| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Topical Questions
T1. [313730] Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): If he will make a statement on his Departmental responsibilities.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr. Sadiq Khan):
Since our previous Question Time in December, my Department has announced a £200 million electrification programme for key railway lines in the north-west, responded swiftly and effectively to the
recent severe weather and aviation security threats, and invested £20 million in bringing integrated smart ticketing to our cities in five years. We have now received the High Speed 2 report, and are working intensively on the Government's response.
Simon Hughes: Given that since 1997, the real cost of travelling by motoring and air has gone down, while the real cost of travelling by rail has gone up, will Ministers make a commitment that, if re-elected, the formula for regulating rail fares will change so that the real cost of travelling by train will decrease, not increase?
Mr. Khan: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Some train operating companies have used the regulations in which we prescribed regulated fares to introduce much more expensive fare regimes for the rest of the day. We are learning the lessons of that, and ensuring that when a new franchise is awarded, a basket of improvements benefits the commuter rather than any train operating company.
T7. [313737] Jessica Morden (Newport, East) (Lab): Will the Minister give me an update for long-suffering Severn bridge users on progress on resolving issues, including using debit and credit cards and considering a freeze on the annual tolling increases?
Mr. Khan: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that, as a direct consequence of her campaign, lobbying and giving me a hard time outside as well as inside the Chamber, work is under way to make the necessary amendments to the secondary legislation to allow card payments to be accepted on the Severn crossing. The Department for Transport legal and policy people are currently making progress on the changes to the regulations and it is anticipated that the amendments will be made, and that the instrument will come into force in April.
T2. [313731] Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Given that we are having the second winter of excessive harsh weather, which is causing serious problems with potholes on our roads, does the Minister accept that local authorities and the Highways Agency must do more to ensure that the repairs are done as quickly as possible? Will he join me in welcoming Essex county council's decision to double the budget for this year to deal with those problems?
Mr. Khan: I am grateful for that question and the way in which it was asked. We have tripled the amount we give to local authorities to maintain their roads. Last year, we announced an additional £32 million to allow local authorities to assess their roads. If local authorities maintain their roads regularly, there is less chance of potholes forming. Of course, we consider sympathetically applications for additional funding. We are talking to 10 local authorities from last year, and will consider applications made this year, too.
Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister will be aware that a railway workers' lobby was here yesterday. The thrust of one of their complaints was that accountants are instructing engineers on what to do. The workers fear that that will result in serious safety failures. What can he say to the House in response to that? Can he assure us that the de-manning of the maintenance service will not impede safety on the railways?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Mole): The Office of Rail Regulation, which is both the economic and safety regulator for the railways, has challenged Network Rail to reduce its costs, and improve its efficiency and effectiveness, by around a third over the next control period. The challenge to Network Rail is to ensure that it does that without impacting on either the performance or the safety of the railway. The ORR is inspecting and ensuring that safety is maintained, and any concerns that employees or others have should be referred directly to it.
T4. [313733] Mr. John Baron (Billericay) (Con): Government figures show that foreign left-hand drive heavy goods vehicles account for three times the number of accidents that our own right-hand drive HGVs account for. Given that I have raised this issue with the Government over the last few years, and suggested a solution-the mandatory issuance of Fresnel mirrors that would eliminate the blind spot-what progress have they made in reducing that accident rate? Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): Let me at the outset say that I am more than happy to meet hon. Members to discuss road safety issues. The additional resources that we have given to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to undertake checks and issue Fresnel mirrors has had a significant effect on the number of accidents. As I said, I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend assure me of the Government's commitment to high-speed rail electrification from London to south Wales?
Mr. Khan: I can confirm that we are committed to that. As I said, we believe in serving the entire country, which includes electrifying the Great Western line from London all the way to Swansea-that was a £1 billion announcement. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that currently in Europe, only two countries have less than one mile of electrified line-Albania and Wales. That needs to be sorted out.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): Has the Minister made an assessment of the costs nationally to the damage to roads as a result of the cold weather? Will he conduct a review into the use of salt, as opposed to grit, which is used by some other countries, because of the damage that it does to road surfaces?
Mr. Khan: That is one of the things the UK Roads Liaison Group gives advice on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, although he may have missed what I said earlier, that we have trebled the amount of funding we give to local authorities in relation to roads maintenance. We have also announced an additional package of £32 million to assess the roads, which will include dealing with the point he made. If he has problems with local authority funding, I am happy for him to approach both the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, which give additional money in exceptional circumstances.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that a conflict of interest could be residing within the Office of Rail Regulation, because it is responsible for both safety and investment?
Chris Mole: I am more than content that the ORR understands how it needs to discharge both those responsibilities at the same time without any conflict of interest.
T5. [313734] Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): Rail passengers travel at peak times in overcrowded carriages in conditions in which it would be illegal to transport cattle and sheep. When is that lack of capacity to be tackled? When will adequate rolling stock be delivered for the safety and comfort of the travelling public?
Mr. Khan: The hon. Lady raises a point that has been raised before. We have announced plans to increase our rolling stock by 2014 and we are ahead of the curve in relation to delivery from 2008. It is a question of choices. Had we taken the advice to increase our spending this year by only 1 per cent., it would have led to a reduction of £840 million. If we take the advice to reduce our spending next year by 25 per cent., any idea of increased capacity is pie in the sky.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): On several occasions before Christmas, the road network in south-east London and east London came to a complete gridlock because of incidents in the Blackwall tunnel or on adjacent roads. That unacceptable situation occurs too frequently. When my right hon. Friend next meets the Mayor of London, will he put that high on his agenda, because it cannot be allowed to continue?
Mr. Khan: I am not sure what the Mayor's priorities are, but they are not the Croydon Tramlink or the Dartford crossing. In fact, he seems obsessed with interfering with Conservative leadership issues. I will ensure that we try to impress on the Mayor the priority of serving Londoners and addressing some of the challenges they face, rather than increasing fares on buses, tubes and trams.
T6. [313735] Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Is the Minister aware of the statement by the AA that the money to fix all Britain's potholes could be raised within 100 days if increased profits from VAT on fuel were diverted to that problem? Will the Government act accordingly to fill in and repair the potholes?
Mr. Khan: I am always happy to tell local authorities what to do, but I actually believe in devolution and giving local authorities the power to do as they see fit. I am only disappointed that so many of them are Conservative and decide not to invest in maintaining our roads. They invest in various projects rather than serving the community that they were elected to serve.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): In view of the fact that using our airports is becoming increasingly frustrating, uncomfortable and disagreeable because of necessary security measures, will the Minister convene a meeting of all airport operators to see what can be done to address the issue of passenger comfort?
Paul Clark: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we have regular meetings with the airport operators to discuss exactly those issues. I wish to put on record our thanks to all those who have worked on the new measures that have come into force since 25 December, and to the travelling public for their patience when experiencing delays immediately after the new requirements were introduced. Most people recognise the proportionality of the security arrangements, but we keep them under review.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): To be more cost-effective, Kettering borough council, of which I am a member, would like to employ one set of street wardens for parking enforcement and to tackle litter and dog-fouling offences. Two lines of guidance from the Department are preventing the council from doing that. Will the Minister look at that situation?
Mr. Khan: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall be happy to look into it.
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): I thank the Minister for his answers to the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about First Capital Connect. May I ask him a further question on that issue? How much longer will it take for the Secretary of State to reach a judgment on whether that company is up to the job of delivering its franchise agreement?
Mr. Khan: I do not apologise for being tough when it comes to those who run our trains, if there are financial concerns or the companies are in breach of the agreements, either through enforcing remedial action or financial penalties. Over the last three months, First Capital Connect's performance has been unacceptable-I would go so far as to say it has been disgraceful. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the quality of service improves for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Some people are advising us that we should not micro-manage train operating companies and should let them have more flexible and longer franchises. We have declined that advice, and we take a hands-on approach to ensure that commuters receive the best quality service.
Women and Equality
The Minister for Women and Equality was asked-
Employees with Families
1. Jessica Morden (Newport, East) (Lab): If she will discuss with trade union representatives the guidance provided to employers on rights for employees with families. [313700]
The Minister of State, Government Equalities Office (Maria Eagle):
The Government are committed to building a fair and family-friendly labour market, and my ministerial colleagues and I meet regularly with both unions and representatives of business to discuss this aim and how
to advance it. Today's announcement that fathers will be able to take up to six months off on paternity leave by replacing the mother at home for some of her maternity leave is a further advance for the flexibility agenda.
Jessica Morden: The unions are doing a great job in promoting the right to work flexibly, but many parents remain unaware of their rights or are wary of asking for them. What more can the Department do, working with the trade unions, to make people feel more able to ask for more family-friendly hours and to increase the uptake of that right?
Maria Eagle: There is a range of things that we can do. Equality reps, which many trade unions have in workplaces, can help to provide better information and signpost individuals and companies to it. The section of the businesslink.gov website on employing people has 350,000 hits a month from employers seeking information on how to provide better flexibility. The evidence is that many people ask for flexible working and 95 per cent. of requests are positively met.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): Many businesses find that operating a flexible working policy brings huge productivity gains, as well as being good for those with families, although some remain either unconvinced or unsure of how to go about it. What can the Government do to promote the business benefits of flexible working too, and encourage more organisations to take it up, whether by creating part-time roles at senior levels or pursuing such policies as job sharing?
Maria Eagle: The hon. Lady is right. We do a range of such work. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently announced that we would bring together employers, business representatives and the TUC to look at how to improve family-friendly working practices further. That type of pragmatic three-way discussion does just that: it is successful, and it is good news for employees and employers. In other words, it is a typical, good Labour policy.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): Employees at O2 in my constituency presented me with a petition last week about child care vouchers. It was initiated because the child care voucher companies had left them unaware that the Government had changed their planned policy for tax breaks for child care vouchers. Will the Minister please talk to the child care voucher providers to ensure that they work with the companies that use such vouchers and inform employees of that positive policy?
Maria Eagle: I am happy to take up the point that my hon. Friend has made and talk to the relevant organisations.
Equality Bill (Religious Groups)
2. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): What recent discussions she has had with religious groups on the provisions of the Equality Bill. [313702]
The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Harriet Harman):
Ministers in this House-in particular my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office-and Ministers in the Lords have had a number of discussions with religious and belief
groups and have received a number of representations relating to religion or belief since the introduction of the Equality Bill. Such discussions and representations are ongoing.
Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister finally admit that were it not for the successful amendment from Baroness O'Cathain in the House of Lords earlier this week, the Equality Bill as unamended would have further restricted employment for people working in religious organisations?
Ms Harman: No, it would not. We thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved to clarify the law, and that is what the amendment that we brought forward aimed to do. That amendment was rejected. However, it would be helpful for the House to understand that there are religious jobs and non-religious jobs within organisations. For example, I would say that a pensions assistant ensuring that the records database is kept up to date was not doing a religious job. I would also say that issuing and processing invoices, even if it is done in the employment of the Church of England, is not a religious job.
To make it clear, the law applies to religious organisations when they employ people in non-religious jobs in the same way that it does to everyone else. We have always been clear that we are not going to insist on non-discrimination in relation to religious jobs such as being a vicar, a bishop, an imam or a rabbi. The law has stepped back from that and said that religious organisations can decide themselves how to do that. However, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law, and that is how the law remains.
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): The Minister will know that before the Government's defeat, her Bill as unamended did not even make it clear that ministers of religion would have to live in accordance with the faith of their religion. Following the Government's defeat in the other place not once but three times, by a coalition led by Conservative peers, bishops and Cross Benchers, the Bill has been improved. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will accept the decision in the other place to enable Churches to insist that key posts be held by those who live in accordance with the tenets of their faith, or will she seek to reverse that defeat in this House?
Ms Harman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to perpetrate a further misunderstanding. We are absolutely clear that we have never intended to extend the non-discrimination provisions to ministers of religion, nor have we ever tried to do so. Therefore they are exempted. We have always made it absolutely clear that they are and will continue to be exempted from the non-discrimination laws, and we have not sought to change that. There has been an issue about what is or is not a religious job, and we sought to clarify that. Our helpful clarification was not regarded as helpful in the House of Lords, and therefore the amendment was defeated. We will consider how to respond to that, but an official announcement will be made in due course, once these things have gone through the machinery, as it were. However, I would reassure hon. Members that the policy will remain as it is, and I would not want to lead them to anticipate that it will be brought forward again in this House.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |