Rail Franchising

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that rail franchising is failing to provide adequate services for passengers or value for money for taxpayers; notes that regulated rail fares have risen by 32 per cent since 2010 while planned investment has been cancelled; opposes the recent bail-out of Virgin Rail Group East Coast; and calls on the Government to run passengers’ services under public sector operation.

I welcome the hon. Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Wealden (Ms Ghani) to their new ministerial positions and wish them success in their new posts. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) for his 18 years of continuous Front-Bench service. He was a pleasure to work with, and I would like to think that we can continue the sort of relationship that we had in non-contentious areas, where the result was improved legislation. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport on his superb stewardship of the Conservative party. There has never been a finer record: no elections lost; no major scandals; and membership maintained at around 70,000—not bad for 27 seconds’ work.

I am delighted that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber to provide answers to a number of questions that I and other Members have for him. Unfortunately, no Minister was available on 2 January to explain the highest fare increases in five years, so I hope that he will provide us with some clarity today. Sadly, the entire rail debate is characterised by a lack of candour and transparency from both the Government and some quarters of the rail industry.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that my constituents who use Northern saw fare increases of nearly 5%—the biggest in the country—and that we are still having to use Pacer trains? They are virtually as old as me: 42 years old.

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It just adds insult to injury when such hikes in rail fares go alongside appalling services.

It is time that Secretary of State woke up from his state of denial. It is time for him to come clean and admit that he has made mistakes. No one is perfect, but he should acknowledge his failures, and take responsibility for the decisions he has made, the policies he has pursued and their consequences. I urge him to be entirely unambiguous with the House today. The Government’s defence of their rail franchising system is totally indefensible, and this is not the first time that the Government have been in the Chamber this week to defend the indefensible.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

In south Wales, First Great Western reduced and cancelled services over Christmas and new year—there was chaos—yet it has been handed a franchise extension. Is it not time we had performance-related franchises and performance-related franchise extensions, rather than franchises being extended automatically no matter what the service?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will return to those themes.

The Government are unable to accept that the franchise model, which is demonstrably failing, is a betrayal of the public who plough billions of pounds of taxes into the railway. It is a betrayal of the passengers who face eye-watering fare rises year after year. It is a betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of dedicated and passionate people who have worked in the rail industry for decades.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness to me just before Christmas. Will he confirm whether fare rises have been faster under this Government or the last Labour Government?

[Andy McDonald]

Labour’s position is that if we were in power, we would not raise fares by the retail prices index or by RPI plus 1. We would save each member of the travelling public £500 during this Parliament.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andy McDonald]

I will make a little progress, but I will take interventions later.

In 2016, the Department for Transport set out that its aims and objectives for rail franchising were

“to encourage a flourishing, competitive passenger rail market which secures high-performing, value for money services for passengers and taxpayers whilst driving cost effectiveness.”

The Department has clearly failed to meet those objectives. The latest collapse of the east coast franchise, which was announced in November, makes a mockery of the Department’s 2016 aims. Virgin-Stagecoach did not deliver and defaulted on their contract, and the Secretary of State has given them a gift.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Given that this is the third occasion in just over a decade that a private contractor has announced that it wishes to hand back the keys to the east coast franchise, was it not a fundamental mistake for the Government not to allow East Coast, which successfully ran the franchise for more than five and a half years and paid back £1 billion to the Treasury, to continue its good work? Instead, the Government ideologically said that anyone could bid to run the franchise except the state-owned company that had run it so successfully.

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point. I have no doubt that that will be a consistent theme throughout this debate.

The Government should have followed Labour’s example. When the operator defaulted in 2009, Labour took the contract back into the public sector. If a company defaults, it does not deserve a contract. Taking a contract back into the public sector would mean that there is no reward for failure, and other companies in the industry would not expect the same treatment. In the light of what happened with the east coast franchise, what plans does the Secretary of State have to renegotiate the TransPennine Express, Northern and Greater Anglia franchises?

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Is not the biggest danger of the Secretary of State’s decision that other franchisees might come looking for a handout?

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. That point is entirely consistent with the issues I am putting before the House.

Labour would not have let Virgin-Stagecoach off the hook on the east coast franchise. To return to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, did the Secretary of State consider taking the east coast franchise into the public sector following the default—yes or no? Does the Secretary of State not worry that, because he refuses to use a public sector operator even as a last resort, struggling train companies now know he has no option but to bail them out in the event of a failure?

Such failures are not confined to the east coast franchise. Today’s National Audit Office report highlights a litany of errors in the Government’s planning and management of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. Those blunders have caused misery to millions of people, and it is the Government’s disastrous handling of the franchise that led to industrial action on the line.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that this morning’s report was scathing about the dreadful performance of Northern rail? My constituents are not as dependent as I am on the east coast franchise to get up and down the country, but the local franchises are how ordinary people get to work.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

I will not respond in detail until I make my speech, but it is important to put on record that this morning’s report had nothing to do with the Northern rail franchise. I hope the hon. Gentleman will confirm that to the House.

[Andy McDonald]

I will do that very thing. I will confirm that the damning report was about Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern, not Northern, and showed that that franchise has been appallingly managed.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Rail companies could do more to make passengers’ lives easier. Many local stations, such as Langley Mill in my constituency, do not have a ticket machine, so people cannot collect pre-paid tickets. Should it not be a condition of any franchise that passengers travelling from such stations can use email proof, instead of their facing this “computer says no” attitude that we get from so many rail companies?

[Andy McDonald]

We do have to think about much more flexibility across our railway, as well as greater accessibility for people from not only every walk of life, but all different localities, as some facilities are not as they should be.

Some industry commentators have said that the Secretary of State accepted rail franchise bids that were excessive and unrealistic. Can he confirm that winning bids are accepted in the expectation that they will be paid in full? Does he anticipate that the premium payments on the South Western Railway, Greater Anglia, Northern and TransPennine Express franchises will be made in full? Several other franchises look vulnerable in the light of the east coast decision. Passenger growth is slowing across the railway amid weaker consumer confidence, rising fares and changing work patterns. Rail passenger usage has fallen for consecutive reporting periods, and that has included a stark decline in season ticket purchases, which are the core business of rail companies. The fact that passengers are being priced off the railway is threatening the sustainability of the network as a whole.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Since Southern rail fares went up in the new year, three quarters of rush-hour services between Balham and Victoria have not arrived on time. If the delays we have seen so far are replicated throughout the year, Balham commuters will waste a total of 30 hours stuck on delayed trains. Southern rail is not fit for purpose. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for action?

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more. It is fascinating that we still await the revelation of appendix 9 of the Chris Gibb report, which detailed the future of that franchise. We have not seen it. That report was commissioned by Southern, which set the terms and conditions. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position, but that is the reality. Southern set out what that report should be about and it has not published the very kernel of that report, which was on the future of that service.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the case he is making. He mentions the cost of season tickets. My constituents are also served by appalling services from Northern. It is hardly worth their investing in a season ticket, given that trains are often either cancelled or so crowded that they cannot get on to them. Does he agree?

[Andy McDonald]

I do agree. The great concern about all that is that it is not achieving the modal shift we all want. It brings people to the point where they say, “The railway is not for me. I may as well get back in my car.” That is the opposite of what we should be doing.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Does he agree that, given the widespread evidence of the lamentable failure of some of the rail companies—consumer dissatisfaction, price rises and so on—there is a strong case for developing models of ownership that involve the users of the railways, those who work on the railways and investors in the railways? Such a form of co-operative and mutual ownership may well operate effectively and efficiently, with enormous public support.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that the voices of passengers and those who work in the railway industry are heard, because they are the people who not only use the service but are committed to making it work.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

My constituents in Brighton will certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman 100% when he criticises Govia Thameslink Railway/Southern; it is adding insult to injury to put prices up when the services that people in Brighton are getting are so awful. On the issue of cost, rail fares have gone up by 23% over the past 20 years and the cost of driving has gone down by 16%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that privatisation is absolutely failing passengers, and that instead of lining shareholders’ pockets we should be investing in our railways?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more. In fact, we have seen prices rise by 32% since 2010, which underlines the hon. Lady’s point.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman and I have enjoyed cordial exchanges on many issues, but I suspect this will not be one of them. The point has been made about rail fare increases under privatisation. I did a little research into fare increases under nationalised British Rail over the same length of time for which the private companies have operated. In 15 of 22 years there were above-inflation increases, and over that period rail fares were 60% higher after inflation was taken into account. Why would nationalisation automatically lead to lower fares?

[Andy McDonald]

I like to think that the hon. Gentleman and I can disagree with one another without being disagreeable. He has a good memory and is going back rather a long way. The Conservative party has been in power since 2010—eight years—and we are concerned today with the record of the current Government. We are not going back through all our yesterdays.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is two years younger than I am, so he will well remember the state in which the railways used to be. Does he not agree that we have seen a terrific improvement in the quality of the trains, the service and the attitude of the staff? An excellent service has been developing; would he agree that that is because of privatisation? Would he further agree that investment in our railways is at a record high?

[Andy McDonald]

I regret that many passengers’ experiences do not match the right hon. Lady’s experience. The evidence is that people are dissatisfied with the services they receive throughout the country. I respectfully suggest to her that going back over things in the way she is doing is not helpful. Had British Rail received public investment at the rate at which the Treasury has poured investment into the private operators, we would have had a gold-standard railway in this country.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I really want to make progress because a lot of people want to speak.

All the factors I have described undermine the growth forecasts that are so central to the Government’s model and the undeliverable bid assumptions of operators. FirstGroup won the TPE—TransPennine Express—franchise in December 2015 based on revenues increasing by 12% a year. In one of his first acts in office, the Secretary of State awarded the Greater Anglia franchise to the Dutch state-owned rail company Abellio in August 2016. The deal commits the company to paying the Government £3.7 billion to run the line for nine years. That is more than the east coast franchise. Reports suggest that Abellio’s bid was £600 million more than the next bidder. Like the TPE and east coast bids, Abellio’s bid was based on double-digit annual revenue growth. The company’s boss described the £3.7 billion price tag as “scary”. Does the Secretary of State guarantee that the Treasury will receive the full premium payment of £3.7 billion from Abellio Greater Anglia by 2025—yes or no?

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Is not one of the problems that these companies make such commitments and then set about destaffing and deskilling our railways to make more profit, so that they can pay back the Government?

[Andy McDonald]

The whole issue of overbidding and making promises that cannot be kept is a consistent characteristic of the modern rail environment.

If the Government’s rail franchising system cannot deliver competition and payments to the Treasury, what is the point of it? The Secretary of State will no doubt be able to give a clear and straightforward answer to that.

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

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

As I allow an intervention for the last time, perhaps the former Secretary of State can give us some indication of the point of a franchising system that does not deliver the promised premiums.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, during the course of his speech, how franchising changed between 1997 and 2010, when it was defended continually by the previous Labour Government as the best way to see extra investment in the railways? While he is telling us that, will he also confirm that there are actually more people employed on the east coast main line than there were under the previous people operating that line? Will he welcome the fact that the Pacer trains, which were referred to earlier, will actually go as a result of the new Northern franchise, that the Secretary of State has brought in?

[Andy McDonald]

Let me take the last point first. The European Union dictates that persons with restricted mobility are not served by the Pacers. The time of the Pacers has been up for a long time, and I am glad to see the back of them. I am glad that plenty of people work on the railways, and delighted that the previous Labour Government went about making the railways safe, given the disaster that was Railtrack, which delivered us Potters Bar, Hatfield and Paddington. That was the legacy that the previous Labour Government inherited, and we turned our railways into the safest in Europe, so I am very proud of what we did.

Direct awards and franchise extensions in the rail industry have been overlooked in many of the rail debates. These are contracts that the Government cannot or will not refranchise, and which they are ideologically opposed to running in the public sector. The train companies name their price to the Government for running these hand-to-mouth contracts, which simply keep the trains running in the short term and provide no long-term benefits or investment.

The west coast route has operated on a series of direct awards since 2012, with reports of another extension beyond 2019. Another key inter-city franchise, Great Western, has been operating under a direct award since 2013, when the Government cancelled the franchise competition. Scandalously, Great Western may run as a direct award for 10 years until 2023. The Government cannot refranchise the rail operation because their management of Network Rail has been so poor and the Great Western electrification programme has been such a shambles.

I predict that there will be more direct awards and contract extensions to rail franchises announced by the Government. The east midlands franchise is already on an extension to 2019 and will probably get another one. I also predict that the Secretary of State will need to give Virgin and Stagecoach a direct award on the east coast because he will not be able to deliver on his east coast partnership by 2020. It is simply inconceivable that he will be able to establish a framework, gain regulatory support, put the idea out to tender, receive and evaluate bids, and award the contract within the timeframe he has set out. A direct award to VirginStagecoach on the east coast will allow the companies to continue to profit from the line while they invest even less.

Once again, the Secretary of State needs to be entirely candid with this House: does he, or does he not, anticipate giving Virgin-Stagecoach a direct award to run rail operations on the east coast while he sets out his east coast partnership? Can he confirm whether that will take place? If he does, can he tell the House how much less the value of premium payments to the Treasury would be under this arrangement than under the original franchise?

What is the Secretary of State’s solution to his failing franchising model, as competition dwindles and premiums to the Exchequer reduce? It is quite simple: more taxpayer and fare-payer support for train operating companies. The next franchises to come up are Southeastern and west coast. Under his new revenue support arrangements, taxpayers will top up revenues if growth targets are not met. What is the point of franchising if the operators do not take any risk? In return, the Government will want close financial monitoring of the operators. Do we really want civil servants in Marsham Street poring over train company balance sheets? Is there not enough DFT interference in the railway already?

Rail privatisation’s vested interests have spent more than 20 years trying to get franchising to work. Despite the Government changing and tweaking the system for them time after time, all they have done in return is to reveal ever more and new sorts of failure, while the public continue to suffer substandard services and ever-higher fares. Enough is enough. We need to change the system entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I make no apologies for the huge investment programme in the Thameslink network, the massive expansion of London Bridge station, which has just been completed, and the introduction of brand-new 12-coach trains across the network. What I do apologise for is that we were not able to avoid the extraordinarily ill-judged actions of the trade unions, which caused massive trouble for passengers. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough talked about the Gibb report. Chris Gibb had a simple conclusion, which was that although there were problems on the network—that is why we are spending £300 million on improving it—by far the biggest disruptive factor was the trade unions.

Of course, we want rail staff to be paid fairly, but trade union leaders such as Mick Cash drive up ticket prices for hard-working people. The same unions that want CPI increases on fares want RPI—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough should listen. The RMT guidance to their negotiators is that

“any attempt by an employer to link a pay award to CPI…must be refused.”

Mick Cash wants bigger rises for his members and lower rises for passengers. Where is the money coming from? It does not add up. Labour’s policies do not add up, and the unions’ policies do not add up.

Of course, you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, who pays the Labour party’s bills. Even the shadow Secretary of State has received financial contributions from the RMT. The Opposition are in the pockets of the trade unions, and that is simply not acceptable.

[Andy McDonald]

I know it has taken 100 years for the Conservative party to realise it, but we are the Labour and trade union movement. The Secretary of State needs to understand that. It is the cleanest money in politics—I would rather take from trade unions than from hedge fund managers and private health companies, as some who populate the Conservative Benches do.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is bankrolled by the people who are inappropriately disrupting parts of the network and are politically driven. They disrupt the lives of passengers for political purposes. The Labour party should disown the unions and their current action. The hon. Gentleman’s conduct on this is not acceptable,

[Huw Merriman]

On my daily commute, as I walked through London Bridge station—as I know my right hon. Friend does—where there have been a lot of difficulties for me and my constituents, I noted that it is now an absolute temple to travel. We should talk positively about our rail system and not just knock it.

[Andy McDonald]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you heard what I did, but I think that I have been accused of unacceptable behaviour. I really think that needs to be clarified. I have tried to conduct myself with all civility and propriety, and what the Secretary of State said is regrettable. I seek your guidance on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The Secretary of State did use a phrase that included the words “not acceptable”. He might wish to repeat what he wanted to say in slightly different words, because the shadow Secretary of State has a point about the precise use of words in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

No—forgive me, but I am going to explain this in detail.

Passenger numbers are rising on this railway; customer satisfaction is up; and the line is generating a healthy and growing operating surplus that is providing a much greater return to the taxpayer than when it was in the public sector. It is also worth saying that it is running more services and employing more staff. The money that the franchise pays to the Government is today 20% higher than it was under public ownership. But Virgin and Stagecoach got their numbers wrong. They have been losing money steadily, and have now lost the best part of £200 million in the past three years. Despite that, I am holding them to their full financial obligations, taking every last penny of the £165 million guarantee that we insisted on when they took on the franchise.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I am going to finish this point, and then I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, if that is okay.

That is a huge sum of money for a British business with a market capitalisation of under £1 billion pounds. It is also one of the biggest bonds of its kind ever provided in the rail industry. But despite Labour’s claims, this is not a bail-out. There is no viable legal mechanism through which I can extract any more money from the company. My Department is preparing contingency plans as we do not believe that the franchise will be financially viable through to 2020. I clearly have a duty to do that for passengers. When we reach a conclusion that works, I will come back to this House and make a statement. However, I do plan to go ahead with the east coast partnership, as I indicated in my statement a month ago. People in this country do not understand the separation of track and train, and as part of our reforms we are bringing the two together, as Sir Roy McNulty recommended in his report. I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Can he make this clear? He is talking about the parent company guarantee, which will be paid. What about the premium payments from 2020 to 2023, which amount to £2 billion? Is the company going to pay those premiums, or not?

[Chris Grayling]

As I have just said, we are currently not convinced that the franchise will make it as far as 2020, so we will put in place alternative arrangements. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening to what I was saying. However, this railway will continue to deliver a substantial operating surplus—a premium to the taxpayer—whatever the situation. Whatever happens, this railway will continue to deliver large sums of money to the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that rail franchising is failing to provide adequate services for passengers or value for money for taxpayers; notes that regulated rail fares have risen by 32 per cent since 2010 while planned investment has been cancelled; opposes the recent bail-out of Virgin Rail Group East Coast; and calls on the Government to run passengers’ services under public sector operation.

[Andy McDonald]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion has been passed unanimously by the House, demonstrating that the rail franchising system has failed and that the railways should be run by the public sector. When can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State to outline his plans for implementing the will of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the House has agreed to the motion. The Leader of the House has said that, following such occasions, the relevant Secretary of State will return to the House over the next few weeks to indicate what action the Government propose to take as a result of the motion being passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to meet the Government to discuss the removal of the Barnett formula and the move towards needs-based allocation of funding across the piece for Scotland, I am sure that would be a very interesting discussion; but in this country over the past few years we have tended to follow the Barnett formula. Most recently, we have provided additional funding to Scotland through the allocations in the Budget. Money has been spent on capital investment in England and money is to be spent based on the Barnett formula in Scotland. That is the way we operate.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

We learned yesterday that the east coast rail franchise will be terminated in 2020—three years early—potentially forfeiting billions of pounds in premiums due to the Treasury, yet the Secretary of State told the House that Stagecoach will meet in full the commitments it made to the Government as part of this contract. So, can he confirm that the full £3.3 billion due from Stagecoach-Virgin will be paid to the Treasury, in accordance with the terms of the original contract?

[Chris Grayling]

Every time a franchisee takes up a new contract it makes a parent company commitment to the Government. That commitment will be kept in full.

[Andy McDonald]

Can we get to the heart of this? Will the premiums of some £2 billion due under that contract covering the years 2020 to 2023 be paid? Will they be paid—yes or no?

[Chris Grayling]

Self-evidently, given my announcement yesterday that we would have the east coast partnership in place in 2020, there will be new arrangements in place in 2020. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, every franchisee makes a parent company commitment before taking out the contract and we will hold that that commitment will be met in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

We have finished the design of neither Crossrail 2 nor northern powerhouse rail. My focus right now is on the projects that are under way, including electrification across parts of the north of England and a £3 billion upgrade to the trans-Pennine routes. We are already seeing better investment in the north. When we see the final shape of Crossrail 2 and northern powerhouse rail, we will see what the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the point of order as I understand it flows from questions, but it had better be a genuine point of order and it had better be extremely brief.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification. Not an hour ago, I raised the question of the £2 billion that was due from Stagecoach to the Treasury. The Secretary of State said yesterday:

“let us be absolutely clear for the House that as we bring the east coast franchise to a close and move to the new arrangements, no one will get any bail-out”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2017; Vol. 632, c. 344.]

He clarified that by also saying that every franchise makes a parent-company commitment before taking out a contract and will be held to that commitment, to be paid in full. That is £232 million—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am extremely grateful to him for his attempted point of order, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not a matter for the Chair. If he wishes to, the Secretary of State can respond, briefly. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the position that the Government have taken. If he wishes to explore the matter further, which of course he can and, I dare say, will do, he can do so through questions, the use of the Order Paper or further debates, but he cannot do it any further now.

There is substantial pressure on time today, as a study of the Order Paper will demonstrate, but I thought the House would want urgently to express support for the victims of racism and bigotry and to denounce their purveyors.

Rail Update

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, the contents of which have already been well trailed in the media.

The Secretary of State and I can be in agreement on rail’s need for investment and new capacity, and I am delighted that he has picked up Labour’s manifesto commitment to reopen branch lines. The problem is that the current system and the structure of the railways do not lend themselves well to the receipt of new investment or the delivery of new capacity. The majority of the recent problems on the railway can be traced back to the planning for control period 5, when the Office of Rail and Road said that Network Rail had to make efficiency savings of 18%. The ORR got this wrong, and the railway has suffered the consequences.

We are where we are on rail, and I am afraid that the Secretary of State has, frankly, now run out of ideas for what to do with the railways, but Labour has a solution, which I will refer to in a moment. The Secretary of State proposes an alliance on the east coast line between track and train. This was done only a few years ago between Stagecoach and Network Rail on the south-west franchise, but Stagecoach pulled out because it was too expensive. Trains on the east coast may be labelled Virgin trains, but they are actually run by Stagecoach. What makes the Secretary of State think that this alliance with Stagecoach will be any different?

The Secretary of State says he will break up the GTR’s southern and great western franchises. GTR was always going to be broken up at the end of the contract in 2021, so this is not new. His calamitous oversight of the contract only adds to the urgent need to put the whole thing out of its misery for the sake of the passengers.

The Secretary of State says he will reopen lines. He announced the Oxford-Cambridge line a year ago. His new, privately funded line will operate with polluting diesel trains. What about the air quality? Labour supports reopening lines, but, without financial backing, the Secretary of State’s proposals mean nothing in reality. It is all well and good to reverse the Beeching cuts, but what about reversing the Grayling cuts to the great western, the midland mainline and northern railways? The Department’s website hails the reopening of the line

“from Blyth to Ashington in County Durham.”

If it is all right with him, I would prefer Blyth and Ashington to stay in Northumberland.

The Secretary of State’s proposals offer nothing for commuters on overcrowded trains who are facing a fare hike of 3.4% in January on top of the 27% rises since 2010. The truth is that the rail system is broken. No amount of rearranging the furniture will change this central fact. I regret that the Secretary of State cannot recognise or admit this.

Today’s announcement is a total smokescreen. We can put all this to one side; the real issue is that the east coast franchise has failed again and the taxpayer will have to bail it out. Markets do not lie, and the Stagecoach share price has risen by 12% this morning following the news that the Secretary of State has let it off the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds by ending the current franchise early. He has moved the goalposts to suit Stagecoach. He is tough on everyone except the private sector. Labour took the franchise into public ownership in 2009, and it should have stayed there. Conservative dogma put it back out to the market in 2015, and it has now failed again.

The Government’s proposals are more window dressing that will solve none of rail’s urgent problems. Only Labour has the vision and the courage to deliver the railway the public deserves. The public want public ownership of the railways, and the next Labour Government will deliver it.

[Chris Grayling]

Fortunately, this country will be waiting a long time for that to happen. What Labour Members really want is to take us back to the days of British Rail, but they have not explained to us how they would pay for all the new trains currently funded by the private sector, or how they would pay for longer trains and better services all around the country. What they do not tell us is that, with a publicly run railway, trains would have to compete for capital costs with hospitals and schools and we would just not get the investment we are currently getting in our railways. Going back to British Rail is simply no solution for the improvements this country desperately needs.

The hon. Gentleman asked a series of specific questions. What is different is what is happening within Network Rail. The devolution within Network Rail—more of a local focus, local decision making, local budgets—is absolutely crucial in making local partnerships possible. We are driving through that change right now, off the back of Nicola Shaw’s report on Network Rail, and it is the right thing to do for the future.

The hon. Gentleman talked about GTR, but I remind the House that the independent Gibb report showed that the GTR problems were substantially down to the actions of the hon. Gentleman’s friends in the unions. Such conduct was unacceptable, and the Labour party’s continuing support for the disruption that unions are causing to passengers on the railways is utterly unacceptable.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the Oxford-Cambridge railway line. I did actually give an update on that. Last year, I said we were going to do it. This year, I am saying that we are now ready to start work on that route in the next few months. This Conservative Government are delivering real improvements and real investment on the railways.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the finance for reopening lines. He may have missed these announcements in the Budget, but I can assure him that there will be £2 billion more for investment in transport in our cities, and there will be £47 billion for investment in the railways over the next five years. We will, indeed, be funding investment in the expansion of the railways, because that is what is needed.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about electrification. I say again that in a world where we have more flexible technology, I regard it as more of a priority to provide more services and more routes for passengers than to save one minute on the journey time to Sheffield and no minutes on the journey time to Swansea. I am doing what we need to do, which is to deliver better journeys, better journey times and new trains for passengers, which is what they want above all. They are not worried about how the trains are powered, but about whether they will have a nice new train that gets them to the right place, and that is what we are doing.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the Blyth-Ashington line. It is one of the projects I am looking at seriously. I think it has real potential to expand the investment we are already making in the Metro in Newcastle upon Tyne, and it is another example of this Government’s commitment to the north-east.

The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing for commuters. All around the country, we and the private sector, together in partnership, are delivering new trains and longer trains to create more space for people who travel on our crowded railway lines each day.

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, let us be absolutely clear for the House that as we bring the east coast franchise to a close and move to the new arrangements, no one will get any bail-out at all. It is absolutely clear that Stagecoach will meet in full the commitments it made to the Government as part of this contract, and that is what will happen.

Transport in the North

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I welcome the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on initiating it.

This issue goes to the heart of the current political debate about the fairness and justice of our economic system, and the equity of the way in which our resources are distributed. I know that the Secretary of State will be busy, but I am sure that the people of the north would be interested to learn what the Minister’s boss considered to be more important and deserving of his personal attention tonight.

If the north of England were a stand-alone nation, it would be among the 10 biggest economies in Europe. It has a population of 16 million, more than a million businesses, and exports worth more than £50 billion. The north makes an enormous contribution to the success and prosperity of the UK, but poor transport infrastructure constrains its potential. The divide in north-south transport spending is scandalous, unsustainable, and profoundly damaging. In the last five years, the Government spent £21.5 billion across the north, compared with more than £30 billion spent in London alone, although the north has nearly twice the population of our capital.

Rail connectivity between the city regions of the north of England is the key issue in this debate, and the Northern and TransPennine rail operations are catalysts for delivering the economic improvements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, it is scandalous that, under today’s rail infrastructure, travelling from London to Paris takes an hour less than travelling west-east from Liverpool to Hull.

When the franchises were awarded in December 2015, the then Transport Secretary said:

“Crucially, in a key step towards full devolution, these contracts will be managed in Leeds by a joint team from the Department for Transport and Rail North, which represents the region’s 29 local transport authorities.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 369WS.]

The current Secretary of State said in August this year:

“I want the North to take control”

of its transport. He also said that, rather than delivering the investment the Conservatives had promised, he would instead devolve power, so the north could “take control” and

“build the transport links the North needs to thrive”.

But the promise of powers have, like the promise of investment, not materialised. Transport for the North will only be a “statutory influencer”—whatever on earth that could be—only having the right to prepare a strategy and provide the Secretary of State with advice. Transport for the North will not be able to borrow money or fund investment like Transport for London. So will the Minister explain how the north can “take control” when the Department for Transport has the power of veto over it? Former Conservative Minister Lord O’Neill recently said that the north cannot take ownership without power. This is the latest insult to the north, and it is another betrayal.

Can the Minister confirm whether 40 civil servants are working within his Department on northern transport policy? If so, what is the relationship between those civil servants and Transport for the North? In short, who is working for whom?

With the Tories in power, rail fares have risen at twice the rate of wages and, in a move the Conservatives would have surely planned as voters went to the ballot box, the electrification projects were delayed by years within weeks of the election, before eventually being cancelled within weeks of the 2017 election.

Adding insult to injury, the Transport Secretary claims that bi-mode diesel-electric trains running on electrified track deliver the same benefits as electrification, and that it does not matter how trains are powered and passengers will be spared unsightly electric wires. May I tell the Minister that passengers in the south do not seem to mind them? What evidence does the Minister have to substantiate these claims? Network Rail and his own Department agree that, running on diesel, 30% more CO₂ is emitted, maintenance is increased by a third, fuel costs rocket by a quarter and journeys are slower.

Not so long ago we had the Northern hub; now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. Is the Minister able to give the House a breakdown of where the pledged £1 billion will be spent, and can he confirm that he supports Transport for the North’s call for the realignment of the HS2 route on the approach to Manchester Piccadilly?

Labour will deliver full devolution of transport to the north of England and provide a better deal for the region, which is why we have made a commitment of at least £10 billion to deliver “Crossrail for the north”, a series of major rail improvements across existing west-east links in the north of England. We will reverse decades of under-investment in northern transport infrastructure that has undermined the economic potential of the north of England and help deliver 850,000 new jobs by 2050. Labour will work alongside its Mayors in Manchester and Liverpool, as well as local authorities across the north, to bring forward the resources needed to help unlock the £97 billion of economic potential in the north.

In contrast, the Government’s approach to rail investment has been promises, postponements and cancellations. The rail industry has to have confidence if it is to invest; sadly, the feast and famine history of rail programmes does not give the industry the confidence it needs. The Conservative party claims to be the champion of industry and enterprise. In practice, its actions in government undermine those objectives at every turn.

Labour is determined to put an end to the buses crisis brought about by this Government. More than 20% of all journeys by public transport are taken by bus, and buses are vital for tackling social exclusion and poverty, yet bus services in the north have faced a sustained attack since 2010, with funding in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber slashed by 22%, 23% and 37% respectively. As a consequence, bus travel is at its lowest level for a decade, while fares have risen 13% above inflation.

For some, a bus service connects them to their job or to their doctor, and its removal can be devastating for people who have no other options. Labour would end the bus crisis by extending the powers to regulate buses across the country, by overturning the senseless ban on new municipal bus companies, by allowing cuts to services to be reversed and by putting communities rather than commercial operators in charge of essential public transport.

Sadly, the Conservatives have failed to provide sufficient investment in cycling or walking over the last seven years. This year’s long-awaited cycling and walking investment strategy offered almost no investment and no meaningful policies or targets. Only £6 per head was spent on cycling across England over 2016-17. Cycling UK estimates that this investment is heavily weighted towards London, with only £316 per head over the five-year period of April 2016 to 2021 going towards both cycling and walking, working out at £1.38 per person in England outside London.

Northern MPs have rightly spoken of the need for greater transport infrastructure investment in the north of England, but we do not underplay or undervalue the vital role played by our capital city. I know that the Minister for rail, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—who is not with us this evening—prefers to focus on outcomes rather than per capita spending, and while it is right to value London as an engine room of the UK economy, the north is a sleeping giant ready to be raised from its slumbers. That cannot happen unless the north receives the fair funding settlement it deserves in order to fulfil its economic potential.

Transport is not an end in itself; it is a means—an enabler of social and economic growth. Constraining transport constrains human potential, and it is about time the true potential of the north was unleashed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate on transport in the north, which has, by and large, been well informed, energetic and not overly partisan. My colleagues and I know that securing transport improvements is crucial for her constituents, as it is for all of us. In fact, from either side of the House, both this evening’s debate and the wider debate on this issue in recent weeks demonstrate how broad the recognition now is that good transport really matters to our economic lifeblood. That might sound obvious—it is a point that has been made frequently this evening—but it is a fact that has been overlooked by successive Governments until now. It has resulted in a legacy of under-investment, as many colleagues have pointed out. This Government are putting that right.

Other Members have pointed out that the north of England is already a very important economic actor in our national life. It is not a sleeping giant. It is a lively, active and energetic giant. With a population of 15 million, more than 1 million businesses and exports upwards of £50 billion, the north of England makes a huge contribution to the success and prosperity of the UK. If the north were a country, it would be among the 10 biggest economies in Europe, but growth in that economy has been inhibited by poor transport, as has been said many times this evening. Without significant investment in modern, efficient, reliable connections, the vast economic potential of the north cannot be realised. That is why the Government are spending £13 billion on improving northern transport.

Many Opposition Members and, indeed, some Conservative Members behind me claimed today that we spend more in the south than in the north. However, the figures they have used, which rely on a particular IPPR report, are misleading and certainly do not represent the true picture of investment. The first point is that, of the project pipeline that was used, 60% cannot be properly geographically allocated. The second point is that the figures completely understate the role that London has not as a southern city, but as the gateway for many tourists and other visitors to this country. I will give one example: the number of rail passengers at peak morning times in London is 18 times that in Manchester, which is the busiest city in the north. The figures are misleading and it is important to put that on the record.

[Andy McDonald]

Wil the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I have so many points to make that I have to proceed; I have only nine minutes left.

Promoting that misinformation is not helpful to our public debate. It misinforms the travelling public and risks undermining confidence in the north when it should be robust. That is frustrating for the Government when we are working so hard to overcome decades of under-investment in the north. We are investing in road and rail, in near-term projects and in ones that will take years to complete. We want to transform journeys for passengers and drivers and to create the capacity that the north needs to flourish.

However, we are not just investing; we are devolving power to the north to ensure that future investment is put to the best possible use. I remind the House that Transport for the North has not yet been established, because the process is complex and involves 56 authorities. It will be the first statutory sub-national transport body to be established. Its structure is well understood, and Transport for the North is comfortable with it. There is no comparison with Transport for London, which is an institution of much greater standing and longevity. Transport for the North will start strongly—hopefully by the end of this year—as a statutory body and will grow from there.

Perhaps the clearest statement of this Government’s commitment to the north is the fact we are now building HS2—the first new north-south railway in this country for over a century. It is a huge undertaking, but we are backing this vital project, because it is crucial to the future economy of the north. With high-speed rail stations in Manchester, Leeds, Crewe and Sheffield, and high-speed trains serving many other destinations, the north will be the principal beneficiary of HS2. It will open in 2026 and up to 18 trains will be running each hour by 2033, carrying up to 1,100 passengers each and releasing significant new capacity on the existing railways.

However, we know that better connectivity within the north is just as vital as better links to the rest of the country, a point which has been well made this evening. That is why we are also committed to northern powerhouse rail, which will provide fast rail connections between the major cities of the north. Transport for the North will develop proposals for the scheme, backed by £60 million of Government funding as a capital investment in the scheme plus £60 million—£10 million a year—of revenue funding. We are working with Transport for the North to strengthen the business case for the project, and the Government have already committed £300 million to integrate the Northern Powerhouse Rail project with HS2, making it easier and less disruptive to build that railway in the future.

HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail will provide the future capacity and connectivity that the north needs to grow and flourish, but it is important to say that we are also investing in nearer-term improvements. Better rail journeys through the new Northern and TransPennine Express franchises will deliver more than 500 brand-new train carriages, with room for 40,000 more passengers and 2,000 extra services a week. All trains on the Northern and TransPennine route will be brand-new or refurbished by 2020 and, crucially, the Pacer trains will be gone.

We are also making near-term infrastructure improvements: the great north rail project has already seen the fastest journey between Liverpool and Manchester cut by 15 minutes; Manchester Victoria has been upgraded; new platforms have been added at key stations; and there are new direct services between Manchester airport and Glasgow. We are also well on the way to upgrading Liverpool Lime Street and other key routes in the region. And we will soon be marking the completion of the Ordsall chord, which will provide new and direct links to Manchester airport from across the region, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) rightly highlighted.

We are also working with Network Rail to develop options for major upgrades between Manchester, Leeds and York to deliver more seats and faster journeys. As the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) will know, we are also supporting the Tyne and Wear Metro system with £317 million for its reinvigoration and renewal programme and £230 million towards its running costs—I was pleased to meet the senior team about its investment bid for the refurbishment of rolling stock.

With so much investment going in, we also want to make it easier for people to use the railways in the north, which is why we have committed £150 million to the roll-out of smart ticketing across the north. Smart ticketing will allow people to use their mobile phones and contactless and smart cards on trains, trams and buses.

Although we have not heard much about it in this debate, and although rail investment is crucial, the Government are acutely aware that most journeys are made by road, so we are spending almost £3 billion to make journeys faster and more reliable on the north’s roads and motorways. We are building smart motorways and new roads, and we are improving the ones we already have. We are delivering extra lanes, improvements to problem junctions, new junctions to ease traffic jams, bypasses and simple schemes to make journeys smoother.

The M62 between Leeds and Manchester is being upgraded to a four-lane smart highway. The A556 from Knutsford to Bowden has been expanded to a dual carriageway, helping the more than 50,000 vehicles a day that use that crucial route. The new Mersey Gateway crossing has recently opened, greatly improving connectivity in the area. Work is under way on the A6 Manchester Airport relief road, which will improve access to the airport and relieve congestion in south-east Manchester.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and his opposite number, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his seat, will be delighted that the A160/A180 port of Immingham improvements were completed in June, upgrading the gateway to one of the UK’s busiest ports to full dual carriageway standard.

I might also tell the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, who is not here—[Hon. Members: “He is here.”] I am so sorry. I apologise to him. He has moved from his seat. I am delighted to address him directly through you, Mr Speaker. He seems to have forgotten that we wrote off £150 million of debt on the Humber bridge only a few years ago, thus lowering the cost of tolls and improving usage.

By the end of 2017 we will have removed the last remaining section of non-motorway on the strategic M1/A1 route between London and Newcastle. I could go on, but I will not. Our airports—Newcastle, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester—are all succeeding. I am delighted that all that, and more, is being done by this Government.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I am afraid that my memory is not as complete as it might be. I cannot recall whether that was discussed; I do not think it was. However, my right hon. Friend raises a very fair point, and I hope that it will be considered in Committee.

As regards the distinction between a wholly autonomous car where there are no driver controls whatsoever and driver-assist, there will be cases in the middle where the car has a dual function, with blurring as to when the technology is applied. I would still like Ministers to provide greater clarification for drivers and the industry on the point at which the transition occurs. We have heard talk about having road trains in future where a car may be driven under control up to a certain point and will then form part of a convoy on the motorway. There needs to be greater clarity, for the public in particular, about the point at which the changeover happens.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. If we have totally automated vehicles end to end, and the whole purpose is to liberate people who would not otherwise be able to drive, is it not completely logical that they would not be subjected to any test whatsoever in the conduct of that vehicle?

[Iain Stewart]

Indeed. The shadow Secretary of State makes a perfectly fair point. We cannot predict what all these vehicles will be like. Some may have dual function, and we should prepare for that eventuality.

Clause 4 touches on where the liability lies if the software has been tampered with in some way. That could happen accidentally if the car was being repaired and an engineer did not upgrade or put the thing back together properly, or it could be deliberate. We have already had cases of cyber-attacks on autonomous and connected vehicles. We had reassurance in Committee previously that in the absence of further regulations, the current system would apply, and ultimately the Motor Insurers Bureau’s uninsured scheme would come into force. Does it remain the insurer of last resort? Sadly, given the huge number of scams we currently see in the insurance market with arranged accidents and so on, malevolent people will devise new ways of trying to scam how autonomous vehicles are insured. I urge the Minister to work with industry to make sure that we future-proof the systems and the regulations as much as possible to make sure that we can deal with these scams effectively as they arise.

Another point in clause 4 that still causes me some concern is subsection (1)(b), which refers to

“a failure to install safety-critical software updates that the insured person knows, or ought reasonably to know, are safety-critical.”

If there is such a failure, the insurer’s liability is diminished. I would like some further clarification as to what

“or ought reasonably to know”

actually means. At what point does the individual become liable for making sure that the software is upgraded? I am awaiting goodness knows how many updates for my iPhone; I am fearful of installing them because it will mess up my contacts list and everything else in it. That does not matter, because it is my phone and my choice, but if I am getting into a vehicle that is controlled by software, what is the point of liability at which I need to upgrade it? Will the upgrades have a limiting capability such that if it is not upgraded, the vehicle will not work? If so, where would that be specified? Subject to clarification on the points I have raised, I broadly welcome the general approach to insurance, as it will allow the industry to develop a variety of appropriate products. The market will change, and we need to give the industry the flexibility to develop.

With regard to part 2, on electric vehicles, again I welcome the general approach taken in the Bill. We cannot predict future technology, and it is therefore difficult to be specific, but equally we need to give industry and consumers confidence regarding concerns over range anxiety. Will charging points be harmonised? Will they work? Will there be enough of them at motorway services? Will there be sufficient time to recharge? All these points need to be dealt with to give consumers and industry some clarification.

We are seeing an increasing take-up of ULEV vehicles, particularly electric-only models. There have been developments with Volvo and others saying that all their new cars will be electric or hybrid in the very near future. However, there are a couple of broader concerns that are not entirely within the jurisdiction of the Department for Transport, but the Department needs to be in the lead in discussions with other Departments. First, there is the cost to Government in terms of lost revenue from fuel duty, and potentially from parking charges that local authorities levy on motor vehicles but are free for electric vehicles. One estimate is that if the Government do not make any changes, they will lose £170 billion in revenue by 2030 as people increasingly shift to electric vehicles. What does that mean for how we charge for our vehicles? I appreciate that that is a much broader issue that goes beyond this Bill, but it will have to be addressed at some point.

We also need to look at how we are going to power these cars. Atkins, drawing on a report by the Energy Technologies Institute, recently said that we need to understand when and where people will want to charge their cars. At the moment, it is likely to be in the early evening, particularly Sunday evenings as people have more leisure time then. That is forecast to add 10 GW of demand to the grid—a 20% increase at a time when it may be at its least resilient. How are we going to address that? I suspect that it will largely come down to the battery technology outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).

As others have said, 30% of UK residents do not currently have off-street parking, living in flats, terraced houses and other places where it is not easy to just put a plug out of the window and attach it to the car. That will have to be addressed in our planning systems as we move forward.

We had a very good Bill prior to the election, and this Bill has been improved. It addresses many of the concerns that were raised. I have raised a few more tonight, and I very much hope that they will be picked up in Committee. We have to get it right. This is an important Bill and it has my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a very thorough debate, so perhaps Members thought that the ground has been well covered, as it has.

As has been previously stated, Labour is supportive of the Bill. We intend to vote in support of it but to table key amendments in Committee. Indeed, we supported these clauses the first time around, when they were part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which had passed through its Commons Committee only for the Prime Minister to go off for a walk in Wales and then call a snap election, so all that work was lost.

I commend the Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime for his approach to the Bill, which reflects his approach to all such matters. If Carlsberg did legislation, it would copy his lead.

Before I discuss the content of the Bill and some of the contributions we have heard, I wish to express my disappointment at the Government’s decision to break up what was the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill so that it could be reintroduced as smaller, separate Bills. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, the introduction of the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill—a four-clause Bill, whose clauses had already been debated as a part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill—and the inordinate amount of time afforded to debating it, was nothing less than an embarrassment. It is clear that the Government, running scared of Parliament, decided to break-up the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill in an attempt to compensate for a threadbare legislative agenda, and so that the House would spend as much time as possible re-treading old ground so that they could avoid debates and votes on the myriad important issues facing our constituents that should require our urgent attention.

We will seek to make a number of key amendments in Committee on areas of concern, such as the liberal use of delegated powers in the Bill, and I have taken on board some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on clause 9. We will amend any areas of the Bill that might add costs to policyholders and contention over liability between manufacturers and insurers. We will also seek to amend the Bill so that the Government have to consult widely on developing a definition of “automated vehicles”, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and we will press the Government to clarify how the proposed regulations will promote the uptake of electric vehicles, ultra low emission vehicles and automated vehicles.

We have heard a range of contributions. My hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) returned to the issue of the adequacy of charging points and came forward with many suggestions, including the provision of charging points at shopping centres and the like. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) was quite correct to highlight some of the moral choices that we will have to wrestle with through Committee stage and beyond in terms of the choices that automated vehicles will make on our behalf.

There was a wide-ranging and thought-provoking contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) concerning the reality of the job losses in his constituency. He highlighted that particular moment when the occupant ceases to become liable, and mentioned deliberate hacking, which was referred to on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) talked about the potential ratcheting up of debt finance agreements, and the affordability of such contractual arrangements. She warned about our remaining vigilant in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) highlighted the higher take-up of electric vehicles in places such as Norway and their apparent better interoperability, saying that perhaps lessons could be learned in that regard.

It is important to make it clear that although there is much support in this Bill, it is not accompanied by a broader strategy that is sufficient to combat air quality and climate change or to support industry. It was a positive move from the Government to announce the ban on sales of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040, but that will not be achieved while the target remains unaccompanied by additional measures and increased funding for alternative modes of transport.

The Bill does not address the issue of funding sufficiently to support the uptake of electric vehicles. It was clearly a counterproductive move to slash grants for ultra low emission vehicles and electric vehicles and to cut the plug-in grants for EVs and for home charging, as the market alone will not facilitate the transition to future vehicles. The Office for Low Emission Vehicles already subsidises low emission cars and vans but does not do so for e-bikes. OLEV has said that that is because Ministers have not given it a remit to do so.

Labour has also pledged an additional £200 million to the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which could be used to reinstate grants such as a wider commitment to invest in the work of OLEV to provide clean modes of transport. In practice, better funding to the office would also mean that the new ULEV grant scheme could be financed as part of better support for research and other grants, including for e-bikes, which OLEV deems necessary. Grants could be awarded to create a wider network of charging points. On that point, I do acknowledge the announcement of extra funding made by the Minister tonight, for which I am grateful.

Automated vehicles will make our roads safer and underline the importance of reducing the number of killed and seriously injured on our roads. Tragically, for too many families the road safety record of this Government is not a happy one. The latest road safety statistics make for chilling reading, with the number of road deaths at a five-year high and serious life-changing injuries up by 9%.

Labour made significant progress on road safety, but those targets have been scrapped, which has allowed our roads to become more dangerous. The underfunding of police forces has meant that there are a third fewer dedicated traffic police than a decade ago, making enforcement less effective. In the long term, automated vehicles will make our roads safer, but we cannot allow the Government to substitute urgently needed action with long-term strategies, and legislating on automated vehicles should not be an excuse for a failure to reintroduce road safety targets and a refusal to deliver the resources our police forces need.

Although it is true that air quality will in future be improved by the use of electric and ultra low emission vehicles, there is an abject failure to tackle the air pollution crisis that today is causing some 50,000 premature deaths. The Conservatives have failed to introduce a diesel scrappage scheme or to give local authorities the powers they need to introduce clean air zones. We saw today measures set out by the Mayor of London, but it is wrong that the Government are denying local authorities the powers they need to clean up our towns and cities. The Government are presiding over a lack of investment in sustainable modes of transport, including cuts to bus services, which are in decline due to a combination of cuts and the failure of the bus deregulation system.

However, against that backdrop, Her Majesty’s Opposition will support this Bill. We will work to secure the support of the Government for our amendments in Committee to deliver the best possible legislation to accommodate the burgeoning automated and electric vehicle industry, and the massive social and economic potential that it represents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

As my hon. Friend, who is such a great champion of his constituents, knows, I am a representative of Lincolnshire, so I could hardly fail to have rural interests deep in my heart.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

This week, the OECD argued that addressing the regional productivity divide between high-productivity areas, such as London, and lower productivity regions can be a key channel for fostering long-term growth and sharing prosperity. Does the Minister not accept that the Government’s cuts to rail upgrades will entrench regional transport inequalities and damage business by embedding the regional productivity divide?

[Mr Hayes]

Let us try to find common cause, shall we? It is absolutely right that we look at regional investment inequalities, and it is absolutely right, too, that we do not regard all investment in the south of England as good, while ignoring the rest. The Government are not doing that; that is the point. The Government are rebalancing investment across the whole kingdom, for we recognise that. I could be tiresome—[Interruption.] I know that that is hard to believe, but I could be, if I were to list the series of investments we are making in rail and road across the north. Rather than tiring you, Mr Speaker, or the House, we will set them out in a note, which we will distribute afterwards. Perhaps, then, the hon. Gentleman will also try to find common cause. To start with, he might want to look at the transport investment strategy that we have published, which is a starting point for learners in this field.

[Andy McDonald]

The Secretary of State has claimed that cancelling upgrades means affected areas will be spared disruption and that electrification is no longer necessary because the same benefits will be achieved with bi-mode trains reliant on diesel. Is his policy to provide regions across our country with second-rate railways, and is not the reality that his claims about the wonders of polluting diesel are, like digging for victory, a load of tripe?

[Mr Hayes]

Again, I simply say, let us look at the facts. We are investing in rail in the north. After all, this Government are investing in Transport for the North to do exactly what he describes. It is true that we need to look at a range of technologies to achieve what we want, but the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is: new trains, faster routes, more rail, more road investment—what is there not to like about that?

Monarch Airlines

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Britain’s fifth largest airline, Monarch, collapsed because of a litany of failures by the Government, the regulator and the company’s financial backers and advisers. Its demise must also be seen in the context of a ferociously competitive aviation sector, which is adjusting to major overcapacity problems and the loss of services because of terrorism. A further backdrop to the industry is the foggy skies of Brexit, and the total lack of certainty from this Government for the British aviation industry after March 2019.

The airline’s bankruptcy has left huge losses on the shoulders of the public, rather than of the parent company or the regulator. It is the staff, customers, the taxpayer and pensioners who will pay the price. Creditor bills include the £60 million paid by the Government to repatriate holidaymakers, not forgetting the £26 million paid last year when Monarch previously came close to collapse; the £7.5 million to the Pension Protection Fund; the 45 days’ pay owed to the 2,000 staff who were made redundant; and the ticket refunds for the 750,000 outstanding bookings at the time of the collapse.

Why did the Government not do more to support Monarch and ensure that the company was viable, if only for the short term? The German Government recently stepped in to assist Air Berlin and the Italian Government have supported Alitalia. At the very least, an orderly wind-down of the airline would have been preferable to sudden administration.

Monarch is reported to have had £50 million in the bank. Why was the airline not granted a short-term ATOL licence extension, which would have allowed it to continue trading and at least bring its passengers back? Who decided not to grant Monarch an ATOL licence extension? More time would have allowed Monarch to be sold in parts. For example, Monarch’s landing slots are reported to be worth £60 million. Such assets could have been realised in an orderly wind-down. Instead, moneys from the sale of these assets will go to the secured creditor and former owner Greybull Capital, while the public purse gets nothing.

The statutory role of the CAA is to provide choice and value for money for passengers. British consumers now have one less airline to choose from. On its watch, there has been a surge in the cost of UK air fares following Ryanair’s cancellation of flights last month. Monarch’s demise will only push up flight costs further. There is an estimated £200 million in the CAA-administered ATOL compensation fund, yet it only covers about one in 20 of Monarch’s customers. Why is the public purse paying while the outdated ATOL pot sits largely untouched? Monarch Airlines continued to sell flights until Sunday 1 October, even though the airline knew it was going into administration the following day. Why did the CAA not act to stop that?

Greybull Capital’s takeover of Monarch in 2014 was the beginning of the end for the airline. Greybull is a private investment firm that has already presided over the collapse of My Local convenience stores and Comet, among others. Serious questions must now be asked about the conduct of firms such as Greybull, the way they invest and their wider stewardship.

A report in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times suggested that the £165 million rescue package for Monarch last year was largely funded by Boeing, as part of a cut-price deal for an order of 737 aircraft. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of Boeing in the financial engineering of Monarch? The Prime Minister recently criticised the conduct of Boeing against Bombardier in Belfast, in support of her Democratic Unionist party allies. Why is there no criticism of Boeing’s role in the loss of 2,000 jobs in Luton?

The role of KPMG must also be called into question. The firm was appointed to seek buyers for Monarch’s short-haul business prior to its collapse. It was actively doing so. Why is the same firm now acting as Monarch’s administrator? Does the Secretary of State agree with me that that is a glaring conflict of interest?

Finally, the way in which Monarch met its demise should set alarm bells ringing, so will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be a full investigation into the concerns that have been raised?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not have a good word to say for all the efforts put in place to bring people back. I would just remind him that, interestingly, in 2008—the last time we had an aviation failure in this country, Excel Airways—the Labour Government followed a very similar path to the one we have followed, with taxpayer-funded repatriation. They did the right thing then, and we are doing the right thing now. I am simply sorry that Labour Members have forgotten that they did the right thing in government, and cannot now say that our doing the right thing this time is indeed the right thing to do. [Interruption.] They did the right thing then, and we are doing the right thing now, and I am just sorry that he could not say a good word about those involved.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the reasons for the collapse. First, this is not an issue about Brexit. The airline had been struggling for three years, and the first concerns were raised about it long before the referendum was even held.

I had hoped that this summer, after the rescue package last year, the airline would see its way through. As its chief executive said, it has been a victim of the anxieties about tourism in the east Mediterranean for security reasons. Those have led to a concentration of business in the west Mediterranean and the traditional resorts of Spain and Portugal and a price war from which the company was ill equipped to recover. That is what has happened, no more no less.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the licence, and there was no issue about its renewal. What happened was never about the renewal of the licence—the business had simply reached the end of the road. Its board came to the conclusion that it could not carry on.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the company carried on selling tickets the day before. The reality is that any airline that runs into difficulties will carry on selling tickets until it can no longer do so. The moment it stops doing so, it collapses, and that is what happened. It would happen any time an airline ran into such difficulties. There is no other way to do it. The moment it stops selling tickets, it stops doing business, and that is precisely what happened.

The hon. Gentleman talked about competition, and other airlines are already stepping into the breach. Jet2, one of our fast-growing, emerging airlines, has already said that it will step in and run some of the routes. That is what a market does. If one business fails, others step in. The tragedy of the Labour party in the last few years is that it has moved away from understanding markets to being utterly hostile to markets and the private sector.

We have a thriving aviation sector with competition between airlines delivering a good deal for consumers, and occasionally—once under a Labour Government and once under ours—something has gone wrong. In both of those situations, the Government of the day stepped in to try to make sure that we looked after the travelling public. I have no doubt that if it ever happens again, someone will do the same.

We do have to learn the lessons. We have to understand whether we can make sensible changes to the laws to ensure that this does not happen again. We are already legislating to extend the ATOL scheme to provide better protection for people who book over the internet in a different way from how they have in the past. I am clear that the job of the Government is to look after the travelling public and step in when things go wrong. We have done that, and we are seeking to get back as much money as possible, as Labour did in 2008. Above all, our job is to do our best for the travelling public and the employees. That is what we are doing. I am proud of what we are doing, and I am just disappointed that the Opposition cannot even say well done to the people who have worked so hard in support.

HS2 Update

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement? I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for hearing the point of order made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about what could be done to encourage the Secretary of State to better inform the House of the crucial decisions that he has reached on one of the most significant and costly pieces of transport infrastructure that this country has proposed for many a year.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will be kind enough to explain what happened earlier today, given the widespread trailing of an oral statement on the anticipated announcement and the House’s subsequent disappointment at initially being asked to settle for a written statement, until such time as the outcry seemingly reached the Transport Secretary’s ears and his somewhat belated appearance in the Chamber tonight.

Labour has consistently supported HS2 and the attendant benefits it will bring—indeed, we were its initial proposer in 2009—but that support brings with it many questions. On the construction, there are concerns that companies selected to do the work were previously involved in the practice of blacklisting workers.What assurances can the Secretary of State give that no such practices will be tolerated in the delivery of HS2? Far too often in the case of significant projects in recent times, overseas contractors—and several have been awarded contracts here—have brought in their own labour, and have recruited exclusively from jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom. HS2 clearly represents huge employment and career opportunities for apprentices and established workers alike. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the practices we have seen in the construction industry that have excluded British workers from UK projects will not be allowed to obtain in the construction of HS2?

There are also concerns about the financial health of Carillion. What measures has the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that any financial instability of any of the contractors will not delay or add to the cost of the project? He said in evidence to the Treasury Committee that it was not his job to monitor conflicts of interest in the delivery of HS2, but given the revelations of the revolving door between HS2 and the engineering firm CH2M, does he accept that he does, in fact, have such an obligation if the public are to have confidence in the arrangements between HS2 and the contractors?

What assurances and guarantees can the Secretary of State give that the total overall cost will not exceed the stated £55.7 billion, and will not spiral, as has been alleged in certain quarters? In one of the many documents published today, we are told that in adopting the M18 route in south Yorkshire, although HS2 Ltd has included in the costs estimate the delivery of a junction north of Sheffield and back to the HS2 main line, it has not costed electrification of the midland main line between Clay Cross and Sheffield Midland, or from Sheffield to the north. Does the Secretary of State intend the line to be electrified in readiness for HS2—and if so, when—or is he working on the basis that trains to Sheffield will be bimodal, and the line will remain unelectrified?

Will the Secretary of State provide further and better particulars of his proposals and preferences in respect of potential parkway stations? Will he also provide an update on the progress of the northern east-west rail and the extension to the north-east—“Crossrail for the north”—and its connection with HS2, and on what discussions he has had with Transport for the North in that regard? Finally, will he reassure the House that his announcement about progress on HS2 will not be followed by an announcement of yet further delays to electrification of the trans-Pennine route?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for the Opposition’s continued support for the HS2 project. I hope that we shall be able to work on it together. I think that the House, or a large proportion of it, is united in believing that the project is necessary to the economic development of the future.

As I said a moment ago, I am very pleased to be here now. I should have preferred to be here earlier, but, as I said, it is sometimes a case of cock-up rather than conspiracy.

Let me begin by saying something about the construction contracts. We have contracted a range of significant British companies as part of the awarding of contracts today. A range of consortiums is participating, and many of them are already an integral part of Crossrail, which is our biggest engineering project—and the biggest in Europe. We have a good team of UK and international organisations that are used to working as a team to deliver big infrastructure projects. However, the assurance that I give the hon. Gentleman and the House is that, as I have made clear all along, the companies that win contracts for HS2—whether construction, design or, ultimately, rolling stock contracts—will be obliged to make a commitment to leave a lasting skills footprint. That means apprenticeship programmes and skills development, and I think the two high-speed college campuses that we have established in Birmingham and Doncaster will help to develop real expertise for the future.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Carillion. Carillion is a big UK construction business which is clearly going through a troubled time, and we all hope that it will pull through, because we want to see British business succeed. However, I can tell him that Carillion is part of a consortium in which all the organisations involved have committed to delivering their part of the contract, and I am confident that whatever the position in respect of Carillion, that consortium will deliver the results that we expect.

The hon. Gentleman talked about conflicts of interest and CH2M. As he is aware, it pulled out of that particular contract. I have every intention of ensuring that we have proper behaviour by companies in future; they will be unable to continue to work for us if they do not do the right thing.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the total cost of the project. Over the past 24 hours there have been some wild rumours about the cost, based on people who are not involved in the project putting a finger in the air. I simply remind the House that it is incredible, inconceivable and simply nonsense to suggest that HS2 will cost five times the amount of HS1 per mile. This project has a total cost attached of £55.7 billion. It is currently on time and on budget, and I expect it to stay that way. In this country we have experience of major projects, such as Crossrail and the Olympics, and we have been pretty good at delivering on time and on budget. I am sure that we will carry on doing so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about electrification of the M18 route. I can confirm that the route from Sheffield Midland north to Leeds will also be electrified to ensure that through services can run to Leeds. That link is also an important part of northern powerhouse rail. On parkways stations, work is continuing to look at the best options. With regard to the whole northern powerhouse rail project, I am waiting for Transport for the North to bring forward its proposals. With regard to trans-Pennine modernisation, nothing has changed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I regularly meet the combined authority, so I will happily discuss that issue with it. The creation of the major roads network and its bypass fund will, I hope, mean that in future we can unlock some of these schemes that will make such a difference to towns like Shipley around the country.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago today, the High Court gave the Secretary of State 14 days to make a decision over Southern rail’s claims that its appalling service was not its fault, but was all down to industrial action. With the record fine that has been imposed today, such nonsense has been totally blown out of the water. After months and months of the Secretary of State and his Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and blaming the unions, they have had to come clean and accept that Southern rail is simply not fit for purpose. Does the Secretary of State now accept that continuing to tolerate such ineptitude—expecting a rail service to rely on workers’ overtime, and compromising safety and accessibility—simply will not wash any longer, and that he has to call time on Govia Thameslink Railway?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman clearly still has not read the judgment from two weeks ago in this case—a case that we actually won. Let us be clear about what is being done today. For months I have said that the problems on this railway are not purely down to industrial action; there are other reasons. I am very clear, and so is Chris Gibb’s report, that the prime responsibility for the trouble on that network in the past few months lies with trade unions fighting the battles of 30 years ago, and still they get support from the Labour party. The reality is that the Labour party and the unions are colluding to bring trouble to passengers, and it should stop.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we proceed, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that his second question must be shorter? The right of Front Benchers to come in on topical questions is not sacrosanct. I have to cater to Back-Bench Members, and if Front Benchers take too long, I might reconsider the entitlement of Front Benchers to come in, trespassing on Back-Bench time. Please, a sentence. Be brief.

[Andy McDonald]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We are missing appendix 9 from the Gibb report. Can we see it, and will the Secretary of State tell us which claims he accepts and which he rejects?

[Chris Grayling]

Today’s penalty has been for partial non-performance of contracts. The House and the country would expect me to impose penalties where they are needed and I have not sought to do anything otherwise. The reality is that, this afternoon, we expect the result of a ballot for yet further strike action for a 23.8% pay rise and a deal that has already been accepted by the ASLEF union on the same routes for the same company. This politically motivated set of threats of action should stop, and the Labour party should stop supporting it.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

That is a perfect cue for what I was about to say. Knowing that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East is a reasonable and sensible man, and knowing that the shadow Secretary of State has some experience in this field, having debated these matters with me on more than one occasion, I cannot believe that a responsible Opposition would, in the light of the pledges I have made today, on the record, push these matters to a vote.

I will ask the committee—which is already there to do as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has asked and is already producing the annual report that the amendment requests—to deliver the very assurance that he has requested. Those experts—for that is what they are—submit their report to the Secretary of State within four months of the end of each financial year. However, I am going to go even further. I am determined that the hon. Gentleman will be so captivated, encouraged and illuminated—not surprised; I would not go that far, because he knows what a good bloke I am—by the offers that I have made that he really will not want to push this matter to a vote. I am going to go further. The committee, which does indeed publish an annual report, can, as necessary, report more frequently if circumstances require. Should it believe that it needed to do so because of this legislative change, we would, ironically, have less scrutiny, fewer reports and less analysis if we were to pass the amendment than is the case now.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hayes]

There are those on my side of the House who take a less generous view than I do of the Labour party. However, I know that what I have just described is not the intention of Her Majesty’s Opposition. They do not want to have less scrutiny, less analysis, less certainty or less clarity. They want the same degree of clarity that I seek. I am prepared to acknowledge that. However, the effect of their amendment might be to leave us in a worse position than we are in at present, and that surely cannot be right.