Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Gillan. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) for joining me in my application.

I said in my application to the Backbench Business Committee that I am always willing to approach issues of industrial safety with an open mind and a willingness to consider the concerns of the workforce. The reason for that can be summed up in one word: asbestos. We have a terrible legacy of asbestos and mesothelioma in my constituency, and no one would wish to find themselves on the wrong side of history when it comes to a potentially serious health issue in the workplace. From the outset, I acknowledge that I understand and appreciate that aerotoxic syndrome is not yet a recognised medical condition, but it is something of considerable debate, hence our having this debate today.

I am not a medical professional, and I am not saying that it should be down to us as MPs to decide what is a recognised medical condition. However, aerotoxic syndrome has attracted a great deal of attention, both from passengers and, crucially, from those working in the airline industry, which is why it is right for us to have this debate today. Workers are worried, and we have a responsibility to treat the issue seriously. Everybody deserves to have confidence that the air they breathe in the workplace is clean and safe. Many people have got in touch with me since I secured the debate, and they are extremely grateful that their concerns are being raised in the House today. My aim is to present the concerns that have been raised and to make some requests of the Government, which I hope the Minister will listen to and accept.

I will now provide some background for those following the debate who may not be well versed in the topic. The key factor is the use of bleed air to provide a pressurised air supply to the cabin during flights. Bleed air is compressed air from the jet engines, and it is used by the vast majority of passenger aircraft in operation today. The problem arises when faults with engine seals cause seepage into the cockpit and cabin, which in turn can lead to contaminated fumes containing toxins being digested by people on board the plane. It is worrying that the long-term and short-term effects of exposure to contaminated air containing such toxins is not fully known, nor has enough work been done to establish the link between contaminated air and aerotoxic syndrome.

Aerotoxic syndrome affects the peripheral and central nervous systems and the brain. Symptoms include migraines, fatigue, difficulty thinking, numbness, aches and pains, breathing problems and digestive problems. Furthermore, there has been a significant rise in the number of cases, which simply cannot be ignored. It is significant that the Unite trade union tells me that it is currently acting on behalf of 61 individual cases. There is evidence pointing to aerotoxic syndrome being an illness to which cabin crew, not to mention passengers, may be exposed, and it must be treated seriously.

One of the aims of today’s debate is to raise the profile of cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome. Until recently I was not particularly aware of aerotoxic syndrome. Today’s debate has caught the attention of the national press and has brought the issue to wider prominence, which can only be a good thing. The issue came to my attention in a briefing for MPs organised by the Unite trade union, of which I am proud to declare myself a member. Unite has been doing some fantastic work on the issue and is doing exactly what a good trade union should do, which is representing the interests and concerns of the workforce. The Government’s attitude towards trade unions can often be quite negative, as evidenced by the Trade Union Bill, but they would be wrong to dismiss this issue raised by the trade unions. We should all agree that representation of the workforce to ensure a safe and healthy environment is a right for all working people.

The briefing was attended by the father of Matthew Bass, which struck a chord with me and other Members present. Matthew, known as Matt to his friends, was a British Airways flight attendant who sadly died in January 2014, having been in the job for almost a decade. He loved his job, and it was a shock to his friends and loved ones when he passed away. He was just 34 years of age. The cause of his death has not been established, but he kept himself fit and healthy. In the last six months of his life, he frequently complained of tiredness and occasionally suffered mild bouts of trembling. After his death, post-mortem tests ruled out Crohn’s disease but failed to establish an alternative cause of death. His family still have many questions, not least as to whether aerotoxic syndrome had some responsibility. My sympathies, and surely those of the whole House, are with Matt’s family and friends as they search for answers. We owe it to him and them to help to find those answers and to take the issue seriously.

Furthermore, the senior coroner for the county of Dorset wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority last year regarding his concerns about the death of British Airways pilot Richard Westgate. He wrote that organophosphate compounds, which are present in aircraft cabin air, were found in Mr Westgate’s system and presented a risk to health. Worryingly, there is no real-time monitoring to detect such compounds. The coroner also added that, in his opinion, there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is relevant to the organophosphate poisoning campaign run by the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group, with which I have worked on behalf of my constituent, a farmer, Stephen Forward. This is obviously a Department for Transport debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that the debate is equally relevant to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health and that we need the Government to be far more active in addressing these issues?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record. I was not aware of the DEFRA angle until she informed me of it, which further reinforces the case and people’s concerns. I would be particularly interested if the Minister addressed that point and the coroner’s letter regarding the British Airways pilot.

By raising this issue I am in no way seeking to do down the British aerospace industry, which I am sure is true of everyone here today. The aerospace industry is a vital part of the UK’s manufacturing output, and I am proud that that is particularly the case in north-west England—and long may that continue. I also have no desire to do down the UK’s successful aviation industry and this country’s world-class airports, which are another vital part of the UK economy. Like many Members present, I have a strong relationship with my local airport in Manchester.

Airlines have a duty of care to their staff, as do all workplaces, and I am sure they would want to reassure their staff on safety. I will be writing to the UK’s major airlines to find out exactly what they are doing on this issue. I dare say that pressure from the Government would strengthen that campaign. Many concerns have been raised by Unite and by cabin crew, and we have a duty of care to those people to reassure them and, if necessary, to protect them.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman says about the duty of care. I imagine that no one here would feel comfortable working in an environment where we and our customers may possibly be exposed to the risk of breathing in contaminated fumes.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for coming along to the debate and making that point. She is absolutely right. By addressing issues where concerns exist, it only strengthens an industry if it can reassure its workers and service users that their safety is guaranteed. I am sure we would all echo that point.

No one disputes that fume events, where toxins enter the cabin, occur. Estimates suggest that fume events happen at least once in every 2,000 flights. Given the number of flights in the UK every day, that weighs on the mind. It should be of great concern that no aircraft currently flying has any form of detection system fitted to warn crews when cabin air has become contaminated. Furthermore, there is a lack of training and crew awareness of the possible adverse consequences of contaminated air exposure in the cockpit and cabin. There are even examples of crews saying that they felt they became impaired or incapacitated in-flight as a direct consequence of exposure.

I have two requests that I would like the Minister to consider and to which I hope he will refer in his speech. First, I would like an independent inquiry to be set up to consider the risks and hazards associated with contaminated aircraft cabin air. Setting up an inquiry has a lot of support both from unions and cabin crew, and it is the right thing to do. I do not believe that adequate work has been done on the issue yet, and such work would answer a lot of questions. I seriously urge the Minister to consider making that happen. If not, I would appreciate a reply as to why it is not possible now.

Secondly, I would like appropriate cabin air monitoring and detection systems to be installed in aircraft that operate using bleed air. I am told that the technology exists to do that, and it seems to make sense to do so. The Government could consider legislation to make that happen or, at the very least, they could begin discussions with airlines and our European counterparts. Just as it is now commonplace for homes and workplaces to install simple carbon monoxide detectors to prevent tragic deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning, so we must ensure that it is the norm for aeroplanes to be fitted with devices that can detect air bleed events.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

This issue was brought to my attention not by Unite but by a constituent of mine, Alessia Iacovone, who was a colleague of Matt Bass. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not only about the desire for an explanation of why colleagues die; it is about the fact—this is precisely the point he made—that cabin crew working for BA and other airlines do not know at present whether or how frequently they are at risk, because there is no monitoring on board aircraft?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is exactly my perspective in bringing this debate. From what I have seen, there is enough concern out there to warrant a serious attempt to reassure people that their safety is secure. That can only be an asset to the UK aviation and aerospace industry.

To bring my remarks to a conclusion, I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for granting us the time to debate this issue. I thank my fellow sponsors, Unite for the help it has given me in my office and the many cabin crew workers who have assisted Unite and contacted me directly to bring the issue to greater prominence. I appreciate that aviation issues tend to lend themselves to international solutions and that the matter is being discussed in several other countries too. It is significant that the new Boeing Dreamliners do not operate the bleed air system, and I understand that that may eventually become the industry standard. In the meantime, however, a clear majority of aircraft still operate the bleed air system, so the issue will not go away.

Out of respect for the many thousands of cabin crew who work in this vital industry, let us take action to ensure that we know everything we can about cabin air safety. By arming ourselves with greater knowledge, we can better place ourselves to guarantee them the safe working conditions that we expect for all workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I am going to come on to the frequency of fume events. I think none of the toxicologists or other scientists involved in the projects consider that there is a risk in the normal background level of chemicals in an aircraft cabin. As I have said, those are similar to the levels found in any other setting in the UK. The fume events are what we need to look at, and I will be discussing a little more evidence that I have been given about the frequency of those events.

As a toxic mechanism could not be categorically ruled out as the cause of the symptoms, the Committee concluded that more research would be beneficial. It stated, however, that it would be necessary to balance the likelihood that the further research will usefully inform further management of the problem against the costs of undertaking the research. There are various aspects of the issue to take into consideration, including the results of the research that has been undertaken and the unpredictability and rarity of the fume events. I said I would have some information on that. The Civil Aviation Authority operates a mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme and, contrary to what we may have heard during the debate, the CAA is determined that every type of occurrence should be reported. Indeed, if airlines do not report instances, questions are asked about whether their culture is a good one.

When I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport we visited the CAA and were given a list of the sorts of reports that came forward, which included things that people might not see as relevant, such as both pilots eating the same sandwich. That would be an issue if there were a food poisoning incident. Even what might seem trivial and unimportant incidents must be reported, and there is a culture of reporting in the airline industry, not least in the case of fume events, which people are well aware of.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister is being very generous. How does the CAA envisage the compulsory reporting of incidents being carried out, when there is not the monitoring available to find out whether one has occurred or not?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am advised that if a fume event occurs it is apparent to everyone on the aircraft. The smell of the oil is absolutely apparent to people. As I mentioned, there is a culture of reporting in the CAA and the aviation industry—which, incidentally, we would like to spread to the health service, where near misses and potential accidents are often not reported. Its reporting culture ensures that the aviation industry is one of the safest in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Mr Hanson, thank you for the opportunity to summarise the debate. I reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for awarding us the time. I am extremely grateful for the support of colleagues in the debate, which has been well attended, particularly as we are in the second day of the Budget debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), who obviously stressed that this is a cross-party issue. I was remiss in my introduction not to specifically thank the hon. Member for Crawley for his existing parliamentary work on the topic. It was the first thing that I looked at when addressing the issue. That is much appreciated and I am grateful to be able to do that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for their support for the debate and for the points that they raised.

In addition, I thank the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I am, of course, grateful for the contributions of the Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who made an excellent speech, and, indeed, for the Minister’s response.

In my opening speech I said that I felt I had seen and heard enough to warrant the call for an inquiry into the issue. That view has only been strengthened by listening to the testimony and speeches of colleagues who have come along to the debate today. I wanted to bring a specific point to the Minister’s attention—and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield echoed this—which is that I have copies of the American Federal Aviation Administration’s presentations on the new Dreamliner, suggesting that cabin air was among the design considerations for the new 787. I would be happy to send those to the Minister, although I am sure he has the means to obtain them himself.

Notwithstanding the very good speech the Minister made presenting his position and the seriousness with which he took the issue, it seems unlikely that the controversy will diminish. I think it is reasonable to say that the studies he mentioned have not reassured many people working in the industry to date, and that must be our primary concern.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and the hon. Member for Horsham said, which was that, until we can rule out an adverse effect on health, it is reasonable to consider the precautionary principle. I certainly intend to continue my interest in the issue and to call for a full inquiry, and I urge hon. Members present to continue to do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Mr Speaker, I am glad that you share my excitement about the improvements in the rail networks. We have set up the £400 million Access for All scheme, which has been wisely and well spent. I am always happy to look at additional station improvements and to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). I have nine train stations in my constituency. Unfortunately, about half are inaccessible for people in wheelchairs or with prams. We were using Access for All to improve those stations. The funding has been cut in half. Are we really doing enough?

[Claire Perry]

I am afraid I dispute the statement that funding has been cut in half. The first phase of the programme—£400 million—was delivered, but I am always keen to look at cost-effective ways to improve access for disabled people and young mothers with buggies, for whom a flight of stairs, as I know, and dads like the hon. Gentleman with his daughter know, can be a real problem. I am happy to meet further to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Like my hon. Friend I have also visited the Vivarail facility, and there are fantastic innovations with rolling stock that is made of aluminium, is rust free, and could run for many more years. The East Midland franchise competition is coming up this summer, and the successful bidder will be required to bid based on the rolling stock they will provide. We expect them to be innovative and to consider each and every opportunity for rolling stock. We want to improve the rolling stock in my hon. Friend’s region.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The proposed trans-Pennine tunnel mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) would be transformative, not just for congestion in my constituency, but for our local economy. Yes it is ambitious, but I say that the north is worthy of that level of ambition. Will the Secretary of State reiterate what he has just said, and urge the Chancellor to show his support next week?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think I need to encourage the Chancellor on infrastructure spending. I have been incredibly successful in securing funding for infrastructure from the Chancellor, who certainly gets the importance of infrastructure investment, not least in the north. Indeed, it is his policy to pursue the northern powerhouse and to take forward transport for the north. That will have a transformative effect on transport between our northern cities and is something other parts of the country are looking to follow.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

I am not excusing previous Governments. There was under-investment in our railways—in the infrastructure and in the running of them—by both political parties. That is why I supported the privatisation in the early ’90s, which has been more than justified by the significant investment in the rail network and its infrastructure since then. If no one thinks that that has happened, they should look at the current control period: in the five-year control period 5, £38.5 billion will be spent investing in and improving the infrastructure of the railways. If we are to going to be slightly political, under the control period proposals, it will be nice to see about 850 extra miles of electrification. In the 13 years of the Labour Government, when they were investing more in the railways, there were only 10 miles of extra electrification on our rail network.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

This will become a Second Reading debate on public ownership if we are not careful.

There is a great deal of heat in the debate, and not much light. I have no time for those who pretend that British Rail was somehow a high-performing publicly owned service. Clearly, there were huge problems, with political interference in the investment periods and all of that leading to the creation of short-term problems. One thing that I struggle with a great deal, however, when comparing rail with other privatised industries is that, as the right hon. Gentleman just said, investment in the railways still comes from the taxpayer and not the private sector, so the risk is not in the private sector, but in the public sector. We, as the people who use the railways and pay our taxes, are the ones who put in the investment. It is Government money, not private money, that will be invested in the control period, is it not?

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is partly right; some of the money is taxpayers’ money, but a significant proportion of what funds the £38 billion over the next five years will be paid by the rail operators to rent the track. There is also the ability for private money to be borrowed for investment, so no, it is not exclusively—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Gentleman nods his head in a negative way, but he is wrong. The investment of £38 billion in CP5 is not 100% taxpayers’ money. As I said, part of it is rent accrued from the rail operators, which pay to use the track.

Since privatisation, there has been a will and determination to invest, as well as the actual delivery of investment, to bring our railways up to scratch. The process is time-consuming, sadly, because of the problems arising from the earlier lack of investment. The other sad thing for rail users is that a lot of the investment that is badly needed to improve journey times and the reliability of the service is not seen immediately by them. New rolling stock is immediately seen by commuters and travellers, obviously, and they benefit from it, but when we improve and upgrade the track or the overhead cables on that part of the railway that is being electrified, users do not see the outcome of the investment in the same way. However, such investment is still critical to improving the performance of our railways. I am confident that that will continue.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned the east coast main line. I would be the first to accept that it was a well-run part of the network, but it was run under Directly Operated Railways because the last Labour Government rightly withdrew the franchise from the franchisee because there was dissatisfaction with the way it was operating the line. DOR is an emergency mechanism that was introduced in the legislation on privatising the railways because there is a legal requirement for the railways to provide a service all the time. To avoid a hiatus if there is a problem with the franchise, DOR will, for a fixed period of time only, step in to ensure continuity of service.

The hon. Gentleman kept talking about a state-run service. I suppose that DOR could, by definition, be called state-run, but it was not meant to run the line for ever. Even the Labour Transport Secretary who took the action made it plain at the time that there was not going to be a never-ending provision of service by DOR.

--- Later in debate ---

I am clear that we have a chance here to take control. That is what the public want. Whenever they are asked, they say they want it to go to a publicly owned railway. People do not want to go back to the days of mouldy cheese sandwiches and trains that rattle; they want a quality railway service, and we can have that if we apply the lessons we have learned and commit ourselves as a nation, whoever is Secretary of State for Transport, to maintain the level of support that the railways need and deserve.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I did not intend to speak, but as the debate is so interesting I cannot resist the chance to say a few things. In my experience, this debate always reflects pre-existing ideological positions and, frankly, does not often tend to delve into the intricacies of what is best for running a railway. That can be seen in all parts of the House of Commons whenever this debate comes up.

For Government Members there are some difficult facts about our present system that need to be addressed. The existing railway in the UK could not strictly be described as a privatised system. It is a hybrid system; the way that it was initially privatised secured that. A true privatised system would perhaps have been to bring back the Big Four railway companies and have them compete against each other, but that is not what we have at the moment.

There has to be acknowledgment that the system depends on public subsidy. A railway system for a country such as ours would always need a large amount of subsidy. The way that we do that now is to give the subsidy to Network Rail for the infrastructure. When we talk about the francishees paying premiums to the taxpayer, it is because we set the access charges according to the subsidy that we give. It is still a system that requires a net contribution from the taxpayer.

We also have to reflect on the fact that the existing hybrid system is as it is because the initial privatisation simply could not cope with the liabilities. Railtrack simply could not deliver on what was promised, even in the initial honeymoon period. There has to be a reflection that East Coast did work extremely well, even if it was initially intended for a limited period. In effect, many of our railway operations are publicly owned; they are just publicly owned by foreign Governments. Their subsidiary companies operate our system. In addition, our ticketing system is bizarre and complex, and much more expensive than in comparable European countries.

The Opposition and those who traditionally push a nationalised position have to reflect that British Rail was a poor service. We cannot look back to any golden era; I have never pretended that that existed. Equally, when we talk about East Coast we have to reflect that that operated within an overall system of incentives and penalties; that is the privatised operations system that we have.

Fundamentally, we have to recognise that franchises are contracts. Contracts can be good; they can be bad. Some of our initial franchise agreements on the railway were frankly abysmal in the system they operated. Others that have been let more recently have been more effective.

I will vote for the new clause for two reasons: integration and flexibility. Railway systems around the world tend to be more successful with a higher degree of integration between infrastructure and operations. Our existing system causes real problems, and many of the problems for passengers come from that lack of integration.

As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford said, flexibility is the key issue. He mentioned the additional operations from Scarborough being run by Virgin. Although that is welcome, flexibility is the crucial problem with the franchise system. Northern has had huge demand in terms of passenger numbers—it has happened in my constituency. The economy has fundamentally changed and there is huge demand for rail services—in many ways it is a golden era for the railway. However, the franchise agreement could not respond to that demand. It was let on the assumption of zero growth, and I would not have complaints about the people and the process for doing that. Yet we have all the problems of a bureaucratic, nationalised system and none of the attractions of a market system, which would respond to a price signal from the market. That is why we have problems of overcrowding, poor services and inability to meet demand.

There are many examples of successful, publicly-owned railways around the world. I recently got back from Hong Kong, which is not renowned as a socialist utopia—it is a dynamic, capitalist part of the world economy, with a publicly-owned railway. We can always look to examples from that country; indeed, we need to look around the world for best practice in running a railway. I am comfortable with the new clause, because we need to look at how best we can integrate our railway, to deliver the best deal for passengers. It should be permissive: we always need to leave the door open for a more integrated system, even if we have our existing hybrid system at the moment, which—based on the length of those franchise agreements—will be with us for a considerable time. This conversation needs to be focused more on the best way to run a railway and less on pre-existing ideological positions.

[Mr Goodwill]

The intention of the proposed new clause is to require passenger services operating on whole or part of the high speed line to be provided by a publicly-owned railway company, essentially nationalising HS2 train services. I regularly travel on the east coast main line—indeed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I travelled on the same train on Monday morning, on the Grand Central service, which was set up by buccaneering free market innovator Tom Clift, who is sadly no longer with us, and his team. That successful open-access operator has been taken over by Deutsche Bahn. It regularly tops the league in passenger satisfaction and punctuality. Most of the staff come from Sunderland and they are a model of the customer service that we expect on our railways.

The proposed clause would restrict the operating structure of HS2 at this early stage—essentially seeking to nationalise the HS2 rail service, which is against the broader principles of how successful rail services in the UK are currently operating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has done my job for me in making the case to reject this new clause.

With regard to the commercial operation of phase 1 of HS2, it is imperative that we keep our options open. With the line not due to open until 2026, decisions on the commercial model to operate HS2 are some time away. Whatever those decisions might be, they will be made to seek the best value. This is about delivering the best service at the best price for the passenger and the taxpayer, not pandering to outdated 1970s socialist dogma. The rail franchising system is designed to deliver benefits for passengers and taxpayers, which are realised through competition. Since privatisation the rail industry has been transformed, with passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years, from 750 million to around 1.6 billion. We believe that this remains the right approach overall in delivering the best value for the country and tax and fare payers.

The model that is being delivered in the UK is being emulated around Europe: for example, National Express is operating two franchises in Germany. As we have heard, the east coast main line is extending new services to Middlesbrough and Sunderland, and we have heard this week that a direct service to Scarborough is being considered. If one needed an image that encapsulates what is wrong with British Rail, it would be the pacer train, which was built by British Rail under a nationalised British Leyland. It was an infinitely unpopular train, and when this Government came to power we gave a pledge to phase it out.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister and I have had this exchange about the pacer train before. Has the longevity of the pacer train not been due in part to the fact that they are very cheap to run? Under the franchised model, it has been very hard to get rid of them, unless there has been an explicit overruling of the market system by Ministers. The private operations—the market—cannot get rid of the pacer trains; it has to be a political decision.

[Mr Goodwill]

The pacer train was the offspring of the position that a state-run railway can often find itself in, faced with other demands on public sector finances, not least the health service. Built on the cheap, with single-axle units without bogies and the correct suspension, the pacer trains were never going to be fit for purpose and were very unpopular. I am delighted that the Government are going to phase them out.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Surely the Minister recognises that he, or certainly his Secretary of State, has had explicitly to overrule the civil service—by ministerial direction—to get rid of the pacer trains. There has had to be an explicit political decision, because the market alone would not have got rid of it.

[Mr Goodwill]

Another factor in our ability to phase out the pacer is the fact that with new rolling stock coming in in so many areas, we have other rolling stock cascading down to replace the pacers. This is a direct result of the investment in the rolling stock. On the east coast main line we look forward very much to the IEP trains built by Hitachi in the north-east, which, I think, will be a phenomenal improvement to that service and free up rolling stock for some of the new services that will be provided on the non-electrified part of the network.

Section 24 of the Railways Act 1993 states that the appropriate designating authority—in the case of HS2, the Secretary of State—may by order grant exemption from designation of a service to require a franchise under section 23(1) of that Act. Therefore, if so decided, the HS2 service will not require a franchise. However, as I have already stressed, the commercial model to operate the HS2 infrastructure and train service are yet to be determined. To speculate, it may well involve some sort of transitional phase in the early years.

With the ability to exempt a service from the franchise requirement set out in the Railways Act 1993, I do not believe it is necessary to include the proposed new clause in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause, although I am not too optimistic that he will.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

As we have just heard, clause 48 refers to compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation. It enables the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order if he considers that the construction or operation of phase 1 of HS2 gives rise to an opportunity for regeneration or development of that land. The clause further enables the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order to acquire land to relocate all or part of an undertaking where, as a result of the exercise of powers under the Bill, the former site is no longer reasonably capable of being used for the undertaking. Subsection (4) provides that the normal process relating to compulsory orders is to apply.

The power is included in the Bill because Ministers wish to maximise the potential economic benefits from phase 1 of HS2 to ensure that local areas make the most of the opportunities that the railway will provide and to support relocation of businesses. It is considered that phase 1 of HS2 will give rise to significant opportunities to promote or facilitate regeneration development. However, assembling a coherent and developable site is an essential part of bringing forward such development and that would not be possible without the ability to have recourse to the powers of compulsory purchase.

As we say in information paper C11, we see this as a backstop power. It would normally be for local landowners and local authorities to come together to assemble land to bring forward regeneration. However, that may not be possible in some cases and regeneration opportunities could be lost. Ebbsfleet is a good example because development, although now under way, has been much delayed and such powers could have enabled more effective land assembly earlier.

Of course, all that does not mean that phase 1 of HS2 will be able to take land wherever it wants. All the measure does is enable the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory order when the construction or operation of phase 1 creates regeneration or development opportunities. Such an order would then need to go through the normal process, including a local inquiry, if there were objections.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think I get the gist of what the Minister is saying. When a regeneration project, perhaps in Manchester or on another part of the line, is connected to the benefits that HS2 will bring, does he expect the normal process of land accumulation and scheme formation to occur? Is this measure a reserved power should there be a legal problem in assembling the site? “Backstop power” was the phrase he used. Does he envisage that the normal process would apply for regeneration work to occur in a local area?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The owners of land close to HS2 stations or areas where HS2 will have an economic benefit will be grasping such opportunities with both hands. The land will have achieved an uplift in value and the opportunities will be fantastic. Problems might include a particular landowner not wanting to co-operate or another acquisition problem. This is not just about land development, but about the relocation of businesses, and I can think of one or two such examples. We need to be sure that we can bring forward viable opportunities for businesses to be relocated, which will protect those particular jobs.

To promote a compulsory purchase order successfully, the Secretary of State would need to demonstrate three things. First, that a private purchase is not possible, so the land should be taken compulsorily. Secondly, that there is a reasonable prospect of the proposed development coming forward—in other words, that there is no obvious reason why planning permission would not be granted if has not been already. Thirdly, that there is a compelling public-interest need for the land. Taking an individual’s land interferes with their fundamental human rights, so it is only right that significant protections should be in place. The power does not change those protections at all. Although it extends beyond the construction period into operation, checks and balances will continue to be in place.

Although local authorities already have the power to make compulsory purchase orders, it does not always happen. The power is there to ensure that development does happen, and we would expect local authorities to take the opportunity to lead development in their areas. However, in certain circumstances local authorities might be unable to do so, either because regeneration opportunities straddle local authority boundaries or because a local authority does not have the specialist resource to undertake the compulsory purchase order process. In such circumstances, if development is not coming forward in a timeframe that maximises the opportunity, the Government will be able to use this power to accelerate the process, following consultation with the relevant local authority.

Of course, there are safeguards to protect landowners. Planning permission for any developments would need to be obtained in the usual way, and the compulsory purchase order would be made only if there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining planning permission and the compulsory acquisition could be justified as being in the public interest.

I turn to the amendments. The purpose of clause 48(1) is to ensure that the development and regeneration opportunities that HS2 presents are maximised in a timely manner. However, it is a backstop power. We expect local authorities or landowners to be able to capitalise on any opportunities. Indeed, that is already happening. For example, Birmingham City Council has already published its plans for the development of the Curzon Street area, and we support it on that. However, in the event that there are issues that impede development, such as effective land packaging, regeneration areas straddling different local authority boundaries and so on, we will have the ability to step in and to help the development progress. Any such developments that require land outside the Bill limits would require the promotion of a compulsory purchase order and, as I have explained, the rules are tightly drawn and must be adhered to.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Third sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I get the impression that we are now into territory that is not as consensual as it was, although we would all agree that it is important to get the best possible value when assets owned by the state are transferred to a buyer or via a share issue to the general public. It is absolutely right that if someone is selling off what some people might call the family silver they get a fair value, although that perhaps would not apply to the family gold under the Brown Government—in hindsight, that was not such a good deal.

I will not speculate too much on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, such as Royal Mail, but the process of privatisation has been successful. British Airways is now an international group. Engineering companies such as Rolls-Royce, and others such as BT and British Gas were all state owned, and all have gone on to become international companies unfettered by the restrictions that the state can often impose.

Clause 45 allows the Secretary of State to make schemes to transfer property rights and/or liabilities from HS2 to another person, which includes the Secretary of State. This power also allows the transfer to take place mid-delivery should it be required. Subsection (3) introduces schedule 30, which makes further provision about transfer schemes made under the clause.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening to the Minister very carefully and I agree that there are many good examples of British industries that have performed very well in the private sector from the ‘70s and ‘80s. But he would surely separate that out conceptually from ensuring that a fair price for the taxpayer is raised at the initial point of issue of those shares in the private sector? If he reflects, he will admit that in various high-profile cases, particularly under this Government and the coalition Government, there was a feeling out there that state assets were undersold to increase the gain as quickly as possible for the people buying them. Those two issues are surely separate.

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, yes, often hindsight is a marvellous thing and markets move in different directions. It has always been the Government’s intention to ensure that we get best value, but also to ensure that share issues are taken up. There is a difficult balance between pitching a price at such a level that the shares are taken up and pitching a price that achieves best value. However, the track record of this Government shows that we have been stalwart custodians of the public purse. We have not wasted money. We have borne down on the deficit. We have got sound money back again in our economy and there is confidence around the world that we are sound managers of public finances. Indeed, in the Budget later this month, we will see more examples of that being delivered to the House.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (First sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Public Bill Committees

It is imperative that as we proceed through the Bill we do everything to make sure we delineate and specify the scope and range of the Bill. Anything that is to be done in future should have a process and a methodology to produce the greatest possible degree of openness and transparency. A report laid before Parliament and publication on the nominated undertaker’s website would achieve that. I trust that the Minister sees the logic of what we are proposing, but we will press the matter to a Division if it is not accepted.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to be here in Committee. I have served on Bill Committees that have been likened to being on a long train journey in the same carriage with the same people for several weeks. However, at two weeks, this is a high-speed Committee.

I am a supporter of HS2 and have been a supporter of investment in our rail network for some time. HS2 is a very good project for my constituency and for Greater Manchester. That is widely recognised, and the justification is capacity. Even when a lot of publicity was initially given to the speed of the journey time, for me the project was always about capacity. The figures bear that out. Anyone who has caught a train at a particular time from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly will be familiar with our capacity problems. It is extremely clear when we look at the alternatives that patching the existing network or building a new line that is not a high-speed line will not meet the capacity need. The evidence is that we need a project such as this. We have support for the project from both sides of the House of Commons and we should proceed as soon as possible.

The consensus on the merits of the project means that we have to be particularly diligent in Committee to make sure that the powers granted to the Government in the Bill are proportionate and effective. As has been said, the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill went through an extremely good process and garnered more support for the project as it proceeded. I read clause 4, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough did, as a wide-ranging and permissive set of powers, particularly subsection (4). My reading of it makes it, in legal terms, the same as a compulsory purchase order. There will be understandable concerns that it will weaken accountability and the scrutiny that we gave the provision in the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill. We need to be careful that we do not lose some of the good will that we have garnered so far in this process. I hope that the Minister will make clear why the clause is drafted as widely as it is. Will he tell us the benefits of the clause over the reasonable amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough?

[Mr Goodwill]

As we have already discussed, clause 4 refers to powers to acquire land compulsorily. Compulsory powers are needed because they are a tried and tested method of delivering major infrastructure projects. We have provided safeguards for property owners that go beyond the statutory requirements under normal compulsory purchase rules. For example, we have introduced the voluntary purchase scheme for properties between 60 and 120 metres from the centre of the railway and the need-to-sell scheme for those who have suffered perceived blight due to the railway. The latter has no geographical limit.

The detail of the modifications is set out in the schedule. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about the importance of capacity. We need to be clear that when we talk about capacity, we are talking about people standing on trains. On most weekday mornings about 4,000 or 5,000 people are standing on trains into Euston and a smaller but still significant number are standing on trains into Birmingham New Street.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned clause 65(c). This does not seek to purchase land specifically for phase 2; it relates only to land within limits and does not give a general power to acquire land. While I am not against the flow of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I believe that we have already addressed his fears in the way we have drafted the Bill. Indeed, clause 4(1) contains the power to acquire all land required for the scheme. The Bill divides that land into different categories. The main category is land within the limits of deviation for the work set out in schedule 1. Other land needed for construction and ancillary purposes is specified and identified in schedules 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, together with the purpose for which that land is required. There is, therefore, no land within clause 4(1) that is not specifically authorised for compulsory purchase.

Transport: Glossop and High Peak

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

This is the second time that I have called a debate on the roads in and around Glossop, and I make no apology for debating the subject again in the Chamber. I have called a second debate tonight because of the events of recent weeks, when the inadequacy of these roads has created more misery for my constituents. Such is the strength of feeling about the matter among people who live in High Peak, particularly in Glossop, that there is now a petition on the parliamentary website created by my constituent David Saggerson. As we know, such petitions will trigger a debate if they receive 100,000 signatures. I did not want to wait for that so I am using the Adjournment debate mechanism to hold the debate that almost 3,000 people have already signed up for.

It was recently reported that the viewing figures for the BBC Parliament channel had hit an all-time high. If those figures were measured again tonight around Glossop, and perhaps also in Stalybridge and Hyde, I am sure they would be even greater. That is not because of my constituents’ desire to follow every word and deed of their Member of Parliament—I wish that were so—but it is testament to the desperate need felt in and around Glossop for a solution to the deplorable situation facing residents as they attempt to go about their everyday business. I feel sure that following tonight’s debate, the Minister’s and my own Twitter feeds will see a significant increase in traffic, as will my Facebook page.

In the time allowed, I cannot begin to convey the frustration felt by my residents about this issue, but I intend to try. From our previous conversations I know that the Minister is aware of the situation, but I shall add some background and context.

The Mottram-Tintwistle bypass has become almost as fabled as the Loch Ness monster. Governments of all colours have threatened and promised to deliver it and have conspicuously failed. When I was first elected in 2010, I was conscious of the need to promise my best efforts to deliver this badly needed and much delayed road. I and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) put aside our political differences and joined forces in an attempt to sort the issue out once and for all.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which will be genuinely appreciated in our part of the world. I appreciate the opportunity we have had to work together constructively to make progress on the issue. In 2010, in a difficult financial climate, we were told that this was not a viable option, yet we have been able to make progress, for which I am extremely grateful, as are my constituents.

I also want briefly to thank the Minister. We have dealt with many roads Ministers over the years, but I have always found the current one attentive and genuinely serious about trying to help us. I know that he is planning to visit us very soon, which I appreciate.

The recent problems around Glossop are absolutely untenable, even for a part of the world that is used to congestion. The situation in Broadbottom, Mottram and Hollingworth was unbearable while the roadworks were taking place. The only answer is a bypass. There are two points that I hope the hon. Gentleman will address in his speech. First, the bypass must go around Hollingworth as well as Mottram; that is the comprehensive solution we need. Secondly, we need the consultation to begin as soon as possible.

[Andrew Bingham]

I completely agree. Politically, the hon. Gentleman and I are miles apart, but on this matter we are in total agreement, as we will continue to be.

In 2010 the hon. Gentleman and I gathered together the key organisations and commissioned our own study, which we managed to get funded, to produce evidence that would confirm what we both knew to be obvious, as did the people of Glossop, Stalybridge and Hyde, which is that the situation then, as now, was unacceptable. The roads are simply not up to the needs of our residents. In the ensuing time we have pursued the matter relentlessly, both together and independently. That culminated in a meeting I had with the Chancellor at No. 11 Downing Street, during which I impressed on him the seriousness of the problem and how we could not ignore it any longer as it was only going to get worse.

In late 2014 I was delighted that, following our work, the Government announced the building of the Mottram Moor link road and the A57 link road, which is known locally as the Glossop spur. It was not the full solution that I have campaigned for—I will refer to that later—but we were promised that a study would be done to examine extending it to deal with the problems faced at Tintwistle in my constituency and Hollingworth in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. On that point, I strongly argue that the scheme should indeed be extended, along the lines of the original Mottram and Tintwistle bypass plan put forward years ago, because we need that for those two small villages.

I realise that the Minister will not have the intimate knowledge of the area that I do. I could embark on a long description of the road networks, the junctions and the geography, but by happy coincidence he will visit High Peak tomorrow, and I look forward to showing him the situation at first hand. Seeing it for himself will demonstrate the problem far better than any description I could give tonight. I would like to thank him in advance for visiting High Peak. Tonight I want to try to impress upon him a sense of the difficulties being faced, the impact they are having on my constituents and the urgency of the issue. In order to do that, I need to relate some of the happenings of the past few weeks.

The town of Glossop and the surrounding area are home to over 30,000 people. Despite being in the east midlands, Glossop very much faces Manchester and the north-west, for employment, leisure and many other facets of life. Consequently, there is a huge volume of traffic that heads in and through Glossop as people travel to, from and between Greater Manchester and Sheffield. There are only two effective roads heading north from Glossop to Manchester, one of which relies on a single-track bridge that was never designed to carry significant amounts of traffic. The fact that it is even considered by motorists, let alone used, proves the point I am making about the existing roads.

However, due to the congestion on the main route out of town, that route north has become a well-used alternative—until earlier this month, when a burst water main washed away the road surface in the village of Charlesworth, forcing its closure. The consequences were catastrophic. I received many emails from constituents, some of whom were leaving home well before dawn just to get out of Glossop and get to work for 9 am, and they were facing similar travel times when trying to get home. Indeed, when I was trying to get to Stalybridge one Friday evening I was forced to take a detour of several miles to complete the journey.

The closure of what is, in effect, only a back road pretty much gridlocked Glossop, and indeed the whole area, for over a week. I was informed that the chaos was such that a child who had suffered a seizure in Glossop and who needed an urgent ambulance faced an unacceptable delay, purely because of the blocked roads, so this catastrophic situation could easily have turned into a tragedy.

A further complication that week was the cancellation of trains, which meant that more cars went on to roads that were already overburdened. However, I must stress that the Minister should not think that last week’s traffic problems were the cause of the problem; they were only the result of the contributory factors I have outlined, and they only exaggerated an already truly unacceptable situation.

Earlier this week, the M62 was blocked. Yet again, trans-Pennine traffic looking for an alternative route was forced on to the Woodhead Pass, which converges with the A57 just outside Glossop. The ensuing traffic chaos caused traffic jams going back huge distances, snaking through Tintwistle and several miles beyond.

I want to focus briefly on Tintwistle, which the Minister will visit tomorrow. A constituent, Vicky Mullis, who is a resident of Tintwistle, invited me to meet the village’s residents to talk about the problems it faces. As the Minister will see tomorrow, they feel their houses physically shake as heavy goods vehicles thunder past, literally a few feet from their front doors. Furthermore, when the traffic backs up, as it did earlier this week, cars resort to taking short cuts through the village to try to get in front of the other traffic—they are using the roads as a rat run. I am trying to convince Derbyshire County Council, as the highways authority for those roads, to take action. Thus far, it seems somewhat impervious to my protestations, but I will continue.

That is why I still fully support looking at extending the proposed scheme. The scheme does much for Glossop and for parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. However, it does nothing for Tintwistle, so the extension is as crucial as going ahead with the two link roads already in the programme.

There are more factors we can take into account when we consider the need for this solution. Significant planning consents have recently been granted in Glossop. That will increase the population and thereby increase traffic levels.

The imminent withdrawal of the 394 bus service from Glossop to Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport—I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) are trying to find ways to preserve the route—could move more constituents who have cars on to the roads. I could use more of the debate to talk about the 394 bus alone, because a lot of constituents are contacting me about it, and they are alarmed at the loss of that vital service. However, I want to return to the issue of traffic and to look at the economic consequences.

At the moment, a wide range of businesses operate in Glossop, covering various forms of industry, manufacturing and services, and we are always looking to attract more. However, the ongoing traffic difficulties are making it increasingly difficult to get businesses to open in Glossop. It is a thriving, fantastic town, and it is in a great position, but people are looking at it and thinking, “Hang on. How am I going to get my customers and clients in and out of the town?” They are now thinking twice about coming to Glossop and bringing in more jobs.

On top of that, I have spoken to companies based in Glossop that are really beginning to think that the traffic is suffocating the town. I fear that they we will not only not get new businesses in, but lose the businesses we already have, because they will move elsewhere as a result of the inaccessibility.

On a wider point about the economy, the A628 Woodhead Pass is a significant route connecting the east and the west of the country. I applaud the Chancellor for his work on the northern powerhouse, and it is a great initiative, but for it to work properly the two ends of the powerhouse—the east and the west, Sheffield and Manchester—need to link up. The route-based strategy on the M62, which was produced some time ago, already flags up the fact that the M62 is nearing capacity. That increases the significance of the A628 as a trans-Pennine route. If we look at other trans-Pennine routes, we see that there is the A69 in the north and then the M62; the next one down is the A628. All this congestion is therefore blocking a vital artery connecting the east and the west, and I have a welter of statistics and evidence to prove that. I know the Minister will have seen it, because some of it comes from studies carried out by his own Department.

I have tried to encapsulate the situation as best I can in the time allowed. Much will become clearer tomorrow when the Minister visits, but I do want to impress on him the seriousness of the situation.

I am delighted that the Government agreed to build this road. It was announced in December 2014. The Prime Minister himself, in an answer to me at Prime Minister’s Question Time, confirmed that a future Conservative Government would build the road. I was delighted with that. I have that copy of Hansard pinned on my office wall to remind me what we have promised, and I intend to deliver on that promise if we can. However, the delight and expectations that were raised in late 2014 are turning into frustration because the wait goes on. In Glossop, it is now not just the Government’s reputation that is at stake; I have made a commitment to my constituents, and I am determined to stick to it. I keep repeating this, but I cannot stress it enough: I cannot begin to describe the groundswell of public opinion on this matter.

Many people across Glossop will be watching this debate tonight. They will watch it later on YouTube or whatever medium they want to use. Two constituents, Robert McColl and his son Kallen, have travelled down here specially to be in the Public Gallery to listen to this, such is the desire of the people of Glossop to sort the problem out and sort it quickly. We know that one part of the road is going to be built—the two relief roads. That is great, because we need that extended scheme for the people of Tintwistle and of Hollingworth in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I urge the Minister—I have known him for years, and he is a man of honour and integrity—to give my constituents, and indeed me, some hope that this process can be conducted quickly and with urgency so that we can see spades in the ground as soon as possible.

It is now quarter past 5 on a Thursday evening. If this was live on the radio, there would be people sat on the A57 and the A628, and sat around Glossop, listening to it, saying, “Minister, let’s hear what we want to hear. We need this road, we’re sat in this traffic, we’re starving the town, we’re starving High Peak.” I do not exaggerate: this is the biggest single issue facing the Glossopdale area. If it is not resolved, it will have catastrophic effects on everybody. The people of Glossop and I are desperate—we cannot carry on like this any longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I plan to use the A628 to reach him tomorrow morning. I have already planned my route, so I understand his point.

We recognise that the routes need substantial improvement to meet the needs of the local economy and the environment and better to fulfil their role in our national transport network. That relates to trans-Pennine connectivity and we should not forget that, as well as serving local communities and businesses, the routes also play a broader national role.

The trans-Pennine upgrade programme seeks to improve journeys through a number of schemes, including a new dual carriageway creating a Mottram Moor link road; a new single carriageway link from Mottram Moor to Brookfield; further dualling on the A61; and climbing lanes on the A628. A number of other smaller measures will also be put in place to address the accident blackspots. We are very aware of the specific environmental protections that are in place in and around those locations, including special areas of conservation and sites of special scientific interest. We will, therefore, work closely with the national park authority.

For any proposals to go ahead, they will need to be sensitively designed and their potential impacts will have to be properly assessed and understood so that the improvements are in keeping with the significance of the park’s protected landscape. As part of the process of developing and delivering the investment, consultation will take place with local communities and stakeholders. That will include the scope and viability of further improvements and extensions to the Mottram Moor link road that would alleviate the issues faced in Tintwistle and Hollingworth. Highways England has been developing options for each of those schemes, to determine how best to meet the transport needs of the local communities while addressing environmental and other concerns. That balance needs to be achieved. Early consultation with key stakeholders such as the local authorities, utilities companies and the Peak District national park authority is already informing the development and assessment of the options.

I anticipate that a full public consultation will commence in April 2017, and the next step would be to submit an application for a development consent order in summer or early autumn 2018.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

In addition to the Minister’s visit tomorrow, he will probably find in his red box a letter from me, saying that we would be extremely grateful if he would consider binging forward the public consultation to the end of 2016. I know he is not be able to give a commitment on that now, but it would generate so much good will and make the project proceed faster, which would be tremendous.

[Andrew Jones]

I give an undertaking to both Members who are present that I will do all I can to achieve that. They have made their case eloquently. I recognise the issues that are faced by the local communities that they represent, and we will do all we can to help.

In terms of timing, I expect that after the development consent order, we will commence construction in the financial year 2019-20, and the schemes will potentially be open for traffic three years later. I recognise the case for urgency that has been a clear theme this evening, so if it is possible to bring the dates forward, I will certainly try to do so.

The new schemes will follow recent investment that we have already made in the network. As a result of resurfacing schemes undertaken in recent years, the condition of the road surface on the A628 and the A57 has improved since 2010, resulting in a 68% reduction in the number of potholes. Works are taking place, but I recognise that we are looking at more significant, longer-term answers.

In addition to the commitments in the road investment strategy, the Department is undertaking a study on improving connections between Manchester and Sheffield by way of a trans-Pennine tunnel. Through that study, we seek to understand the viability, costs and deliverability of such a connection, and to determine its role and priority in the emerging transport strategy for the north. The construction of such a connection carries with it the potential to reduce traffic on existing routes in the area and to bring important environmental benefits to the Peak District national park.

The initial report of the trans-Pennine tunnel study was published on 30 November last year. It found that there is a clear strategic case for the scheme that is aligned with central and subnational government policy, and that the construction of a new strategic route between Manchester and Sheffield is technically feasible, although very challenging. The scale of the wider economic benefit has yet to be established, but initial analysis shows that the benefit could be significant and complementary to other schemes in the developing northern powerhouse strategy. The study’s final report will be published by the end of the year, and will be used to inform the content of our second road investment strategy.

Transport includes more than just roads, so I hope my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak will not mind if I talk a little about rail in the area. As part of the proposed northern hub capacity enhancement, Network Rail has proposed works at the eastern end of the Hope Valley line. A passing loop is to be provided east of Bamford, and the line is to be redoubled at Dore and Totley station.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

An ingenious but unsuccessful attempt, I am afraid, if Members look at the terms of the question on the Order Paper.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Labour supports the extension of high-speed rail services to Scotland. To get there, however, we will have to get to the north of England first. Why are we still waiting for Ministers to confirm the route and the stations for HS2 north of Birmingham, and does the Secretary of State understand that this lack of progress is placing their commitment to HS2 in the midlands and the north in doubt?

[Mr McLoughlin]

With the greatest charity, I do not think the hon. Gentleman can get away with that. We have been making progress on HS2. In 13 years, Labour only woke up to the HS2 project in year 13. The progress we have made far outstrips the progress the Labour party ever made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Again, this is part of the overall proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, the western rail link is absolutely vital. It has been set out, and work is going on to make sure exactly how it is delivered. We understand how important it is. My hon. Friend represents a fine city. He and I went through Box tunnel together on a little people mover—[Interruption] That sounds worse than it is—with others to see at first hand the transformational effect that electrification work is having on his city.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The unpausing of the rail electrification programme is welcome, but the news that completion will be delayed and the costs much higher has understandably caused dismay. The cost of the electrification programme is now set to be at least £2.5 billion more than planned. As a result, Network Rail’s borrowing limit has had to be increased by £700 million, with the rest of the money being found from the sale of its assets. What assurances can the Government give that these asset sales will be sufficient; and given that the costs have already risen by 70%, what happens if they rise further still?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman raises the delivery risk inherent in all these things. This is the biggest transformation project for more than 100 years, and he is absolutely right that it has to be funded with both Government money and third party asset sales. A huge amount of due diligence has gone into that work, which is ongoing, but we now have a plan and are confident that £38 billion will be committed and that 850 miles of track will be electrified.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

We have covered £38.5 billion of investment in Network Rail over this control period. We are looking at ways in which other funding can be made available.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It was reported this week that due to the delay to the Great Western electrification programme taxpayers could be paying £3 million a week for trains that cannot move anywhere, or that they might have to foot the bill for fitting diesel engines to electric trains. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is to blame for this fiasco? Is it Network Rail for the delay to the work, is it the Department for Transport for signing the contract in the first place, or is it simply a symptom of the privatised structure of our railway that causes the kind of fragmentation that makes disasters like this frankly inevitable?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. He talks about privatised railways leading to this kind of disaster. This is a great example of somebody who has not held ministerial office, or who has just been in opposition, being able to forget everything that happened in the past. I remember, however, what the Labour candidate for Mayor of London, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said:

“one reason we are able to invest record sums in our railway service is the revenues that the franchises bring in and the premiums that they pay”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 430.]

We are seeing record investment in our railway because of how we are running it. At the time it was fully nationalised we saw a declining railway, a useless railway, a railway that was not fit for purpose—something the Labour party wants to go back to.

Rail Services: Portsmouth and the South-West

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your stewardship in this Chamber, Sir Roger. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on securing today’s debate. Having previously brought similar debates to this House for my own area in Greater Manchester, I know just how important rail travel and public transport are to constituents and how appreciative they are when their Members of Parliament raise such matters.

I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), responding on behalf of the Government. When this debate was first announced, it caused considerable excitement in Her Majesty’s Opposition’s transport team. Would, we wondered, the debate be responded to by the rail Minister or the Minister for Portsmouth? I can only conclude that that decision was made at the highest levels of Government, but I am delighted to see the rail Minister here today.

As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South made clear in her opening speech, rail services in Portsmouth and the south-west face several issues. When the Minister replies to the debate, I am sure that she will have been left in no doubt about where improvements are needed, and I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South receives the answers that she requested.

Some of the problems that have been raised in this debate are simply down to poor levels of service, whereas some are down to poor decisions that the Government have made. Others, however, are due to the poor system we have for running rail services in the UK, and I will say something about all those issues in my reply.

The record of this Government, and indeed, of the previous Conservative-led coalition Government, is much less favourable than they like to make out. I often find that the rhetoric that we hear in the House of Commons on rail matters simply does not match the experience of our constituents and passengers, and often shows a real disconnect from their everyday commuting reality. It is one thing for us to sit here in Westminster and debate the performance of rail services in Portsmouth and the south-west, but perhaps those who are best placed to judge it are the rail users themselves. Unfortunately, the results do not make for good reading, with a steady decrease in passenger satisfaction, which the hon. Lady referred to, and which I hope the Minister will address in her reply. We have seen decreases in passenger satisfaction across the board in Portsmouth, with perhaps the most striking statistic being that just 21% of commuters believe that their services are good value for money. When taxpayers are making a net payment of nearly £4 billion a year to the railways as a whole, on top of ever rising fares, the fact that passenger satisfaction is decreasing should cause great alarm to the Minister. I look forward to hearing how she intends to rectify that.

Rail users in Portsmouth and the south-west have not been immune to the trend of rising fares either, with commuters in particular being hit hard. By next year, the cost of a season ticket from Portsmouth to Eastleigh will have increased by 25% since 2010, and the cost of a season ticket from Portsmouth to London by 26%, a rise of more than £1,000. The mixture of rising fares and decreasing satisfaction in Portsmouth is clearly not a good combination and suggests that real change is needed.

The Government have announced plans to increase fares only by inflation during this Parliament, with the Minister herself saying recently that that policy would cost about £700 million a year in lost revenue, but we have not been offered an explanation of how the Government will make up that significant fall in revenue. My fear is that it will be another broken promise after the electrification fiascos. I hope that at the very least she can give us a guarantee today that services will not be cut to pay for that panicked pre-election announcement.

Labour Members think that passengers should simply have access to clearer ticketing and be able to get a better deal than they can currently. Fares and ticketing structures in this country are some of the most complex in Europe, and it is passengers who often pay the additional price.

There is, of course, as we have heard today, another scourge of train passengers in the south-west—overcrowding. That problem is faced by many services around the country, including in my own area in Greater Manchester. Clearly, extra capacity is desperately needed. The previous Labour Government invested more in the railways in real terms, especially in Portsmouth and the south-west, than any previous Government. In 2013, two Portsmouth commuter trains were named as among the 10 most overcrowded rail services in the country; both had load factors of more than 150%. Since then, services to and from Portsmouth have not featured in the top 10. However, before we start celebrating, it would probably be safe to assume that Portsmouth’s non-inclusion reflects greater levels of overcrowding elsewhere rather than better services for Portsmouth commuters.

Franchising fiascos have also become a theme under this Government, as they were under the previous, Conservative-led Government. We saw the shambles of the west coast main line franchising process, which had a knock-on effect on other services, and the disappointing decision not to keep the profitable east coast service publicly owned. Yet again, Portsmouth and the south-west have had experience of this problem. In July of this year, just two months after the Government took office, the Minister’s Department announced that negotiations to agree a direct award for South West Trains with Stagecoach had broken down. As a result, the franchising timetable has had to be redrawn. Most concerning of all is that the Department for Transport spent more than £800,000 on contract negotiations with Stagecoach, yet failed to reach a satisfactory outcome. I hope that the Minister, in her reply, can confirm whether the Department has recovered those costs and can expand some more on why the negotiations broke down.

It appears that the Minister has not seriously considered the possibility of using Directly Operated Railways. She should need no convincing of DOR’s record, given that it delivered record passenger satisfaction and punctuality scores on east coast services and there was a public outcry when the franchise was handed to Virgin. The Government simply do not have a good record on franchise negotiation. I suggest that to avoid the problem, they could simply come round to the Labour party’s way of thinking, which is that we should bin the franchising system altogether, because it is simply too costly and inefficient and creates an inflexible railway unable to meet the needs of passengers.

Another recurring theme under this Government has been the troubled approach to electrification—something that the south-west has also suffered from. The Labour Government committed to the electrification of the Great Western main line in the south-west back in 2009, but under this Government the cost has escalated drastically and the project is now delayed. Labour Members have repeatedly warned that the Great Western main line electrification is in danger because of rising costs. The estimated cost is now three times higher than in 2011. It is currently a staggering £1.74 billion. The Government have attempted to lay some of the blame at Network Rail’s door, but the Minister must also take responsibility for not confirming the project until July 2012, meaning that essential planning work was delayed. Even Network Rail’s head of long-term planning and funding has alluded to that, saying that it did not have the level of confidence that it might have wished at the start.

All this is becoming too usual, and it is rail users who will suffer because of the delays and cost increases. The faster trains and increased capacity that south-west rail users want and hon. Members have requested here today will not be delivered on time. What will particularly irk passengers will be not seeing improvements in rolling stock. The Government’s plans to replace uncomfortable and inaccessible Pacer trains on branch lines in the south-west depend on the success of the electrification programme. If the Great Western electrification project is significantly delayed, passengers in the south-west are likely to suffer with poor rolling stock for years—stock that the Government have agreed is unacceptable for my constituents in the north of England.

I do not expect the Minister to offer any solutions to that today, as the Government have previously said that until the Hendy report is published they cannot give any credible promises on the delivery timetables of any other projects. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could confirm in her reply the date on which the Hendy report is due to be published, as one would hope that it would be available in time for the comprehensive spending review.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South on initiating today’s debate. I completely understand why she and her constituents are unhappy with aspects of rail services in Portsmouth and the south-west. Clearly, the Government have much work to do to tackle overcrowding, to stop drastic fare rises, to improve rolling stock, to combat decreasing passenger satisfaction and to deliver planned infrastructure projects. Labour Members want answers from the Minister as to how the Government intend to address those matters. In the Labour party, we believe that there is a better way of running our railways—we put passengers at the centre of the network and learn lessons from successful rail networks in other countries. I look forward to continuing this conversation with all hon. Members in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Yes, and I will race through my final comments and come on to what I think are some of the solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out what a balancing act we face, because train usage across the country is rising, and trains that start off empty become crowded. Indeed, I have travelled on some of the top 10 most crowded trains, because I tend to go out and mystery shop them. It is not encouraging to be unable to sit down on the journey into London at 6 o’clock in the morning, work for 12 or 14 hours and then go home. People deserve better.

What are the possible solutions? I will abandon my speech now—when I do so, it always makes my officials incredibly nervous—and talk about what could be done. There is a cascade of things that can be done to increase capacity. We can work on existing lines, and do the sorts of work talked about in the Wessex route Study. Such work is important, and it is being looked at, reviewed and prioritised. We need to ensure that everybody understands the costs and benefits of such work for economic value added, not just for transport users. Such works are always expensive and difficult, because they involve so much disruption.

We can do things such as digital enhancements on the railway. When it comes to the number of train paths, the railways are now full, but if we can use digital technology to reduce the time between trains, we will be able to run more of them. That is a big long-term investment plan for Network Rail. Building new lines is often cheaper than expanding existing lines. We heard a lot of mention of Crossrail 2, a vital project that will help to alleviate congestion—as will Crossrail 1—in the metro and suburban areas.

We can buy new trains. Indeed, many new trains are being delivered to the South West franchise, but what tends to happen is that they are built to satisfy demand at peak times, and they run empty for much of the day. Is that an effective thing to do? Would it be possible to use those trains better? That brings me to the point about part-time season tickets. Providing incentives for people to change their journey patterns and move around outside peak time can be cost-effective and help us to use train capacity better.

Finally, we can, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire mentioned, change stopping patterns. It is completely possible to run a very high speed, non-stop train to Portsmouth if it does not stop anywhere else. As we move forward and consider the consultation, we have to ask ourselves that sort of question. What is the right journey pattern for the demand? Is it right to devolve more services to TfL, to deal with some of the inner-London metro demand and outer-London demand, in order to run services that are better fitted for long-distance users?

What are the right solutions? I do not know, and I do not think that we, individually, know. Part of the problem in the industry is that people work in silos when they make decisions, so there will be an operational solution, a solution for passengers and perhaps a political solution. We need to get the right people in the right place to make those decisions, to make sure that the money is there and that organisations can deliver. That is why the Hendy review is so important. We need to take politics out of the process, which is why I so welcome the appointment of Lord Adonis; I think he is a good man to do the long-term infrastructure planning. We need to work together to solve some of the knotty problems. There is a huge amount of financial commitment to the railways, and we are committing to the biggest investment programme since Victorian times, which is a vital part of delivering economic growth. Collectively as Members, working with our local communities, local businesses, my officials, Network Rail and the operators, we can come up with the right solutions.

What do we need to do? First, we need to keep all the information coming in in response to the route study. That will determine the near-term investment plans, which cover the next five to 10 years. Secondly, the consultation on the franchise process will start before Christmas, and it is absolutely vital that we have a real, in-depth analysis of what we want. Is this the right time to start putting in some express services that do not stop between some of the big conurbations, with a consequent possible loss of services in terms of stopping patterns? Can the network collectively work that out? Following that consultation, the invitation to tender will go out before April 2016, and the franchise will start in 2017.

I do not know what the right solution is, and I do not believe that any individual holds it. Collectively, however, working together across the boundaries that have built up in the railway sector between operators, the network and regulators, we can come up with a better solution. The experience of passengers must be put front and centre, because the railway is not about boxes running about on rails. I was told by somebody who has left the industry that if it were not for the passengers, the timetabling would be perfect. I found that both amusing and incredibly offensive, because it suggested that we were talking about somebody’s train set rather than a transport system that millions of people rely on to get to work and to get back home to their families.

My plea to team Hampshire—I am delighted that it has an identity—and also to team Somerset, team Wiltshire, team Stalybridge and Hyde—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Team Isle of Wight.

[Claire Perry]

And to team Isle of Wight. My plea is that I hope that, by working together, we can come up with a better solution. We want to invest in the railways. They are a vital part of delivering local, regional and national economic growth. We are in an exciting place, because we have finally realised the importance of railway investment in delivering the economic growth that we want for our constituents.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South once more. With her eloquent and intelligent speech, she auditioned extremely well for my job. I commend her for securing the debate.