Points of Order

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the point of order from the shadow Transport Secretary. We are very pressed for time as a result of the statement and the brouhaha surrounding its handling. I am keen to progress, but not before hearing the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for indulging me. Words are very important. In response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) about the provision of the statement prior to its making, the response was that Opposition parties had been provided with a copy of the statement. That is simply not the case. I asked for a copy of the statement and I was provided with it after the Secretary of State sat down. For clarity, I had sight of it with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for minutes—30 minutes—before that statement started. I simply ask that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to clarify the position and to apologise for giving the wrong impression.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If the Secretary of State wishes to respond, he can.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Bill presents a long overdue opportunity to consider the importance of the transport and logistics industries to the United Kingdom and the commercial road haulage sector in particular. The industry employs more than 2.5 million people and is the fifth biggest sector of the economy contributing £124 billion.

One of the privileges of my job is to meet people from across the transport, freight and logistics sectors. In the course of those discussions around transitional and post-Brexit arrangements, I hear an increasing frustration and anger at the cavalier “it will be all right on the night” approach from this Government, and rightly so, because there is no evidence that economic self-interest will prevail.

As we debate the prospect of a permit system for the haulage industry in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it should be recalled that the UK has 600,000 goods vehicle driving licence holders. There are nearly half a million commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes registered in the UK, which are responsible for moving 98% of goods. This is a serious and vital industry and we meddle with it at our peril.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the haulage industry is important to the United Kingdom, especially to Northern Ireland where almost all of our food and goods travel by road? Does he not accept that the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, if there is a deal, we are prepared for it, and if there is no deal, we are also prepared for it, and that that should reassure the haulage industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I just do not share his sense of confidence that the provisions of the Bill are anything like adequate in the event of a no deal. These measures will not respond to the needs of the country should that contingency arise.

The Bill must be regarded as the first piece of legislation that provides for a no-deal Brexit. It sets out new powers for the Government to allocate permits to hauliers if required by future agreement or lack thereof, so that UK lorries can continue to operate to and within the European Union. A newspaper headline this weekend—in The Sunday Times, no less—was correct to say that

“this government is failing business at every turn”.

Today’s debate is a further foretaste of the damage that this Government’s prevaricating is doing to the British economy.

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State—in all his finger-crossing hopes for something to crop up before Brexit day—did not actually update the House on the progress that he might be making towards a comprehensive land transport agreement, which is what the Freight Transport Association is asking for. The Secretary of State did not confirm whether he is personally in discussions with the Irish Government, other Governments or the European Commission. Is it not lamentable that he could not even give this vital industry some level of update on the progress of negotiations towards those agreements?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. It is indeed lamentable that there has been a complete absence of those discussions. It is a question of hit and hope, finger in the air and everything will be alright on the night. This is not the right way to go about it. The Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box and said that he does not speak for the other 27 Governments. I sometimes wonder whether he speaks for the one of which he is a member. A damaged and disrupted logistics sector will result in a damaged and disrupted British economy.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman just tell the House what additional contingencies he would make if he were the Secretary of State?

[Andy McDonald]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, that is exactly what I am going to outline during the course of my speech.

I hope that this Bill represents the dawn of the realisation of the catastrophe that would flow from a chaotic Brexit. A few months ago the “beast from the east” left supermarket shelves across the country empty, while logistics problems forced fast food chain KFC to close hundreds of outlets because of supply shortages. These examples provide the merest glimpse of what shocks to the supply and distribution chain will look like for British consumers and businesses if the free flow of trade is not maintained following our departure from the European Union.

The Bill has serious implications for the UK’s music industry, particularly the concert haulage industry, which supports the music industry in the UK and the EU. Concert haulage operators require a community licence for road transport to the EU, which will be lost after Brexit. The Road Haulage Association says that a permit system will not work for concert hauliers, and estimates that the UK will run out of permits in 2.5 days. I have to ask: when will the Government listen to business and accept that there has to be a continuation of the current trading and transport environment, if a massive disruption of the flow of goods and produce is to be avoided?

As an island nation, ports are and will remain vital to our trading relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, so it is quite extraordinary that no Minister from the Department for Exiting the European Union has visited Britain’s most important gateway to Europe—the port of Dover. Half of the UK’s international road haulage traffic comes through Dover alone. I ask the Minister, is transport really a top priority in the Government’s Brexit negotiations?

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Forgive me; I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but I think that I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), visited Dover last week. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a straightforward Member of this House and would not want to mislead the House, so he will probably want to correct what he said. I say this to be helpful.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am just delighted that the hon. Lady got there eventually.

Road haulage is essential to the complex and sensitive just-in-time supply chains that underpin the UK and EU economies. Roll-on roll-off ferries face the most serious impact from a no-deal Brexit. A staggering 10,000 trucks pass through Dover each day. Almost none of these currently requires a customs clearance process. The port estimates that a two-minute delay per vehicle will generate a permanent 20-mile-long traffic jam.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Given the current snail’s pace in the negotiations, with the Cabinet split in two to look for solutions rather than no solutions, should there not have been some contingency in this Bill for customs checks, which are looking increasingly likely due to the Government’s handling of Brexit?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One does wonder why no such contingency has been put in the Bill, and we will have to address that in Committee.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tells me that, on average, 1,100 trucks from the EU deliver components worth £35 million to UK car and engine plants every single day. The UK automotive industry relies on just six major ports for the export of 95% of completed vehicles. The SMMT says that some manufacturers face costs of up to £1 million an hour if production is stopped due to component supply issues. A 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost manufacturers £850,000 per year. Is it not blindingly obvious that the current trajectory of this Government, with Brextremists at their core, means that we are heading for economic and trading chaos?

[Chris Grayling]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? If business shares the pessimism that he is laying before the House, can he explain the string of positive announcements of investment in the United Kingdom that we have seen in the past few months by Vauxhall, Toyota and others? If things are so bleak, why are they choosing to make substantial investments in their future in the United Kingdom?

[Andy McDonald]

If the Secretary of State had looked at the papers over the weekend, he would have seen exactly why. A lot of people are making their plans to get out of the UK if necessary. That is exactly what has happened. He is playing with fire on this, and he really should wake up and smell the coffee.

The Government have done little to help the road haulage industry. They have made a complete and utter dog’s breakfast of contingency planning for the M20 motorway. A lorry park off the motorway has been desperately needed to help alleviate problems during Operation Stack, and it is all the more needed ahead of Brexit next March. Yet the Department for Transport failed properly to undertake the critically important environmental risk assessment before the planning process for the £250 million project and had to scrap it last September. This incompetence will have disastrous consequences. If this Government cannot successfully plan how to build a lorry park in Kent, how do they expect anyone to believe that they are capable of introducing an alternative haulage permit scheme?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman says, rather surprisingly, that this Government have done nothing for the road haulage industry. Is he not aware that the HGV levy brought in to level the playing field between foreign and UK hauliers brought in £96 million in the first two years after it was introduced in 2014, and that the previous coalition Government increased the speed limit on single-carriageway roads from 40 mph to 50 mph, which made a great contribution to improving logistical efficiency?

[Andy McDonald]

If the right hon. Gentleman had had the pleasure of listening to the Road Haulage Association last week, and the FTA as well, he would probably agree with me that they are not exactly overjoyed by the prospect of the uncertainty that is facing them. A lot of these companies are small companies working on very small margins. He raised the issue of costs that are now going to be put on to those companies. He should be worrying about how that is going to impact on them.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No. I am not trying to be rude, but I need to make progress. I have taken a lot of interventions.

The ongoing supply of labour is a huge concern for the road haulage industry. The average age of an HGV driver is now 55 and only 2% of the workforce is under 25. The industry is enormously reliant on the 60,000 non-UK EU nationals and any restriction on the supply of skilled workers will undoubtedly have a negative impact.

Ministers urgently need to reassure the road haulage industry that Brexit will not result in more delays at borders as well as that it will not have to bear additional red tape and costs. The Government need urgently to provide clarity about customs, borders and future regulations, about which there are real and deep concerns. Ministers continually argue that economic self-interest will mean that things naturally gravitate towards protecting British business. That is a naive and irresponsible view that is already damaging UK industry.

I pay tribute to the noble Lords, whose work has improved the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the Lords described the Bill as

“wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”,

said that the Committee was

“in the dark because the devil will be in the regulatory detail”,

and urged the Government to provide

“illustrative examples…of at least some of the regulations to be made under the main delegated powers in the Bill”.

As the future relationship is a matter for the Brexit negotiations, this is an enabling Bill that contains little detail and grants the Secretary of State significant powers. The fact that so few details are on the face of the Bill also speaks to the lack of strategy and progress in the Government’s approach to exiting the European Union. The Secretary of State should of course have the powers needed to mitigate the damage to the UK haulage sector caused by a failure to retain current arrangements, but those powers should not be excessive. For example, an argument has been made in favour of a sunset clause so that the powers do not remain on the statute book ad infinitum.

Following pressure in the other place, concessions were made. I am glad that clauses 1, 2, 12 and 17 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, taking account of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the effect that regulations made under certain clauses should be subject to a vote of both Houses. I am pleased that the Government tabled an amendment introducing a new reporting requirement, requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament annually that assesses the effect on the UK haulage industry of any restrictions that apply to a permit scheme agreed with one or more EU member states. The impact of a future permit scheme has the potential to be far reaching with many unintended consequences, so it is right that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament.

In the light of the Government’s abysmal failure on road safety, which has seen the number of specialised road traffic police plummet while the number killed and seriously injured on our roads rises year on year, I urge the Secretary of State not to attempt to remove Labour’s amendment on trailer safety. The amendment is eminently reasonable, and requires the Government to assess evidence on the incidence of trailer-related road accidents and, only if the evidence justifies action, for a new MOT-style mandatory safety standards testing scheme to be created.

I note that when it was introduced in the other place the Bill would have allowed for permits to be allocated on a first come, first served basis or through a lottery, creating a situation where companies would be left queuing overnight or waiting with their fingers crossed that their company’s name would be pulled out of a hat. I am glad that, after criticism from the noble Lord Tunnicliffe, this was changed.

In Committee, Labour will continue to identify any further unintended consequences of the Bill, and will look to strengthen the accountability to Parliament and restrict the powers granted to the Secretary of State where necessary. Labour believes that getting the right deal for transport and its networks must be the highest priority for the Brexit negotiations. Nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. Only Labour’s clear policy of a customs union with the EU can ensure that trade can flow and grow. The Government should put country before party and provide the same.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am slightly astonished at some of the points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made on behalf of the Opposition. I know him well—we often travel down on the train from the north-east together—but he has spent most of the past quarter of an hour attacking the Government for implementing the decision made by 65.5% of the voters in Middlesbrough, and by over 60% of people in Cleveland as a whole, to leave the European Union.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the voters did not vote to be worse off?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the other trap that many Labour colleagues fall into, which is arguing that the people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. They knew precisely what they were voting for. They knew it would be tough, but they put the interests of the country before short-term economic advantage. I believe that the Government are negotiating to get the best deal for Britain and one that will be to the long-term benefit of our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The central role of good Government is to anticipate, prepare and act. In practice, of course, Governments spend a good deal of time responding to things to which they are obliged to react. Nevertheless, it is important that, as Ministers anticipate, they prepare legislation accordingly, and that is really what we are talking about today.

As I read the Bill, I could not help thinking that it is yet another piece of legislation that had its genesis during my time at the Department for Transport. We spend a great deal of time debating Bills that I had a hand in. When I was a Minister, I suppose that excessive humility meant that I did not fully accept the plaudits from the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, but now I realise just how inventive I was in the Department. It was that combination of perspicacity and imagination that led to so much legislation, including this Bill.

As has been said, the essence of the Bill is to create a framework. The first of the Bill’s two parts deals with establishing a permit system that will allow the continued movement of goods across Europe by hauliers, and the second deals with trailer registration. I do not want to go exhaustively into that—it was described very well by the Secretary of State, and others have made reference to it—but some points of amplification are worth making. I emphasise again the significance of haulage and why the measures that we are debating really matter. Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State drew attention to the scale of the industry. It is worth something like £13.1 billion to the economy and directly employs almost 200,000 people but, of course, there are many more jobs in the logistics industry, as we like to describe it in the modern idiom. Around 2.35 million people have occupations that relate to the transit—the movement —of goods.

Through haulage, for the vast majority of goods are transported by truck, the things that we want and the things that we need—they are not necessarily the same, by the way—are brought to us, and the things that we make and sell are taken from us to other places. It is critical that the process is as seamless as possible. I note that there was mention of fresh produce. When we move things around, it is important that we do so quickly, and no more so than in the case of fresh produce. The just-in-time culture that we have created means that the lead times involved in acquiring, transporting and retailing goods are very short indeed, and were they to suffer as a result of any change, it would mean not only a considerable disruption to what we have come to expect, but significant additional costs to the haulage industry, which works on very narrow margins—typically something like 1% to 3%. I have spoken to the RHA about that, both since and while I was a Minister, and it is conscious of the need to maintain that free flow of goods not only for its own sake, but for the sake of all those it serves through the industry including, ultimately, consumers—those who buy and use the goods, and whose lives are made better by their acquisition.

It is therefore important, as the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have both emphasised, that we make the process as seamless as possible. The optimum outcome, of course, is that it be as much like it is now as possible. As the Secretary of State said, that is what he anticipates will be the product of the negotiations in which we are engaged, and his argument is compelling, because it is in our mutual interest that that is the case. It is absolutely in the mutual interest of countries across Europe that they are able to sell and buy goods as they need them.

[Andy McDonald]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that while a principle of solidarity exists in an EU comprising 28 countries, once we are a third country, that principle of solidarity will obtain across 27 countries and their duty will be to each other, not the UK?

[Mr Hayes]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I suspect that the commercial interests of those countries and the pressure that commercial interests put on them will, in the end, be irresistible. For example, as was argued a few moments ago, farmers, growers and food manufacturers across Europe—whether in northern Europe or, as we heard, in Spain and Italy in the south—will want their goods brought here, much as they are now. I think the pressure to do a deal in our mutual interest will in the end rule the day.

Now, I do not know that, and the Secretary of State asked, very honestly, “How could I predict that?”—he would not want to, and he did not—but I think a deal in our mutual interest is the likely outcome. He called it his best guess; I would go further and call it my considered estimation.

[Mr Hayes]

That is why it is vital that the negotiations go well and why it is important to put in place this framework legislation. It is right that the Government prepare for all eventualities. In opposition, I spent half my time saying the Government were being too precise, too dogmatic, too determined to specify, and the other half saying they were being too open-minded and too flexible. The trouble with all Oppositions is that they meander between those two positions: on the one hand, they want the Government to be specific; on the other hand, they want the Government to be flexible. I slightly sense that that dilemma prevails in respect of the existing Opposition. This is a framework Bill—there is no need to apologise for that. The detail will come forward when we know the shape of the negotiations and how much of the Bill will be necessary. That is a straightforward and honourable position for any Government who want to anticipate, prepare and act.

The shadow Secretary of State made an additional important point about haulage that I also want to amplify. On skills and employment, he is entirely right that, irrespective of our relationship with the EU, there is a pressing need to recruit more people into the industry. As he was speaking, I was looking at notes on this very subject. He will know that the strategic transport apprenticeship taskforce, which has been looking at just these matters, published a report last year, off the back of its earlier consideration, and although there have been improvements across each sector of transport—road, rail, and so on, including haulage—there is still more to do, particularly to recruit people from under-represented groups in the sector.

When I was a Minister, work was being done, which I know is continuing under my successors, to encourage more people into the industry by, if you like, recasting or rebranding it—something I discussed with the RHA many times. That is vital not only on the purely numeric grounds the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but because we want people to have worthwhile careers in logistics. It is an important sector, and there are many good jobs to be had and many important skills to learn and use, so there is an efficacy in this as well as a necessity. To that end, I hope the work will continue through the apprenticeship taskforce. I gather from its report that there are 15,000 apprentices in road freight this year. I hope that that number will continue to grow. I established an education advisory group in the Department to advise on how we could cast out more widely in attracting people into the industry, and it seems to me that that work should also continue—but far be it from me to bind the hands of my successors.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that this is not only about attracting people into the industry but about retaining them? The figures show that many young people coming into the industry do not hang around but go on to pastures new, and that requires urgent and focused attention.

[Mr Hayes]

It does require focused attention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is about retention as well as recruitment. We must recruit from different sources, which might mean people coming back into the industry, and address the rate of attrition. We must draw on people from other sources—a good example is the armed services, where people, having learned to drive, could re-enter the private sector—and we must attract more people from minority communities, which are very sparsely represented in haulage and road freight, and more women drivers. To do that, however, we have to change some of the working conditions. That is critical to both recruitment and retention.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you did not mind my digressing a little from the specifics of the Bill in order to amplify an important point that I know is keenly felt by shadow Ministers and Ministers.

Points of Order

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We discussed in Transport questions the cancellation of line electrification throughout the country. The Secretary of State said in the recess last summer that the bi-mode alternatives could achieve the same significant improvements to journeys. The National Audit Office, on which we rely—it is not Opposition Members saying this—has said that

“bi-mode trains with the required speed and acceleration”

to meet the timetable

“did not exist”.

The Secretary of State has had the opportunity today to correct the position. The two statements are mutually exclusive and he cannot maintain that position. It is important that Ministers of the Crown come to the Dispatch Box and say things that are grounded in fact. There is a danger, however inadvertent, that the House has been misled about these trains’ ability to deliver, as my hon. Friends have pointed out repeatedly, yet the Secretary of State will not take the opportunity to clarify the position. I seek your advice as to how that clarification might be achieved, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is now poised, like a panther ready to pounce, so the hon. Gentleman may have secured, if not pre-empted, at any rate, early gratification, in that the Secretary of State is marching towards the Dispatch Box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is supporting the sale of Network Rail’s property assets. The Federation of Small Businesses says that this will put small companies out of business because the new private owner will rapidly rack up rents, which will restrict key developments in places such as Chesterfield. Does he not see that the sell-off will lose the railway valuable and vitally important income?

[Mr Speaker]

Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear it again.

[Andy McDonald]

The Secretary of State is supporting the sale of Network Rail’s property assets. The Federation of Small Businesses says that this will put small companies out of business because the new private owner will rapidly rack up rents, which will restrict key developments in places such as Chesterfield. Does he not see that the sell-off will lose the railway valuable and vitally important income?

[Ms Ghani]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating himself. The Secretary of State met the FSB yesterday and discussions on negotiations are ongoing.

[Andy McDonald]

In 2015, the DFT accepted Sir Peter Hendy’s plan to sell £1.8 billion of Network Rail property. These assets are now worth only £1 billion but generate £90 million of revenue each year. How can the Secretary of State still argue that this sell-off of the family silver makes sense? Is it not clear that his plan will cost Network Rail and British taxpayers dearly?

[Ms Ghani]

The Secretary of State will continue to realise assets when he can. We will then reinvest them in the railway network.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Labour fully supports the Bill. Our concerns about it were addressed as it made its way through the other place. However, this is not the first occasion on which I have had a strong sense of déjà vu when discussing legislation introduced during the current Session. The issues dealt with in this Bill, along with those in another two Bills that have been presented since June last year, were first put before the House more than a year ago as part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. The Prime Minister’s gamble in calling a snap election not only demolished her majority in this place, but had the knock-on effect of disrupting much of the business of Parliament. A host of important Bills, including the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, were dropped ahead of the election.

Having expended a great deal of parliamentary time and effort debating issues like those contained in this Bill, we were surprised to note that there was no reference to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill in the Queen’s Speech. Instead, the Government decided to take up even more parliamentary time by fragmenting the previously proposed legislation, splitting it between what became the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Act 2017 and the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill. In fact, the Queen’s Speech made no mention of laser misuse, and it was only after Labour raised the issue with the Government during the debate on the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill that they introduced this Bill.

While Labour Members are happy to see these measures finally making their way into law, it is disappointing to note that 50% of the Government’s transport programme during the current Parliament has consisted of clauses taken from the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which should already have passed into law. Moreover, having introduced three separate Bills, the Government have yet to include a number of clauses from the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill that should be on the statute books by now. There has been no legislation on diversionary driving courses, and the clauses relating to air traffic services appear to have been axed as well.

All those facts only go to show that this minority Government are utterly out of ideas and cannot competently deliver those that they attempt to recycle. It is astonishing that they are willing to take up so many hours of Parliament’s time with business that should have been dealt with a year ago, when such a vast number of pressing transport issues require our immediate attention. For example, we have heard nothing from them about what action they will take to address the crisis in local bus services, the collapsing rail franchising system, the huge disparities in regional transport investment, or the air pollution that is causing 50,000 premature deaths each year. This Bill could have given them an opportunity to legislate on drones. There were 70 reported near misses with aircraft in 2016, and the number is rising year on year, but they simply have not addressed the problem at the required pace.

While it is disappointing to see the Government drag their feet on important problems relating to the transport sector, it is nevertheless a good thing that they are listening to the Labour party and legislating on laser misuse. Worryingly, we have seen a sharp rise in the misuse of lasers in recent years. According to figures released by the Civil Aviation Authority, between 2009 and 2016 there was a 70% increase in the number of incidents in which a laser was shone at an aircraft in the UK. The British Transport Police reported 578 laser incidents between April 2011 and November 2017, an average of 96 each year.

It is currently an offence only to direct or shine any light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot of the aircraft, with a maximum penalty fine of £2,500. A suspect can be imprisoned for up to five years under the Aviation Security Act 1982 if intent to damage or endanger the safety of aircraft can be proved. The Bill will extend the offence to other vehicles, remove the cap on the amount that offenders can be fined and make it easier to prosecute offenders by removing the need to prove an intention to endanger a vehicle.

The Government have taken on board the points raised by my Labour colleagues in the other place about the definition of “laser beam” and the types of vehicles covered in the Bill, as well including a new clause making it an offence to shine a laser directly towards an air traffic control tower. The Opposition would like to put on record our gratitude for the work of our colleagues in the other place, particularly Lord Tunnicliffe, to make those significant improvements to the Bill. It is with pleasure that Labour can take responsibility for a piece of legislation that the Conservatives omitted from their programme for government and only introduced after heeding our calls. Indeed, when they did so, the work of Opposition spokespeople in the other place was required to get it into its current shape. If we were in government, we would have passed this legislation into law a year ago, and we would now be getting on with the business of implementing our policies to save local bus services, fix our railways, equalise the disparities in regional transport investment and address the air pollution crisis.

All the Conservative party has to offer are recycled bits of legislation and sticking plasters for an ailing transport system that is in need of major medical assistance. While I reiterate Labour’s full support for the Bill, the transport needs of the nation are many and varied, and, sadly, the totality of the Government’s legislative programme is utterly deficient in addressing them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We certainly keep the franchise process under continual review to work to improve it but, as I said a moment ago, a public railway is not the panacea that everyone on the Opposition Benches claims it is. I intend to do two things: to take the right decisions for the taxpayer and the travelling public on that route, which is really important, and to act within the law, which is also important.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On Monday, the chief executive of Stagecoach said that he knew there was a problem with the east coast franchise’s finances just weeks after taking over the contract in March 2015, and that he had been talking to the Department about it for two years. Given that the Department was in dialogue with the operator about the difficulties, why did the Secretary of State not put together a contingency plan for the route? The Secretary of State has had two years to sort out this mess; is it not simply incredible that he still does not know what to do?

[Chris Grayling]

The shadow Secretary of State clearly cannot do his sums, because I have not been Secretary of State for two years. We have been planning—

[Andy McDonald]

From 2016 to 2018.

[Chris Grayling]

I have been Secretary of State for 18 months; the shadow Secretary of State cannot do his sums. Since I became aware that there was a problem on the east coast route, we have been doing careful contingency planning, so we have a long-term plan and short-term options for the route. We cannot put those short-term options into place until the appropriate moment arises at which they are necessary. We are prepared for when that moment arises and will deliver the alternatives.

[Andy McDonald]

Given that the taxpayer has already lost out on more than £2 billion of premium payments, can the Secretary of State advise the House as to whether the financial ramifications of the termination of the franchise are now completely known and concluded? If not, what sums of money are earmarked to settle any further system-gaming demands from Messrs Branson and Souter through litigation or arbitration?

[Chris Grayling]

Again, the Labour party cannot do its sums. We have no more written off £2 billion than Labour wrote off £1.4 billion when National Express collapsed. The reality is that the east coast is and always has been in recent times a profitable railway. Whatever happens, it will continue to generate a substantial return for the taxpayer. It is about time that Labour did its sums properly, rather than misrepresenting the reality.

Rail Update

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but as I was given it just 15 minutes before he started to speak, I am not sure that I need to be over- grateful. Given the content of his statement, I am not surprised at his reticence. Let us see whether the markets deliver the sort of share value boost that his last statement secured.

Today’s announcement is yet another monumental misjudgment to add to a growing list of miscalculations by this Secretary of State. It is increasingly clear that he does not care about taxpayers, rail passengers or the rail industry itself, but will do everything in his power to protect and support Virgin, Stagecoach and their ilk, and the failed franchise system.

Members on both sides of the House can be in no doubt: the bail-out culture at the Department for Transport is alive and well—it has never been better. Virgin-Stagecoach failed to deliver on its contract on the east coast route. No problem—the Government will step in and bail it out, kissing goodbye to the £2 billion that Virgin had previously agreed to pay. But, guess what? Let us just give both companies a new contract to run the west coast line as well.

Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. His argument that a direct award to Virgin-Stagecoach for the west coast and east coast represents a good deal is truly laughable. The idea of more profits and less risk for those companies is an insult to Members and their constituents. What makes me want to weep is that he is giving yet more gifts to Richard Branson and Brian Souter. What is more, he is using our public money to fund his failure. Let us not forget that Virgin and Stagecoach are companies that extracted hundreds of millions of pounds in rigged compensation payments from taxpayers during the upgrade of the west coast main line between 2002 and 2006—£590 million to be precise. [Interruption.] Similar tactics are now being deployed on the east coast, as the companies blame Network Rail for their failure to deliver on their contract.

Virgin Group games the system in rail and Virgin games the system in health. It has done it before, and it is doing it again: Virgin Trains is a company that shakes the system down. The Secretary of State’s failure to stand up to Virgin and Stagecoach is a disgrace. He is supposed to protect the taxpayer interest, not to sacrifice it to Branson and Souter, yet he stands by this model. Companies are not bidding for franchises, which makes a mockery of competition, and his taxpayer bail-outs make a joke of train operating companies paying premiums to the Treasury. What does this Secretary of State do instead? He just gives train operating contracts without competition. Since 2012, there have been more contracts directly awarded than franchises let after competitions. Why? Because he is ideologically opposed to running the railways in the public sector. He just will not do it. He cannot do it, even when the clear majority of the public are in favour of bringing the railways into public ownership. His solution is more taxpayer support and ever higher fares for passengers.

The Secretary of State refused to answer my questions about these contracts in a debate in this House on 10 January. He does not do long-term thinking, only crisis management. Franchise failure should mean forfeit. If a private train company cannot deliver on the contract, it does not deserve the contract. That was what the Labour Government did in 2009 with the east coast line. This Government’s failure to grasp reality is costing passengers and taxpayers dear. That is why a Labour Government will bring in a railway for the people and businesses that it is intended to serve, and put a stop to this appalling, profiteering racket.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

As we were caught short by the speed of the urgent questions, I know that the hon. Gentleman did not have as much time as he might have wished to prepare, but I am not sure that he listened to a word I was saying. He talked about a bail-out culture, gifts and standing up to people, but I have just announced that we will terminate a contract and that we may bring the operation of this railway back into the system of operator of last resort, which is, if I recall correctly, what Labour did in 2009.

I intend to ensure that I do what offers the best value for the taxpayer and the best option for the passenger at a time when exciting things are happening on this railway. New trains arriving in the coming months will transform the journey for passengers on the route, and that is long overdue. In the next control period, there will be investment in different parts of the route in order to improve performance in places where it is desperately overdue. The future is promising for the passengers on this railway, as they will have a better travel experience in the months to come.

The hon. Gentleman talked about long-term thinking, which is precisely what the east coast partnership is about. It is about unifying track and train in a way that I believe the public of this country want, and people on the railway believe that this will lead to a more efficient railway. The more that we can reunite the day-to-day operation of the track and trains right across the network, the more reliable a railway we will have.

[Andy McDonald]

Nationalise it.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, “Nationalise it” but this country has done that before. It was called British Rail and it became a national laughing stock. Whatever else we may do, I have no intention of leading our railway system back into the days of British Rail, when lines were closed, routes were axed and the system received a lack of investment year on year because it was competing with schools and hospitals for the capital available. I have no intention of recreating British Rail, although Labour may do. I have a strategy that involves bringing together track and train, a long-term vision of investment, expanding our network and new trains. That is what passengers want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

We are going to hear a lot today about the public versus private argument. What SNP Members, and indeed Labour Members, have not remembered is that if the investment has to come from the public sector, it competes with money for schools, hospitals and the armed forces. That means that, as happened in the days of British Rail, our rail network is starved of investment, and we saw the consequences. By contrast, the new trains that are shortly going to be arriving in Edinburgh Waverley and going up the east coast to Aberdeen are paid for by the private sector.

[Andy McDonald]

They are paid for by the customers!

[Chris Grayling]

Of course they are paid for by the customers. The private companies make the investment and they make the return on that investment because the passengers pay for fares. That is the way that business works. Perhaps Labour Members do not understand the way that business works. Customers buy something they want to buy. I am absolutely certain that customers want to travel in brand-new trains. That is long overdue on the east coast main line, where they have regularly failed to do so. However, there are clearly lessons to learn on this. That is why we have moved much more towards a quality basis for new franchises. I want an increased quality of service delivered to be the basis for the allocation of new franchises.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) asked about the west coast main line direct award. As I said, it will run for between one and two years. It will finish as soon as possible. I want this up and running. We are going to issue the ITT for the west coast partnership very shortly.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of staffing. The private sector-run east coast main line is today employing more people than it did in the public sector. As somebody who believes passionately that we need more customer service staff on the railway rather than fewer, I think that is a good thing.

The hon. Gentleman asked again about the devolution of Network Rail. I simply reiterate that I think that the SNP Government have quite enough to do without going beyond the devolution recommendations that we have put in place.

As regards the travelcard, it is being issued by the industry, which is moving ahead quickly with preparations for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely, and indeed, that has already happened. I am absolutely clear that Virgin-Stagecoach will fulfil this contract to the letter.

[Andy McDonald]

What about the £2 billion?

[Chris Grayling]

The shadow Secretary of State has failed to understand what I keep saying, which is that this railway every year continues to generate a substantial contribution to the taxpayer, and that will continue right the way through until 2023 and beyond.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Allocation of time motion: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading & Allocation of time motion & Carry-over motion & Money resolution
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am pleased to stand here today to support a project which was instigated by the last Labour Government. National infrastructure investment is too important to be left to the vagaries of the election cycle. It is to the Government’s credit that they have continued to back both HS2 and Crossrail since 2010. Labour has always maintained that HS2 must be built as a network rather than a standalone piece of infrastructure. It is this approach which will deliver the maximum economic benefits. Both main parties can agree that HS2 is about more than transport. High-speed rail is about unlocking the economic potential of the north and the midlands. It will drive a rebalancing of the UK economy by improving connectivity between the north and south.

[Michael Fabricant]

The hon. Gentleman talked about HS2 being an integrated network, but one of my criticisms of HS2 is that it is far from integrated. The original plan was for it to go direct down through the channel tunnel and into continental Europe and I can give other examples—I will probably will do so in my speech—but this is far from integrated: it is stand-alone, meets at Crewe and does not actually go into Birmingham New Street. Why is this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and it is key that HS2 integrates. We have just heard words from the Secretary of State about the need to ensure that it does connect with our northern cities, but we are yet to see those plans unfurl. We have heard about Transport for the North’s aspirations, but this cannot be a stand-alone project; it is essential that it links into our great towns and cities throughout the nation.

Linking the great cities of the north and midlands is equally important and will bring much-needed economic benefits to those regions. Labour supports the nearly 30,000 jobs the construction of HS2 will deliver and the huge uplift it will give to apprenticeships and training, particularly outside London. It is not too early to consider how we will retain and develop those skills in the future in other infrastructure projects both at home and abroad. I would be interested in any comments the Secretary of State has on this point, particularly with regard to Northern Powerhouse Rail and Crossrail.

I also make a plea that we must not repeat the catastrophe of the Carillion experience with apprentices. Apprentices in my constituency are being left flapping in the wind, not knowing whether they are going to be paid. We hear today that their employment will come to an end at the end of this month. It is a disgrace that £6.5 million of public money has gone into an apprenticeship programme that leaves our apprentices short of their qualifications and without employment. The Government should intervene now to guarantee that those apprentices will receive that assurance from this Government today.

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, and he and I share that view. I can assure him that, on the HS2 project, the apprentices who were employed by Carillion are migrating to work for Kier and those employed by Carillion have been moved on to the project with the other two partners. So not only should there be no hiatus in the work taking place, but, more importantly, the people on those projects are moving to different companies involved in them. There are obviously some very difficult circumstances elsewhere as a consequence of the collapse of Carillion, but I have been very keen with this project to make sure we have the seamless transition we contracted for last summer, and I am delighted to see the apprentices move on in a way that enables them to carry on with their apprenticeships.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for that reassurance in the context of these projects, but I am particularly concerned about these apprentices in the here-and-now; there are 100 out of the 1,400 who have been prejudiced in my community and we want to see this Government respond by coming to the table and making sure those young people have a future. It is difficult enough to encourage people into these industries in the first instance without leaving them high and dry, as has happened on this occasion.

I welcome the commitments contained in HS2’s environmental principles. It is imperative that environmental standards and air quality are at the forefront of the project. Many of the arguments about why we need HS2, and why we do not, have been well rehearsed in this House over many years: passenger rail numbers have doubled since 1995; rail freight has grown by two thirds over the same period; and the existing network has been operating at full capacity for years. No amount of timetable-tinkering can change this; I trust that all Members are in agreement about that.

Although it is important to maintain our vital road network, there is an urgent need to secure modal shift across transport: we cannot build our way out of congestion on our roads, and we must be watchful about the sustainability of domestic air travel. In addition, we face the prospect of the population of Britain reaching 70 million by the end of the decade. So the question is: how are we going to move our people around our nation? It is no exaggeration to say that the very economic and social livelihood of this country is at stake. Our capacity to move people by rail and bus is therefore crucial.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Given those circumstances and the pressure on the system, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the last thing this country needs is the nationalisation of our rail system?

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the former Minister for his intervention. If he will be patient for just a few more minutes, I will happily address that point in full detail.

I was proud that Labour forced the Government to introduce much tougher reporting on HS2 spending through an amendment to the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 before the previous Bill came to the House in 2014. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in that respect. We also amended that Bill to improve integration with existing transport networks and the specific reporting of the jobs and skills created by the project.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I do not want to digress too much, but this is all relevant. We only need an incident on the west coast main line for everything to stop, and that certainly needs to be looked at. Also, I have constituents who will not qualify for compensation as a result of this project.

[Andy McDonald]

One of the main points about this project is that it will allow us to build resilience into the network. That is not an either/or; this is not simply about building HS2. My hon. Friend is right say that we need to build greater resilience into our network. On the point about compensation arrangements, it has been noted on both sides of the House that we need to ensure that proper compensation is paid. These are really sensitive issues, and people should not be left wondering whether compensation arrangements will come forward. My hon. Friend is right about that as well.

I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on striking the right balance between HS2 services and freight on the parts of the network where high-speed trains will run on conventional tracks. HS2, the Department for Transport and Network Rail need to resolve the important concerns that are being expressed by freight operators. Elsewhere, there are significant questions to be answered about how the new high-speed railway will integrate with the existing rail network. During the Second Reading debate in 2014, the previous Secretary of State for Transport boasted that

“upgrading Britain’s rail infrastructure is a key part of this Government’s long-term economic plan”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 567.]

He also said:

“we will be electrifying more than 800 miles of line throughout the country”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 561.]

It is quite clear that the Government have broken those promises over the past four years. They made commitments on rail ahead of the 2015 general election, only to break them days later. The reality is that the last two Transport Secretaries have cut upgrades to rail infrastructure and cancelled the electrification of rail lines. Of course, HS2 is but one piece of the jigsaw. I am therefore concerned that if the other pieces are not right, the whole thing will not fit together properly.

The current Secretary of State for Transport came to the House in November to announce his strategic vision for rail. The problem was that his plan was neither strategic nor visionary. It was a smokescreen to cover up a blatant multibillion pound bail-out of the east coast main line franchise. It is clear to passengers and taxpayers that this Government are defending a broken franchising system. Under this Government, protecting private companies comes before the public interest. Giving Carillion a contract for HS2 last July while that company was imploding was an appalling decision, and the Minister’s legal justifications for that decision were risible. His bail-out of Stagecoach-Virgin on the east coast was yet another serious misjudgement in which his dogma won out over pragmatism and common sense.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I think the hon. Gentleman has wandered into the wrong debate. We are talking about HS2, not about Carillion. Can we stick to the subject, please?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. That is a matter for me, actually.

[Andy McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will find out what HS2 has to do with the east coast and west coast main lines if he can be patient just a little longer.

The Secretary of State’s promised east coast partnership between track and train by 2020 is unworkable and undeliverable. No one in the rail industry believes that it is actually going to happen. Another of his pet projects is the west coast project—perhaps the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) will want to pay attention to this—which is going to be awarded later this year. The winner of that contract will run services on the west coast main line and oversee the introduction of HS2 services. The Government have a track record of accepting bids from the private sector that are either too high or too low, and the Department for Transport has proved unable to manage such projects. Given that the Secretary of State has been found wanting so often, what makes him think that his west coast partnership will work any better than his east coast partnership?

High Speed 2 will be the jewel in the crown of Britain’s rail network when it begins operations in the next decade. It will be a shining example of Britain’s capability and talent, and it will encapsulate our technological and engineering prowess. However, I can tell the Secretary of State that there will be uproar across the land, should this piece of the family silver be handed over to Virgin Trains, Stagecoach or others of their ilk. I can tell the House today that there will be no gift of HS2 to Richard Branson or Brian Souter under the next Labour Government. HS2 will be built with public money and it will stay in public ownership.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing forward this Bill. I also congratulate all those people in the Department for Transport and in HS2 who are working to finalise these proposals. It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), although I think he slightly spoiled his speech by going off piste and talking about electrification. We will take no lessons from Labour on electrification, given its record between 1997 and 2010, during which time it electrified 10 miles of railway. I would like to say that that was a snail’s pace, but I think that a snail would have travelled further in 13 years than Labour did with its electrification.

[Andy McDonald]

The former Secretary of State seems to have totally forgotten the 67 miles of HS1 that were electrified then. Those 67 plus 10 miles add up to a lot more than this Government have ever electrified.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

I think that HS1 was operating before Labour came into government.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you remember Raymond Baxter and James Burke all those years ago on “Tomorrow’s World”, saying that vehicles would connect and talk to one another—you are too young, I am sure, but seemingly that day is dawning.

I thank the Government Front-Bench team for the spirit of co-operation in which they have handled the Bill. Had the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) been in his place, I would have thanked him and told him that if Carlsberg did legislation, they would probably do it this way. However, I cannot say that to him because he has gone for his dinner.

As these clauses were largely included in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which was dropped following the Prime Minister’s decision to call a snap general election, they have been scrutinised in Committee in the Commons twice. I place on record my thanks to all those who have been involved so far in improving the legislation. The Transport Secretary is correct when he describes the potential for electric and automated vehicles to transform transport in the coming years. It is right that a Bill is brought forward to allow those technologies to be facilitated and encouraged.

It is necessary to address certain issues successfully, including questions of insurance and what powers are necessary for the development of charging networks, for the UK to stay ahead of the curve on transport. It is right to legislate to encourage research and innovation that will shape how we travel in future and create the highly skilled jobs that our economy needs, as well as tackling the environmental and climate change challenges that confront us. Sadly, road deaths are at a five-year high, but there is considerable potential for automated vehicles vastly to improve road safety, not just by avoiding the errors that lead to so many crashes, but by using the information gathered to aid the design of safer roads and infrastructure in future.

The UK is in the midst of an air pollution crisis that the Government have failed to address. Recent studies show that 50,000 deaths in the UK last year were attributable to air pollution. This is a higher proportion than in Germany, France, Spain and many other European countries. For that reason, I welcome the Government’s commitment to an electric charging infrastructure, as announced in the autumn Budget, and the continuation of limited subsidy schemes for ultra low emission vehicles. The UK is also in a strong position to become a world leader in the production of automated and electric vehicles and to enjoy the greater economic benefits that will flow therefrom, although we may have to cope with the new condition of range anxiety.

The Bill alone does not add up to the wider policy framework that is required for the UK to take advantage of the opportunities presented to us, but it is an important Bill, which we support. Labour wishes to continue to work constructively with the Government in pursuit of these objectives. Creating the insurance frameworks needed to allow automated vehicles on our roads is a necessary step but not itself sufficient. The Transport Secretary has announced that driverless cars will be in operation on UK roads by 2021. Although the Bill is needed if that is to be the case, it is the pace at which the technology develops that will determine whether that target is met.

It is disappointing that the Government chose not to support our amendment in Committee to require a consultation prior to devolving the definition criteria for automated vehicles, which we regard as an unaddressed issue with the Bill. Although road-ready, fully-automated vehicles are still some years away, there has been a significant increase in assistance systems and partial automation over recent years, and those advances are in operation currently. The Bill assumes a clear distinction, but it is not apparent that one exists, and it is important that the Government draw on the available expertise to avoid inaccurate or confusing definitions in the future.

We are also concerned that the Bill does not require the provision of charging points to be distributed across the country more evenly, but I welcome the Minister’s commitment to publishing the Government’s strategy by the end of March—I just hope that that is March of 2018, not of some future year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) stated earlier, however, the Government have acknowledged the need to monitor closely how charge points are rolled out and the need to get a clear view of where the concentrations of charge points are and what needs to be done to fill in gaps that emerge.

To conclude, when the Bill is debated further in the other place, the noble Lords will in all likelihood look for greater clarity from the Government on their strategy for electric charging infrastructure and how they will ensure a fair geographical spread, so that the benefits of these technological developments can be felt across the country. If we are to secure the opportunities that these exciting technologies present, this is a necessary Bill, and we are happy to support it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend will be relieved to know that the demise of Carillion, a tragic event for this country and for corporate Britain, will none the less not affect the HS2 project. The existing contract is part of a three-company consortium, and the other two companies, Kier and Eiffage, are taking over responsibility for the project. The apprenticeships are being transferred, the staff are being transferred and the project will continue uninterrupted.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On 17 July last year, the day on which Carillion was confirmed in the HS2 contract, I asked the Secretary of State about the financial instability of the company. He declared himself to be confident that the expected results would be delivered. Given the unfolding events of the last few days, has he now reflected and does he now accept that he got it spectacularly wrong and that his judgment and confidence were disastrously misplaced?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not accept that at all. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the HS2 contract. At the time, I reviewed those carrying out the contracting very carefully, and I have carried out due diligence since. As I said a moment ago, the HS2 project will not be affected by this, even to the point, I am pleased to say, that the apprentices working with Carillion on the project are being transferred to one of the other two partners. The work will continue uninterrupted. There is no delay and there are no cost implications.

[Andy McDonald]

On Monday, The Times newspaper said:

“The transport secretary’s decision to award lucrative contracts to an ailing Carillion is only the latest worrying misjudgment to come to light.”

It highlighted his trip to Qatar on the day of the biggest rail fare hike in five years, the notorious £2 billion east coast bail-out and his dysfunctional dealings with trade unions in the private sector, saying that the Prime Minister

“needs to consider whether it is time that this transport secretary left the station.”

Has not The Times got it absolutely right?

[Chris Grayling]

The only station that I am going to be leaving is Euston station for a visit to the midlands this morning. There has been no £2 billion bail-out of Virgin Trains East Coast. The contracting with Carillion was actually not with Carillion, but with a consortium of companies that are equally responsible for delivering the contract and will do so. I am happy to stand here to defend the record of a Government that have done more for our transport system than has happened in decades. That is in sharp contrast with what the Labour party did over 13 years in government, which was very little indeed.