Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I have already outlined, the Government are, and remain, supportive of airport expansion where we are able to deliver it within our environmental obligations. I must point out to the hon. Lady that the Court did not conclude that airport expansion is incompatible with climate change. As I have already outlined, we are reviewing this complex judgment and will lay out our next steps soon.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

In the light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Government were wrong to deny the relevance and application of the Paris agreement. Do the Government now accept that their overriding obligation is one of compliance with our Paris accord commitments in reducing emissions, meaning that their national policy statement on aviation has to be revisited and revised, and that they should be saying no to climate-busting expansion at Heathrow?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I can understand the concerns that many hon. Members may have around the Government’s next steps. That is why we have outlined that it is currently an ongoing legal process. We have said that we will review the judgment, which is complex, and set out our next steps. As I have already outlined, the Court did not judge that the airport expansion is incompatible with climate change. But we will obviously update the House as soon as possible on any future steps that we will be prepared to take.

[Andy McDonald]

The Court of Appeal said that it was illegal.

In the midst of a climate crisis, the Chancellor announced the biggest-ever programme of road building—a £27 billion splurge that will increase car use, worsen congestion, and increase climate emissions. In anticipation of legal challenges, as with airport expansion, and before the Government go any further, can they confirm that the roads programme has been subject to rigorous environment impact assessments and complies with our Paris agreement obligations?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Yes.

Airport Expansion

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on airport expansion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)]

The Secretary of State is very sorry that he is unable to be in the Chamber today, but he is visiting the north, as part of a long-standing commitment, for discussions with northern leaders following the Government’s takeover of the Northern franchise. It is a pleasure to respond on his behalf as Minister for aviation.

Airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity and levelling up the UK. It is crucial that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy. This is a Government who support airport expansion, but we will only permit it within our environmental obligations. This Government have been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project that must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers.

Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the designation of the airports national policy statement did not take account of the Paris agreement, of non-CO₂ emissions or of emissions post 2050, and therefore has no legal effect unless and until this Government carry out a review. This Government have taken the decision not to appeal the Court’s judgment. We take seriously our commitments on the environment and reducing carbon emissions. It is a complex and important judgment that the Government need time to consider carefully. At this stage the Government will not be able to make any further comment beyond what was set out in the written statement on 27 February from the Secretary of State for Transport. Following the judgment, scheme promoters have applied for permission to the Supreme Court to appeal this decision. The Government will not comment on an ongoing legal case.

Aviation will play a key role in leading our economic growth and driving forward the UK’s status as an outward-facing trading nation, attracting investment and growing our trade links with new overseas markets. Today, our airports support connections to more than 370 destinations, in more than 100 countries. Aviation drives trade, investment and tourism, contributing £14 billion to our economy and half a million jobs. The next decade will mark an unprecedented moment of opportunity for the UK. That is why we are investing in transport and infrastructure across the country: investing in our strategic road network; proceeding with HS2; and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.

Airport expansion is a core part of our commitment to global connectivity, but we are also a Government who are committed to a greener future, as the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. This Government are therefore committed to working with the aviation sector to make sure we deliver on the opportunities available to us, while meeting our environmental commitments, be it on modernisation of our airspace, innovation in sustainable fuels, or research and technology. This will ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for the whole country, and the House will be updated on next steps as soon as possible.

[Andy McDonald]

I welcome the Minister to her place. Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government’s Heathrow expansion plan was unlawful as it failed to consider their Paris climate agreement commitments. I would like to thank those who fought the case, not the least of whom was the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan. That we must rely on environmental campaigners and the courts to protect us from illegal and environmentally destructive policies is clear evidence of the Government’s lack of real concern about the climate crisis.

The Court’s ruling was the right one. At the time of the Airports National Policy Statement, Labour warned that the plans would cause the UK to miss its climate targets. We said that the Government were failing to take account of their commitments and that this would result in legal challenges—we were dismissed, but we were right. Why did the then Transport Secretary fail to consider the Paris climate agreement in his plans for airport expansion? What legal advice did he receive? Was the advice flawed or simply ignored? The Government said that they will not appeal the decision but will focus on “overall airport expansion”. What does that mean?

If the Government accept the ruling, they should rule out airport expansion. It would be unacceptable to amend the national policy statement to include a reference to climate commitments while simultaneously paving the way for policies that will cause them to be missed. The Government should not hide behind the courts or industry; they must say what their policy now is. It is their NPS, not Heathrow airport’s. Will the Government indemnify Heathrow Airport Limited and its backers for their wasted investment if runway three does not go ahead? What are the implications for the Government’s planned almost £30 billion road building programme, which also fails to consider the UK’s climate commitments? Those plans will significantly worsen emissions, at a time when there is a legal requirement for them to fall. What legal advice has the Minister had as to whether those astronomically expensive and environmentally destructive plans are not similarly unlawful?

It is already clear that the Government’s transport policy of road building, cutting aviation tax and airport expansions, will put the UK even further off track to meet its climate targets. This is morally indefensible, and last week’s ruling means it is likely to be legally indefensible too. Will the Minister take this as a wake-up call, by ruling out climate-busting airport expansion; introducing a frequent flyer levy; and investing in public transport, electric vehicles and active travel? The future of the planet is at stake.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about last week’s judgment, but I should point out that the Government were clear in our manifesto that the Heathrow expansion project was a private sector project and needed to meet the strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change and to be privately financed in the best interests of consumers. Airport expansion is a core part of the Government’s commitment to global connectivity and investing in our infrastructure. We welcome the efforts of airports throughout the UK to come forward with ambitious proposals to invest in their infrastructure, under our wider policy of encouraging them to make the best use of their assets.

We want the UK to be the best place in the world and we are forming new trading relationships with the European Union and negotiating free trade deals around the world. Last week’s judgment is an important step in the process. Heathrow Ltd is obviously able to apply to the courts to appeal, but we take our environmental commitments seriously and they are important to how we reach our objective of net zero by 2050.

I highlight for the hon. Gentleman the fact that we are committed to the decarbonisation of aviation, as that is an important part of our efforts on climate change. That is why we are maintaining momentum by investing in aviation research and technology. We are investing £1.95 billion in aviation research and development between 2013 and 2026. In August last year we announced a joint £300 million fund, with industry involvement, for the Future Flight Challenge. We will introduce a Bill that will modernise the country’s airspace, reduce noise around airports and combat CO₂ omissions.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the advice given to the Secretary of State. I understand that that advice may form part of one of the grounds of appeal of another party in the Supreme Court, so I am unable to comment while the proceedings are ongoing, but I will not take lectures from the Labour party when even Labour-supporting unions such as the GMB have called Labour’s plans “utterly unachievable”. As I have already outlined, airport expansion is a core part of the Government’s commitment to global connectivity and levelling up.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill: Revival

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Carry-over motion & Bill reintroduced & Bill reintroduced: House of Commons & motion to revive Bill: House of Commons
Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. The Labour party is supportive of the motion—as can be seen from the massed ranks of the Opposition behind me right now!—because we see HS2 as key to boosting regional economies and reducing climate emissions. It is essential for increasing rail capacity and freeing up other lines for freight use. I rather think that some of the troubles we have had with High Speed 2 might have been avoided had we come up with another name for it, but that is by the by.

Successive Conservative Transport Ministers have shown themselves lacking in competence and unable to oversee the finances and governance of HS2, among other infrastructure projects. In recent years, the Government have presented inaccurate information to both Parliament and the public about the cost of HS2. The public need to have confidence in the project, but sadly the Government have undermined that with their failure to exercise any control over not only costs but redundancy payments. There is real concern that the true costs of the project were known to be much higher than the figures that the Government continually promoted. As the project progresses, it is essential that there is much greater transparency.

In addition, when the contracts for phase 1 were being granted, despite hedge fund managers making a packet out of the inevitable demise of Carillion, this Tory Government crashed on regardless, awarding the doomed organisation a valuable HS2 contract.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am curious. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not believe the figures for the cost of HS2 reflect reality. He may well be right. What does he think HS2 will cost?

[Andy McDonald]

We are told that the cost has risen from £57 billion to £80 billion, and rumour has it that it is now more than £100 billion. I am not in a position to make an informed judgment because I am not in possession of the information that Ministers have, but people are understandably concerned about costs increasing at such a rate.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

In fact, the Carillion collapse meant that all the Carillion liabilities for the contract were transferred to the two other contractors. Where was the harm in that? Was that not a rather skilfully let triple contract?

[Andy McDonald]

On the contrary, it was one of the most cataclysmic episodes of the HS2 story. When everybody and his dog knew that Carillion was in difficulties, and hedge fund managers were making millions on the demise of Carillion, this Government ploughed on with it, regardless of the information that was in the public domain. It was clear evidence of utter incompetence.

The Oakervee review was correct to say that HS2 must be a fully integrated part of the modern railway system and must extend to the great cities of the north, linking up with Crossrail for the north and on to Scotland, to curtail the demand for domestic flying in this country at the earliest opportunity.

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

One issue that many people like me on the south coast have, which I hope Ministers will look at, is that the average speed from London to Portsmouth and Southampton has not changed since the 1920s. At the moment, we are seeing vast amounts of money going into a project of mixed popularity, to put it mildly, while people in Southampton, Portsmouth and my constituency of the Isle of Wight will be struggling with speeds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are not talking about the Isle of Wight. We are talking about a procedural motion.

[Andy McDonald]

I take that admonishment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and simply satisfy the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Labour party entered the last general election with a fully costed regional plan that would have served his area adequately.

The dividends in reduced emissions are immense, and I encourage the Government to articulate that argument better at every opportunity. We are concerned that the links to Manchester and Leeds are now under review and could even be downgraded. The Government have repeatedly broken their promises of investment in the north, with the region set to receive just a fraction of the investment to be made in London, and a northern powerhouse simply has to be much more than a slogan.

HS2 must be developed with more sensitivity to local communities and much more sensitivity to the environmental impact, particularly on modern and ancient woodlands across the country.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way, save that I may incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[David Simmonds]

I have a very specific point on this issue. One of the lessons from my constituency about the first phase of HS2 is that commitments given to this House on earlier phases have simply not been honoured by HS2 Ltd. I would encourage us, and ask the Minister, to consider how we can hold it robustly to account on this second phase to ensure that, when commitments and promises are made to this House about how local communities and individual families will be treated and supported sensitively and they are not honoured, there must be consequences.

[Andy McDonald]

I think the hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. The issues of governance and communication have to be improved, and I think everybody in the House would agree with that.

On modern and ancient woodlands, I just make the point that the commitment to the speed of this project may have to be reviewed. I think the commitment to going in straight lines at 250 mph has to be taken into consideration. If we look at the TGV in France, the average speed of that high-speed link is 187 mph, and that does not impact on its efficiency.

If the project is to have full public support, the fares on HS2 must be affordable and comparable with the rest of the fare system on the rail network. It has previously been intimated that for HS2 to gain the confidence of the public, it cannot be a premium service. If HS2 is successfully to replace so many long-distance journeys, it has to be an integral part of an affordable and accessible railway.

The Transport Secretary should ensure that the procurement of HS2’s rolling stock is conducted in a way that makes sure the trains will be manufactured in the UK and will benefit the UK supply chain. Could the Minister inform the House of what steps the Secretary of State is going to take to ensure that the delivery of HS2 is closely co-ordinated with Network Rail’s ongoing work programme and the development of Northern Powerhouse Rail?

Given the amount of public money that is to be spent on delivering HS2, it is essential that the Government ensure that HS2 services are run under public ownership, so that British taxpayers can see a return on their investment in supporting the UK economy, rather than in enriching private companies or foreign state-owned companies. Her Majesty’s Opposition are indeed supportive, and we look forward to the progress of the project.

Transport

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges that the UK’s transport emissions have not substantially fallen since 1990 and have increased since 2010; and calls on the Government to develop and implement a plan to eliminate the substantial majority of transport emissions by 2030, to decarbonise the UK’s entire bus network, to invest in an electric vehicle charging network that can support the majority of vehicles on the UK’s roads by 2030, to cut bus and rail fares, to increase public transport patronage, to provide funding for cycling and walking, including investment in cycleways and grants for ebikes, to introduce a network of clean air zones to tackle illegal levels of air pollution, and to bring aviation emissions within the UK’s climate targets.

The fires blazing in Australia are a catastrophe for that nation and its people, but it is not the only country at risk from such ravages. The burning infernos are a reminder of the new landscape that the climate crisis is creating across the world. The challenge is no longer abstract but a very real and devastating reality. I am proud, therefore, of the Labour party’s pledge to put tackling the climate crisis at the heart of our transport and wider economic policy. It is both right and necessary, not least because since 2010 the transport policies of Tory Governments have done so much to undermine sustainable transport.

The Government have failed to provide leadership on climate change. Those are not my words, but those of the former Conservative rail and environment Minister Claire O’Neill. She also said that the Government were “miles off track” in the setting of a positive agenda for the COP26 United Nations summit in Glasgow, and that “promises” of action were

“not close to being met.”

The Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to make the UK a world leader in the tackling of climate change is beyond risible. This is not year zero. The Tories have been in power for a decade, and some of us have not forgotten the last 10 years of broken promises and empty pledges on transport. Here are a few.

The “Road to Zero” transport decarbonisation strategy had no money or political will behind it, so is barely worth the paper it was written on. There have been vast cuts in bus funding and services; huge cuts in rail electrification programmes; support for airport expansion; and major road expansion programmes. Those actions are a matter of fact and public record. They are not the actions of a Government who are serious about tackling the climate crisis; they are the actions of a Government without a relevant transport policy.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend contrast that with the approach being taken by the Welsh Labour Government? In my constituency, for example, they are supporting the building of a new station east of Cardiff, St Mellons Parkway, with funds working to ensure that more people can have access to public transport—green public transport —in the east of the city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Welsh Government are taking a serious issue more seriously, and they are to be commended for their work.

What is more, transport is the most emitting sector of the UK economy. It is responsible for more than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, and that is excluding international shipping and aviation. It is also the worst-performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, which are higher now than in 2010. Progress has been poor in comparison with that of other sectors: transport emissions were just 2% lower in 2016-17 than 1990-1991, compared with 60% for energy supply and 30% for businesses more generally.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what happened to transport emissions under the Labour Government in the 10 years following 1997, before the financial crash?

[Andy McDonald]

We are dealing with 2020 and the risible record of this Government. I know that a number of Conservative Members think that the world started in 2020, but the Government have been in power since 2010, and they should take that on board.

The facts that I have given compound the Government’s depressing lack of ambition. Their failure to reduce transport carbon emissions and act on the crisis is a huge missed opportunity to lead the world in developing and manufacturing low-carbon technologies. Yesterday’s announcement of a 2035 phase-out of the production of petrol and diesel cars highlights the poverty of vision for the climate and for industry. Electric vehicles will be as cheap as diesel and petrol cars by the mid-2020s. It makes no sense to go on selling polluting vehicles that will be more expensive to buy and run into the 2030s. In its alternative strategy, Labour has set out a clear pathway to achieving significant reductions in climate emissions at the same time as reducing regional and social inequalities and improving the quality of life.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that under Labour’s plans we would decarbonise our transport, but would also ensure that there was an exclusive network so that disabled people could have a good quality of life and could have access to our public transport network?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Access to public transport should be treated as a right, so that disabled people can travel spontaneously as other people can. Many of our policies say exactly that,.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way one more time, but then I really must crack on.

[John Redwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he accept that the UK has done more than practically any other country in the world to cut its carbon dioxide emissions since 1990, whereas China, for example, is greatly expanding its coal extraction and coal power? What is the Labour party’s message to China in the run-up to the conference?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

My message is that our country is about to miss its own targets for the fourth and fifth carbon targets, and that is an appalling record. That is on the Government’s own statistics, so we really need to focus on getting our own house in order.

Successful bus networks are key to achieving a modal shift from private to public transport and reducing carbon emissions. A fully loaded double decker bus could take up to 75 cars off the road. We are hearing references now to buses from the Conservative Benches, inspired no doubt by the Prime Minister’s painting of cardboard buses, but there needs to be more than that. Under this Government, bus funding has been slashed in real terms by £645 million a year, and more than 3,000 routes have been cut or withdrawn. Fares have soared at more than two and a half times the rate of wage increases, while bus patronage in England outside London has fallen by 10%.

Labour has committed to extending the power to franchise bus services to all local authorities in England and to overturning the ban on new municipal companies. That would allow for the cross-subsidisation of services, smart and integrated ticketing, and London-style price caps. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) remarked the other day that a £1.50 bus fare takes her four stops on the West Road in Newcastle. I endure the same thing: a £2 bus ride from my home in Middlesbrough to the bus station a short distance away is truly ridiculous when people can cross this wonderful capital city very economically indeed.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.

[Dr Huq]

I want to give my hon. Friend a London example. We have the 70 and 94 buses in Acton and Chiswick, and on Friday they became electric, despite the massive cuts to the Transport for London support grant that this Government have placed on our London Mayor. Many people in London are worried that our capital will be punished for voting Labour. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more joined-up thinking and more funding if we are to decarbonise transport?

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely. It is remarkable that London is the only city of any comparison that is without a central Government grant. Some of the measures that we would be taking, were we in government, would have gone some way to addressing that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be taking any more interventions. I am very much aware that a great number of people want to speak in the debate, so if colleagues will bear with me, I will carry on.

We said that we would totally reverse the cuts made to bus services since 2010, then invest the same amount again. That would allow for 3,000-plus route cuts to be reversed, and for the expansion of new services through the redirection of funds currently being channelled into road building. We could then provide free travel for the under-25s in the areas that own or regulate their buses, in order to address generational inequalities, encourage lifelong public transport use and help reverse the long-term downward trend in bus patronage in England outside London. Electrifying 35,000 buses by 2030 would reduce their emissions by 72% as well as boosting manufacturing. However, progress has been painfully slow over the past decade, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State might furnish us with any proposals in that regard.

Similarly, we have seen rail fares rise by 40% since 2010. In contrast, fares in Germany were cut by 10% at the start of this year to encourage more people to travel by train in order to cut emissions. It is frankly absurd that UK rail fares have risen so excessively while the cost of short-haul flights remains low, with taxes broadly frozen. That is why we pledged in the election campaign to reduce fares by 33% by using part of the revenue brought in by vehicle excise duty. This financial offer to commuters would have encouraged the shift from car usage to public transport that will be essential in the coming years if we are to be successful in decarbonising the transport sector.

However, capital investment in our railways will also be required to reverse the electrification cancellations that we have seen under the Conservatives. Despite the clear environmental and performance benefits of rail electrification, the Tories cancelled the promised electrification on the midland main line, on the line between Windermere and Oxenholme, on TransPennine and on parts of the Great Western route.

Rail freight is a low carbon transport choice, emitting 76% less carbon than the equivalent road journey, and has massive potential to lower UK transport emissions, so I regret that the Government have done so little to encourage it. For example, the TransPennine upgrade has no new capacity for freight. Labour’s policy of bringing the railways into public ownership would allow a long-term strategic approach to investment, delivering a more consistent approach that would better support UK industry and help to decarbonise our railways.

I welcome Eurostar’s announcement this week that full direct rail services from London to Amsterdam will begin on 30 April, with direct services to Rotterdam beginning on 18 May. More rail links between the UK and Europe are vital to reducing carbon emissions from short-haul aviation, and I will work with EU colleagues to promote better rail connectivity.

Ahead of the Budget next month, I remind the Transport Secretary and the Chancellor that we cannot road build our way out of the climate crisis. New roads quickly fill up with cars, and “predict and provide” is a 20th-century concept. Ministers claimed that the road investment strategy for motorways and major A roads between 2015 to 2020 would revolutionise the network. In fact, one in three of the projects has been cancelled or delayed, and the strategy is in complete disarray. Road spending should focus on providing more capacity for sustainable transport, such as provisions for bus priority and integrated transport schemes. We need to develop a more holistic approach to transport funding that is geographically rebalanced across the UK.

Labour committed to repurposing vehicle excise duty to establish a sustainable transport fund. Such a fund could provide £550 million a year for walking and cycling routes, £1.4 billion a year to fund free bus travel for under-25s when bus services are re-regulated, £1.3 billion a year to restore the 3,000 bus services lost and deliver an additional 3,000 on top, and £500 million a year to fund local road improvements and maintenance. Most journeys start and end on local roads, which are also used by cyclists and pedestrians, so fixing potholes and better maintaining those roads and pavements should be a priority.

Tackling road transport emissions requires an enormous investment in electric vehicles to see a just transition of the UK’s fleet of road vehicles.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I am aware that many people want to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will carry on.

Labour set 2030 as the date for ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. The Government’s new target of 2035 is not ambitious enough for our climate, our industries and our motorists. It is also deeply worrying to hear that the Government may be planning to scrap the £3,500 electric car grant when it expires next month. Perhaps the Transport Secretary can confirm whether that is the case when he comes to the Dispatch Box.

Electric vehicles are already cheaper over the lifetime of a vehicle, and up-front costs are likely to fall sharply by the mid-2020s. It makes sense for the supporting industry and for reducing emissions that motorists should transition soonest. Last year, Labour announced plans to invest £3.6 billion in a vast expansion of the UK’s electric vehicle charging network and to offer 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, saving buyers up to £5,000. Furthermore, our plans included the introduction of a targeted scrappage scheme to replace cars over 10 years old powered by fossil fuels with new electric cars. We would also have put 30,000 electric cars on UK streets through publicly owned community car sharing clubs. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed EV subsidies and have failed to invest any of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure fund announced in 2017. Not only is that preventing the UK from making necessary emission reductions, but it leaves our motor manufacturing industries lagging behind foreign counterparts.

In the midst of an air pollution crisis, active travel remains massively underfunded. The Government are predicted to miss their own cycling targets, achieving just a third of the 800 million extra trips that they hoped for by 2025, and much of the growth in cycling is limited to London. Labour set out plans to boost cycling and walking and to make England one of the most cycling and walking friendly places in the world, making our towns and cities cleaner and greener, and transforming the environment, travel opportunities and quality of life right across the country. The emissions-reducing plan would also have addressed the local air pollution crisis and the epidemic of ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles. This investment in walking and cycling would, for the first time, have made active travel a genuine option for the many, not just the brave.

The plan included: doubling cycling for adults and children; building 5,000 km of cycleways; creating safe cycling and walking routes to 10,000 primary schools; delivering universal affordable access to bicycles and grants for e-bike purchases; and providing training for all primary school children and their parents, extending training to secondary schools and making training available for all adults.

Aviation emissions are a particular issue: in the UK, they have more than doubled since 1990, while emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by around 40%. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow. According to the Department for Transport’s projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. The Government should rule out any expansion that is not compatible with our climate targets. Who are we expanding airports for?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I have already indicated that I will not give way because so many people want to speak.

Fifteen per cent. of the UK’s population accounts for 70% of all flights, and half the country does not fly at all in any given year. Ahead of a possible tax cut for the aviation industry next month, Ministers should be thinking more imaginatively, such as replacing air passenger duty with a fair and just levy that targets frequent flyers. The Government’s advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, has called for the introduction of a frequent flyer levy. Such a move could reduce demand for flying without penalising the annual family holiday in the sun, instead making it more expensive to fly out for a weekend at the second home in Provence for the umpteenth time that year.

[Damian Hinds]

It is more about business.

[Andy McDonald]

No, it is not.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it is more than a decade since the effectiveness of regulators in the transport industry was seriously questioned or considered? [Interruption.] I know he is not listening, but he really should.

Regulators could and should have a positive role in driving carbon reduction in the industries they oversee. Does the Secretary of State agree that the powers of the Office of Rail and Road and the Civil Aviation Authority should be strengthened to ensure that the road, rail, bus and aviation industries meet their climate crisis obligations? Have the Government issued any guidance to the transport industry regulators in that regard?

Finally, the Department for Transport does not have a carbon reduction budget or target. The Government should set a carbon budget consistent with the aspirations of the Paris agreement and beyond. In addition, each of the sectors—rail, road, aviation and maritime—should have carbon reduction targets in line with that departmental budget, and departmental spending should be reallocated to achieve the changes required.

Claire O’Neill is correct to say that the Prime Minister “doesn’t get it” on the climate crisis. The Transport Secretary has an opportunity to show that he does get it by halting the colossal road-building programme and his plans for airport expansion, and by boosting investment in active travel, public transport and electric vehicles.

Dealing with transport is critical to confronting the climate crisis. We are compelled to take action by decarbonising not only to respond to the existential threat to our one and only planet but to embrace the green industrial revolution and, simultaneously, to address the gross and obscene deficits in social justice. We must level up so that everyone across our nation has affordable, accessible and sustainable transport. We must connect our communities and businesses, and we must give people the means to get to work, to get to college, school or university and to get to hospital, and to help address social isolation.

The moral, social and economic imperatives are urgent and stark, and I urge this Government to take the bold and radical action that is necessary. The country, indeed the world, is watching. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

I have another few minutes, and I want to give other colleagues a chance to contribute, so I will conclude by mentioning a few more things, particularly promoting healthier forms of transport such as cycling and walking. A number of principles will guide our future mobility urban strategy. We are investing £2.5 billion in the Transforming Cities fund, to help cities and regions throughout England tackle congestion with greener forms of transport, particularly cycling and walking. There are brilliant examples in Manchester, for example, with the Bee Network, and in Birmingham, where there is a network to do the same things. We will be going further and faster on cycling and walking.

We have briefly touched on rail and our enthusiasm for it. It is worth mentioning the £48 billion being provided just in this particular period—control period 6 of Network Rail’s expenditure. That is without Northern Powerhouse Rail and without whatever decisions we reach on high-speed rail. The amount of money going into rail is a record in this country. I know that many colleagues were in Parliament yesterday when we discussed the £0.5 billion going into the Beeching reversal fund, reopening lines that were closed in those savage cuts in the ’60s and ’70s. As I said before, only the Labour party could think that half a billion pounds is small change. And that is just a down payment—that is where we are starting, folks. Yesterday, we had a fantastic meeting with colleagues from all parties—I have not heard any of them complain—who are interested in the reopening of their local Beeching lines, which were savagely cut, mostly under the Labour Governments of the 1970s. Some 5,000 miles of track and 2,300 stations were closed; now that we are opening them all up, all Labour Members say is that we should have done it sooner. You could not make it up.

We are absolutely to committed to the plan to get railways open, and we also take a much more realistic view when it comes to aviation. Just last night I was with representatives of the aviation sector, which has itself signed a plan to get to zero carbon by 2050. The challenge is straightforward enough with cars, because we already have the technology. It is possible with buses and it is easier with other forms of transport, but it is uniquely complex with aircraft, given their weight and the performance requirements that have until now required aviation fuel. The aviation sector’s commitment to get to zero carbon is one of the most serious challenges for this country’s transport plan. I am impressed by the sector’s ideas and the Government will work closely with it, through carbon offsetting—

[Andy McDonald]

Ah!

[Grant Shapps]

That is just the start. We will work closely with the aviation sector through reduction schemes, by working with international aviation and by producing fuels that do not emit carbon in the same way that fuels do today. The Future Flight Challenge includes £300 million for greener aviation, to make aviation electric. I was not going to repeat the point, but I will now that I have been challenged: we are working on programmes to produce electric and hybrid planes and to use biofuels and other technologies to cut emissions from fuel. That is extremely important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I can get to my feet and commit the Government to simplifying rail fares in the very near term.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to wish the entire House a belated happy rail nationalisation day for yesterday?

Earlier this month, UK rail passengers were hit with yet another above-inflation fare rise. Fares are now up by 40% since 2010, having risen at twice the rate of wages. In contrast, fares in Germany were cut by 10% at the start of this year to encourage more people to travel by train in order to cut emissions. Of course, Labour pledged to reduce fares by 33%. Should the British Government not follow the example of our European friends and consider a fare cut to boost rail travel, rather than imposing yet another fare hike?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The Government cap around 45% of all rail fares, including most season tickets, to protect passengers who rely on the railway from high fares. Of every £1 spent on fares, 98p goes back into our railways. That is an investment in the railways; they are actually not bad value for money.

[Andy McDonald]

That is a curious interpretation of the experience of British rail passengers. The Transport Secretary will know that fuel duty has been frozen since 2010 at the cost of more than £50 billion, and he will be aware that air passenger duty has been broadly frozen over a similar period, with the cut likely to come in the Budget. He may also appreciate that rail and bus fares have increased by more than a third in a decade. Does the Minister agree that tax breaks for cars and aviation over public transport is the right approach to meet the climate crisis challenge?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

We have a very ambitious transport decarbonisation plan and we want to do better, as the Minister for the future of transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), has outlined already—so yes, we do think we have the right approach to decarbonise transport by 2050.

Flybe

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I thank my right hon. Friend once again for working hard on behalf of Southampton airport. I am acutely conscious of the fact that some 94% of Southampton’s passengers are Flybe passengers, and she makes an important series of points about the airport’s importance to her region. Indeed, I gather the airport is also important to inbound tourism.

My right hon. Friend tries to tempt me on to the topic of APD. It may help the House if I make it clear that Transport Ministers never comment on air passenger duty, which is a matter for the Treasury, and I do not intend to change that now. I will not be making any comments on air passenger duty.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this important urgent question. It is agreed on both sides of the House that Flybe, a great British brand, is a hugely important regional airline that provides a vital lifeline and connectivity for many of our communities. News of its difficulties will worry workers and passengers alike.

There is clearly a case for Government intervention, and I trust the Government will learn the lessons from their inept response to the Thomas Cook collapse, which saw other nation states being prepared to step in while this Government sat on their hands and contacted the company only after it was too late. We cannot have a repeat of that debacle. Flybe’s workers and passengers deserve better.

What restructuring plan has been agreed as part of the Government’s support, and what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the trade unions Unite and the British Airline Pilots Association? Will the Minister and the Secretary of State commit to ensuring those unions are fully engaged in the process?

The Government must avoid simply feathering the nests of the new consortium, including Virgin Atlantic and the Stobart group. Surely they knew the scale of the financial challenges facing them when they acquired the business. What was known to the new owners at the time of their acquisition? Prior to the acquisition, did they seek assurances on Government assistance and an indication of the Government’s intentions for APD? What discussions is the Minister having with the industry about transitioning to greater sustainability, including electric flights, and about whether current plans are compatible with reducing emissions?

Slashing air passenger duty across the board would make a mockery of the Government’s supposed commitment to climate emissions. It would also benefit a wealthy minority. Some 70% of UK flights are made by a wealthy 15% of the population, with the great majority of people not flying at all. Aviation is set to be the biggest source of emissions by 2050, with Ministers planning for demand to double.

The Government’s own advisory body on climate change has said that the UK is “way off track” to meet its climate change targets. Rather than proposing to slash aviation tax, will the Minister not listen to the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change for a frequent flyer levy that would remove people who fly just once a year from taxation while making wealthy frequent flyers pay more?

I encourage the Minister to do all he can to support Flybe and its workforce, and to protect passengers, but can he assure the House that his Government will simultaneously and fully accept their responsibility to protect the planet?

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly as we agree on the importance of Flybe to the country. The Government are working hard to find what they can do to support the company. I cannot and will not provide a running commentary on those discussions. He will note that the Secretary of State is not here to answer the urgent question, as he is having discussions in Whitehall and is working hard on behalf of the airline.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the environmental aspects. Domestic aviation constitutes 4% of UK aviation’s overall emissions. He mentioned the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, which it gave to us just before the election, and we are looking forward to consulting on it imminently. In addition, the transport decarbonisation plan is coming soon.

We are acutely conscious of the fact that aviation has an important role to play in meeting our net zero target by 2050, and I am working very hard on finding the answers to those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

The interesting thing about the countries the hon. Gentleman cites is that largely they do not produce cars. It is very, very easy if you are not a car manufacturer to introduce all sorts of measures that essentially mean that only electric cars will be favoured and sold. In this country, we have a big car manufacturing sector and we export 80% of the cars we produce. I am very anxious to move the sector to a faster timetable, but to protect jobs as well as the environment it is a question of doing that at a programmed pace. We have managed to do that so far.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks concerning the terrible tragedy in Essex? The nation is reeling from that abject horror. We send our sympathies to all the families of the deceased, wherever they may be across the world. I reassure the Secretary of State that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will want to co-operate and work with him to take whatever steps are necessary, legislative or otherwise, to reduce the likelihood of this terrible event ever happening again.

We are in a climate crisis. Transport is the most emitting sector of the economy and the only sector where emissions have risen in recent years. Given that the Government have slashed subsidies for electric vehicles and failed to invest money promised for charging points over two years ago, does the Transport Secretary seriously believe his announcement earlier this week for a consultation on whether to introduce green number plates for electric cars is really going to save the planet?

[Grant Shapps]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the events in Grays, Essex yesterday. We will work together on that.

Green number plates are just one very small part of a very, very large package that includes £1.5 billion to subsidise the take-up of electric cars; £400 million on a charging infrastructure investment fund, which I announced earlier in the summer, to help to supercharge the number of charge points; and many, many other activities. As I say every I time I stand at the Dispatch Box, electric cars are fantastic. They are available new and on the second-hand market. The cost of ownership overall, because it costs £5 or £6 to drive from here to Manchester and refuelling with those charge stations is much easier, is something that everybody can invest in now.

[Andy McDonald]

I am afraid the Transport Secretary ignores my warnings, but will he listen to the Government’s own advisers when they say the UK is way off track to meet their climate targets? Labour would invest £3.6 billion in charging networks, introduce 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, and target a 2030 phase-out for the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. The Government are attempting to disguise their lack of action on the climate crisis with a lick of green paint. Is the Secretary of State not embarrassed at his poverty of ambition?

[Grant Shapps]

As I have already said, I passionately believe in bringing this forward. I have already said that I am going to investigate moving forward from 2040 to 2035 a commitment given before the 2050 net zero, and I have a package of measures, which I was referring to before, that will be in the decarbonisation plan to ensure we meet all those targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but we must move on.

[Andy McDonald]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, very briefly.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. In our exchanges on Question 3, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised her concerns about the delayed publication of the Oakervee report. The Minister responded by saying that she was making it up. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that when my hon. Friend comes to the Dispatch Box she does not make things up—she tells the truth. If the Minister has inadvertently used language that he ought not to, perhaps he could come to the Dispatch Box right now and withdraw the slur that he has laid against her immediately, without any qualification.

[Mr Speaker]

It is incumbent upon a Minister to own up if he or she considers an error to have been made. I would simply say that as a matter of fact Members must be assumed to speak what they believe to be true. It all happened very quickly, and I did mutter at the time that a Member will say only what he or she believes. So it was, I think, infelicitous, at the very least, and a gracious withdrawal would be appreciated.

Thomas Cook

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for giving me timely advance sight of his statement; that is a welcome change. What I do not welcome is the collapse of Thomas Cook, which is a tragedy for the 178-year-old business, its customers and its staff. The travel company went under because successive chief executives failed to steer the group effectively or to evolve the business. Thomas Cook had five offers for its airline business, yet these were rejected by the board. I, too, would like to pay tribute to Richard Moriarty and his team at the Civil Aviation Authority for the work done yet again to repatriate holidaymakers. I applaud their sense of public service and duty.

Aviation is a fiercely competitive industry that has lost services because of terrorism and Brexit uncertainty. The Government’s dithering on their aviation strategy has only added to these difficulties. In May, speaking on airline insolvencies, the Secretary of State’s predecessor said that the Government

“will work swiftly to introduce the reforms that are needed to ensure a strong level of consumer protection and value for money for the taxpayer.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 33-34WS.]

This was misleading. The Government have done nothing to protect consumer or taxpayer interests. The Government have sat back and let the company fold.

Yesterday, Governments in Scandinavia stepped in to back Thomas Cook subsidiaries in that region. The German Government also stepped in with a loan of €380 million for the Thomas Cook subsidiary Condor, to help that company to survive. The chief executive of Thomas Cook Airlines, Christoph Debus, has seamlessly just gone to work for Condor, and jubilant scenes of the survival of the subsidiary are doing the rounds on social media. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what steps his Government took to enter into a joint investment with other interested nation states? It is reported that the Governments of Spain and Turkey were understandably willing to do this, but seemingly the UK Government were not.

We are somewhat reassured that there is provision to return holidaymakers to the UK, but sadly there is no provision for the return of Thomas Cook’s staff. The unions Unite and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association have valiantly fought for their members, while this Government have done nothing. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that all staff will be repatriated? Can he say what provisions he is putting in place to ensure that customers who have lost their planned holidays are fully compensated and able to make alternative arrangements at no expense to themselves?

The Government learned nothing from the Monarch collapse two years ago. Monarch cost taxpayers £40 million in repatriation costs and Thomas Cook looks set to cost a similar amount or more, not to mention redundancy and future welfare payments. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of what the total costs are likely to be? Monarch was the victim of financial engineering by Greybull Capital two years ago, and of conflicts of interest with the company’s administrator. Similarly, the collapse of Thomas Cook raises major questions about the accounting of the firm by PwC and EY, never mind the bonuses paid to senior executives. On that point, will the Secretary of State make it clear to those executives that they should return their undeserved and unwarranted multi-million pound bonuses, including that of Peter Fankhauser, who has had £4.6 million in bonuses since 2014?

I say again that the Government have not acted to protect the public interest, and that nothing has been learned or done to improve how our insolvency arrangements deal with such exceptional and complex circumstances. What is more, the ATOL fund has been much reduced by the Monarch fiasco and has had to rely on insurance to make up the shortfall. Does the Secretary of State believe that the reforms of ATOL enacted by his Government have been effective? The Government must confirm that they will immediately guarantee the workers full compensation for unfair dismissal, given the lack of proper consultation, and that those workers will not have to pursue the matter through the courts. Can he confirm that they will be relieved of that burden and stress?

In a further sad development, we also learned today that Northern Ireland’s last manufacturer, Wrightbus, has gone into administration with the loss of 1,400 jobs. In July, the Prime Minister said that

“we will do everything we can to ensure the future of that great UK company.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1496.]

Is it not the case that this Government are guilty of the industrial neglect of this country? In contrast to other countries, UK Ministers have stood by and let some of our great companies wither and die. This Government are engulfed by inertia and incompetence. They are not a functioning Government, because of the Brexit chaos and Prorogation paralysis that they have brought upon themselves. The people of Britain are paying a high price for their inadequacy. They have failed to reform insolvency rules and failed to improve financial reporting. This is a colossal failure of political leadership from this Government. They were warned, but they did nothing. That is a shameful failure to fulfil their duties and their responsibilities.

[Grant Shapps]

Let me see what we can deal with here. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, that the world has changed. In 2007, Thomas Cook bought MyTravel just as the internet was starting to take off. In 2016, when the high street was clearly struggling because the internet had taken off, it bought the high street shops of Co-op Travel, further expanding its problems and its massive debt to £1.7 billion. I agree with him that this was, in the end, a very poorly run business that was going in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

The hon. Gentleman made a very sensible point in his query about the return of the bonuses that we have all been reading about. I have described how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has written to the Insolvency Service. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, the official receiver has the power to require the return of bonuses in certain circumstances. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that needs to be fully looked into, including the role of the auditors.

That is where we agree. Where we disagree is that it is not the case that this situation is somehow unique to Thomas Cook. As I mentioned, airlines elsewhere in the sector are in good health. Many of them have been very helpful in bringing Thomas Cook passengers home over the past couple of days and have offered extraordinary help, even lending aircraft and, in the case of one well-known airline, cutting prices for Thomas Cook customers, rather than charging more. However, in response to what the hon. Gentleman said about this insolvency, it is only right to point out that Germania, a German airline, went bust; Primera Air, a Danish airline, went bust; Air Berlin, a German airline, went bust; as did Cobalt Air of Cyprus and FlyVLM of Belgium. This is not a UK issue; this is an issue where some airlines manage to do the right things and succeed, and others do not.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned what has happened with Condor. Here, we will find partial agreement and partial disagreement. Condor was operating under a somewhat different business model. In Germany, people do not book holidays in quite the same way as they do in the UK, partly because UK citizens tend to use the internet in a different way and are much more becoming their own travel agents. With Condor, the business remained profitable. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asks what difference that makes. The difference is that it was a profitable business, unlike the business here.

It is also the case—this is where I think there will be a degree of agreement—that German insolvency rules allow for administrations to take place, and then for aircraft to carry on being used and for other buyers to come in during the administration process. That is not something that our current rules on airline liquidation and insolvency allow for.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the previous Secretary of State said he wanted to do something about that and commissioned a review. So that we are all clear on the timeline, that review reported on 9 May 2019. It suggested that we should have rules that are not dissimilar to the German rules to allow our airlines to trade in administration. That would make repatriation massively easier, because we could use those airlines. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Perhaps he did not hear me mention it during my statement, but we need a new Session of Parliament to introduce that primary legislation in order to bring that in. We are very happy to have a new Session of Parliament. If we get agreement, perhaps that is something we can progress.

I believe that, given the number of people and the number of lives that have been affected by this situation, we should be working together cross-party to get this job done. I welcome the hon. Gentleman gesturing that he will provide support to sort out this problem, because that would clearly be in everybody’s interest.

The hon. Gentleman referred to whether foreign Governments were prepared to ride to the rescue. I confirm that I received no approach from the Turkish Government and that the only contact via the Spanish Government was not a viable plan and came so late in the day that the company was already starting its administration proceedings. There was no viable plan out there at the time.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the ATOL system should be reformed. As he rightly pointed out, although the funds are limited because of Monarch, ATOL itself is reinsured to cover most of that cost. Finally, on a point of accuracy, he mentioned that £40 million has been spent on Monarch. In fact, we think that the final cost was £50 million.

HS2

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

First, on the budget and the schedule, it is exactly as I said in my opening statement: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no future in trying to obscure costs or in being unclear. It is the case that in a massive, developing infrastructure project—Europe’s biggest—costs just are not known. They are speculated about and then start to firm up, in this case, literally as we start to dig into the ground. I can see how over a period of time things move. None the less, I take the view that as soon as I have the information, I will inform the House—as soon as I got that Cook report and the House returned, I stuck it straight into the Library. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to do exactly that going forward.

Secondly, it might be helpful to colleagues to know that I have asked for Douglas Oakervee to meet Members of Parliament. He will be in Committee Room 2A on Monday 9 September, between 3.30 pm and 5 pm. That is an opportunity for any colleagues to go and see him. Colleagues can make their own arrangements with him separately, and I will inform the House of that.

Thirdly, on the enabling works, we are in a position where I have to make a go/no-go decision in December. I know that this will not a delight my right hon. Friend, but it seemed to me that if we did not continue to make preparatory works, I would not even be in the position to make a go/no-go decision. I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but that is the current position. We can then take a decision.

I share my right hon. Friend’s concern and anxiety about compulsory purchase order payments. When people’s lives, livelihoods and homes are potentially going to be ripped apart by a project that is supposedly for the wider good, it is right that the state compensates them promptly and efficiently. I would be most grateful to see more details of the cases he mentioned. I have already had one across my desk, which I have sorted out, and I would like to see others. There is no excuse for a CPO for which people are not paid.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome him to his place. He comes into post at a time of crisis for the country, but at an absolutely critical moment for HS2.

I gently remind the Secretary of State that we did ask for regular reports and recommended a peer review when phase 2a was before the House some weeks ago. I am sorry that he was not able to vote for that—or, indeed, that the Prime Minister was not able to express a view at all.

The Secretary of State mentioned that the review that is under way is a cross-party one, but I gently point out that there has been no consultation whatever with me. If it is to be genuinely cross-party, perhaps he might want to take up that invitation.

We have consistently been told by the Secretary of State’s predecessor and the then ministerial team that the 2015 figure of £55.7 billion for the entire project was the full cost of HS2 and that there was no reason to change it. It is hard to conclude anything other than that it has been plain and obvious for some considerable time that this was not accurate. Will the Transport Secretary tell us when his predecessor was told that the figure of £55.7 billion was not accurate or sustainable and when he was first told that the timetable for delivery could not be adhered to?

Is this not yet more evidence that this Government have totally failed to exercise any control over the project—not just over costs, but with regard to redundancy payments and key appointments that transpired to be unsustainable? In addition, when the contracts for phase 1 were being granted, despite hedge fund managers making a packet out of the inevitable demise of Carillion, this Tory Government crashed on regardless, awarding the doomed organisation a valuable HS2 contract.

It is beyond doubt that the Government have been totally incompetent and reckless, but, worse than that, there hangs over this Government the unpleasant smell that Parliament may have been misled—however unwittingly—given that it is stark staringly obvious that when the Minister responsible for HS2 stood at the Dispatch Box a matter of weeks ago to tell the House that there was only one figure and one figure alone for HS2 that assertion was completely and totally inaccurate. If there is going to be delay, what assurances can the Secretary of State give to the 9,000 people currently employed by HS2?

This Government continue to be characterised by a lack of transparency. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks that he intends to put that right, but it still remains, as does a lack of candour. Once we can be assured that there is no prospect of the Government reneging on the legislation to avoid a no-deal Brexit, Labour relishes the prospect of a general election to turf them out.

[Grant Shapps]

On regular reports, I will come back to the House as many times as it is prepared to hear about this matter, and I will continue to update Members in every possible way. It might be helpful if I were to make the introduction—if the hon. Gentleman has not already had it—to Doug Oakervee; perhaps I could organise for the hon. Gentleman to meet him separately. Of course, there are cross-party members on the review panel and it is genuinely full of sceptics. I think people were surprised when we launched a review of this project that had such a broad, cross-party view.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that prices have changed over time. I seem to recall that this was originally a project by the previous Labour Government and that when it was conceived the whole thing was going to cost about £13 billion. One of the issues that we have, which is a wider issue than just HS2, is that these things start off being fixed at a price of a particular period of time—the figure of £55.7 billion was about 2015 prices—and that does not actually allow for inflation. We therefore end up quoting prices that are just out of date. On that basis, every project will always be said to have overrun on cost, although of course the benefits probably improve as well. We have to find better ways of doing all this.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the first time that I received advice on this matter was Allan Cook’s final report on 1 August, and that is the report that I published. Finally, I undertake to ensure that we return to the House with every update that we have, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be involved in the Oakervee review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The best way of decarbonising road transport is to ensure that more people use public transport. It was therefore alarming to hear the Secretary of State tell the Select Committee on Transport yesterday that he thought that automated vehicles were the answer and that any modal shift should be incremental. Incremental? There is a climate emergency now and an incremental response will not cut it. Does not this show that the Secretary of State is not taking the climate crisis seriously?

[Michael Ellis]

That is quite wrong. The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in charge of a record investment in rail. That form of public transport has seen huge sums of investment. In fact, we have invested across the board. The hon. Gentleman talks about the climate. This Government are doing more on that issue than countries around the world, and certainly far more than Labour ever did when it was in power. We are taking a multifaceted approach, and automated vehicles, public transport, electric vehicles and rail are also important in this regard. Rail investment from this Government beats them all.

[Andy McDonald]

I was delighted to hear that Andy Burnham has secured the recommendation of Transport for Greater Manchester to franchise bus services. Contrary to the nonsense spouted from the Government Benches, this has been done at the earliest possible moment following the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, and Liverpool will be next. Modal shift from car to bus will make an enormous contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Why, then, does the Secretary of State—perhaps as a parting gift—not do what a Labour Government will do and give every local authority the power to re-regulate their buses?

[Michael Ellis]

Every local authority already has the power. Andy Burnham and Labour in his area had that power for three years, and they did nowt about it. It was this Secretary of State who pushed through the Bus Services Act 2017.