School Governors (Appointment)

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Mark Harper

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker, and I don’t know why he is on this list, because he shouldn’t be.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)]

He’s a great man!

Severn Bridges (Tolling)

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Mark Harper

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for securing the debate.

Anyone following this debate might wonder why I, as an English Member of Parliament, am here. It is worth reminding the House that the old Severn bridge is entirely in England—indeed, my constituency stretches halfway across the bridge and the constituency of the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) stretches the other way. The new, second Severn crossing is of course half in England. My first plea to the Minister is for him to be clear that, because three quarters of the bridges are located in England, they must remain under the control of the United Kingdom Government so that the interests of both English and Welsh residents can be taken into account and balanced properly.

I know that the hon. Lady did not do so, but many in Wales have advocated that the bridges should be under the control of the Welsh Assembly Government. Given the fact that they are in England, and that my constituents are as affected as the hon. Lady’s, it would be wholly wrong for the bridges to be under the control of a Government over whom my constituents have no democratic influence. I make that plea strongly and hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the case.

Perhaps the shadow Minister could also confirm that that is the Labour party’s policy? I am guessing that it is, on the basis that when it was in power for 13 years it left the bridges under the control of the UK Government’s Department for Transport, but it would be helpful to know whether the UK Labour party’s position is the same as that of the Welsh Labour party. The latter wants to take control of the toll revenue. The First Minister has said that one option should be that the Welsh Government should take full control and play

“a central role in determining future arrangements and in accessing and utilising any future revenue streams for the benefit of the people of Wales.”

As I say, that would be quite wrong. The bridges are three quarters in England and any changes will affect English residents just as much as Welsh. The control and decision making about any future tolling regime, or lack thereof, should be taken by the UK Government.

I agree with the hon. Lady that our constituents, and businesses in our constituencies, would rather there were no tolls. I have had conversations with my constituents and said that in an ideal world it would be lovely to have had estuarial crossings financed wholly out of general taxation with no toll. However, I know the world and the realities of paying for things. I know that the previous Government were not great at balancing the books, but it is better to have the estuarial crossings with a toll than to have no toll but no crossings. Of course, all previous Governments decided that tolling was the way we paid for significant estuarial crossings.

I know that when the bridges return to the control of the United Kingdom Government in 2018—I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm what the latest expectation of the date is—some decisions will need to be made. I would like the Minister to think about a range of things. First, I agree with the hon. Lady that it would helpful to know whether the Government will stop levying VAT once the bridges revert to public ownership, which would mean £1 off the price of the toll.

Secondly, decisions have to be made about the future maintenance of both the second Severn crossing and the old Severn bridge that has the M48 running across it. The old bridge has significant maintenance costs. I think the hon. Lady alluded to—the Minister will be able to confirm this—the costs of maintaining corrosion resistance on the cabling on that bridge, which are significant. However, it is important to keep that bridge functioning and benefiting, particularly, my constituency, which benefits most from that bridge as opposed to the second Severn crossing. I am sure that the Minister will be able to say a little more about that when he responds to the hon. Lady’s question.

Thirdly—this is relevant to the question of future tolling on the Severn crossings—the Highways Agency and the Government will have to think about whether there should be future crossings of the River Severn. In my constituency, as one goes up from the existing tolled crossings, there is a crossing at the Over bridge, after the junction between the A40 and A48. That bridge is a significant traffic bottleneck, causing severe tailbacks to my constituents—both commuters going to and from work and businesses in the area. Some short-term solutions have been proposed for the end of this year and for 2015, but the only long-term solution is a future crossing somewhere south of that bridge and north of the existing tolled crossings.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I have set up a commission focusing on economic growth on my side of the Severn. One of the options we should consider is a new bridge. Does my hon. Friend agree that any decisions about tolling in the future should take into account the need for a new bridge somewhere along the Severn?

[Mr Harper]

I agree, for this reason—I will be clear to the Minister—in an ideal world, I would like another crossing over the Severn. I would prefer that to be paid for out of general taxation and not require either tolling on that crossing or continued tolling on the existing crossings. However, I do not want the Minister to rule out, at this stage, considering whether at least some of the future tolling revenue should be used to fund a third crossing. I think the hon. Member for Newport East was tempting him to rule that out; she was tempting him to look forward something like four to four and a half years, to make some decisions about a future tolling regime on the crossings today and then to announce them to the House.

If I am given the choice of a crossing, I will take the crossing. However, if I am told that I cannot have a crossing for 20 years because it is unaffordable, but I could have one in a year or two if we were able to use some toll revenue, that is a debate I want to have with my constituents. I want to see whether that would be a good trade-off that my constituents might want to undertake—whether it can be balanced with the benefits to businesses, jobs, economic activity and relieving congestion. I at least want the Minister not to rule that out.

I have written to the Highways Agency, asking it to look at some options for further crossings and to set out the future useful life of the second Severn crossing and the old Severn bridge, to see how long they are likely to last.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Mark Harper

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

No, the hon. Lady misunderstands me, which I am sure is my fault for not explaining the situation. The point is that if someone comes here and we say they have no recourse to public funds, they do have access to the NHS. I think the hon. Lady was arguing that because someone on a modest income who brings their family member here could not access public funds, that would not place a burden on the taxpayer. My point was that if, for example, that person needed to access the NHS, they could, and of course that burden would fall on the taxpayer, even though the income-earner’s contribution to the Exchequer may be very modest.

The other, wider, issue concerns the way our welfare system works. The presence of the partner may of course increase the benefits that the British national is entitled to. Although the migrant might not be entitled to housing benefit, for example, their presence may well increase the amount that the UK citizen is able to claim. That may give rise to a genuine issue about how our welfare system works—that is another debate—but given how it works, it is not quite as simple as saying that because there is no recourse to public funds there is no burden on the taxpayer from their presence.

I want to say something about a change relating to integration, albeit briefly as it does not fall within the category of finance. We think English language skills are very important, which is why, from October, we are increasing the level of English language skills we expect. That is partly to give those who come here the best possible chance of integrating—participating in the workplace and being part of the community.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Minister is making a really important point. People are welcome, providing they can contribute to the society they are joining. That is surely good for them, too. Does the Minister agree that the central point regarding language and income is that they feel comfortable, involved and included?

[Mr Harper]

I do, and that goes back to the central point of the debate.

I was about to give a little background to how we arrived at the particular sums of money involved, because that is helpful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. If people have married or are with a partner, they are looking at a particular route. It is worth saying, and her intervention highlights this, that there are alternative routes for people under the immigration rules for some of these difficult cases.

[Neil Carmichael]

May I go back to the qualification period, for both savings and income? Why did the Government choose six months?

[Mr Harper]

It was to ensure that people could not abuse the system by holding the money for only a day or two, making the application, succeeding and then giving the money back. It is to make sure that the money is genuinely under someone’s control and available to them rather than their borrowing money that belongs to someone else for a short period. We felt that six months met that requirement without being overly burdensome and putting unreasonable requirements on individuals.

Perhaps I will follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Slough if she speaks to me about the specific case. Inspiration has told me that the savings do not count in that way with self-employed people. If she has a specific case, which it looks like she has, perhaps she will draw that to my attention and I will look at it and see whether I think the rules are sufficient to deal with it.