Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

4. What steps she is taking to ensure that academic A-levels are taught in the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)]

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough will benefit from an initial A-level offer in September 2018 through Knowsley Community College’s imminent merger with St Helens College. The 2018-19 prospectus has now been published, setting out the A-level offer available, and the Department is also working with Knowsley’s local authority to ensure the implementation of Knowsley Better Together, which is the wider local plan for improving access to A-levels in Knowsley.

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but in a number of meetings with Knowsley MPs over the past year, her Ministers have promised to bring in a recognised excellent provider to restore academic A-level provision to Knowsley. The provision of some college vocational A-levels is a welcome development, but it is not enough. What progress has the Department made on delivering the promises made by her Ministers to local MPs over the past year?

[Justine Greening]

I was happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and I am sure she will remember from the letter I sent her following that meeting that I have asked my officials specifically to convene a further meeting locally to agree an approach on the maths support programme, which will focus on improving level 3 maths, and on the English hub roll-out for Knowsley.

Schools Update

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right. We will set out more of those details in September. Today, we are setting out the fact that we recognise that there is an issue of minimum funding levels in secondary education, and we would expect that to be reflected in primary education.

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

Figures from the Secretary of State’s Department showed that 21 schools in my constituency were to lose out under her plans for the national funding formula before her announcement today. I am concerned that they still will, so will she guarantee today that those schools that were going to lose out on the basis of the formula no longer will, and that they will actually see gains?

[Justine Greening]

I think I have been very clear that every school will see gains from the announcement that I have made today, which I hope is good news. It is a reflection of the need to strike a balance between bringing up traditionally underfunded schools and recognising that those receiving higher funding need help to some extent to get on to the national funding formula.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Two elements of the proposed fair funding formula can help in this regard. One relates to mobility, about which a question was asked earlier, and will involve children moving in-year. The second relates to demographic growth, to which the right hon. Lady referred, and will ensure that we can respond faster to enable local authorities and schools to cope.

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

In Knowsley metropolitan borough, part of which is in my constituency, there will be no academic A-level provision later this year. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that many of the young people who live in Halewood can aspire, and afford, to take A-levels? At present they have to travel so far, and they have no money to do so.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Absolutely. Our current approach is not just outdated but, in places, extremely unfair. We want our schools to be able to achieve the same outcomes, but we are funding them fundamentally differently in different places. There are differences for children often for no other reason than where they are growing up. No one who wants social mobility to get better should accept that, so we have to move to a more equitable funding approach. That is what we are consulting on right now.

We have to make sure that school places are there for children as they move through the system, but this is not just about the extra school places and new schools that we need; it is also about investing in the schools and school places that we already have. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has therefore put forward an additional £216 million to help to refurbish existing schools and make them fit for the 21st century. Of course, that is on top of our existing plans to invest more than £10 billion improving the condition of the school estate by 2021.

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

Does the right hon. Lady accept that academic A-levels are one way in which young people can ensure that they get a good start in life, from which they can perhaps go on to great success through our university system? What will the proposals that she is outlining do for young people in Halewood and Knowsley, who have no option in the entire borough for doing academic A-levels and must leave the borough in order to study?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady raises a profound and important point. There are parts of the country where, for far too long, young people’s educational attainment has simply not been good enough. I know that the situation she highlights is part of the much broader challenge that her local community faces in seeking to raise educational attainment steadily. It is important that alongside the investment in technical education that we have set out in the Budget, we make sure through approaches such as opportunity areas that we zone in on the places that most need additional support so that we can shift outcomes there.

The Government’s focus on opportunity does not end when someone leaves full-time education. In a dynamic, modern economy we need to foster a culture of lifelong learning, in which all of us—adults from every walk of life—are passionate about continuing to upskill ourselves.

Transport

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Maria Eagle]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff have been employed at HS2 Ltd in each month since its creation.

[Official Report, 17 July 2012, Vol. 548, c. 630-31W.]

Letter of correction from Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on 17 July 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Justine Greening]

[holding answer 24 May 2012]: From the time HS2 was established until my decision to proceed with High Speed Rail in January 2012, HS2 Ltd staff comprised a mix of direct employees, secondees from DFT and Network Rail and temporary staff. Following the announcement, a development partner, CH2M Hill, was appointed. Its staff (86) was integrated into the HS2 organisation structure between March and May and are included in the following numbers. Further recruitment has been undertaken, and is continuing, to provide HS2 Ltd with the capability to deliver its extended remit. In addition, HS2 is now moving to secure permanent appointments into roles and reduce to a minimum its need for temporary staff.

Rail Reform

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The question that the Government have yet to answer is this: if we are all in this together, why is the burden yet again to fall on the fare payer and not on those who are already making huge profits that are lost to the industry and that help to drive up the cost to the taxpayer of running our railway?

We cannot support these reforms. In the coming weeks we will set out our own alternative approach to reforming the rail industry, but for today I would be grateful if the Secretary of State answered a number of specific questions of concern to passengers and commuters about her proposals.

On fares, the National Audit Office has warned that the Government’s fare rises, which are adding to the cost of living crises facing households, are just as likely to increase the profits of train operators as reduce costs for the taxpayer. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the entire cost of holding fare rises at just 1% above inflation for the rest of this Parliament and strictly enforcing that cap would be less than the £543 million her Department handed back to the Treasury as a result of an underspend last year? Will she therefore abandon plans to increase fares by 3% above inflation in 2013 and 2014?

The Secretary of State said today that the days of above-inflation fare rises are coming to an end, so will she explain why the tender documents for the new franchises assure bidders that they can increase fares by up to 6% above inflation every single year of those 15-year franchises? Will she confirm that, under the plans she has set out today, train companies will be given even more freedoms on fares, including the right to introduce a super-peak ticket, which will hit hard-pressed commuters in particular?

I welcome the commitment to extend smart integrated ticketing that can be used on trains and buses, enabling the rest of the country to catch up with London. The fact that that will enable part-time workers to benefit from new flexible season tickets is particularly welcome, but will the Secretary of State explain how that will work outside London if she remains unwilling to take steps to regulate the bus network outside the capital as we proposed?

On the level of services, will the Secretary of State explain why the inter-city west coast franchise tender document allows daily service reductions of up to 10%? Will that not lead to even greater overcrowding than passengers already face? Will she explain why the final tender documents for the new franchises have also watered down the performance obligations since the earlier draft? The requirement to improve performance over the life of the franchise has been replaced by a requirement to do so unless

“good evidence can be provided as to why this is not achievable.”

Surely passengers expect the Government to insist on improvements, not simply to police the excuses that the train operating companies come up with.

Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns about the train companies’ new freedoms to close ticket offices and cut the number of staff on trains and platforms? Will she explain why the new franchises ask bidders only to consider maintaining the same level of CCTV on trains?

The structural reforms to the industry are also deeply worrying. Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns that the restructuring she proposes has a massive accountability gap at its heart? Genuine backing for devolution, which the Government have ducked today, would see transport authorities deciding the best way to deliver rail services in each region. Should that not permit alternatives to the existing franchise model to be explored, including not-for-profit and mutual options? Does she agree that for devolution to work those authorities need a fair deal on costs, subsidies and risks? This cannot be—as is suspected—about devolving responsibility for cuts.

Will the Secretary of State explain how the decision to allow deep alliances between train companies and Network Rail, with private train companies having the whip hand, fits with the need for democratic accountability? I know the Conservative party is determined to complete the job it started with its botched rail privatisation, but does she not accept that the decision we took to create Network Rail as a not-for-dividend body has served the industry well? Why is she willing to turn back the clock and take us back to the bad old days by creating what are effectively a series of mini-Railtracks? Where is the accountability to passengers, taxpayers and Parliament? How can there possibly be a level playing field in future franchise competitions if the incumbent is part of a single management team? Does she not see the clear conflicts of interest that are evident throughout her proposals?

How will Network Rail continue to support the interests of freight operators and their need to access the network in a system where private train operators manage the network in each region? Will the Secretary of State explain why long-term concessions will not simply add to the costly fragmentation of the industry? Why does she believe that breaking up and selling track piece by piece will improve performance and safety?

This long-awaited rail strategy is a wasted opportunity to address the structural issues left from the botched rail privatisation. Instead of tackling the fragmented structure of the industry that was the legacy of privatisation, the Government are instead creating an even more fragmented and costly structure with more interfaces, more need for lawyers and consultants, less accountability, and, at the same time, more freedoms for train companies to hike fares and cut services, booking offices and front-line staff. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and instead seek to build consensus on the future of the rail industry, based on devolution and genuine local control with communities and passengers in the driving seat, stand up to private companies, not cave in to vested interests, and put passengers before profits. It is not too late for her to do that. I hope that she will think about it.

[Justine Greening]

Obviously, I listened with interest to what the hon. Lady said and I hope that she will at least accept that the current situation, with a rail industry that Roy McNulty says costs £3.5 billion more than it needs to owing to inefficiency, is something that we should tackle. I note that she says she is going to come forward with an alternative and it is important that she does that because if she is turning her face against this approach, she is saying that it is okay for fare payers and taxpayers to pay that £3.5 billion in perpetuity. I think that is broadly what she was saying, but I shall await with interest her alternative proposal, which she needs now to provide.

The hon. Lady talks about the burden falling on the fare payer, but that is exactly what happens now. That is one reason why there has been so much pressure for fares to go up year on year. Let me remind her that her party also recognised that problem, which is why it commissioned Sir Roy McNulty to do that work and why it struggled with the issue too, itself overseeing years of above-inflation rail fare rises. What all of us in the House should be looking towards, with the strategy we have produced, is how to tackle these issues. We want fares to remain affordable. I have stressed on a number of occasions and at several points in the documents we have released today that it is absolutely key that we make sure that fares remain affordable. The underlying objective we are trying to achieve is the end of inflation-busting fares. We also want to cut down on the level of public subsidy, as we would prefer that money to go towards reducing the deficit or into investment in other areas.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes the flexible season tickets. If we are able to push forward on smart ticketing across the country, people will be able to use that sort of ticketing not only on the railways but potentially on buses too. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who has responsibility for buses, will be producing a strategy that includes all those opportunities in the coming weeks.

The hon. Lady mentioned ticket offices. I understand that many passengers strongly value the face-to-face channel that a ticket office provides, as can be seen in the documents. However, I remind her that when her party was in office there were large-scale reductions in ticket office opening hours. In 2009, Labour Ministers approved cuts to opening hours at 70% of South West Trains ticket offices. The Command Paper has a section on how we want stations to improve, including by having crèches at stations where that is a sensible idea. Face-to-face channels are important for people buying tickets, which is why one of the ideas in the paper is to investigate whether people could buy tickets at their local post office, library or shop, as people can with Oyster in London. All those things should mean that people have more, rather than fewer, opportunities to buy tickets face to face.

In the rest of the fares and ticketing consultation—and I stress that it is a consultation—there are some really good ideas for moving ticketing into the 21st century, including on how we can make sure that the approach to ticketing reflects working practices today and the fact that people work flexibly and part-time, rather than expecting them to fit into a ticketing approach that would be better placed in the 1980s.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady asked about devolution and decentralisation because that is possibly one of the most exciting parts of all this in the long term for local communities. It opens up an important debate about how franchises might be more spec’d up in the long term and controlled by local communities. I assure her that this is about giving local communities opportunities, not about passing on some underlying problem. Indeed, the Government are absolutely clear that we need to tackle the underlying problem of inefficiency in our railways. That is what the document is all about.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about alliancing. I think that getting the industry to work together is a common-sense approach to tackling some of the inefficiencies that exist, which are directly funded in the end by fare payers and taxpayers. Today, when asked, she was not able to rule out her party wanting to renationalise the railways, but I think that we need to make the pieces of the jigsaw fit together better. Simply throwing them up in the air again would only waste time and make it harder for the industry to take the responsibility that we want it to, and I do not think that that would be the right way forward.

Finally, I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about freight and we are absolutely committed to making sure it is a core part of the network going forward. One of the underlying reasons for high-speed rail is to make sure we have capacity on the core network for freight. We need to make sure there are safeguards in place regarding any of these changes so that the freight industry can continue to do what we want it to, which is to re-mode on to trains.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We have considered that very closely and it is one reason why these changes will not happen overnight. They will take place over the next two to three years so that we can ensure we get the right staff transferred with the right expertise. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a wealth of security expertise within the Department and across Government and that will still be there for us to draw on within the Department for Transport. I am assured of that.

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

Is the right hon. Lady at all concerned that the division of responsibilities will create new interfaces that might cause delay and problems in the swift implementation of policy?

[Justine Greening]

That is a very fair question and it is one that I have considered carefully, too. I do not believe that it will cause a problem at all; in fact, it will enhance the security approach that we are able to take. It will mean a far more ongoing and rigorous approach to security that will manage to combine the highest standards of security and safety at airports while delivering a more streamlined approach for passengers on the ground. That is better for everybody.

Clause 82 makes provision for the transfer to the Civil Aviation Authority of rights, powers, duties and liabilities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That will allow us to transfer to the CAA the experienced staff who carry out the regulatory compliance and vetting functions currently carried out by civil servants in my Department. That will not only devolve more responsibility to the CAA but will have the further advantage of bringing the “user pays” principle to aviation security. It is not right or fair that the taxpayer currently subsidises the cost of aviation by paying for its regulation. At a time when our overriding priority is to reduce the inherited debt and when difficult choices are being made about funding priorities it is right that the cost of regulatory compliance should be met by the industry that benefits from it and not by the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and proper security is always a balance between managing to make sure that the efforts of those who wish to commit terrorist offences on planes are foiled while, at the same time, not wishing to subject consumers and passengers to indignity or extensive delay. It is correct that the Department should have a full understanding of the extent of any threats so that it can make appropriate policy. It is just in those areas that we want to probe a little more in Committee precisely to assess the practical impact of the proposals.

It is unfortunate that the introduction of the Bill and its Second Reading should come so soon after the publication of the draft Bill. Considering that this package of reforms has been in preparation for many years, and given that it was widely believed that its introduction had slipped to the next Session, it is unfortunate that there has been a sudden rush of last-minute enthusiasm to bring it before the House. Consequently, the planned pre-legislative scrutiny, which we supported, has been curtailed. The Transport Committee has done its usual impressive job, but it had just three weeks to take evidence and produce recommendations on the proposals, many of which have been in gestation for six years or more. That meant that the Government have not been able to consider those recommendations in detail and improve the Bill before its introduction. Consequently, we are debating a Bill—and I hope that this is the case—that will doubtless be amended by the Government in Committee, which is a remarkable state of affairs for a measure so long in preparation.

The industry itself has rightly expressed concern about the limited opportunity it was given to engage with officials before the Bill’s introduction in Parliament. BAA, it is fair to say, may be affected more than other player in the industry by the measure, yet it says that it could secure only a single one-hour meeting with the Department for Transport in the past three months, which falls short of what might be expected for a regulatory Bill of this nature. There will be, at the very least, a suspicion that the hasty introduction of the Bill has less to do with the industry’s needs and more to do with the needs of business managers, who doubtless begged the Secretary of State to let them have something for the Commons to do, because the Government’s legislative programme is bogged down in chaos in the other place.

[Justine Greening]

I have met BAA on a number of occasions since taking on my present role, so I can assure the hon. Lady that there has been plenty of opportunity for BAA to raise any concerns with me.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I was just quoting what BAA said, and I hear what she says about her own efforts, which I commend.

There are three key reforms in the Bill—to economic regulation, to the Civil Aviation Authority itself, and to the transfer of security functions. I want to turn briefly to the wider aviation context within which the reforms will sit. We agree that the current framework for airport economic regulation is outdated and needs reform. It has been clear for some time that the CAA does not have the powers to apply the regulatory regime in a way that best benefits passengers and reduces costs for the industry. We are also dealing with a very different aviation landscape since the introduction of the existing regime, not least because of a major increase in passenger numbers, low-cost airlines, growth in regional airports and changes to ownership required by the Competition Commission. The proposed licensing regime, together with a more flexible and targeted set of regulatory tools, will better enable the CAA to carry out its work, while making its decisions more accountable, and reduce unnecessary regulation.

It is also right that the regulatory regime governing airports be reformed to put passengers at its core. The CAA’s primary duty should be to promote the interests of passengers. That was our intention in developing the reforms, and we are pleased that that approach has been accepted and adopted by the Government. We hope that in Committee the Minister will look carefully at the arguments that have been made and be clearer about how the CAA is to weigh the often differing interests of current versus future air transport users and, as the Select Committee has urged, explain in more convincing detail how the proposed aviation consumer advocacy panel will work in practice and, in particular, how it will identify, represent and promote the interests of passengers and relate to the regulatory process.

The lack of a specific requirement to publish passenger welfare plans is a major omission and should be addressed. It was a key recommendation from the Select Committee following its inquiry into the failure of both Government and industry to prepare and respond adequately to the severe winter weather in December 2010. The appalling experience faced by many passengers, particularly at Heathrow, demonstrated the need for the sector significantly to up its game in relation to passenger welfare. I welcome the new powers that the legislation will give the CAA and the Government and hope that the Secretary of State will issue clear and robust guidance to airport operators on winter resilience. However, we would like to see a specific obligation on the CAA to include in any licence issued a requirement that airports provide support to stranded passengers.

The Government must also ensure that each recommendation of the Quarmby report on the resilience of England’s transport systems in winter is implemented, particularly those relating to the need for early decisive action on whether to cancel services; the supply of de-icing and anti-icing products or road salt; better liaison between airports and local highway authorities over the treatment of appropriate public road networks; and improved access to performance statistics on the management of disruption by airlines and airports.

The former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), stood in the snow at Heathrow just over a year ago and pledged to learn the lessons of the chaos passengers faced. I know that because I was standing in the snow freezing alongside him and, more importantly, alongside thousands of stranded passengers. At the time he blamed Heathrow for seriously underestimating the amount of de-icer required and raised the prospect of establishing a central reserve for emergencies, much as exists for road salt. The Government should provide an update on this—they have gone quiet lately—and on the other promises made at the time. As well as the powers that this Bill rightly gives the CAA, the current Secretary of State must ensure that the Government do not take the view that this is all the responsibility of the industry. There is a strategic and economic need, as well as a UK reputational requirement, for the Government to get a grip on winter preparedness. I recall the Minister responsible for aviation telling the media on Boxing day 2010 that the Bill would do just that, but it is not obvious to me that it does it sufficiently well, so we will explore that further.

The CAA should also be required to focus licences on the specific experience of passengers in airports. That means, as the Transport Committee has urged, specifically structuring licences to address key areas of passenger satisfaction, including immigration and baggage handling. We all know that the failures that most give rise to frustration and anger, not to mention ruining business trips and holidays, are delays caused by inadequate management of immigration and poor baggage handling. Of course, although airports should rightly have obligations in this respect, the Government must also recognise that their decisions have an impact that is out of the hands of airport operators, not least the way they resource and manage the UK Border Agency. The speed and scale of the Government’s cuts is putting pressure on the agency. People across the country fear that corners are being cut and border security is being put at risk by the scale of the Government’s border cuts. Some 6,500 staff are going from the agency, with 1,500 going from the UK border force, including more than 800 this year alone. In the past year, we have already had the situation whereby the Home Secretary did not know what changes to border controls she had agreed to, how they were being implemented or how great the security risks were, and relaxing controls was a direct consequence of those staffing reductions.

It is incredible that the Government have overseen a reduction in checks at border control. The public expect proper immigration controls, and passengers expect there to be sufficient staff to prevent massive delays at airports, which damage our image and can impact on investment and business competitiveness. We agree that the passenger must be placed at the heart of the regulatory regime, but the Government must do the same as they carry out their responsibilities.

The Government should also consider the airlines’ case that, in the context of airport regulation, they too are customers. Although we agree with the Government that the law should be absolutely clear that the CAA’s primary duty is to passengers, we agree also that there is a case for a secondary duty to airlines, so the Minister should look again at the decision not to include such a duty.

Although it is right that we set out a primary duty on passengers to send a clear signal to the CAA about how it should manage competing interests, it is right also that we set out further duties. In doing so, however, the Government have chosen to omit the reference to environmental obligations that we intended the Bill to include. That is a mistake, so I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on it and think again.

Back in March 2009, the consultation document on economic regulation that the then Secretary of State published proposed that

“the CAA should have an environmental duty with respect to its economic regulatory functions.”

The final report of the Cave review recommended

“a duty on the CAA to protect the environment, subject to guidance on specified environmental matters by the Secretary of State.”

In December 2009, the previous Government published their decision document on economic regulation and concluded that one of the supplementary statutory duties should be

“to have regard to the airport operator’s legal obligations to comply with applicable environmental and planning law.”

When one considers the secondary duties that have been set out, one finds the absence of any environmental obligation to be a clear omission—and a late one: it was included in the press release accompanying the publication of the Bill, just not in the Bill. The CAA will be obliged

“to ensure that licence holders can finance the activities which are subject to the relevant licence obligations; to secure that all reasonable demands for airport services are met; to promote economy and efficiency on the part of licence holders in its provisions of airport services at regulated airports; to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State; to have regard to any international obligation of the UK; to have regard to principles of better regulation.”

All those obligations are of course right, and we support them, but there seems to be no justifiable reason for removing the proposed additional requirement on the CAA in terms of economic regulation: to have regard to airport operators’ compliance with environmental and planning law. Without that, airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance, be it noise, vibration, visual disturbance or emissions.

It is not good enough for the Government to say it is obvious that airports must comply with statutory obligations and it does not need re-stating in the Bill. The issue is whether airports feel that they can recover the cost in charges to airlines. The consequence, as the Transport Committee has warned, is:

“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

There are precedents within the EU of a single company controlling a larger percentage of slots at one airport, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will appreciate that the situation at Heathrow is different because of the capacity issues that significantly restrict the potential for competition. I fully understand and respect BA’s wish to expand its operations, not least to pursue the new long-haul markets from Heathrow that are needed for our economic competitiveness. However, many years before a high-speed rail service becomes a reality between Scotland and London, and Heathrow in particular, we must balance that with the need to maintain the domestic air links on which the Scottish economy depends.

I have two final points on the economic regulatory aspects of the Bill. First, there are concerns that there is no requirement on the CAA to consult on how it intends to prioritise and balance its new duties and discretion. Secondly, the Government must clarify who does and does not have a right of appeal on a decision by the CAA in respect of licence conditions, and how they intend to prevent repeated and unfounded appeals.

On the second major purpose of the Bill, which is to modernise the CAA’s governance, we agree that reform is needed and we support most of the proposed changes. Of course, there are changes that have been made without the need for legislation, such as the creation of a separate chair and chief executive. We do, however, question the decision to remove the requirement for the Treasury to approve the levels of remuneration for non-executive members of the board. Are we not seeing right now the need for greater, not less oversight of remuneration? I suppose that the experience of the past few days has shown that it is doubtful whether the Government would exercise their powers over excessive bonuses even if they retained them, but it might be a good idea to hang on to them.

It is also wrong that the CAA remains outside the remit of the National Audit Office, unlike all other industry regulators. That should be addressed, and there should be an explicit efficiency duty as recommended by the Transport Committee. I hope the Government will agree that it should be relatively straightforward to reach agreement on those issues in Committee. We agree on the outcomes that we want to see achieved through the modernisation, and I look forward to working with Ministers to improve the Bill further in the areas that I have mentioned.

We have much greater concern about the third major area with which the Bill deals, which is the Government’s proposals for a major change in how aviation security in ensured. They have not made the case for the change. It was included in the draft Bill at the last minute and has not been subjected to adequate scrutiny, and enough people across the industry have concerns about the proposals to require the Government to look again at whether they have got them right. We are open to being persuaded, but Ministers have more to do if they wish us to support the proposed changes.

I appreciate that under the Government’s proposals, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for aviation security policy and for making aviation security directions under the Aviation Security Act 1982. That is well and good and correct, but by enabling the transfer of a potentially very wide range of security functions to the CAA, the Government risk fragmenting an approach that has served us well. Let us not forget that the current arrangements, including the now abolished specialist unit Transec, arose from the tragedy of Lockerbie. We should not move lightly away from an approach that had such a tragic loss of life as its reason for existing, particularly not when the clearly stated purpose of the proposals is, to quote the Department’s impact assessment, to

“Reduce the costs to the taxpayer in line with SR”—

spending review—

“commitments by introducing the user pays principle.”

The changes that the Government propose are not minor. For example, they want to pass to the CAA the obligation to make arrangements for carrying out vetting, including those for renewing and withdrawing clearance. The CAA, rather than the Secretary of State, will maintain the list of persons approved for the provision of a particular aviation security service.

There are also concerns about the ability to retain staff. The Bill will allow for the transfer from the Department for Transport to the CAA of about 85 aviation security posts currently responsible for the review and upkeep of aviation security regulations, and for the monitoring and enforcement of the industry’s compliance with security requirements. The Transport Committee’s recommendations on that matter should be considered carefully, including the permitting of secondments rather than transfers to avoid the loss of experienced staff and expertise.

The Committee’s recommendation to delay the change, to bring it in line with the introduction of the outcomes-focused risk-based security regime, also makes sense. The airlines are concerned about the lack of transparency of the likely costs of the changes, and therefore about the impact on passengers, on to whom costs will be passed. There is real concern that although the costs of the transfer will materialise, the supposed reduction in obligations as a result of the move to the outcomes-focused regime will not.

Those concerns are particularly acute for smaller regional airports, which play a vital role in their local economies and will not easily sustain major additional cost burdens. The Government need to reassure the sector that they will retain an active engagement in operational matters, enabling airports to take the lead in the knowledge that they will have ministerial backing.

It is clear that there are growing tensions between the UK Government and the EU over security issues such as the permitting of full-body scanners without a right to select an alternative form of search. We have strongly supported the Government’s stance on that, although it is now important that Ministers work closely with their European partners to ensure a common, and preferably similarly robust, approach to security across the EU. The approach taken in the Bill risks leaving the industry without a clear lead or protection from Government on the decisions that it takes, be they on trials of new forms of security screening or other matters.

According to the explanatory notes, the Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee estimates that

“the impact on public expenditure gives expected savings in the order of £5.4m per annum.”

It is far from clear how the cost savings to the Department from the abolition of the security function can be secured without putting at risk high levels of aviation security or imposing a burden that will ultimately fall on passengers.

The Regulatory Policy Committee also identified transitional costs of transferring the security function of approximately £1.5 million, as well as ongoing costs beyond the transition, not least because

“the CAA will be responsible for upgrading systems in perpetuity”.

It is therefore

“likely that the CAA may borrow from the National Loans Fund to fund IT improvements.”

I appreciate that the Secretary of State inherited her predecessor’s plans to meet the 15% cut in the Department for Transport budget. She has shown a willingness to look again at some of his rasher decisions, and I hope that she does so in respect of that major change to aviation security, for which the case has not yet been made.

I urge the Government to think again about one other aspect of their aviation policy. An announcement is expected in the Budget—if not before—on the sale of their remaining stake in NATS. Recent media reports have suggested that DFS, Germany’s state-owned air traffic service, has been in talks with the Government. Yet again, just as with our rail industry, the Government’s ideological obsession turns out to be not so much opposition to a public stake in delivering transport services as an opposition to a British public stake in doing so. Just as the Dutch national railway will this week begin to operate the East Anglia franchise, with Deutsche Bahn and SNCF snapping at its heals on other parts of the network, our airspace might be controlled, in effect, by the German Government.

There are several very serious reasons why the Government would be wrong to withdraw completely from NATS. The current shared-ownership model between Government and airlines works well. The airline group has opposed an outright sale of the Government’s stake and raised the prospect of the industry walking away. The airlines are best placed to ensure the success that NATS has become, not least because of their healthy self-interest in safety and industrial relations. There are concerns about the impact of a foreign power taking a stake in NATS on the integration of civilian and military operations, which would put at risk the operational benefits of that integrated approach. There are also questions about the Government’s ability to play a leading role in air traffic policy at EU level if they become the only Government to have given up their stake in their air traffic service.

[Justine Greening]

It is probably wise for me to remind the hon. Lady that the Labour Government part-privatised NATS in the first place.

[Maria Eagle]

I am well aware that the Labour Government sold a stake in NATS. I am talking about the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s proposal to sell all of it. It is a question of the Government retaining a stake. If she is willing to confirm that the Government will retain a stake, I will be happy to give way to her. She shakes her head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman would wait just a moment, he might hear my suggestion.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was apparently persuaded of the case for a new airport in the Thames estuary, a position that lasted a full 24 hours before the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) slapped him down. Then the papers were briefed that new runways at Gatwick or Stansted were back on the agenda, despite the coalition agreement seemingly ruling that out. British business cannot afford this chaos and confusion continuing until or even beyond the next election. That is why I have made a clear offer to the Secretary of State for us to work together and put aside our differences for the good of the country to see whether we can agree a joint position on how we can meet the capacity issues in light of the decision on Heathrow. We have been disappointed that, three months on, the Government have not responded to that offer.

I was, however, encouraged by the constructive response from the Conservative party chair, Baroness Warsi, on last week’s BBC “Question Time”, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). She said:

“Some serious discussions—cross-party discussions—have to take place, because I don’t think anyone in this country wants us to be a republic which is left behind and really nobody wants to trade with.”

Leaving aside why the chair of the Conservative party believes that we are a republic, she is right to agree with us that we need a cross-party approach, and about the consequences of not agreeing a way forward. If the Transport Secretary would like to confirm that she does accept our offer and is willing to begin talks on how we can move forward on this issue together, then I am happy to give way.

[Justine Greening]

Part of the challenge is that the hon. Lady’s party has so many different policies on so many different days, it is difficult to know whom we would be talking with.

[Maria Eagle]

Coming from a party that last week had a different policy every day, none of which was in accordance with the majority party’s manifesto or the coalition agreement, it is a bit of a cheek for the Secretary of State to put that point to us.

A successful, thriving aviation sector is crucial for our economic competitiveness. It is vital that industry can plan for the future with certainty, not least to deliver the investment needed to provide the additional capacity required if we are not to fall further behind our EU competitors. I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward this Bill and take forward the reforms that we began—

Rail Fares

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

The reality is that when the previous Government saw what train operating companies were doing with the power that flex gave them to game the system and clobber some commuters far more than others, we banned it. This Government have reintroduced it. Times are still tough and the Government should not have caved in to pressure from train companies, but they seem to be unwilling, or perhaps incapable, of standing up to vested interests on behalf of commuters, who are now paying the price. I have made it clear that we would have strictly enforced the 1% above inflation cap and not allowed the increases of up to 11% that commuters have faced at ticket offices since the new year.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to finish the other part of her phrase, which is that she would not have allowed rises of above RPI plus 1%, just as she would not have allowed below RPI plus 1% flexibility. Will she confirm that that is the position and that many commuters would face fare increases under her proposals?

[Maria Eagle]

What we are not seeing from train operating companies or the Government are proposals to reduce fares. The technical position is of course that if an average cap is applied to each fare, the fare rise will apply to each fare. The Secretary of State is right about that, technically speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

No.

Next year’s fare increases are set to be even higher—not 1% but 3% above inflation, with the same again in 2014. Unless the Government are willing to stand up to the train companies, and unless they are willing to take on the vested interests and remove the right to add another increase of up to another 5% on top of this year’s so-called cap, commuters next year will face fare rises of up to 13%, with another 13% the year after. That is happening at a time when average incomes are plummeting. Over three years, some tickets will rise by almost one third as people’s real incomes fall by 7.5%, yet the Government seem completely out of touch with the impact of that on households.

Season tickets are heading rapidly towards £10,000 a year on some routes into London once underground travel is included; families are now paying more on commuting costs than on the mortgage or rent; and ticket price rises are outstripping wage increases several times over, if people are fortunate to see a wage increase at all. That is the cost-of-living-crisis facing households throughout the country. Rent levels are going up; energy and water bills are rising relentlessly; bank charges are extortionate, as the cost of living means overdraft limits are breached; and the cost of transport is rising.

[Justine Greening]

I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady, who is raising what we all recognise as important issues, but I want to double check something, because earlier in her speech she talked about getting more money into Government coffers through the RPI plus 5% flexible policy. Does she recognise that the policy she is announcing today is a spending commitment? If so, how does she set it against what her shadow Chancellor said yesterday, when he stated:

“I can say to you unequivocally we can make no commitments to reverse any of the Government’s tax rises or spending cuts”?

[Maria Eagle]

I do not know the spending commitment to which the Secretary of State says I have referred, because there is no spending commitment, and it is complete nonsense for her to say that there is —[Interruption.] I understand her point, but if she wishes to try again I will give way.

[Justine Greening]

Clearly, the money for that policy has to come from somewhere, and it is from the taxpayer. The hon. Lady obviously accepts that point, so the policy is a spending commitment. Will she simply confirm the reality of that?

[Maria Eagle]

What I have said is that we would stop the operation of the flex system, as the Secretary of State’s Labour predecessor did. We said before the election that we would do so, but the Government have reversed that policy, and commuters are being clobbered as a result. That is quite clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Given that the Secretary of State has said that she is interested in reducing the costs of the railway industry, does she accept that she needs to examine its structure? One of the big causes of excess cost in the industry is the fragmentation that was left to us after the botched privatisation that the previous Tory Government carried out.

[Justine Greening]

I think many people watching the debate will wonder why the hon. Lady’s party did nothing in 13 years. I will shortly publish a Command Paper setting out our approach to tackling a number of the broad challenges that exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to set out the very difficult balance that we have to strike. On one hand we have to ensure that we keep rail fares affordable, and I am determined to do what I can to do that in spite of the fiscal straitjacket within which the Government are having to operate. On the other hand, we have to ensure that we can balance investment in the short term. I am sure that many Members were delighted to see Bombardier agree the contract with Southern for more carriages, and we are putting unprecedented investment into the existing railway lines. We have to strike a balance between working out who pays for the hard work that is going on today and ensuring that we have a railway network that is fit for service in the future.

I know that some passengers on particular routes have faced higher increases than others, and I listened to what the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said about the 5% flex in rail fares. I am bound to point out, however, that it was the last Labour Government who introduced that flex in 2004.

[Maria Eagle]

I accept that it was introduced by the Labour Government, but it was then stopped by the Labour Government and reintroduced by the current Government.

[Maria Eagle]

No, permanently.

[Justine Greening]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady has made that intervention, because I have with me an exact extract from the franchise agreement that the last Labour Transport Secretary put in place. I shall quote from it, to remove any uncertainty, and then maybe the hon. Lady would like to intervene on me again. It states:

“With effect from 1 January 2010, Schedule 5 of the Franchise Agreement will be amended as set out in the Appendix to this notice.”

That is the change that she has talked about. However, it continues:

“On and from 1 January 2011, the amendment to the Franchise Agreement set out in this notice of amendment shall be reversed.”

Does she want to intervene to correct the record?

[Maria Eagle]

I am very happy to intervene. Of course I will not contradict what the legal agreement states, but the last Labour Transport Secretary made it perfectly clear to the Transport Select Committee in 2009, in oral and written evidence, that the policy was to continue. It had not been negotiated, but that is different from the policy having been changed. Negotiations go on all the time in government, as the Secretary of State will be finding out. I do not think that quotation makes the point that she thinks it does.

[Justine Greening]

I really suggest that the hon. Lady stops digging the last Labour Transport Secretary into a deeper hole than he is already in. The contract is absolutely clear-cut, stating categorically in black and white that the flexibility levels introduced by her party’s Government would be reintroduced the year after their abolition.

High-speed Rail

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I welcome her decision today. As the right hon. Lady was generous enough to say, it was the previous Labour Government who started us on the journey that has now reached this important milestone. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), for having the boldness to set out a vision for a new high-speed rail line to address the capacity issues on our existing mainlines while cutting journey times across Britain. This is a vital project for the country, and I welcome the decision to give the green light to this investment in the face of considerable opposition—not least from many of the Secretary of State’s own colleagues, including from inside the Cabinet.

Labour Members believe that it is vital that the new high-speed line is built—not just between London and Birmingham, but on to Manchester and Leeds. So while I welcome the commitment given today to the whole HS2 scheme, there will be disappointment that the Government’s announcement has stopped short of committing to legislating for the entire route to Manchester and Leeds in this Parliament. That was always Labour’s intention, as confirmed by the former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in his evidence to the Transport Select Committee—a position the Select Committee said had merit.

Of course it is right that a single Bill would need to await completion of preparatory work for the second phase of the route. However, by introducing it later in this Parliament and carrying it over to the next, as we did with the legislation for Crossrail, we would secure Parliament’s approval for the whole route at an earlier date than under the Government’s plans. That would, of course, open up the possibility, if it proved feasible, of beginning construction in the north as well as the south—something that the Transport Select Committee urged the Government to consider. The Secretary of State should do so and the Government should think again on the issue of using a single piece of legislation to make HS2 possible all the way to the top of the Y route. At the very least, will the Secretary of State agree, as a minimum, to follow the Transport Select Committee’s recommendation to include a “purpose clause” in the hybrid Bill that she plans, providing statutory force to the commitment to continue the scheme to Manchester and Leeds?

Turning to other issues in the statement, the Secretary of State says that there will be “direct links to Heathrow airport and the continent via the HS1 line”. There will be disappointment that the Government have not accepted the case—not least in her own team—to build a transport hub at Heathrow, enabling a direct connection between the airport, HS2, Crossrail and the Great Western mainline at one site. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) is on record as saying that

“failing to take high speed rail through Heathrow…would be a big mistake”.

This is a failure to learn the lessons of successful high-speed rail schemes across the world. When the Government claim this route would cost more, they fail to include the cost of building the spur; and when the Government claim it would increase journey times, they fail to make clear that this hub would be instead of Old Oak Common and would allow for non-stopping services.

Can the Secretary of State confirm the cost of building the separate spur to Heathrow? Can she confirm that the Government’s intention is to enable at least the possibility of direct services between Heathrow and the continent at the end of phase 2? Can the right hon. Lady tell the House what discussions she has had with the European Commission over the potential for EU funding towards the costs of HS2? Is it correct that the decision not to take the route via Heathrow and the concerns over the planned link to HSl mean that such support is less likely to be forthcoming?

In respect of Scotland, the Secretary of State has said that HS2

“will form a foundation for a potentially wider high speed network in years to come.”

Can she confirm that the Government still intend to begin discussions with the Scottish Government on the future development of the network to Scotland during the next Parliament? When do they expect to start work on the business case for further extensions beyond the Y?

As for what the Secretary of State said about mitigation and costs, I welcome the steps that she has taken to address some of the concerns that led the Labour party to propose its alternative route, although none of these measures addresses the impact on the Chilterns as effectively as would a route via Heathrow. It is the Government’s own stubbornness that has forced them to commit themselves to significant additional spending to prevent a Cabinet resignation.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what the extra cost of each of the new mitigation proposals that she has announced today will be, and whether those costs will be met within the existing cost envelope for HS2? What assessment of value for money has she made in respect of the costs of these measures, compared with those of offering greater protection to the Chilterns through a different alignment? I welcome the mitigation measures proposed for London, although there remains a significant impact on the area around Euston station. Will the Secretary of State assure the local community in Camden that she will listen to their concerns, and will take appropriate steps to mitigate the impact of the redevelopment of Euston station? What discussions has she had with Transport for London on how best to address the concerns that have been raised about the impact of the very large increase in the numbers arriving at Euston on HS2?

There has been considerable debate about the affordability of building the line, but not about the affordability of using it once it opens. I note that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about that in her statement. Does she agree with us that now is the time to move the debate from whether we should build to discussing the type of high-speed rail network that we want to see in this country? Her predecessor as Secretary of State—I am pleased to see that he is present—told the Transport Committee:

“If you are working in a factory in Manchester you might never get on HS2, but you will certainly be benefiting from it if the salesman and sales director of your company is routinely hopping on it to go and meet customers, to jet around the world from Heathrow in a way that brings in orders that keep you employed.”

Is that not precisely the wrong approach to high-speed rail? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a high-speed rail network that is affordable for the many and not the few—a network that is not a “rich man’s toy” or simply a business class service?

Today we have reached an important stage in the development of high-speed rail in this country, a process begun by Labour. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the issues that we have raised. This is a major scheme which deserves proper scrutiny. We have raised questions with the clear intention of ensuring that we have the best possible high-speed rail network, one that the country needs and deserves. We strongly support the building of HS2. [Hon. Members: “Hurray!”] I said that in the first sentence of my reply. I look forward to working on a cross-party basis with the Secretary of State and her colleagues to ensure that parliamentary approval is secured, and that this vital project can move ahead and become a reality.

[Justine Greening]

I am delighted to hear that the Labour party supports our high-speed rail proposals. As I think even Labour Members would have to admit, the original proposal did indeed come from my party. I must point out that high-speed rail did not feature in the Labour Government’s 2007 White Paper setting out the 30-year vision for the railways. However, we are pleased that Labour has belatedly seen the real potential of a high-speed rail network in Britain.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about legislation for the full Y network. I am considering whether it is possible for us to build that into the hybrid Bill, but I can give a categorical assurance that I have decided that we should go ahead with the full Y network. I have also announced today the final decision on the route of phase 1 of that network.

The hon. Lady asked about Heathrow, which has clearly been an important aspect of the issue. HS2 will go directly to Heathrow. That will happen as part of phase 2. People will be able to get on a high-speed train in Birmingham that goes direct to Heathrow. The hon. Lady raised the question of whether HS2 should go directly via Heathrow. The last Labour Transport Secretary of State, Lord Adonis, looked at that, and he concluded— as did I and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) —that that is not the most cost-effective or line-effective route for the line to take. It would be a longer line, and it would be more expensive.

The hon. Lady asked whether we will seek EU funding. The business case we have presented to the House today is based on a working assumption that the £32 billion cost of this railway will come from the rail budget—that it will be taxpayer-funded. The business case would improve if we were able to get private sector and EU funding. We believe that this is a high-value project and we will look to see whether we can secure such contributions, especially from the private sector, and they would make that business case even stronger than it already is.

I am keen to talk with the Scottish Government about their aspirations for high-speed rail further north. Their desire to see this project go ahead underlines its strategic value to the entire UK, not just the London-to-Birmingham part of our country.

On mitigation, the hon. Lady raised the important question of how we tackled the issue of the line going through an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns. I want to emphasise that I looked very hard along the entire line. I understood the specific concerns people had in respect of this AONB, and I took them very seriously, but I looked at the whole line to see how we could mitigate its impact on local communities wherever possible, because that is important and the right thing to do. The changes in the Chilterns that we have made will result in that stretch of the line costing in the region of £250 million to £300 million less, because the engineering solutions we have found will involve less use of deep cutting. That will mean that we have less spoil, and the removal of spoil is often what causes huge expense. I hope that provides some reassurance to the hon. Lady. For some parts of this route, improving the line is good not only for local communities but for the business case for the line.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of the redevelopment of Euston station that will happen as part of HS2’s phase 1 proposal. We believe the line coming into Euston can be part and parcel of the regeneration of the Euston area. We must ensure that Euston makes the most of the investment that will go into Euston station. I fully understand that two-thirds of the homes that will be demolished will be next to Euston station, and we will work very closely with Camden council. A number of statutory processes are already in place to provide safeguards for tenants who will be affected, but I can assure the House that I will work very closely with Camden council in considering how we can minimise the impact of the redevelopment of Euston station on current residents. I will, of course, also be delighted to work with the Mayor in considering traffic flows on the tube and how high-speed rail will interact with our tube network.

The hon. Lady asked about affordability and pricing, and I agree that that is very important. The business case we have done assumes a pricing level that is the same as the standard pricing on the current network. That has been the presumption. As we get closer to the finalisation of the route and its development, I am sure we will look at the pricing, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the success of this high-speed railway network will be based on its being used by many people, not a few. I have no doubt that the pricing of the tickets will be set in order to achieve that.

M5 Motorway Accident

Debate between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the serious collision that took place on the M5 motorway in Somerset on the evening of Friday 4 November.

As the House will be aware, at approximately 20 minutes past 8 on Friday evening, a road traffic collision occurred on the M5 northbound in Somerset involving multiple vehicles. Some of those vehicles subsequently caught fire. The incident occurred between junction 25, Taunton, and junction 24, Bridgwater North, approximately a third of a mile north of junction 25. The emergency services and the Highways Agency responded to the incident immediately, and therefore a large number of emergency service vehicles and resources were able to attend the scene very quickly.

At approximately 9 pm, based on the numbers of casualties and vehicles involved, Avon and Somerset police declared a major incident. Due to the nature of the incident scene, it took some time to confirm exactly how many people and vehicles were involved in the collision. Avon and Somerset police have now confirmed that 37 vehicles were involved in the collision. Tragically, seven people lost their lives. A further 51 people were injured and were treated at Musgrove Park hospital, Yeovil district hospital or at the scene.

I would like again to offer my condolences—and I am sure those of the House—to those who have lost friends or family in that horrific crash, as well as to offer our thoughts to those who have been injured. The families of those who lost their lives are being supported by specially trained family liaison officers from Avon and Somerset police, who will continue to work with them as long as they are needed.

Police investigations on the motorway were completed at 10 minutes past 4 on Sunday 6 November, and the scene was then handed over to the Highways Agency and its contractors to begin repairs to the carriageway.

The collision incident caused a significant amount of damage to the highway: a stretch of 40 metres of road was damaged by fuel spillage from vehicles and a stretch of 60 metres was damaged by intense fire. Two lanes of the southbound carriageway reopened yesterday at 20 past 5 and, following extensive resurfacing works, all lanes on the northbound carriageway reopened shortly before 9 pm. The final remaining lane closure on the southbound carriageway was removed at 20 past 9 last night, and the road is now running in both directions.

The Minister responsible for roads, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), visited the scene of the incident on Saturday, and I was there yesterday. I was tremendously impressed by the determination and professionalism of staff from the emergency services—police, fire crews and ambulance staff—local hospitals and the Highways Agency. They worked with real dedication in the most difficult of circumstances. Our efforts to deal with the scene also involved the Environment Agency. The way in which all those agencies were able to work together highly effectively was critical in ensuring that those involved in the accident were helped and treated speedily. I pay tribute to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham who, as gold commander, led those efforts.

It was a harrowing and painstaking task for all concerned to deal with the incident, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank massively all those involved for their efforts and bravery, including individual members of the public who were passing or near the incident, some of whom tried to help those trapped in vehicles. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the local community, people and businesses in and around Taunton. From local people and hotels offering to accommodate relatives of those injured and members of the public offering support, to local off-duty hospital staff turning up at their hospitals to help to provide care, it was humbling and inspiring to see how selflessly so many people were willing to offer their support to others who needed it.

It would be a mistake at this very early stage to speculate about the causes of the collision. Investigations into the cause of the crash are still at a very early stage. To put that in context, the recovery phase finished only yesterday, and it is only today that the investigation phase becomes the key focus. While Avon and Somerset police have indicated that the presence of smoke on the carriageway is a significant line of inquiry, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham has been clear that, in his words to me earlier today, it is “far too early” to jump to conclusions on the causal factors of the incident. Our first priority now must be to ensure that the police are able to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the crash.

As I said, earlier today I spoke to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, whose Avon and Somerset force is leading the ongoing investigation. He told me that, given the large number of vehicles involved, and the need carefully to look at the vehicles recovered and of course to talk to the many witnesses, it may be some weeks until the investigation can conclude on any cause or causes of the incident. The police continue to appeal for witnesses, and I encourage anyone with any information to contact the police directly on 101 or by calling Crimestoppers on 0800 500 111.

I would like to emphasise to the House the extremely high priority that I attach to road safety. The UK has a proud tradition as a world leader on road safety, and that is a tradition that I am determined to continue. Although the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years, the horrific crash on Friday has reminded us of the terrible personal consequences of collisions for motorists and local communities. Earlier this year, the Government published a road safety framework that commits us to a range of activities that will enable us to do even better in future. We will of course take full account of any lessons from this terrible collision in developing our future policies and supporting the future safe travel of people.

The safety of our roads also requires effective partnership working across a wide range of organisations—national and local government, police and emergency services, and many others. We need to work together effectively if we are going to do the best job we can of ensuring that people stay safe on our roads. Over the coming weeks, and going beyond any lessons that may be learned from this particular incident, I will be considering carefully our forward plans on road safety to ensure that we have the right measures in place to deliver real and urgent progress on tackling the continuing blight of death and injury on our roads. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for early sight of it. I am sure that we would both have preferred the circumstances of her first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport to be different, but may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her appointment? I wish her well in her new role, and I am sure that her decision to visit the scene of this horrific incident over the weekend will have been appreciated, as will the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), particularly by those still working to deal with the aftermath. May I associate Labour Members with the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed for those who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered injuries in this tragedy?

I join the right hon. Lady in thanking the emergency services in Somerset. Tales of extraordinary bravery have emerged from what must have been a terrifying situation, and yet again we have been reminded of the professionalism and dedication of our emergency services. I also add our thanks to the staff of Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton and Yeovil district hospital. They provided an exceptional response after the incident and are continuing to provide the first-class care that we have come to expect and rely on from our national health service.

This is one of the worst road accidents we have suffered for many years, and it is right that the police must now be able to carry out the very thorough investigation they have begun into the cause of this tragedy. The truth is that we do not know today whether there were steps that could have been taken to prevent the incident. We must await the conclusions of the investigation and avoid the temptation to rush to judgment.

While families are struggling to come to terms with their devastating loss and victims lie injured, I do not believe it is the right time to pass judgment on specific policies. The Secretary of State said that lessons will be learned for future policy development. Will she confirm that the conclusions of the investigation into this incident will be fully considered before steps are taken to advance any of her Department’s proposals that she has inherited that may have a bearing on road safety?

The Secretary of State referred to the dramatic fall in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads over previous years. However, she will have noticed the increase in deaths over the last year, which was reported just last week. That is something of which she and this House need to take particular note. She should know that she will have the full support of the Opposition if she brings a renewed focus to the challenge of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has yet discussed this incident with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in his place, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? Have they confirmed whether they intend to review the licensing regime for public events, firework displays and bonfires? Following the fire under the M1 in April, the then Secretary of State for Transport promised a review of the wider lessons that should be learned about the activities that we allow to take place under motorways. Will the right hon. Lady update the House on that work and on any conclusions that have been reached? Will she consider widening that work to consider activities alongside, as well as underneath, our motorways?

Finally, I would be grateful for an assurance that the Secretary of State will make a further statement to the House following the conclusion of the investigation. It is important that there is an opportunity to discuss these issues more fully than feels appropriate today. I thank her for ensuring that the House has been updated at the earliest possible opportunity following this tragedy.

[Justine Greening]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words welcoming me to my new role. As she says, it is a shame that I arrived at the Dispatch Box under these circumstances.

In response to the points that the hon. Lady made, of course we will consider the lessons that can be learned from this incident, if there are any. As she pointed out, the most important thing is to ensure that the police can get on with their investigation as it unfolds. It is worth reiterating her point that, for the families of people who have been injured and particularly for the families who have lost relatives, it is important that we do not speculate unnecessarily about what might have caused the accident.

On road safety, the hon. Lady pointed out last quarter’s figures, which showed a rise in fatalities. It is also fair to point out that in the 12 months to the end of June, we continued to see an overall reduction in fatalities and injuries on our roads, so the trend is moving in the right direction. The challenge for this House is to ensure that that does not level off and that we take steps to ensure that the figures come down further, as far as possible.

The hon. Lady’s question about licensing arrangements slightly prejudges where the police investigation may end up. She has made the point that there is a question over whether this event falls under the Licensing Act 2003 as a regulated event. That is clearly something that the police and the local authority will consider.

If the police investigation that is under way presents any conclusions that I think it is important for this House to consider, I will of course come back and make a statement. It is possible that the police will conclude that they cannot say absolutely what caused the collision. However, if there are meaningful lessons and conclusions that it is worth this House discussing, I will ensure that we have a follow-up statement.