Transport

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

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

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

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

[John Redwood]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)]

I welcome this opportunity to debate transport and climate change. Despite some of the less well-thought-out jibes across the Dispatch Box, we are all pretty much in agreement on the need to address this issue; after all, we have all legislated to reach zero carbon by 2050. That may be where the agreement ends, but it is only right, in that spirit of co-operation, also to agree that this country has made remarkable, world-beating progress towards the targets in recent years, particularly in the past decade or so.

We have already heard mention from the Dispatch Box today of all the solar installations, 99% of which have been installed since 2010. We have seen a huge increase in the amount of renewable energy, particularly from offshore wind—53% of the power now produced comes from wind, solar and nuclear. That means we are getting much more renewable in our energy. That is a good thing and we ought to be celebrating it, but clearly many greater challenges are coming down the line. That is why decarbonisation is so important, but also why we should recognise that we have decarbonised faster than any other G20 country; last year, we led by passing that legislation. Across the House, we clearly agree on reaching zero emissions by 2050 and making that legally binding, which is essential. We are consulting on bringing forward the date for ending the sale of fossil-fuel diesel and petrol cars earlier than 2040, which was previously highlighted.

When I hear us being lectured about the electrification of our railway lines, it is worth remembering that in 13 years of power the Labour party electrified one mile of lines per year. We have done 10 times better, having electrified hundreds of miles. I was grateful to hear the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) welcoming the new line that I helped launch yesterday. Indeed, I helped work on getting the treaty signed. He described it as London to Amsterdam, but in fact trains were already running from London to Amsterdam and this was about the journey the other way around; the launch means that people no longer need to decant at Brussels, which was a 50-minute process, to go through passport control. From April, people will be able to come straight back, without getting off. He is absolutely right to say that that is an enormous benefit in terms of efficiency and saving carbon dioxide when travelling from Europe.

The new line is the not the end: we are looking to develop further routes, including Frankfurt, and, in the summer, Lille, Lyon, Bordeaux as well as many others. This is an excellent example of how, although we have left the EU, we have most certainly not left Europe and we are able to strengthen our ties in a meaningful way.

[John Redwood]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of our public want us to bust congestion and get people on the move, so that they can get to school and work more easily? That requires short-term measures to improve junctions, change light arrangements and so forth, and medium-term measures to put in bypasses and additional capacity. That is a very green thing to do, because then we stop people churning out emissions in traffic jams.

[Grant Shapps]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on the importance of stopping those pinch points, where traffic just idles, pumps out all this CO₂ and creates pollution. That clearly is not sensible, so we have a big programme in place; we are putting £28 billion into our roads. We will shortly be announcing more developments on our road investment strategy, RIS2, and getting rid of more of those pinch points. It is also important to get the traffic that runs on those roads to be greener and to get greener quicker, with electric and other forms of lower carbon and zero carbon production. I will talk a little more about that shortly, but I am clear that simply saying that we will not build any roads anywhere will increase pollution and the toxins in our atmosphere, not reduce them.

The targets have to be tough, and they have to be challenging. That will help to focus the minds not just of the consumer and business but of Government, and that is absolutely right. Targets also have to be viable and practical. That goes to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). It will not be easy to meet these goals if we simply try to do it by destroying industry along the way. That point is easily forgotten, but if we do forget it, we will not get the miracle that we have had of a 42% reduction in the amount of CO₂ at the same time as a 73% increase in the size of the economy.

Exiting the European Union (Transport)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, indeed, but even then, one would still need a cableway in order to reach the required area.

The use of this power would be subject to full consultation with the industry and the appropriate technical and safety bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive.

As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned, this instrument replaces the definition of “notified body” with “approved body”. This will allow the Secretary of State to approve bodies to carry out cableways conformity assessments. It should be noted that currently there are no such approved bodies in the UK, so until such time as a body is approved, we will continue to recognise EU notified bodies. I hope that is clear.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When my hon. Friend was considering rolling over these standards, did he look at American and other world standards compared with European ones? Were they higher or lower, and might we lose out if we adopt only European standards in terms of imports?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course we keep under advisement all the safety standards. The officials in my Department are constantly looking at issues of safety. Historical and heritage cableway apparatus, for example, is subject to different regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. General safety is of paramount importance, and we always look at international comparisons.

All the other changes being made by the instrument are minor and technical in nature—for example, removing references to member states and changing the terminology where applicable.

In summary, cableways are important to communities across the UK and are part of the economy in many areas. These draft regulations will give industry the clarity and certainty it needs that the current standards will continue to apply if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman will know that one concern about the HS2 project is the escalating cost, and that is why we have tabled some new clauses. To join HS1 to HS2 sounds like a logical proposal, but it would mean that costs would go up considerably. Perhaps that is a project for the future, but to get that long overdue connectivity in the north, it is vital that we press on and build a network for the future. We will then see serious modal shift, not only of passengers but of goods.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not also worried by the very long delay before there is any additional capacity north of Birmingham? Is it not a paradox that something that was designed to help the northern powerhouse will actually produce only a Birmingham-London additional railway for the foreseeable future?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I have already said, we would focus on the north and on making sure that we get those trans-Pennine links in place. We see that as a priority over all rail infrastructure projects, because we understand the power of joining up Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield and the cities and towns beyond. We want to see that investment coming forward. Electrification will also ensure that we benefit from better journey times, reliability and connectivity, which are vital for building our railways into the future. However far into the future it will be until we see the realisation of new rail, it does not mean that we will neglect that ambition to build more capacity north to south, which is vital if we are to take lorries off our roads and give freight an opportunity to move on the west coast main line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The jobs in his constituency are vital. Having met some of those workers, I know that many of them have tremendous skill and could participate in this project. I urge the Minister to look at that situation and ensure that the gates do not close and that those jobs can be saved and integrated into the HS2 project. I trust that she will want to meet my hon. Friend, to advance the case that he has been fighting so hard for.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will continue for a little bit, if I may.

HS2 provides a crucial opportunity to create a significant number of freight paths on the west coast main line, thus moving freight from road to rail, with additional capacity, which will attract more passengers to move from air to train and car to train, due to the attractive journey times. That is a crucial shift if we are to reduce our emissions, which are currently at 29% in the transport sector, and our carbon footprint. Of course, that means saving lives, from the poor air quality that so many people experience because of the use of poor fuels on the transport that many people use to get about our country.

Labour’s new clauses seek to address something that is vital to rebuilding public confidence in the project: a transformation in the way that the governance works. We truly believe that the Secretary of State has failed in his obligation to hold HS2 fully to account and certainly has not brought the level of transparency we would expect from a Secretary of State to such a major infrastructure project. He cannot and must not hide, as he is today.

[Rachael Maskell]

Indeed. In the light of concerns expressed by Members from across the House, Labour’s new clauses 1 and 4 seek to drive greater transparency and accountability for the project.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will give way briefly, then I must move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Lady agree that early and rather more moderate expenditure on digital signalling could greatly increase capacity and, along with short sections of bypass track, could improve reliability of fast train services, which is needed?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am honoured to have a centre for digital signalling in my constituency and have seen the power of it, but sadly, to achieve the capacity that we will need for the future, we have to build more routes. That is what this project will do. It is not either/or—both are required for the future of our rail network, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

First, we are calling on the Secretary of State to bring quarterly reports on the environmental impact, costs and progress of the HS2 project to the House. This is far too important a project for the Bill to be passed and then for us to read in the press that the costs have gone up and there are delays. The project must be far more accountable to the House, as should the Secretary of State.

Secondly, Labour believes that the scheduling, the integration, the engineering in places and the scope of the project need review. We cannot simply have HS2 Ltd saying, “This is what it is.” There are major issues to be resolved, not least the vital Yorkshire hub and getting the right connectivity into Sheffield. Members and community groups have undertaken detailed work on how improvements can be made to parts of the route, and that is one such example. Labour is calling for the whole of HS2, including phase 2a, to undergo a complete peer review appraisal by independent engineering and economic specialists. We believe that that is the only way that Parliament and the public can have full confidence in the HS2 project. Such a process will ensure that the scope is right, that the integration with the wider network is right, that governance is put right and that the maximum environmental gain is harvested while the cost of the project is minimised. It will not delay the project but enable it to proceed in a way that delivers maximum benefit.

Ensuring that the best modelling of the wider economic benefit is properly appraised is also urgently needed on this project, while at the same time proper security can clearly deliver a focus and confirm that north-south connectivity—and, I trust, east-west too—is really integrated to deliver and to ensure that we get maximum benefit from it. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the new clauses, which would answer many of the questions that they have been asking and enhance the Bill and the project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

They certainly are, and there are also freehold properties. People who own property, as I have just described, are being put under the most intense anxiety, so I understand the reasons that lie behind the principle of new clause 2.

On new clause 4, I made my point in my intervention on the shadow Minister. I simply cannot understand it. Notwithstanding the intention that appears to be behind the first part the new clause—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for backing me up on this—it is inconceivable that the report should only come into effect within 12 months of the Act receiving Royal Assent. It is nonsense. I ask the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) to note that although I shall vote for the principle of an independent peer review, it will be on the strict understanding that that is without prejudice to my concern that the Act will need to be repealed.

I make this point now and may do so again on Third Reading: we are about to experience a new Government, effectively, with a new Prime Minister, depending on the outcome of the leadership election. The two contenders for the leadership have differing views on HS2: one is in favour and the other says that he wants to put it under review. Although rumours are like bats that fly in the night, the fact is that there are very strong feelings in favour of abandoning this entire project. We understand that it has already cost about £5 billion or £6 billion. That is enough money in itself, but to subject this country to unbelievable havoc as the project goes through constituencies such as mine, with all the attendant problems and anxieties that I have described, and to say, at the same time, that the proposal will go through and that the Labour party, by all accounts, will vote for it seems to be completely at variance with all the evidence and reports—I referred to them in the Westminster Hall debate and on many other occasions—which indicate that this is not a viable project. It was dreamt up by a Labour peer. I am never quite sure what the noble Lord Adonis’s allegiance is these days, but he was certainly a Labour member of the Government when this was proposed, and he deserves to be thoroughly condemned for it.

[John Redwood]

Did my hon. Friend notice that while Labour says that it wants a 12-month review of fairly fundamental things, it made it very clear that it does not want any material changes to the project that might delay it? I do not really see what the point of the review is.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Member for York Central is smiling as she looks across the Chamber—[Interruption.] She says that it is unbelievable, but it is anything but unbelievable—it is entirely true and entirely credible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield backed me up on this. What is the point in having a first-class, independent review of the kind that is being advocated and saying that it will come into effect only after this has been made into the law of the land? [Interruption.] I see the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), chuntering, but perhaps he would like to come to the Dispatch Box and explain the nonsense that lies behind that reasoning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He will see from the drafting of my new clause that it would allow an assessor to assess NDAs that have already been signed, and to allow them to be retained only in circumstances of exceptional commercial confidentiality. I would argue that that is the only ground for retaining them, and that an independent assessor—either a QC or a former High Court judge—should be appointed to assess those NDAs.

[John Redwood]

Could my hon. Friend give us some idea of what kind of information she thinks might be suppressed that we ought to know about? What is the inducement being offered to make people sign these things?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

So far, HS2 has refused to answer freedom of information requests. It claims, in answers given to me as a result of FOI requests, that it is unable to provide answers because it does not know how many NDAs its lawyers have got people to sign and because it would cost too much to provide a Member of Parliament with details of the number of NDAs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

If there has simply been no updated assessment, that might explain why so many of my constituents get stuck on platforms in Leeds, trying to get back to Castleford, or on platforms in Castleford, trying to get into Leeds. So many more people are commuting for work, yet the commuter infrastructure for them is just not there. It is continually our towns that are being let down.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am conscious of the time and see Mr Deputy Speaker looking at me, so I shall give way only briefly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am very relaxed.

[John Redwood]

How would a review help, given that the right hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleagues and the current Government are united behind the current scheme, which does nothing to help our towns?

[Yvette Cooper]

Nobody has done a proper assessment of where transport infrastructure investment is going and what the impact is on cities and towns. Some assessment has been made of the impact on different regions of the country, and that is important. Actually, it is significant, because I think the New Economics Foundation cites HS2’s own figures showing that 40% of the benefits from HS2 will go to London, whereas only 10% of the benefits will go to Yorkshire. I want to see a broader assessment of the impact on cities and towns.

Job growth is twice as fast in cities as in towns. New digital jobs, service jobs, university-related jobs and cultural jobs are all being concentrated in cities, but manufacturing, distribution and retail jobs are disappearing from towns. That is a result of automation or changes to our economy, but public sector investment decisions, including on transport priorities, are making that worse. Public services are shrinking back from towns into cities, and the new infrastructure investment is always concentrated on cities rather than towns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Certainly, for bus services, which are crucial for our towns, the loss of revenue has been particularly crucial and devastating. This debate is about towns getting their fair share of both revenue and capital investment. Currently, I do not think we are getting either.

The campaign to power up the north led by some of our regional newspapers is immensely important, and I strongly back it, but I also think that it is time to power up our towns, as they have immense potential and are not getting their fair share of investment. Time and again, whether through HS2 or Crossrail 2, too much money—the big billions—is still going into the cities rather than the towns. That is why I support this review, but ask for it to be broadened.

I urge the Minister to broaden it as well, because the truth is that Members from our towns have been respectful, we have asked sensible questions, we have been patient, and we have waited and waited and, frankly, we have got nothing. We see no sign of anything improving for our transport infrastructure. We see no sign of anything other than warm words about promises in the future. We need that review of the geographic benefits and we need a proper towns plan—a proper plan for major infrastructure investment. Until we have that, the Government’s transport infrastructure plan is simply not in the national interest.

[John Redwood]

My worry about the Labour new clauses is that they will not achieve the objective that Labour seems to think they will achieve. The truth is that, with the legislation already in place and the likely passage this evening of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, all the legal powers are there to proceed with the scheme as originally designed. As the contracts are settled, the scope for any fundamental changes arising from a review is either limited or non-existent. As the project develops, there is less and less scope to make any changes to it.

I speak as someone who, when we were first faced with the decision about HS2, decided that it was not the right project. I fully share the ambition of practically everybody in this House that we need an even more successful northern powerhouse and better transport and connectivity throughout those northern cities and towns. As someone who represents a very fast-growing and hard-pressed area of the country, just outside London, I would love to see an even more effective counter-magnet to London elsewhere in the country to pick up some of that growth and some of that prosperity, because we have the difficulties of managing so many people coming in and so many people moving around on transport systems that are woefully inadequate for the task. I share the ambition for the northern powerhouse, but I accept that a decision has already been made in principle, that a lot of money has now been committed and that various works have been undertaken in the name of the project, so it would become more and more difficult to make fundamental change or to think about cancellation.

As it happens, I think that there will be another decision taken quite shortly about this mighty project, because the very likely next Prime Minister has said that he wishes to review it and to think about it again, and I wish him every success with that. It would be a very difficult task, and it would need to be done with reasonable speed. Given that we have committed so much and that there is some reasonable merit in the project, he may conclude that he wishes to go on with it. If he were to make a more fundamental decision, all that we are talking about this afternoon in this House is a waste of time, because, clearly, the project will be cancelled and everything else will lapse.

I work on the assumption that, after review, the new Prime Minister may continue with the project, and that we are in the business of trying to mitigate the difficulties and damages. My colleagues who represent constituencies who are very badly affected by this project deserve special treatment over how it can be ameliorated and improved and how compensation can be paid and businesses dealt with.

Certainly, we need transparency. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for raising the issue. I want to hear from the Minister about what is going to be done on transparency, so that those who are most adversely affected, should the project go ahead in full, are able to see why the decisions are being made and also have access to the information that they need to get proper compensation.

I myself will not be voting for the Labour amendments, because they simply do not bring any advantage either to those who support the project in full or those who have the problems of handling the disadvantages of the project in their constituencies. I do not see how a further review suddenly will make this a better run project. If the project goes forward, this Minister and any future Minister will have to deal with how the costs will be controlled, how the works will be carried out in a speedy manner and to a high quality with safe standards for the workforce, and how the impact of those works can be minimised on those most affected by them as they go ahead. These remain continuing management problems. An additional independent review is not going to solve any of that. We are now getting to the point where it needs individual management solutions. It is about managers on the ground, how contracts are handled on the ground, and the extent to which Ministers can and should have proper oversight of those contracts, given their commercial nature and given the technical expertise of those actually running the project.

I do not see how an independent review can help at all. I do not believe that any serious change could result from it, because the contracts will be let, and we will be told that the contractors have to get on with it. There does remain the issue of whether a new Prime Minister wishes to reopen the whole question, but assuming that he does not we will need proper answers from Ministers about what action they have taken to control the costs, improve the quality and deal with safety, and about how much power they will have in future, given the commercial nature of the operation.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am generally very supportive of additional high-speed capacity between London, the north-east, the north-west and Scotland, but I have consistently opposed HS2 and the plans for it because this is not the right way to go about it. It is not a question of whether or not my constituency is affected; I would be happy to see a sensible route through my constituency. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) were quite happy to see the very large Norton Bridge junction project in our constituencies, because although it caused quite a lot of disruption, we could see the benefit for the west coast main line—for improving capacity and for increasing speeds to the benefit of everybody. He and I and other colleagues do not see such benefits from HS2 as a whole. However, I personally would like to see a different design and lower maximum speeds—not the 400 km per hour that is projected but something more sensible between 250 km and 300 km per hour. That would allow for a route that is not straight as an arrow, but that has some bends in it that could avoid the villages in my constituency. That kind of route, which would also be more consistent with the kind of trains that we currently have running on the west coast main line, would be infinitely preferable to what we have at the moment. Unlike to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) whom I greatly respect on this matter, I do not think that it is too late to think again about some changes that would make this or a similar project more acceptable to my constituents.

I will support new clauses 1 and 2, certainly, and new clause 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has already eloquently set out the reasons why we should support new clause 5, and I will certainly do so.

[John Redwood]

I stress that I do not want to stop my hon. Friend getting a better deal for his constituents; I wish him every success in doing that. I was saying that once the contracts had been signed for this project, he will not be able to get change.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not a believer in breaking contracts if contracts have been signed and if they do not have get-out clauses. I would strongly recommend that we put in get-out clauses, because there will be massive changes over the coming months and years. I accept, however, that once a decision has been taken by this House, if we are in a minority, we are in a minority and it will go ahead. I am just flagging up some of the problems that may be encountered in the future.

In respect of new clause 1, I welcome the quarterly reports. This is a very sensible approach and it is something that has been lacking. We have had intermittent reports from HS2 to constituency MPs who have been affected. We have had the occasional statement from the Minister—and I welcome the work that the current Minister and indeed previous Ministers have done to keep us informed—but what we have not had is an honest assessment of the cost of this project. We were told originally that it was in the £30 billion to £35 billion range, and then a Minister came forward a few years ago and said that it was going to be about £56 billion, but since then we have had nothing. They have stuck to the figure, and what we are being asked as a House today is to vote on a figure that I simply do not believe.

The figures I have seen, calculated by experts in the field, indicate that the cost will be in the region of £80 billion. I have heard it might be more, but let us stick at £80 billion. This House is being asked to agree today to a not insignificant part of a project for which we do not have an accurate cost estimate, and which could be as much as £24 billion a year more. I agree that this is a capital rather than a revenue project, but that is two thirds of what we spend on defence every year; that is an enormous sum of money about which we are not being given any indication. If these estimates are wrong, let the Minister come forward and say that they are wrong and prove that they are wrong. Of course estimates are estimates, and we know that we cannot pin them down to the last million or so pounds, but it is possible to try to disprove the credible figures that have been put in the public domain, and so far they have not been disproved.

[John Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be massive revenue losses once the railway is up and running, because if it turns out that the number of seats provided is greatly in excess of demand, which some people think will be the case, there will be heavy discounts and lots of empty seats, and therefore a very major demand for a taxpayer subsidy?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

As so often, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what has also not been forthcoming is a proper business case. We have had the business case for HS2, but we have not had—I have asked for this time and again—a business case for the remnant west coast main line, which will still be a much larger transport network than HS2. We are told that there will be freight on it, and it is good that there will be additional freight, but freight is a very competitive market and will not replace the extremely lucrative premium revenues that come from high-speed trains.

What we will be left with on the west coast main line, which is absolutely vital for my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Stone (Sir William Cash) and so many others, is a line which takes freight, which of course is heavy and causes extra maintenance, and with suburban and stopping services such as the London Northwestern Railway. That is an excellent service and I use it frequently, but I often pay £15 or £20 for a single ticket from London to Stafford. I welcome that, but it is not possible to run a proper, profitable railway on income like that. What it relies on of course is the incredibly expensive £106 or £108 single peak fare from Stafford to London—my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will probably be able to quote the figure from Lichfield. These are the fares that pay for the railway at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lewis]

I respect the hon. Lady’s views on some of those issues in the context of the debate, but I have to say assertively to her that, in the context of austerity, those at the bottom of the pile have suffered more than everyone else. When we look at the impact of austerity on the country and on communities, we see that many northern communities were starting at an incredibly low base. The impact of austerity, therefore, is not simply that we have not been able to catch up; the inequality and disparity in terms of the investment in skills, jobs, infrastructure and public services have actually made the situation far worse. That combination of austerity and the low base of investment, which has been an historical reality under successive Governments, is having a devastating effect on many northern communities.

The hon. Lady therefore really cannot afford to be complacent; she may have had some funding for a bypass in her constituency, but the reality in many of our constituencies in the north of England is that this has been an incredibly challenging and difficult period. If any business had 50% reductions to its budget in a four or five-year period, it would go bankrupt; that is what is happening to many local authorities in the north of England, and especially in Greater Manchester.

I want to come on specifically to the new clause on the non-disclosure agreements tabled by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). My view, having come reasonably late to this topic, is that what we have seen in terms of non-disclosure agreements in the context of HS2 is nothing short of a public scandal. Essentially, many of these agreements have been used to silence people inside that organisation who are concerned that Parliament has been misled on a regular basis about financial information. Let us be clear: people have been given redundancy from HS2 because, internally, they have articulated concerns about misleading information that has been presented to this House in terms of finance and capacity.

Ministers have a responsibility to disinfect this issue. They should now make it clear that, former members of staff subject to non-disclosure clauses and paid redundancy simply because they felt Parliament was being misled should be released from those non-disclosure responsibilities and should be able to share their views with Parliament and to put them in the public domain. It is totally hypocritical to talk, quite rightly, about the outrage of the Labour party imposing non-disclosure agreements on its staff, but then for Ministers not to release members of staff in HS2 from such requirements.

I would like to reveal to the House today that a consultants’ report costing at least £1 million was commissioned from a well-known consultant, which did not say what HS2 wanted it to say. That report was more or less shredded; it was certainly never put in the public domain or shared with Parliament.

We know that the costs have escalated time and time again and that some people in the organisation have alerted the HS2 board and other senior executives to the difficulties. I am not saying that HS2 should be scrapped, but for parliamentarians to make a rational, proper judgment on its viability, desirability and achievability, we have to have full possession of the facts. There is absolutely no question but that Ministers have not always been given full information by HS2. As a consequence, Select Committees and the House itself have not been given the full information that we and the public are entitled to in any debate about the desirability of this scheme.

[John Redwood]

If a Government had decided to offer all the northern councils involved their proportion of the original budget for HS2 as capital spend, to spend as they saw fit, does the hon. Gentleman think they would have spent it together on the railway or on something else?

[Mr Lewis]

I say genuinely to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a false choice. In Greater Manchester, thanks to changes the Government have made, we are seeking finally to have the capacity to reintegrate, re-coordinate and, where appropriate, re-regulate our buses. However, the level of subsidy per commuter in Greater Manchester, compared with London, is frankly shocking in terms of the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s capacity to radically improve bus services across the conurbation. I genuinely say to the right hon. Gentleman—this is not a party political point—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I totally get that point, but one cannot get from Crewe to the end destinations in phase 1 without getting this part of the project done, and the point is that Labour’s amendments do not allow any action. If the hon. Lady compelled the Government to do something, I might be minded to support that, but as I said, I have become increasingly disillusioned by the cost and the damage to my own patch.

The first I knew about the damage to my constituency was when a notice went up in the village of Woore, which the hon. Lady is probably not aware of, in the most extreme north-eastern corner of Shropshire. It is a salient that sticks out to the east between the counties of Cheshire and Staffordshire. Woore is a village of 1,200 people, with a nursery and a primary school of about 60. People walk every day to school and to work. In parts of the main road through the village, there is no footpath and some of my constituents have to cross the road three times, so the situation caused major consternation.

We have had a significant number of meetings with HS2, and I pay credit to the HS2 officials who have been assiduous in coming to meetings and providing information. We have looked at a whole range of alternatives to what could happen. It seems perverse that the original plan to move 600 vehicles a day through the village has come down to 300 by simply doubling the time—it was going to be 600 for three months and now it is 300 a day for six months. They are doing that because they are going to travel three sides of a rectangle. Every alternative that we have looked at has been turned down, and that is why I do not support these amendments. It is the sort of issue that the hon. Lady’s amendments could have flushed out, and there could have been concrete action.

[John Redwood]

Does my right hon. Friend have any sympathy for the amendment from our hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) about non-disclosure agreements?

[Mr Paterson]

I am going to come to that in a minute. I am wholly amazed by the revelations from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that, because I was really shocked by what my hon. Friend said. Given my experience of having a series of meetings with HS2 officials, all of which have been—at face value—thoroughly satisfactory and an open exchange of views, but have got absolutely nowhere, it now appears that there might some other reasons why that is. Given what she is saying, I cannot find out why, so if she presses her amendment, which I very much hope she does, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government will accept it. If they do not, I will be very happy to vote in favour of it. My hon. Friend has flushed out a most serious issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

That is a perfectly fair point, but there is no money tree. There is a limited amount of private and public money. I put to the hon. Lady that her constituents and mine have suffered for generations from the innate disadvantage of living in a remote rural area, 200 miles from London. With this new broadband technology, they can suddenly be level pegging with someone in the middle of Manchester or the middle of London. They can be just as competitive when talking to a customer in Ulan Bator or San Francisco. We are all absolutely level, but we have to have broadband. A spokesman from Openreach, picking up on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said last week that

“building full fibre technology to the whole of the UK isn’t quick or easy. It requires £30 billion and a physical build to more than 30m front doors, from suburban terraces to remote crofts.”

Think of the benefit to our constituents if we had full fibre for £30 billion, which was the original estimate for HS2. This project is getting out of control.

[John Redwood]

People call this project an investment. Now, one aims to get a return on an investment. If we wanted a very modest 3% real on this £55 billion slug of capital, it should be generating profits of £2.75 billion every year. I do not think it will make a single penny. The case for investment has not been made.

[Mr Paterson]

I agree. There were questions about its original cost of £32 billion. We are now at £55 billion and looking at £100 billion. We know categorically that we would massively improve the productivity of every single human being in this country if we had full fibre broadband.

I am not prepared to vote for the Labour party amendments. I thought they were good when I first skimmed through them, but they place no consequential requirements on the Government. If the Government do not support my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury’s amendment, I will vote for it, if she presses it. I am also minded to change my opinion of the whole project, mindful that my constituents have not been given satisfaction and mindful that their lives will be turned upside down for a long period by this project, and to vote against the Bill on Third Reading unless I hear otherwise from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

I feel that my hon. Friend is talking about particular cases in her constituency, on which I am more than happy to provide further information. I will work with her to ensure that she is able to represent her constituents, and that they get satisfactory responses from HS2 Ltd. It takes part in many local engagement events; it has met several thousand residents up and down the country. I do not believe that new clause 5 will deliver what she is asking for.

[John Redwood]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I am running out of time; forgive me.

New clause 5 would slow down the process, and I do not think that it would work effectively. There is already a statutory framework in place for HS2, which includes the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The new clause is designed to prevent HS2 Ltd from acting as a commercial organisation, and tries to prevent it allocating most of its money, which, I remind everyone in the House, is from the public purse, directly to the programme. Unfortunately, I therefore cannot support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.

National Policy Statement: Airports

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend is right, and it is interesting how much support there has been from around the whole United Kingdom: not a single regional airport has opposed the expansion of Heathrow, and I have talked to business groups up and down this country, all of whom support the expansion of Heathrow because they believe it will make a huge difference.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Although airport expansion is crucial to our economic success, does my right hon. Friend accept that from 2014 unfortunate changes to the pattern of aviation movements from Heathrow, made without consultation, have created a much worse noise situation over my constituency and adjacent constituencies? Will he ensure that a proper noise reduction programme is in place from now on? We do not like the existing level of noise, let alone an expanded one.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns and will make two points to him. First, we intend to move ahead quickly with setting up the independent noise monitoring body, which is needed to make sure the rules are kept to. In addition, I believe the modernisation of air space, and proper enforcement of the way air space operates, will mean we can use it in a smarter way, give communities more relief and avoid the kind of change that affected my right hon. Friend’s constituency. I give him the assurance that I will work with him, and make sure that NATS and others work with him, to ensure that the issue he is concerned about is addressed in the future.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

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

[Andy McDonald]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

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

[Andy McDonald]

It is a disaster.

[John Redwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

John Redwood Excerpts

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

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot guarantee that EU countries and their businesses will want to continue selling goods to UK consumers, but my best guess is that French farmers will still want to sell their produce through our supermarkets and that German car makers will still want to sell their cars in our car showrooms. No, I cannot guarantee that it will rain or be sunny tomorrow, nor can I guarantee that EU countries will want to continue selling their products to us, but do you know what, I think they probably will.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a timely and good Bill to deal with all eventualities, and on so politely answering idiotic interventions that are trying to create fear where there is no need for it because, of course, goods will move smoothly with or without a deal.

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend is right. The fact that this morning, just to the east of London, I visited a £120 million investment in the future of the United Kingdom as a trading nation by a major United States-based company says that I am not alone in believing that trade will continue and flourish in the future, because it will.

There are two parts to the Bill, the first of which is all about the permits. It enables us to introduce a scheme that simply allows trucks to cross borders in a variety of scenarios—this is, basically, like a truck having its own international driving licence. In many circumstances, through a variety of international agreements, that is a necessity in order to carry goods from one nation to another. We are simply making sure that we put in place the legal framework for the Government to establish a system for issuing permits if, after we have concluded the negotiations, it proves necessary to do so. We have designed the legislation to be flexible in response to different circumstances. We do not want to place any undue regulatory or financial requirements on the industry.

Permits are a feature of almost all international road freight agreements outside free-trade areas. The UK already has several permit-based agreements with non-EU countries, including Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia and Ukraine. The UK also has liberal, non-permit agreements with Albania and Turkey. The Bill will also cover non-EU agreements relating to permits, which means that there will be one simple, straightforward administration system that is designed to be as easy as possible for haulage firms to use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

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

[John Redwood]

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

[Andy McDonald]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend has correctly identified that Labour Members are all over the place on this subject. There was no shortage of “Project Fear” in debates during the referendum campaign—people knew they were voting for something that would be very tough for this country—but, by and large, they voted because they understood the facts. I turn again to the point that Labour colleagues often make, which is that people did not know what they were voting for. Yes, they did: they were intelligent enough to understand the arguments, and to say otherwise is to insult the many people in Yorkshire and the north-east who voted to leave the European Union.

[John Redwood]

Did my right hon. Friend also notice that Labour Members’ case seems to be that the EU is so nasty and unpleasant that it would deliberately wreck its own exports to us to make a point, yet they want to be more closely aligned with people and an organisation that would do that? I just do not understand what they are talking about.

[Mr Goodwill]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not in the interests of the German motor industry, the French agriculture industry or industry right across Europe to cut off its nose to spite its face. If that were the case, I am sure that German motor manufacturers would be beating a track to Chancellor Merkel’s door to make that very point.

I have not seen one recently, but I remember following lorries down the road and reading a sticker saying, “If you’ve got it, it’s been on a truck”. Although progress has been made in switching freight to rail or short sea shipping, the last leg of any journey invariably involves a truck. We heard from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough about Dover. It had 2.6 million truck journeys last year, with 1.6 million trucks going on Le Shuttle, which is 11,500 per day. Dover represents 17% of all UK trade coming in, worth £122 billion last year.

It is not just on this side of the channel that people are making such a case; Calais chiefs have also stressed the necessity of a frictionless border. Jean-Marc Puissesseau, president and general manager of Port Boulogne Calais, has said that the port boarded 2 million lorries last year. Without an agreed system in place, we could face 30-mile queues on both sides of the channel—every day, not just when the French seamen go on strike. During such a strike, some UK motor manufacturers, and indeed BMW in Bavaria, were three days away from stopping production. As we have heard, Honda relies on 350 trucks a day on a one-hour just-in-time delivery schedule. It is in no one’s interest not to get a deal.

Rail Franchising

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman talks about dirty diesel. What we are now seeing is the arrival of new technologies that will transform the way our railways work. We will soon see hydrogen trains. The new generation of trains—hybrid trains—is much cleaner than its predecessors. New technology is giving us extra versatility.

Many Members want to speak, so I shall conclude. Today, I am afraid that we have heard from Labour Members a position based on sand. They want lower fare rises, but will not tell us how those will be paid for because their numbers do not add up. The irony is that in London, where Labour is in power, the fares are going up by more than fares in the rest of the country. By contrast, we are addressing the real problems on the rail network. We are providing the investment that the railways need.

Somebody mentioned disruptions over Christmas. Yes, I know passengers had a disrupted time. The reason for that is that we are spending billions of pounds across the country. At some point, the work has to be done. Those people who walk into London Bridge station in the mornings, as well as those people up in the north-west where improvements are happening and people elsewhere across the country, will now see new facilities—broader facilities, expanded facilities—that will make a real difference to passengers.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is quite right that technology and investment will make a huge difference. Will he confirm that modern digital signalling will allow the railway to run many more trains an hour safely on the same piece of track, which could be the cheapest and best way to deal with the bottlenecks?

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are already seeing that Thameslink is going to use digital signalling in a way that has never happened before in this country. We will use digital signalling in the improvements on the trans-Pennine route and elsewhere. This Government are investing in the railway. This party believes in the railways. It understands the need to expand capacity on the railways.

We have not done enough for much too long. In the years since privatisation, passenger numbers have grown and grown after the years of decline in the days of British Rail. So the pressures have increased, as have the challenge and the need to invest. That is why we are spending billions of pounds on the infrastructure, building stations such as London Bridge, building routes such as Crossrail and replacing every single train in the north of England. It is why we are acting in a way that, during 13 years in power, the Labour party never did.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I think I used the word “consensus” not “unanimity”. I sincerely thank the Minister for his constructive approach to this issue and for adding his name to mine by way of support. There is agreement across the House that both jobs and skills are a core part of the case for HS2, and I note that the recent Shaw report calls for much deeper strategic engagement of trade unions across the rail industry. Accordingly, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and HS2 Ltd for their positive engagement with the TUC in securing an agreement to make sure that trade unions, HS2 and its suppliers work together to maximise HS2’s economic and labour market potential?

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman at all worried about the possible job impact on the existing railway, because most of the passengers for this line are going to come from journeys that would otherwise have been made on existing trains? Presumably, there will therefore be a decline in fares, revenue and job opportunity on the existing railway.

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point: this is about having a positive impact on capacity issues. That is the singular and most important purpose of this development.

In the words of the magnificent Frances O’Grady:

“It is clear that trade union engagement is vital to ensuring that HS2 is delivered to time and to budget—and that it is delivered in a manner that reflects the best of socially responsible development.”

The agreement contains the commitment to pay the voluntary living wage—and the voluntary London living wage—and to offer a minimum number of apprenticeships and workforce skills development, among other things. The agreement is an excellent example of how industrial relations should be approached from the outset in projects of this magnitude, and indeed throughout the construction industry, and I hope that it can be the template for good practice throughout industry. The construction of such infrastructure projects places demands on a nation to provide the necessary skilled workforce, creating opportunities for people, and younger people in particular, to equip themselves with not just the vocational qualifications to assist in the construction of this railway, but the tools necessary to forge careers that will be of benefit to both themselves and the nation long after the completion of HS2. Labour Members welcome the fact that, following on from the success of the Kings Cross construction skills centre, a National College for High Speed Rail will be located both in Birmingham and Doncaster, providing specialist vocational training to the next generation of engineers working on HS2 and beyond. We also welcome the fact that HS2 Ltd will provide £4.1 million towards a Euston construction skills centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Of course I welcome it; it would be churlish not to. Why would I not welcome that? It does not mean that the system is right, or, for goodness’ sake, that the trains are getting to the right places.

It is difficult to see how east coast’s brilliant delivery for the taxpayer and for the commuter could be seen as a failure, or in any way undesirable. It simply does not make any sense for the UK taxpayer to subsidise foreign state-owned companies so that citizens of Germany, Holland, France and elsewhere can enjoy cheaper and superior services.

Quite simply, the rejection of even the possibility of public ownership is driven by an outdated ideology and is totally out of kilter with the views of a large majority of the public—including many Conservative voters—which is why I am so pleased that Labour is committed to a publicly owned service that puts the passenger first rather than the profits of private or foreign state-owned companies, as is currently the case.

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

No, I am going to move on.

We have heard the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Transport and others speak in glowing terms about how High Speed 2, when completed, will be a proud national achievement, and I completely agree with that. The scale of the project, the amount of talent that will be utilised in its design and construction, and the dedication over the years ahead will be a mark of pride, and represent a proud feat of British engineering and ingenuity.

It is my contention that if we, as a nation, are good enough to build a world-class high-speed railway, then we are good enough to run it, too. From the initial privatisation to the Government’s re-franchising of the east coast main line, Tory rail policy has always been far too focused on its “private good, public bad” ideology. However, new clause 20 would not require the sort of Damascene conversion that we witnessed from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) earlier this week. It asks only that the Government keep an open mind. New clause 20 would allow, but not require, High Speed 2 passenger services to be run in the public sector. A similar clause was part of the Crossrail Act 2008, leaving open the option to run passenger services in the public sector. Indeed, we have worded this new clause so that it is as similar as possible to section 26 of the 2008 Act.

May I remind the Minister and the House that the Conservative party did not reject the idea of at least keeping an open mind about who might be the best operator to run Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line—in future years, and it would be disappointing to see the Conservative party move from a position of pragmatism to one of sheer ideology. It would be talking Britain down to suggest that private companies and the state-owned rail companies of the Netherlands, France and Germany are able to run successfully passenger services on our railways, but we ourselves are not. I hope that the Government do not have such a pessimistic view of our capabilities as a nation and will vote in favour of new clause 20.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I appreciate the work my hon. Friend did on the Select Committee. He is correct that there are undertakings, but they are not enforceable and I am afraid that HS2 does not have a good track record of either keeping good records and accurate information or of following through on its promises, hence my decision to table the new clauses. If HS2 is in good faith going to adhere to those undertakings, it should have no fear of their being put in the Bill. That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the new clauses to be accepted.

[John Redwood]

My right hon. Friend might like to point out that there are 65 pages of road and footpath closures scheduled in the Bill and 67 pages of associated works to existing roads, railways and utilities. The work is massive in scale and, obviously, all those involved will need compensation.

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps that shows the scale of the battle that has been going on for six years, in which people are trying to defend their environment and locality or, if they cannot have the whole project cancelled, at least to get the best possible deal for their locality.

High Speed 2

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady, through her work as Chairman of the Transport Committee, has always been supportive of the overall objective of greater train capacity, and she has made the case for a more direct service to Liverpool, which is part of what I will be considering when I address the full route towards the end of next year. I have to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson), who has joined me on the Front Bench, has also made the case as to why he believes that the announcement I have made today is the right decision. However, it is not just my decision. It is based on the overall structure reports produced by Sir David Higgins, the chairman of HS2. It is important how this feeds in to the rest of the question about national infrastructure, on which we have asked the National Infrastructure Commission to advise us, as far as the future of HS3 or indeed Crossrail 2 is concerned.

The hon. Lady asked whether this will be deliverable within the departmental spending changes announced last week, and the answer is yes.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What are the forecast revenues and losses on the Crewe to west midland section when it opens in the first couple of years, and what are the consequentials on revenue and subsidies on the existing railway?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We believe that the benefit-cost ratios for the lines that I have announced today are positive and will bring a return for the country. I say to my right hon. Friend that it is not all about BCRs. If only BCRs had been taken into account, the Jubilee line would never have been built, Canary Wharf would never have been opened, and the Limehouse link tunnel, which had a BCR of 0.4 or 0.7, would never have been built, yet they have made huge differences. Infrastructure is sometimes expensive, but we should judge the BCRs not on the next 30 years, but on the next 100 years.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

I admire the creativity of hon. Members who wish to find ways to pursue this matter. I do not feel that it is appropriate to do so in this the Bill, for reasons I will go on to explain, but I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. It is undeniable that there is a debate to be had on the issue. There are views on both sides of the argument. It is, I think, the view of nearly all right hon. and hon. Members that we would like greater participation and involvement in our democratic processes. Whether lowering the franchise is the right way of going about it is rather less clearly agreed across the House. Indeed, it is an area about which I have significant reservations. I have, however, considered carefully the arguments set out with regard to the Bill.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that we did not place in our manifesto any wish to change the voting age, so we have no manifesto mandate, and that when Labour was in office for 13 years with big majorities it never thought it a good idea to change the voting age?

[James Wharton]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Conservative Members did not stand on that proposal in the manifesto. Opposition Members from a variety of parties did so. It may be argued, therefore, that this issue has been decided by democratic processes already. However, I recognise, as I have said, there is a debate to be had. We may come to different conclusions, but my contention today is that, valid though that debate may be, the Bill is not the vehicle through which such a change should be delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear that the Government are in listening mode. I am pleased about clause 21, but I hope that the Government will now listen to the arguments in favour of clause 20 and reducing the voting age to 16 in local government elections.

More than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK are denied any part in our democratic process. In recent years, pressure has developed to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. The Electoral Reform Society has argued for it, and in 2006 the Power commission was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to find out what was happening to British democracy and why people were disengaged from politics.

The commission drew up a set of proposals and recommendations to increase political participation and it presented them in a final report, “Power to the People”. One recommendation was to lower the voting and candidacy age to 16, with the exception of candidacy for the House of Lords. The Power commission explained its recommendation thus:

“Our own experience and evidence suggests that just as with the wider population, when young people are faced with a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offers them a real chance of influence, they do so with enthusiasm and with responsibility. We recognise that few people take an interest in a sphere of life or an area from which they have been deliberately excluded.”

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady remind us why during 13 years in office up to 2010, Labour, which had big majorities, never wanted to do this?

[Liz McInnes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Sometimes pressure needs to build up before change is made. It is correct to say that the Labour party did not make this change in 13 years in office, but I am going to talk about the build-up of pressure and the involvement of various organisations. We saw in the Scottish referendum that there is a real feeling that our young people are affected by the democratic process. To take the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments to their conclusion, we would never make any changes whatever, simply because we did not do so in a previous term of office.

I was quoting the Power commission on young people feeling excluded and therefore not being interested in politics. The commission proposed that reducing the voting age to 16 would be an obvious way of reducing the extent of such exclusion for many thousands of young people. It would increase the likelihood of their taking an interest and participating in political and democratic debates if they actually felt that they could influence such debates.

--- Later in debate ---

Let us not forget, however, that much has been achieved already. As we are all aware, improving our ageing infrastructure is of fundamental importance. In recognition of that, we are already spending £13 billion on transport in the north of England in this Parliament. In the past five years, the Government have invested heavily in rail and road networks, committed to the northern hub and electrification programmes and are tripling road spending by 2020, improving the capacity and conditions of our motorways and major A roads. It can be seen, too, in the major benefits to come from the new trans-Pennine and northern passenger rail franchises. Building on these, and through our continuing work to develop northern powerhouse rail and roads, we will bring people and businesses closer together and strengthen connections.

[John Redwood]

It is excellent news that there will be more road and rail capacity between the northern cities, as it is much needed. Can the rail capacity be provided on existing track? Is it a question of more efficient signalling and better trains?

[Andrew Jones]

We can boost rail capacity through a mixture of new lines and work to the existing network, alongside the electrification and signalling. The combination of all those things, in conjunction with new rolling stock, will deliver the step-change we need. Our rail industry is a huge success. It has gone from carrying 750 million passenger journeys per year only 20 years ago to 1.65 billion now. The issue our industry is facing is success and how to deliver that success with its capacity. A combination of things are required to deliver the boost in capacity my right hon. Friend talks about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

The new bodies are intended to create a link between Whitehall and Westminster and the constituent members of combined authorities. They will be able to develop transport plans for their areas, and come together to tackle issues that are currently decided here or in Whitehall rather than by local councils, relating to, for instance, longer-distance road or rail networks or systems that cross geographical areas, such as a smart ticketing system extending across the north. This is not about broadening their responsibilities to take powers away from other areas; it is about taking powers from Whitehall, increasing accountability, and ensuring that decisions are made locally.

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister give us a little more detail about how the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport to improve and look after the national road network will be affected by the new powers providing for regional policies on roads? Presumably the Secretary of State will still be in charge of the national network.

[Andrew Jones]

The Secretary of State will still be in charge of the national network. He will still be the final decision-maker in relation to the overall national transport strategy, and the way in which money is allocated to different schemes and areas. At first, STBs will advise him on strategic transport priorities for their areas to help promote economic development, but over time they will be able to advise him on how they can develop their roles and take on more responsibilities for improving transport planning, or provide for other enhancements to economic development in their areas. The Secretary of State will not be made redundant by these developments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that the Government will hear it while they are in listening mode, and that they will make the appropriate changes so that we can get maximum devolution and give local authorities back maximum control over their bus services.

New clause 34 will allow other regions to set up their own Transport for London-style models. TfL was an excellent Labour initiative but it was delivered 15 years ago. Helping other regions to catch up with London is the right thing to do, but it is a missed opportunity not to go significantly beyond that.

[John Redwood]

If the STB in a given area were to promote a road improvement that covered two different council areas, does the hon. Gentleman think that the STB should have the power to make one of the councils co-operate in the scheme if it did not wish to do so?

[Mr Reed]

That is a matter for the Government, but my view is that this should all be done through co-operation and negotiation, not through imposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not advocate any such imposition; I suspect that he would not.

The London Assembly has made the case that cities such as London need further devolved powers to integrate rail services with their surrounding commuter regions. That will apply to other regions across the country as well. It is not quite clear, however, what will be in scope in that regard. Perhaps this relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It would be helpful to have clarification on that point, as we do not have long to go before the Bill reaches its Report stage. It would be helpful to have clarity before we reach the final vote on the Bill.

There is also the question of how new transport initiatives will be funded. Since 2010, local authorities have had their funding for bus services cut by 70%. The Department for Transport has recently signed up to a further 32% cut, which is likely to affect sustainable transport programmes for cycling and buses, once we see the full detail. All of this undermines the upgrades necessary to deliver effective transport integration, which is critical to making the system work efficiently and effectively for local people. Those decisions should not be taken centrally without involving the areas affected by them, and I hope that the Government will come forward with proposals to ensure that resourcing is also part of the negotiations with localities, along with the additional powers that they may or may not be able to acquire.

Significant control over STBs is to be retained, in some cases quite unnecessarily. The new clause mentions the Secretary of State 39 times, but it mentions mayors just twice. Will mayors have a significant role within these organisations or not? We would welcome further clarification from the Government on what the precise role of the mayors will be. The Government are forcing mayors on to localities whether they want them or not, as a condition of devolution deals in the metropolitan areas, but they also seem to be denying the mayors certain powers. Either they are a central point of local accountability or they are not. We would like to see their powers over transport matters extended.

Under the provisions, authorities will still have to have their proposals approved by the Secretary of State, from whom they will also still get their funding. The Secretary of State will also be able to make provisions about how an STB is to carry out various functions. That does not seem radically different from where the ultimate authority lies now. We have seen what happens when this Government try to deliver transport projects with too much centralised control. We have seen the pausing, and the un-pausing, of the electrification of the TransPennine route, and we have seen airport expansion kicked into the long grass for decades. The Great Western main line electrification announced by Labour has also been delayed by the Tories, with its costs spiralling from under £550 million in 2011 to £2.8 billion today.

Despite the Minister’s fine words and the undoubted good intentions of the Secretary of State, it appears that the Government are still too timid to really let go. I hope that the listening mode they have declared they are in today means they will think about how they can go further with these proposals by the time we reach Report.