Steven 'delighted Equitable Life victims are to get compensation at last.'

Victims of the Equitable Life collapse can finally expect compensation as Liberal Democrat MPs push forward new legislation.

Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Spokesman for Aylesbury, Steven Lambert, who signed the Equitable Life campaign pledge, described the announcement as a “massive relief” for the millions of people who lost up to half their pensions in the collapse.

The Equitable Life Bill, which was outlined to the House of Commons last Wednesday, will give the Treasury the authority to make payments to policyholders or dependents who have been fighting the Labour Government for compensation since 2000.

A previous Liberal Democrat motion to get compensation for the millions of people involved was defeated in October 2009.

Steven said “The previous Government continually ignored the millions of people who lost their savings. Many people in the Aylesbury constituency, where Equitable Life was based, lost up to half their pensions in the fiasco yet Labour failed to act, ignoring Liberal Democrat advice, ignoring the High Court and ignoring an Ombudsman report. This Bill is a massive relief to thousands of pensioners and is long overdue.

“I am delighted that something the Liberal Democrats have been calling for can now finally happen. We are using our position in Government to give policyholders the money they deserve.”

HS2 and the Department for Transport have extended the consultaion period on the Government’s proposals to introduce an exceptional hardship scheme.

The Scheme sets out financial protectrion for residential owner occupiers of properties the value of which may be seriously affected by the preferred route option for any new high speed rail link between London and the West Midlands, and who can demonstrate that they have an urgent need to sell their property.

Steven Lambert, Parliamentary Spokesman said “I’m pleased the consultation period for the scheme has been extended. Many people still don’t know about it and that it is vital that as many people as possible respond so that the Government can put a hardship scheme in place as soon as possible.”

Consultation documents can be found on the Department for Transport’s website here

Or you can join the HS2 Action Alliance and complete their simple response form here

The closing date for this consultation has been extended to 17 June 2010 in order to give those with an interest the fullest opportunity to comment on the proposals.

Your views can be submitted in writing to:
High Speed Two Ltd – Exceptional Hardship Scheme Consultation
55 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0EU
Or
EHSconsultation@hs2.gsi.gov.uk

With many daily newspapers trying to scare people about the Liberal Democrat policy on immigration, Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Aylesbury, Steven Lambert, set out the Lib Dem policy at a meeting with residents in Aylesbury today.

Steven said, “Both Labour and Tory parties trot out the same excuses and accusations without dealing with a recognised issue for people on the doorstep. After 65 years of both of them pretending its the other party’s fault, we can only conclude that they are both getting it wrong and we need to address this urgently. Only the Liberal Democrats will do this.”

ID cards will not solve this problem

Since the Conservatives and Labour abolished exit checks in the 1990s, no one has any idea how many illegal immigrants are living here. Economists estimate that it is around 725,000. Labour and the Tories say they’ll deport them all, but the truth is this is neither possible nor desirable. It would cost billions and take decades. Steven added, “Having a National ID card will not stop illegal immigration, nor will it stop criminals. But it will create an underclass of citizen and that is not acceptable. We need a cohesive immigration policy that is sensible and practical.”

Many of these people are hard-working families who want nothing more than to contribute to life in this country. Instead they are forced to exist as an underclass – working but not paying tax, lacking employment rights, citizen rights and access to basic services like healthcare and banking.

The Liberal Democrats would ensure an earned route to citizenship for law abiders. Irregular migrants who have been living in the UK for ten years (seven for those who came as children) would be able to apply for a two-year work permit. They would have to speak English, pass civic tests and demonstrate a long-term commitment to this country. Those with a criminal record would not be eligible. After two probationary years working and paying tax into our economy, they would then be able to apply for citizenship.

As applicants have lived outside the law for years and not paid tax, we would charge them to undergo this process. As many will be poor, charges would be waived for those who undertake community or voluntary service. Steven said, “This is really earning citizenship and will provide dignity and security to those seeking sanctuary or full citizenship in the UK.”

The Lib Dems will focus deportation efforts on foreign criminals who have betrayed this country’s trust and abused the British system, but we will take into account family circumstances and time spent in the UK when making decisions on a case by case basis.  Steven stated, “All this must be backed up by a cohesive and strong Border Force that will ensure our borders are protected.”  The Liberal Democrats will introduce a National Border Force with police powers to help secure our borders. The only way to enforce any immigration system is to undertake rigorous checks on employers and take strong action against those who seek to exploit illegal immigrants and profit from them.

Dear friend,

I would like to clarify my position on the proposed high speed rail route through Buckinghamshire. I am deeply concerned about the impact of HS2 on our county.

The Labour Government’s preferred route goes through the only Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the Chilterns) between London and Birmingham as well through our historic parks and homes. I too am personally affected by the route as it goes directly in front of my home.

There have been ‘public’ meetings called at which the Liberal Democrats have been prevented from speaking. Therefore I have decided to write publicly to state the facts.

If elected as your MP for Aylesbury constituency I will vote against the route as I believe the case for it as the best route has not been proven. To my knowledge David Lidington has only said we should take part in the consultation. This is not good enough. The job of being our MP is to fight for our community over such issues. I am prepared to do that.

All three major political parties are in favour of high speed rail in general. However, the Liberal Democrats would first ensure that our existing rail network is upgraded and dormant lines reopened. We would open thousands of miles of railway tracks and stations. Only once we have made the best of our existing network, should we be considering such an enormous investment in high speed rail, and where the route is best placed. We must also ensure that we minimise the environmental impact of any such proposal.

The Tories have publicly said that they will shorten the consultation process and bring the whole project forward by two years. Theresa Villiers MP stated “if elected to power at the election, [the Tories] would start work on the project in 2015 – two years earlier than the Government’s plan.” Hansard 11 March 2010: column 450.

The Tories have also confirmed that they would haev a Heathrow spur, which would force the route through Buckinghamshire. This is both unacceptable and very dangerous.

We must be able to take part in a full and open consultation process to ensure that all the views of Aylesbury constituency are fairly represented. I have met with Norman Baker MP, Lib Dem transport spokesman, and we as a party are not wedded to this route. As your MP, I can confirm that I would fight for you and our beautiful county and vote against this route and push for a full consultation process to prove this.
Regards
Steven

Steven and Aylesbury Lib Dems attended the AVDC full council meeting last night (14th April) to discuss the Government’s High Speed 2 (HS2) Exceptional Hardship Scheme, which sets out the timeframe of the Government’s preferred route; and what financial compensation would be made to residents during the consultation period.

Steven spoke at length at the debate, saying “we must roundly reject any proposals to shorten the consultation period as set out by the Tories. We must marshal our evidence – in the same way as was done against the Tory AVDC Local Development Framework plans (which Steven fully opposed), so that our evidence stands up to Government scrutiny and the plan is rejected”.

Steven also challenged the premise of the Governments plans saying:

• We must invest in the existing local rail network before any HS2 proposal is seriously considered.
• We must not under any circumstances, shorten the consultation period as the Tories have said they will and AVDC must use every tool it can to fight this plan.
• HS1 is a different animal to HS2 and the two must surely link or and time saving is lost in ‘interconnection transfers’.
• There is no economic benefit to Aylesbury Vale, but if we are to have any that would be a stopping Station in the same way that HS1 has at Ashford International.
• An intermediate stopping station here would see large cuttings and a larger land take and would probably be based at Bicester because of space.
• The route goes too close to Wendover, Stoke Mandeville Ellen Road, Rowland Way Fairford Leys and Waddeson for no apparent reason and that must be challenged.
• That the exceptional Hardship Scheme must include the devaluation of livestock as well as property.
• It goes through an AONB, historic parkland and environmentally fragile places, therefore the route must be rethought.
• Anyone who thinks a Heathrow spur would alter the route or make it better is fooling themselves because the line would still come this way and would not add any time or cost benefits.

The Liberal Democrats were able to secure an amendment to the recommendation that ensured the scheme included industrial/commercial properties (including agricultural premises and land, particularly those with livestock) and that “Close vicinity” should be clearly defined so that the scheme covered as much of the route affected as possible.

Ironically the Tories amended the proposals to include ’second homes and buy to let homes’, meaning that Gordon Brown’s second home at Chequers and Waddesdon Manor would then get blight compensation!

The agreed proposals will now be submitted to Government for consideration. See here for AVDC’s subseqent letter to all Parish Councils in Aylesbury Vale.

AVDC letter_to_parish_councils_15_April

Steven met with Norman Baker MP on 29^th March 2010 to discuss the proposals for High Speed 2 (HS2) in more detail as, unlike the Conservative Transport Spokesman; Norman did attend the briefing with Lord Adonis on HS2.

Steven and Norman can confirm that the Liberal Democrat national position is that there must be considerable investment in the current rail network to improve services and re-open lines as well as reform ticket prices as a matter of urgency before a rational decision can be made on HS2.  Our support of HS2 is conditional on not taking investment away from doing these essential projects.

Norman confirmed that the Liberal Democrats were not committed to any specific route (including this one) and was very concerned to learn from Steven that the proposed route takes the shape and direction it does because of the environmental, community impact as well as historic parkland and National Trust land being destroyed.

Norman stated that the rationale of his comments in Parliament, on the environmental impact, were stated because the plans on paper only demolish circa 20 houses on the entire route and go through fields and open spaces. Therefore not demolishing towns and villages – which would be a severe impact in comparison, but having something on the table enables it to properly be ruled out. Which is what we have in front of us today.

Steven and the Liberal Democrats will fully support local residents in gaining adequate compensation for planning blight during the consultation process and Steven will attend the AVDC meeting on 14^th April 2010 to agree the AVDC response.  Steven said “suitable protection from loss of noise and other adverse environmental consequences when the route is finally decided.

Proper consideration must also be given to the Milton Keynes Sub Regional Growth Area, which is set to be the size of Birmingham when the proposed route is built. Therefore interconnecting or a stopping station within Buckinghamshire might prove to be a sensible option.

Norman Baker said “I have been given assurances by Lord Adonis that the proposed route is only a proposal and that the consultation due in the autumn will be a genuine consultation and that the responses will be given full consideration. Nothing should be ‘off the table’ in the consultation and every avenue must be explored for the right route to be finally agreed on.

In contrast, The Conservative Party Transport spokesman Theresa Villiers has called for the project to be brought forward with the consultation period massively reduced.  The comments by the local Tory MPs on the indicative route are, no doubt, genuinely felt but are significantly at variance with their party’s national policy.”

Steven said “it is legitimate to wonder whether they would resign a Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet post over the route if it came to a vote in the House of Commons. I can assure residents, that I would vote against these plans. I would urge as many people as possible to make your voices heard and take part fully in the planned public consultation which is due to start this autumn.”

Liberal Democrat Spring Conference today backed plans to increase the threshold at which people start paying income tax from current levels to £10,000.

These plans would see the average person’s income tax bill cut by £700. Pensioners would be £100 better off and 3.6m people would no longer have to pay any income tax at all.

The party’s tax plans will be paid for by closing tax loopholes, making polluters pay and introducing a ‘mansion tax’ on homes worth over £2m.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable said:

“It’s high time that this country had a tax system that is fair for all.

“Gordon Brown created a tax system that has some of the lowest earners paying hundreds of pounds in taxes that they can ill afford while the very wealthiest treat tax as if it’s optional.

“For their part, the Tories flail around in confusion over their marriage tax plans and can only commit to a tax cut for millionaires.

“The Liberal Democrat plans are the most radical, far reaching tax reforms in a generation and embody everything that we stand for: fairness, protecting the environment, rewarding hard work.

“It is right to ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear a little more of the burden so that millions of people on normal earnings get the break they need.

“We all know that the country is in for some tough times ahead. But we believe that it is simply not possible to address the problem of an unsustainable budget deficit without parallel action to rebalance the tax system and eliminate the unfairness at its core.”

11 Mar 2010 : Column 452, 453 Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD):

I thank the Minister for today’s welcome statement. Britain has trailed behind Europe for a long time on high speed rail. I also very much welcome the fact that something for which we have been calling for years-long before the Conservatives, while they were still winning the cold war-has finally been brought forward by the Government.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s high speed rail scheme will provide extra capacity for the railways, enable modal shift from air, and help economic development in the regions? Will he also confirm that it will be very popular, as I think it will be, given the enormous response to the Javelin trains in the south-east?

I acknowledge the cross-party attempts by the Secretary of State to involve all parties in the House in a constructive dialogue on the issue and to make it a national project. I thank the Minister for the access I have had to HS2 and for the private briefing the Secretary of State gave me a few weeks ago, which for some reason the Conservatives apparently rejected.

Does the Minister agree that we are talking about a matter of national importance that requires consensus in the House, and that all parties ought to approach it in that way? Does he therefore share my concern at the Conservatives’ attempt to create a kind of synthetic candy-floss row, rather than trying to move forward in a sensible, constructive way? They appear to be putting short-term politics before the long-term interests of the country, which brings into question their commitment to high speed rail.

Will the Minister acknowledge that funding is a difficult issue, given the current state of the public finances? Will he consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Lib Dem shadow Chancellor-the construction of a national infrastructure bank, perhaps using pension funds, which will help to guarantee stability in the funding for such major national projects?

Does the Minister also agree that it is important when such projects are under way that there should be no cuts in existing rail budgets that are designed to promote the network in other ways for passengers? Will he give an undertaking-as my party will, and as all parties should-that other rail budgets will not be raided to pay for high speed rail?

I congratulate HS2 on producing a route that, I think, minimises environmental damage while maximising the usefulness of the line. Obviously the route is a matter for consultation, but what we have now is a useful start for consultation purposes. Can the Minister also confirm that there is a long-term commitment to get to Scotland, and not simply with high speed trains on conventional lines but with a high speed network? Does he have any idea when that will feature in the time scale of the current project?

Will the Minister say something about the link between HS2 and HS1, which he referred to obliquely in his statement? It is important that people should be able to get to Paris and Brussels directly from Manchester and Birmingham, without having to change in London.

Lastly, does he accept that if the route goes through Heathrow, there will be a 15-minute penalty for those coming to London from Birmingham or Manchester, which would be severely disadvantageous for the economics of high speed rail?

11 Mar 2010 : Column 450 and 451Mrs. Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con):

I thank the Minister for advanced sight of the statement. Less than three years ago, the then Secretary of State for Transport stood at the Dispatch box and presented a 30-year strategy for the railways that had no place for high speed rail. The Conservative party refused to accept that because we believe it is vital to start catching up with the high speed revolution on which much of the rest of Europe embarked more than a generation ago.

The Conservative party totally transformed the debate with our promise to build a north-south high speed rail line as the first step towards the creation of a national network connecting major cities across England, Scotland and Wales.

Ever since then, the Government have been running to catch up with the lead we have set and the momentum we have generated. So we welcomed Labour’s change of heart on high speed rail with their establishment of HS2, but we made it clear that we regretted the fact that the remit they gave to HS2 lacked ambition and focused only on the west midlands as stage 1, whereas we want to go further and faster with our guaranteed, costed and timetabled commitment to take high speed rail to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds-as that crucial first step to a national network. The second step should, of course, be a connection with Scotland.

We need to test Labour’s last-minute conversion to high speed rail with some searching questions. Will they match our commitment to start work immediately on taking the line beyond Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, as part of stage 1? Will they set a timetable, as we have done, for delivering a line to the north? Why will they not match our commitment to start construction by 2015?

What guarantees can they give that fares will be kept within the reach of ordinary families on modest incomes? Will they match our promise to review the blight rules to see whether we can do more to help those affected by whichever route is ultimately chosen? And will they guarantee that the communities affected will have the chance to make their voices heard?

Let me make it clear that we are not prepared blindly to accept the route that Labour propose, and let me also say that when it comes to Heathrow, Labour still does not get it. If we are to get the full environmental
benefits of high speed rail, it is crucial that we make it as easy as possible for people to switch from the plane to the train, with the carbon benefits involved. It was a major setback when HS2’s chairman confirmed that modal shift from air was not to be a key objective in its report. Now we know that the closest HS2’s proposals will get to Heathrow is about 10 miles away, at Old Oak Common.

Although we do not rule out use of that site for dispersal, the idea that some kind of “Wormwood Scrubs international” station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible. It is bizarre that the party elected on a mantra of delivering an integrated transport system is proposing to leave our most important airport out of an upgrade to our transport network that, under Conservative plans, would become the most important for half a century.

At the eleventh hour, however, we have the promise that the Government will think again about the points we have been making for years about the importance of integrating Heathrow with high speed rail. We therefore welcome their decision to appoint Lord Mawhinney to try to find a solution that will command the cross-party consensus we all want.

Although the Conservative party is part of the growing consensus backing high speed rail, we are adamant that Britain’s high speed solution must be the right one for the environment and for the economy.
In leaving out Heathrow and setting out plans that do not give costed, timetabled and watertight guarantees to take the line north of the midlands, Labour’s plans are flawed, lack credibility and are undermined by their inability to grasp the basic truth: that high speed rail should be an alternative, not an addition, to a third runway.

The decisions we make now will have a profound impact on our transport system for generations to come, and I can assure the House that a Conservative Government would have the energy, leadership and values to deliver high speed rail’s full potential for this country.