National Policy Statement: Airports

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Airport expansion in the south-east of England has been a deeply contentious and divisive issue for 50 years. If the motion is agreed to, it will generate many winners, not least the shareholders of Heathrow Airport Ltd, but it risks making losers of many, including the communities in which thousands of people will lose hundreds of homes. I regret to say that the Government have not been direct and clear with those communities and, as I will point out, the Government are demanding that they make sacrifices based on flawed information. Their potential loss should not be ignored or devalued.

I respect voices in industry and the significant voices in the trade union movement who have concluded that the best interests of the country are served by proceeding. Having faithfully and carefully assessed Labour’s four tests against the revised national policy statement, I have to respectfully disagree.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentions the trade unions. Will he confirm that the Trades Union Congress and Unite the union—they have written to all Labour MPs—support this project? Will he also confirm that Michael Dugher, who, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, wrote the four tests has come out in support of going ahead with Heathrow expansion today?

[Andy McDonald]

I respect the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, who has been entirely consistent in his support for this project for many years. I acknowledge his point about union support, but there are unions that support Heathrow expansion and those that do not. My predecessor was responsible for writing the tests, and it is my job to implement them—my predecessor has a new career.

I remind the House that the UK’s aviation and aerospace industries are world leaders. They bring services to hundreds of millions of passengers, generate tens of billions of pounds in economic benefits and support nearly 1 million jobs. Labour wants successful and growing aviation and aerospace industries across the UK. The industries and their workforces deserve a sustainable and strategic plan for the future, and they currently have neither.

Mr Speaker,

“I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that as a result of today’s announcement, nobody will take this Government seriously on the environment again.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 366.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the current Prime Minister during a 2009 debate in which she opposed the expansion of Heathrow. Nearly 10 years on, I entirely agree with her. Given how she and her Transport Secretary have approached this issue, nobody should take this Government seriously on the environment.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the glaring absence of any genuine carbon mitigation policy framework, tonight’s votes will break down into two camps of those who believe we can negotiate with climate physics, and those who do not?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope shortly to be able to address in some detail.

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

I must confess that I am a waverer on Heathrow expansion. I do not like the air quality dangers we face or the Government’s target to do something about air quality by 2040, by which time 1 million people will have died. People in the north of England, in Yorkshire and in Huddersfield want to know what investment they will get. This is yet another massive investment in London and the south-east.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises two significant points about air quality and investment across the United Kingdom. I hope to address them in great detail as I proceed with my speech.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andy McDonald]

I will make some progress, because I am aware that many Members want to speak.

This has not been a great year so far for the British transport system, with meltdown on the railways and growing frustration across the transport industry about the Government’s “It will be all right on the night” approach to Brexit. Last week’s news from Airbus struck like a thunderbolt, so the proposal to undertake a large-scale infrastructure project in the UK should be a good news story. The expansion of our hub airport should be very good news indeed—except it is not.

The Government have not done the work to support the development of this project. Their case is riddled with gaps and is fundamentally flawed. Yet again, this Secretary of State has made a complete shambles of a vital national project. Yet again, he is not putting the relevant facts before Parliament. Today’s vote has been scheduled just days before the Government’s own advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, is due to publish a report that is expected to warn that increasing aviation emissions will destroy Britain’s greenhouse gas targets. It appears that the vote on the national policy statement has been planned for today so that hon. and right hon. Members are left in the dark about how much the Secretary of State’s plan will obliterate the UK’s climate change commitments. That is not only reckless, but shows contempt for Parliament and for the environment.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is not my hon. Friend slightly missing the point? Aviation—across the world and into Europe—will continue and grow, so the real question is whether it will be going into Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle airports, or whether we will create investment, protect the well-paid, unionised jobs at Heathrow, and create opportunities for the youngsters of the future.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention but, of course, we must always ensure that any growth is delivered sustainably—that has to be the point.

Hon. Members will not have the opportunity to see the hugely important Committee on Climate Change report before they vote. Global warming is the single most important issue facing the world, yet Members of this House are being asked to vote today without full knowledge and without the full set of facts.

That is outrageous behaviour from the Government, and from the Secretary of State in particular. The Justice Committee said last week that his multi-billion pound reforms to the probation service in 2014 will never work. In his two years as Secretary of State for Transport, he has laid waste to the railways, slashing and burning and leaving a trail of scorched earth. Rail electrification cuts, franchising meltdown and timetabling chaos have caused misery to millions. His mismanaging of airport expansion, as he has mismanaged other areas of transport, will present much bigger risks, with immensely more serious consequences.

The Transport Secretary has consistently demonstrated poor judgment and a reliance on incomplete, unreliable and non-existent evidence, yet he stands here today and expects the House to take his word for it—to take a leap of faith with him. Labour has been clear that we will support airport expansion only if the very specific provisions of our four tests are met. We are not against expansion; we are against this option for expansion, as presented.

The north-west runway is too risky and it may be illegal. There are simply too many holes in the case. There are too many hostages to fortune for the taxpayer and for any future Government.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

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

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. He says that climate and the expectation of meeting our climate responsibilities are vital, but does he accept that Professor Dame Julia King, who is a member of the Committee on Climate Change, sat on the Davies commission and fully endorsed its report?

[Andy McDonald]

The critical word is that it “could.” That is the important point—not that it will, but that it is quite possible that it could. There is an awful lot of work to get from one place to the other.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case regarding the four tests. The Secretary of State said that one of the key selling points is connectivity with our regional airports, but that will be only up to 15% of the new capacity. He has already indicated there will be 100 extra flights a day from Scotland, and as that 15% of new capacity is for all the regional airports and the Crown dependencies, it does not sound like a very good deal to me.

[Andy McDonald]

There are grave misgivings on the whole issue of regional connectivity, which I will address, but first I will deal with the tests.

Can the airport actually be built? It is not clear that it can. Heathrow’s borrowing costs depend on whether it can increase landing charges at what is already the most expensive airport in the world. The Government have provided no guarantees that landing charges will be held flat. Astonishingly, there are no details or costings on the upgrades to the M25 and the wider transport system in London and around the airport that are required for expansion. That uncertainty risks yet more transport infrastructure investment being sucked into the south-east of England at the expense of the rest of the country. It is simply staggering that this information has not been provided.

The cost-recovery clause that the Government signed with Heathrow, as highlighted by the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), is an enormous liability for future Governments and represents a significant risk to taxpayers. For those reasons, Labour has concluded that the third runway is not in fact deliverable.

Ensuring the health and safety of our country for our children and grandchildren should be the most important priority for each and every Member of this House. Some 40,000 people die prematurely each year because of poor air quality. Despite the superficial public relations initiatives from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, this Government have dithered and delayed on dealing with air quality and carbon emissions.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a good case for why he will not be able to support Heathrow, but what would his alternative be, given that growth in the sector will happen whether we have Heathrow or not? We will simply be handing business to other airports.

[Andy McDonald]

We should consider which airports they may be, because—

[Michael Fabricant]

Frankfurt, Amsterdam—

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is listing names from overseas, but how about others—Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester?

On test 2, we are being asked today to support a significant expansion in UK aviation capacity without a plan from the Government for tackling aviation carbon emissions. The Secretary of State did not even mention climate change in his statement to the House on 5 June.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I am going to plough on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Plenty of people want to speak. I know he has just walked into the Chamber, but I want to crack on.

The Government have still not set out aviation’s place in the overall strategy for UK emissions reduction, despite their having a legal requirement to do so. According to the Department for Transport’s own projections, this plan for Heathrow expansion will cause the Government to miss their carbon emission limits. The Government argue that they can reduce emissions through technology, but their only proposal is a hypothetical case study by a consultant that contains a disclaimer professing that there is

“significant uncertainty around the results of the study and the conclusions that are drawn”.

That is not a credible position.

[Mary Creagh]

The economic case for Heathrow is unarguable, but the environmental case is unconscionable. The Department’s analysis—this is from the study my hon. Friend talks about—refers to two ways to reduce carbon emissions from flights: one is single-engine taxiing; the other is ensuring that 12% of fuels in aeroplanes are renewable. Neither of those is currently in operation in Heathrow or any other airport in the world.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point because this whole process is predicated on banking technological achievements that do not currently exist. We must be more thoughtful about this.

The Committee on Climate Change’s last progress report saw the UK failing to stay on track to meet its 2030 carbon targets. The CCC publishes its latest report on Thursday, and it reportedly will detail just how badly the Government are performing. The third runway will increase the number of flights by 50%, as per the Airports Commission report—table 12.1; page 238—yet any increase in aviation emissions will require other sectors to reduce their emissions beyond 85%. That is astonishingly imbalanced. The Department’s own projections show that a new runway at Heathrow will directly lead to a breach of at least 3.3 million tonnes of the 37.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide limit for 2050 set by the CCC without new policies to mitigate emissions.

[Chris Grayling]

It might be helpful if the House were to understand whether the hon. Gentleman’s position is that there should be no expansion of aviation at all.

[Andy McDonald]

I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to provide some clarity from the Dispatch Box about the breach of the CO₂ limits that I have just described, but instead he asks that question. In fact, we know that we are talking about considerably more than that. It is utterly absurd for the Government to ask the House to vote on expanding Heathrow without a plan for reducing aviation carbon emissions. Under the revised NPS, there is a very real risk that aviation’s carbon emissions will be higher in 2050. Furthermore, the Department for Transport is not due to publish a new aviation strategy until 2019.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is right that the environmental case against Heathrow expansion has always been unarguable; what has changed is that the economic case is also now very strongly against it. The net present value is plus or minus £2 billion to £3 billion over time. The case for Gatwick, which would be much easier to build and would involve far less grief, is much easier than that, so whether on economic or environmental grounds, Heathrow is a non-starter.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a powerful point, which many commentators have identified, about the various economic arguments.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will not take any further interventions; it was well timed, but too late.

This Parliament will not know the Government’s plan for keeping UK aviation emissions at or below 2005 levels by 2050 until next year—talk about carts and horses! This scenario, where aviation targets are exceeded, would place an unreasonably large burden on other UK industries. I do not believe it is acceptable or fair to ask other sectors of the economy to make reductions to compensate for aviation emissions. The UK Government call themselves a climate leader, but only last week the EU raised its carbon reduction target to 45% by 2030, which is above that set by the Paris agreement, whereas this week the UK Government support an aviation plan that will increase emissions without a clear plan to reduce them. The revised NPS is simply not consistent with the obligations set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We are being asked to give the Transport Secretary a blank cheque on the environment. On the issue of climate change, this fails to meet test 2.

Airspace modernisation is vital to the future of this country. Only through modernisation can we improve the structure and management of UK airspace, to handle growth and realise the economic benefits. The process and consultation to make these changes is at an early stage and there are many years ahead, yet airspace modernisation is critical to noise levels at an expanded Heathrow. Once again, we are being asked to accept promises on noise without a broad framework for the future. That is not good enough and this is yet another gaping hole in the Government’s case.

It is difficult to clearly assess the noise impact at Heathrow until the airspace modernisation programme is more advanced. Precise details of new flight paths will not be known for several years, and this represents another significant uncertainty. The Transport Committee’s excellent report called on the Government to set clear noise targets, but in the revised NPS they are not proposing any new targets. Do they really care about noise levels?

The revised NPS states that

“the Secretary of State will consider air quality impacts over the wider area likely to be affected, as well as in the vicinity of the scheme. In order to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations that provide for the protection of human health and the environment.”

That provides no indication as to how the air pollution can be managed. Much of the additional air pollution is largely outside Heathrow’s control. The Government have been repeatedly dragged through the courts over their failure to address the air pollution crisis, so it would be generous to assume that they will now suddenly address these issues in the context of a decision over an expanded Heathrow. That the key issue of tackling air pollution could turn on the judgment of the Transport Secretary does nothing to afford us any comfort whatsoever.

What of the regional economic benefits? The revised NPS says that if the third runway is built, up to 15% of all new routes will need to be reserved for the domestic market. There are considerable uncertainties around that pledge. The Government say that public service obligations will ensure compliance, but “up to 15%” could mean as little as 1%, and PSOs apply to cities rather than airport-specific locations. Late last week, the Government announced they would use PSOs to ensure domestic connectivity. They have not said where they will be used, how many will be used, what percentage of routes will be guaranteed through this method or if they will be permanent. In addition, PSOs would make domestic routes exempt from air passenger duty. That tax cut was not considered in the business case, and the Government have not stated its cost to the public purse. Surely this represents an uncosted subsidy to Heathrow Airport Limited. It is simply incredible that the Government would announce such a subsidy at the eleventh hour before a vote on the NPS.

The Government’s stated case for expanding Heathrow is dependent on a number of other conditions being met, including measures to constrain growth at regional airports in order to ensure that Heathrow expansion can meet the UK’s climate change obligations. I cannot support the restriction of other UK airports to facilitate expansion at Heathrow. Rather than improve regional connectivity, it has been said that a third runway at Heathrow will have a substantially negative impact on the UK aviation industry as a whole. Regional airports will also lose around 17 million passengers per annum, as Heathrow’s share of the UK aviation market rises from 21% today to 27% in 2050.

Government claims for the economic benefit of expanding Heathrow do not include the costs of the improved public transport links needed to keep road traffic at current levels. Transport for London estimates that expenditure of £10 billion to £15 billion is required for new surface access; Heathrow and the Airports Commission say the figure will be closer to £5 billion—so what is the correct figure? The absence of clear proposals, projections and costs in relation to surface access are a major failing of the revised NPS. Labour is not satisfied that the taxpayer interest will be protected. We are also concerned that the lack of a clear surface-access plan will result in yet more transport investment being sucked into the south-east of England. Furthermore, our view is that there are too many uncertainties that could undermine the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. We are not assured that the number of jobs that have been promised will be forthcoming, given the number of variants that could undermine the economic benefits of the case.

For all those reasons, I am not convinced that regional connectivity and shared economic benefits will in fact be delivered by the proposed expansion. I acknowledge the case made for expansion, but I believe that the price of a third runway at Heathrow is currently simply too high. I am greatly aware that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will wish to weigh up the issues carefully before they cast their vote, and I of course utterly respect the decision that each and every one of them will make. But, given my grave misgivings as to the process itself and the manner in which it has been conducted, I can only conclude that to proceed at this juncture, given all the circumstances, would be the wrong thing to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I would respect the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, if he accepted a runway in his constituency south of Heathrow, but he refused.

Look at how much corporation tax has been paid by this company over the past 10 years: £24 million. It has been borrowing to pay dividends more than its profit ratios. That is the nature of the company we are dealing with. It is a company and an operation at Heathrow that has lied to my constituents. When it got the fifth terminal, a letter was sent to my constituents. I had meetings with the directors of Heathrow and they were beside me saying, “We will not seek a third runway.” Within 12 months, they were lobbying for one. We were told by a former Conservative Prime Minister, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway”. They never told us that promise was for one Parliament. The existing Prime Minister backed that guarantee to my constituents.

These are the consequences for my constituents that hon. Members need to know: 4,000 homes will go; 8,000 to 10,000 people will be forcibly removed from their community, the biggest forced removal of human beings since the Scottish highland clearances; and a church, a temple, community centres, open spaces and even our hospices are now threatened. That is what it means to my community. Two schools—where will they go? It is no good offering them 125% compensation. You cannot compensate for the loss of your whole community. We have a housing crisis in our area on a scale not seen since the second world war. We cannot house our existing population. Where will they go? Two schools, at least, closed, with another one, most probably, after that. We have not got enough places for our existing pupils. Where will they go? We cannot find sites to build the new schools we currently need.

Those who get forced out might be the lucky ones, because the ones left behind are already breathing in air that is already poisoned above 2010 EU limits. No effective mitigation measures have been demonstrated to us tonight. We know the health consequences—respiratory conditions and cancer—yet the Government have refused to undertake a comprehensive health assessment.

[Andy McDonald]

Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that there is nothing specific in the revised national policy statement that adequately sets out a framework for dealing with our air pollution crisis?

[John McDonnell]

We have 9,000 people a year in London dying from air pollution, yet there is nothing in the Government proposals that goes anywhere near even thinking about tackling these issues. Those are the consequences for my community, despite all the promises they have been given that their homes would be secure. These are villages that have been there for 1,000 years, to be wiped off the face of the earth—and for what? To ensure that a company maximises its profits. This is a company owned by Ferrovial, which was founded by Franco contracts, by the Chinese state and by Qatar. It is shipping profits abroad, rather than reinvesting in this country. That is what this vote is about tonight.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has no confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Member for Epsom and Ewell; notes the failed implementation of the May rail timetables which has left thousands of commuters without services and has drastically affected their everyday lives; believes Northern and Govia Thameslink Railway should have their franchises terminated; and regrets that the Secretary of State for Transport has failed to strategically manage and oversee the UK railway and take responsibility for his role in the crisis on England’s railways, whilst officials at other organisations have resigned and forgone bonuses.

Before I come to the topic of today’s debate, I would like to express my condolences to the families and friends of those who so sadly died as a result of being struck by a train at Loughborough Junction in south London yesterday. I also pay tribute to all the railway staff who attended in response, in particular the British Transport police. Despite the challenges we face, we can never forget the outstanding public service that tens of thousands of men and women provide every day. We owe it to them to do our very best for the industry.

I regret having to table the motion, but given the totally unacceptable state of the railway I felt that I had a duty to passengers. The latest chaos follows meltdown on the east coast, resulting in a £2 billion bail-out and huge cuts to promised electrification in Wales, the north of England and the midlands. This is not shaping up to be a distinguished legacy. In his resignation letter to staff, Charles Horton, the outgoing chief executive of Govia Thameslink Railway, said:

“In my view, this was an industry-wide failure of the timetabling process. But with leadership comes responsibility and so I feel it is only right that I step down”.

Why is it that the chief executive of a train company who is responsible only for the travel disruption on one part of the railway is able to recognise the responsibility that comes with his leadership role and resign, yet the person who is truly responsible, the Transport Secretary, remains in post?

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, ever since the collapse of the west coast main line franchising competition under a predecessor of the Secretary of State, the entire franchising system has become increasingly ridiculous and unworkable, and that the way in which we run our railways needs to be changed entirely?

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more. We are seeing instance after instance. It is evidence, if any more were needed, that the system has completely and utterly failed and needs to be completely revised. Why are train companies allowed to retain their franchise despite repeated failures? Northern and GTR should be stripped of their contracts. Labour said very clearly that franchise failure should mean forfeit. It is clear that the Department for Transport has failed to ensure that train companies fulfil the terms of their contracts.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only GTR that should lose its franchise? The Secretary of State should have his office removed as well because this is a façade of a franchise. We know that Ministers are behind it, and it is Ministers who should be held accountable for the fact that passengers in places such as Preston Park in Brighton are losing their jobs, cannot spend time with their kids in hospital and are having their lives wrecked.

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely. The Government seem to want to have control and intervene, but they do not want to take responsibility. GTR should have been stripped of its contract years ago for running the worst rail service in modern times. The company has repeatedly been found in breach of its contract as well as overseeing toxic industrial relations and poor customer service. Had the Government heeded Labour’s call to strip the company of its franchise, the recent disruption could have been avoided.

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

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—he is always kind and courteous with his time. A month ago, I believe that he said at the Dispatch Box that the rail professionals should be allowed to get on and run the industry, but in this instance he is being critical of the Secretary of State for not intervening and stopping that very eventuality occurring. I would like some clarification.

[Andy McDonald]

I will come on to that. As an excellent member of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Gentleman knows that the DFT sits on those bodies—it has a presence—yet it did nothing when it was given those alarms or warnings that he knows all about.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andy McDonald]

I shall give way briefly, as I want to make progress.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is not many months since we had a problem with Southern, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). From time to time there are problems on the west coast main line, yet the Secretary of State sits there like Pontius Pilate and abdicates responsibility.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend make the point wisely and accurately.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good speech. Yesterday, members of the Transport Committee sat for many hours interrogating leaders of the industry, both train operating companies and Network Rail, trying to find out who runs the railways. After all those hours, answer came there none. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are two scenarios? First, the Secretary of State is in charge, in which case he should take responsibility; or even worse, he is not, in which case he should be sacked?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. We are talking about a dysfunctional railway that is completely and utterly fractured, and that has to be resolved.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andy McDonald]

I will make progress, as I have taken several interventions and I know that many speakers wish to contribute. It is not acceptable to allow companies to continue to run and profit from rail services following failures on this scale. Services should return to public ownership to be run as part of an integrated railway under public ownership.

I turn to the distressing situation that confronts us more broadly on the railway as a result of the calamitous introduction of new timetables across more than half the UK rail network. The changes were intended to be improvements to introduce much-needed rail capacity following public expenditure on new rail infrastructure, but instead of improvements passengers on Northern and GTR have experienced a nightmare of disruption, and there seems to be little prospect of their trials and tribulations ending quickly. Last week, the Manchester Evening News carried a number of personal testimonies about the impact of the chaos. Leigh Burke, 55, is a team leader at Royal Bolton Hospital. He commutes from Didsbury to Bolton and said:

“I’m late to work all the time, it’s affecting my job. It’s an utter shambles.”

Louise Kirby, who commutes daily from Bromley Cross to Victoria, added:

“It’s horrific. I keep having panic attacks because it’s been so crowded. I saw a man pass out.”

Tom Moss, 24, a PR manager who lives in Glossop and works in Altrincham, pays £104 a month for his pass and said:

“I just want the trains to be on time. I just feel angry. I can’t take much more of it.”

There are thousands more personal stories that I could describe: personal difficulties and struggles that have a significant social and economic impact. Businesses and individuals who rely on rail transport suffer consequences from this disruption that carry very real costs.

This is not just a one-off. Disruption of this scale and severity, particularly when passengers experience it endlessly over an extended period, destroys faith and trust in the railway and drives people away from rail into their cars. Last week, figures showed that rail passenger usage has fallen yet again—this time, the fall was the biggest in 25 years. Not only does that mean more congestion, worse air pollution and an increased contribution to climate change, but it threatens the very sustainability of the railway.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as appalling oversight by the Government, one of the main challenges facing the rail network is ageing and unreliable infrastructure? That is a particular problem for the east coast main line, which has not had any real investment since electrification in 1991, 27 years ago, despite its being one of the major national rail routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. The east coast main line is in need of investment, and my hon. Friend makes her point incredibly well.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way once more, then I must make progress.

[Tim Farron]

That is very decent of the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him. He is making an important speech. Does he agree that there is something of the red herring about conversations suggesting the new timetable is the source of the current calamity? Does he also agree that strategic decisions by the Government have led to the problem, which predates timetabling, not least the decision to postpone or, in the case of the Lakes line, cancel electrification, and to award to Northern certain franchises that it should never have been given, including the Lakes and Furness lines in my constituency?

[Andy McDonald]

I agree with those comments, and I will come on to that in a little while.

Franchise agreements assume ever-growing fare revenues, so the downturn in rail use increases the likelihood of more failed franchises and further taxpayer bail-outs. Fares have soared at three times the rate of wages since 2010, pricing passengers off the railway, while disruption encourages more people to revert to driving. That is exactly the wrong modal shift that we need our transport policy to achieve if it is to fulfil our environmental obligations and remove traffic and fumes from our towns and cities. Polling conducted by Which? found that three in five respondents affected by the timetable changes said that those changes had a negative impact on both their work and family life, with four in 10 saying that they had a negative impact on their health.

Considering the scale of the disruption, I am sure the whole House will agree that passengers must be adequately compensated. Yet at present 72% of those affected by the disruption said they had not been informed, either on the train or at the platform, about any compensation they may be entitled to receive. The Transport Secretary should have ensured passengers were made properly aware of the compensation they are owed. In addition, considering the scale of the disruption, a compensation package that goes above and beyond what is currently available must be delivered. The Transport Secretary has indicated some such package is being considered, but he has not provided detail. I ask him to do so today to ensure that the amount of compensation is commensurate with the scale of disruption and, importantly, that it is funded by the train companies, not taxpayers and passengers. They should pay voluntarily. If they refuse, he should make them.

It is important to step back and review the key steps in how we have come to this sorry state of affairs. This year’s timetable changes, introduced on 20 May, are the most extensive and ambitious undertaken in decades. More than 50% of the network schedules have been revamped. Four million trains have been retimed: about six times as many changes as is usual for a timetable change. It was clear before Christmas that there were going to be difficulties in implementing the new timetable. In February, the rail industry body, the Rail Delivery Group, confirmed it would not be able to complete timetables 12 weeks ahead of travel from 20 May for about six months. That should have set off alarm bells.

Since 20 May, 43% of Northern’s trains have been delayed or cancelled each day. From 4 June, the train operator cancelled 165 trains a day, including all services to the Lake district. In the first week of the new timetable, GTR delayed or cancelled a quarter of its trains and announced the schedule for the next day at 10 pm each night.

Today’s industrial action on Northern is a reminder of the utter despair felt by the rail industry’s workforce. Both Northern and GTR have waged war on their staff for three years and four years respectively. They have done so at the explicit behest of the Secretary of State for Transport and his senior officials.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How does the hon. Gentleman explain that the Labour Mayor of London has been unable to run strike-free transport in London, although he promised to do so? Did he also anger staff in this way?

[Andy McDonald]

We can have that discussion, but today I am dealing with these services and I am going to concentrate on them.

Senior officials directly interfered. Let us not forget that the managing director of passenger services at the Department for Transport, Peter Wilkinson, said two years ago:

“we’re going to be having punch-ups and we will see industrial action”

and that he wanted to run people “out of my industry.”

The introduction of the May 2018 timetable required change on an unprecedented scale. The process of managing change requires co-operation, dialogue, engagement and good will. The Government and the management of Northern and GTR have destroyed their relationships with their employees. Millions of passengers in the UK are paying the price for the belligerence and the antagonistic approach of the Secretary of State.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I know the Secretary of State and I know his Ministers. I bet a pound to a dollar that the Secretary of State and his Ministers pulled in the people responsible for the railway companies and got assurances from them that this would work well. I really feel it is quite unfair, because I am absolutely convinced that the Secretary of State, who I know well, would have checked this out. He has been let down very badly by the railway companies.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, but in support of my argument. He is demonstrating that that did not work. That was not a very good way of going about business, relying on people giving assurances rather than saying, “Show me. Where’s your evidence?” You do that before you go ahead with it. You do not rely on people telling you nonsense.

Ever since the timetable chaos arose, we have witnessed carefully crafted statements that try to ensure as little responsibility as possible can be attributed to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State in charge of it. Let us consider the situation. This is a Government who refuse to recognise the accumulated evidence that their privatised structure of the railway is failing. Therefore, they refuse to accept a sensible and practical railway structure that can function properly.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He is a big supporter of privatisation—[Interruption.] He is a big supporter of nationalisation, but that would cost each and every household in this country £6,500. Does he not agree that the nationalised side of the railway caused this problem in the first place? How does he account for that?

[Andy McDonald]

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets that figure from. If the Government take franchises back when they run out it costs diddly squat to take them back—zero—so he is talking utter nonsense.

No one other than the Government hold responsibility for their dogmatic stance. This dogma causes them to stand by and defend the rail structure that is manifestly not fit for purpose. It then falls to the Department for Transport to get involved to try to run the railway properly. It cannot do this. Today’s railway cannot run itself effectively because it was decapitated by privatisation and chopped into bits to facilitate private profit taking. Because there is no guiding mind overseeing the railway, the Department has to wade into the railway much more deeply than it should. Having taken this approach, the Government assume a greater deal of responsibility, but they have not shown themselves capable of discharging that responsibility.

The Department for Transport’s oversight has failed in three major ways. First, it appears that, when there was a decision on whether to press ahead with the timetable changes affecting Northern, the Department stood against allowing a deferral. Why did the Department not believe the professional advice it was given? Secondly, the Transport Committee heard from Network Rail yesterday that Thameslink phasing was first raised by the GTR readiness board in June 2017. Mr Halsall, the route managing director for the south-east, said the Department stood by and did not make a decision until November 2017—an astonishing five-month delay. What did the Secretary of State know and when did he know it?

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

I can confirm that the decision to proceed with a slimmed down timetable was taken by me in July 2017.

[Andy McDonald]

Well, I am saying to the Secretary of State quite clearly that a competent Secretary of State would have known this right at the outset and taken the appropriate steps. He did not. He allowed the situation to unwind.

Thirdly, the Thameslink industry readiness board—readiness board, there’s a laugh—formally requested that the GTR timetable changes should be scaled back, yet the Department dithered for two months. GTR boss Mr Horton said the board did not have an executive role, so he could not explain who was responsible for the meltdown—no one accountable and no one responsible.

I do not want to personalise the issue and I do not expect the Secretary of State to know every detail of what happens in his Department—[Interruption.] No, it is just everything he does and everything he stands for; it’s nothing personal. However, the three points I have described are all important failures of the Department for Transport at a high level. Stephen Glaister from the Office for Rail and Road is not an appropriate person to conduct a review into the timetable failings. The ORR itself has failed in its regulation of Network Rail, so it cannot be expected to conduct an independent investigation. This is yet another bad judgment by the Secretary of State for Transport. A new rail timetable is due to be implemented in December 2018. What funds, resources and support will the Secretary of State provide to ensure Network Rail’s planning capability can deliver the changes due in six months?

Today’s Financial Times reports the managing director of Trenitalia complaining about Network Rail and, in particular, the lack of integration between Network Rail and the train operating companies since privatisation. Did the Italians not do their homework on the reality of the UK’s railway? Recent events demonstrate more than ever that our railway is not integrated. I am afraid that the breach of faith and trust is so great that the Secretary of State’s credibility will never recover. There comes a point when the publicly accountable politician in charge of the railway should step up and shoulder the blame. It seems to me, and I suspect to many rail users, that we have more than reached that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

We have been invited by the Opposition to debate a general motion of no confidence in my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary. I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend. He inherited a difficult task from the last Labour Government and the coalition Government. I think that he fully understands the magnitude of that task and that he is coming up with a number of creative proposals to try to improve the position.

[Andy McDonald]

It is a disaster.

[John Redwood]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, for 13 years, Labour did not invest in our roads and railways to give us the capacity that we need. I fully accept that during its five years in government, the coalition was unable to invest on the necessary scale because of the financial disaster that it inherited from the outgoing Labour Government. We have had almost 20 years of totally inadequate investment in road and rail capacity. We now have a growing economy. Many more people have jobs and need to get to work, many more children need to get to school, and many more people want to go to the shops or need to go to hospital, so we are simply running out of road and rail capacity. My right hon. Friend is trying to use every method he can legally lay his hands on to address that chronic lack of capacity.

In my constituency, another 12,000 new homes are being built quite rapidly, and the pressures on our infrastructure are enormous. I witnessed some of the difficulties due to rail delays on Thursday and Friday when I was trying to use services in and out of Reading and there were disruptions. My right hon. Friend has asked the extremely well-paid leaders of the railway industry to get a grip on their services and ensure they deliver on the infrastructure available. But he has gone further than that: he has said to the railways that they will need much more capacity in the years ahead to deal with fast-growing places such as Wokingham, and he has therefore said that digital technology will make a big difference. I fully support his strong initiative. The very lengthy and expensive process of creating entirely new railway lines is not a feasible solution across the country, so the way to get more capacity out of our existing railways is to use digital signalling, meaning that instead of being able to run only 20 trains an hour on perfectly good track, we can run 25 or more trains an hour, giving a big boost to capacity for a relatively modest investment.

My right hon. Friend is also right to recognise that he will need private sector as well as public sector investment. I noted that the Scottish National party spokesperson, who clearly did not know the figures, was unable to respond to an intervention about how, in his party’s fully nationalised world, it would replace the large sums of capital and the considerable sums of revenue that the private sector tips into the railways as the partnership model develops.

The Labour party is with the SNP on this. It always denies that any fault rests with the nationalised section of the railway, yet in the latest set of problems, particularly in Northern rail, big errors were made by the heavily subsidised nationalised part of the industry. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend says there will be new leadership there, because new leadership is desperately needed to supervise the expenditure of the very substantial sums that this Parliament has voted for that industry and to make sure they are well spent.

Another reason why I have confidence in my right hon. Friend is because he recognises that we need road as well as rail capacity, because the overwhelming majority of all our constituents’ journeys are still undertaken by car or van or bus, and they require road capacity. The most welcome thing he has done so far is to say we need not just to expand the strategic national highways network, which of course we do, but a strategic local network so that we can beef up the A roads. That would mean that we could have more through traffic, meaning that vehicles would be taken away from residential areas and town centres, where we do not want conflict between traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. It would also free some of the blocks on the existing highways and provide better journeys.

I hope that as my right hon. Friend goes about selecting that strategic local route network with councils, he will look favourably on the bids from West Berkshire and Wokingham in my area. We have put a lot of thought into them and wish to make progress, but we will need substantial investment to create better access routes to the main cities and centres of employment, because the existing network is already well over capacity in terms of congestion.

I hope my right hon. Friend will also consider the interface between the rail and road networks. One of the big issues in my area is that we cannot get over the railway line. We rely on level crossings, but their gates are down for a lot of the time at busy periods for the railways, meaning that we get massive onward congestion in the road system. We therefore need money for bridges.

I also hope that work on the strategic local road network will involve looking at junctions. A modest way in which we could get much more capacity out of the current road network would be to improve junctions. It is often a good idea to have roundabouts rather than traffic lights, and another good idea is the better phasing of traffic lights. Traffic lights can be fitted with sensors so that if there is no traffic on an approach road, that road does not get a green phase. Roads should get a green phase only when somebody needs that.

There are many things that can be done. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend wants to do them, so will he please get on with that, and will Parliament allow him to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to support the motion standing in the names of my Front-Bench colleagues. I also wish to thank members of the Transport Committee for their informed contributions to the debate, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) is a supporter of keeping the guards on the trains—well done on that. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is qualified support.

As a member of the Transport Committee and a regular rail user, I have been following the recent regression of the rail service, particularly in my region, with great concern. The catastrophic May timetable changes seem to have been completely avoidable. The Secretary of State ignored warnings and failed to delay or phase in the changes.

Yesterday, my Transport Committee colleagues and I spent three hours asking questions of and taking evidence from representatives from Northern, GTR and Network Rail. I was quite interested to hear the Secretary of State say in response to a comment made by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), that he made the decision to proceed with the changes in July 2017, because my understanding from what the witnesses said yesterday is that concerns were expressed at a meeting involving stakeholders and Network Rail in January, some six months before the ultimate decision was made. There was ample opportunity for the Secretary of State and his advisers in the Department to intervene and identify some mitigating actions, which could have included either delaying the implementation or phasing it in.

[Andy McDonald]

Given that GTR is a concession and is paid a management fee, could my hon. Friend cast some light on whether the revenue due to the DFT was a factor in the delay in the implementation of the decision?

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend raises a good question. I asked the GTR witnesses yesterday whether revenue was a material factor, and their response was that all the revenue is collected directly. They intimated that there were no revenue implications, although I am rather sceptical that ultimately revenue may well have been a factor in the decision about whether to phase or to delay the implementation of the new timetable. Perhaps the Committee can pursue further whether that was the case.

We have heard from Opposition and Government Members about the impact of the terrible delays. In my area, at the worst times up to 43% of Northern trains have been cancelled or delayed each day. From 4 June, Northern cancelled 165 trains a day, including all services to the Lake district, as we have heard. Since 20 May, 11% of Northern trains have been delayed or cancelled each day.

Airports National Policy Statement

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

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

Today’s statement has been a long time coming. We have had 11 years of consultation and nine years since the expansion was given the green light. The Secretary of State came to the House yesterday to explain the calamitous implementation of new rail timetables. He now stands at the Dispatch Box today and expects the House to accept what he says about the most significant of infrastructure projects. I am sorry, but this Secretary of State has form. The only reason he is at the Dispatch Box is that the Prime Minister is too weak to sack him. I regret that he simply does not enjoy the confidence of the House. [Interruption.] Government Members complain, but I did not hear them shouting their support for him yesterday. In fact, the loudest criticisms came from Members on their Benches.

Labour will consider proposed expansion through the framework of our well-established four tests: expansion should happen only if it can effectively deliver on the capacity demands; if noise and air quality issues are fully addressed; if the UK’s climate change obligations are met in their entirety; and if growth across the country is supported. We owe it to future generations to get all those factors absolutely right. If the correct balance is not found, the law courts will quite rightly intervene.

I commend the superb work of the Chair and members of the cross-party Transport Committee. Their report into the airports national policy statement published in March left no stone unturned. Their support for approving the NPS is explicitly conditional upon 25 recommendations being addressed. The Secretary of State says that he has “acted on” 24 of the 25 recommendations. What does that mean? Are they going to be conditions or simply aspirations and expectations? For example, the Committee concluded that there was a high risk of the NPS breaching air quality compliance. Furthermore, the Department for Transport has not published a comprehensive surface access assessment, so it is impossible to demonstrate that the target of no more airport-related traffic can be met. His statement today takes that issue no further forward.

The Committee highlighted that there was almost no mention of potential cost and investment risk. What guarantees can the Government provide that the high-cost risks will not end up being covered by the public purse? How can the business case for expansion ensure that passenger benefits are met? The Secretary of State says he will keep charges close to current levels. What sort of assurance is that? Further uncertainties remain about the NPS as originally drawn, on noise analysis and flightpath modelling. It remains to be seen whether the revised NPS adequately addresses those and other issues.

The Secretary of State says that he will encourage Heathrow to work with communities on longer respite periods. What teeth are there in any of these proposals or promises? His claims about the benefits of new technologies have to be based on real evidence and not some fanciful expectation of future advances. Some of us have not forgotten his empty promises on dual fuel trains, which we are now told do not exist. He says he intends and expects 15% of slots to be for domestic connections. How will that be secured? Intentions, expectations and encouragements are simply not enough.

It is imperative that the Government provide guarantees to the House that the recommendations and conditions established by the Transport Committee will be embedded in the revised NPS. Yesterday reminded Members across the House that the assurances of this Secretary of State are anything but cast-iron. It is absolutely essential that the Government embed the Select Committee’s recommendations in their revision of it. I remind the House that the Committee says very clearly that the planning process should move to the next stage only if its concerns, as detailed in its excellent report, are properly addressed by the Government in the final NPS. It is our task to scrutinise the revised NPS in full detail in the coming days. Labour will faithfully follow our framework tests and follow the evidence across the 25 recommendations. We will not rely on the Secretary of State’s assurances, which are sadly not worth the Hansard they are printed on.

[Chris Grayling]

I think you will agree, Mr Speaker, that that was a rather disappointing response. The one thing the shadow Secretary of State did not say was whether he actually supported the expansion of Heathrow airport. I happen to believe that it is strategically the right thing for our country, for business and for jobs. I very much welcome the positive encouragement I have received from Members across the House in the past few months. I regard this project as being vital to Members of Parliament in the north of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and the south-west—I see the links to Newquay airport as being one of the real opportunities here.

The shadow Secretary of State raised several detailed points. There is a huge amount of material—thousands of pages—that he and others can read through, but let me pick up on just a few of the items he raised. He mentioned air quality. The runway cannot be opened if it does not meet air quality rules, but I have been clear all along that the air quality issues around Heathrow are much more than issues of the airport itself; they are typical of the air quality issues that face metropolitan areas in this country and elsewhere in the world, which is why my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary has brought forward an air quality plan. In addition, Heathrow Airport is consulting on a low emissions zone that would make it impossible, without a substantial charge, to bring a higher-emission vehicle into the airport when the runway is open—assuming that the parliamentary and development processes go according to plan. So that has to be addressed; it is not an optional extra for the airport—it has to happen.

The shadow Secretary of State made a point about night flights. That has to be and will be a planning condition. He also asked about the Select Committee’s recommendations. About half have been embedded in the NPS; the remaining half will either happen at the development consent order stage or are requirements for the CAA to follow up on and deliver. We have accepted the recommendations, however, and will follow faithfully the Select Committee’s wishes to make sure that its recommendations are properly addressed at each stage of the process. As I said earlier, this is a multi-stage process, and the Committee’s recommendations referred not just to the NPS but to the subsequent stages.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about landing charges, which, of course are regulated by the CAA. I have been clear that landing charges have to stay pretty much at current levels in real terms. This cannot be an excuse for the airport to hike its landing charges substantially. That would not work for consumers or our economy. Equally, the commitments on night flights have to be addressed. This project will not have credibility if such promises to the local community are not properly fulfilled.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about investability. We have had the investability and delivery date independently assured. I have also talked to Heathrow shareholders, who have emphasised to me their commitment to this project. I am absolutely of the view that the project can and will be delivered. We simply have to look at the price at which slots for Heathrow airport sell on the open market to realise that this is one of the world’s premier airports and enormously attractive to international airlines and that expanding its route network will deliver jobs all around the country.

That is the most important thing for everyone in the House to bear in mind, whether they are in Scotland, the north of England, the south-west, Wales or Northern Ireland, and we should not forget our Crown dependencies and Gibraltar either. They also depend on air links to the UK. This project is a way of making sure that our citizens—the people we represent—and the businesses they work in have access to the strategic routes of the future that they will need. If we are to be a successful nation in the post-Brexit world, we will need advances such as this one that can make a real difference to the future of this country.

I am disappointed, therefore, that the Labour party has not said that it supports expansion in principle. I do support it, as do Members in all parts of the House, and in the coming days we will have a vote—we have 21 sitting days before the deadline for that vote. In the time ahead, I and my officials will happily talk to parliamentary colleagues about the details and, I hope, reassure anyone with doubts that this is the right project for the country.

Rail Timetabling

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful for advance sight of the Secretary of State’s statement—for once. Here we go again, with yet another chapter in the never-ending story of our troubled railways. Not only have train timetables been turned upside down, but the Transport Secretary seems to have run into his own timetabling problems in meetings with Members today.

It is said that Henry Kissinger once asked who he should call if he wanted to speak to Europe. The answer was not clear. Similarly, I would ask who I should call if I want to speak to the UK rail industry. Therein lies the heart of today’s problem and the whole rail debate more generally: no one will take responsibility for Great Britain’s rail industry. But, amid all the clamour, recriminations and buck-passing that characterise discussions about rail there is one person who is ultimately responsible: the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). But he blames Network Rail for the timetabling failures. Yes, Network Rail has not delivered, but he seems to forget that, as a company limited by guarantee, Network Rail has one member: the Secretary of State for Transport—him. He is the man in charge—allegedly. The right hon. Gentleman might want to blame Network Rail, but it is he who has failed in his responsibility to oversee it; the buck stops with him. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman has burnt his bridges with the leadership of Network Rail, which can only have damaged his oversight of this process. Is not this a terrible failure of him and his role atop the system?

The Northern Rail and Thameslink contracts were awarded by the right hon. Gentleman’s Department to private operators. It is the job of his Department to ensure that the companies fulfil their contracts. Arriva and GTR have had years to prepare for these timetable changes; neither have trained enough drivers to deliver the timetable changes, yet the Department has failed to hold the companies to account. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is within the franchise agreement for Arriva to report directly to him on progress in recruiting and training drivers? Does not the buck, once again, stop with him?

GTR even had its own readiness board to implement the timetable changes, except that it was not ready; we could not make this up. Chris Gibb’s report on Southern exactly a year ago highlighted the issue of driver numbers as a major operational issue within rail. Why did the Secretary of State not take the report as an alert to review the availability of the train drivers who were needed across the country and do something about it? He says the Office of Rail Regulation will report on the failings by the end of the year, but, with the new timetable due in December, this will be too late. What confidence can we have that it will not be another shambles? Is not the reality that this Secretary of State has been asleep at the wheel and this is just the latest episode in a series of rail management failures on his watch?

The right hon. Gentleman is determined to cling on to the micromanagement of the railway when it suits him, but he will quickly point the finger of blame when things go wrong. He cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State says he is sorry for the disruption passengers are facing. That is not good enough; he should apologise to passengers for his failures that have put their jobs at risks and played havoc with their family life.

The travelling public and the rail industry have no faith in this Transport Secretary to fix this situation. Were the Prime Minister not so enfeebled, she would sack him. If he had any concept of responsibility, he would resign. The Transport Secretary should do the right thing and step aside.

[Chris Grayling]

I was rather expecting the hon. Gentleman to say that, and I respond simply by saying that it is my job to make sure that the problem is fixed, and that is what I intend to do. But the Opposition cannot have it both ways: half the time the hon. Gentleman is saying to me that the Government should run the railways, but when something goes wrong he says that it is the Government’s fault that we are not running the railways properly. They cannot have it both ways.

There are two specific points. On what we are going to do about the timetable in December, I have been very clear in the letter I sent to all colleagues last week that we are not going to do a major change of this kind again in the way that has happened in the last couple of months; it must be done in a more measured and careful way. We are already doing work now on how that timetable change should happen—how it should be modified—and the incoming chief executive of Network Rail, Andrew Haines, who I think will bring enormous experience to this, is the person who was responsible 10 years ago for the very successful timetable change on South Western. I have great confidence that as he comes into the organisation in the coming months, he will be able to put in place a plan for timetable change both at the end of this year and in the future that works better for passengers, who are the most important people in all of this.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me why we did not pay more attention to Chris Gibb’s report last year. Actually, we did. We appointed Chris Gibb chairman of the industry readiness board. Chris is one of the most experienced and respected figures in the rail industry, but that board still did not gather the scale of the problem that lay ahead when it last reported to me in May. Lessons have to be learned by the people on that board. We have to make sure that this cannot happen again, and everyone in the rail industry—and everyone in my Department, including me—is working to ensure that that happens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

This week’s timetabling debacle is characteristic of all that is wrong with the railway. The Secretary of State told the press yesterday, and not this House, that Northern Rail issues were his top priority and that he would improve train driver rostering and driver recruitment to improve things, but he cannot simply tinker with rosters and pick new train drivers off a shelf. Does he not realise that it takes a year to train a driver and that roster changes have to be worked through, with the workforce, well ahead of their introduction?

[Chris Grayling]

First of all, the hon. Gentleman has not been following things too closely, because my recollection is that when I was in this House yesterday afternoon I expressly talked about the issues with the timetabling.

Secondly, Northern does not have a shortage in overall terms of drivers. The problem has been caused by the operational difficulties that resulted from, first, Network Rail’s failure to deliver the electrification to the schedule that was expected on the line to Bolton, and, secondly, from Network Rail’s failure to finalise timetables in time. That has been the prime reason for disruption, which was not helped, I might add, by an unnecessary work to rule by one of the unions.

What has happened has been unacceptable for passengers, but I also remind the hon. Gentleman that this is the most devolved franchise in England. The management of the franchise is shared by my Department and northern leaders through Rail North, so it is not simply a question of my Department. I will be working now to see whether Rail North together has done enough of a job in monitoring these problems.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to be unkind to the Secretary of State, and he has certainly given us very full information, but let me say this. I gently chided the Minister next to him, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), for a mildly lengthy reply to one question, but he seems determined to outdo her. It is not a competition. Their replies are extremely informative, and I thank them for that, but we do not have unlimited time, although I do try to extend the envelope.

[Andy McDonald]

Northern Rail issues may be the Secretary of State’s top priority, but what about the long-suffering passengers on Thameslink and Southern? This is the fault not of 400 hard-working timetablers, but of train companies that do not have enough drivers with the right knowledge in the right places at the right time. Is it not the case that these train companies have had years to prepare for this and that this Secretary of State simply trashes the hard-working men and women across the industry who strive to deliver rail improvements? He simply throws them under the bus.

[Chris Grayling]

If I am not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman has just trashed the hard-working men and women of the train companies, who are trying to do a decent job for passengers; he cannot have it both ways. I am afraid that this is a problem with Network Rail, and I have said that it cannot happen again. We have now had the late delivery of the timetable twice in six months. It is not what I would have expected to happen at this moment in time, with such a big, complex change. None the less, it is happening because we are running vastly more trains to more destinations. New trains have been running this week, and there are people getting on trains this week who have a seat for the first time in four years. That is a good thing.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House censures the Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt hon Member for Epsom and Ewell, for his handling of the East Coast franchise and his proposal to re-privatise the route rather than operate it as a public sector operation; and calls on the Government to reduce his ministerial salary by £2,400 per year.

Labour has brought forward today’s motion because of the lack of candour and lack of debate around the future of the east coast franchise, both inside this House and outside. Not for the first time, the Secretary of State for Transport has fallen desperately short in matters of clarity and courtesy in his ministerial conduct. I believe that manners maketh the man and manners also maketh the Minister.

I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House that a week ago today I was denied the usual courtesy of being furnished with a copy of the Minister’s statement at least 45 minutes before the statement was made. I was allowed sight of the statement at 12.15 pm in an ante room on the upper ministerial corridor. I was not permitted to retain a copy and simply had to grab the few minutes afforded to me to make brief handwritten notes. With Prime Minister’s questions scheduled to finish at 12.45 pm and there being no other business before the House, that gave me the briefest sight of the document that I was to respond to.

To add insult to injury, I was not even provided with a hard copy of the statement as it was being delivered at the Dispatch Box. I noted that you, Mr Speaker, did have the benefit of a hard copy of the Secretary of State’s statement as he delivered it, but sadly I did not have that luxury.

[Mr Speaker]

I say in the most gentle spirit—we do not want to go over all of it in detail—that the copy for me was of limited use. It was very interesting to read, but of limited use. It would have been of greater use to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

It seems that certain newspapers had sight of the statement approximately an hour before its delivery. That courtesy ought to have been afforded to Her Majesty’s Opposition. To add further injury to further insult, the Secretary of State told this House, in the course of responding to questions on the statement, that the Opposition had been provided with a copy of the statement. Being given brief sight of the statement, by any reasonable interpretation, is a far cry from being provided with a copy. I trust the House will accept that this is not the way to go about business. Even at this stage, I live in hope that the Secretary of State will accept that his behaviour was not what is expected of a Minister of the Crown.

In my remarks today, I intend to examine how rail operations in the United Kingdom got into such an inexplicable and unsustainable place and consider whether the Government’s policy solutions are the right ones. Before I do so, however, I would like to deal with a preliminary issue. Each time we debate the railway, the Secretary of State argues that the private sector funds investment in the railway that we would not have under public ownership. That is simply untrue and misunderstands where investment comes from. It is the taxpayer and the fare payer, not private companies, who fund investment in the railway. Every bit of new track, every new station or new train is paid for by the public. The private sector only finances investment and it does so at a profit, such as rolling stock companies who finance the purchase of new trains and take home eye-watering profits.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me the difference between paying for something and financing it?

[Andy McDonald]

Absolutely. The private sector can organise financing, but the funding has to come from somewhere. It always comes from the same source: it is provided by taxpayers and by fare-paying passengers. It is paid for, so it is wrong for the Secretary of State to repeatedly credit companies with the investment made by taxpayers and passengers who are paying sky-high fares. Public ownership does not mean less investment. Under Labour, it will mean greater investment.

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

I am not sure whether this is bad timing, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that today in Wales the Labour Government have awarded the Welsh franchise to a multinational French-Spanish company, KeolisAmey, in a £5 billion 15-year deal, despite a manifesto promise to award it on a not-for-profit basis. Why are his Labour colleagues in Wales directly contradicting what he is proposing today?

[Andy McDonald]

That is entirely a matter for the Welsh Government.

The east coast saga is littered with incompetence and delusion, alongside a frankly cavalier regard for the public and passenger interest by a succession of Transport Ministers.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

This is now the sixth change of management for the east coast main line in 11 years. That cannot be good for any organisation. Does my hon. Friend know what is happening to the planned investment programme of new trains being built by Hitachi in the north-east?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are people now working on the east coast main line who are expecting their sixth change of uniform in 10 years. It is absolutely ludicrous. There has been an appalling record over the past several years.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says something that sums it up. This has been about changing uniforms and livery on trains, while the promised improvements to service, the new routes and the benefits to passengers have never ever materialised.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is ludicrous that the reported cost of changing the livery yet again on this network is an estimated £13 million.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is being very kind in giving way. Does he recognise that since 2015, when the franchise was put back into private hands, there have been an extra 1.74 million seats and an extra 40 services each week from London to Edinburgh? Is it therefore not the case that we have seen not only a 20% increase in money coming in, but an increase in service?

[Andy McDonald]

If we speak to people who take that train journey regularly, I think they will have their own observations about the quality of service. However, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will deal with his remarks as I develop my speech.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I really want to make some progress—I have taken a lot of interventions thus far.

I am concerned that the Government’s unimaginative and ill-thought-out response to the current crisis threatens the taxpayer interest yet further. Following the west coast franchise debacle in 2012, there were numerous reviews and process changes to rail franchising. We were told that nothing like that could ever happen again. In an act of ideological spite, the east coast franchise was forced back out into the private sector by a coalition Government desperate to tie the hands of a possible Labour Government in 2015. Passengers and taxpayers have lived to regret that decision.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is huge support in the north-east for a directly operated railway in not just the short term, but the long term? The experience in the north-east proved that this was a viable proposition and one that has tremendous support from the public and passengers.

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is great support for a publicly owned railway on the east coast—

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I’ll tell you what: I will answer one intervention and when I have finished with that one, I’ll see if I should answer another one—how does that go as a deal?

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) is entirely correct about that, and she is right about the response from the people who work on the railway. The investment in their training and performance reflected that and the benefits of the quality of the railway are because of the hard work and dedication of the people who work within it.

The Secretary of State said more than once that Virgin-Stagecoach got its numbers wrong when its bid for the east coast franchise was accepted in 2014. Why, then, did the Department accept the bid? What due diligence of the bid took place? Two of the Department’s franchise bid advisers told the Transport Committee on Monday that the Virgin-Stagecoach bid got through the DFT’s financial robustness test and financial risk assessment test. If that is the case, the financial robustness test and the financial risk assessment test are wholly ineffective and inadequate. Those same witnesses—the Department’s own advisers—suggested that the east coast franchise was doomed from day one. That is hardly a ringing endorsement from those in the know. In all those circumstances, what faith can we have in the Department’s processes?

This week it emerged that the Secretary of State allowed HS2 to appoint Ernst and Young to investigate Carillion, notwithstanding that EY was advising HS2. Clearly that is a direct, obvious and major conflict of interest. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Work and Pensions Committees asked if appropriate diligence took place. It seems that the Secretary of State’s failure to conduct proper due diligence is not isolated. EY, it should be recalled, is one of the Department’s technical advisers on the east coast operator of last resort.

Stagecoach knew that it would not meet its revenue targets weeks after taking over the east coast franchise in March 2015. The company was in constant dialogue with the Department about it. The Secretary of State has been in post since July 2016 and must have known about this for that period of time. Why did he do nothing? Has not this Transport Secretary been asleep at the wheel?

We learned this morning that the Government knew that Carillion was at risk for more than a year before the company went bust. As with the east coast franchise, the Government sat on their hands and did nothing. What about the Department’s managing director for passenger rail services, Peter Wilkinson, who was brought in at such great expense in 2012 to “get rail franchising back on track”? I am not a personnel expert, but I would say that Mr Wilkinson must be in breach of his contract.

Let us get into some of the details. On 14 Feb 2018, DFT OLR Ltd—presumably OLR stood for “operator of last resort”—was renamed London North Eastern Railway Ltd. It is a company limited by shares to a nominal value of just £1. The company has six directors, four of whom are listed with the occupation “civil servant”. They include the DFT’s head of passenger service, Peter Wilkinson; the DFT’s lead on in-franchise change, Richard Cantwell; and the DFT’s head of franchise policy and design, Simon Smith—the other civil servant does not show up on the DFT’s organogram.

Not only was LNER established in February, but the domain name was registered on 29 March. Why has it taken the Secretary of State three months to inform the House of a decision that he took all those months ago? Last year, it emerged that the Government decided to cancel rail electrification projects in March but they did not announce the decisions until after the general election in July. The collapse of the east coast franchise should set alarm bells ringing at the Department for Transport.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Virgin-Stagecoach has let down passengers, as well as the taxpayer. Does my hon. Friend agree that Virgin-Stagecoach should not be allowed to bid for any other train routes? If it were, that would make a mockery of the whole system of privatisation and outsourcing, with absolutely no responsibility or accountability?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point: we seem to be in the business of rewarding failure. The smack on the wrist for Virgin-Stagecoach was to give it an extension on the west coast line. How on earth does that relate to a franchise that has failed?

As I said, the collapse of the east coast franchise should set alarm bells ringing at the DFT. The Secretary of State acknowledges that his Department accepted a bid that was too high, yet at the time of the bid, Virgin Trains East Coast was told by the DFT that it was the highest-quality bid that it had ever received. If the highest-quality bid ever received could go so badly wrong so quickly, what does that mean for other franchises?

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) intervenes, the shadow Transport Secretary has been most generous in giving way, and that is perfectly proper, but I just emphasise that 15 Back Benchers want to speak. Therefore, it might be an idea to think in terms of finishing the speeches from Front Benchers by 10 past or quarter past 2 at the latest. If it is possible to do so earlier, so much the better. I call Mr Gareth Thomas.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for accepting this intervention before you got up to make your own. Is my hon. Friend aware of the Centre for Policy Studies—not a natural ally for him, perhaps—and its recent report in which it alluded to fundamental problems with rail competition and the declining market interest in bidding for rail franchises? Would he therefore take this opportunity to commend to the Secretary of State the recent Co-operative party report setting out a new approach to public ownership of the railways?

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes his point very well. With your guidance in mind, Mr Speaker, I put the House on notice that I do not intend to take any further interventions—I shall crack on.

The franchising model is based on ever-growing passenger numbers. Indeed, other franchise agreements have been agreed with similarly optimistic assumptions about growing passenger numbers and fares revenue. Even in times of growing usage, franchises have proven to be unsustainable, yet we are now seeing a period of falling passenger numbers. In the last two quarters, rail passenger usage fell by 0.4% and 0.9%, driven by respective 8.1% and 9.4% falls in season-ticket journeys. That is a result of above-inflation fare rises; people who have seen fares rise at three times the rate of wages since 2010 are opting for cheaper modes of transport. Passengers are being priced off the railway. This declining usage threatens the integrity and financial sustainability of the railway and the franchising system itself, as other operators find themselves in similar trouble to Virgin-Stagecoach on the east coast.

What, then, is the Secretary of State’s solution? Will he abandon above-inflation fare rises, as Labour has pledged to do, so that passengers can afford to travel by rail and patronage can be boosted? If not, how does he plan to handle problems with franchises down the line? Will he do as he has done with the east coast and allow companies to walk away from their contracts, thereby forfeiting billions of pounds in premium payments owed to the Treasury, before handing services over to other companies that will agree to pay less back to the taxpayer?

The new west coast partnership franchise has a £20 million parent company guarantee. This contrasts with the £200 million guaranteed by Stagecoach on the east coast. Less risk for the private sector means more risk for the public purse. Both options would allow private operators to renege on their contracts, at a cost of billions of pounds, and makes a mockery of rail franchising by telling private operators that the state will intervene if they are in trouble, removing risk and incentivising reckless bids. It would be a case of profits being privatised and losses socialised.

The Public Accounts Committee and the Transport Committee have published reports that are scathing of both the Secretary of State’s handling of franchises and the franchising system more generally, which is clearly failing on its own terms. The Secretary of State is attempting to prop up the franchising model for ideological reasons. Since 2010, there have been more direct awards—companies being gifted services without having to bid—than successful franchising competitions, meaning that the system resembles state-sponsored monopolies rather than a market where franchisees make bids they are expected to honour.

I have yet to hear the Secretary of State articulate a solution to these fundamental flaws in rail franchising. So far, he has only proposed to tinker around the edges. The strategic vision for rail announced last November will be a future case study for media students on Government presentational double-speak. Amid reversing the Beeching cuts and announcing the invitation to tender for the next south-eastern franchise, there were two sentences on how the east coast franchise had failed. The strategic vision embodies his approach to his ministerial brief and to announcements in this House: smoke, mirrors, ambiguities, jargon, technicalities, empty aspirations and discourtesy.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend offer any insight into the Secretary of State’s long-term vision for rail franchising? Did he hear the evidence to the Transport Committee on Monday on the proposed east coast partnership, when Iryna Terlecky, a rail professional with decades of experience, told us that she had

“no idea how it might work”?

She added:

“If I was doing this kind of partnership, I would not do it on the east coast”

because it was

“completely counter-intuitive”.

Can he understand why the Secretary of State is going down this path?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I value the work she does so astutely as Chair of the Transport Committee. It is remarkable that those experts and advisers are making such comments. I will come on to deal with the choice of the east coast for a potential partnership option in my concluding remarks.

[Simon Hoare]

A moment or so ago, the hon. Gentleman mentioned ideology. I am a Welshman and I thought I understood the Welsh Labour party. What is the difference between the ideologies of Welsh Labour and London Labour on these vital transport issues? Clearly there is a difference, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards).

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise of course that the Government forced through the franchise option, so they had no choice in Wales.

Like his time at the Ministry of Justice, the Secretary of State must hope to be moved on before his wrecking-ball approach to decisions reveals its true horrors. He seems incapable of being direct with Members and the public alike. Given his track record, is it any wonder that no one takes the east coast partnership idea seriously? Where on earth did he come up with it? In the back of a taxi on the way to Parliament to deliver his statement?

As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee has remarked, the east coast is the last line on the rail network on which a partnership between a train and track operator has been launched. More than 20 passenger, freight and open access operators use the east coast main line. The east coast franchise runs less than 10% of services. Why would anyone put this operator in charge? There is no basis for the Secretary of State’s assurances that the governance of the partnership would be independent.

The Secretary of State knows that Network Rail’s London and north-eastern route covers the east midlands. Putting that route into an east coast partnership will force Network Rail to prioritise the east coast over the east midlands and further damage a region that is losing rail electrification and services because of timetable changes. Will his east coast partnership not undermine the national rail infrastructure manager, Network Rail? His new market-led proposals for rail enhancements also undermine Network Rail’s role and increase the Department’s micro-management of rail. Is there not simply too much political interference in rail?

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way briefly, but it will be my last intervention.

[Mr Campbell]

Like many north-east MPs, I travel on the east coast line every week, and I am always being asked this question by passengers and staff: why on earth did the coalition Government get rid of a perfectly good company that put £1 billion over four years into the Treasury and give the franchise to Virgin-Stagecoach? That has never really been explained.

[Andy McDonald]

I think the explanation is quite simple: it was done out of ideological obsession and to put the franchise outwith the reach of anybody else.

By contrast, the next Labour Government will allow rail professionals to get on with their jobs free from political interference. [Interruption.] They do not seem to understand the difference.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

No, I am not taking any more interventions. Sit!

Last week, the Secretary of State failed to address my concerns about four other highly vulnerable rail franchises being provided with revenue support by the Department. Is it his intention to take these contracts within the operator of last resort function should they fail?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

How does the hon. Gentleman square his statement that there is too much political interference in the rail network with his party’s stated desire to nationalise the entire network? It does not make any sense.

[Andy McDonald]

Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the entirety of the debate, he might have heard me refer to that; I know he has just walked in. The object of the exercise is to put rail professionals in charge of the railway system.

Is it not the reality that the franchise system is totally broken? It is finished; it’s a dead parrot; it is no more. The one thing the Secretary of State is right about is that track and train should be unified, but that should not be done simply to further his ideological obsession with parcelling up public services for profiteers. I am glad, therefore, that this service has been taken out of the franchising system and placed under public control, although the fact that it is a consortium of private companies brought about during the partial privatisation of the operator of last resort prevents it from being properly described as full public ownership.

A minimum estimate is that £725 million flows out of the railway every year into the pockets of shareholders. In addition, £200 million each year is wasted through a disjointed system. Breaking the railway up into pieces was necessary to sell it off, but it has created an inefficient railway. A few years ago, the McNulty report found our railways to be 40% less efficient than European comparators.

I do not agree with the Members who favour a “halfway house” option—having a degree of public ownership, but retaining the broader franchising model, along with a public sector operator or two—as that would mean failing to realise the full benefits of public ownership. What is needed is a fully integrated railway that is fully in public ownership. A unified railway in public ownership, serving the interests of British citizens, their communities, their jobs and their businesses is what Labour will deliver, and the sooner we can have a general election to bring it about, the better. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Had the franchise run its full term, would the Secretary of State have expected Virgin Trains East Coast to pay the full £3.3 billion in premiums?

[Chris Grayling]

Any franchise that runs its full term is expected to pay the full premiums, but when National Express went under and there was a further £1.5 billion of premiums to pay, that money continued to be paid by the new operator, in the same way that the premiums that we are expecting will continue to be paid by the operator in this instance. This is my point: the hon. Gentleman does not understand how the finances of the railways work, and that is why the Labour party is so unfit to be in opposition, let alone to govern.

Points of Order

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the point of order from the shadow Transport Secretary. We are very pressed for time as a result of the statement and the brouhaha surrounding its handling. I am keen to progress, but not before hearing the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for indulging me. Words are very important. In response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) about the provision of the statement prior to its making, the response was that Opposition parties had been provided with a copy of the statement. That is simply not the case. I asked for a copy of the statement and I was provided with it after the Secretary of State sat down. For clarity, I had sight of it with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for minutes—30 minutes—before that statement started. I simply ask that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to clarify the position and to apologise for giving the wrong impression.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If the Secretary of State wishes to respond, he can.

East Coast Main Line

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

May I just comment on the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown)? I was given sight of this statement 30 minutes before I entered this House. I was not given an electronic copy, I was not allowed to take one away and, as I sit here right now, I have still not been provided with a copy of the statement. I consider this absolutely reprehensible. The Secretary of State does this every single time—relying on confidentiality and market sensitivity. Every single time he treats me with contempt, Her Majesty’s Opposition with contempt, and the House of Commons with contempt. It is about time he changed his ways. This is a shameful practice.

Today, the i newspaper reported that the millennial railcard announced in the 2017 Budget has been scrapped because the Treasury will not agree to fund it. In that case, why did the Chancellor announce it? This Government have nothing to offer that age group other than spin and broken promises.

In the past year, the Transport Secretary gifted Virgin and Stagecoach a £2 billion bail-out after they had failed on the east coast main line at the same time as awarding those same companies a lucrative contract extension on the west coast main line. Yet he has the audacity to come to the Dispatch Box and say that it is not reasonable to remove or place conditions on their passport. It is absolutely ludicrous. Three times in under a decade, private companies have failed on the east coast main line. Its only successful period was from 2009 to 2015 under public ownership, when £1 billion was returned to the Treasury. It was the best-performing operator on the network before being cynically re-privatised on the eve of the 2015 general election. The then Secretary of State for Transport said:

“I believe Stagecoach and Virgin will not only deliver for customers but also for the British taxpayer.”

What nonsense! Report after report by the Public Accounts Committee, which described the Government’s approach as “completely inadequate”, and by the Transport Committee detail the failure of the privatised franchising system on its own terms. The Government’s incompetence has been disastrous for passengers and led to misery for millions of people.

We have been here before many, many times, year after year. The Secretary of State and his predecessors have stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that privatisation is being reformed. We have had reform, reform and reform. We have had bail-out after bail-out. Rail companies win; passengers and taxpayers lose. There is a definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and again and expecting different results. This is the situation we find ourselves in today. Franchising remains at the heart of the alleged partnership. No amount of tinkering can solve the failings of a broken privatised system where the public take the risk and the train companies take the profit, aided and abetted by the Transport Secretary.

Can we really believe anything that the right hon. Gentleman says? Rail investment is promised; rail investment is cancelled. He makes claims about technology despite his civil servants telling him that it does not exist. No one takes his announcements seriously. Every announcement is a smokescreen to divert attention from the failures of his rail franchising policy. The east coast main line is but one vulnerable rail franchise. What about Northern, TransPennine, Greater Anglia and South Western? Will there be bail-outs for operators on those lines who fail to meet their targets?

Let us be clear about the privatised public sector operator of last resort—how ridiculous is that?—on the east coast main line. These companies—multinational Canadian engineering company SNC-Lavalin, Arup, and big-four accountancy firm Ernst and Young—are not running the east coast main line for nothing. This is Conservative-style public ownership—more private profit. Only Labour’s version of public ownership will deliver what the railway needs.

There is a clear solution to the problems on the east coast main line. It was a successful public company between 2009 and 2014, thanks to the previous Labour Government. I am just sorry that the Secretary of State will not accept the stark staringly obvious answer: an integrated railway under public ownership, run for passengers, not for profit.

[Chris Grayling]

The first thing to say is that I could have done what has been done previously and made a stock market announcement at 7 am this morning, and not come to the House first. I actually chose on this occasion to come to the House first to provide the information, albeit price sensitively, in the best possible way. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that that is a more appropriate way to handle such an issue than making a 7 am announcement to the stock market, as has been past practice.

The hon. Gentleman talks about nationalisation. Let us deal with this issue head on. Labour has spent the past few months desperately trying to take us back into the ambit of the European Union. Let me explain this to him very simply: his policy on rail nationalisation is illegal under European law. It is all well and good Labour Members arguing that we should stay in the single market and have a second referendum and all the rest of it, but his version of nationalisation is not legal under European law, so why would we take him seriously when he talks about this? I am interested in what works, and that is what we are doing with today’s announcement.

The hon. Gentleman harks back to the period of public operation of this railway. During that period, fewer staff were employed, it generated less money for the taxpayer, and passenger satisfaction was lower than it was subsequently. So it was not some great nirvana period. Yes, things were done in a way that moved things beyond the collapse of National Express in 2009, but the performance of the team currently running the railway has been good. It is not their fault that the parent company got its sums wrong. We should pay tribute to the team who work on that railway and say that it is not their fault that I have had to make today’s announcement.

The hon. Gentleman keeps going on about a £2 billion announcement. That is another example of why Labour does not understand any of this, because otherwise he would realise that no bail-out has taken place, any more than Labour bailed out National Express. This railway line is continuing and will continue to make a substantial contribution to the taxpayer. When he talks about a £2 billion bail-out, he does not understand the finances of the railway. It is not true today and it was not true when National Express collapsed. The reality is that this is the best way to take forward what has been a difficult situation on this railway on a path that I believe in and I think the public believe in: it is better to bring back the operation of track and train, and that is what we will do.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the railcard having been scrapped. That would justify his not believing everything he reads in the papers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I will make two points. The custom and practice is to provide an advance copy of a statement to Her Majesty’s Opposition. It has also been the custom in recent years to provide one to the third party. Both of those were done this morning, so I have followed conventions as per normal.

The hon. Lady talks about bailing out a private franchise. I have not bailed out any private franchise; I have just taken away its contract.

[Andy McDonald]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will come to points of order—[Interruption.] Order. Calm! I commend yoga to the shadow Secretary of State. I will happily take the hon. Gentleman’s point of order at the end but not in the middle of the statement. I will wait with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow to hear his point of order at the appropriate moment, and I am sure I will hear it.

I was in the process of calling somebody from the Government side—Mr Iain Stewart.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Bill presents a long overdue opportunity to consider the importance of the transport and logistics industries to the United Kingdom and the commercial road haulage sector in particular. The industry employs more than 2.5 million people and is the fifth biggest sector of the economy contributing £124 billion.

One of the privileges of my job is to meet people from across the transport, freight and logistics sectors. In the course of those discussions around transitional and post-Brexit arrangements, I hear an increasing frustration and anger at the cavalier “it will be all right on the night” approach from this Government, and rightly so, because there is no evidence that economic self-interest will prevail.

As we debate the prospect of a permit system for the haulage industry in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it should be recalled that the UK has 600,000 goods vehicle driving licence holders. There are nearly half a million commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes registered in the UK, which are responsible for moving 98% of goods. This is a serious and vital industry and we meddle with it at our peril.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the haulage industry is important to the United Kingdom, especially to Northern Ireland where almost all of our food and goods travel by road? Does he not accept that the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, if there is a deal, we are prepared for it, and if there is no deal, we are also prepared for it, and that that should reassure the haulage industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I just do not share his sense of confidence that the provisions of the Bill are anything like adequate in the event of a no deal. These measures will not respond to the needs of the country should that contingency arise.

The Bill must be regarded as the first piece of legislation that provides for a no-deal Brexit. It sets out new powers for the Government to allocate permits to hauliers if required by future agreement or lack thereof, so that UK lorries can continue to operate to and within the European Union. A newspaper headline this weekend—in The Sunday Times, no less—was correct to say that

“this government is failing business at every turn”.

Today’s debate is a further foretaste of the damage that this Government’s prevaricating is doing to the British economy.

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State—in all his finger-crossing hopes for something to crop up before Brexit day—did not actually update the House on the progress that he might be making towards a comprehensive land transport agreement, which is what the Freight Transport Association is asking for. The Secretary of State did not confirm whether he is personally in discussions with the Irish Government, other Governments or the European Commission. Is it not lamentable that he could not even give this vital industry some level of update on the progress of negotiations towards those agreements?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. It is indeed lamentable that there has been a complete absence of those discussions. It is a question of hit and hope, finger in the air and everything will be alright on the night. This is not the right way to go about it. The Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box and said that he does not speak for the other 27 Governments. I sometimes wonder whether he speaks for the one of which he is a member. A damaged and disrupted logistics sector will result in a damaged and disrupted British economy.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman just tell the House what additional contingencies he would make if he were the Secretary of State?

[Andy McDonald]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, that is exactly what I am going to outline during the course of my speech.

I hope that this Bill represents the dawn of the realisation of the catastrophe that would flow from a chaotic Brexit. A few months ago the “beast from the east” left supermarket shelves across the country empty, while logistics problems forced fast food chain KFC to close hundreds of outlets because of supply shortages. These examples provide the merest glimpse of what shocks to the supply and distribution chain will look like for British consumers and businesses if the free flow of trade is not maintained following our departure from the European Union.

The Bill has serious implications for the UK’s music industry, particularly the concert haulage industry, which supports the music industry in the UK and the EU. Concert haulage operators require a community licence for road transport to the EU, which will be lost after Brexit. The Road Haulage Association says that a permit system will not work for concert hauliers, and estimates that the UK will run out of permits in 2.5 days. I have to ask: when will the Government listen to business and accept that there has to be a continuation of the current trading and transport environment, if a massive disruption of the flow of goods and produce is to be avoided?

As an island nation, ports are and will remain vital to our trading relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, so it is quite extraordinary that no Minister from the Department for Exiting the European Union has visited Britain’s most important gateway to Europe—the port of Dover. Half of the UK’s international road haulage traffic comes through Dover alone. I ask the Minister, is transport really a top priority in the Government’s Brexit negotiations?

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Forgive me; I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but I think that I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), visited Dover last week. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a straightforward Member of this House and would not want to mislead the House, so he will probably want to correct what he said. I say this to be helpful.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am just delighted that the hon. Lady got there eventually.

Road haulage is essential to the complex and sensitive just-in-time supply chains that underpin the UK and EU economies. Roll-on roll-off ferries face the most serious impact from a no-deal Brexit. A staggering 10,000 trucks pass through Dover each day. Almost none of these currently requires a customs clearance process. The port estimates that a two-minute delay per vehicle will generate a permanent 20-mile-long traffic jam.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Given the current snail’s pace in the negotiations, with the Cabinet split in two to look for solutions rather than no solutions, should there not have been some contingency in this Bill for customs checks, which are looking increasingly likely due to the Government’s handling of Brexit?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One does wonder why no such contingency has been put in the Bill, and we will have to address that in Committee.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tells me that, on average, 1,100 trucks from the EU deliver components worth £35 million to UK car and engine plants every single day. The UK automotive industry relies on just six major ports for the export of 95% of completed vehicles. The SMMT says that some manufacturers face costs of up to £1 million an hour if production is stopped due to component supply issues. A 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost manufacturers £850,000 per year. Is it not blindingly obvious that the current trajectory of this Government, with Brextremists at their core, means that we are heading for economic and trading chaos?

[Chris Grayling]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? If business shares the pessimism that he is laying before the House, can he explain the string of positive announcements of investment in the United Kingdom that we have seen in the past few months by Vauxhall, Toyota and others? If things are so bleak, why are they choosing to make substantial investments in their future in the United Kingdom?

[Andy McDonald]

If the Secretary of State had looked at the papers over the weekend, he would have seen exactly why. A lot of people are making their plans to get out of the UK if necessary. That is exactly what has happened. He is playing with fire on this, and he really should wake up and smell the coffee.

The Government have done little to help the road haulage industry. They have made a complete and utter dog’s breakfast of contingency planning for the M20 motorway. A lorry park off the motorway has been desperately needed to help alleviate problems during Operation Stack, and it is all the more needed ahead of Brexit next March. Yet the Department for Transport failed properly to undertake the critically important environmental risk assessment before the planning process for the £250 million project and had to scrap it last September. This incompetence will have disastrous consequences. If this Government cannot successfully plan how to build a lorry park in Kent, how do they expect anyone to believe that they are capable of introducing an alternative haulage permit scheme?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman says, rather surprisingly, that this Government have done nothing for the road haulage industry. Is he not aware that the HGV levy brought in to level the playing field between foreign and UK hauliers brought in £96 million in the first two years after it was introduced in 2014, and that the previous coalition Government increased the speed limit on single-carriageway roads from 40 mph to 50 mph, which made a great contribution to improving logistical efficiency?

[Andy McDonald]

If the right hon. Gentleman had had the pleasure of listening to the Road Haulage Association last week, and the FTA as well, he would probably agree with me that they are not exactly overjoyed by the prospect of the uncertainty that is facing them. A lot of these companies are small companies working on very small margins. He raised the issue of costs that are now going to be put on to those companies. He should be worrying about how that is going to impact on them.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No. I am not trying to be rude, but I need to make progress. I have taken a lot of interventions.

The ongoing supply of labour is a huge concern for the road haulage industry. The average age of an HGV driver is now 55 and only 2% of the workforce is under 25. The industry is enormously reliant on the 60,000 non-UK EU nationals and any restriction on the supply of skilled workers will undoubtedly have a negative impact.

Ministers urgently need to reassure the road haulage industry that Brexit will not result in more delays at borders as well as that it will not have to bear additional red tape and costs. The Government need urgently to provide clarity about customs, borders and future regulations, about which there are real and deep concerns. Ministers continually argue that economic self-interest will mean that things naturally gravitate towards protecting British business. That is a naive and irresponsible view that is already damaging UK industry.

I pay tribute to the noble Lords, whose work has improved the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the Lords described the Bill as

“wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”,

said that the Committee was

“in the dark because the devil will be in the regulatory detail”,

and urged the Government to provide

“illustrative examples…of at least some of the regulations to be made under the main delegated powers in the Bill”.

As the future relationship is a matter for the Brexit negotiations, this is an enabling Bill that contains little detail and grants the Secretary of State significant powers. The fact that so few details are on the face of the Bill also speaks to the lack of strategy and progress in the Government’s approach to exiting the European Union. The Secretary of State should of course have the powers needed to mitigate the damage to the UK haulage sector caused by a failure to retain current arrangements, but those powers should not be excessive. For example, an argument has been made in favour of a sunset clause so that the powers do not remain on the statute book ad infinitum.

Following pressure in the other place, concessions were made. I am glad that clauses 1, 2, 12 and 17 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, taking account of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the effect that regulations made under certain clauses should be subject to a vote of both Houses. I am pleased that the Government tabled an amendment introducing a new reporting requirement, requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament annually that assesses the effect on the UK haulage industry of any restrictions that apply to a permit scheme agreed with one or more EU member states. The impact of a future permit scheme has the potential to be far reaching with many unintended consequences, so it is right that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament.

In the light of the Government’s abysmal failure on road safety, which has seen the number of specialised road traffic police plummet while the number killed and seriously injured on our roads rises year on year, I urge the Secretary of State not to attempt to remove Labour’s amendment on trailer safety. The amendment is eminently reasonable, and requires the Government to assess evidence on the incidence of trailer-related road accidents and, only if the evidence justifies action, for a new MOT-style mandatory safety standards testing scheme to be created.

I note that when it was introduced in the other place the Bill would have allowed for permits to be allocated on a first come, first served basis or through a lottery, creating a situation where companies would be left queuing overnight or waiting with their fingers crossed that their company’s name would be pulled out of a hat. I am glad that, after criticism from the noble Lord Tunnicliffe, this was changed.

In Committee, Labour will continue to identify any further unintended consequences of the Bill, and will look to strengthen the accountability to Parliament and restrict the powers granted to the Secretary of State where necessary. Labour believes that getting the right deal for transport and its networks must be the highest priority for the Brexit negotiations. Nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. Only Labour’s clear policy of a customs union with the EU can ensure that trade can flow and grow. The Government should put country before party and provide the same.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am slightly astonished at some of the points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made on behalf of the Opposition. I know him well—we often travel down on the train from the north-east together—but he has spent most of the past quarter of an hour attacking the Government for implementing the decision made by 65.5% of the voters in Middlesbrough, and by over 60% of people in Cleveland as a whole, to leave the European Union.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the voters did not vote to be worse off?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the other trap that many Labour colleagues fall into, which is arguing that the people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. They knew precisely what they were voting for. They knew it would be tough, but they put the interests of the country before short-term economic advantage. I believe that the Government are negotiating to get the best deal for Britain and one that will be to the long-term benefit of our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The central role of good Government is to anticipate, prepare and act. In practice, of course, Governments spend a good deal of time responding to things to which they are obliged to react. Nevertheless, it is important that, as Ministers anticipate, they prepare legislation accordingly, and that is really what we are talking about today.

As I read the Bill, I could not help thinking that it is yet another piece of legislation that had its genesis during my time at the Department for Transport. We spend a great deal of time debating Bills that I had a hand in. When I was a Minister, I suppose that excessive humility meant that I did not fully accept the plaudits from the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, but now I realise just how inventive I was in the Department. It was that combination of perspicacity and imagination that led to so much legislation, including this Bill.

As has been said, the essence of the Bill is to create a framework. The first of the Bill’s two parts deals with establishing a permit system that will allow the continued movement of goods across Europe by hauliers, and the second deals with trailer registration. I do not want to go exhaustively into that—it was described very well by the Secretary of State, and others have made reference to it—but some points of amplification are worth making. I emphasise again the significance of haulage and why the measures that we are debating really matter. Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State drew attention to the scale of the industry. It is worth something like £13.1 billion to the economy and directly employs almost 200,000 people but, of course, there are many more jobs in the logistics industry, as we like to describe it in the modern idiom. Around 2.35 million people have occupations that relate to the transit—the movement —of goods.

Through haulage, for the vast majority of goods are transported by truck, the things that we want and the things that we need—they are not necessarily the same, by the way—are brought to us, and the things that we make and sell are taken from us to other places. It is critical that the process is as seamless as possible. I note that there was mention of fresh produce. When we move things around, it is important that we do so quickly, and no more so than in the case of fresh produce. The just-in-time culture that we have created means that the lead times involved in acquiring, transporting and retailing goods are very short indeed, and were they to suffer as a result of any change, it would mean not only a considerable disruption to what we have come to expect, but significant additional costs to the haulage industry, which works on very narrow margins—typically something like 1% to 3%. I have spoken to the RHA about that, both since and while I was a Minister, and it is conscious of the need to maintain that free flow of goods not only for its own sake, but for the sake of all those it serves through the industry including, ultimately, consumers—those who buy and use the goods, and whose lives are made better by their acquisition.

It is therefore important, as the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have both emphasised, that we make the process as seamless as possible. The optimum outcome, of course, is that it be as much like it is now as possible. As the Secretary of State said, that is what he anticipates will be the product of the negotiations in which we are engaged, and his argument is compelling, because it is in our mutual interest that that is the case. It is absolutely in the mutual interest of countries across Europe that they are able to sell and buy goods as they need them.

[Andy McDonald]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that while a principle of solidarity exists in an EU comprising 28 countries, once we are a third country, that principle of solidarity will obtain across 27 countries and their duty will be to each other, not the UK?

[Mr Hayes]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I suspect that the commercial interests of those countries and the pressure that commercial interests put on them will, in the end, be irresistible. For example, as was argued a few moments ago, farmers, growers and food manufacturers across Europe—whether in northern Europe or, as we heard, in Spain and Italy in the south—will want their goods brought here, much as they are now. I think the pressure to do a deal in our mutual interest will in the end rule the day.

Now, I do not know that, and the Secretary of State asked, very honestly, “How could I predict that?”—he would not want to, and he did not—but I think a deal in our mutual interest is the likely outcome. He called it his best guess; I would go further and call it my considered estimation.

[Mr Hayes]

That is why it is vital that the negotiations go well and why it is important to put in place this framework legislation. It is right that the Government prepare for all eventualities. In opposition, I spent half my time saying the Government were being too precise, too dogmatic, too determined to specify, and the other half saying they were being too open-minded and too flexible. The trouble with all Oppositions is that they meander between those two positions: on the one hand, they want the Government to be specific; on the other hand, they want the Government to be flexible. I slightly sense that that dilemma prevails in respect of the existing Opposition. This is a framework Bill—there is no need to apologise for that. The detail will come forward when we know the shape of the negotiations and how much of the Bill will be necessary. That is a straightforward and honourable position for any Government who want to anticipate, prepare and act.

The shadow Secretary of State made an additional important point about haulage that I also want to amplify. On skills and employment, he is entirely right that, irrespective of our relationship with the EU, there is a pressing need to recruit more people into the industry. As he was speaking, I was looking at notes on this very subject. He will know that the strategic transport apprenticeship taskforce, which has been looking at just these matters, published a report last year, off the back of its earlier consideration, and although there have been improvements across each sector of transport—road, rail, and so on, including haulage—there is still more to do, particularly to recruit people from under-represented groups in the sector.

When I was a Minister, work was being done, which I know is continuing under my successors, to encourage more people into the industry by, if you like, recasting or rebranding it—something I discussed with the RHA many times. That is vital not only on the purely numeric grounds the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but because we want people to have worthwhile careers in logistics. It is an important sector, and there are many good jobs to be had and many important skills to learn and use, so there is an efficacy in this as well as a necessity. To that end, I hope the work will continue through the apprenticeship taskforce. I gather from its report that there are 15,000 apprentices in road freight this year. I hope that that number will continue to grow. I established an education advisory group in the Department to advise on how we could cast out more widely in attracting people into the industry, and it seems to me that that work should also continue—but far be it from me to bind the hands of my successors.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that this is not only about attracting people into the industry but about retaining them? The figures show that many young people coming into the industry do not hang around but go on to pastures new, and that requires urgent and focused attention.

[Mr Hayes]

It does require focused attention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is about retention as well as recruitment. We must recruit from different sources, which might mean people coming back into the industry, and address the rate of attrition. We must draw on people from other sources—a good example is the armed services, where people, having learned to drive, could re-enter the private sector—and we must attract more people from minority communities, which are very sparsely represented in haulage and road freight, and more women drivers. To do that, however, we have to change some of the working conditions. That is critical to both recruitment and retention.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you did not mind my digressing a little from the specifics of the Bill in order to amplify an important point that I know is keenly felt by shadow Ministers and Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is supporting the sale of Network Rail’s property assets. The Federation of Small Businesses says that this will put small companies out of business because the new private owner will rapidly rack up rents, which will restrict key developments in places such as Chesterfield. Does he not see that the sell-off will lose the railway valuable and vitally important income?

[Mr Speaker]

Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear it again.

[Andy McDonald]

The Secretary of State is supporting the sale of Network Rail’s property assets. The Federation of Small Businesses says that this will put small companies out of business because the new private owner will rapidly rack up rents, which will restrict key developments in places such as Chesterfield. Does he not see that the sell-off will lose the railway valuable and vitally important income?

[Ms Ghani]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating himself. The Secretary of State met the FSB yesterday and discussions on negotiations are ongoing.

[Andy McDonald]

In 2015, the DFT accepted Sir Peter Hendy’s plan to sell £1.8 billion of Network Rail property. These assets are now worth only £1 billion but generate £90 million of revenue each year. How can the Secretary of State still argue that this sell-off of the family silver makes sense? Is it not clear that his plan will cost Network Rail and British taxpayers dearly?

[Ms Ghani]

The Secretary of State will continue to realise assets when he can. We will then reinvest them in the railway network.