Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The way that the previous Government approached bus service improvement plans was to force local authorities to waste money on developing those plans. This money is going directly to authorities to make sure they are delivering public services. Public transport is a public service and it should always be funded.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T3. John Prescott was a good friend, and condolences go to his wife Pauline and his family and friends. Northumberland’s biggest town, Blyth, is in desperate need of a relief road. It was much promised by the previous Government, and the plan was submitted before the general election in 2024. Can the Minister update the House on that plan’s progress?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Like my hon. Friend, we are all thinking of Lord Prescott and his family today.

My officials have had meetings with Northumberland county council, which is working to strengthen the case and provide further analytical work before the scheme can be fully appraised. I would be happy to update my hon. Friend on those discussions when I can do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The decision around the development consent order for the lower Thames crossing is a quasi-judicial one. I am afraid I am unable to comment further than my written ministerial statement this week.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

19. If she will take steps with Cabinet colleagues to ensure the provision of ringfenced funding for local authorities to deliver publicly-controlled bus services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

As part of our plan to deliver better bus services, the Government have committed to reforming bus funding by giving local authorities the tools they need to ensure services reflect the needs of the communities they serve. We want to give local leaders more control and flexibility over bus funding, and allow them to plan ahead to deliver their local transport priorities. We are considering how best to support buses in the longer term as part of the spending review.

[Ian Lavery]

The Government’s better buses Bill is a fantastic example of what a Labour Government can achieve and do. For the Bill to be successful, if funding is made available, we must ensure bus drivers are paid adequately and local residents have an input into the design, regularity and quality of routes. Will the Minister confirm that that will form part of the Bill and that this Labour Government will end the Tories’ 14-year ideological war on municipal transport?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I reassure him that we are committed to delivering better bus services and that we will always put passengers first. Our forthcoming bus Bill is a crucial part of our reforms. When it is introduced later in this Session, it will increase powers available to local leaders, because those local leaders are best placed to make decisions on their bus networks, and remove the Conservatives’ ideological ban on municipal bus companies.

Draft Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. The draft regulations, made under powers conferred by the Equality Act 2010 as amended by the Bus Services Act 2017, will require operators of local bus and coach services in Great Britain to provide audible and visible information on board.

A lack of on-board information on buses and coaches can make it impossible for many disabled people to travel independently, confidently or, indeed, safely. I wonder how many times right hon. and hon. Members have boarded a bus in an unfamiliar area or late at night, unsure how they will recognise their intended location when they reach it. They might ask the driver or other passengers for assistance, but the chances are that they will spend the journey anxious about missing their stop and being stranded in an unfamiliar location. That is probably an occasional experience for many, but for millions of disabled people it can be an everyday reality every time they travel.

Visually impaired passengers may be unable to identify bus stops as they pass them. Autistic people or passengers with cognitive impairments may need help to track their progress along a route. Wheelchair users travelling backwards in a wheelchair space may not even have a clear view of their location. I know that bus drivers up and down the country try their best to provide passengers with the necessary help, but the fact is that remembering to alert a passenger in time to alight may sometimes slip their mind, given the multiple other tasks that they must perform.

A 2014 survey by the charity Guide Dogs UK found that 70% of visually impaired respondents had missed a stop, having asked the driver to let them know when to get off, when the driver simply forgot because of all their other tasks. Disabled people with other impairments will probably relate to that unpleasant experience. Such incidents curtail the independence of disabled people affected and are likely to dissuade many people from boarding a local bus in the first place. Similar anxieties can have an impact on the confidence of women and girls, as well as other people made vulnerable while travelling, who might find themselves in unsafe situations or unsure where to alight, particularly in the evenings. Ultimately, that lack of confidence may prevent people from accessing the education, employment or leisure activities that vital bus services support.

What is the solution? Members who take London buses will know that on-board route and location information is nearly ubiquitous in the capital. In places such as Brighton, Blackpool, Edinburgh and Cardiff, passengers have also benefited from the roll-out of such technology, thanks to the efforts of their local operators; I recently did so myself up in County Durham, on the X15 between Lanchester and Durham.

Despite the benefits for passengers and the good work of some operators, however, the provision of such information remains far too inconsistent across the country. Since 2017, provision in Great Britain has crept up from 36% to 43%. That means that in practice disabled people still cannot board a bus with any certainty that the information that they need to travel with confidence will be provided as standard. With proven, time-tested technology already on the network in some towns and cities, it cannot be right that disabled people in so many communities are still being left behind. It is time for a change.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Guide Dogs UK encourages MPs to put a blindfold on, get on a bus and experience what people with auditory and visual impairments have to experience every time. It really is—I was going to say “eye-opening”—something we should all do to experience what disabled people suffer almost daily. Does the Minister agree that we should encourage MPs to take such journeys to experience what disabled people experience?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for that important point. As I said, many people will have had the experience of missing their bus stop because of a lack of information. I sometimes miss my stop just looking out of the window at the beautiful County Durham countryside. Missing their stop is an everyday occurrence for people who do not have the information to hand, because they are reliant on some senses but not others. The hon. Member makes an important point, as Guide Dogs UK has done with its campaign.

To level up services across the country, the draft regulations will create a new requirement for operators of local services in Great Britain to provide accessible on-board information. They specify that that must include information about the route, the next stop, route termination, diversions and hail-and-ride sections. The regulations are the product of engagement with stakeholders representing disabled people, bus and coach operators and specialists in the provision of information, as well as our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. They attempt to strike a balance between delivering meaningful benefits for passengers and minimising negative impacts on operators. They are about setting the outcomes that disabled people need, but leaving it to operators to determine how they should be met.

Passengers will be able to expect a minimum standard for on-board information across the country, helping them to travel with confidence. The limited number of technical requirements in the draft regulations, such as the minimum volume level, are intended to support that minimum standard across the board. Meanwhile, operators will be able to choose the technology that suits their business and their vehicles. We have already ruled out the option of forcing passengers to rely on smartphones to access information, as disabled people are much less likely than non-disabled people to own them, according to recent Ofcom research. However, on the wider question of technology, we recognise that one size does not fit all. We are certainly not in the business of telling operators to choose one brand of on-board system over another.

Although I am hopeful that most operators will embrace the new requirements as an opportunity to improve the service available to all passengers, I am conscious that, for some, any additional expense may be concerning. We have therefore designed the policy with the smallest, most marginal operators in mind. In particular, we have allowed more time for operators of older vehicles to comply. We have also exempted most community transport, including all vehicles operated under section 19 permits and all existing vehicles used under a section 22 permit.

Even with the proposed exemptions in place, by October 2026 almost every service that people use on a day-to-day basis will be expected to provide accessible on-board information under the regulations. In fact, with compliance focused initially on new and nearly new vehicles, passengers should begin to see and hear a difference from October next year. To be clear, that difference will be experienced by passengers across England, Scotland and Wales. We listened to stakeholders in all three nations while developing the regulations, and we expect the regulations to support independent, confident travel for disabled passengers and others throughout Great Britain.

To help the industry to understand the new requirements, we will issue guidance under section 181C of the Equality Act 2010. That will include advice about managing potential conflicts between passenger needs, as well as opportunities to go even further in making services accessible.

I will explain the enforcement processes for the draft regulations. We know that operators will want to do the right thing and that they will see the provision of audible and visible information as an integral element of a high-quality and accessible customer experience. If something goes wrong, however, passenger complaints should in the first instance be dealt with by the relevant operator. If they remain unresolved, they can be escalated to Bus Users UK or London TravelWatch for arbitration and potentially referred to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The DVSA will investigate alleged breaches, referring them to traffic commissioners in appropriate locations across Great Britain.

We want to work with the industry to establish accessible information as a mainstay on our buses. That will help to build the confidence that is so critical to getting people back on to local transport services, which is something that hon. Members have been in touch with me about. They are particularly concerned about concessionary fare users, many of whom will be disabled people who lack the confidence to come back on to the network. We hope that this will be a move in the right direction.

Draft South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 General Committees

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. We are not planning any reviews at the moment. The main issue is that the mayoral combined authority has responsibility in this space. The passenger transport executive operates in the same building, as I understand it, but has to publish its own independent set of accounts, so although they work closely together, the dual administrative set-up continues. Merging them into one means little need to look at what extra can be done, as we are mainly removing the extra administrative burdens that exist currently for the PTE body, but which will now be automatically covered by the MCA. I hope that reassures him. In fact, my first decision as a Minister was to pass this draft statutory instrument, so I have spent an inordinate quantity of time looking at it in depth.

The South Yorkshire PTE was established by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Area Order 1973. It has variously been accountable to the metropolitan county council, the passenger transport authority and the integrated transport authority.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give us a flavour of the different rules, if this legislation is passed, between the SYMCA and the SYPTE?

[Mr Holden]

If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the difference in the rules of the two different bodies, there are no different rules. Basically, the PTE is operating, but in conjunction with and under the mayoral authority. In that scheme, it has to provide a different set of accounts and that sort of thing, but it does not have democratic accountability in the same way as the MCA does—the Mayor is directly elected by the people, rather than being a collection of councillors and other appointed officials. We hope to provide greater democratic accountability. There are no real issues aside from removing some of the dual administrative burden on both bodies, if that makes sense.

The PTE most recently became accountable to the mayoral combined authority in 2014, when the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014 dissolved the integrated transport authority for the area, transferring its functions to the MCA. As well as the PTE responsibility for buses, the South Yorkshire PTE owns the supertram and is responsible for the arrangements for its operation.

South Yorkshire MCA’s 2019 review of bus services in its area, chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), recommended, among other things, that the PTE should cease to exist as a separate organisation and instead become fully part of the combined authority. The review concluded that the separate arm’s length transport authority was no longer the right model. It concluded that a single entity responsible for bus transport strategy and delivery in South Yorkshire would provide a clearer focus on passenger needs, user-centred transport design and delivery and, of course, democratic oversight. As the review notes, this is already the case in some other city regions, such as the West Midlands and West Yorkshire, while other city regions have chosen to retain their PTEs as executive bodies of their combined authorities, such as in Greater Manchester or the Liverpool city region.

The Government recognise that a single entity may better support alignment of transport priorities with economic growth and decarbonisation objectives. However, provided that there are clear lines of accountability and sound governance in place, it is right that the combined authorities themselves determine which arrangements are best for their area. In this case, South Yorkshire has also identified scope for significant efficiency savings, which it is hoping to reinvest in the local bus network, away from administration.

Following the bus review, the then Mayor of South Yorkshire asked the Department for Transport to take the necessary steps to transfer the functions of the PTE to the combined authority. The Secretary of State agreed to do so, and my officials have worked closely with the Mayor’s team to bring forward this order. The order will make the combined authority responsible for planning, delivering and managing public transport services, bringing those functions under a single roof. Though as I said before, my understanding is that they are physically under a single roof now, but now it will be under a combined authority too.

To conclude, this order will make a straightforward and sensible amendment to the administration of local transport services in South Yorkshire at the request of the Mayor. It is important that the Government deliver on devolution by supporting local authorities in providing services in the most efficient way for the people in their area. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Rail Strikes

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I received support from the RMT union at the 2019 general election. Anybody reading the right-wing press all the weekend would have thought that that was something to be ashamed of. Well, I want to tell everyone in the House clearly that I am not ashamed; I am extremely proud of it. If I asked every hon. Member sitting here where they got their support from, we might find that there were some very difficult questions to answer. I am proud that I have got support from people in the RMT—the train drivers, ordinary people, the taxpayers.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Lavery]

I will not give way.

The right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), who is no longer in his seat, suggested that the members of the RMT and the unions were against the general public. The RMT—the members of the RMT, the members of the trade union movement—are part of the general public. They are workers of this nation, and in this case, we are talking about key workers. I am proud to represent the unions. I am proud to have been a trade union member all of my life. And just for the record, I want to avoid any dispute next week—but if there are disputes next week, I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with representatives of the RMT.

[Chris Loder]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman that we should try to avoid these strikes, but could he help us to understand why the declaration of the intention to strike was made two days before the pay talks even started? That does not show spirit on the part of the RMT to avoid strike action.

[Ian Lavery]

I heard what the hon. Member was saying before, but these negotiations have been going on for two years. This is not just about train drivers; basically, it is about the cleaners, the people who work in the ticket offices—as he probably did—the people who work on the tracks, the people who look after people in the trains and the conductors. It is about the track and about health and safety; it is about everything connected with the rail networks. We need these people. These were the key workers. We need these people to support a strong, healthy and safe railway. We need to be careful what we ask for. There have been negotiations for two years now, and that is the frustration.

A letter was sent to the Secretary of State this morning, asking for discussions. He dismissed it, and at the Dispatch Box today he basically laughed when he was asked if he would be trying to facilitate arrangements to avoid the strikes. He laughed! Why does he not accept that the best way to address the situation is to get everybody around a table, lock the door and get it resolved? We are talking about health and safety, about compulsory redundancies and about inflation-proof pay rises. These are basic human rights, to be perfectly honest.

I just want to say: do not believe anybody who is criticising the RMT—do not believe for one second that they will not come for you. Do not think that they will not come for your job, your pensions, your income and your future. As Pastor Martin Niemöller said,

“First they came for the Socialists,

And I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

And I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

And I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for”—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

[Ian Lavery]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have been in the Chair three times when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has made allegations. He withdraws his ridiculous remark and consistently comes back to say it again. As Deputy Speaker, you are not protecting the likes of myself. I need your protection.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Do not make allegations against the Chair, ever. You saw how I treated Mr Anderson. You just leave it with me—I don’t need lectures on how to do my job.

[Ian Lavery]

I will leave it there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

This has been a rather strange debate so far. I am a bit discombobulated by a number of things. I want to place on the record my sincere gratitude to the RMT and Nautilus International for their fantastic work in such a short space of time on this unbelievably poor situation.

The Secretary of State stood there and said that this is not about politics. Of course it is about politics. Everything in this place is about politics, hence the name “politicians”—it’s a giveaway. The fact that 800 hard-working people got their notice in the way they did last week is an absolute outrage, an embarrassment, a disgrace—call it what you want.

The hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) should not really get mixed up with people who are angry at losing their jobs, and she should not suggest that somebody who has lost their job is a hard-left militant. If I lost my job, I would be desperately disappointed. If I lost my job in the fashion that these individuals did, I would be more than angry—I would be incandescent with rage. She should not get mixed up with people who got up in the morning, kissed their partner and then, when they got to work, were told that an announcement was going to be made that day. These are ordinary people. These are 800 hard-working individuals with families, mortgages, cars and all the rest of it, who carried this country through the pandemic. To criticise them for being hard-left militants because they are angry about losing their job is distasteful, to say the least. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Ian Lavery]

The reality is that these people were absolutely right to say what they did at that moment in time. They got to the workplace and were told that there was going to be a Zoom call. And then the chief executive of P&O Ferries was saying how hard up the company is and that that was why they were getting their notice that day, even though they did not realise that they were going to get their notice. The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said that the chief executive was embarrassed that he had to do that and that this is not really about him but about DP World. Come off it! Let’s be honest. This was a commercial decision and DP World and P&O Ferries are awash with finance. DP World paid out £270 million in dividends last year. It even sponsored a golf competition for £147 million. What on earth? What sort of golf competition is that? At the same time, there is a £145 million black hole in its pensions. It would rather support and sponsor golf competitions than pay money into the pension schemes of hard-working people.

We have to get this right. The Government pride themselves on being a patriotic party. There is nothing more patriotic than looking after the people of this country in the way they should be looked after.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting discussion. Not once has any Government Front Bencher mentioned Northumberland. It is a wonderful county and I wonder whether Ministers or indeed the Secretary of State have ever visited it. The Government’s integrated rail plan proposals are an absolute disaster for the north-east. Once again the Government have overpromised and under-delivered. Once again the north-east has been betrayed; once again the saying “the great north rail betrayal” rings true throughout the communities of the north-east.

The scrapping of the eastern leg of HS2 is extremely disappointing, if not surprising in the least, and the Government announced on more than 60 occasions that they would not scrap it. But in the north-east the plans were never really going to benefit the communities in the first place. The eastern leg of HS2 basically only went as far as Leeds and NPR only went as far north as Newcastle, with those in Downing Street missing out the wonderful county of Northumberland. I wish people would visit our wonderful county.

The plans to reintroduce passenger rail on the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line are essential. I and my predecessors have been campaigning for that for generations, and I want to place on record my thanks to the South East Northumberland Rail User Group for its outstanding campaigning efforts. I want the Minister to please give a firm commitment in the winding-up speech that that line will go ahead. I say that simply because of the broken promises of this Government with regard to many things—we cannot trust a word they say.

On the east coast main line, the proposals to change the services schedule in order to shave seconds off the time from Edinburgh to London were an outrage, and that was only changed because of public annoyance. I ask the Government to please look at that again. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said only a few seconds ago in his contribution, public ownership is the answer to the issues facing the disastrous transport system on our rail networks.

Debate interrupted.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now going to call the Leader of the House to move a motion without notice regarding the time allocated for the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Transport for the North

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am sure that the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s pitch on behalf of his constituents. Of course, we are progressing with improvements to deliver the western leg of HS2 as early as possible. We committed in the Queen’s Speech to bringing forward a Bill in this parliamentary Session. That will deliver significant benefits to Cheshire, particularly realising the Crewe hub and the Crewe northern connection visions.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Make no mistake about it, the north-east was abandoned last week by the announcement from this Government—cut off completely from the high-speed rail network. I urge the Minister to actually visit Northumberland; if he looks at the map, it is a little bit above Newcastle, just below the Scottish border. The Government have announced on more than 60 occasions that there would be this “Crossrail in the north”, so I am right to be concerned that the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line in my constituency, which runs from Ashington, through Bedlington, up to the Metro, might be considered for withdrawal. Will the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box today, Wednesday 24 November, that investment in the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line will continue in earnest, and that there will be no reduction in the original plans?

[Andrew Stephenson]

Dear oh dear, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are getting on with investing and levelling up the north-east of England. We are reopening the Northumberland line; we already have new Azuma trains running on the east coast main line; we are spending £3.5 billion more on investment in the east coast main line; and, of course, the Pacers, which were allowed to rattle passengers to the core under Labour, have all been eradicated thanks to this Government. We will continue to invest in the north-east and deliver early benefits to passengers across that region.

Bus Services: North-east England

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for arranging this important debate.

I live in Northumberland. For those people who mentioned the north and the north-east, Northumberland is something like 15 miles north of Newcastle. It is a rural area, but the south-eastern strip of Northumberland is heavily populated and always forgotten. We have to remind people that we are always left behind. People now expect to be left behind because of where we live. It really is not good enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned prices. We live in an area of high social deprivation, where we might get a bus every now and again, and if we are lucky enough to get one we have to pay through the nose. We have just passed the Stagecoach phase; we are on to the deregulated buses if and when stage. I wish we were even somewhere near having a Metro. It is a case of isolation for many people. They cannot get out of the communities in which they live. To travel in my constituency, it is £1.55 for a minor route. To travel seven miles in my constituency from Ashington to Morpeth, it is £6.40. Imagine someone on universal credit or unemployment benefits of around £70 paying £6.40 to get from A to B. There is no cap on it. It is £6.40.

As I mentioned, it is about social isolation. I went through my constituency on a Friday trying to get into different surgeries using public transport. I travelled to North Blyth, Cambois and East Sleekburn, where the first bus service was at 10.14 am. We then travelled from there seven miles—one stop—to the local hospital. It took more than an hour. The return journey for anybody at the hospital, whether they work there or are looking to visit people, must be made before 12.46 pm, because there are no bus services after that. That is outrageous and unacceptable.

I do not have that much time, but this discussion deserves much more debate. I put on the record my thanks, and those of all my colleagues in the northern region, to the key workers and the transport workers, who have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic. Many of them were exhausted before the pandemic and still are. We have huge issues, and we need more investment in bus services and integrated transport policy right through the region. We should not forget Northumberland as an area, but we need plenty of investment in the integrated transport plan and regional funding, because buses are a lifeline for many people in our regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

Let me talk about the commitment from this Government. Connecting people every day to jobs, studies and vital local services is absolutely why we value buses. The benefits are clear. They are at the very centre of our public transport system, and in 2019-20 there were more than twice as many passenger journeys by bus as by rail.

Covid-19 has had a huge impact here, as it has elsewhere, and the Government have provided an unprecedented amount of support for the bus sector, which the hon. Member for Blaydon referred to. Through the pandemic, more than £1.5 billion has been announced to date. That has been essential to keep bus services running and to get workers to jobs, children to schools and people to vital services. Without that support, bus services would have operated at a loss or would have stopped running entirely.

But we do not just want to go back to how bus services were before covid. There are huge opportunities to change the way that bus services operate and we want to make them better. That is why the commitment to buses is evident in the already mentioned “Bus Back Better” national bus strategy, which was published in March this year. It explains how we will see these services being more frequent, more reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated and cheaper. The point about comparing and contrasting London prices with those elsewhere in the country has been made many times.

Our central aim is to get more people travelling by bus—to not just get patronage back, but increase it—but we will achieve that only if we can make the bus a practical and attractive alternative to the car for many people.

[Ian Lavery]

The Minister mentioned a number of issues, but one of the real problems is affordability. Opposition Members have mentioned this twice: it costs £6.40 to travel seven miles in my constituency, but travel in the capital is capped at £4.65 a day. The Minister is from the north. When she considers levelling up, she should do what is right for her constituents and mine and ensure that it is affordable for people to use public transport. Affordability is so important.

[Trudy Harrison]

I do not need to be told that; I am quite aware of it. That is why the “Bus Back Better” strategy will look at how we make those fares cheaper and how we will adopt the London-style approach to fares across all parts of the country, but particularly in the north, which I also represent, as the hon. Member said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of pay for rail workers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

Office for National Statistics data shows that rail workers’ earnings have risen at rates above RPI since 2011.

[Ian Lavery [V]]

It was the Transport Secretary himself who recently hailed the rail workers as “true heroes”—key workers who have done a phenomenal job during this pandemic. I think we all agree on that, but the private train companies that employ our rail workers are set to be paid a fee from the Government—taxpayers’ money—which will provide profit and shareholder dividends. If these taxpayer handouts are indeed acceptable, do the Minister and the Secretary of State not simply agree that these rail workers—true heroes, key workers—should be receiving a decent pay rise? And Minister, who makes these decisions? Who says whether they can have a pay rise or not? Is it the Government or the companies themselves?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with what the Secretary of State said about rail workers, who, up and down the country, will no doubt have noticed how much support the Government have given the industry since the pandemic struck and how little revenue the passenger sector is generating. They would have noticed the public sector pay policy announced by the Chancellor in the spending review. The figures are simple. The average national earnings growth rate since 2011 for the average UK worker is 2.2%; for train and tram drivers, it is 3.4%; for rail transport operatives, 4.4%; and for rail and rolling stock builders and repairers, 4.6%. We truly value our rail workers.