Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, on which I serve alongside him. He made many good points and I agree with much of what he said. We still have good questions about the Bill on technical details and insurance among other things, which we will undoubtedly cover in great detail in Committee. His final point about bringing the public with us is key. During the Select Committee’s inquiry, which was referenced by the Chair, I brought that up several times with the witnesses. As the Chair said, we accept things like the DLR, but that is fixed transport; this is very different. Obviously, as we have seen with smart motorways, the public may not buy it unless we and the industry are robust in what we are selling them.

Before I start, I must be honest about my own thoughts and preconceptions about autonomous or automated vehicles, as we are calling them in the Bill. The kid and science fiction fan inside me looks forward to the transport of tomorrow, with futuristic cars like those in films such as “I, Robot”, “Minority Report” and “Blade Runner”—although it must to be said that with their current policies the Government are doing their level best to deliver the bleak and dystopian future from “Blade Runner”. “Back to the Future” told us that that we would have flying cars by 2015, but perhaps “The Jetsons” was more accurate with its version of 2062.

Growing up, my favourite had to be “Knight Rider”, where David Hasselhoff played—[Interruption.] Yes, I am showing my age. Well, “The Jetsons” is from 1962, so hopefully that was on repeat when I was watching it. In “Knight Rider”, Michael Knight very much played second fiddle to KITT the car.

In truth, I am not the best passenger in a car. I prefer being in control, no matter how suboptimal that might be for my passengers. I also like driving. As a family, we have been driving electric for three years to reduce our carbon footprint. I also use public transport and active travel a lot more than I used to, but I enjoy driving and would not want my car to drive itself, although I do enjoy the driver aids seen in most modern cars. I hope we never quite get to the point where automation becomes compulsory, but I suspect that will be a debate for MPs a couple of generations and more from now.

This issue and the Bill sound exciting, but the truth is that the Bill is technical and dry—it is less Michael Knight, more Michael Howard. Its Committee may not be a barn burner, but none the less it will be important. That is because the Bill is absolutely necessary—indeed, we could say it is long overdue—and will put in place much-needed regulation to focus and develop this technology and ultimately enable its full commercialisation and public roll-out.

As you might hear me saying from time to time, Mr Deputy Speaker, Scotland has been taking the lead on autonomous vehicles for some time now. The Forth bridge has been home to one of the main pilots of autonomous vehicles for passenger services, with the CAVForth project operating since last summer. Buses built just up the road by Alexander Dennis in Camelon are taking thousands of passengers a week over the bridge and into Edinburgh. It is a groundbreaking and world-leading trial, which could help revolutionise public transport in the long term. I cannot resist saying that it would not have been possible had the Scottish Government listened to the naysayers just over a decade ago and dropped construction of the Queensferry crossing. We now have the Forth bridge operational for public transport, with private vehicles transferred to the new crossing. Those trials can happen in the best possible environment, with the result that thousands of passengers are crossing the Forth every week on an autonomous bus.

Like Labour’s shadow Minister, I welcome the Bill, although with some reservations. Ultimately, it represents a chance to be ahead of the curve and get the appropriate legislative framework in place before problems arise. It allows that framework to change things when the future does not deliver what it is supposed to. Motoring is a highly regulated area of life, and rightly so, given that we are dealing with machines capable of wiping out multiple lives with barely a scratch on them.

It was mentioned earlier in the debate, although perhaps from a different viewpoint, that we have seen in the US that problems arise when there is a lack of regulation and proper legislative oversight of the industry. Since there is virtually no national oversight, those issues and the regulatory frameworks have been dealt with at state level. We saw the dangers of such lax regulation with the suspension and collapse of Cruise in four different states. Just weeks after getting approval for full operation of its autonomous taxi service in San Francisco, a slew of incidents and accidents led it to withdraw all its vehicles from service.

The day after the Transport Committee was treated to a trip around London in autonomous vehicles, with drivers in the driver’s seat ready to take over, a friend of mine posted clips of his journey in a Cruise taxi in San Francisco. I am not sure I would have been as willing at that point to do the same without a driver ready to take over, because later investigations showed that the cars had difficulty identifying children as pedestrians and risked hitting them. In a statement to The Intercept website, it said:

“its vehicles sometimes temporarily lost track of children on the side of the road.”

That is exactly the type of thing we need to stop here before it happens. We support the approach of legislating before those vehicles are on the road. We do not want to follow the United States into a wild west of autonomy, where it takes multiple incidents or corporate whistleblowers to ensure intervention from the state. That intervention must be built into the entire regulatory process from beginning to end.

I also want corporate responsibility to be built into the regulatory framework. As we have seen with the law on corporate manslaughter, although the legislation may talk a good game, the reality is that prosecutions are few and far between, and those who should be held accountable for actions carried out under their watch are instead allowed to walk away. I do not want that to happen to the operators of autonomous vehicles that are proven to be at fault, particularly in incidents where people are harmed or even killed. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that where negligence or fault is established, those ultimately responsible are held to account through the criminal law.

Like Labour’s shadow Minister, we welcome the changes made in the Lords to guarantee that autonomous vehicles achieve equivalent or higher safety standards than human drivers. That only seems right, and it would be a retrograde step if this much-vaunted technology delivered worse results and worse safety than we have now. I ought to be clear that, despite my personal misgivings, I have every confidence that, in the end, automated vehicles will prove to be safer.

This area crosses legal jurisdictions. As the Minister mentioned, much of the Bill results from joint working between the Law Commissions of England and Wales and of Scotland, which may at times have been a tricky needle to thread. Throughout, the Scottish Government have been keen to work alongside the UK Government to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose not just for today’s environment, but to anticipate future developments.

I am happy that, for the most part—highly unusually, it has to be said—there has been constructive working and pragmatic engagement. I say “for the most part” because, unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s representations on clause 50 have so far been ignored. Clause 50 is hugely problematic because it gives the UK Government the power to amend Acts of the Scottish Parliament in areas that are fully devolved, with no recourse to this place or to Holyrood. As it stands, there will be nothing to stop the Secretary of State laying a statutory instrument containing regulations that are counter to Acts passed at Holyrood, where the UK Government regulations would override the Scottish Parliament’s Act.

That is simple disrespect for devolution and for the devolved institutions, and it has happened despite the Scottish Government engaging with the UK Government to find a way forward on clause 50 that respects Scotland’s Parliament as well as this place. There is no objection to having in place a provision to allow existing legislation to be updated to account for autonomous vehicles and the implications on traffic laws and the highway code, but it is simply not on for the Secretary of State to grab that power from the existing devolved powers that rest with Holyrood, rather than accept that Scotland has a different legal framework and work within that reality.

Like so many folk across Scotland, I am sick and tired of the arrogance of this Government when it comes to devolution. There is still time for the Secretary of State and his officials to sit down with their counterparts in Edinburgh and iron out a solution, particularly given the good working relationship on much of the Bill. I urge him to make that happen, and not have the UK turn this Bill into another constitutional punchbag.

We would also like a clear strategy from the Government on the societal and economic consequences of a move towards automation in the transport sector. As the Chair of Select Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), said, these new technologies will create new and novel jobs, but there are 2.7 million jobs in the logistics sector in the UK, and not one of those positions will be unaffected; they will be either lost or changed as a result of this new technology. There are around 400,000 taxi and private hire drivers in the UK. If we end up with autonomous taxis, how many of those drivers will remain in jobs 50 years from now? What will their jobs be in 50 years’ time?

The UK has an unfortunate track record of managing technological change and its impact on the employment market. As the Labour shadow Minister said, deindustrialisation destroyed countless communities across these isles, particularly in Scotland and in swathes of the north of England, in part because there was no plan and no thought put into how to deal with and support that transition. The Tories caused untold long-term damage by essentially abandoning sectors such as manufacturing altogether, in favour of putting all the UK’s eggs in the services basket. We are seeing the same thing happen now with the move to green technology, although thankfully in Scotland we have a Government committed to a fair transition.

Automation is a much bigger issue than the matters we are talking about today. In many ways, it is time to have a public conversation about what this means for society as a whole. Change always comes with positives and trade-offs. An assumption that the public will simply consent and welcome automation without that conversation is potentially gravely misplaced. The Government must acknowledge those issues and be prepared to support sectors and communities if the changes that the Bill envisages come to pass.

It has taken longer than anticipated by many for automated vehicles to get to this point, but we cannot assume that the advances in technology will continue at the current pace. The pace may increase quickly, and the implications will be with us before we know it. Those implications of automation for our society more generally are serious and deep rooted, and they need a serious response.

We broadly welcome the Bill, but it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State and his Government to fix clause 50 and engage in real dialogue with the Scottish Government in order to help both parties. It is incumbent upon Ministers to explain their approach to the wider societal and economic implications of these measures. I look forward to positive responses on those issues as the Bill moves through its stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

Absolutely, the accident investigators will have the power to get access to the software and technology so that we understand what went wrong. That is a crucial part of this; we need to understand technically what the cause of any accident is. That is very different from a police investigation into an accident, where they are trying to attribute blame to X, Y or Z but do not need to understand the root cause.

Let me turn to some of the most detailed comments. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), said that the Opposition support this legislation. She talked about the importance of jobs and getting that aspect right. Most speakers talked about the benefits for jobs, with the self-driving sector creating as many as 38,000 new jobs by 2035. A range of new jobs will arise out of this, not just in the companies making self-driving technology, but with conductors on automated services, for example. She worried about the job losses that were coming, as did various other Opposition Members, but they are getting ahead of themselves; those sort of impacts will be a very long way down the line and this is an evolution in the coming years and decades. It is definitely worth thinking about the issue. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, asked what will happen to jobs in 50 years’ time, but it is not the purpose of this Bill to deal with the situation in 50 years’ time.

Accessibility is clearly a major issue and we completely agree on it. The Government want to ensure that all parts of society, including people with disabilities, can reap the benefits of self-driving technology. That is why we have anchored our approach in the recommendations put forward by the Law Commissions in their inquiry. Their central conclusion was that our focus should be on gathering evidence and gaining experience, and making sure that this works for disabled people and vulnerable users. The Bill requires that the authority granting a passenger permit must consider how the service will lead to improvement in understanding accessibility. Service providers will then be required to publish regular reports on how they are meeting the needs of disabled and vulnerable users. We are also following the Law Commissions’ recommendation in establishing an accessibility advisory panel to inform the development of national accessibility standards. The Department for Transport already has a statutory disabled users advisory panel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, the Chair of the Select Committee, raised a large number of points. He made comments about “careful and competent driver” being too weak as a definition. It is an ambition rather than a detail, and that takes us to the whole point about the statement of safety principles. The ambition of making sure that a driver is safe, careful and competent is in the Bill, but the detail of exactly what that means will come through in the statement of safety principles, on which we will consult widely.

The Secretary of State and I had a meeting with a wide range of user groups last week—road user groups, road safety groups and people from the Royal National Institute of Blind People were at the roundtable. We committed to working with them as we go forward on putting together that statement of safety principles. We have also committed in the Bill to consulting a range of different groups, including road user groups, and that could include trade unions. We would very much like to hear from them if they have contributions to make on the different aspects of safety that we will be sorting out. As this is an evolving technology, a lot of what is in the Bill is high level and quite a lot of statutory instruments will fall from it; it is necessary to be flexible. Consulting on developing those SIs will take until 2026, so there is a long time to get a lot of the details right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South also said that he wanted to make sure that drivers have the right level of skills and do not forget how to drive. People being deskilled is a long way off, but he asks the right question and the Government will keep under review whether we need to do anything on that. He also made the point about making sure that MOT tests are kept up to date. We have consulted on the future of those tests, and we will be monitoring that and making sure that they are kept up to date. Most Members, including my hon. Friend, raised the valid point about data and the insurance industry. Thatcham Research, which does the driving safety work for the insurance industry, was at the roundtable that we had last week, and we committed to working with them in the future. They need to know exactly what data they can get access to at the time of an accident. The powers for that are in the Bill. It will be critical to understand whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode at the time—the “no user in charge” mode—or whether a human was driving, as well as the cause of the accident. That point has been well made, but those issues are already addressed in the Bill.

Various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, talked about the need to take the public with us; I agree. It is good to debate the subject here and good that there is a political consensus. We will be doing lots of consultation on the subject going forward and will invite everyone’s input. The Government recently launched PAVE, Partners for Automated Vehicle Education. I launched the initiative at the RAC Club a couple of weeks ago and it is supported by the Government. It aims to educate the public about self-driving cars and promote debate about that transport revolution.

The spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, made many very good points. I am not usually in such agreement with the SNP on Government policy. We absolutely need to take the public with us. He asked whether it would be compulsory to have an autonomous vehicle, as he wants to carry on driving. I can confirm to the House that the Government have no plans to ban driving—not now, not ever. He will be entitled to carry on driving if he wishes. Self-driving cars are entirely voluntary.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised points about international incidents, including problems with state-level rules in the US and problems that Cruise had in San Francisco. I agree that we need to learn lessons from all the international incidents and that we need strong, clear rules. The whole point of the legislation is to clearly define the legal and regulatory structure, so that we avoid the bad stuff and so that we can learn, improve the system and bring in changes as we need them.

[Gavin Newlands]

As I alluded to, the Scottish Government have been more than willing to work with the UK Government on the Bill. In fact, they are in complete agreement on many aspects of the Bill, but does the Minister accept that clause 50 is an overstep by the Government yet again? They are overruling legislation defined in the Scottish Parliament, given that Scotland has a separate legal framework.

[Anthony Browne]

I reassure the hon. Member that we have been in contact with Scottish Government officials about the Bill over many months, including on this issue, and there has been an exchange of letters. The power in clause 50 is limited to making regulations changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances a relevant enactment applies to the user in charge of a vehicle, a concept that the UK Government consider to be reserved. The power can amend devolved enactments only to this limited extent. It cannot be used to amend enactments more broadly or for any other purpose. I am happy to meet the hon. Member if he wants to discuss that further.

On international rules, many hon. Members mentioned the Horizon scandal and whether big tech companies can be trusted. They mentioned the fine Apple has just received from the EU. Those are valid concerns. It is imperative that we go on the journey of developing the technology together, so that there is trust between the Government, the regulators, the public and the companies themselves. That is why we have introduced a duty of candour, legally requiring senior management of the companies to be up front with the Government about any technical problems or changes that could impact safety. We take this so seriously that it is subject to criminal sanctions, including prison sentences of up to 14 years if senior management are completely deceptive about what is happening. The work has to be carried out on the basis of openness. This is not a new idea—we have the same legislation in other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, where we need a similar duty of candour about the safety of drugs. We take the issue very seriously.

The Opposition spokespeople and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington talked about the need for an advisory council. We have committed to consulting on the statement of safety principles, and most of the issues we have discussed are included in that statement. The legislation also includes a duty of monitoring. The Secretary of State will have a legal duty to monitor the development of self-driving autonomous vehicles, including safety issues, and to write a report that every year.

Most of the other issues have been covered already. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] Hon. Members are very keen to conclude the debate. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, said that the legislation should cover delivery robots. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that this legislation does not provide the time or the place for that. There are many different issues concerning delivery robots that do not fit within the scope of this Bill.

Finally, the hon. Member for Eltham, who was not originally going to speak but decided to give a speech, said we should ensure that all road users benefit from the legislation. There is no algorithm that decides to run over cyclists or children. The whole point of these vehicles is to make roads safer. That will come out through the consultation on the statement of safety principles, but we are already committed to fairness between all road users being at the centre of those principles. Safety has to be for all road users, not just the people within the vehicle.

The debate has been positive and constructive, with a lot of well made points. I look forward to going through the Bill in Committee where we can discuss issues in more detail. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 April 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anthony Browne.)

Question agreed to.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]: Money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Anthony Browne.)

Question agreed to.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]: Ways and Means

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees under the Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Anthony Browne.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on

(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Kemi Badenoch relating to the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill: Instruction not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, and

(2) the Motion in the name of Secretary James Cleverly relating to British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill: Instruction not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion;

such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to those motions or to the motion in the name of Nigel Huddleston relating to High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill: Money.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Young Drivers: Government Support

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing the debate and on speaking so well. We have not heard from the Minister yet, but none of us so far has disagreed with anything that the hon. Lady said. She spoke of the excitement of turning 17. In fact, she mentioned looking at cars when she was 15 —that is even more excited than I was. I remember well looking forward to being able to drive and the freedom that that would give me. My issue was that my driving was delayed by the fact that I failed my first two tests, but then I did not pay for any lessons, so at least I was saving money.

My 17-year-old daughter is just about to start her learner driver journey in the next couple of weeks. Like the hon. Lady, she does not fully appreciate the cost of the cars that she is looking at. The cost of living was mentioned; the cost of lessons ain’t what it used to be, either. The hon. Lady mentioned how difficult it is to learn to drive and pass the test, not least because of limited test appointments, facilities and resources, which were a particular issue during the pandemic. Things have improved, but there is still a way to go, and I have an issue in my constituency that exacerbates that. The Paisley test centre is based in the St James Business Centre, all the occupants of which were summarily and without any notice whatever given two months’ notice to leave the building, as it is about to be demolished for future plans. I wait to see what the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is going to say about that.

The main issue, as the hon. Lady highlighted, is exorbitant insurance costs for young drivers. Nobody is suggesting that young drivers—and older drivers, to be fair—are not more likely to be involved in accidents, and the hon. Lady cited a number of statistics, but she also made the fair point, which we have to remember in this debate, that most young drivers drive responsibly. The majority are being impacted by the minority.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) said that the cost of insurance is now up to around £3,000 for some young drivers. I confess that I have not yet looked at the potential insurance costs for my daughter, not least because I do not want my blood pressure to shoot up. One way that some of those costs could be reduced is reducing insurance premium tax for young drivers, which is currently 12% or 20%, depending on the total policy cost. At the moment, that can amount to anything between £244 and £408 per year, which for some of us in this room is more than our annual car insurance premium in full. That would be a welcome move to alleviate some of the pain for young drivers.

The hon. Gentleman also said that male drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. Shocking though that is, it probably is not a surprise to many of us here, having seen and been young drivers ourselves and then grown up. We tend to be a little more macho behind the wheel when we are younger. He also mentioned that Australian young drivers are 20% less likely to have an accident due to the differences in their graduated licensing scheme and the learning processes in place there.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I call him the Member for Strangford and Westminster Hall West; it would not be the same without him in this place—spoke of his upbringing and having a £60 car, which is quite something. I do not know about you, Mrs Latham, but I am struggling to see a young hon. Member for Strangford—I was going to use his name—in his souped-up car with loud exhausts. I cannot quite get that image into my mind. If he has any pictures of that, it would be good if he was willing to share. He mentioned a constituent who had been driving for a couple of years who was told that if they put a black box in their car, their premium would be slashed, despite the fact that they had two years of clean driving.

All the points have been made for me thus far, but I would like to put on the record that, although the DVLA and DFT have no plans for graduated driving licences, there is enough evidence from around the world that, at the very least, we in this place should be looking at bringing them in to increase safety for younger drivers—all drivers, in fact—but also to reduce costs and make it easier for young drivers to get into driving after a slightly prolonged learning period, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said. We would love to see this Government looking at a graduated driving licence scheme and perhaps putting one into operation.

HS2 Cancellation and Network North

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my Transport Committee compatriot, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), on setting out the issues so comprehensively. I disagree with most of his conclusions, but that will not come as a surprise to him. He described Network North as a coherent programme, which I thought was stretching the truth a little. Nevertheless, he led the debate very well.

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) spoke about the money spent in the west midlands with regard to Network North, which highlights how ridiculous Network North is; that spread means the money is being redirected from the north. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) spoke about the reopening of Stone station, but he missed the opportunity to talk about high-speed rail to Rwanda. Perhaps he will bring up that issue later. It is much more likely to get to Rwanda than to the Scottish border.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke of death by a thousand cuts, and the fact that the Government have turned their back on Manchester and Leeds. I wholeheartedly agree, but they have also turned their back on all the areas north of Manchester and Leeds that are served by the west coast mainline. The right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) called HS2 a white elephant. It is certainly becoming one, but that need not have been the case.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I am sorry if I have butchered the pronunciation of her constituency—was absolutely right that Wales has missed out on Barnett consequentials from this project. I have raised that issue many times myself. If it is good enough for Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is good enough for Wales.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) understandably focused on the potential benefits of Network North for her local area, and spoke of the return of any farmland purchased for phase 2 delivery. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) spoke of the benefits of the local roads that may now be built as a result of HS2 cuts. Finally, the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) understandably spoke of the desire for better rail links between Manchester and Liverpool.

It is absolutely right that the GB rail network is expanded. It is ludicrous that HS2 is the first mainline railway to be built on this island for more than a century. That it has taken until now for it to happen is a damning indictment of decades of short-termism, penny pinching and blinkered policies. In less than 50 years, France has built nearly 1,800 miles of TGV lines. If we are lucky, it will take the UK 20 years to build less than 8% of that length of track.

[Michael Fabricant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I will if the hon. Gentleman is very brief, which is not in his nature.

[Michael Fabricant]

I will try to be on this occasion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in France commuter lines run a lot slower than in the United Kingdom? France has half the density of population and does not go through the same procedures as us on planning permission—it literally railroads the trains through.

[Gavin Newlands]

I recognise some aspects of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I disagree with other conclusions that he has drawn. It is obviously up to the Government to change planning regulations if they wish, but they have got themselves into a bit of a nightmare with HS2 land purchases.

We have done all that for the bargain price of £60 billion. I have said many times here and in the main Chamber that in the UK we are often too timid in taking on big infrastructure projects. Incremental change is good, but sometimes a big bang is the only thing that will change things fundamentally for the better. Many of us supported HS2 because behind the headline of a new supercharged branch line south of Birmingham was a substantial increase in capacity on the west coast mainline, and the broader rail network would be freed up when traffic was switched on to the new lines.

[Jack Brereton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if I have time. He gave quite a long speech at the start, although I appreciate that he led the debate.

HS2 would not just have helped with the projected increase in passenger numbers, but would have freed up freight paths that could have played a huge part in modal shift by getting freight that is currently on the back of heavy goods vehicles on to rail. The cancellation of everything but phase 1 means that there are no capacity gains north of Birmingham, and any new services that were supposed to result from its capacity extension will somehow have to fit into the already full-to-bursting track—again, all for the bargain price of £60 billion. Only Great Britain could chuck more than £60 billion at a new cutting-edge, gold-plated railway line and end up with slow services to the majority of the country. At £8,000 per inch, it will cost a monstrous sum of money, delivering nothing to the north of England and Scotland, but downgrading services.

Last week at the Select Committee, we heard from the chairman of HS2, who confirmed to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) that capacity between Manchester and London will be reduced as a result of the Government’s decision. Prior to that, we heard from the rolling-stock companies, which outlined how the use of classic compatible HS2 rolling stock currently planned by the Department for Transport could result in a 24-minute deterioration in journey times between Glasgow and London—so there would be high-speed rail for those in Birmingham, less so for those north of Manchester. Prior to that, the Committee heard from the former head of the Strategic Rail Authority—someone I hope the Government would accept knows his onions—that the decision to cancel everything bar phase 1 means that

“there is no material increase in capacity north of Lichfield”.

We are left with a shuttle service between two cities in the south of England that already have nearly 180 daily services between the stations, all for the bargain price of £60 billion.

Thirty years ago, the channel tunnel was meant to herald direct services from all parts of this island to the continent. Those of us outside the M25 were promised those services, adding to the links enjoyed by London and Kent. Of course, those regional services never happened. At least some of the trains that cost the taxpayer over £200 million—£400 million at today’s prices—got some use, later finding service on the French national railway in a happy bonus for those passengers at the expense of those of us who did without. Meanwhile, the Nightstar sleeper trains were flogged at rock-bottom prices to VIA Rail in Canada at a third of the price they were worth, and the promised link between the original high-speed line leading from the channel tunnel to the rest of the inter-city network never materialised—and it is extremely unlikely that it ever will.

To recap, trains meant for Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff and Edinburgh ended up in Paris, Brussels, Toronto and Montreal. Those trains were paid for by the UK taxpayer but flogged overseas for a huge loss. The infrastructure promised by Government to improve regional connectivity failed to materialise, all while the rest of the UK—including Wales, with no benefit—paid tax into a Treasury that is only happy signing blank cheques for infrastructure that benefits London and the south-east. In other words, the HS2 debacle is not the first time Westminster and the UK Government have promised and failed to deliver for this island outside the M25. It will absolutely not be the last.

In contrast, the SNP Scottish Government have delivered 217 km of electrified track in the last decade. That is a 32% increase, including the Paisley Canal line, the Glasgow and Edinburgh to Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa line, Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk High, Cumbernauld and Whifflet, Glasgow to Barrhead—with a new electrified services between Glasgow and Barrhead just starting in the last few weeks—and the East Kilbride line currently under way, with the preparatory work for the next project ongoing. We have new stations at Inverness airport, Reston, Robroyston, Kintore, East Linton and Laurencekirk. We have reopened the Stirling-Alloa and Airdrie-Bathgate lines, along with the hugely successful Borders Railway, and the Levenmouth link in Fife is nearly complete. We have the biggest rolling-stock order in ScotRail history, pre-covid passenger numbers were up 19% since 2011-12, the peak fare removal pilot has been extended and, of course, latterly ScotRail has been nationalised.

Only yesterday, we saw the real issues with the privatised model, given the reports about the Avanti presentation. That highlighted all that is wrong and the inherent waste of passengers’ and taxpayers’ money in the current privatised model. Avanti and other operators, including foreign state-owned rail operators, are laughing at us. One slide was headed:

“Roll-up, roll-up get your free money here!”

The presentation described how the Government asked the company to deliver good customer service and projects before sneering,

“then they pay for it…nearly all of it!”

Performance-related payments for staff were

“too good to be true”.

In the case of Avanti management, I think most of us would certainly agree that that is an understatement.

When the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), announced the creation of GBR, the plan was for it to take over the development of rail strategies from the DFT. That is desperately needed because the omnishambles of HS2 has shown how catastrophically bad rail policy and management has become. We still do not know when legislation will be introduced to establish GBR, but whatever the shape of the post-election Administration, it has to be one of their transport priorities. We cannot end up waiting another century for network expansion to be on the agenda again and we cannot afford another £60-billion disaster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Transport Committee, with which the Minister is fairly familiar, heard evidence last week that, thanks to the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 to Manchester and the inability of high-speed rolling stock to tilt on the remaining west coast main line track, journey times to and from Glasgow could actually increase by up to 24 minutes, even with the £50 billion Birmingham to London branch line complete. Does the Minister think that passengers in Scotland will see that as yet another Union connectivity dividend?

[Huw Merriman]

No, I do not agree. In fact, when that matter came up at the Public Accounts Committee, the official who works on HS2 was able to explain that, where trains tilt, they can do so at certain speeds on the west coast main line. However, that does not actually require a tilting train: any train can go at that speed, provided the speed is on the train. HS2 trains will also have faster acceleration, so I dispute the hon. Member’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Government’s plans to have five sustainable aviation fuel plants under construction by 2025 look doomed. We are falling behind competitors who have a head start on SAF infrastructure, and with hydrogen likely to be the dominant fuel source for aviation beyond SAFs, we also need hydrogen infrastructure. Grangemouth currently supplies Scottish airports with fuel, and has the right feedstocks and infrastructure to turn waste and renewable electricity into jet fuel. What are the Government doing to save Grangemouth as part of a just transition to net zero, and when will we see plans for a contract for difference-type scheme for SAFs?

[Anthony Browne]

As I outlined in my previous answer, with SAFs we are generating a whole new industry. It is happening across the world. I spoke at the International Civil Aviation Organisation conference in Dubai, and to aviation Ministers from around the world, and all are trying to promote this industry. We are probably more advanced here than anywhere else in the country, and as I mentioned, we are funding 13 different schemes to get the industry going. I will meet SAF producers in the next couple of days, and we want information from them about what is needed. What is needed is certainty, and there are benefits from across the country in both Scotland and England. There are huge economic benefits from this, and it could create many thousands of jobs.

Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s full response to the questions from the Labour Front Bencher. Also, given the intervention from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), will the Minister say whether Chelmsford is covered by the priority routes in the regulations? I will stand corrected if it is, but I have looked through the routes a couple of times and cannot see Chelmsford. I do know whether that will help the right hon. Lady’s constituents.

A breakdown in industrial relations in a train operating company can, as elsewhere, result in disruption for the long term, as workers who volunteer for rest-day working decide to take their rest days, overtime is knocked back, and good will disappears. No doubt some service managers think that they will be able to use the regulations to bully staff back to work, but the fact is that they would cause longer-term damage to the rail network and the industry. The Government are facilitating that damage through their legislation and the regulations that are before us.

Do the Government seriously think that when the industrial action is over, the workforce will be keen to go back to working under the managers and decision makers who threatened them with criminal charges if they did not comply? It does not take an expert in industrial relations to work out that the legislation could only harm relations between management and staff, and in turn harm our rail network and the wider economy. Perhaps that is why the industry has repeatedly expressed its reluctance to get involved. While the primary legislation was passing through Parliament, the Rail Freight Group told the Transport Committee—after the Minister’s time as its Chair—that

“our members who are private companies wish to manage their relationships with the trade unions directly rather than with any legislative overlay.”

Transport Focus said:

“There is no substitute for good, modern industrial relations in any industry where changes and terms and conditions are negotiated, and agreement is reached. You want to have workers who want to come to work.”

The Government have repeated their proportion of 40% in order to give the impression that the majority of striking workers will still be able to avail themselves of their human rights, but given the nature of work on the railway network—signalling, station management and maintenance, dispatch, ticket gates, public safety and so on—the reality is that far more than 40% of staff will be ordered to work.

The Scottish Government continue to regard the legislation as unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective. It seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity and goes against the principles of fair work, the interests of the Scottish public, workers and employers, and the delivery of public services in Scotland. The UK’s record on employment rights, and indeed basic human rights, is exemplified by the International Trade Union Confederation’s annual report on workers’ rights, which this year ranked the UK alongside such champions of workers as El Salvador, Angola and Qatar.

Further to the points about the efficacy of minimum service levels in other countries, let us say hypothetically that the Scottish Government supported this idea. A look at the priority routes I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford proves that Mick Lynch was right when he said the Government and the Department for Transport do not care about Scotland or Wales. The most northerly station covered by these priority routes is Cowdenbeath, which is barely one third of the way up mainland Scotland and 170 miles as the crow flies, or 270 miles and three train journeys, to the most northerly station, in Thurso. Therefore, even if we supported these priority routes, they would mean nothing to vast swathes of Scottish passengers.

To be crystal clear, the Scottish Government are not interested in using any of the powers the UK Government have grabbed for themselves. The Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy has made it clear that the Scottish Government will not co-operate in establishing any minimum service orders in Scotland over which Holyrood has competence, which is nearly all of them.

I am grateful to the Government for highlighting through their regulations the continued illogical control of Network Rail in Scotland by Westminster and the DFT. The UK Government cannot impose minimum service levels on ScotRail or the Caledonian Sleeper, because both are under the auspices of the Scottish Government—better still, they are publicly owned by the Scottish Government. However, because Network Rail remains undevolved, these regulations can be applied to track and infrastructure. So we have laws being applied to force employees to work, and trade unions to take part in that coercion under pain of criminal penalty, in order that train tracks, signalling and stations remain open and semi-functional to serve trains that will not run, because the Government who run them actually respect individual human rights. What complete nonsense! It is another nail in the coffin of the idea that Network Rail in Scotland should remain outwith the control of Scotland. Given that no services will run on all the routes I have just mentioned, will the Minister confirm that a higher proportion of Network Rail staff in Scotland will be able lawfully to withdraw their labour compared with their counterparts south of the border?

The truth is that the overwhelming consensus in Scotland—among three quarters of Members of the Scottish Parliament, over 85% of MPs, and trade unions serving Scotland—is that these work regulations are wrong, like much of the UK Government’s attitude to workers’ rights. Indeed, polling shows that the strongest opposition in this island to minimum service levels comes from people in Scotland. So when Ministers say that this legislation is what the people want, I am not so sure that that is true south of the border, but it certainly is not true in Scotland. That is just one reason why we will vote against the regulations this evening.

[John Spellar]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

ScotRail is owned and operated by the Scottish Government, who have been very clear in their attitude to this legislation: they will not issue work notices. While I am on my feet, I want to quickly ask about Network Rail, which is obviously a reserved issue that comes under the auspices of the Department for Transport, but it operates slightly independently in Scotland. Some of its workforce will potentially fall under a work notice for DFT, but obviously a lot of network in Scotland is used only by ScotRail. How will that work?

[Huw Merriman]

There are interesting parallels. When I talk about train operators, I also mean the operators of last resort: Southeastern, the east coast main line and TransPennine Express. They are under the same control that he referenced the Executive in Scotland having. We, as the Government, will treat those with the exact same autonomy, and will not be autocratic; we will not tell them what they must and must not do. There is talk of this legislation being controlling, but we are demonstrating that we are not being controlling, whereas the hon. Gentleman is demonstrating that he would perhaps intervene, which is obviously a policy matter for him.

Network Rail is, of course, an arm’s length body. It will be down to Network Rail across the whole of Great Britain to determine whether it wishes to use the work notices, when it comes to category B. That will be a matter for Network Rail in Scotland, as it will be in England, and not for me, the hon. Member or the Scottish Executive.

I want to come back to a point that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South and others mentioned: safety. Let me be absolutely crystal clear—this is why we have the safest railway in Europe—that there will be no compromise when it comes to safety and these regulations. Those are not just words. Everyone needs to remember that we already have a minimum service; it is the key route strategy, and it operates right now, but our contention is that it does not operate to the same extent—it is about 20%. Safety is the most important ingredient during a strike day, as it is during a non-strike day. There will be no difference to that, as far as the regulations are concerned; safety will always be paramount in the railways.

Draft Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 General Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I welcome the new Minister to his place. I will not detain the Committee for long. I will not repeat what this measure does, but further to the questions from the Labour Front Bench, can I ask a question on public service obligation routes? As it stands at the moment, PSOs in Scotland have to include London—I should say routes awarded by the UK Government currently have to include London. The Scottish Government have a number of PSO routes in Scotland. A number of local authorities in Scotland have their own public service obligation routes that they support as well.

In the Select Committee on Transport, of which I am a member, we heard from many witnesses that the inflexibility is deeply unhelpful and a barrier to regional connectivity. The Minister at the time almost agreed, and said that the Government would definitely look at that and come back. The Union connectivity review by Sir Peter Hendy also recommended that it be looked at and changed, as it is a barrier to regional connectivity. In the Flightpath to the Future report, the Government acknowledged that and said that they would respond in their final Union connectivity review response. To date we have still not seen that UCR response. Can the Minister tell us when the connectivity review response will actually come out and whether the Government are still minded to look at the rules surrounding PSO routes as they are currently drafted in England?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokes- person.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Many of us question this Government’s moral compass, but the Network North plans give rise to concerns about their actual compass, with the provisions for Plymouth and Bristol. The first recommendation in the “Union Connectivity Review” backed

“investing in the West Coast Main Line north of Crewe to properly use HS2 and its faster journey times and capacity to serve connectivity between Scotland and England”.

Yet Network North justifies continuing with HS2 phase 1

“as it provides the most effective solution to…constraints on the congested southern end of the West Coast Main Line”.

So when will the Secretary of State deliver the upgrades north of Crewe to unblock the bottleneck to the Scottish economy and that of the north of England, including Chorley?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made it clear that we are going to make sure that high-speed trains can still continue past Birmingham on to the west coast main line. We have already had a debate in this House, and I believe we had this debate at length when I made my statement after the House returned last week, about the capacity on the west coast main line. The southern section is the most congested part, which is why we are continuing with phase 1. There is a debate to be had and people can have different views about where demand will go over the next 20 years. The view we have taken is that the priority is to focus on the transport needs of people now—[Interruption.] Well, in the north of England we are reinvesting £20 billion of the £36 billion we have saved, so we are putting the money where it would have been invested but on transport projects that are more relevant to people’s everyday needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am still astonished at the Secretary of State’s claims that the English EV charging network is on track—absolutely no one thinks that in this country.

Pushing back the date for the ban on petrol and diesel cars by five years, combined with removing what was already one of Europe’s worst EV purchase incentive schemes, means that this Government are sending all the wrong signals to consumers. Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that consumers required

“a clear, consistent message, attractive incentives and charging infrastructure that gives confidence rather than anxiety. Confusion and uncertainty will only hold them back.”

I have no doubt that this decision was thoroughly assessed, so can the Minister tell us how many extra millions of tonnes of carbon will be emitted due to this Government’s back-pedalling on net zero?

[Jesse Norman]

Was it P. G. Wodehouse who said that it was not difficult to see the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance? How true that is in this case! The truth of the matter is that there has been enormous progress in this area. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that £6 billion of new private investment is being planned by ChargeUK. That has not been affected. One of the leading global mandates has been laid. We have just done this excellent work on charge points, and I am pleased to say that the independent National Infrastructure Commission of this country has stated that if the roll-out continues to grow at the current rate, we will meet our target of 300,000 public chargers by 2030.

Civil Aviation

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I have been so looking forward to this debate—now an annual debate—on airport slots. It was very good of the Leader of the House to invite us into the big room to discuss it, although I am not sure how much this will pad out this Session of Parliament, to be perfectly honest. I have spoken about this issue many times before. I will not be speaking for long, because of my voice and, ironically, because I am supposed to be meeting an airline as we speak.

The other reason I will not be speaking for long is that this is to do with the eight slot co-ordinated airports, not one of which is in Scotland. However, we clearly have a huge interest in this with domestic flights. Indeed, if the Government were to bring forward legislation on guaranteed slots for domestic travel, particularly to London airports from Glasgow airport in my constituency, I would be grateful indeed.

Clearly, we are not going to oppose this motion. The Government are displaying uncharacteristic common sense in this motion, so it is one we will be supporting.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Shocking.

[Gavin Newlands]

Indeed. It chills me to the bone to support Tory legislation, but here I am doing just that.

I will not repeat all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). They included a question on consumer rights, which he so skilfully shoehorned into a debate on airport slots, so I congratulate him on that. In particular, he raised the issue of airspace modernisation, which I have raised a number of times over the years and have pushed this Government on. They really need to get a grip on modernisation and push on, but I look forward to the Minister’s answer. [Interruption.] I hope he is paying attention because I am about to sit down. We will support him, and I look forward to his answers to hon. Members’ questions.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Dear me! I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State. All the promises about greener, faster and more sustainable transport and connectivity are gone, unless you live in Birmingham, where people will have the most gold-plated express shuttle service in the history of the world. There are no real benefits to modal shift or net-zero targets here, but what about levelling up? The cancellation of the Golborne link last year highlighted that this Government never really cared about the project serving Scotland, but the Manchester leg following the Leeds route into the bin proves that they did not care about the north of England either. As always with Westminster, for London and the south-east money is no object, but when a large infrastructure project outside the M25 runs into trouble, the plug is pulled. Gareth Williams of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry said:

“The lead recommendation in the UK Government’s own Union Connectivity Review was to reduce journey times and increase rail capacity between Scotland, London, the Midlands and the North West of England.”

He also said:

“This is a very short-sighted decision that…actually risks making Scotland’s connectivity with London worse.”

There was also no need to push back the date on electric vehicles. The Government could have made the switch easier and faster had they, at any time whatsoever, listened to us on issues such as the charging network, VAT equalisation, removing incentives to switch too early or their zero-emission bus schemes being entirely unfit for purpose. So will the Secretary of State guarantee that Scotland will receive the consequentials expected through HS2, now redirected to these other schemes? How much money was wasted looking at a Golborne link alternative? How much consultation took place with the Scottish Government regarding the A75 announcement, given that it has absolutely nothing to do with this Government whatever? Will the Department now look at different rolling stock options, including new high-speed tilting options, to increase potential speeds on the west coast main line?

The Secretary of State recently tweeted:

“In Japan, I saw the benefits high speed rail can bring—to connect communities & grow the economy…we remain fully committed to building HS2..Building it shows we believe in Britain”.

I can only conclude therefore that he no longer believes in Britain—will he confirm that? I like to end in consensus, so I hope he will answer that question in the affirmative.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates in the close of his question the Scottish National party’s obsession with crowbarring independence into every question about everything, thus he continued in a way not to disappoint. The SNP never ceases to talk about independence at every available opportunity, even when it has nothing to do with the question.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point, about different regions in the country, might have some merit if we had just cancelled phase 2 of HS2 and not reinvested every single penny in alternative transport projects across the country. As I said, some of those will take place relatively soon: the money for local authorities for bus funding and for improving the quality of local roads, which is a top priority for most people, will be available next spring. The other investment will be available in the same timeframe as the money would have been delivered for phase 2 of HS2, which would not have delivered high-speed trains to Manchester until 2041.

Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the zero-emission vehicle mandate that we tabled, which is the single largest decarbonisation measure that the Government will take. I notice the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) barely mentioned it, if at all, but it is a very significant measure in delivering our net zero obligations. It is incredibly important and it would be good to have Opposition support for it. We have the support of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which agree with the plan we have tabled in Parliament today.

On the point the hon. Gentleman made about our planned local transport spending, Barnett consequentials will flow in the normal way. The roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), has spoken to his opposite number in the Scottish Government about the A75.

As I said, this plan delivers every single penny that would have been spent on HS2 on alternative transport projects that, I think, are closer to what people want to see. When the facts changed, the cost of the project had risen and the benefits had reduced. That is why we have taken this decision, which will be welcomed by people across the country.

West Coast Main Line Franchise

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

1.2 pm

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the contractual and operational situation of the west coast main line franchise—and I congratulate the Minister on his promotion.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), continues to represent His Majesty’s Government today in Poland to support UK train companies, among others, at a major international trade fair, and I am therefore replying on his behalf.

The Department has awarded a new national rail contract to First Trenitalia to continue to operate the west coast partnership, providing west coast train services as Avanti West Coast. The national rail contract will have a core term of three years and a maximum possible term of nine years. After three years the Department can terminate the contract at any point with three months’ notice.

In October 2022 and March 2023 the Department approved the award of short-term contracts to First Trenitalia operating as AWC to continue to operate services on the west coast main line. Awarding short-term contracts allowed the Department to monitor progress by AWC in improving performance following the withdrawal of rest day working before considering whether it would be appropriate to award a long-term contract. Avanti’s performance has improved significantly during this time, and taking into account other relevant considerations, the Secretary of State has decided to award a longer-term contract, as announced in today’s written statement.

Over recent months Avanti has made significant progress in recovering from the poor reliability and punctuality delivered in the latter half of last year. In line with its recovery plan and since the introduction of its recovery timetable in December 2022, performance has steadily improved, with cancellations attributed to AWC falling from 13% in early January 2023 to as low as 1.1% in July 2023. Over 90% of trains now arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled time, an improvement from 75% in December 2022.

[Gavin Newlands]

Another day, another blow for passengers who use the west coast main line. Fresh from the negative cross-party reaction yesterday to news that High Speed 2 phase 2 is on the chopping block, we have the Department for Transport on the last day before recess—shock, horror—sneaking out the extraordinary award of up to nine years for Avanti West Coast and up to eight years for CrossCountry.

Despite improvements in Avanti’s service, it is still not running a full timetable, and the Minister cannot ask us and passengers up and down the west coast main line to simply forget the last few years of horrendous performance. The Avanti service was on the brink, run into the ground by mismanagement and poor labour relations. In his letter to MPs the Secretary of State says that “Avanti is the most improved operator where performance is compared to the previous year.” Well, that would not be particularly hard—talk about setting yourself a low bar. This award will be seen by most people as rewarding failure.

My criticism of Avanti is in no way reflective of the staff, who have been first class when I have used the service. I was not overwhelmed with confidence, however, when it took me several attempts at last week’s Select Committee to get Mr Mellors to tell me just how many jobs he proposed to cut by closing the Glasgow ticket office.

Given the variable standards delivered by Avanti, we need full transparency. So can the Minister tell me the exact criteria Avanti will have to consistently meet if the extension at the end of the core contract is to be granted? What engagement has the Department for Transport had with trade unions and the Scottish Government in making this decision? What alternatives did the Department consider? Was the operator of last resort considered?

Does the Minister not understand that this award will be seen as Tory “private best” dogma? We have piles of evidence through the operator of last resort and Scotrail that publicly owned and operated railways work. Moreover, with its stake in Avanti, First Trenitalia might well be able to reinvest in Italian rail infrastructure. Is it not time to follow Scotland’s lead and put our railway back into the public sector, where it belongs?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his flurry of questions, and I shall address what he said. He asked for the release of the criteria of the contract awarded; that is a commercial matter and we are not going to discuss that, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of State my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has met very regularly with the entire industry and has been working on a weekly basis with officials and with Avanti, and therefore has had the matter very much in hand.

On the performance the hon. Gentleman describes, I am astounded that he is not agreeing with the Secretary of State and celebrating the improvement over the last nine months, and six months in particular: cancellations were as low as 1.1% in July; 90% of trains arrive within 15 minutes; over 100 additional drivers have been trained and brought on since April 2022. Each of those is a significant achievement.

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about engagement, but the hon. Gentleman has not exactly been shy in writing to the Department, so I asked my officials to scan the letters we have received and I do not think there was a single one from him in the last year mentioning Avanti. If that is an indication of how content he is with the service, I am delighted to hear it.