Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comments that other noble Lords have made regarding the importance of wearing face masks properly, and welcome the Minister saying that the Government’s aim is, wherever possible, to achieve voluntary compliance through engagement. Therefore, when will the Government have a consistent and clear campaign about when to wear face masks, based on social responsibility? At the moment, the communications are weak, confused and inconsistent, as has been shown by the comments of other noble Lords. I have travelled on public transport, and not everybody is wearing a mask or wearing it properly.

Secondly, when will the Government ensure that there is a presence on public transport encouraging and reinforcing the need to wear face masks properly, as other countries have done? And finally, will Ministers lead by example and wear face masks in public, making it crystal clear that these regulations apply to everyone in this country, because it is about our personal safety?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind Members that, at the beginning of the debate, the Chairman of Ways and Means asked for each Member to take up to 10 minutes? We have had six speakers and only one has responded to that plea. That was Alison McGovern; everybody else has spoken for longer. That means that there are Members in the Chamber who will not get to speak if others do not comply with the request to speak for no more than 10 minutes. It is very easy to tell 10 minutes on the clock—it is a nice round figure—so I ask Members to keep an eye on the clock and to speak for only 10 minutes. If not, we will have to have a time limit, which would be unfortunate, so please try to stick to 10 minutes.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—TfL assets (constraints on developments)—

“(1) Tfl, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which:

(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,

(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or

(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.

(2) Before TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, enters into a contract involving the development of land for other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers, it must carry out a public consultation seeking views on the impact of so doing.

(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) must include consultation with:

(a) local communities likely to be affected

(b) the Greater London Authority

(c) London boroughs

(d) the City of London

(e) relevant trade unions.”

Amendment 21, page 6, in schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add

“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public heath of such use.”

Amendment 22, in page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).

Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add

“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”

Amendment 24, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add

“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”

Amendment 25, in page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, after “machines”, insert

“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”

Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, leave out from the first “stations” to the end of the sub-paragraph.

Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).

Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).

Amendment 29, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).

[John McDonnell]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with particular regard to donations from trade unions to my constituency party. We are now in a long campaign period and although these donations are to my constituency party and are not personal donations, I wish to declare them. They will pay for leaflets in the election campaign bearing my photograph—that will probably cost me votes! I thought I had better declare those interests tonight.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of myself and colleagues who drafted amendments to the Bill, I would like to thank and congratulate the Clerk on the advice he provided to us throughout. He took our original ideas and my own poor drafts and turned them into the amendments that have been selected today.

I will happily curtail this debate right now if the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), representing the Bill’s promoters, can inform us whether Transport for London is willing to accept all the amendments. If it is, we will not need to spend any further time on the issue this evening. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is willing to advise us of TfL’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

These are highly technical matters. My hon. Friend has a record of getting his head round such matters, and we have had excellent briefing from the RMT and support from the petitioners in this. I am not surprised that other Members are not on top of the matter. In all fairness to those who could not be present today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), we should not pick on individual Members. However, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is holding back on his endorsement of a mayoral candidate—I am sure that all the candidates are waiting for it with bated breath.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[John McDonnell]

I never said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No, I know that the hon. Gentleman has not said anything. Let us take it as read that nobody in this Chamber will declare in which election camp they are. Can we now move on, as the hon. Gentleman is struggling to do, to the main point of his proposed new clause 1?

[John McDonnell]

I am very, very grateful for that protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me make my final general point about this group of amendments, because the next group contains some technical details in which we will need to involve ourselves. Decisions made by Transport for London may, if this Bill is enacted, result in sites being lost to private developers that could, at a later stage, be judged essential for future transport improvements. That is the view expressed to me by people working on the front line at London transport—I am talking about RMT and other union representatives. The cost of retrieving those sites, even through compulsory purchase powers and arrangements, would then fall on the fare payers, the council tax payers, London businesses and, eventually, the general taxpayers. If this Bill goes through unamended, it will not just create enormous financial risk but put at risk the long-term development of our transport infrastructure and reduce the flexibility of Transport for London to improve services in the long term.

Let me turn now to the detail of the individual clauses. I wish to indicate now that, at some stage, I would like to press new clause 1 to a vote. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North is concerned about a whole batch of amendments, and I believe that the House should also take a view on amendment 29.

In the context of the potential enormity of the scale of charging on TfL subsidiary assets—that is, the mortgaging of these assets—and the extent of the partnerships, limited or otherwise, it is important that Transport for London and, indeed, the Mayor are absolutely open about their intentions to enter into ventures for the development of these assets. That was clearly put to us time and again by the petitioners and others.

New clause 1 contains a come-clean list and tries to ensure that people are fully informed of the Mayor’s intentions. It requires Transport for London to publish a list of non-operational assets that it holds—I will come back to the definition of non-operational because it is a slippery one that could be used in many forms in the future if we do not tie it down very tightly—or that are in the hands of a subsidiary, which it regards as eligible for development, and to band them by value.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I disagree. I agree about the importance of new clause 1 requiring a list of assets, but I inserted the identification of their value by band because I am worried about the scale of the overall risk if, for example, as in the Bill, all or any of these assets can be used against borrowing—can be charged or mortgaged to secure borrowing. The scale of that risk is enormous. If we look at the scale of the loss of grant, which is the funding gap that Transport for London and the Mayor are trying to deal with, that will give us an idea of the scale of the use of TfL’s assets for borrowing purposes and development deal purposes, and the risk that Londoners could then face. It is enormous.

I have looked at Transport for London’s annual report and accounts. They are not easy reading. For 2013 the total amount of grant aid from central Government, excluding Crossrail, for general and capital grants was £3.2 billion. On page 140 of the annual report and accounts for 2013-14, table 9 shows the entitlement of grant income which identifies the non-ring-fenced grant from the Department for Transport to Transport for London, which is £632.8 million. Non-ring-fenced grant to fund capital from the Department for Transport is £1,578.4 million. So when the Minister talks about reducing the Department for Transport grant to Transport for London to zero, the magnitude of the sum that the Mayor and Transport for London want to raise from these deals with private developers or to borrow against these assets becomes clear. It is staggering. It is enormous—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a debate that is the subject of the second set of amendments, which is borrowing. I understand that the two arguments are linked, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he more he does that, the more it reflects on the second group.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because Transport for London is using sites to enter into a relationship with developers from which it can get an income stream, and linking that to a mortgage to cover borrowing as well, the two activities are integrally linked. I understand what Madam Deputy Speaker is saying and I will try to separate my remarks about them, but that is difficult because the same clauses cover both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I simply caution him that although one debate reflects on another, that may lead to repetition, which we want to avoid later in the evening, so please stay focused on the first group of amendments.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will abide by it, of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before you make your next intervention, Mr Slaughter, do you think you could make them a bit shorter? They are getting very long. It is obviously short-hand intervention except when it is a Slaughter intervention. Please be brief.

[Mr Slaughter]

Shorter, not Slaughter—I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is true that some of the partner organisations involved in the Earls Court development have been convicted of fraud, but not on the TfL-owned land and not including Capco, which is the major developer. It has many faults, but that is not one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

Question accordingly proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Minister, do you want to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will explain to the House what has happened before I take the point of order. The procedural motion that we just agreed to was that the motion be proposed, because the mover was on his feet. That means that the motion on new clause 1 has been proposed and the debate continues. It was not a closure motion, but what is called the Golding closure. The Minister needs to decide whether he would like to speak on new clause 1, because we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. Are there any takers?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Okay. This is very unusual, but I call Mr Corbyn on a point of order.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am unclear from the response you are getting from those on the Treasury Bench, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister intends to speak. Can you make that clear or ensure that it is made clear for the benefit of the House? After all, we are considering the disposal of a vast amount of public assets in this Bill and I would have thought that, at the very least, the Government would have a view on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair. I cannot make the Minister speak.

[George Galloway]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a zombie Parliament and this is a grand—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us not—[Interruption.] Mr Kawczynski, please! Just one moment. Can we deal with this point of order, make sure that every Member knows what they are doing and try to proceed with the business? I would like to hear what Mr Galloway’s point of order is.

[George Galloway]

This is a grand theft auto Bill concerning billions of pounds of public assets. A closure motion was moved after just over an hour, which the Opposition did not turn up for, except in the case of 14 people, and now the Minister will not even speak on the matter. What kind of Parliament is this? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Just one moment, Minister. That is not a point of order for me. Let us be clear that we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments in the group.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just one moment, Mr McDonnell. Please allow me to make sure that everybody understands; perhaps then there will be fewer points of order. We are on new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. The next speaker is the sponsor of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

I rise to respond to the very long and detailed speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate ends in 16 minutes, because the knife will fall at 9 o’clock, so it would be helpful if each Member spoke briefly to enable everyone to make their points. We will start voting at 9 o’clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a Bill for the long term. As I said on Second Reading, Governments of all persuasions neglect the long term. Perhaps that is only human—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Perhaps Members leaving the Chamber could do so quietly. Secretary of State, that means you as well—we want to hear your eloquent Minister move the Third Reading.

[Mr Hayes]

It is bewildering, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Members do not want to stay and hang on my every word. It is bizarre. I know you agree.

On Second Reading, we said the Government were determined to put in place a strategy, backed by statutory changes, that allowed us to invest in this nation’s future. I was about to say that it is only human nature to focus on the immediate, on the imminent. It is easy to forget that the present is an illusion, as now becomes then in an instant; it is the past that matters and the future. As I said a few moments ago when we were debating the Government amendments, it is easy for Governments to neglect infrastructure investment for just that reason. This Bill looks beyond short-term political expediency to a future of greater investment—a future of more jobs, more opportunities and more growth. This Bill improves the funding and management of our major roads, streamlining the planning process, particularly for major projects, and so facilitating investment. It also supports house building; introduces rights for communities to buy a stake in new, commercial renewable electricity schemes; boosts our energy security and economic growth by making the most of North sea oil and gas reserves; and facilitates shale gas and geothermal development. This is a bold Bill, introduced by a far-sighted Administration.

A few moments ago, we debated some of the measures we will introduce to act on the road investment strategy—the exciting strategy I was delighted to be part of, alongside the Secretary of State for Transport, who is here, adding glamour and insight to our consideration today. He was its architect and under his stewardship it has come to pass. This is the most exciting road investment strategy for a generation, and this Bill makes the statutory changes necessary to deliver it. We have committed to Highways England remaining in the public sector. Let me repeat that this is not about privatisation; it is about a public sector organisation fit for purpose. We will not diminish the fundamental accountability to parliamentarians, which I am so keen will allow us to gauge, monitor and, if necessary, alter things over time, but without compromising the essential role of the new body to deliver the plans we have set in motion.

In addition, as the House knows, we have amended the legislation further to ensure better integration between local and national networks through route strategies. As has been celebrated throughout the House this evening, we have also committed to setting and reporting upon a cycling and walking investment strategy, acknowledging the strategic importance of those things for the first time. We have had more tributes tonight than a ’60s pop band for that change. In total, this paradigm shift to a longer-term vision for transport infrastructure will give the construction industry the certainty and confidence it needs to invest in people and skills for the future. That clear vision, with the confidence it breeds and the investment it will bring, is crucial to the health and well-being of our nation.

In planning we have a number of measures designed to help get Britain building. The Bill makes changes to speed up the approval of nationally significant infrastructure projects and to the discharge of planning conditions that will ensure planning applicants can get on and build without unnecessary delay. The small changes in the Bill will have an important cumulative impact: they will send a clear message to investors and developers that the steps to deliver these transformational schemes are as simple, sensible and straightforward as possible. We have responded to concerns and shared the draft statutory instrument on deemed discharge in advance. Our Land Registry reforms will enable proper record keeping and modern digital efficiency, with the aim of making dealings with property quicker, cheaper and easier.

On zero-carbon homes, the “allowable solutions” approach is cost-effective and practical, and it has been welcomed by the Home Builders Federation, the UK Green Building Council and Federation of Master Builders. We have also introduced new legislation related to planning. The abolition of the Public Works Loans Board removes—

HS2 Funding Referendum Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

I assure the Minister that I have never had any poverty of ambition either for my constituency or my country in all the years I have served both. He is claiming that the costs have now come down on phase 1. Will he tell us the new cost-benefit ratio?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The Bill suggests that we pose this question in a referendum:

“Do you support the use of …taxpayers’ money to pay for the construction of the HS2 railway?”

We are now drifting well away from the subject of the referendum and the total costs. We are discussing not the individual costs, Minister and Mrs Gillan, but that principle. I am listening carefully to the Minister, who could never be accused of not being ambitious and confident. I would like him ambitiously and confidently to return to the central proposition of whether there should be a referendum.

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have been leading the Minister astray. However, my points have been in the interests of the taxpayers who would be consulted in the referendum. I do apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No apology is necessary; I am sure that nobody could lead the Minister astray even with the skills you show in representing your constituents, Mrs Gillan. Your points may be relevant, but we have been discussing only the minutiae and we need to return to the big picture.

[Mr Hayes]

If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have done me a great service as well as the House—and not for the first time. Until now your generosity in allowing me to range widely has moved me. I anticipated that you would want me to return to the core of the Bill, and I will do so without further delay.

The core of the Bill is the proposal that a project—in this case HS2, but it could be any large infrastructure project—should proceed only on the basis of a further reference to the British people through a referendum. I flatly disagree with that, and it will not be accepted by the Government.

I was about to come to the end of my introductory remarks, but I am now inclined to make them my concluding remarks, given your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am minded to draw, as I briefly did earlier, on Edmund Burke, who said in 1774:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Weigh those words—

“if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

In other words, the representative must not lack the confidence, vigour, energy and vision to make a case on behalf of his constituents for the common good and in the national interest. It has been the business of this House for more than 150 years to usher in some of the greatest projects that the world has ever seen. Those include the railways built by the Victorians, which have stood the test of time and still prove themselves as the veins and arteries of this country. In their day, the same criticisms were made.

I have the railways Acts of 1833 and 1837 with me here today. I have seen the Second Reading debates. I know the criticisms faced by those who proposed that first generation of great railways—those big infrastructure projects; they were very like the criticisms made in the House today. Those debates were very like those that we have enjoyed about whether these things represent a threat or an opportunity. Those politicians, those Victorian leaders and those Governments did not duck their responsibility—they did what Britain needed. Today we remain grateful for their decisions, because we still benefit from them.

Let me be clear: the west coast main line, which despite having been upgraded since those Victorian times, has at last reached its capacity. Even on moderate forecasts, that line—the nation’s key rail corridor—will be full by the mid-2020s, despite the £9 billion-worth of improvements in recent years. We cannot continue to make do and mend. We must make a bold decision worthy of our nation’s future, in the spirit of those great leaders of the past, as ambitious and confident for the next generation as they were for us. As parliamentarians, we are elected to serve not only the constituents that live now but those yet to come, for the decisions we take will affect them too.

We have a duty to support this kind of infrastructural investment—to make the difference, to shape the future, not to hesitate to do the right thing—and that is precisely what we will do. That is why I ask the House to reject the arguments, however well meant and well articulated, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and reject the Bill he has put before us.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his comments, may I say that it was pointed out by the Chair some time ago that 18 Members are still to speak and 10 minutes each would get us comfortably to the wind-ups? It seems that Members are ignoring the request for 10 minutes, which means that other colleagues will have their speeches curtailed. May I ask again that Members behave in a collegiate way, at least for today, and allow all their colleagues to speak in the debate? Mr Neill, you might like to look at the clock and see that you have been speaking for 12 minutes.

[Robert Neill]

I had almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply observe, out of courtesy, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) makes a fair point. Most of us would always prefer that the mitigation should take place on site, but where I slightly differ is in my view that there will be sites where that is not possible, and so the Government are right to introduce the flexibility.

In large planning areas—we have them in Greater London and we may be seeing them develop with the growth of joint authorities, which may take on more strategic planning powers elsewhere—it may be sensible for us to reflect on a means through which more of the investment can be captured within the local authority planning area, so as to give those communities an incentive to take on board the low-energy development that we want.

Cycling

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Document: Third Report from the Transport Select Committee, Session 2014-15, Cycling Safety, HC 286]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Before I call Ian Austin to move the motion, let me clarify that there will be an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions to this debate, which is heavily subscribed. I ask Mr Austin to take no longer than 15 minutes. I will prompt him, but I am sure it will not be necessary after 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on the clock? The 15 minutes are ticking by.

[Ian Austin]

May I ask how long I have left, as I have not been following that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I did offer to put that on the clock for the hon. Gentleman, but he declined that. He started at 12.58, and therefore has under a minute, but he has taken a lot of interventions. If he could take no more than another two minutes, we would be grateful.

[Ian Austin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is right about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He seems to believe that without the car culture, the high street would die, but when New York city introduced segregated bike lanes recently there were widespread predictions of economic hardship, yet trade rose by 24%, so on that, as on so much else, the Communities Secretary is completely wrong.

I will now draw my remarks to a conclusion in light of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With just a few months until the election we need a massive effort to make cycling a bigger political issue so we can get the parties committed to increasing the funding for cycling and have lower speed limits in urban areas, better enforcement of the law, children taught to ride at school, more segregated cycle lanes and cycling considered properly as part of the urban planning process.

We need everyone involved in cycling to write to MPs and candidates so we can get Britain cycling and change our country for good.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much, Mr Austin, for leaving more time for others to speak. I am sure they will be very grateful.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Before I move on to the detail of the motions before us, may I welcome the Minister back to his place? I know it has been a particularly busy couple of weeks in the Department for Transport, especially as Ministers from both parties race to catch up with Labour’s rail policies. First, we learned in The Times that the Liberal Democrats now apparently support a public sector operator, even though they have rushed through the privatisation of East Coast Trains in this Parliament. Then we heard the Chancellor say that rail fares would be capped at the retail prices index in January, just three weeks after the Transport Secretary said that the policy would result in

“more debt than our children and grandchildren could ever hope to repay.”

Last year, the Chancellor waited until Christmas to say there would be a freeze. This year, the very next day he took it away. Evening rail fares rose yesterday in the north by up to 162%—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have to say to the hon. Lady that one quip or joke is fine, but we are discussing motion No. 3 on the Order Paper and this is not a general debate. I therefore fear she might have to save her humour for another debate, and return to the motion please.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry not to be able to continue to amuse the House.

I am sure that while the Chancellor was busy with all his whatnots, Ministers were busy preparing these changes to the High-Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill this weekend so that it could be considered by the Bill Committee following the vote today. In April, the House endorsed the principle of building a new high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The case for introducing more capacity is clear. Passenger numbers have doubled over the past 20 years; the railways are carrying the same number of passengers as they did in the 1920s on a network that is now half the size. Anyone who believes in encouraging the use of rail freight, in supporting modal shift and in tackling road congestion should want to see that growth continue. However, most of our alignments were built to serve Victorian service patterns, and many of our civil structures date back to the 19th century.

The west coast main line, the vital rail artery connecting the north-west, the west midlands and London, is approaching the limits of its capacity. As many hon. Members will know, there are also growing capacity constraints on the east coast and midland main lines. This is no theoretical challenge. Our lack of capacity means that it is increasingly difficult to run more inter-city, freight and commuter services.

Network Rail is being asked to deliver substantial investment over the next five years, but Railtrack’s legacy on the west coast main line is a powerful warning against relying on incremental upgrades. De-scoped, over-budget and over-time, the west coast modernisation project cost the taxpayer £9 billion pounds and delivered only a fraction of the capacity we need, and, just a few years after completion, that extra capacity has been exhausted. I know from speaking to the local authorities and hon. Members whose constituencies are on the route that they never wish to relive that experience. Of course we support electrification programmes and other route improvements, but after the Norton Bridge area works are completed, the options for upgrading the west coast main line further will be limited.

A new approach is needed. The last Government developed the initial proposals for HS2, but after the election, some of the project’s momentum was sadly lost. Labour rightly drew attention to the project’s rising costs, and we went so far as to change the law to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money, through an amendment that stood in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Indeed, Baroness Kramer has described the changes, in another place, as putting in place

“a very vigorous reporting process under which the Government must report back annually and record any deviation from budget, and the consequences of that…which has put in place a very intense scrutiny process around the budget.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 949.]

Since his appointment, David Higgins has taken great strides to restore confidence in the project, and we welcome the renewed focus on connectivity and integration with the existing transport network, especially for phase 2 of the project. Of course there can be no room for complacency on costs. The phase 1 route of HS2 is currently being subjected to very close scrutiny, and it is inevitable that some changes will be made, both through the petitioning process and through agreements made directly with HS2 Ltd. The Minister estimated that those additional provisions would lead to a net saving, although he did not specify its exact level. Will he give us an estimate of the cost implications of the alterations announced today, and the net saving involved? I would be happy to take an intervention from him on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Not on this motion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to have a conversation with the hon. Lady outside the Chamber, but she will talk only about motion No. 3 from the Dispatch Box, please.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will take your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Overall, we want the railways to support regional development, connect isolated communities and help deliver the balanced economic growth that this country needs. We want to build 21st-century infrastructure in the midlands and the north, not just in London and the south-east, and we will continue to support HS2 as the necessary legislation, including these motions, progresses through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might consider making his observations in an Adjournment debate. They are not directly relevant to the two motions we are discussing today, as far as I am aware, but he has put them on the record.

[Frank Dobson]

Although I understand the concerns of people who are directly affected by the propositions that are not quite before us this afternoon, my principal concern is the application of the Standing Orders to what is proposed and likely to be proposed at Euston, which will be the biggest building and engineering project in Britain for many a long year. Its impact will be phenomenal and I believe that it is wholly inappropriate for the Government to try to use such a procedure to push through changes on that scale and with such an impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

David Higgins is apparently incapable of distinguishing between the land around the stations. The redevelopment at King’s Cross took place on useless, empty, brownfield railway land; the land on both sides of Euston station is not brownfield land to be rescued by some Australian missionary, but a place where people live, go about their business and send their children to school, and somewhere people go to old folks’ luncheon clubs. They want to continue to do that; they do not want the area levelled as part of some grandiose redevelopment scheme that everyone can think is wonderful. I speak as someone who has strongly supported redevelopment at Euston and was the first person to advocate using St Pancras station as the terminus for the channel tunnel link, so I do not need to take any lessons from anyone, but the same situation does not apply at Euston—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention, not a second speech—although it did sound a bit like one.

[Mr Goodwill]

I would be the last person in the world to try to argue that I know better than the right hon. Gentleman about the concerns and aspirations of the people in the area around Euston station. Indeed, when he and I met, we were joined by Sarah Hayward, the leader of Camden council—I have to admit that I am a little frightened of her—who set out similar concerns in no uncertain terms. Indeed, I am pleased that we have managed to secure social housing provision to replace some of the housing that will need to be demolished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fabricant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) might inadvertently have misled the House by saying that only one person might be concerned. In fact, many people are concerned. He may wish to put the record straight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

No, I am sure he does not wish to put the record straight. I do not think that was a point of order, or that it could possibly be the interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Indeed, I think it is a case of beard solidarity, as he is pointing out.

[Mr Goodwill]

I think we have digressed from the subject of the debate. Yes, there are concerned people, not least those who seek to replace my right hon. Friend as the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. No doubt a number will express their views during the selection process. I am pleased that we have a tunnel under that constituency.

I commend the motions to the House. I believe that the provisions will give the Committee the opportunity to listen to any additional petitions, and I am sure the House will be content to approve the motions.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order of 29 April 2014 (High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Carry-over)) be varied as follows:

After paragraph 10 of the Order insert–

“10A. The Order of the House of 26 June 2013 relating to electronic deposit of documents shall apply in respect of a Bill presented as mentioned in paragraph 2 or 4 as in respect of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill read for the first time in the current Session.”

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL: INSTRUCTION (NO. 2)

Ordered,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in:

(i) the parishes of the Little Missenden, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton, Preston Bissett and Turweston in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parish of Finmere in the County of Oxfordshire,

(iii) the parish of Chipping Warden and Edgcote in the County of Northamptonshire,

(iv) the parish of Little Packington in the County of Warwickshire,

(v) the parish of Berkswell in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and

(vi) the City of Birmingham;

(b) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:

(i) the parishes of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Fleet Marston, Steeple Claydon and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parish of Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire,

(iii) the parishes of Culworth and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire,

(iv) the parishes of Radbourne, Southam, Stoneleigh and Curdworth in the County of Warwickshire, and

(v) the City of Birmingham;

(c) amendments to accommodate the requirements of utility undertakers in:

(i) the parishes of Denham, Wendover, Ellesborough, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton and Grendon Underwood and the town of Aylesbury in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parishes of Offchurch, Burton Green, Little Packington, Coleshill, Curdworth, Wishaw and Moxhull and Middleton in the County of Warwickshire,

(iii) the parishes of Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, Weeford, Swinfen and Packington, Fradley and Streethay, Longdon, Kings Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire, and

(iv) the parish of Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and amendments for connected purposes;

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— (Mr Goodwill.)

Rural Bus Services

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say to the House that interventions are becoming speeches: they are becoming very long. Of course Members can speak if they wish, as long as what they say is on the subject of the debate, but I implore those who intervene to follow the normal rules of the House, under which an intervention must be short and must be relevant to the point that is currently being made.

[Richard Drax]

I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I too will be very brief.

For all the reasons that I have given, I ask the Minister to consider ring-fencing BSOG beyond 2017 to ensure that the remoter parts of our constituencies continue to be served. Ideally the Government would return BSOG to its earlier levels, although I do not suppose for a minute that that will happen: I suspect that it is wishful thinking, given our current financial circumstances.

Finally, may I ask the Government to consider a fairer way of sharing the financial burden of concessionary travel across the United Kingdom? I am thinking especially of counties such as Dorset, where tourism effectively penalises bus operators. As I said, Dorset is a major tourist attraction, but it suffers a great deal more than other counties that may not attract so many visitors. Our bus companies are, in effect, being paid a third of the price of a ticket.

The overall benefits of buses need hardly be rehearsed. Last year 5 billion journeys were made in the United Kingdom, a fifth of them by commuters. Those benefits, social and economic, are incontrovertible. Residents of rural areas spend between 20% and 30% more on transport than their city counterparts. The need is there, and in some cases it is desperate. Does the Minister not agree that all Governments of all colours have a duty to preserve some form of service—preferably, as many of my colleagues have suggested, a better-integrated service, but at least a service —to support those who live in rural areas? Rural bus services provide a genuine lifeline for many, and, in my humble opinion, we must do all that we can to protect them.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission, and I hope that of the Minister, as we have so much time—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I feel I should just explain to Members, as they may not be familiar with this, that the Minister’s permission is not necessary when we are on an Adjournment debate that has begun significantly before the moment of interruption. That is a matter for the Chair to judge. The hon. Lady can make a contribution in this debate. She does not have to seek the Minister’s permission. It might be helpful to remind Members of these arrangements, as we do not often start an Adjournment debate so early. I hope that is clear.

[Annette Brooke]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very helpful to have that clarified, and I apologise for my earlier lengthy interventions as I was not aware of that.

I am deeply concerned about cuts in rural bus services. I know that they are not just happening in Dorset as studies have shown that there have been cuts across the whole country. I therefore think that, as much as we want to make our decision making as local as possible, this is an issue on which an overview from the Government is needed, if only to make sure that best practice—some of which we have heard about tonight—is shared. That should be encouraged and seminars should be available to show what can be done.

I have a village that has at least 1,200—maybe 1,400—houses. That is quite a large village. Every single year the bus service is threatened. That creates a great deal of uncertainty for families and older people, who wonder whether they can remain there as this goes on year after year. It is a huge worry, and a great number of petitions are produced and eventually somebody comes up with some sort of solution. The current solution, which is thanks to the very many people, including councillors, who have worked hard to get something in the way of a solution, is a commercial service. Will that last the year? Will notice be served during the year? Nobody knows, and even though the bus service is there for some people, we do not have a service between 7 am and 9 am, which is not terribly helpful for people getting to work.

As I mentioned, I feel there must be some way in which we can have some longer-term planning. Of course there will have to be variations to take account of population movements, but there must be a certain basic level of service to which people are entitled. I am all in favour of the community services which many Members have mentioned and I think parish councils are able to take a great lead in these types of services. Very often it is nonsense to have a very large bus running on a certain route when there are not many passengers. The flexibility of community transport for some of the functions is all-important, but I would argue that there is a core service that we need for workers, students and apprentices so that they can access work or their studies, and so that everybody has a future.

By turning our backs on this problem, we are creating even more rural poverty. We are all aware of the rural poverty figures, and it is those families and young people who are truly deprived as they are not getting access to a lift in the car every day and at all times of the day, because sometimes that just cannot happen within families, whereas for others it can be much easier to give a lift into the local town so family members can socialise.

This is a crisis and I plead with the Minister to look at what is happening over the whole country. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Dorset, and the services my constituency shares with that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), which are constantly being cut away. Our mailbags are enormous, and they are full of letters from people who are very worried. People should be spared this anxiety and know that there is a certain minimum level of service to which they are entitled. A lot of work may need to be done on encouraging people to use the bus—that is acceptable and the strong message of “use it or lose it” can be given—but we need a continuity of service so that people can be confident enough to plan their lives around using the bus service. We are in a downward spiral the more we cut, as people find they cannot sustain their living styles with the current provision. I issue a plea to the Minister to say what leadership the Government can give to save our rural bus services and, at the same time, our rural communities.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my interests in freight transport issues.

A number of questions remain unanswered by these proposals, and it is pitiful that we have only five minutes to elaborate on them. Constituents and others have asked me whether there is a better way to spend £50 billion to £100 billion to ease capacity, which is a problem that is recognised across the House—by those in favour of HS2 as well as by those against it. Better connectivity between existing airports has been suggested as a better way to address the matter. Constituents have talked about improving signalling so that we can increase capacity on the west coast main line. Interestingly, someone mentioned the idea of reducing the number of first class coaches on some of the west coast main line trains. Indeed, we have also heard about the double-decking of trains, which is used extensively on the continent and would certainly boost capacity.

Dr Beeching’s name has not been heard in this Chamber today. Constituents have talked about rolling back some of the Beeching cuts and opening up some of the lines to increase connectivity. There has also been talk of having dedicated freight lines, and improving HS1, and removing this nonsense of having to travel all the way around London to get through the tunnel and into mainland Europe rather than the better idea of having a freight terminal north of London.

There is also this matter of a slight identity crisis. This proposal was always about developing a high-speed line—or, more accurately, a very high-speed line—but now it has morphed itself into a capacity issue, or possibly both. What has been missed time and again is that if we are to have a new high-speed line and are to free up capacity, we will have to cut services on the existing west coast main line. That brings me to the issue that has been raised by my hon. Friends. At the moment, a passenger can get on the train at Stoke-on-Trent and in one hour and 23 minutes, they can be in Euston. If we move to HS2, a passenger will have to travel for an hour to Birmingham and then get on a 40 or 50 minute train to Euston. How can one hour 50 minutes be better than one hour and 23 minutes? That will be the case. It is not an issue of timetabling. As the Government have said time and again, this is all about freeing up capacity on the west coast main line, and that means cutting existing services on that line.

In the moments I have left, I want to go back to this issue of the very high-speed line. The line we are talking about has gentler curves and lower gradients because it is being built to a much higher specification than the trains that will run on it, so that is an area in which savings can be found.

To jump ahead now, there are also issues relating to east-west connectivity and the KPMG report, which I raised in an intervention. The report said that the only city actively to lose out on these proposals would be Stoke-on-Trent. That brings me to the Stoke-on-Trent proposals, which are a very good response by the city council to the HS2 phase 2 consultation. I hope that Ministers have read them, because they were making lots of uncosted announcements about Crewe while the consultation was still going on. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) is sitting so close to his Front-Bench colleagues from the Transport Department.

Understandably, colleagues in Manchester want faster journey times, but the Stoke-on-Trent proposal would allow a faster service seven years earlier than the consultation proposals by using a combination of high-speed lines, as far as Stoke-on-Trent, and then classic compatibility on the existing lines into Manchester. Manchester would benefit seven years earlier than it would with the consultation proposals. Again, the proposals from Stoke-on-Trent would not require the expensive remodelling of the west coast main line junction point, which would be the case with the Crewe proposals. Indeed the Stoke-on-Trent proposals are costed, whereas the Crewe ones, which would require a new station two miles or so further south than Crewe, are not costed at all.

With just seconds left, let me say that there is great detail here about why the Stoke-on-Trent proposals would make so much more sense. We are talking about connecting in millions more people than the Crewe proposals. I am not convinced that they are the best way to spend the money—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), and my speech will echo much of his. Like him, I support High Speed 2 and not just because I am a Greater Manchester MP, although we will benefit from it substantially. I support it not just because our railways need the capacity, although they do. I support it not just out of a parochial desire to see more transport investment in the north, although I do not think being a parochial northerner is necessarily a bad thing. Much more than all of that, I support it because it is genuinely wonderful that, for once, we are choosing to solve a transport problem that we know is going to happen but has not happened yet. By that, I mean the looming capacity crunch on our railways. It is the polar opposite of how we usually approach transport issues. Secondly, I very much welcome the cross-party agreement on delivering a fundamental piece of infrastructure when, frankly, there are a great many reasons why a Conservative Government might not want to do that.

We simply have to acknowledge that the changes in how and where people live and work has driven a huge demand for regular and reliable train travel. Thirty years ago, there would have been enough jobs for almost everyone who lives in my constituency to work in my constituency, but as our economy has moved more towards services and the creative industries, those jobs are clustered more in the cities, so many more people need to commute—and these are jobs that are much more geographically mobile. Before the last election, I worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre. I would travel into Manchester every day from what is now my constituency, but it was relatively common at some point in the day to receive a message saying that I needed to go to Birmingham, London, Leeds or elsewhere to attend a meeting or a completion or something else.

Those economic changes are what lies behind the doubling of passenger numbers on the railways in the last decade. Looking at the numbers is genuinely startling: over the past 16 years, passenger journeys on inter-city trains have doubled to 128 million a year, and the number of all rail journeys has doubled, from 750 million a year to 1.5 billion. Of course, the UK’s population is predicted to grow by a further 11 million by 2035. I do not believe that it is the less-than-impressive performance of rail privatisation that has driven that growth. For once it seems we might be trying to provide the capacity we require in our transport network before the problem hits us. If only the Parliaments of the 1970s and ’80s had done the same with our airport capacity.

Some people are concerned that HS2 will actually suck prosperity out of the regions towards London, but that is illogical. If that were true, the best way to achieve regional prosperity would be to tear up our existing railways and motorways and promote some sort of regional autarky. That would be just as foolish and ill-conceived at regional level as it would be at national level.

I recognise that it is in the nature of a high-speed train line that some parts of the country take the burden of hosting it, while others, such as in my area, receive the benefits. I absolutely agree that there should be adequate compensation, particularly in London around Euston station, and there should be proper mitigation of the route where possible. I understand colleagues who need to represent the needs of their areas where local opinion is opposed to HS2. I do not think it credible, however, to argue for increased mitigation such as expensive tunnelling and then complain that the cost of the project has gone up; clearly, there is a balance between the two. I would say that the development of the British economy in a way that spreads prosperity, growth and opportunity more evenly around the United Kingdom, rather than focusing on the south-east is genuinely in everybody’s interests.

The price tag appears large, but Government investment in capital projects is about £50 billion each year, and the costs of HS2 will be spread over 20 years. Crucially, this is wealth-creating infrastructure. We should recognise, too, that there is a cost to not proceeding with it. There will be a cost to not creating the capacity we require on our railways. Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we had not regenerated London’s docklands. Think of all the private investment that followed it, which would not have occurred without it. There are many other examples—the original M1 motorway has already been mentioned in the debate.

Some hon. Members have claimed that investment will be diverted from other schemes towards HS2. Let me say that the only time we know that that has ever happened was when we tried to patch and mend the west coast main line. It cost billions and drained investment from every other project certainly in the north-west, but across the whole country, too. The destruction was, frankly, untenable.

For once, we have a far-sighted proposal with cross-party agreement and the political will to deliver it. We would all like to see our favoured amendments implemented. I would like construction to begin in the north. This Bill certainly deserves its Second Reading today, which I warmly—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.