Westminster Hall debates

Most recent appearances listed first.

Data provided by TheyWorkForYou.com.

• [Mr David Amess in the Chair] — Backbench business — Network Rail
  

  On Grayrigg, the ORR said:

  “the company’s failure to provide and implement suitable and sufficient standards, procedures, guidance, training, tools and resources for the inspection and maintenance of fixed stretcher bar points”

  was a key issue that caused that death. The same depot responsible for that stretch of line has just had a 15% cut in its budget.

• [Mr David Amess in the Chair] — Backbench business — Network Rail
  

  That is exactly what the teams do now. They are not just walking the track; they are mobile and use new technology as well, but even teams that use new technology have been cut back recently.

• [Mr David Amess in the Chair] — Backbench business — Network Rail
  

  I also congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate. I know that offering such congratulations is usually done as an element of politesse in these debates, but I genuinely congratulate her. This debate has been really helpful, and having heard from both her and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) there is not much more to be said really.

  I am really pleased that the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) had that wonderful experience with Network Rail, and I hope that that experience is transposed to other constituencies, because it is very rare that we receive such a report about Network Rail. I am also sure that he will want to pay tribute to former Members who have lobbied on behalf of Reading—for example, Martin Salter—to gain the project that he described and bring it to fruition.

  I want to address a limited number of health and safety issues, as so much else has already been said about other matters. Before I do so, however, I want to talk about the issue of bonuses. Way back in 2009, I tabled an early-day motion on bonuses, which was a reflection of how unaccountable Network Rail was. On that occasion, I think 51 Members of the House signed that early-day motion, and it seemed to have cross-party support. It urged Network Rail not to go ahead with the payment of bonuses that year, because it was laying off 1,500 track maintenance workers at that time. My understanding is that the bonuses were paid, on some scale.

  May I draw Members’ attention to another early-day motion—early-day motion 2681—that has been tabled on Network Rail annual bonuses? So far, 28 Members have signed it. It would be very helpful if that early-day motion was supported. It is worded on a cross-party basis and draws attention to the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport in The Daily Telegraph on 19 December 2011 that

  “Passengers would be extremely surprised if Network Rail attempted to award bonuses next year in the light of this action by the ORR”.

  I urge hon. Members on a cross-party basis to sign that early-day motion, as well as noting the expressions of concern that have been made today about the bonus situation at Network Rail.

  I am interested in rail because in my constituency we have a railway estate at Hayes. It was constructed by the old Great Western Railway and then taken over by British Rail, and it was built to house railway workers. It still is a railway estate, although most of the properties have now been sold off. Nevertheless, it still houses

  railway workers and their families, so I have taken an interest in rail for the past 30 years, based on the practical experiences of my constituents as they report them to me.

  I must say that, tragically, my interest in rail also results from what happened under Railtrack. One of my constituents was one of the drivers killed at Paddington as a result of the tragic accident there, and there was the accident at Southall, which is literally one mile down the track from my constituency, where people were also killed. That accident also involved some of my constituents. So, I have taken a particular interest in health and safety matters on the rail network as a result of those incidents and the dialogue that I have with my constituents who are represented by their unions, the RMT, TSSA and ASLEF.

  With regard to health and safety, I want to raise the issue of crossings. A number of Members have waged a campaign over many years to ensure that we rid ourselves of the crossings that we have, which are so dangerous. We heard this week about the findings against Network Rail as a result of the tragic deaths at Elsenham in 2005. Network Rail made a statement—I think it was made in early January—that it is proceeding to eliminate the crossings that it has. It says:

  “Network Rail has closed 500 level crossings across Britain since April 2009 and intends to close a further 250 by 31 March 2014.”

  My view, and that of many Members, is clear, and it reflects the views of the industry’s workers: the programme for the elimination of crossings must continue, and all high-risk crossings that we have identified must be removed, particularly those on high-speed rails. Replacing them with underpasses and bridges is the only way to ensure people’s safety. All other level crossings should be reassessed, with the ultimate aim of removing them also from Britain’s rail network. Although Network Rail has made its statement about the pace of change up until 2014, I urge it to consider how to increase that pace, to eliminate the risk.

  The health and safety risks that resulted from privatisation, particularly from contracting out, are well documented. With Railtrack, there was contracting out—subcontracting—and then there was subcontracting of subcontracts, which meant that there was a failure to manage and monitor the quality of work. That was combined with cuts, particularly in front-line staff, even though there seemed to be a flourishing of management levels of bureaucracy within the company, which resulted in a high risk to workers on the tracks and the trains, including the drivers, and also, importantly, to the passengers. Track maintenance was brought back in to Network Rail, which was a major breakthrough, but we seem to be going down the same path as before, with a combination of a drive for cuts—it is argued that they are efficiency savings, but I would like to evidence that they are direct cuts—and potentially more contracting out. We seem to be replicating Railtrack’s mistakes.

  In the current control period, 4, Network Rail is looking for the same level of efficiency savings as McNulty has called for, of about 30%, and they seem to be coming from direct cuts to staff. I shall read out some of the concerns that individual workers and groups of workers around the country have raised, via the

  RMT. I have met groups of staff as I have held meetings with union representatives. The signals and telecom teams in Scotland

  “have been reduced from three to two workers, resulting in a large backlog in maintenance work, leading to the company offering 12-hour overtime shifts in an attempt to clear that backlog.”

  That was a criticism we had of Railtrack. Front-line staff numbers were cut and teams reduced, and therefore to achieve cuts and savings long hours of overtime were worked, which had an impact on staff’s ability to maintain safety levels.

  Another current concern is that maintenance gangs:

  “in Scotland are faced with vacancies being left unfilled. Furthermore, cover is not being provided when gang members take annual leave, are on long-term sick or undertake extended periods of higher-grade duty.”

  Again, we had those same problems under Railtrack, with gaps in front-line service provision. The workers also report that budgetary constraints have meant that signals and telecoms teams

  “from Carlisle and Warrington are filling vacancies by working overtime. The effect is that gang members are working long and arduous hours with potentially serious consequences for both health and safety at work and the integrity of the infrastructure itself.”

  In the north-west of England

  “track inspections are now taking place every two weeks rather than the previous once a week inspection regime.”

  Members might recall that under British Rail there were track inspections three times a week, so we have gone from that to once a week, and now to once every two weeks. In some of the recent reports, the accidents have been specifically connected to the track, and the lack of adequate inspection.

  I can remember the debates in the House about another problem:

  “RMT inquiries into the cause of the disastrous overruns over Christmas and New Year 2007/08 found that in the Overhead Line division vacancies were being left unfilled for long periods of time…the Doncaster OHL depot had a staff compliment of 40, however at that time there were 7 vacancies that had been unfilled for some considerable time. This represented a staff shortage of almost 18%.”

  Yet another concern is that in

  “the Anglia region S&T Teams have also been reduced to 2 workers. Where work is planned and risk assessed in advance this can on rare occasions be an acceptable practice”

  because at least management can assess the work that the signals and telecoms team is going to undertake. However, in a rapid response fault team the workers do not know in advance what they are going to face, and when or where they will have work on the track, and that results almost certainly in risk but also in further delays in the work being done properly. Also in the Anglia region there are further reductions in the rate of track maintenance inspections.

  What I am trying to point to is that sometimes we need to talk to the people on the very front line of the delivery of the service, which is what a number of us have done. Reports are coming back from around the country that because of the pressure under control period 4, which is looking for 30% cuts—and under the McNulty recommendations they will roll into control period 5—front-line staff are being cut and the number

  of inspections reduced, which will inevitably lead to the same problems we had with Railtrack, which resulted in one of my constituents dying.

• [Mr David Amess in the Chair] — Backbench business — Network Rail
  

  I can only state as baldy and starkly as I can that what my hon. Friend has just said is that we have been here before, under Railtrack, and that we seem to be replicating the experience under Network Rail. Everyone wants to look at the drive for efficiency and the reduction of costs, but all the reports we have seen so far are not about the lack of efficiency of front-line staff. The increasing costs are a result of the fragmentation of the industry, the division between rail and operations, and the lack of co-ordinated management across the network. My hon. Friend spelt out very clearly in his speech that that is where we fail in comparisons with the rest of Europe, where there is an integrated railway system that enables those efficiencies and economies of scale to be made. Network Rail is look for savings and efficiencies in the worst possible way, by reducing front-line staff and increasing the pressure on specialists working on the ground, which results, I think, in increased risks to the health and safety of workers and passengers.

  Will the Minister clarify when the Government’s White Paper is to emerge? I hope that we can have a genuine debate on the document and that we can go at it with a blank sheet of paper, a tabula rasa for putting our ideas back in. I hope that we do not have prejudices against public ownership, but that we look at what will work. The lessons from Railtrack, and now from Network Rail, are about investment in front-line services and about ensuring that if we are looking for savings we do so by overcoming the fragmentation. We must support those people working at the front line under the tiers of bureaucratic management we have had for decades, under both Railtrack and Network Rail.

  Those are just reports collected from across the country. One exercise we could do during the discussions on the White Paper—I know we have done this before—is an extensive consultation across the country with the trade unions that represent front-line workers to get a feel for what is happening on the ground. Ultimately, it was the workers on the ground who exposed what was happening within Railtrack and eventually forced the change. Tragically, that change came too late for a number of my constituents, one of whom was killed in the accident at Paddington while others were seriously injured at Southall. I hope we have learnt the lesson from that and that in the White Paper discussions, we will look to the longer-term future of investing in an integrated system in which workers and passengers have much more democratic control and say.

• [Mr David Amess in the Chair] — Backbench business — Network Rail
  

  Apart from the Catalyst study, most recently Christian Wolmar demonstrated that rail now has three times the subsidy that British Rail had, so there has been a tripling of subsidy and an increase in inefficiency, with higher fares.

• [Mr Charles Walker in the Chair] — UK-India Trade
  

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on securing the debate. It comes at a vital

  time in the trading relationship between these two countries, because the European Commission and the Government of India are aiming to conclude the free trade agreement during the EU-India summit on 8 February in Delhi. The next fortnight is therefore a critical opportunity—the last opportunity—for us to try to influence that agreement.

  I urge the Minister to do all in his power to ensure that it is not just a free trade agreement, but a fair trade agreement. A number of significant and expert non-governmental organisations working in this field have raised serious concerns about the consequences for some of the poorest people in India of the free trade agreement as proposed by the EU at the moment, and are seeking amendments to the agreement in this last phase.

  When I raised the question with Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I was referred to the conclusions of the European Union’s sustainability impact assessment. The Minister pointed out that as a result of the FTA, there would be an overall reduction in both rural and urban poverty. The study does come to that general conclusion, but there are sections in the report, particularly relating to the rural poor of India, that give cause for concern. It demonstrates that there will be an increase in the wealth of the rural poor only if they are, for example, connected to the supply chains that will flow from the FTA and if they are in suitable locations, with adequate infrastructure. The problem is that most of the rural farmers do not operate with adequate infrastructure and are not organised in the way in which the FTA describes; nor is domestic policy likely to change that. Therefore, the impact assessment by the EU, as against one by our Government, is, in this and many other areas of the report, at best wishful thinking or at worst simply determined to prove the case for the FTA.

• [Mr Charles Walker in the Chair] — UK-India Trade
  

  That is exactly right, and it is one of the issues that need to be dealt with in the final negotiations so that people are appropriately placed and organised to enable that to happen.

  In contrast to the EU’s assessment of the FTA is the more realistic and deeply worrying alternative assessment of the potential impact of the FTA that was published only a few weeks ago, in December, by organisations working in this field: Misereor, the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Anthra, the Third World Network and Glopolis.

• [Mr Charles Walker in the Chair] — UK-India Trade
  

  There are real opportunities for the UK Government, with their vast experience of trading relations with India, to influence the FTA in a more realistic way, which will achieve all our objectives.

  There was a previous assessment in 2008 by the organisation Traidcraft, with which many hon. Members have worked. It concluded that there were real concerns. It stated that

  “the proposed…FTA…risks stripping away the very tools that India could use to re-balance the gains from growth and to ensure that the poor are not further marginalised.”

  That reflected not just statements from NGOs, but a statement from the UN itself.

  The joint report, published in December, focused on undertaking a right-to-food impact assessment—the impact on people’s ability simply to feed themselves. The results are worrying and warrant serious consideration by the Government in relation to the final drafting session for the FTA.

  The FTA is designed to liberalise substantially all areas of trade. It contains sections on services, investment, public procurement, intellectual property rights and many other areas. It will oblige India to eliminate 90% of its tariffs applied to the EU within about seven years. The assessment by the NGOs focused on a limited number of farming or agricultural issues. I will give just some examples. Some 14 million Indian farmers are currently involved in dairy production. Most of them are small-scale, marginal or landless farmers. Their market access, incomes and right to food would be threatened if tariffs for EU skimmed milk power were cut from 60% to zero as planned.

• [Mr Charles Walker in the Chair] — UK-India Trade
  

  Of course. In the negotiations to which I am referring, it is important that the UK Government in particular, with their influence in Europe, enable the transitional period of the next seven years to be used effectively, so that it does not impoverish people but ensures the growth and wealth of both countries.

  I am giving just three examples; I am worried about a shortage of time. The dairy industry will be faced with agriculture in the EU continuing to be heavily subsidised. Reform of the common agricultural policy has not happened, so EU farmers will be relying on export refunds. The dairy quota has been abolished. They will increase their production and therefore put at risk many poor Indian farmers.

  The risk is the same in relation to poultry keeping. About 50% of India’s landless and marginal farmers use poultry keeping to supplement their livelihoods. Again, they will be at risk as a result of the reduction from 100% to zero in the current tariffs that is taking place.

  About 37 million people in India work in the retail sector. There are 10 million street vendors. It is envisaged that if multi-brand retail is opened up to EU retailers, such as Carrefour, Metro and Tesco, that will bring 1.8 million jobs, but possibly at the cost of 5.7 million people working in that sector.

  There are concerns about land distribution, which is highly unequal in India, where 83.29% of farmers have an average land holding of less than 2 hectares and own only 41.42% of agricultural land. There are real concerns that the FTA’s protection for increased inward investment will hold up land reforms.

  There are real concerns about third-country impacts. In the case of Bangladesh, the EU’s own assessment says that there could be a 0.5% loss of exports, which does not sound significant, but as the Bangladeshi garment workers union has pointed out, that could cost 150,000 women their livelihoods.

  Given the FTA’s implications for India’s poor—I remind Members that the latest estimate is that 224 million people, or 26.9% of the population, live with chronic hunger—and given our concern about the significant weaknesses in the EU’s initial impact assessment, it falls to this Parliament and this Government to ensure that the FTA secures fair trade.

  I congratulate the Government on having been courageous in maintaining their support for aid to India, but that support could be wiped out as a result of the FTA’s unfairness. May I therefore briefly suggest a number of things that could be inserted into the treaty to assist in protecting India’s rural poor?

  First, before the FTA is signed, it should be agreed that the EU and the Indian Government conduct a comprehensive human rights impact assessment, and that should include the principles in the UN rapporteur’s right to food. That is in line with a 2008 resolution in the European Parliament, which agreed that such impact assessments should take place before trade agreements are signed.

  Secondly, before the agreement is concluded, there should be meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, and particularly the vulnerable, with full openness and transparency. Thirdly, the tariff lines for poultry and dairy products should be exempted in the agreement at this stage. There should also be a mechanism in the treaty for identifying any other products that may need protection, particularly during the transitional period.

  In addition, there should be a special safeguard mechanism to enable India to react to sudden import surges. There should also be no provisions in the treaty limiting the right to secure the redistribution of land. Finally, there should be a monitoring mechanism in the treaty to ensure the continuous assessment of the FTA’s human rights impact as a result of the trade in goods.

  Those provisions are critical. We have a detailed knowledge of what has happened when FTAs have been concluded elsewhere in the world and not been properly scrutinised. They have not only failed to tackle poverty, but undermined the ability of individual Governments to reduce it. Armin Paasch’s report for Ecofair Trade Dialogue has evidenced and exposed the fundamental shortcomings of many EU FTA treaties.

  It is not often that I pray in aid Peter Mandelson, but he argued in yesterday’s Financial Times that, before such a treaty is put in place, we have a responsibility to ensure that the domestic capabilities exist to enable it to be used to the best advantage of both the trading partners signing it. That has not happened in this case.

  We have a few weeks to resolve this matter. If we do not act at this critical stage, the traditional Indian and UK relationship of good trade, which those of us who have spoken in the debate are urging should continue, could be undermined.

• [Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]
  

  Will the Minister give way?

• [Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]
  

  Will the Minister be clear about the future before she finishes? She says that she accepts the Sayce report. The Sayce report says that Remploy enterprises will be given six months to prepare a business plan and then 24 months to implement it, by which time all subsidy will be withdrawn. So there will be no subsidy within two years of the implementation of a business plan. Is that what the Government are saying?

• [Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]
  

  Are they getting a bonus? Even though they are failing, are they getting a bonus?

• [Mr Dai Havard in the Chair] — backbench Business — Remploy
  

  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) changed the tone of the debate. He did, because he made me bloody—sorry; pardon me, Chair—furious about the discussion. I have worked on this issue since I served on the first Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People when I worked for the TUC in the 1980s. That committee tackled discrimination against people with disabilities. I have met Remploy workers since that time. I have met no Remploy worker who is ashamed of working for Remploy and who feels that he or she is receiving charity. I have met no Remploy worker who has lower ambitions than anyone else in the rest of society. Most of the workers I have met are proud of working for the company, proud of earning a living and proud of supporting their families. It is a disgrace to try to depict them in any other way, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne implied.

  The debate around supported employment that I have been involved in over the past 30 years is based on two issues. One concerns the integrationist debate. When I served on CORAD, I was a forceful integrationist, both in terms of employment and education. I was concerned about separate provision. Over time, one becomes a pragmatist. In reality, without the Remploy factories, as we have seen from the redundancies, large numbers of people would be unemployed. The redundancies prove that point: 80% of the 3,000 who have been made redundant in the past three years are now unemployed. They did not find alternative employment, despite all the commitments to identify alternative employment, training and support. As far as I am concerned, there will always be a role for supported employment in some form.

  The second issue concerns how we sustain such employment and asks whether supported employment should stand on its own feet, be profit-making and require no support from the state. That will never do. It will always require, at some stage, a subsidy through direct income from the state or through public procurement. That is the reality. Otherwise, it means putting 2,500 people on the dole. Members here today have made very explicit what will happen in their constituencies. With 2.5 million people on the dole, those people will never see work in the lost decade that we face. We must face up to that.

• Trident
  

  There was a debate in 2007, which arrived at a vote—that is true. However, is it not true that, in every debate that we have had, the figures on the speculative development have gone up rather than down?

• Aviation Industry — [Mr Roger Gale in the Chair]
  

  I shall be as quick as I can, because others want to speak. This will be the first debate in perhaps two decades when our colleague Alan Keen has not been with us, and I pay tribute to everything that Alan did over the years. On a happier note, I, too, welcome Rosie. Given my hon. Friend’s interest in aviation, she clearly arrived by stork.

  I obviously have an interest in Heathrow, which is in my constituency, because of my constituents who work there, fly out of there and live around it. With reference to those who live around Heathrow, I want to tell BAA and colleagues who are present that the third runway is dead: that is it; it is over; it is finished. All major political parties have made it clear now that it will not be built. As to the novel idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) about Northolt, this is almost becoming personal now—they are coming at me from all ways. Northolt was ruled out a long time ago because of its impracticality. It would cause just as many problems as expanding Heathrow. I understand the Government’s interest in making Heathrow more efficient, but experimentation around the Cranford agreement, moves towards mixed mode and certainly any attempt to increase the number of night flights would be resisted, because of noise and pollution. Nevertheless it is worth examining how we can make Heathrow much more efficient.

  Despite everything that has been said by all the major parties, the blight in my constituency continues because of BAA’s continuing angst and lobbying for the third runway. It needs to be made even more explicit now to BAA that that is not going to happen. I say that—people may have seen the television programme last night—because BAA has bought up nearly two thirds of Sipson and refuses to sell the properties to families. It has made them available to families on short-term licences of up to two years and no more, although it now tells us that those licences are possibly renewable. It is destabilising the village. In addition, the threat of the third runway that BAA keeps mooting is still blighting the villages of Harmondsworth, Longford, Harlington and Cranford Cross.

  One solution—I say this to the Government on a cross-party basis—is to agree to put in place a similar covenant to the one at Gatwick that will ensure for generations that there is no further threat of a third runway in the area and that is legally enforceable and binding.

  We have discussed the role that High Speed 2 could play in alleviating the pressure on Heathrow. I support High Speed 2, but we need a consultation on the routes into Heathrow as soon as possible. Not consulting on the overall route has caused further blight, particularly within the London borough of Hillingdon.

  An issue has come up this week involving my constituents who work at Heathrow. The European Transport Workers’ Federation, the union representing aviation workers across Europe, held a demonstration on Monday about the deregulation of ground handling services such as baggage handling, ticketing and general passenger facilities. They are concerned that deregulation might not only put security operations at risk at airports across Europe but affect staff health and safety.

  On another staff issue, Heathrow is still a wonderful area of employment opportunity for all west London constituencies. It is still recruiting staff, yet the Government are consulting on closing the Heathrow jobcentre, a reduction of six staff members. Employers and unions alike have urged the Government to rethink, as it is one of the best recruitment facilities at the airport for ensuring that local people are attracted into employment and that the skills base in the area is developed.

  Both staff at the airport and those flying out of Heathrow are affected by an issue that the British Airline Pilots Association raised with its members recently. The European Union is seeking to relax the current flight time limitations on pilots. Britain has the gold standard, which ensures that we have the best safety standards in the world, but the European Union is now seeking to undermine that gold standard and bring us into a system that reduces protections and weakens regulations. BALPA, the trade union for pilots, has made it explicitly clear that it is extremely anxious about the safety implications of the moves within Europe.

  Those are the issues that I wished to raise in this debate. On the expansion of Heathrow, there comes a time when my hon. Friends must recognise that they are no longer in the majority but in a small minority. Continuing to harp on about the need for a third runway not only destabilises the population around Heathrow, but prevents our getting on with developing a proper aviation policy that is integrated with transport overall.

• [Sandra Osborne in the Chair] — BBC Local Radio
  

  I will be extremely brief. If nothing else, this debate has been a welcome opportunity for everyone to get a plug in for their local station, which I am sure will ensure them coverage in the future. On that basis, can I speak up for BBC Radio London, which seems to be bearing the brunt of some of the cuts?

  As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has said, local radio is at the heart of our local communities. It holds us all to account—both MPs and local authorities. To undermine that at this stage, particularly given the Government’s emphasis on localism, seems to run counter to everything that the House stands for and the Government’s proposals.

  There has to be some element of contention in this debate. The whole issue of the cuts stems from the licence fee settlement, and I feel that the Government need to look at reopening that debate. I believe that there were undue influences from the Murdoch empire on the settlement, which therefore resulted in wholesale cuts. It is not just local radio; it is the BBC as a whole, which now envisages cutting 2,000 jobs. As we have heard, some of the brunt of that will fall on local radio. Last night, the National Union of Journalists announced that it will ballot on industrial action. That comes at a time when, frankly, the BBC is needed more than ever, given the issues that are being addressed both nationally and internationally.

  I urge the Government to think again about the licence fee settlement. The licence fee is frozen until 2017. Since 2004—we have criticised the previous Government for this—there have been 1,000 job cuts a year, with now another 2,000 on top. The BBC also faces the possibility of being burdened with the funding of regional television, which will mean another round of job cuts and service cuts in future years.

• [Sandra Osborne in the Chair] — BBC Local Radio
  

  Of course not. The issue of high salaries within the BBC has already been raised and, along with some of the profligate spending at higher levels, that needs to be addressed and resolved. At the end of the day, however, that will not deliver the necessary savings to overcome the threat of cuts across the BBC and into local radio. Therefore, at some stage, the licence fee issue needs to be addressed again.

• [Sandra Osborne in the Chair] — BBC Local Radio
  

  I repeat the point that, of course, we all want the BBC to address that agenda, but the savings that we—and Select Committees—have all tried to identify will not meet the overall requirements. Therefore, the licence fee debate needs to be reopened.

  I will end on this note. We can all protect our local radio stations and that is what we are here to do. As the BBC enters into further consultation, I hope that it is listening to this debate. In particular, I hope that the BBC Trust board is listening, because it has the responsibility to rein in the BBC management on this issue. We have to re-address the issue of the long-term funding of the BBC, which means that we must look at how the licence fee settlement was arrived at. I believe that there were undue influences. I do not believe that adequate cognisance was taken of the views expressed in the consultation process.

• [Sandra Osborne in the Chair] — BBC Local Radio
  

  That is one issue that we have been raising with Ministers, because it would be helpful if they published the information about the number of times that they met with the Murdoch empire to discuss the licence fee settlement. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that, because, up until now, we have not received any detailed information about the times that they met with Murdoch and the times that they discussed the licence fee settlement.

  During the licence fee debate, James Murdoch made various statements, including one at a lecture in a Scotland, that particularly focused on reducing the licence fee so that the Murdoch empire could exploit and develop at the expense of the BBC. There is an issue that must be addressed, and we will have to return to it time and again not only in the context of local radio, but of BBC funding itself.

• [Sandra Osborne in the Chair] — BBC Local Radio
  

  To be frank, those discussions around the BBC licence fee that took place with News International were above the Minister’s pay grade. However, as he will know, I have always looked forward to his promotion at some future date.

  I want to end on this point, because so many hon. Members want to speak. Of course we all support our local radio; of course this devastation cannot take place; and of course we look to BBC management to look for savings in the high salaries and profligate expenditure identified by hon. Members. At the end of the day, however, we will have to return to the licence fee debate. We need more transparency and openness from the Government on how the licence fee decision was taken and on the undue influence of the Murdoch empire, which has presented the problems we face today.