The Economy

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sajid Javid]

I will give way when I have made some progress.

We have turned the economy and the public finances around, and I am not prepared at all to throw away that hard work. The Queen’s Speech puts fiscal responsibility at the heart of our plans, with a clear commitment to ensuring that we keep control of borrowing and debt. I will set out our detailed plans in the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

I want to contrast our approach with that of Labour Front Benchers, who have demanded higher borrowing and higher taxes at every Budget and Queen’s Speech for the past 40-odd years. Their tax rises would hit hard-working families, and they will not be clear on that. Their tax avoidance plans contain a £2.5 billion mistake, and that is according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Their spending promises would cost far more than they say. Their manifesto contained £1 trillion of spending commitments. For the shadow Chancellor’s benefit, let me say that that is £1,000 billion of spending commitments. They have not costed expensive promises such as renationalisation, and they have made dozens of unfunded promises since the last election. And you know what is even worse than that? The shadow Chancellor has admitted that the huge borrowing plans that he has are just “the first step”—he means the first step back to the road of ruin.

[Matt Rodda]

I wonder whether the Chancellor remembers the following statement, which is from his own website; it is still there today:

“The only thing leaving the EU guarantees is a lost decade for British business”.

Perhaps he would like to comment on that.

[Sajid Javid]

I will comment on that because, probably like the hon. Gentleman, I campaigned for remain, and I lost the argument; but I am a democrat, unlike the hon. Gentleman.

HMRC Impact Analysis: Customs

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that any job losses are deeply regrettable, and I am sure she will be delighted that, in aggregate, this country has proven to be astonishingly adept at creating good new jobs over the past 10 years. With this impact assessment, I think I am right in saying that the detail is not available that allows for a constituency-by-constituency or even regional assessment, which is why it has been done in aggregate, based on the number of declarations that are expected and the cost per declaration. Of course, it may be possible for other entities to take the number of businesses that were expected to fill out declarations and produce impact assessments for the specific areas that they are concerned about.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is quite clear from the Minister’s answers that the Government are willing to place enormous additional burdens on business. Given everything that he has written and said in the past, how can he possibly justify that approach?

[Jesse Norman]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the burdens that he claims will be placed by this can not only be mitigated by voting for a deal but will be as nothing compared with the burdens that will be imposed on the UK economy by a Labour Government dedicated to nationalising, without full compensation, a swathe of industries and expropriating a large number of people by transferring property into the hands of employees. I think those things will impose much greater costs on the economy than anything that has been contemplated today.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill (Second sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome back to the Committee. I remind colleagues to turn electronic devices to silent.

New Clause 1

Report on trees and woodland habitats

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on—

(a) the likely effects of the scheduled works on trees and woodland habitats;

(b) steps to be taken to minimise or mitigate those effects.

(2) The report must include specific consideration of—

(a) ancient trees, including those on construction sites which will not be designated for long term railway use;

(b) tree felling, with particular reference to birdlife nesting and breeding seasons;

(c) wildlife habitat corridors; and

(d) woodland, including ancient woodland.

(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.’—(Matt Rodda.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The new clauses proposes that the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the likely effects of the scheduled works on trees and woodland habitats and steps to be taken to minimise or mitigate those effects. The report must include specific consideration of ancient trees, including those on construction sites—

[The Chair]

Order. It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman to know that although he is very welcome to read out the new clause, he does not need to do so as it is on the amendment paper. If he wishes to do so to make his point, he is more than welcome to.

[Matt Rodda]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Davies. If I may, I will finish reading the new clause, but I will not read out the subsequent new clauses to the Committee, for the sake of brevity.

The report must include specific consideration of tree felling, with particular reference to bird nesting and breeding seasons; of wildlife habitat corridors; and of woodland, including ancient woodland. The report must be laid before Parliament within one year of the Act being passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Reading East is stepping in for his colleague, and valiantly so. The idea is to make your speech when moving the new clause, but all is not lost—if he wants to speak to the new clause now, he is very welcome to do so.

[Matt Rodda]

That is very generous and gracious of you, Mr Davies. I am sorry if I misunderstood the process while I am standing in for my colleague.

I appreciate that the Minister has taken some time to come back with the Government’s response, but it is worth highlighting some of those points in a little more detail because of the importance of wildlife. As we discussed this morning, it would be somewhat ironic if a positive and pro-environmental measure such as high-speed rail was inadvertently to damage habitats and the Government were unable to respond fully to those concerns.

From the previous stages of HS2, a number of issues have caused serious concern to residents, communities and the public more widely. Although the Bill itself clearly shows a response to some of those elements, it is not as comprehensive as it needs to be. That is why I am seeking a reassessment by the Government through the new clauses.

New clause 1 would require the Government to produce a report on how any actions by HS2 will impact on the natural environment—wildlife, birds and trees. The report could be laid before the Select Committee considering petitions on the potential threats to the natural environment. We have scrutinised the Bill to see whether there is a lack of clarity, and we have tabled the new clause to address that.

By bringing forth a report to be laid before Parliament, the Government would ensure greater focus and scrutiny of the HS2 project. The new clause calls for the report to be laid within a year of the passage of the Bill, which also means there is time for the Government to develop a greater scrutiny role over HS2 Ltd, which is obviously a separate company, and to ensure that it changes its practices and is prepared to give an answer to the House if hon. Members decide that it should do so.

Labour Members have serious concern about the impact of HS2 on the natural environment, as we have discussed a number of times, including this morning, whether on birds nesting, animals burrowing, or indeed the trees themselves. I know from previous debates and questions, which have been asked by Members from all parties, that this issue has been reported on a number of times. However, the approach, behaviour and actions of HS2 Ltd to date have demonstrated why it was crucial to table the new clause.

There have also been reports that HS2 Ltd is using the practice of netting bushes—it has been widely covered in the media in recent months—which clearly can cause real distress to animals, and especially birds, which breach the netting but can then become trapped. We call for the practice to cease. The company should instead seek to remove bushes and hedgerows at a time of year when birds are not nesting—this obviously relates to existing legislation and good practice. There is plenty of time in advance of these major works to reschedule them, to be far more sensitive to the rhythms of nature and, as a result, to do more on this front.

Likewise, it has been drawn to our attention that trees have been felled in the nesting season during the course of the programme. That is completely inappropriate, as it risks eggs, and indeed whole nests, falling to the ground. It is therefore vital that there are further restrictions on HS2, such that it schedules this work outside the nesting season. Although the Bill highlights that HS2 Ltd should follow the best examples of working with nature, including management of trees, in the first phase of the project the company has failed to live up to that. There are examples of felling taking place in the nesting season, and this practice should be halted immediately for phase 1 of the route. However, we also believe that the practice should change for phases 2a and 2b.

We believe that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that they take a more environmentally friendly approach to the project, especially in areas where the project is failing. The Government state that they will simply mitigate habitat loss with the plantation of additional new habitat in future, but that does not go far enough. On a number of occasions the Government have pledged to leave the environment better than they found it, as we all know. However, with destructive and unnecessary actions, such as netting and felling, especially at the wrong time of year, the Government’s pledge is obviously just empty rhetoric.

Labour Members know that conservation is very important to the public. It has an impact on farming and on ensuring that the richness of nature can be enjoyed by all, and we are strongly committed to improving the environment. In that regard, we believe that the Government have to be far more accountable for the actions of HS2 Ltd, especially as the company is at the early stages of a very large programme that will affect significant parts of the country.

By ensuring that the Government must produce a report, the new clause also seeks to provide the Government with a responsibility to set out how they will mitigate the actions that are being taken. I will provide a few examples. Although not common practice, can trees be excavated and moved, especially with a focus on the 27 veteran trees that line the phase 2a route? What wildlife corridors will be built during the construction of HS2 to allow small mammals, other animals and birds to move away from the construction zone? The Bill is silent on that, yet we know that wildlife, whether birds or animals, needs clear corridors that support the wider existence of species. To disrupt those corridors without taking steps to provide alternatives is negligent, yet the Bill is silent on that.

By calling for the Government to be accountable to Parliament on these issues, we will build confidence among MPs and residents that the Government are undertaking due diligence on these important factors, which, I am afraid to say, they have failed to demonstrate to date. It is worth adding that if our new clause is agreed, HS2 Ltd would be more accountable to the House, which I am sure we would all wish to see.

Section (2)(a) focuses on ancient woodlands, especially the points that will not form the actual HS2 route but will be used during construction, as we discussed this morning. The new clause calls for additional consideration to be made to ensure that trees are protected in these areas, since there is more latitude to avoid felling so many trees and removing so much of the natural environment. We believe that the Government, with HS2 Ltd, should ensure that any construction route and the site itself minimises the destruction of natural habitats and, where alternatives can be found, they must be found, including reducing the size of the construction sites to an absolute minimum.

I am sure that the Minister will understand Labour’s concerns, which have also been stressed during the petitions stage of the Bill. Although I know that different tunnelling arrangements were scrutinised at the petitions stage—Labour would seriously consider this, especially around Whitmore—we understand that the majority on the Select Committee determined that the costs would be prohibitive and therefore there is already a far greater cost to our natural environment to be paid. This was agreed at petitions stage.

Labour would approach this project differently. However, I am sure that the Minister will understand why I have brought forward the new clause and why we believe, sadly, that she is not doing enough to mitigate the harm that the Government’s approach to HS2 will cause to the natural environment.

[Ms Ghani]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s comments about ensuring that we have complete confidence in the project along its entire route. I agree that wildlife is important, as are trees and ancient trees. However, all his points are covered by the environmental statement, which, at 11,000 pages, is incredibly extensive. That is why I do not believe that we need another layer of reporting on a statement that is already out there. The environmental statement has been scrutinised independently and by the Select Committee, which has made its own decisions.

We have committed in our response to the Select Committee’s third special report that, in order to protect birds, we will provide bird diverters on new power lines near Parkgate, working with the West Midlands Bird Club. We continue to work with the environmental roundtable on these important issues. The Bill has taken into account the effect on wildlife, especially rare and protected species. A balance has to be struck between taking individual landowner’s property and providing land for mitigation.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that all the issues he has raised are already in the 11,000-page document. For that reason, I believe that he should withdraw the new clause.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a detailed reply and for the work on the bird diverters, which is a step forward. I appreciate that some work has been done on this already. However, on the points that we have made and on the new clause, I would like to press this to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda]

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

Opposition Members believe that there has been a serious modal shift in how we use freight in developments. We continually hear the Government talk about modal shift in transport, but there is no mention in the Bill of how to ensure that. For Committee members who are not familiar with this transport terminology, modal shift means a shift from one mode of transport to another, such as from road to rail. Labour does not stand in the way of development but seeks to mitigate its impact, which is why we tabled the new clause.

Rail can be the main driver of change. In the light of all construction sites’ heavy dependency on heavy goods vehicles, and from discussions that my colleagues and I have had with Network Rail and others, we know that rail freight can be better utilised, and it is important to demonstrate that on such an important infrastructure project as HS2. Rail lines will be laid, and it is important, wherever possible throughout the Bill, to utilise rail for the movement of aggregates and materials. We are talking about a major rail infrastructure project, so the logic that rail should supply aggregates and minerals should certainly be considered. There will clearly be no lines at the commencement of the project, but over time the opportunity will arise.

Likewise, it is more sustainable for HS2 to source and move aggregates and material as far as possible by rail, and to use HGVs only for the final part of a journey. Equally, sourcing materials and aggregates as close as possible to the development site would also reduce the expected carbon emissions. Such an approach would also reduce congestion and lessen the impact on air pollution in the local vicinity. That demonstrates good practice in what can be achieved on such a major infrastructure project and can form the basis for a change of approach by the Government when undertaking such major works across the country.

Likewise, materials should remain on the site, or as close as possible to the site, to minimise transport movements. Laying a report before Parliament within a year of the Bill’s passage would provide ample opportunity for HS2 Ltd to work with the Government to establish better construction practices.

[Ms Ghani]

We recognise the impact that numerous road traffic movements have on local communities. As such, the promoter has proposed numerous highway works and temporary construction haul routes to alleviate that number. The Secretary of State has also given commitments relating to the implementation of these alleviating works and to restricting the use of certain roads for HGV movements. Equally, the strategies for reusing materials to reduce the volume of aggregate necessary to be moved are under continual review. The promoter published its borrow pit review, which outlines the severe reduction in necessary vehicle movements that backfilling and reusing of spoil takes off the road network.

The new clause is not needed. The environmental statement assumes and allows for the delivery of materials, plant and other equipment to construction compounds on the traditional rail network. It contains the working assumption that:

“Wherever reasonably practicable, the rail network will be used in preference to public roads.”

All traffic modelling has included that assumption. In this way, the environmental statement reports to Parliament our preference for transporting the goods, as outlined in the new clause, by rail rather than road. We have already assessed that there is a benefit in transporting all this material by rail, rather than road, and will seek to do that as far as possible. As with the previous new clause, virtually nothing will have changed between the publication of the environmental information and one year post Royal Assent. That is precisely what we have done on the borrow pits of phase 2a, to reduce the distance that aggregates have to travel. We have also put forward a proposed line of route to further reduce lorry movements. The new clause is therefore not needed and should be withdrawn.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting that commitment on the sourcing of aggregates. That is a helpful step forward, given the significant volumes of aggregates that are needed. The Government have once again talked a good game, but we would prefer to have further scrutiny of this important issue. I therefore wish to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda]

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

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who attended the petitions hearings of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill as members of that Committee, and who shared with our shadow Transport team their concerns about how this route will affect active travel. As shadow Minister with responsibility for active travel—walking and cycling—I share those concerns, which is why we tabled the new clause.

It is inevitable that major construction projects will cause an element of disruption to journeys, and inconvenience to cyclists and, to an even greater extent, walkers, but diversions can have a real impact. If a car has to divert for a few miles to cross the HS2 construction site or the final HS2 line, that will add to its journey and its carbon footprint. If a cyclist does the same, it could add considerable time to their journey. It is worse for pedestrians; it could result in hours of extra time.

We tabled the new clause because we need to encourage active travel much more in this country; as was said, the Government are not meeting their targets for it. They have far more to do in this area. The new clause asks the Government to consider the factors further, and to report to Parliament within a year of the Bill’s passing into law. Subsection (2) highlights the need to have regard to not only routes that traverse the rail line, but those that run adjacent to it, which could also be affected. The Government missed a significant opportunity in failing to create a cycle path along the HS2 route. In many continental countries, major roads and rail lines have cycle paths parallel to them; once there is access to the land, it is an obvious choice to make.

Cycle routes are increasingly popular; they are the most direct route, away from car and lorry use. A segregated north-south cycle route adjacent to the line, but obviously some distance away from the line’s boundary, would have been an important legacy of the HS2 project. There would have been very little extra cost, in the light of the scale of this enormous construction project. Again, we ask the Government to show more concern for walkers and cyclists by considering the issue and reporting back to Parliament within a year of the enactment of the Bill.

[Ms Ghani]

Contrary to what the new clause suggests, I do not agree that we have not looked into or provided for non-motorised use. Let me give the hon. Gentleman some examples. On the particular part of HS2 that we are here to scrutinise, we have offered assurances to Cycling UK that some footpaths will be made more suitable for people who cycle or ride horses, so that local users of those public rights of way can seek, through the appropriate local planning process, to have those upgraded routes redesigned.

Yesterday, in response to the Transport Committee’s third special report on the Bill, we committed to working with Colwich parish council as it seeks funding from the recently announced £21 million Sustrans fund, and from funds that I announced last year. Phase 2a’s own £5 million community engagement fund and business and local economy fund are also available to improve towpaths, which will improve local walking and cycling facilities. I also announced the £6.5 million road safety fund, which provides even more money to support local initiatives for cycling and walking and for other non-motorised users.

Once again, I refer back to the environmental statement, because it covers most of the points raised. The report focuses on the impact of construction operations on cycling and walking. We have looked into the potential disruption in great detail in every area where it will occur along the phase 2a route. We have reported the likely effects and the proposed steps to mitigate those effects in the environmental statement. I refer the hon. Gentleman in particular to the community area report in that statement, which goes into detail on each part of the route. In that assessment, we included the likely effects on other non-motorised users of public rights of ways, such as horse riders, as is appropriate for works in a rural area, and steps for their mitigation.

There is a report, mitigations are taking place and there is engagement with local communities. The new clause is not needed and should be withdrawn.

[Matt Rodda]

I appreciate the Minister coming back on this issue. However, yet again the scale of ambition is very limited, and there is arguably far too little mitigation. A cycle path along the length of the HS2 route would have been a huge enhancement for the country at a time when we are failing to meet our cycling and walking targets; not having that shows a lack of ambition. I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda]

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

Having listened to the concerns of the public, Labour proposes new clause 4. It was evident at the petitions stage of the Bill that along sections of the route HS2 would cause great disruption for residents, but there has been deep dissatisfaction with the way that HS2 Ltd has handled compensation. There have rightly been changes in practice to ensure that landowners and freeholders receive compensation for the loss of their homes, but the issue has not been completely resolved. The Government have provided compensation for individuals, but the new clause addresses where they have fallen short. Its purpose is to ensure that compensation is paid to tenants such as tenant farmers, who often live in close proximity to their place of work, and who will now have responsibility for finding new accommodation, and are more than likely to face longer journey times to work, and residents in urban settings who will lose their home as a result of HS2.

We cannot ignore the fact that across the UK, there are many private rental properties, which many people make their home for a significant time; like social housing tenants, they often plan for it to remain their home for their whole life. There are tenants in other forms of accommodation, too, such as houseboats, which cannot necessarily move, permanent caravans and mobile home parks. Some of those who rent comprise the poorest in our society. Uprooting them and causing them to move—possibly to a property demanding higher rent—could result in greater inconvenience and expenditure. It could mean moving costs and longer travel times. Clearly, HS2 must pay an appropriate amount of compensation for the disruption that it causes these residents.

Labour is concerned that this issue has been overlooked by the Government. We therefore believe that it is necessary for the Government to produce a report on the impact that the HS2 programme has on those who rent different forms of accommodation, and to come up with a compensation scheme that provides reasonable mitigation for the costs and disruption that the programme has caused.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and it is vital that HS2 engages fully with residents and deals with them swiftly, clearly and with humility. As this is such a sensitive issue, and no doubt many people will focus on it, I will take a moment or two to respond.

Most types of tenants affected by the scheme are already provided for under current compensation law. Where they are not, the Government can use flexible, non-statutory arrangements to provide support. Where the law is silent, the Government have committed to taking forward appropriate measures in discussion with stakeholders and residents, should it be necessary to do so. Matters of tenant compensation are complex, because they depend on an individual’s tenancy arrangements. However, I will endeavour to summarise briefly the support that is available. I will outline the legal position, the comprehensive non-statutory schemes that the Government have developed to assist property owners who are affected by HS2, and the work that the Government are taking forward following parliamentary scrutiny of high-speed rail hybrid Bills.

The elements of compensation payable are set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and apply to all Government-led infrastructure projects, including HS2. The HS2 scheme applies these arrangements, which have been debated, agreed and set by Parliament, together with the vast body of case law on the subject. Compensation is based on the principle of financial equivalence: the person affected should be financially compensated with no less and no more than what they have lost. Compensation due to tenants is therefore commensurate with their interests and the land they occupy; for example, if a private tenant property is subject to compulsory purchase, the tenant should be eligible for various heads of claim that comprise the market value of the leasehold interest in the land. They might also be eligible for a home loss payment for the loss of their home, and for reasonable moving costs.

The key part of the non-statutory arrangements is a consideration of atypical properties and special circumstances. These are established, funded arrangements that apply to tenants as well as property owners. I am pleased to say that in response to concerns raised by the phase 2a Commons Committee, the Government have committed to improving guidance on those atypical arrangements and raising awareness and accessibility, so that we can continue to provide the right support at the right time to people who need to use them. The Government have also been charged with developing a non-statutory prolonged disruption scheme in response to the phase 1 Lords Committee’s concerns on this subject. The Government intend shortly to release details of the scheme, which will assist residents who have different types of tenure, and who are affected by significant construction noise across the HS2 route.

Finally, in response to concerns raised by the phase 2a Commons Committee, the Government have committed to taking forward three strands of work on compensation for owners of houseboats and other types of moveable home. The first is to explore whether there is a case for bringing houseboats into line with caravans on statutory home loss payment entitlement. The second is to establish whether there is a case for introducing regulations to compensate houseboat residents who are affected by significant noise disturbance from rail works. The third is to explore the potential use of non-statutory compensation measures in advance of legislation being introduced, should the case for change be established. The Government are committed to taking forward appropriate measures in discussion with stakeholders and affected residents.

In conclusion, I believe the Government’s established non-statutory arrangements, which are as broad and inclusive as possible, are an appropriate and flexible tool to support all types of residents affected by the HS2 scheme. That is why I believe the proposed new clause is unnecessary, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the Minister for her response, and for mentioning the legal principles of the compensation scheme. As she said, however, the Government’s response is still a work in progress. For that reason, and because of the serious public concern about rented properties, I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda]

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

The new clause follows an inquiry at the petitions stage of the Bill that there was no remit to consider at that stage. Hon. Members will have heard that the kind of tracking used can have a significant impact on cost, including long-term maintenance costs, and the noise of the railway. It also has an impact on the speed at which trains travel. As the route has been singled out as providing high-speed rail travel, it is right that the Government work with engineers on the issue.

Although using slabs on the rail line is believed to be more expensive initially, it could prove much more efficient in the long term than using sleepers because it is low-maintenance. Across Europe and beyond, modern railway infrastructure projects are changing, and it is common for slab track to be preferred to sleepers. This short new clause asks the Government to assess the cost, efficiency and impact of that approach.

[Ms Ghani]

I do not see the need for the new clause. Again, the environmental statement assesses a reasonable worst case for the impacts of construction and operation of the railway. That includes so-called slab track, and track laid on ballast, or sleeper track. To comply with the environmental minimum requirements, the type of track used must be within the reasonable worst-case impact assessed in the environmental statement.

HS2 is one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation to pass through the House—it even has its own Select Committee—and there are several other opportunities throughout the year for an inquiry to take place. There is constant reporting to Parliament and justifications for why decisions are taken. Reporting to Parliament obviously matters, and it takes place, but constant discussions about cost add another layer of financial burden and bureaucracy when the reports are already in place. The new clause is not needed and should be withdrawn.

[Matt Rodda]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. We will not press the new clause to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Quarterly reports on environmental impact, costs and progress

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish quarterly reports on the scheduled works throughout the period in which those works take place.

(2) Each such report must contain an assessment of—

(a) environmental impact;

(b) costs; and

(c) progress compared to the scheduled timetable.

(3) The first such report must be laid before Parliament within the period ending three months after the day the scheduled works commence.

(4) Each subsequent report must be laid before Parliament within three months of the publication of the last report under this section.’—(Matt Rodda.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda]

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

There is clear concern about the cost of the HS2 programme, as has been discussed in Committee and elsewhere. Clause 61 shows that there is little accountability for the spiralling costs of the project, and as a result, they are continually rising. It is important that the Government be accountable for that. Likewise, it is important that they be accountable for HS2’s impact on the environment. As discussed in the debate on new clause 1, we want to ensure that all infrastructure projects minimise carbon use and protect our natural habitats.

There must also be accountability for ensuring that the project is delivered on time. To achieve that, we believe that there must be regular reporting to Parliament by the Government, to enable Parliament to scrutinise the Executive on these important matters. We believe that quarterly reports provide the right frequency of reporting, and that they would enable all parts of Parliament to fulfil their role, including the Public Accounts Committee, the Transport Committee and the House. Reporting would also provide vital data for external bodies, such as the National Audit Office, and would allow all to follow the impact the project is having, and to ensure that the project is brought under control. I shall take each of those in turn.

Labour has already stated that it would take a different approach to the development of infrastructure across the rail network, and to projects such as HS2, which will be embedded in the wider enhancement programme to ensure proper planning in line with all enhancement projects, and to deliver a more connected and reliable railway. For example, we would have commenced HS2 in the north, and then ensured connectivity to the north and south, reaching further afield to deliver modal shift from cars, heavy goods vehicles and internal flights.

Labour would also have ensured that HS2 was fully embedded in the ambitions for HS3, or Crossrail for the north, or Northern Powerhouse Rail—whichever title is now being used. East-west connectivity in the north of England, connecting major cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds to other major towns and cities, is vital to building a strong northern economy. Labour has identified how integration of HS2 and HS3 could result in greater efficiencies, not only on cost but on journey times. That would impact largely in phase 2b, but in the light of the widespread concern about cost, and at a time when the austerity programme has had a significant impact on communities in the midlands and the north, it is vital that the Government be more accountable.

Clause 61 is loosely worded, and more or less invites a blank-cheque approach to the project. That is quite staggering. So much investment, especially in rail, is needed across the transport system, so taking that approach without providing for further scrutiny by Parliament is wrong for a project that has attracted so much public interest. After all, as the Conservative party likes to remind us, we are talking about taxpayers’ hard-earned money being spent on a major project. Labour has argued that ensuring that we all have good rail connectivity to the north, which will provide a vital opportunity to rebalance the economy and ensure that northern economies prosper, is the way forward. That is why we are supporting this initiative. We want it to enhance rail capacity, journey times and connectivity. However, as we have seen, this whole project must be brought under greater control and greater accountability. The Government should set out the expenditure clearly in quarterly reports and justify the costs.

We understand that when a project is in development for longer, inflationary factors can come into play, not least at this time of instability for our economy. However, it is right that the Government should have to justify the figures publicly. As it is possible that a future Prime Minister might question going ahead with HS2, it is important to demonstrate better governance of the finances of this project. We therefore call on the Government to present a transparent, quarterly report to Parliament that can be subject to scrutiny, so that the public can understand the financing of the project and the Government can be fully held to account.

I turn to the environmental impact, which is of great concern. As a result of Labour’s motion, Parliament has declared a climate emergency. These are not just words; this is a call to action to ensure immediately that no part of Government adds to the loss of biodiversity, adds to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, or makes sustained changes to the environment. Labour is pleased with the mitigation proposals under HS2, but when our planet is under such intense threat, and when transport emissions account for 29% of all UK emissions, there is an obligation on the Government—not least the Department for Transport—to respond proactively by reducing the impact on the environment.

The Minister will know the growing concerns that HS2 is prompting about our climate and environment. Parliament should use quarterly reports to spur the Minister on to draw on global best practice, and to identify the true cost of the environmental impact. We recognise that in the long term, with modal shift and planting, HS2 can be mitigated. However, the crisis is now, so there needs to be greater scrutiny now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

There will be a reduced journey time on high-speed rail, which will open up capacity on existing railway lines. It will also shift people from roads or flights to rail, which is incredibly important. We will continue to invest north of London. This is just one way of ensuring that the journey becomes far more integrated, but I know that the hon. Gentleman would like it to become even faster. Considering that it has taken us so long to get high-speed rail up and running, who knows what will come in the next iteration? However, I do take his point.

Let me return to the important point about skills that the hon. Member for Reading East raised. At present, there are 9,000 people working on high-speed rail, with more than 2,000 businesses already involved in the chain. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about how we will reach the 30,000 people who will be required to build the railway; that is why we have two colleges set up to improve the technical and academic skills of people working on the railway line, from design to construction.

Having made all those arguments, I really do not understand the need for new clause 6. The issue of quarterly reporting has been raised, but HS2 Ltd already provides annual reports to Parliament, as required by the DFT-HS2 Ltd framework document. I believe that that level of reporting is proportionate and sufficient. The project is bound not to exceed the likely significant environmental effects assessed for the scheme, as reported to Parliament. As part of HS2 Ltd’s sustainability policy, an environmental management system will be developed that will set out the procedure to plan and monitor compliance with environmental legislation; the record-keeping arrangements, including reports to my Department; and the procedures that will be put in place to monitor compliance with the Bill’s environmental provisions.

There is so much scrutiny and accountability that separate quarterly reporting would be excessive and burdensome to the Department. There are already reports out there; if the 11,000-page report were read fully, I believe it would answer a number of the questions that have been raised so far. I do not believe that there is any need for the new clause. It should be withdrawn.

[Matt Rodda]

It is interesting to listen to a Minister trying to justify providing a lack of information to Parliament. For a programme of this scale—it is utterly huge and encompasses not only the Department for Transport, but many other parts of the public sector and a large supply chain—internal reports will obviously be produced much more regularly than the annual report that the Minister described. Given the scale of the programme, the significant investment of public money and the need for the Executive to be held to account by Parliament so that the public can see that their money is being spent well, surely it is only common sense to make the reporting public on a quarterly basis.

Separate evidence will be available internally. I am sure that people at HS2 will produce thousands of Gantt charts and other forms of reporting for internal and departmental use; having worked as a civil servant on much smaller programmes, I am sure that that information is there. Surely it is incumbent on the Government to provide Parliament with a much more regular update so that it can properly scrutinise spending such large amounts of public money.

On the point about the environment, I am grateful for the Minister’s lovely commercial for rail travel, which I fully support. We absolutely value investment in high-speed rail, which the Labour party sees as a huge step forward for the country, but the Minister only partially addressed the specific point about the amount of carbon produced during the construction stages. Will she write to the shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), to provide more detailed points about the specifics of the carbon produced during the construction period? The use of heavy goods vehicles—particularly if road freight is used, as we discussed earlier—and of aggregates and other materials can be carbon intensive. It would be wise to consider ways of reducing that carbon impact as the programme is rolled forward.

On the final point about skills, we fully support the investment in the two colleges. That is an important part of developing a skilled workforce in the areas the line crosses. However, we ask the Government to carry out more forward planning and to consider this as an even greater opportunity to develop a highly skilled workforce for the future, given the scale of the programme and the geographical spread of the line, particularly as it runs through many relatively disadvantaged communities, whether they be isolated rural communities with limited local employment or urban city centres. On that basis, we call for a Division on this new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Rodda]

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

Already it is clear that residents and businesses along the route of HS2, and those affected by the wider construction of the line, need to be involved in this programme, not just with the passing of the Bill but beyond that, not least because the project is being funded by public money and is causing disruption to many communities.

We call on the Government to put in place regulations to ensure, through a statutory route, that HS2 and the Government continue to engage with the public and, through that engagement, respond to concerns raised. Nobody holds a monopoly on wisdom. Through strong community engagement, the project can develop in the interests of all concerned. The tweaks made by petitioners to the hybrid Bill Committee show the power of such consultation.

As the programme moves from the planning to the delivery phase, unseen consequences may, and probably will, occur. Good public engagement is vital to ensure that there is a response to those issues, whether they are environmental issues—for example, noise, dust and pollutants—or relate to congestion. Communities must have a right to engage in public meetings and to engage with proposed changes. Even with the best planned projects, we know that engagement is vital.

It is important to have a direct complaints process, to which HS2 must respond, for the duration of the building of phase 2a and all subsequent phases. Above all, the public need to have confidence in the development of HS2, but there is concern that that has been lacking to date. This must change, and the new clause would enable the Government to ensure that that happens through the establishment of secondary legislation.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raised some important points. I agree with him that we need strong community engagement and good public engagement, and that the response has to be flexible and responsive.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman what HS2 is actually doing. This was one of the trickiest parts of my brief when I took over as Minister for HS2, because I wanted to ensure that HS2’s community engagement was on point, especially as further and deeper construction work takes place. The commitment to public engagement is evidenced by the community engagement strategy and the biannual community engagement progress report. For example, in 2018 more than 36,000 people attended over 2,200 engagement activities, including meetings, drop-ins and events across the whole of the HS2 route. The 24/7 help desk dealt with 26,697 inquiries, and nine out of 10 complaints were dealt with within 20 working days or fewer. I constantly put pressure on HS2 Ltd to ensure that it is working as effectively and with as much humility as possible.

Further, as a Minister I have secured meetings in Parliament between Members and HS2, sometimes with constituents. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, so I put on the record that there is an independent construction commissioner and residents’ commissioner. The residents’ commissioner also gave evidence to the Select Committee. A substantial amount of public engagement is already taking place. That must continue and be of good quality. There must be speedy responses to the public’s concerns, in a way that they can understand and digest, given the level of engagement already taking place and the fact that the Secretary of State has made a number of commitments to continue to engage with all stakeholders. All of that information can be found on the HS2 website. It is published online, as is the register of undertakings and assurances.

Of course, we should never take anything for granted and HS2 Ltd should continue to work as closely as possible with the communities that require further assurance or changes in lifestyle. It needs to work with them as efficiently as it can. Considering all the work that is already taking place and will take place, I believe that the new clause is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the Minister for running through the existing engagement strategy and, indeed, the volume of correspondence and engagement that has taken place. However, it is somewhat disappointing that the Government are still not pursuing this through regulations and are not putting it on a statutory footing. We will therefore press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Ghani]

The clause authorises the nominated undertaker to construct and maintain the works specified in schedule 1 for the construction of phase 2a of High Speed 2 and other incidental works. It is a standard clause found in all works Bills. Phase 2a sits between two larger phases of the HS2 project, so the clause makes provision to accommodate emerging design works for phase 1 at Handsacre junction and phase 2b at Crewe.

Schedule 1 sets out the construction requirements for the scheduled works and provides permitted limits of deviation from the siting of works as shown on the relevant plans. It also provides a description of the scheduled works. The permitted deviation limits have precedence in other railway Acts, most recently the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017. The limits of the deviation reflect the fact that the design of phase 2a is, by necessity, at an outline stage—detailed design will come later—so some flexibility is essential. Any variation within the limits of deviation is controlled by the environmental minimum requirements.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Labour supports High Speed 2, as it will address the severe capacity constraints on our rail network and improve connections between cities in the midlands and the north. Any responsible Government must contend with the fact that commuter and freight services are being squeezed off the network due to lack of capacity. HS2 is vital for unblocking the railway and creating additional capacity.

The UK is off track to meet its emission reduction targets under the Climate Change Act 2008. Transport is the most emitting sector of the economy and the worst performing sector with regard to emissions—indeed, emissions have risen since 2010. HS2 will provide an alternative to domestic flying and will tackle that important issue. It will also allow for more reliable rail services.

It is vital that we get HS2 right. It is a tremendous opportunity to improve connectivity and we support it as part of a package of delivering transformative investment in our rail system.

[Ms Ghani]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We are debating a particular section of the line, and I welcome his support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

Further provision about works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

Clause 3 introduces schedules 4 and 5, which allow the nominated undertaker to carry out works to and otherwise affect highways. That includes creating new or improving existing highways and highway accesses, and stopping up roads. It also requires the nominated undertaker to obtain the consent of Highways England before carrying out works to roads for which that body is responsible, for example motorways and trunk roads.

[Matt Rodda]

Developers can be overly dependent on road transport, which is ironic in a major rail project. I hope that the Minister will agree that as much freight as possible should be delivered by rail so as to minimise road use and the inevitable disruption to local communities. What steps have the Government taken to address that important issue?

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We want the project to be as clean and green as possible, and freight capacity is a major issue that we are investigating to ensure that as much freight can be moved by rail as possible. I hope that provides him with the confidence he needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 4

Power to acquire land compulsorily

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Ms Ghani]

Clause 4 provides the Secretary of State with the power to compulsorily acquire land within the limits shown in the Bill, where such land is required for phase 2a. Subsection (2) introduces schedule 6, which describes some of the land to be acquired and the particular purposes for which it may be acquired. It is not land required for the scheduled works; it is land required for ancillary works, including environmental mitigation, utility diversions and borrow pits. The clause further provides that the normal legislative regime relating to compulsory acquisition is to apply, subject to the modification set out in schedule 7. The purpose of the modifications is to streamline the land acquisition process, as Parliament will already have given approval to the Bill.

[Matt Rodda]

Compulsory purchases and compensation have been an issue of contention during this process. For phase 1 it was initially decided that residents of urban areas would receive less compensation that those in rural areas—a decision that was eventually overturned. It is important that such issues are dealt with fairly, but it appears that tenants who are adversely affected by the scheduled works are not being treated fairly as there is no scheme to compensate them. Those who rent are already disadvantaged compared with those who own their own properties, and I believe that much more can and should be done. I will return to that issue when we discuss the new clauses.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The purchase of land is essential to the completion of the proposed scheme. People directly and especially affected by the Bill have had the opportunity to petition the House and will have another opportunity to do so in the other place.

The project endeavours to use land as effectively and efficiently as possible. There are a number of places where compensation claims can be heard and settled by agreement, whereas disputes can be dealt with by the upper tribunal or by other factors that HS2 has put in place to deal with local communities and local people. Even though the project provides some disruption along the line, we want to ensure that we are doing the right thing by the communities we are working with.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 5

Acquisition of rights and imposition of restrictive covenants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

Clause 8 allows the nominated undertaker to use any subsoil beneath the highway within the Bill limits which is required for the purpose of construction and maintenance of works authorised by the Bill, without the need formally to acquire the subsoil or any interest in it. This does not apply to cellars, vaults, archways or other structures that form part of a building fronting on to a highway.

Subsections (3) and (4) introduce schedule 12, which lists the highway allowed within the Bill limits where the powers to take subsoil or compulsorily acquire interest in the land cannot be exercised except in the case of street works, as per subsection (6). Subsection (5) provides that, in the case of highways in the land specified in the table in paragraph 1 of schedule 11, only subsoil that is more than nine metres beneath the level of the surface may be taken.

[Matt Rodda]

Obviously, layers of subsoil are important. There is a link to the depletion of high-quality soils. We need to preserve good soil for farming. Some farmers in this important agricultural area might have spent time improving the quality of soil on their land. We would like this issue to be addressed so that any movement of soil is managed with great care and caution.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I already attend meetings with the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. We will of course continue to work with them, and he will know that we try to reduce any environmental impact when building this railway line.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 9

Termination of power to acquire land

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

Clause 14 allows the nominated undertaker to use any road specified in the table in schedule 8, which is land for which only rights may be compulsorily acquired or over which restrictive covenants may be imposed, so as to obtain a right of passage for the purpose of phase 2a. This power ends five years after phase 2a is brought into general use.

[Matt Rodda]

The clause will require ongoing construction work and will cause significant disruption to road networks in certain areas. It is important that disturbance is kept to a minimum. The use of roads is likely to result in unplanned road congestion, which can lead to delays for motorists, disrupt public transport and interfere with walking and cycling routes. It also has the potential to disrupt many people’s travel patterns, with the increase in roadside emissions as well. It is not possible to effectively predict the impact of the disruption to road networks, travel patterns and air quality in advance, which is why Labour thinks it is important that there should be ongoing public engagement to ensure that impacts are mitigated.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises another important point—the issue of ongoing engagement with Highways England, local authorities, those who drive, cycle and walk, and also Members of Parliament. That is the case at the moment. HS2 Ltd has provisions in place to ensure that it works with local communities and local council management on local travel plans. It will have to continue to do so through the construction phase.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Enforcement of restrictions on land use

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

The clause provides deemed planning permission under part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for carrying out the works authorised by the Bill. Deemed planning permission is granted only for ancillary works in the Bill where the impact of such work is assessed in the environment statement, or where the development is exempt within the meaning of the environmental impact assessment regulations. Any work outside those parameters would require separate planning permission. Subsection (3) introduces schedule 17, which sets out the conditions of deemed planning permission. That includes the requirement for approval from the relevant local authorities on specific aspects of design and construction to ensure that local impacts are appropriately mitigated in the area—for example, the movement of lorries to and from construction sites.

[Matt Rodda]

This is an extremely important issue as it deals with important environmental matters. The schedule addresses salutary points and deals with the conditions of deemed planning permission, as the Minister mentioned. We are concerned about the environmental matters covered, including the impact of dust, soil and road traffic. We are also concerned about how material is taken away from the site, vehicle movements and the impact on historic sites, which we will deal with later. I will return to these matters later today.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman once again raises valid points about how we remove material and mitigate any impact on the neighbouring communities, which is what HS2 is doing with its local engagement, as well as by working with local authorities. Planning permission provided by clause 17 is necessary to the construction of the proposed scheme and it provides more clarity to those directly and specially affected by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clause 18

Time limit on deemed planning permission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a cause of dismay when our built heritage is affected by new development. The provisions in the clause are very wide ranging. The Minister could consider better safeguards to further ensure that our country’s built heritage is protected during the construction of this vital national infrastructure project. In particular, perhaps a presumption against demolition could be considered where practical. Indeed, the dismantling and relocation of items of built heritage, where practical, might be presumed a better solution. If that were not possible for the entire building, certainly key features of interest could be dismantled, preserved, salvaged or relocated where appropriate.

On the inspection and observation of works, schedule 18 merely indicates that there will be an opportunity for English Heritage to inspect the works, but there is no obligation on it to do so. That could be tightened by the inclusion of an obligation to ensure that all heritage assets affected are inspected and recorded, including by laser scanning to provide a highly accurate 3D model of any assets that are destroyed as a result of the project. That would be a far better way to safeguard the built heritage of our country as a result of the project.

[Matt Rodda]

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. I know he has a deep personal commitment to this issue, as he represents a constituency in which a wonderful historic building suffered serious damage.

We take this issue seriously, and I urge the Government to take great care and look at some specific pieces of heritage that might be affected by the developments, such as the historic mileposts, the 1867 rail building at the important historic rail town of Crewe, and the grade II listed farm houses in the line of the route. It would be ironic if wonderful railway architecture from previous generations was damaged or completely destroyed by the building of HS2. It would be so much better if whatever possible could be preserved for the benefit of future generations. We hope the Government will look further into that and consider possible mitigation.

[Ms Ghani]

Once again, important points have been raised that were also made about HS2 and, no doubt, made to the Select Committee. One hon. Member has a particular issue within their constituency, which no doubt we will hear about again today.

Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008 and the HS2 phase 1 Act of 2017. All works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements, and the normal requirements and appropriate consents are always obtained when dealing with listed buildings.

The Secretary of State will have to work with local authorities and Historic England. The Select Committee considered the scheme’s effect on specific historical sites, and the scheme is designed to seek to avoid impacts on culture or heritage. We recognise the importance of such assets to communities locally and nationally. Even though we are trying to build an up-to-date, modern railway line, since I became HS2 Minister, I have been concerned to ensure that we honour historical sites close by and try to mitigate any impacts on them. I am sure that HS2 Ltd will continue to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 22

Burial grounds

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Ms Ghani]

The clause provides for the disapplication of laws concerning burial grounds and human remains. It also introduces schedule 20, which outlines the process that the nominated undertaker must follow in relation to the removal and reburial or cremation of human remains, and the removal and replacement of monuments to the deceased.

The clause disapplies ecclesiastical law for the purpose of constructing phase 2a. It also disapplies the law relating to burial grounds if the remains and any monument to the deceased have been dealt with in accordance with schedule 20. Similar provisions were included in the 2008 and 2017 Acts.

[Matt Rodda]

This is obviously a very sensitive aspect of the Bill. We urge the Government to take great care in this matter and, in particular, to allow for more time and effort to be taken to contact the families of deceased people. In this modern age, with well-established genealogy and records of church burials and other burials, we hope more effort could be made to contact the families whose loved ones’ remains are being moved, because this is a sensitive issue for families.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. If he has had time to visit Euston, he will have seen the huge amount of work being undertaken to deal with remains, which are all being removed by hand. It is a long process, as it should be. We have not yet identified any known burial grounds that could be affected, but in the course of construction, we could discover previously unknown sites. If that occurs, the clause and its related schedule provide for the appropriate processes to manage the removal and reburial or cremation of human remains, and the removal and replacement of monuments to the deceased.

Where remains are less than 100 years old, schedule 20 requires a notice to be published in the local newspaper and displayed at the burial ground. Relatives have the right to remove and re-inter or cremate the remains at the expense of the nominated undertaker, who must pay reasonable costs. I hope that provides some assurance to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking the issue seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

Clause 43 introduces schedule 32, which protects the interests of statutory undertakers and other bodies who may be affected by other provisions of the Bill. The provisions are similar to those in the Crossrail Act 2008, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 and the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017. The protective provisions of the schedule cover highways and traffic; electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers; electronic communications code networks; land drainage, flood defence, water resources and fisheries; and the Canal & River Trust.

[Matt Rodda]

We believe that far more work needs to be carried out by the Government over a range of infrastructure projects to minimise the impact of development of sites, and not least to re-explore the issue of rail enhancement programmes and how rail should be used, wherever possible, to shift goods. That is explored in one of our new clauses.

We know that congestion causes pollution, and we know about its effect on communities and the environment. The Government are willing to carry out some monitoring work, but we would like them to do much more. Are they planning to monitor pollution in detail, and to publish new journey times? Projects such as HS2 have an impact not only on those working on the site, but on the wider population in the area. There should, as has been said, be further work. The Government need to respond to the dilemma, not address it superficially.

Paragraph 13 of schedule 32 deals with issues that I want to highlight concerning pedestrians, cyclists and other modes of transport, and how they cross the line. The schedule is not comprehensive enough, and we have drafted a new clause on the subject. We believe that pedestrians and cyclists should be at the top of the Government’s considerations in infrastructure projects, as the Government have targets for increasing walking and cycling. It would be somewhat ironic if an infrastructure project designed to improve transport withheld other aspects of it. The disruption to this group of highway users should be minimal. Bridges and tunnels can provide crucial access to those who need it, and can bring only greater connectivity to those who will be cut off by the HS2 line. The Government need to take a much closer look at this issue, and to address concerns that we will cover in a new clause.

Paragraph 14 of the schedule deals with the salient issue of highways repairs. We are becoming a pothole nation, as we have mentioned on other occasions in the House. Whether on major highways or smaller lanes, it is vital that proper repairs are made as damage occurs. Obviously, there will be damage in a major infrastructure project during which heavy goods vehicles will thunder down local roads. We want the Government to address that issue, which is of great importance to communities.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises important points, but most of them are detailed extensively in the environmental statement. My Department and HS2 Ltd have engaged, and will continue to engage, with all those who are worried about their local communities, the environment, congestion and traffic movement. They will all have the opportunity to petition this House and the other place. The clause is necessary to minimise disruption and allow the delivery of the proposed scheme, protects the bodies involved, and enables them to continue to carry out their duties.

Freight has been raised a number of times; I look forward to responding to the new clause on that issue. In anticipation, let me I point out that we are doing what we can to ensure that freight will support the movement of construction materials, whether aggregates or rail cement, during the construction of the railway.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 32 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

Clause 48 enables the Secretary of State to ensure that, following the construction of the scheme, he may impose conditions on land released where such land contains environmental mitigation for HS2. This is to ensure the maintenance of mitigation measures; upgrades to the mitigation, if required; and prohibition on uses of the land where such uses would detrimentally affect the measures in place. The clause binds successors in title into any covenant agreed with previous landowners. The Secretary of State or an authorised person may enforce the agreement.

[Matt Rodda]

This is an important clause, particularly the mitigating provision in subsection (2), which proposes planting trees and shrubs to replace habitat where work has been carried out. I cannot stress enough how important it is to get this right. We need to ensure that biodiversity needs are addressed with the right solutions. The proposal to replace trees with native species is positive, but we need to ensure that those species fit with the local environment, that there is proper biodiversity and that habitats are protected in line with local ecology.

As well as planting trees and shrubs, we need to ensure that they are in the right places so that, for example, they mitigate flooding and enhance the natural environment. New plantations should be open to the public where possible and we should seek to create environments that encourage biodiversity, so features such as natural watercourses should be used to their advantage.

The end of the route passes through the salt marshes south of Crewe. That is an unusual habitat and a special site in the country, so that should be taken into account in the preservation of the natural environment.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point to consider when undertaking such a large construction project. We are working with all stakeholders he would hope we would work with, including the Woodland Trust, to ensure that we not only replace trees but plant them in the most appropriate places, and to mitigate as much as possible the impact on the environment. The substantial environmental statement covered most of those issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Power to apply Act to further high speed rail works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

This is the standard clause that appears in Bills and provides for the expenditure of public money. It simply provides that any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

[Matt Rodda]

The Minister has addressed some of these issues, but it is vital to get this right. HS2 will allow for more reliable rail services. The current Secretary of State has plunged punctuality on the railways to a new depth—a 13-year low—and we must get on top of that issue. This is a tremendous opportunity to improve connectivity, and it is vital to get urban-to-urban connectivity within the country. We are committed to delivering a transformative package of investment across the rail network in the north of England, backed by a commitment of at least £10 billion to transform connections between major northern cities. The Government have touted similar plans, sometimes described as Northern Powerhouse Rail or HS3, but there is no commitment to the funding—it is interesting that the Minister used that point to address the financial side of the programme.

Any incoming Labour Government would rescope the project to seriously reduce costs and provide far better integration. Furthermore, there is concern over the accountability and the ability of our colleagues in this House to scrutinise HS2, ensure that costs are kept under control, and address the issue of public trust. We believe there is the potential to reduce the cost of HS2 by using a number of other technical measures—I will not address those in detail now—and the operation of HS2 is also contentious. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being invested in HS2, and it is right that revenues go back to the Exchequer and not into the hands of private train operating companies. HS2 should be run in the public sector as a public service. I will return to some of those points later in relation to the new clauses.

The Government have been somewhat inept in handling another specific aspect. HS2 has been rightly criticised for sometimes failing to provide value for public money. For example, the Public Accounts Committee described an unauthorised redundancy bill of £1.76 million as

“a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money”,

blaming it on

“weak internal processes at HS2”,

and there have been other concerns about the project.

[Mr Dhesi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of spiralling costs concerns many of us up and down the country? If we do not get this right, it will have a huge impact on how services are delivered in our local communities in terms of housing, education, hospitals and so forth. Does he agree that the Government need to get a grip on the costs of HS2?

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it is nice to have a colleague from Berkshire Labour intervening on me. The Government need to be responsible with these very large sums of public money, and it is deeply disappointing that they have fallen well short at times.

The words of the Public Accounts Committee are worth considering:

“a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money”

is a severe condemnation of the Government. There have been many other allegations about HS2’s potentially not being well planned or managed. Ensuring that HS2 secures value for money is essential if we are to retain public support for the project. There should be no blank cheque.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the general principles of HS2 and the need to ensure that the project delivers maximum economic benefit to the nation, including industrial skills and job opportunities. When we look at how the Treasury assesses such projects, we see that very little consideration is given to how much value is created in the wider economy, particularly through industrial development. In my own constituency, the Caledonian railway works in Springburn faces closure. Would it not have been possible to utilise the supply chain opportunities of HS2 to ensure that highly skilled jobs in the railway industry are supported and maximised through the project’s supply chain?

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and particularly for pointing out the importance of the supply chain. I will add that the value of apprenticeships, degree qualifications and other opportunities for young people linked to the programme should be first and foremost in the Government’s mind when they come to look at the supply chain.

Returning briefly to clause 61, essentially it says that there is potential for uncapped Government expenditure, leaving open the possibility of no upper limit on the costs of HS2. Will the Minister update the Committee on the latest cost estimate, and does she believe that the project will be delivered at cost?

[Ms Ghani]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are here to scrutinise the Bill line by line, but I welcome the opportunity to remind everybody of the importance of HS2. Of course, it is a crucial project, linking eight of our 10 greatest cities. Supportive comments have been made recently by everybody involved, including the Mayors of Manchester and Liverpool and the leader of Leeds City Council, who have been watching very closely. They are northern, locally elected leaders who are waiting for HS2 to roll through their communities, because they fully understand not only that, at its peak, it will provide work for 30,000 people—most of those jobs being outside London—but its value for money and how it will smash the north-south divide, encourage our communities to come even closer together and force investment in rail infrastructure in the north of England for more than 100 years. This is a key infrastructure, social and economic project for our country.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about education funding and how important young people having a good education is to the future of the economy. In this year’s spending review, we are looking not just at how investment in physical infrastructure like bridges and roads improves our economy, but at human capital—where we need to put in extra money to make sure that children and young people leave school, university or an apprenticeship with the skills that will help them to get a good job and to live a successful and fruitful life. That is very important. In the past, Governments have been more interested in spending money on things that are sexy and new—the big new pieces of infrastructure—and maintenance has sometimes taken a back seat, but it is very important to make sure that all the existing assets we have, whether roads or schools, are fit for purpose. In the zero-based capital review, we are looking at the balance between maintenance and new infrastructure investment.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for giving way. Has she had any discussions with the Children’s Minister, who is currently considering the very relevant issue of investment in nursery schools, which is an obvious case of human capital investment as it has a considerable benefit for society after only a few years?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Children’s Minister. That is one reason why we put additional funding into children’s services at the Budget. Part of the human capital review is looking at where we invest in education. As a country, we currently put more money into the later stages of education. There are laudable reasons for that, but we put more money equivalently into universities than secondary schools. We are looking at how to ensure that all children are getting the best possible start of life. There is a lot of evidence that the earlier the investment, the better.

I mentioned the zero-based capital review, which will look at all capital infrastructure to ensure that we are getting the most bang for our buck. That is an opportunity in 2019 to look afresh at our future projects and where the greatest impact can be made. We are also looking at opportunities to reform the way we do things in government. Housing is a good example. At the moment, we spend £34 billion on housing through the housing benefit budget and things such as the housing infrastructure fund and Help to Buy. My question is: by liberalising planning and making it easier to build, can we reduce costs for people looking to get on the housing ladder and at the same time reduce costs for the Government? We should not always assume that it is just about spending more money. We also need to think about how we reform things to do them better, to reduce the cost for people for whom housing is a big item on their household budget and to reduce the cost for the Government.

In summary, 2019 is going to be a huge year for our country. The economy and the public finances are on the right trajectory, but we are not complacent at the Treasury. We are looking very carefully at how every single pound is spent. We want it to be spent as much as possible on ensuring that everybody has access to a good start in life, that our core public services are provided and that we help companies and enterprises continue to deliver the economic growth that they have over the past few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I do not think that is correct. I am afraid we will have to look at those figures. We will see them and we will hold the Chief Secretary to account when she is at this Dispatch Box and I am at the Dispatch Box where she is now.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the complete failure of the Government’s austerity agenda. Earlier, the Chief Secretary mentioned nursery schools. Many school and nursery school heads are experiencing a continuing programme of austerity, which is actually due to get worse. She mentioned that she had a brief conversation with her colleague in the Education Department. [Interruption.] However long the conversation was, the message I have had from headteachers is quite to the contrary; actually, a very short stay of execution has been given, for just one year, when the headteachers I speak to in my Reading constituency need a long-term programme of sustainable investment in nursery schools, rather than warm words.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I nip back to the point about the 1.2% increase, if I may beg your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker? The 1.2% is the overall increase. What will happen—[Interruption.] No; the reality is that some Departments will have major cuts in their budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I mean the shadow Chief Secretary. [Laughter.] Of, course, it is a pleasure to follow the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is a greater pleasure to follow her shadow, the emphasis being on the word “shadow”—it is sort of me and my shadow. I call him a friend; I think we get on pretty well when we have a gossip in the Tea Room. He is known for his great sense of humour, and it was deployed beautifully in his speech, which started as a serious attempt and then descended into some sort of 1890s music hall act slightly on its way out—rather like the Labour party and its economic manifesto. I am sorry he did not talk about the need to ring-fence anything in the Budget for the re-education of Treasury officials, which the little red book and Chairman Mao will doubtless be planning the curriculum for even as I speak.

I rise to make a few points to the Treasury Bench. This is a key time in our national economic affairs. The challenge/opportunity of Brexit, including the need for a deal to ensure an orderly withdrawal from the EU, will provide a fundamental foundation for maintaining economic growth and jobs, as my right hon. Friend referenced. From those jobs, of course, come the taxes that pay for the nurses, the doctors, the teachers, the roads and any other project the Government wish to support. We are approaching, if we have not already arrived at, that opportunity which comes with having fiscal headroom and permits choices to be made.

In the last few years—let us be frank—it has been economic management by necessity. We have been trying to deal with the task that we were bequeathed, not by choice, but which the electorate trusted the Conservative party to resolve. Treasury Ministers past and present deserve the nation’s thanks for facing into those difficult decisions. It is all too often characterised, sometimes by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and his colleagues, as an ideological pursuit by the Conservative party that in some way engenders jollity and laughter. I believe that all politicians enter public office and service to improve lives and the lot of our constituents. More and more of our constituents, as they get older, look to public services, and it should always be a matter of pride for a Conservative Government with a sound record of economic stewardship to deliver quality public services as efficiently as possible.

The end of the legacy of the crash and everything that flowed from it now provides that opportunity for choices. I would characterise those choices as needing the striking of a balance that is both sensitive and sophisticated. With my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the helm of the Treasury, I think we have both those characteristics, although I will not say which of them is sensitive and which is sophisticated—probably they will meld into the two. That is important, though, because we now have an opportunity to choose.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I are very much children of the 1980s—our views and thoughts were shaped by the economic miracle that Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe worked—but we must appreciate that times have moved on. I am very struck by the fact that people in an earning bracket such that 25 or 30 years ago they would have looked to private health provision and education now look to and use state provision. I applaud that. I used the NHS. I had an operation at Dorchester last week, and I use my local education service—we have three girls in our local primary school. It is important to bear that in mind.

My right hon. Friend is right to point to the need for competitive taxation, whereby we can take people out of tax such that they have more money to spend, and it is absolutely right that our policies focus on those on the lowest incomes, but it is also right, in a fair and equitable society, that those who can should shoulder the burden, in a competitive way, to make sure we can deliver those services that people are looking for. I think it is too easy a prescription merely to say that we must pursue an agenda of tax cuts, as if British society had not evolved since 1985, 1986 or 1987. That is where the balance needs to be struck. It may be the balance between a liberal Tory and a more Thatcherite Tory—I do not know—but it needs to be struck.

As other Members have pointed out, as a result of a period of austerity we are now in a period in which the fiscal headroom allows for additional investment. The spring statement was helpful, and what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said about an average increase of 1.2% in departmental expenditure was also welcome. However, we would be foolish to ignore the fact that we are now having to claw our way back from a period in which spending has been—albeit quite justifiably —capped.

Any Member whose constituency contains a prison will notice that the fabric of the prison estate has deteriorated. Some people might say that that is a good thing because we are talking about prisoners, but I am inclined to think that if we are serious about bringing people back into society—the redemption strategy—we need to provide a satisfactory prison environment.

In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I mentioned schools and the need for the long-term provision of new money in the comprehensive spending review. It is great that we are offering the widest and deepest range of free-at-the-point-of-use educational opportunities in our country, and when T-levels come on stream, it will become even wider and even deeper, but it is folly to suggest that we can continue to provide that, and can make the necessary investment to deliver a happy, educated, productive next generation, with the fiscal envelope currently enjoyed by the Department for Education.

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and thoughtful speech. Has he considered the Government’s policy of placing additional pension demands on schools in an unfunded way? If so, what does he think of it?

[Simon Hoare]

In an intervention on the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Gentleman referred to something that I am sure we have all heard from headteachers in our constituencies. Whether we are talking about national insurance, about pensions or about the demands of special educational needs, although increased DFE expenditure is going into most of our schools, it is nowhere near enough. We are asking schools to do more for more pupils with not quite as much money as they need. That is why I make the distinction. I welcome the increase, but new money is required, particularly as the range and the choice become wider and deeper.

I challenge anyone who represents a rural constituency, as I do, not to share my views on rural schools. I was delighted when the Chief Secretary took my point about the needs of maintenance. The costs of heating and running a whole estate of Victorian primary schools are greater than those in new build, perhaps in an urban setting, although that is not to say that there are no Victorian schools in urban settings. Such schools do not provide a good learning environment. Last month, I visited Motcombe primary school in my constituency. In a small classroom, one child is effectively being fried against a not particularly adequate heater, because the school does not have enough money to replace the heating system.

We must make a balanced judgment: we must aim to take those at the lowest end of the earning spectrum out of taxation, while also investing properly. We must strike that sensitive and sophisticated balance. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right: it is not just the big and sexy that we must consider, but schemes for local roads such as the C13 and the A350 in my constituency, and support for those who wish to remedy the rural broadband and mobile blackspots, which could become engines of economic growth and entrepreneurialism.

That takes me to my closing point, to which the hon. Member for Bootle alluded. Some of our recent debates appear to have pitted my party against the Government. I am sorry—I meant to say “against business”. [Laughter.] That was not a Freudian slip—or perhaps it was.

Business is the engine that generates the tax that delivers the services. We cannot have a hostile viewpoint; we cannot have a hostile environment for UK business to flourish. Without a flourishing business sector, without the freeing up of the entrepreneurial spirit that underpins the British character, the proceeds of growth—

Transport for Towns

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this important debate, and I thank her for raising the important issue of transport in towns. It is clear that the issues that towns face are distinct from those affecting major cities and the countryside. There are several thousand towns across the UK, ranging in size from a few thousand people to a couple of hundred thousand residents. Many have a long history. They are linked to their local area, have particular industries and are situated in particular parts of the country. Their identity and the local economy often differ considerably from those of cities. Some have less effective transport links, and many can feel different and distinct.

I am proud to represent Reading, which is one of England’s largest towns. It is a borough with a long history. It is the site of an important medieval abbey, the burial place of Henry I, and was later an important industrial town. We are very lucky that our town sits on the main road and rail link between London and Bristol and south Wales. However, not all towns are as lucky, and many suffer from poor transport links. I will mention that later, as Labour has a range of policies to support our towns.

Many towns also suffer severe problems with congestion. It is important to address that serious issue, which wastes valuable time and money for businesses and harms the quality of life of many residents. A number of towns suffer from serious air pollution as a result. Given those serious problems, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to call for a new focus on transport in towns. However, I am afraid to say that the current Government seem quite simply incapable of identifying that as an issue, even though transport problems in towns affect a huge number of people across the United Kingdom. I should say, however, that that is hardly surprising, given the woeful track record of Ministers and in particular the Secretary of State.

The evidence of that inept handling of transport policy is clear for all to see. Ministers have failed to see the scale of the need for investment across our country, as they have continued to put London and the south-east first. Encouraging long-distance commuting through their new roads fund has diverted resources that could have been spent on improving transport in towns. New A roads have been built to get from one city to another—or perhaps I should say to get from one traffic jam to another.

Ministers have cut funding for buses and failed to promote bus use, which has now declined for several successive years; indeed, bus funding has fallen by 45% since 2010. They have also failed to acknowledge that investment in buses is a simple, cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to cut congestion and give more people access to high-quality public transport. This ill-thought-through approach has hit pensioners, commuters and young people, all of whom rely on buses.

To make matters worse, the Government have also missed their targets for cycling and walking. Quite simply, they have failed to invest in the modes of transport that reduce congestion, improve health and the quality of life in towns, and protect the environment.

Labour’s strategic approach would provide a complete contrast to the years of failure under the current Government. Labour would introduce a young person’s bus pass and we would offer local control and improved services, to allow all councils to franchise bus services and set up new municipal companies. We would bring rail back into public ownership, which would improve services and lead to much more effective spending of money. We just have to look at the simple comparison between the profitable publicly owned east coast service, which paid a surplus back into the Treasury, and the recent bail-out of Virgin on the same line.

Labour would also invest in walking and cycling, and we would support imaginative schemes to join up parks and tow-paths, and encourage more cycling and walking in towns.

The UK is also one of Europe’s most unequal countries by region. Many of our towns and cities have suffered severe under-investment in transport, and we would be committed to ensuring that each region of the country receives its fair share of transport spending.

I will turn briefly to the excellent points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. First, she is absolutely right to highlight the Government’s failure to tackle transport problems affecting towns. She made a very important point about the need to make transport respond to the needs of local people in towns. The Government should review the way in which private bus providers consult on changes to routes, so that obvious destinations such as shops, markets, schools and healthcare centres are not excluded. Her third point was also telling: as I have said, for far too long infrastructure investment has been biased towards London and the south-east. It is high time that Ministers embraced a new deal for towns.

To conclude, this has been an important debate. Transport and the rejuvenation of our towns go hand in hand. I hope that this debate encourages the Government to realise that our towns’ best days are not behind them but in the future, and that communities matter.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have talked about how moving Crown post offices into WHSmith branches across the country will limit their structure, because they have some big buildings at the moment. The massive floor space of the one in Sutton is well used, so I am not sure how it will cope if it is restricted at the back of somewhere. It might be a regressive move. There is a limit to how much the Government can direct the Post Office and banks, but they must have a significant influence. They should treat the issue holistically as they look at the future of the high street in general.

We have talked about the access to banking standard. At least Santander now has to go through the process of mitigating the results and looking at who the most vulnerable people are—I hope it would want to do that anyway. The people using bank branches these days tend to be older people, who do not necessarily have access to technology or are not as good at using technology as others, and retailers, especially the independent retailers that I was talking about that are still cash-heavy and need to bank their cash.

For the two branches that are closing in my constituency, the alternatives to Cheam are 1.3 miles and 3.3 miles away, and the alternatives to Worcester Park are 1.8 miles and 3 miles away. For a small business that wants to pay cash in at the end of the day, if there is no post office near enough, that is some distance to go with what might be quite a lot of cash, which is not very secure.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s point about the distance for small businesses. We have that issue in my constituency with the post office closure, which relates to the bank closures. There is a village a mile away from Reading town centre, a separate entity, where three banks and a post office have closed. That is a considerable amount of travelling time for a small business trying to bank cash. We have lost other banks in locations near Reading University and we have lost further facilities in other areas too.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need to look holistically at the whole parade of shops, the needs of vulnerable local people, particularly the elderly, and the needs of local small businesses. I urge him to raise with his hon. Friends in Government the possibility of an area-based approach, whereby those different needs are taken into account as part of banking or post office regulation.

[Paul Scully]

In Reading, as in Sutton, the difference in mileage is relatively small, but congestion and extra traffic mean that it represents significant travel time. We cannot compete with the 15 miles that people have to travel in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus.

I will make a final point and then let other hon. Members speak. When banks decide to close, we have to make sure that there is still access to a cashpoint network, so people who rely on cash—although that is dying down a bit—have access to it. When I was a local councillor in the neighbouring constituency of Carshalton, I spoke to a baker who had been badly affected when Barclays and its cashpoint closed there. That village relied on its independent shops, but after the cashpoint closed, people tended to turn left, towards the larger supermarkets, rather than right, where the smaller independent shops are. Previously, people had walked past the independent shops to get their cash and would spend money in the bakers and the other smaller shops on their way to do their main shop. Branch closures have a detrimental effect and we need to look at the issue holistically to make sure that we have a thriving, albeit changing, high street.

Equitable Life

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and his co-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke earlier, on bringing this debate to the House today. I commend them for their longevity in this process, because this has been the “Bleak House” of the bleak house of scandals. I cannot remember how many people from the beginning of Charles Dickens’s novel were still alive at the end, but this makes the point sharply.

I, too, think about all those people who have lost money in this process, with more than 2,000 of them in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she had had a modest plan with Equitable Life, and so did I, probably along with lots of people in this House. But it is the people we have heard about this afternoon—those who thought this was a safety net, not a passport to riches or even comfortableness, in some cases—who have missed out and been let down. We have heard of the sorts of people that group included. I am not going to go through the whole list, but I do wish to pick up on the reference to small business owners and the self-employed, because this is a specific and important issue for my constituents.

In my constituency, we still have more than 400 guest- houses, bed and breakfasts, holiday flats, people in the visitor economy and hoteliers. We are talking about precisely the sort of people who would want to put money into a company like Equitable Life when times gave them a little extra money. Why shouldn’t they? After all, one could look at the nice little crest on the front and everything else. This was a company founded, I believe, in 1759. I am told by the briefing from EMAG—I did not know this before today—that even Coleridge and Wordsworth were early investors in it. For someone looking for something that might do what it said on the tin, this was the sort of company to go for, but, sadly, as we have heard, that was not the case, so many of these people have missed out—the people who did that sort of thing.

Over the years, I have had dozens of people come to my surgeries who wanted to retire from their hotel or small business background but simply did not have the money to do so. Inevitably, that was not to do with Equitable Life for all of them. One of these people has written to me saying:

“I came to Blackpool 17 years ago with my wife and granddaughter to open and run a new Care home for mental health rehabilitation…For health reasons (and I was well past retirement age) we had to close the business…I really would appreciate any input you could bring to the debate”

with my example.

He continues:

“It would change our lives from having no spare money whatsoever every month. I suffered a seizure 7 weeks ago and am no longer allowed to drive. My wife is suffering from acute nerve pain…and is on morphine.”

Another constituent wrote to me saying:

“In my own case, my losses…were £28,942.

I received a payment of £6,483.

This means that the money I am still owed amounts to £22,459….The token 22.4% payment is a good start but does not solve the drastic depletion of my retirement funds....A debt is a debt and if the government sidesteps every obligation by claiming unaffordability there would never be any public expenditure. The government regularly chooses where and when to shake the magic money tree.”

I absolutely concur with my constituent’s indignation in that area.

I also want to pay tribute to the local co-ordinators, who have worked hard to identify those involved and keep their spirits up. The Blackpool South EMAG co-ordinator, Mr William Fray, has written to me to ask me to press these points today.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gordon Marsden]

I will but briefly, because we do not have a lot of time.

[Matt Rodda]

I fully concur with the points my hon. Friend and Conservative Members have made about the importance and dreadful nature of this scandal, and about the hard work that has been done by many local people. We have a group in my constituency, and its co-ordinator wrote me a moving and poignant letter about the problems that local people have has as a result of the Equitable Life scandal: some 2,000 people in my constituency have suffered. Once again, I concur with what he is saying and thank him for making this valuable point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I am summing up, and I have to keep very tightly to time.

I am grateful for all the praise that has been heaped on me and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the campaign that we have continued to run. I would much rather that the Government honoured the commitment that we all made in 2010 to deliver full compensation for the victims of the scandal. During the debate, our membership of the all-party parliamentary group has increased yet again. We now have 238 members, and we have been joined by no less a figure than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the former leader of the Labour party.

If the Government do not wake up to the fact that, on a cross-Bench basis, we are determined to get justice for Equitable Life policyholders, they may find that if they do not do the right thing it will be forced upon them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government’s acceptance in full of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in relation to its maladministration with regard to Equitable Life; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policy holders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that the overwhelming majority of victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation to victims of the scandal with the end of austerity now in sight.

[Matt Rodda]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my brief intervention during the debate I was unable to mention that I have a close relative who was one of the policyholders and he has suffered as a result. I should like to add that for the benefit of the record.

British Bioethanol Industry

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for securing this important debate on an issue that he is committed to. He is a great champion of the biofuel industry.

As we have heard, the bioethanol industry contributes £600 million to the UK economy every year. Over the past 10 years there has been an investment of over £1 billion in bioethanol production facilities. When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, transport is clearly the biggest offender, contributing 28% of the UK total, as well as contributing to air pollution, as we have heard. I am sure that we all agree that is a serious public health issue. Under the Government’s current plans we are not on course to meet our existing climate change targets under the Climate Change Act 2008. Indeed, last January the Committee on Climate Change warned the Government that their clean growth strategy does not go far enough and that urgent action is needed to meet our legally binding carbon reduction goals in the 2020s and by 2030. In June last year the CCC again warned the Government that we will not meet our targets unless they bring forward new policies such as the introduction of E10.

We know that bioethanol fuel is good for the environment, and that introducing E10 would be equivalent to taking 700,000 cars off the road. E10 petrol is already available in many western countries, such as France, Germany and Finland, and colleagues have also mentioned New Zealand, Australia and the United States. According to the Renewable Energy Association, the introduction of E10 in the UK would be equivalent to replacing 2 million petrol cars with fully electric vehicles. Does the Minister agree that the failure to mandate E10 will make achieving Government targets to source more of the UK’s energy needs from renewable sources more challenging?

Labour supports the growth and development of our renewables industry in order to support high-skill and high-wage jobs across the UK, particularly in the north of England, where colleagues have eloquently highlighted two major areas. The Government’s failure to support the UK bioethanol industry has led to the loss of around 1,000 skilled jobs. In September, Vivergo Fuels, which is the largest bioethanol producer in the UK, announced that it was ceasing production and moth- balling the plant based in east Yorkshire, which employed 150 people directly and indirectly supported 3,000 jobs. Here I will make a local plug because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—he wanted to attend this debate but could not due to another commitment—raised that point with the Minister at the time. Vivergo was an official northern powerhouse partner, which perhaps tells us something about the Government’s commitment, or lack of it, to the north of England.

One factor leading to the closure of that plant was the Government dithering and delaying their decisions. Does the Minister have a plan for replacing those lost jobs? Does she think that the collapse of the bioethanol industry last year will deter investors from investing in the renewable energy sector? The industry has been calling on the Government to make E10 mandatory at UK pumps. The Government have said that they would like a market-led solution, but petrol companies have pointed out that without a mandate from the Government such a solution cannot be introduced.

The Government also recently closed a call for evidence, which probably means that we are at least another year away from any introduction of E10. I do not believe that the call for evidence will tell the Government anything they do not already know. Will the Minister say when the response to the DFT consultation that closed in September will finally be published? The Government’s lack of leadership and action has led to job losses and the collapse of a key industry. How does the Minister plan to reverse that collapse? Will she now listen to the industry and mandate E10? I look forward to hearing her response.

Summer Adjournment

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and also my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and other hon. Members.

I want to raise an important issue for my constituents and to ask Ministers to consider it carefully. Reading is an historic town which dates back to the middle ages. It has a number of well-known buildings and more than a dozen conservation areas. Arguably our best-known building is Reading Gaol, which was written about by Oscar Wilde, who was incarcerated there. The prison was designed by the famous Victorian architect Gilbert Scott, whose work also included the Albert memorial, St Pancras station and many other notable Victorian buildings. The building is no longer used as a prison and has been empty for five years following a reorganisation of the prison estate. I argue that because of its cultural and artistic significance, the prison should be preserved and enhanced through being turned into a hub for the arts. I would like to set out the advantages of this approach, both locally and for enhancing our nation’s heritage, to suggest a way forward, and to encourage Ministers to work with me and Reading Borough Council on this project

There are significant benefits to the project. First and foremost, Reading would benefit from a major new theatre and hub for the arts. Our town is growing rapidly, and cultural and artistic activity is growing commensurately. There is a vibrant arts community, but a lack of large and nationally recognised venues. Secondly, the prison is an ideal location, both because of its history and association with Oscar Wilde, and because of its setting next to the nationally important ruins of Reading abbey, the burial place of Henry I. These grounds were recently restored and now form a venue for open-air theatre in the summer. The location offers the possibility for the town to develop an entire cultural quarter close to the town centre and the station, making it accessible to visitors from the Thames valley, London and Oxford.

Thirdly, using the prison as an arts hub has been tried before temporarily, with huge success. It was opened to the public, and the installations and performance art that were staged attracted thousands of visitors from across the country. Despite the undoubted potential of the prison and its success as a temporary venue for the arts, the regeneration of this historic building is being held up by the need to survey the site and to understand its archaeology. While I fully understand the need for and support the careful assessment of the site, I hope this can be finished soon to allow Ministers to consider a way forward.

I thank the prisons Minister, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), for his interest in the site and the time he has spent talking to me about its future. I encourage the Justice Secretary to approach the matter with urgency. He can rely on me, and on Reading Borough Council and other local groups, to pursue the project with commitment and an ambition to make it work.

I should also like to inform the Minister that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is involved in this project with Reading Borough Council. It may also support it, and a bid for funding might be under way. This is an important cultural project for Reading and the surrounding area, and I urge all parties to work together to help to deliver the proposal. Reading is a growing town, and it deserves an arts venue that celebrates both its ancient history and its potential for the future. Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you and other colleagues here today a very happy and relaxing summer break.