May I, too, pass on my thanks to the staff of the Highways Agency and local councils, and indeed the railway industry, for what they have been doing to try to keep our infrastructure going?
I accept that, as the Minister says, much of what takes place is a matter for devolved local council work, or for private companies such as the salt companies, but I hope that he accepts that the Government have an ultimate responsibility to ensure that the national infrastructure is kept operational and intact. With that in mind, will he reflect on the suggestion that local authorities should have had six days' supply of salt and consider whether that is adequate given the experience that we have had, and given that, as regards the order that was put in on 29 December, it will take some time for overseas stocks to arrive, which means that if the weather deteriorates—it may not—we could run out of salt?
Some local authorities have done extremely well, but some appear to be using the lack of salt as an excuse to cut back on gritting, perhaps unnecessarily. Will the Minister consider whether that is appropriate and examine these procedures to ensure that people across the country have the best transport infrastructure that they possibly can in the circumstances that apply?
Will the Minister confirm that the Highways Agency has been asking local authorities whether they can help with its supplies? For example, Stockport borough council has been asked if it can help the agency by providing extra stocks.
Does the Minister recognise that significant long-term costs will arise for local highways authorities as a result of the damage to the road network that will undoubtedly be caused by the use of salt and grit? There will be a big repair bill at the end of this—will he factor that into the local government settlement for councils?
Notwithstanding the wish that the Minister and I share for devolution to local councils, does he recognise that some councils, including my own, have taken the view that it is inappropriate to treat any pavements at all and have concentrated all their salting and gritting on the roads? Is not that unfair on pedestrians, particularly those who are elderly and infirm, and may, for example, have to get off a bus on to an ice sheet next to the bus stop?
Will the Minister examine the cost to the economy of this episode, which is running into billions? Will he consider whether higher levels of grit and salt maintained by local councils would do more to minimise the damage to the economy, as well as the cost to the NHS arising from people being in hospital unnecessarily as a consequence of falls?
On legality, does the Minister accept that, unfortunately, some people, including those in schools, are genuinely concerned about possible liability issues? In my view, many schools should have opened much sooner but have not done so because of fears of liability. What sense does it make for children to be turning up at school, having trudged their way through ice and snow to get there, only to be told that they have to stay indoors and cannot go out in the playground to play because schools are worried about being sued if the children fall over there?
Finally, will the Minister ensure that there is a review of this whole episode and report back to Parliament in due course on the lessons to be learned?
Severe Weather (Transport and Public Services)
Proceeding contribution from
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 11 January 2010.
It occurred during Ministerial statement on Severe Weather (Transport and Public Services).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c415-6 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-08 16:38:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_606098
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_606098
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_606098