes off.

The one thing that has been put against doing that is the cost to motor manufacturers and the concern that it might impact on their productivity and their ability to produce vehicles. The hon. Lady cited a cost of about £20, which does not seem particularly high, given the cost of the vehicles. I should remind the Minister and others that we have not been slow in the past in insisting on safety precautions for those in vehicles. Seat belts are the perfect example, and air bags are another example. Both add to a vehicle’s cost, but they have been introduced because of the need to ensure the safety of people in vehicles. Is it not right, when we develop new vehicles, that we also look at the safety of people crossing the road when these vehicles are about, given that the large section of the population with disabilities may not be able to hear them coming? It seems a small price to pay to ensure that those fellow citizens are safe when they cross the road. Will the Minister seriously consider how to ensure that not only those who travel in a car, but other people on the roads, can be safer?

Cycling

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan and sustained funding for cycling.

It is a great pleasure to move this motion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule a debate on this subject after the success of our very well-attended debate last year in Westminster Hall, which showed just how many Members of this House care about cycling. We discussed all forms of cycling, from sport to commuting, leisure, utility and all-access cycling. It was clear from that debate that Members agreed that cycling was an energy-efficient form of transport, a healthy way to get around, a cheap means of travelling, and fun as well. No one who was there will forget the tale we heard of romance on a tandem.

Since that debate, the all-party parliamentary cycling group, which I have the great pleasure of co-chairing with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), has conducted a detailed inquiry to make a series of recommendations on what Government ought to do to get Britain cycling, and we are now debating the resulting report. To produce it, we spoke to a wide range of people.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am not at all surprised that this debate is so well attended. I want to put on record the representations that I have received from at least one constituent who wants us to focus still more on cycling as part of an improved environment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving the road structure, pathways and so on is important not only because individuals want to take part in cycling but because it is a great attraction and opportunity for tourism in the areas we represent?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely agree that there are huge benefits, some of which I will outline. He is absolutely right that tourism can benefit and that environmental concerns can be addressed. There are lots of benefits in getting Britain cycling.

Disabled Access (Train Stations)

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rory Stewart]

That is a vital point. It returns us to the general theme, which is that when we have made the big investment, the big bet, a relatively small amount of money would make all the difference in use. The fact that people in Penrith and the Border can get up to Cumbria in three hours and 15 minutes is the most extraordinary transformation—for tourism, for our economy, for small businesses, for people’s quality of life, for connections to other parts of the country, and for people’s ability to go abroad. All of that is being held back by what would probably be an investment of a few hundred thousand pounds to finish the job.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on choosing such an important subject for debate and on his eloquence. He referred earlier to legislation that has been passed by this House, and I am sure that as he continues his research he will find that in 1986 I was fortunate enough to pilot through the House the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The thematic support for the Act was based on advocacy, because not all disabled people can speak for themselves. Some, as we know, were placed in guards’ vans at that time and given very little help. Can I get the hon. Gentleman to agree that, in addition to what he is doing, which is excellent, he will support advocacy so that those who cannot speak for themselves will find that their views do not go unreported?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely. Indeed, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the extraordinary work that he did in the 1980s. Yet again, at a time of cynicism about Parliament, cynicism about Back Benchers, and cynicism about what people can contribute, the contribution that he made as an Opposition Back Bencher at that crucial stage was really heart-warming.