Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend is actually in China, rather than delayed around Newark. I am happy to look into the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

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

Anyone who has ever driven between the great cities of Sheffield and Manchester will have undoubtedly been caught in congestion in the Longdendale area of my constituency. The first public inquiry into a solution took place in 1967, and in the seven years I have been the MP for the area I have raised the matter repeatedly, so I am pleased that the consultation on a bypass route is now open as part of the trans-Pennine upgrade programme. Will the Minister join my constituents in getting involved and getting the route sorted?

[Andrew Jones]

I have met the hon. Gentleman and been to see the particular problems in his area, and I agree that they are acute. I urge everybody to participate in the consultation. Let us try to get the problem finally solved.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I rise with gratitude and optimism regarding the presentation of this Bill to the House of Commons. The powers that the Bill will grant to Greater Manchester, and its effects on services in Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, Dukinfield and Longdendale, are sorely needed and long overdue. I am extremely grateful to the leaders of the 10 Greater Manchester councils for negotiating these powers. They include Sir Richard Leese in Manchester and Councillor Kieran Quinn in Tameside. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for honouring the deal struck by the former Chancellor with those leaders when the Greater Manchester devolution settlement was first agreed.

As we have already heard, some Conservative MPs will find this an unusual Government Bill—it is one to which they might be instinctively ideologically opposed. I want to set out why the powers are pragmatic, why they are needed and why, if we all want better local bus services, as we all do, the House should come together and pass the Bill.

I am a great believer in better transport. When I look at London, I see a labour market that is open for employment to more than a fifth of England’s population because the city’s transport system is so good, and I want that for the north as well. I argue regularly, often with some success, for major transport projects in my own constituency. The Mottram bypass—a £170 million road scheme—has already been agreed by the Government, the trans-Pennine rail electrification is under way, and there is a possibility of a trans-Pennine tunnel and perhaps HS3.

Those big projects are important, but anyone who knows anything about transport is aware that the vast majority of local public transport journeys are made by bus and that the present system just does not work outside London. Services are infrequent and expensive, there is poor signage, and the buses take cash rather than electronic payments. There is no joint ticketing between bus companies, let alone joint integrated ticketing between buses and trams. The big bus companies are sensitive to this, but the data are stark. After deregulation, bus use outside London plummeted, whereas in London, where deregulation was not pursued, it has soared. However good the intentions of bus companies might be, they cannot give the public what they need under the present system. Fares cannot be standardised, because that would breach competition law. They cannot be flat within a certain zone, for example, and joint ticketing just does not exist.

In addition, there is no public accountability or public certainty. I am sure that I am not the only elected representative in this Chamber who has experienced, either as an MP or a local councillor, a crucial local bus service being withdrawn or amended. When our constituents get in touch about such changes, the truth is that there is effectively nothing we can do about it. People need to be able to depend on those services. They need to know that they will be able to get to work from the place where they live. We should ask ourselves why local tram networks are so sought after and have such an impact on house and land prices, and one of the answers is that they offer transport certainty. No one worries that a tram will be withdrawn at short notice or following a six-week notification period, but the same is not true of local buses. The lack of meaningful competition means that even profitable bus routes get chopped up and amended to make them more profitable, which makes coherent transport planning impossible.

Travelling by bus is also expensive. The last time I got a bus in the morning from my home in Stalybridge to my constituency office in Hyde, the fare was about £3.60. That is for a journey of less than three miles, so the cost per mile is more than first-class rail travel and some flights to the Canary Islands. Unless we improve bus services outside London, I can honestly see technologies such as Uber killing off local public transport rather than private car use.

As a northerner, these next words are particularly painful for me to say, but I am extremely envious of London’s frankly superb bus network. It is good value, reliable and frequent. No cash is involved. Tickets are integrated across all forms of public transport. Buses are modern and accessible, with space for up to two pushchairs. For someone like me who has lots of children, there is even space for a double buggy. The system is easy to understand. In my first year as an MP, when I was new to London’s public transport, I came back from the Labour party conference in Brighton late on a Sunday night. My train arrived at Victoria station and, because I am fairly tight, I did not want to get a cab back to the parliamentary flat in Lambeth, so I set off walking. As I got adjacent to a bus stop, I saw a bus coming, and I could check the signage at the stop in a split second to see where the bus was going. I knew that I could get on it, I knew that I did not need cash or a ticket, and—we underestimate this point, because it is useful for not only people with disabilities or a visual impairment—I knew when to get off the bus because it told me where I was. If a stranger tried to do the same thing after arriving late into Manchester Piccadilly station, they would have no way of easily getting such information. Who knows where they could end up? If things went particularly badly, it could be as far away as Liverpool.

I know that London has a much higher population density and that it gets revenue from the congestion charge—we rejected such a charge in Manchester in what was another poor referendum experience for most of us—but London’s system is better and we should just try to copy it. London’s model clearly works and that is all I want for my constituency. A similar system is used by almost every other major European city. By allowing the new Mayor of Greater Manchester to have such powers—I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is taking part in the debate—the Bill will be a huge step forward for our public transport system. Once we have the basis for a better-run system, there will be a significant improvement in public consent for engineering works, bus priority lanes and priority junctions because people will see a system that works for them. I also think that passenger numbers will improve. Although bus companies are wary of such powers, they stand to gain a lot from these things happening.

I warmly back the Bill. I hope that it is taken forward through all its parliamentary stages with a pragmatic spirit that will address the real shortcomings of what we have now, and that it delivers the better bus services that my constituency and all other constituencies are crying out for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

We will work through the phasing of the introduction of the requirement, but we do not want to hold back from it. There is a slight cost implication for operators, but we think that that will be more than offset by the extra patronage they will secure if people are more able to use the buses. This is a business-generating approach, but we will treat the issues for the smaller operators with great sensitivity. We have taken a very deliberate approach, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will appreciate that it focuses on the information to be provided, not on any particular technology. We hope to consult on how to take this forward later in the year.

Many colleagues have welcomed the provisions on open data, and the Bill will ensure that passengers know how much their fares will cost and at what time to catch their bus. That important aspect of the Bill will benefit passengers right across England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), among others, rightly recognised. Personally, I think that it is one of the most exciting parts of the Bill.

By introducing new advanced ticketing schemes, the Bill ensures that new and existing developments in technology can be accommodated. That will enable multi-operator ticketing schemes to be introduced so that passengers can purchase tickets that will be accepted by different operators across scheme areas, and across different transport modes, such as rail or tram. Many colleagues have highlighted how complex catching buses can be—if multiple tickets need to be bought, for example—and we hope that the ticketing provisions will get rid of that problem.

One of the key proposals in the Bill is the new enhanced partnership. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) recognised, some partnerships are already working very effectively right across our country. That is true—we all know that—but more can be done. Providing the opportunity for improved co-operation between local authorities and bus operators will mean a more integrated transport network for urban and rural communities. Passengers, local communities, local businesses and the environment will benefit from improvements in bus services—from improvements in emission standards through to clearer ticketing options—while operators will be left with their commercial freedoms.

There has been a lot of discussion about bus franchising today. It is clear that there is a variety of views in the House, but I think that there is clear agreement that the existing powers under the quality contract scheme have not worked effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, our intention is that the Bill will give mayoral combined authorities the automatic choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas. I assure the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside, for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) that areas with directly elected Mayors can decide for themselves whether to take up the franchising powers in the Bill. There is no need for further reference to the Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As the Minister acknowledges, there is consensus in the House about making sure, as the Bill proceeds, that the powers are workable and effective. One important point is how pension liabilities will be affected if the franchise changes from one operator to another. Will the Minister, either on Report or in writing to interested Members, provide clarification about that?

[Andrew Jones]

I would be very happy to provide clarification. Throughout the development of the policies, we have been looking to protect workers who transfer in that way. We have put that right at the heart of our discussions in policy development, and I am happy to share that information with the hon. Gentleman and any other interested colleague.

Several hon. Members asked about this, so let me confirm once more that the decision about whether a case to proceed with franchising is compelling is entirely for the Mayor. We should perhaps thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for sharing the news that he is a mayoral candidate—I do not think anybody knew that until today.

Hon. Members have talked about the guidance for consultations. Some guidance for mayoral combined authorities on establishing a case for franchising has been published, but let me be clear that it is still the Mayor who will take the decision. Our guidance merely aims to assist mayoral combined authorities in establishing a well-evidenced case—that is an important point.

Several colleagues asked what such a case might comprise, so let me add a little detail. We have a number of criteria that we would expect authorities that may be able to apply for franchising powers to demonstrate: that the authority has a clear plan to make bus services better for passengers; that the authority covers an area that is sufficiently wide to make franchising work in practice; that the authority has the powers to make franchising a success, which might mean control over parking or planning policy; that the authority has sufficiently strong governance arrangements in place; and that the authority has the resources and funding to deliver franchising successfully. Those are some of the criteria we will consider when looking, case by case, at which authorities will be able to apply for and secure franchising.

HS2: North-west of England

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I have always been a supporter of greater investment in our railway network and, as someone who was on the HS2 Bill Committee, examining the Bill line-by-line, I remain convinced that bringing high-speed rail to the UK is essential. Therefore, it is a pleasure to be in this debate under your chairmanship today, Mr Owen.

We have got to secure greater capacity on our railway network—it really is as simple as that. Demand on our railways has exploded over recent years. Total passenger journeys have more than doubled—from 735 million in 1995 to 1.5 billion journeys in 2013. By 2026, peak demand is projected to hit 250% of capacity at Euston, 200% of capacity at Birmingham New Street and 175% of capacity at Manchester Piccadilly. The west coast main line will be full by 2024. During morning peak-time services, around 3,000 passengers arrive standing into London Euston or Birmingham each day, unable to get a seat despite paying the full fare. These are journeys not of 10 or 20 minutes but of up to two hours or more from Manchester. My wife once had to sit on the floor outside the toilet from London to Manchester when she was eight months pregnant, with a small toddler in tow—

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

With Jeremy?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I believe many people have experienced similar problems on the network. This is not what should be offered by a 21st century rail service in the fifth richest country in the world.

The increase in capacity offered by HS2 is warmly welcomed. I recognise that we should be open to conversations about how we might change the design, and different parts of the country will need to put their case for how they see or want to see the benefits manifest themselves in their areas. I myself wanted HS2 to begin construction in the north, from Manchester heading down. Many colleagues have made that case. A compelling case was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) on how it could be altered to improve the service for his area. It is important to say that the phase 1 plans in the hybrid Bill will be quite transformative, because separating out long-distance passenger traffic from freight and local services will allow more services across the board. When we talk about HS2, that should always be borne in mind—the benefits are not just from the new capacity of the HS2 line, but also from the additional benefits that come from freeing up the existing capacity and infrastructure.

I find the two most common complaints I hear about HS2 to be without foundation. The first is that HS2 will simply be a rich man’s railway. That is incoherent. The laws of supply and demand tell us that, if we do not build more capacity, prices will have to rise as an ever greater number of people chase a limited number of seats on the trains. I see HS2 being built as a way to keep fares down.

The second criticism that we often hear is that the new line should be built not with high-speed technology but with standard technology. Again, that does not add up. A new rail line built to traditional speeds would still incur about 90% of the costs of HS2 but offer only a fraction of the capacity that HS2 would provide. I believe this is the right project.

If we really want to make real the Government’s former rhetoric—I do not know whether it is still the policy—about the northern powerhouse and devolution, infrastructure and investment outside of London has got to come with it. We cannot attract the global companies and the long-term investment into the north-west and Yorkshire that we all want to see unless we can give people some certainty that we will address the chronic underinvestment in infrastructure in the regions outside London. I see HS2 as integral to that. It is about jobs, growth and connectivity, about better wages, better career paths and better homes. It is about bringing London and Manchester closer together and giving hard-pressed Londoners a chance to spend more time in the UK’s greatest city. The HS2 stations at Manchester airport and Manchester city centre are about making Greater Manchester a nexus for domestic, European and global travel, and I like the look of that a great deal.

[Jason McCartney]

I rise as a Yorkshire Member. This is relevant. I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about capacity. It is not about speed. Does he agree that, at a time when the Government are making big infrastructure decisions on Hinkley, Crossrail and airport expansion, it is really important that we win the hearts and minds in the north of England, by showing that this will not only benefit Leeds and Manchester? It will also benefit our towns—Chester, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Halifax and Burnley—and it will create quality jobs and apprenticeships in the north of our nation.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I endorse that wholeheartedly, and not just because we share a train line between our constituencies, allowing easy access between the two. This is about how the economy works outside of London and where the investment goes. It is about job opportunities, career paths and the lives that can radiate from that kind of investment.

We have never got this right as a country before. We never thought as we needed to about what to do when we saw the de-industrialisation of the ’80s and the changes in the way that people live and work in the areas those of us here represent. It needs this kind of ambition. People talk about the costs of these projects, but they always will be expensive in a country with our land values and distribution of population. It will be difficult, in cost terms, to deliver, but it is the right thing to do.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the north of England has suffered because 90% of capital expenditure on transport has gone to the south-east? To put his point very bluntly, should we not ensure that HS2 all the way to Leeds and Manchester is not behind Crossrail 2 in the queue for capital investment?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Unsurprisingly, I entirely endorse that message. This has to be the priority for the country, because it is a national project. Other very useful transport infrastructure projects do not have the same benefits for the whole of the country. When talking about projects of this kind, we, and the Front Benchers in particular, have got to scrutinise the costs. We have got to ensure that the powers and resources to deliver the projects are proportionate and that the people who are affected by the building of the line are taken into consideration. Above all, we have to be unequivocal that this country needs to make this kind of investment if we are to make our economy work better and improve our constituents’ lives and career paths. I welcome every opportunity to debate this project, but we must always talk about improving it and about the rightness of making this kind of infrastructure investment, because that is what our constituencies need and our constituents want.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.

Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.

Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled, with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.

New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.

In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2 a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.

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

The Minister is giving a pretty fair assessment of how he sees this proceeding. The new clause provides for a permissive power, meaning that it would simply be available going forward. The proposal has been mirrored in previous legislation, such as that dealing with Crossrail, so what is the Government’s objection to a permissive clause of this kind?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thought I just said that this power is already available and therefore this is a superfluous new clause and we do not need it to give us these powers. I very much doubt Opposition Members will agree with my view that nationalisation of the railways is not the way forward, so stuck as they seem to be in the 1970s, but I hope I may have provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.

We have given consideration to the other proposed new clauses and amendments. Although I understand the importance of some of the issues raised, I do not believe they belong in the Bill, as they have already been considered during the Select Committee process. To conclude, in order not to take up any more time than is necessary, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support the inclusion of new clause 19 and amendment 15, but I urge them to not to press the other proposals, which I do not believe are required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I rise to support the Bill and to commend both Front Benches for the cross-party support on this issue. It would have been easy for the Labour party to play this for short-term political advantage in the last Parliament or this one; that we have not done so is to our credit, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).

I am a former shadow Rail Minister and was a member of the Bill Committee, so I feel confident in saying that I am familiar with this issue. I say this: this country needs HS2. The key issue is capacity—it has always been about capacity. So often the conversation has been bogged down in arguments about journey times, but that misses the point. Of course, if it takes me less time to get from the House of Commons to Stalybridge station’s world-famous buffet bar, that is welcome, but it is more important that I can do so on a train with enough seats for everyone. With the west coast main line expected to be full by the middle of the next decade, it is vital that we act now. In fact, this is the one time I can think of when this country has acted on a major infrastructure problem before it has become acute. If only our predecessors had done the same with aviation capacity!

The railways are filling up and are crying out for this investment. The statistics speak for themselves. Each day, 3,000 passengers arrive at Euston or Birmingham standing up on trains, having been unable to get a seat. The benefit of HS2 will be to address that looming capacity crunch. More powerful than the statistics, however, are the experiences of passengers—especially those who have the unpleasant experience of being on a packed train leaving or coming into London. I can still vividly remember my wife phoning me after a particularly hellish journey from London to Manchester. Eight months pregnant, she was forced to spend the two-hour journey on the floor outside the toilet entertaining a two-year-old. That should not happen on a 21st-century railway network.

The common arguments against HS2 do not stack up. Spending the money on upgrading the existing line will cost more and give us less. Building a new line that is not high speed will cost nearly as much but give us a fraction of the capacity. Saying we should spend the money on local services rather than north-south improvements fails to understand that the way to improve local services is to free up that existing infrastructure by building a new line. As for the argument that this will be a railway only for the wealthy, we simply have to apply the laws of supply and demand. The guaranteed way to price people off the railway would be to do nothing, because if demand is rising and supply does not increase, prices will go up.

I have great ambitions for what HS2 can deliver for the north, and particularly Greater Manchester—jobs, growth, connectivity, better wages, better career paths and, of course, the opportunity for hard-pressed Londoners more easily to spend time in the UK’s real first city: Manchester. I commend the Bill to the House.

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Gillan. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) for joining me in my application.

I said in my application to the Backbench Business Committee that I am always willing to approach issues of industrial safety with an open mind and a willingness to consider the concerns of the workforce. The reason for that can be summed up in one word: asbestos. We have a terrible legacy of asbestos and mesothelioma in my constituency, and no one would wish to find themselves on the wrong side of history when it comes to a potentially serious health issue in the workplace. From the outset, I acknowledge that I understand and appreciate that aerotoxic syndrome is not yet a recognised medical condition, but it is something of considerable debate, hence our having this debate today.

I am not a medical professional, and I am not saying that it should be down to us as MPs to decide what is a recognised medical condition. However, aerotoxic syndrome has attracted a great deal of attention, both from passengers and, crucially, from those working in the airline industry, which is why it is right for us to have this debate today. Workers are worried, and we have a responsibility to treat the issue seriously. Everybody deserves to have confidence that the air they breathe in the workplace is clean and safe. Many people have got in touch with me since I secured the debate, and they are extremely grateful that their concerns are being raised in the House today. My aim is to present the concerns that have been raised and to make some requests of the Government, which I hope the Minister will listen to and accept.

I will now provide some background for those following the debate who may not be well versed in the topic. The key factor is the use of bleed air to provide a pressurised air supply to the cabin during flights. Bleed air is compressed air from the jet engines, and it is used by the vast majority of passenger aircraft in operation today. The problem arises when faults with engine seals cause seepage into the cockpit and cabin, which in turn can lead to contaminated fumes containing toxins being digested by people on board the plane. It is worrying that the long-term and short-term effects of exposure to contaminated air containing such toxins is not fully known, nor has enough work been done to establish the link between contaminated air and aerotoxic syndrome.

Aerotoxic syndrome affects the peripheral and central nervous systems and the brain. Symptoms include migraines, fatigue, difficulty thinking, numbness, aches and pains, breathing problems and digestive problems. Furthermore, there has been a significant rise in the number of cases, which simply cannot be ignored. It is significant that the Unite trade union tells me that it is currently acting on behalf of 61 individual cases. There is evidence pointing to aerotoxic syndrome being an illness to which cabin crew, not to mention passengers, may be exposed, and it must be treated seriously.

One of the aims of today’s debate is to raise the profile of cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome. Until recently I was not particularly aware of aerotoxic syndrome. Today’s debate has caught the attention of the national press and has brought the issue to wider prominence, which can only be a good thing. The issue came to my attention in a briefing for MPs organised by the Unite trade union, of which I am proud to declare myself a member. Unite has been doing some fantastic work on the issue and is doing exactly what a good trade union should do, which is representing the interests and concerns of the workforce. The Government’s attitude towards trade unions can often be quite negative, as evidenced by the Trade Union Bill, but they would be wrong to dismiss this issue raised by the trade unions. We should all agree that representation of the workforce to ensure a safe and healthy environment is a right for all working people.

The briefing was attended by the father of Matthew Bass, which struck a chord with me and other Members present. Matthew, known as Matt to his friends, was a British Airways flight attendant who sadly died in January 2014, having been in the job for almost a decade. He loved his job, and it was a shock to his friends and loved ones when he passed away. He was just 34 years of age. The cause of his death has not been established, but he kept himself fit and healthy. In the last six months of his life, he frequently complained of tiredness and occasionally suffered mild bouts of trembling. After his death, post-mortem tests ruled out Crohn’s disease but failed to establish an alternative cause of death. His family still have many questions, not least as to whether aerotoxic syndrome had some responsibility. My sympathies, and surely those of the whole House, are with Matt’s family and friends as they search for answers. We owe it to him and them to help to find those answers and to take the issue seriously.

Furthermore, the senior coroner for the county of Dorset wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority last year regarding his concerns about the death of British Airways pilot Richard Westgate. He wrote that organophosphate compounds, which are present in aircraft cabin air, were found in Mr Westgate’s system and presented a risk to health. Worryingly, there is no real-time monitoring to detect such compounds. The coroner also added that, in his opinion, there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is relevant to the organophosphate poisoning campaign run by the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group, with which I have worked on behalf of my constituent, a farmer, Stephen Forward. This is obviously a Department for Transport debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that the debate is equally relevant to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health and that we need the Government to be far more active in addressing these issues?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record. I was not aware of the DEFRA angle until she informed me of it, which further reinforces the case and people’s concerns. I would be particularly interested if the Minister addressed that point and the coroner’s letter regarding the British Airways pilot.

By raising this issue I am in no way seeking to do down the British aerospace industry, which I am sure is true of everyone here today. The aerospace industry is a vital part of the UK’s manufacturing output, and I am proud that that is particularly the case in north-west England—and long may that continue. I also have no desire to do down the UK’s successful aviation industry and this country’s world-class airports, which are another vital part of the UK economy. Like many Members present, I have a strong relationship with my local airport in Manchester.

Airlines have a duty of care to their staff, as do all workplaces, and I am sure they would want to reassure their staff on safety. I will be writing to the UK’s major airlines to find out exactly what they are doing on this issue. I dare say that pressure from the Government would strengthen that campaign. Many concerns have been raised by Unite and by cabin crew, and we have a duty of care to those people to reassure them and, if necessary, to protect them.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman says about the duty of care. I imagine that no one here would feel comfortable working in an environment where we and our customers may possibly be exposed to the risk of breathing in contaminated fumes.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for coming along to the debate and making that point. She is absolutely right. By addressing issues where concerns exist, it only strengthens an industry if it can reassure its workers and service users that their safety is guaranteed. I am sure we would all echo that point.

No one disputes that fume events, where toxins enter the cabin, occur. Estimates suggest that fume events happen at least once in every 2,000 flights. Given the number of flights in the UK every day, that weighs on the mind. It should be of great concern that no aircraft currently flying has any form of detection system fitted to warn crews when cabin air has become contaminated. Furthermore, there is a lack of training and crew awareness of the possible adverse consequences of contaminated air exposure in the cockpit and cabin. There are even examples of crews saying that they felt they became impaired or incapacitated in-flight as a direct consequence of exposure.

I have two requests that I would like the Minister to consider and to which I hope he will refer in his speech. First, I would like an independent inquiry to be set up to consider the risks and hazards associated with contaminated aircraft cabin air. Setting up an inquiry has a lot of support both from unions and cabin crew, and it is the right thing to do. I do not believe that adequate work has been done on the issue yet, and such work would answer a lot of questions. I seriously urge the Minister to consider making that happen. If not, I would appreciate a reply as to why it is not possible now.

Secondly, I would like appropriate cabin air monitoring and detection systems to be installed in aircraft that operate using bleed air. I am told that the technology exists to do that, and it seems to make sense to do so. The Government could consider legislation to make that happen or, at the very least, they could begin discussions with airlines and our European counterparts. Just as it is now commonplace for homes and workplaces to install simple carbon monoxide detectors to prevent tragic deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning, so we must ensure that it is the norm for aeroplanes to be fitted with devices that can detect air bleed events.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

This issue was brought to my attention not by Unite but by a constituent of mine, Alessia Iacovone, who was a colleague of Matt Bass. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not only about the desire for an explanation of why colleagues die; it is about the fact—this is precisely the point he made—that cabin crew working for BA and other airlines do not know at present whether or how frequently they are at risk, because there is no monitoring on board aircraft?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is exactly my perspective in bringing this debate. From what I have seen, there is enough concern out there to warrant a serious attempt to reassure people that their safety is secure. That can only be an asset to the UK aviation and aerospace industry.

To bring my remarks to a conclusion, I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for granting us the time to debate this issue. I thank my fellow sponsors, Unite for the help it has given me in my office and the many cabin crew workers who have assisted Unite and contacted me directly to bring the issue to greater prominence. I appreciate that aviation issues tend to lend themselves to international solutions and that the matter is being discussed in several other countries too. It is significant that the new Boeing Dreamliners do not operate the bleed air system, and I understand that that may eventually become the industry standard. In the meantime, however, a clear majority of aircraft still operate the bleed air system, so the issue will not go away.

Out of respect for the many thousands of cabin crew who work in this vital industry, let us take action to ensure that we know everything we can about cabin air safety. By arming ourselves with greater knowledge, we can better place ourselves to guarantee them the safe working conditions that we expect for all workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I am going to come on to the frequency of fume events. I think none of the toxicologists or other scientists involved in the projects consider that there is a risk in the normal background level of chemicals in an aircraft cabin. As I have said, those are similar to the levels found in any other setting in the UK. The fume events are what we need to look at, and I will be discussing a little more evidence that I have been given about the frequency of those events.

As a toxic mechanism could not be categorically ruled out as the cause of the symptoms, the Committee concluded that more research would be beneficial. It stated, however, that it would be necessary to balance the likelihood that the further research will usefully inform further management of the problem against the costs of undertaking the research. There are various aspects of the issue to take into consideration, including the results of the research that has been undertaken and the unpredictability and rarity of the fume events. I said I would have some information on that. The Civil Aviation Authority operates a mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme and, contrary to what we may have heard during the debate, the CAA is determined that every type of occurrence should be reported. Indeed, if airlines do not report instances, questions are asked about whether their culture is a good one.

When I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport we visited the CAA and were given a list of the sorts of reports that came forward, which included things that people might not see as relevant, such as both pilots eating the same sandwich. That would be an issue if there were a food poisoning incident. Even what might seem trivial and unimportant incidents must be reported, and there is a culture of reporting in the airline industry, not least in the case of fume events, which people are well aware of.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister is being very generous. How does the CAA envisage the compulsory reporting of incidents being carried out, when there is not the monitoring available to find out whether one has occurred or not?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am advised that if a fume event occurs it is apparent to everyone on the aircraft. The smell of the oil is absolutely apparent to people. As I mentioned, there is a culture of reporting in the CAA and the aviation industry—which, incidentally, we would like to spread to the health service, where near misses and potential accidents are often not reported. Its reporting culture ensures that the aviation industry is one of the safest in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Mr Hanson, thank you for the opportunity to summarise the debate. I reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for awarding us the time. I am extremely grateful for the support of colleagues in the debate, which has been well attended, particularly as we are in the second day of the Budget debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), who obviously stressed that this is a cross-party issue. I was remiss in my introduction not to specifically thank the hon. Member for Crawley for his existing parliamentary work on the topic. It was the first thing that I looked at when addressing the issue. That is much appreciated and I am grateful to be able to do that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for their support for the debate and for the points that they raised.

In addition, I thank the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I am, of course, grateful for the contributions of the Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who made an excellent speech, and, indeed, for the Minister’s response.

In my opening speech I said that I felt I had seen and heard enough to warrant the call for an inquiry into the issue. That view has only been strengthened by listening to the testimony and speeches of colleagues who have come along to the debate today. I wanted to bring a specific point to the Minister’s attention—and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield echoed this—which is that I have copies of the American Federal Aviation Administration’s presentations on the new Dreamliner, suggesting that cabin air was among the design considerations for the new 787. I would be happy to send those to the Minister, although I am sure he has the means to obtain them himself.

Notwithstanding the very good speech the Minister made presenting his position and the seriousness with which he took the issue, it seems unlikely that the controversy will diminish. I think it is reasonable to say that the studies he mentioned have not reassured many people working in the industry to date, and that must be our primary concern.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and the hon. Member for Horsham said, which was that, until we can rule out an adverse effect on health, it is reasonable to consider the precautionary principle. I certainly intend to continue my interest in the issue and to call for a full inquiry, and I urge hon. Members present to continue to do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Mr Speaker, I am glad that you share my excitement about the improvements in the rail networks. We have set up the £400 million Access for All scheme, which has been wisely and well spent. I am always happy to look at additional station improvements and to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss.

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

I rise to support the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). I have nine train stations in my constituency. Unfortunately, about half are inaccessible for people in wheelchairs or with prams. We were using Access for All to improve those stations. The funding has been cut in half. Are we really doing enough?

[Claire Perry]

I am afraid I dispute the statement that funding has been cut in half. The first phase of the programme—£400 million—was delivered, but I am always keen to look at cost-effective ways to improve access for disabled people and young mothers with buggies, for whom a flight of stairs, as I know, and dads like the hon. Gentleman with his daughter know, can be a real problem. I am happy to meet further to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Like my hon. Friend I have also visited the Vivarail facility, and there are fantastic innovations with rolling stock that is made of aluminium, is rust free, and could run for many more years. The East Midland franchise competition is coming up this summer, and the successful bidder will be required to bid based on the rolling stock they will provide. We expect them to be innovative and to consider each and every opportunity for rolling stock. We want to improve the rolling stock in my hon. Friend’s region.

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

The proposed trans-Pennine tunnel mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) would be transformative, not just for congestion in my constituency, but for our local economy. Yes it is ambitious, but I say that the north is worthy of that level of ambition. Will the Secretary of State reiterate what he has just said, and urge the Chancellor to show his support next week?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think I need to encourage the Chancellor on infrastructure spending. I have been incredibly successful in securing funding for infrastructure from the Chancellor, who certainly gets the importance of infrastructure investment, not least in the north. Indeed, it is his policy to pursue the northern powerhouse and to take forward transport for the north. That will have a transformative effect on transport between our northern cities and is something other parts of the country are looking to follow.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

I am not excusing previous Governments. There was under-investment in our railways—in the infrastructure and in the running of them—by both political parties. That is why I supported the privatisation in the early ’90s, which has been more than justified by the significant investment in the rail network and its infrastructure since then. If no one thinks that that has happened, they should look at the current control period: in the five-year control period 5, £38.5 billion will be spent investing in and improving the infrastructure of the railways. If we are to going to be slightly political, under the control period proposals, it will be nice to see about 850 extra miles of electrification. In the 13 years of the Labour Government, when they were investing more in the railways, there were only 10 miles of extra electrification on our rail network.

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

This will become a Second Reading debate on public ownership if we are not careful.

There is a great deal of heat in the debate, and not much light. I have no time for those who pretend that British Rail was somehow a high-performing publicly owned service. Clearly, there were huge problems, with political interference in the investment periods and all of that leading to the creation of short-term problems. One thing that I struggle with a great deal, however, when comparing rail with other privatised industries is that, as the right hon. Gentleman just said, investment in the railways still comes from the taxpayer and not the private sector, so the risk is not in the private sector, but in the public sector. We, as the people who use the railways and pay our taxes, are the ones who put in the investment. It is Government money, not private money, that will be invested in the control period, is it not?

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is partly right; some of the money is taxpayers’ money, but a significant proportion of what funds the £38 billion over the next five years will be paid by the rail operators to rent the track. There is also the ability for private money to be borrowed for investment, so no, it is not exclusively—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Gentleman nods his head in a negative way, but he is wrong. The investment of £38 billion in CP5 is not 100% taxpayers’ money. As I said, part of it is rent accrued from the rail operators, which pay to use the track.

Since privatisation, there has been a will and determination to invest, as well as the actual delivery of investment, to bring our railways up to scratch. The process is time-consuming, sadly, because of the problems arising from the earlier lack of investment. The other sad thing for rail users is that a lot of the investment that is badly needed to improve journey times and the reliability of the service is not seen immediately by them. New rolling stock is immediately seen by commuters and travellers, obviously, and they benefit from it, but when we improve and upgrade the track or the overhead cables on that part of the railway that is being electrified, users do not see the outcome of the investment in the same way. However, such investment is still critical to improving the performance of our railways. I am confident that that will continue.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned the east coast main line. I would be the first to accept that it was a well-run part of the network, but it was run under Directly Operated Railways because the last Labour Government rightly withdrew the franchise from the franchisee because there was dissatisfaction with the way it was operating the line. DOR is an emergency mechanism that was introduced in the legislation on privatising the railways because there is a legal requirement for the railways to provide a service all the time. To avoid a hiatus if there is a problem with the franchise, DOR will, for a fixed period of time only, step in to ensure continuity of service.

The hon. Gentleman kept talking about a state-run service. I suppose that DOR could, by definition, be called state-run, but it was not meant to run the line for ever. Even the Labour Transport Secretary who took the action made it plain at the time that there was not going to be a never-ending provision of service by DOR.

--- Later in debate ---

I am clear that we have a chance here to take control. That is what the public want. Whenever they are asked, they say they want it to go to a publicly owned railway. People do not want to go back to the days of mouldy cheese sandwiches and trains that rattle; they want a quality railway service, and we can have that if we apply the lessons we have learned and commit ourselves as a nation, whoever is Secretary of State for Transport, to maintain the level of support that the railways need and deserve.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I did not intend to speak, but as the debate is so interesting I cannot resist the chance to say a few things. In my experience, this debate always reflects pre-existing ideological positions and, frankly, does not often tend to delve into the intricacies of what is best for running a railway. That can be seen in all parts of the House of Commons whenever this debate comes up.

For Government Members there are some difficult facts about our present system that need to be addressed. The existing railway in the UK could not strictly be described as a privatised system. It is a hybrid system; the way that it was initially privatised secured that. A true privatised system would perhaps have been to bring back the Big Four railway companies and have them compete against each other, but that is not what we have at the moment.

There has to be acknowledgment that the system depends on public subsidy. A railway system for a country such as ours would always need a large amount of subsidy. The way that we do that now is to give the subsidy to Network Rail for the infrastructure. When we talk about the francishees paying premiums to the taxpayer, it is because we set the access charges according to the subsidy that we give. It is still a system that requires a net contribution from the taxpayer.

We also have to reflect on the fact that the existing hybrid system is as it is because the initial privatisation simply could not cope with the liabilities. Railtrack simply could not deliver on what was promised, even in the initial honeymoon period. There has to be a reflection that East Coast did work extremely well, even if it was initially intended for a limited period. In effect, many of our railway operations are publicly owned; they are just publicly owned by foreign Governments. Their subsidiary companies operate our system. In addition, our ticketing system is bizarre and complex, and much more expensive than in comparable European countries.

The Opposition and those who traditionally push a nationalised position have to reflect that British Rail was a poor service. We cannot look back to any golden era; I have never pretended that that existed. Equally, when we talk about East Coast we have to reflect that that operated within an overall system of incentives and penalties; that is the privatised operations system that we have.

Fundamentally, we have to recognise that franchises are contracts. Contracts can be good; they can be bad. Some of our initial franchise agreements on the railway were frankly abysmal in the system they operated. Others that have been let more recently have been more effective.

I will vote for the new clause for two reasons: integration and flexibility. Railway systems around the world tend to be more successful with a higher degree of integration between infrastructure and operations. Our existing system causes real problems, and many of the problems for passengers come from that lack of integration.

As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford said, flexibility is the key issue. He mentioned the additional operations from Scarborough being run by Virgin. Although that is welcome, flexibility is the crucial problem with the franchise system. Northern has had huge demand in terms of passenger numbers—it has happened in my constituency. The economy has fundamentally changed and there is huge demand for rail services—in many ways it is a golden era for the railway. However, the franchise agreement could not respond to that demand. It was let on the assumption of zero growth, and I would not have complaints about the people and the process for doing that. Yet we have all the problems of a bureaucratic, nationalised system and none of the attractions of a market system, which would respond to a price signal from the market. That is why we have problems of overcrowding, poor services and inability to meet demand.

There are many examples of successful, publicly-owned railways around the world. I recently got back from Hong Kong, which is not renowned as a socialist utopia—it is a dynamic, capitalist part of the world economy, with a publicly-owned railway. We can always look to examples from that country; indeed, we need to look around the world for best practice in running a railway. I am comfortable with the new clause, because we need to look at how best we can integrate our railway, to deliver the best deal for passengers. It should be permissive: we always need to leave the door open for a more integrated system, even if we have our existing hybrid system at the moment, which—based on the length of those franchise agreements—will be with us for a considerable time. This conversation needs to be focused more on the best way to run a railway and less on pre-existing ideological positions.

[Mr Goodwill]

The intention of the proposed new clause is to require passenger services operating on whole or part of the high speed line to be provided by a publicly-owned railway company, essentially nationalising HS2 train services. I regularly travel on the east coast main line—indeed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I travelled on the same train on Monday morning, on the Grand Central service, which was set up by buccaneering free market innovator Tom Clift, who is sadly no longer with us, and his team. That successful open-access operator has been taken over by Deutsche Bahn. It regularly tops the league in passenger satisfaction and punctuality. Most of the staff come from Sunderland and they are a model of the customer service that we expect on our railways.

The proposed clause would restrict the operating structure of HS2 at this early stage—essentially seeking to nationalise the HS2 rail service, which is against the broader principles of how successful rail services in the UK are currently operating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has done my job for me in making the case to reject this new clause.

With regard to the commercial operation of phase 1 of HS2, it is imperative that we keep our options open. With the line not due to open until 2026, decisions on the commercial model to operate HS2 are some time away. Whatever those decisions might be, they will be made to seek the best value. This is about delivering the best service at the best price for the passenger and the taxpayer, not pandering to outdated 1970s socialist dogma. The rail franchising system is designed to deliver benefits for passengers and taxpayers, which are realised through competition. Since privatisation the rail industry has been transformed, with passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years, from 750 million to around 1.6 billion. We believe that this remains the right approach overall in delivering the best value for the country and tax and fare payers.

The model that is being delivered in the UK is being emulated around Europe: for example, National Express is operating two franchises in Germany. As we have heard, the east coast main line is extending new services to Middlesbrough and Sunderland, and we have heard this week that a direct service to Scarborough is being considered. If one needed an image that encapsulates what is wrong with British Rail, it would be the pacer train, which was built by British Rail under a nationalised British Leyland. It was an infinitely unpopular train, and when this Government came to power we gave a pledge to phase it out.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister and I have had this exchange about the pacer train before. Has the longevity of the pacer train not been due in part to the fact that they are very cheap to run? Under the franchised model, it has been very hard to get rid of them, unless there has been an explicit overruling of the market system by Ministers. The private operations—the market—cannot get rid of the pacer trains; it has to be a political decision.

[Mr Goodwill]

The pacer train was the offspring of the position that a state-run railway can often find itself in, faced with other demands on public sector finances, not least the health service. Built on the cheap, with single-axle units without bogies and the correct suspension, the pacer trains were never going to be fit for purpose and were very unpopular. I am delighted that the Government are going to phase them out.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Surely the Minister recognises that he, or certainly his Secretary of State, has had explicitly to overrule the civil service—by ministerial direction—to get rid of the pacer trains. There has had to be an explicit political decision, because the market alone would not have got rid of it.

[Mr Goodwill]

Another factor in our ability to phase out the pacer is the fact that with new rolling stock coming in in so many areas, we have other rolling stock cascading down to replace the pacers. This is a direct result of the investment in the rolling stock. On the east coast main line we look forward very much to the IEP trains built by Hitachi in the north-east, which, I think, will be a phenomenal improvement to that service and free up rolling stock for some of the new services that will be provided on the non-electrified part of the network.

Section 24 of the Railways Act 1993 states that the appropriate designating authority—in the case of HS2, the Secretary of State—may by order grant exemption from designation of a service to require a franchise under section 23(1) of that Act. Therefore, if so decided, the HS2 service will not require a franchise. However, as I have already stressed, the commercial model to operate the HS2 infrastructure and train service are yet to be determined. To speculate, it may well involve some sort of transitional phase in the early years.

With the ability to exempt a service from the franchise requirement set out in the Railways Act 1993, I do not believe it is necessary to include the proposed new clause in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause, although I am not too optimistic that he will.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

As we have just heard, clause 48 refers to compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation. It enables the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order if he considers that the construction or operation of phase 1 of HS2 gives rise to an opportunity for regeneration or development of that land. The clause further enables the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order to acquire land to relocate all or part of an undertaking where, as a result of the exercise of powers under the Bill, the former site is no longer reasonably capable of being used for the undertaking. Subsection (4) provides that the normal process relating to compulsory orders is to apply.

The power is included in the Bill because Ministers wish to maximise the potential economic benefits from phase 1 of HS2 to ensure that local areas make the most of the opportunities that the railway will provide and to support relocation of businesses. It is considered that phase 1 of HS2 will give rise to significant opportunities to promote or facilitate regeneration development. However, assembling a coherent and developable site is an essential part of bringing forward such development and that would not be possible without the ability to have recourse to the powers of compulsory purchase.

As we say in information paper C11, we see this as a backstop power. It would normally be for local landowners and local authorities to come together to assemble land to bring forward regeneration. However, that may not be possible in some cases and regeneration opportunities could be lost. Ebbsfleet is a good example because development, although now under way, has been much delayed and such powers could have enabled more effective land assembly earlier.

Of course, all that does not mean that phase 1 of HS2 will be able to take land wherever it wants. All the measure does is enable the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory order when the construction or operation of phase 1 creates regeneration or development opportunities. Such an order would then need to go through the normal process, including a local inquiry, if there were objections.

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

I think I get the gist of what the Minister is saying. When a regeneration project, perhaps in Manchester or on another part of the line, is connected to the benefits that HS2 will bring, does he expect the normal process of land accumulation and scheme formation to occur? Is this measure a reserved power should there be a legal problem in assembling the site? “Backstop power” was the phrase he used. Does he envisage that the normal process would apply for regeneration work to occur in a local area?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The owners of land close to HS2 stations or areas where HS2 will have an economic benefit will be grasping such opportunities with both hands. The land will have achieved an uplift in value and the opportunities will be fantastic. Problems might include a particular landowner not wanting to co-operate or another acquisition problem. This is not just about land development, but about the relocation of businesses, and I can think of one or two such examples. We need to be sure that we can bring forward viable opportunities for businesses to be relocated, which will protect those particular jobs.

To promote a compulsory purchase order successfully, the Secretary of State would need to demonstrate three things. First, that a private purchase is not possible, so the land should be taken compulsorily. Secondly, that there is a reasonable prospect of the proposed development coming forward—in other words, that there is no obvious reason why planning permission would not be granted if has not been already. Thirdly, that there is a compelling public-interest need for the land. Taking an individual’s land interferes with their fundamental human rights, so it is only right that significant protections should be in place. The power does not change those protections at all. Although it extends beyond the construction period into operation, checks and balances will continue to be in place.

Although local authorities already have the power to make compulsory purchase orders, it does not always happen. The power is there to ensure that development does happen, and we would expect local authorities to take the opportunity to lead development in their areas. However, in certain circumstances local authorities might be unable to do so, either because regeneration opportunities straddle local authority boundaries or because a local authority does not have the specialist resource to undertake the compulsory purchase order process. In such circumstances, if development is not coming forward in a timeframe that maximises the opportunity, the Government will be able to use this power to accelerate the process, following consultation with the relevant local authority.

Of course, there are safeguards to protect landowners. Planning permission for any developments would need to be obtained in the usual way, and the compulsory purchase order would be made only if there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining planning permission and the compulsory acquisition could be justified as being in the public interest.

I turn to the amendments. The purpose of clause 48(1) is to ensure that the development and regeneration opportunities that HS2 presents are maximised in a timely manner. However, it is a backstop power. We expect local authorities or landowners to be able to capitalise on any opportunities. Indeed, that is already happening. For example, Birmingham City Council has already published its plans for the development of the Curzon Street area, and we support it on that. However, in the event that there are issues that impede development, such as effective land packaging, regeneration areas straddling different local authority boundaries and so on, we will have the ability to step in and to help the development progress. Any such developments that require land outside the Bill limits would require the promotion of a compulsory purchase order and, as I have explained, the rules are tightly drawn and must be adhered to.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Third sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I get the impression that we are now into territory that is not as consensual as it was, although we would all agree that it is important to get the best possible value when assets owned by the state are transferred to a buyer or via a share issue to the general public. It is absolutely right that if someone is selling off what some people might call the family silver they get a fair value, although that perhaps would not apply to the family gold under the Brown Government—in hindsight, that was not such a good deal.

I will not speculate too much on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, such as Royal Mail, but the process of privatisation has been successful. British Airways is now an international group. Engineering companies such as Rolls-Royce, and others such as BT and British Gas were all state owned, and all have gone on to become international companies unfettered by the restrictions that the state can often impose.

Clause 45 allows the Secretary of State to make schemes to transfer property rights and/or liabilities from HS2 to another person, which includes the Secretary of State. This power also allows the transfer to take place mid-delivery should it be required. Subsection (3) introduces schedule 30, which makes further provision about transfer schemes made under the clause.

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

I am listening to the Minister very carefully and I agree that there are many good examples of British industries that have performed very well in the private sector from the ‘70s and ‘80s. But he would surely separate that out conceptually from ensuring that a fair price for the taxpayer is raised at the initial point of issue of those shares in the private sector? If he reflects, he will admit that in various high-profile cases, particularly under this Government and the coalition Government, there was a feeling out there that state assets were undersold to increase the gain as quickly as possible for the people buying them. Those two issues are surely separate.

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, yes, often hindsight is a marvellous thing and markets move in different directions. It has always been the Government’s intention to ensure that we get best value, but also to ensure that share issues are taken up. There is a difficult balance between pitching a price at such a level that the shares are taken up and pitching a price that achieves best value. However, the track record of this Government shows that we have been stalwart custodians of the public purse. We have not wasted money. We have borne down on the deficit. We have got sound money back again in our economy and there is confidence around the world that we are sound managers of public finances. Indeed, in the Budget later this month, we will see more examples of that being delivered to the House.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (First sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Public Bill Committees

It is imperative that as we proceed through the Bill we do everything to make sure we delineate and specify the scope and range of the Bill. Anything that is to be done in future should have a process and a methodology to produce the greatest possible degree of openness and transparency. A report laid before Parliament and publication on the nominated undertaker’s website would achieve that. I trust that the Minister sees the logic of what we are proposing, but we will press the matter to a Division if it is not accepted.

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

I am delighted to be here in Committee. I have served on Bill Committees that have been likened to being on a long train journey in the same carriage with the same people for several weeks. However, at two weeks, this is a high-speed Committee.

I am a supporter of HS2 and have been a supporter of investment in our rail network for some time. HS2 is a very good project for my constituency and for Greater Manchester. That is widely recognised, and the justification is capacity. Even when a lot of publicity was initially given to the speed of the journey time, for me the project was always about capacity. The figures bear that out. Anyone who has caught a train at a particular time from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly will be familiar with our capacity problems. It is extremely clear when we look at the alternatives that patching the existing network or building a new line that is not a high-speed line will not meet the capacity need. The evidence is that we need a project such as this. We have support for the project from both sides of the House of Commons and we should proceed as soon as possible.

The consensus on the merits of the project means that we have to be particularly diligent in Committee to make sure that the powers granted to the Government in the Bill are proportionate and effective. As has been said, the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill went through an extremely good process and garnered more support for the project as it proceeded. I read clause 4, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough did, as a wide-ranging and permissive set of powers, particularly subsection (4). My reading of it makes it, in legal terms, the same as a compulsory purchase order. There will be understandable concerns that it will weaken accountability and the scrutiny that we gave the provision in the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill. We need to be careful that we do not lose some of the good will that we have garnered so far in this process. I hope that the Minister will make clear why the clause is drafted as widely as it is. Will he tell us the benefits of the clause over the reasonable amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough?

[Mr Goodwill]

As we have already discussed, clause 4 refers to powers to acquire land compulsorily. Compulsory powers are needed because they are a tried and tested method of delivering major infrastructure projects. We have provided safeguards for property owners that go beyond the statutory requirements under normal compulsory purchase rules. For example, we have introduced the voluntary purchase scheme for properties between 60 and 120 metres from the centre of the railway and the need-to-sell scheme for those who have suffered perceived blight due to the railway. The latter has no geographical limit.

The detail of the modifications is set out in the schedule. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about the importance of capacity. We need to be clear that when we talk about capacity, we are talking about people standing on trains. On most weekday mornings about 4,000 or 5,000 people are standing on trains into Euston and a smaller but still significant number are standing on trains into Birmingham New Street.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned clause 65(c). This does not seek to purchase land specifically for phase 2; it relates only to land within limits and does not give a general power to acquire land. While I am not against the flow of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I believe that we have already addressed his fears in the way we have drafted the Bill. Indeed, clause 4(1) contains the power to acquire all land required for the scheme. The Bill divides that land into different categories. The main category is land within the limits of deviation for the work set out in schedule 1. Other land needed for construction and ancillary purposes is specified and identified in schedules 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, together with the purpose for which that land is required. There is, therefore, no land within clause 4(1) that is not specifically authorised for compulsory purchase.