National Policy Statement: Airports

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome today’s debate. Finally, after decades of dithering, this House is being asked to trigger the process that could approve a third runway for Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport. The debate on the expansion of aviation capacity in the south-east has always focused on balancing the importance of international connectivity with its impact on key local and international environmental issues, such as noise and emissions, but taking a decision has been put in the “too hard” box for far too long.

I support a third runway at Heathrow: the case for jobs and the economy is overwhelming. Heathrow has been virtually full for a decade for both passengers and freight. Failure to take a decision has already had consequences. Airports in the regions have not benefited; instead, the UK has lost out to other hubs—to places such as Frankfurt, Paris, and Schiphol, and further afield, Dubai. Only this week it has been reported that Munich has now overtaken Heathrow for international connectivity. That has impeded the development of much needed trade outside Europe, and it has severe consequences for the economy. A 10% increase in air connectivity brings a 0.5% increase in per capita GDP.

Heathrow is particularly important for freight, especially to countries outside Europe. Adding one flight to each of Heathrow’s five routes to China would deliver an extra £16 million per annum to our economy, creating 530 jobs, and that cannot be done without the expansion of Heathrow. All the main business organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce, have repeatedly warned that cargo capacity to pivotal trading markets in Shanghai, Delhi and Dubai is virtually full. The CBI is concerned that if additional capacity is not available by 2030, we could lose £5 billion per annum in trade to Brazil, Russia, India and China alone. These concerns are echoed by the major trade unions. We ignore these warnings at our peril.

Expanding Heathrow is not an alternative to supporting airports in the regions. Airlines take commercial decisions about where they will fly; if Heathrow is full, the alternative has been another hub, such as Paris, Frankfurt or other airports—it has not been to move to the English regions. I support all efforts to develop airports in the regions, and that includes improving surface access, but the shortage of slots at Heathrow has weakened regional connectivity. Liverpool was squeezed out by Heathrow decades ago because of the shortage of slots. The commitment for 15% of new slots in an expanded Heathrow to be reserved for links to the regions is to be welcomed. For Liverpool John Lennon airport, Heathrow expansion offers a direct connection to international flights, plus a logistics hub, with the potential of a lasting legacy of construction and engineering skills for future generations, but it is essential that that is delivered.

The economic case for expanding Heathrow is overwhelming, but environmental concerns are critical as well. They could, and should, be addressed through the development consent process and other methods, such as taking steps to impose legally binding targets, better aircraft design, much improved public transport and a new use of airspace strategy.

Today is a watershed. We must draw a line under decades of dithering and take the bold decision that is required in the national interest. Expansion at Heathrow will link the UK to vital emerging markets, make it possible for airports outside the south-east to be connected to the hub, and bring jobs and opportunities across the country. The House should now take the responsible decision: support the national policy statement and back a third runway for Heathrow.

Airports National Policy Statement

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have no doubt that the Chancellor will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said about APD, and I am sure he will not be alone in making that point in the run-up to the next Budget.

On the planning process, we think it is better that decisions on smaller expansion projects—typically under 10 million passenger expansions—are taken locally in full light of the impacts on local communities, both positive in terms of the economic generation but also other impacts on communities around them. Where a project is bigger than that, we think we should continue to use the NPS process; we think that provides the right balance, ensuring that local decisions are taken about projects of an appropriate size, but that if a future project is on a much more substantial scale this House continues to play the part it does today.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this statement, and I support expansion at Heathrow; it is absolutely essential for the national interest and for international connectivity. This plan is supported by Liverpool’s John Lennon airport. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that the promised link between the expanded Heathrow airport and Liverpool will materialise?

[Chris Grayling]

First, I thank the hon. Lady for her clear statement of support. She has a distinguished record in this area. She and I served on the Transport Committee when we were first elected. She is a very experienced person in the transport world, and I am grateful to her for her support and for sharing my view of the strategic importance of this decision. On protecting the right of access, Heathrow has made a number of specific commitments. Ultimately, this will require airlines to be able and willing to fly those routes, but my view is that the opening up of Heathrow to new carriers—some of the low-cost carriers that have done well elsewhere and that dominate the other airports—will ensure that those routes happen. I will have to ensure that the slots are there for those carriers to fly to and that, in places where there is a social need but not an economic one, we continue to provide support through the public service obligation system.

Rail Timetabling

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s points. I hope and expect, and am insisting, that we see stabilisation during the course of this week. What matters is that people know which trains are going to run, and that they know a train will be there when they turn up. That is the most important priority, certainly on her line.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of my constituents are furious that they cannot get to work owing to driver shortages and mass cancellations in the timetable in what is supposed to be a situation of planned improvements. How much worse does it have to get before the Secretary of State will consider removing the franchise?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course the future of both franchises is a genuine issue, but I honestly think that the most important thing right now is to solve the problem. Sacking the people who are working to solve the problem would probably not get us anywhere. As to what will happen a few months’ time, when we have seen the Glaister report—that is a very different question.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Louise Ellman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Allocation of time motion: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading & Allocation of time motion & Carry-over motion & Money resolution
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend will know that I have been consistent all the way through in talking about this as a capacity project. I know that she and I are on different sides of the argument, but, from the time I was shadow Transport Secretary a decade ago, I have always talked about this improvement in terms of capacity, and I will continue to do so, because that is the most important part of it. We can debate the rights and wrongs, but I believe it is a capacity project—the speed is a bonus. I do not believe in building something with old technology—we should have a state-of-the-art railway—but the big difference this will make will be to capacity.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Bill, but I note that the Minister referred to connecting the west midlands to HS2. What about the northern powerhouse and Liverpool’s connection to the new high-speed line?

[Chris Grayling]

I did mention the northern powerhouse. In terms of Liverpool, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is a city I have great affection for, as we move beyond the Bill and develop northern powerhouse rail and integrate what needs to be done in the north with the north-south routes and HS2, I believe that all the great cities of the north—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, York, Hull—will benefit, as indeed will places further north, such as Carlisle and Scotland. I will come back to Scotland in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. I support the Bill because it brings the potential benefits of HS2 to parts of the north earlier than was envisaged—2027 is a lot better than 2033. HS2 is visionary, but that vision will be realised only if the high-speed network is linked to the existing classic network and if regeneration takes place not just at high-speed rail stations, but in areas around those stations and beyond, in supporting transport links and investing in businesses. Local enterprise partnerships, perhaps working together and looking across regions, need to put together regional strategies to ensure that transport investment leads to more opportunities for business, employment and skills.

We have said a great deal about the importance of high-speed rail, and HS2 specifically, in bringing new capacity on to our rail line. That is, in essence, what this is all about. But in ensuring that that increased capacity is maximised, we have to look at how we can develop services on the classic line once the high-speed line has been built. We also have to remember the importance of developing freight links, as freight routes are essential. In areas such as Liverpool, among others, where port trade is developing, it is crucial that new freight lines are made available. One of the strong reasons for HS2 is that the existing lines running passenger services on the west coast main line are virtually full and there is simply no space for freight. As we develop HS2, it is essential that thought is given to freight.

Let me turn to some specific issues that affect the north in general and Liverpool in particular. I emphasise the importance of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which has already been mentioned, for people throughout the north. I certainly welcome Transport for the North’s having been put on a statutory footing in the past couple of weeks. Nevertheless, when will the transformational changes promised by Northern Powerhouse Rail and Transport for the North actually be realised? It is important that those changes happen so that places such as Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle and Hull have much better lines of communication between them as part of the development of their economies.

I welcome the setting up of Northern Powerhouse Rail because it goes beyond the parochial and shows that we are looking at things on a regional and cross-regional basis. That is the only way we are going to bring real economic changes to our communities, but those changes have to take place in a reasonable timescale. They must not remain simply promises for the future that do not actually happen. It is important to restate that although Northern Powerhouse Rail is extremely important for Liverpool and for the north, it is not an alternative to HS2. It is foolish for people to suggest that.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I, too, welcome HS2 for the very same reasons. There needs to be investment in the north. What with the £70 billion of investment in Northern Powerhouse Rail over the next 30 years, we have an opportunity to get the vision off the ground and really make a difference in the north of England.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with the hon. Lady. It would be a grave mistake to have a new high-speed line from London to Birmingham that stopped there and left the rest of the country to deal with lesser investment that will bring fewer economic development returns. We need both.

The case has long been argued that Liverpool needs a direct link to the new high-speed line. I recognise that the existing plans will bring benefit to Liverpool in terms of increased capacity and quicker journeys between Liverpool and London and between Liverpool and other cities. Nevertheless, for Liverpool to benefit in a way that is comparable to other major cities, there needs to be a direct link. Proposals have been developed for a new line so that Liverpool can have a direct link to both Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2. However, the exact status of those proposals is unclear to me. They have been worked up in considerable detail and put into various potential plans, but will the Minister tell me exactly what their current status is?

I asked the Secretary of State about this at the start of the debate. I welcomed his comments about his support for Liverpool—indeed, he said that he was very fond of Liverpool and reiterated that it would benefit from HS2—but he was not specific about how anything was going to happen. What progress has been made on linking Liverpool directly with both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail? Liverpool is increasingly successful, partly because of its transport links, but for its potential to be realised fully, we must improve this even more, which means having a proper connection to high-speed rail, along with investment in the classic rail system and in Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Liverpool’s new deep-water container port is extremely important. It is important to have freight links to the northern ports. We are developing as an increasingly important logistics centre and as a visitor destination, and the growing cruise line sector is extremely exciting, which means that Liverpool needs to maximise its transport links. I hope that I will get a proper answer from the Minister on those issues.

I will just refer, too, to some concerns about how the Crewe hub is intended to develop based on the information that is available now. There are proposals to do with splitting trains at Crewe, which could adversely impact on current plans for high-speed Liverpool to London journeys. I query whether improvements will be made on Liverpool to Birmingham journeys in the way that they were first envisaged. I ask for that to be looked at again during the further discussions that will inevitably take place.

In summary, I welcome this Bill. It is a great step forward. I support high-speed rail; I think it is visionary, but for that vision to be realised, there must be continued investment in the classic line, new lines where they are required and business regeneration connected with that transport development to develop new regional economic strategies that will help to transform the north.

Guards on Merseyrail Trains

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will lay out my arguments, including my comments about that issue, in my speech.

I will use this debate to outline why guards are so important for safety, security, service and accessibility, and to highlight the level of public support for retaining guards on trains. I will discuss their safety-critical function and their valued role in protecting the personal safety of all passengers.

Over the past 30 years, there has been a creeping introduction of driver-only operation. DOO is opposed by the rail unions and unpopular with the public. Since January 2011, there have been at least 10 serious incidents at the passenger-train interface, eight of which involved DOO services operating without a safety-critical member of staff on board the train.

Merseyrail, a private company co-owned by Serco and the Dutch state-owned Abellio, proposes to remove all its 207 guards. That decision comes after Merseytravel, our transport authority, has signed a 30-year contract for new rolling stock worth £460 million.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the new rolling stock, which will have the best accessibility for disabled people in the whole of the country? Does he think that negotiations to resolve the industrial issue are a matter of urgency so that the people of Merseyside can enjoy the new trains when they arrive?

[Dan Carden]

Negotiations are of course critical to resolving the dispute, and I absolutely welcome the new trains. They are long overdue and something the unions have campaigned for. They will be publicly owned by the people of the Liverpool city region and are forecast to be 30% cheaper for the taxpayer than using the failed model of rolling stock leasing companies. ROSCOs are like the loan sharks of the railway, and it is right that they are rejected in Liverpool. The Minister might like to say a few words about why his Department persists in using them across the rest of the rail network.

There is not, however, a binary choice between having our new trains and keeping a fully staffed service. The two are not mutually exclusive. The new carriageless trains, with their more open structure, allow a guard to pass more easily through the length of a train. In fact, Merseytravel originally said it wanted both, because when the new train contract was first announced, Liam Robinson, the chair of Merseytravel, said:

“In an ideal world we’d like to have a second member of staff on every train, but there aren’t the resources to do that.”

I am grateful to Liam for his assistance in the lead-up to this debate.

Local politicians rightly speak up about the pitiful investment in public infrastructure in the north. Tory cuts in revenue support grants to local councils of the city region mean that the local transport levy has been cut by £32 million in real terms, which represents a third of the annual local transport budget being lost. Faced with those cuts, we must defend and maintain the standards we have, protect jobs and passenger safety, and expose unjustifiable profiteering from the travelling public. I will return to the role of local representatives, the transport authority and government later in my remarks, but first let me set out why I believe the first step to resolving the dispute is to agree the principle that keeping the guard on the train is essential, so that we can move to a more constructive debate that looks at solutions.

There are four railway stations in my constituency. The loss of 1,000 police officers and £100 million from Merseyside police’s budget since 2010 has had a devastating impact on our communities and the ability of the police to protect the public. Data released by the British Transport police shows that the number of violent attacks on mainline and underground trains has increased by 12.5% in the past year, with a spike in hate crime. Reported sexual offences on trains have more than doubled in the past five years. Figures obtained under a freedom of information request submitted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers showed that in the past five years there were more than 1,200 on-train crimes on Merseyrail. The figures also show that almost 900 crimes, or 72%, took place before 8 pm, which was the time at which Merseyrail indicated that it would seek to keep a second, non-safety-critical person on the train. That begs the question that if Merseyrail acknowledges the need for a second person on the train after 8 pm, why not before? Just as the public are more vulnerable to crime when police numbers are cut, when frontline rail staff are removed passenger safety is jeopardised.

A report produced for Merseytravel by Passenger Focus in April 2014, titled “Future Merseyrail rolling stock—what passengers want”, was clear. It emerged that the most important factor identified by passengers was personal security on the train. The report showed that passenger satisfaction with personal security while on the train was high, at 86%, and said:

“this aspect is a strength upon which it is important to maintain focus and development.”

It went on to state that:

“the importance of this measure to passengers suggests that if satisfaction with personal security were to decrease in future, this would likely have a severe negative effect on overall satisfaction with the service as a whole.”

Subsequent polling by Opinium found that 84% of women passengers said that they would feel less safe without a guard, and the figure for people over 55 was 85%. Perhaps the best demonstration of how our guards are valued on Merseyside was the fact that a recent petition gained almost 25,000 signatures. It was started by Merseyrail passenger, Ellie Ward, who was assisted by a guard while in a vulnerable position. The guard took extra steps to make her and other female passengers feel secure.

Too much of the debate so far has focused on issues such as who will operate the doors and whether DOO can safely dispatch a train. I am afraid that these arguments are disingenuous and completely miss the point. Neither the Government nor the train company-financed rail regulators have made any assessment of the additional risk to passengers once the train has left the platform, with or without a guard on board. How can any decision on extending DOO claim to take passenger safety seriously before such an assessment has been made?

Train guards’ safety-critical duties include protecting the train, safely securing the doors, and dealing with emergencies such as derailments, evacuations, fires, driver incapacity and failures of train safety systems. On Merseyrail, following a collision between a train and road vehicle at the Crescent Road level crossing in Southport in August 2016, the guard placed isolating equipment on the track, isolated the electric rail and evacuated passengers to safety, while the driver remained in his cab, leading the communications with signallers. Without a guard on the train, such emergencies would be dealt with by controllers up to 20 miles away speaking to passengers via intercom. It cannot conceivably be argued that that is as safe or safer. There are many more such stories, but as I am pushed for time, I will move on.

Disabled passengers, people with visual or hearing impairments, and people who suffer from anxiety rely on the reassuring presence and practical assistance of staff on platforms and guards during their journey. Merseyrail’s current disabled people’s protection policy states that:

“our on-train staff are trained in the procedures to advise and help you”.

The vital role of the guards is also acknowledged in the Rail Delivery Group’s 2017 report “On Track for 2020? The Future of Accessible Rail Travel”. Moreover, it is worth fighting to keep good jobs for the future. Losing more than 200 secure skilled jobs from essential services is in no way progressive.

Despite several days of strike action, the public still overwhelmingly back the guards. Recent polling shows that 78% of regular passengers oppose the removal of guards from Merseyrail. The entire trade union movement and the north-west TUC support the guards, and the Labour party’s policy is clear: to oppose any extension of DOO. The Welsh Government have now guaranteed a guard on every train for future franchises, and Scotland has made similar long-term arrangements. The shadow Secretary of State wrote to train operators last week to tell them that a Labour Government would halt any plans to extend DOO. Merseytravel’s former chairman, Mark Dowd, remains fully opposed to removing the guards, saying that “common sense should prevail”.

It has never been clearer that we need a new structure for our railways. Labour would take back control by bringing our rail network into public ownership. By reinvesting the revenues that are currently disappearing into shareholders’ pockets, a Labour Government would ensure that we have affordable fares, state-of-the-art trains, safe staffing levels and an end to DOO. We would embrace technology while preserving good, skilled jobs.

This Government, on the other hand, do not have a plan for our rail network. They are writing job cuts into rail contracts, and they stand by as private rail companies mismanage services while making eye-watering profits. Almost a quarter of Merseyrail’s income from passengers is swallowed up in profit. Merseyrail’s owners, Serco and Dutch state-owned Abellio, can expect to pay out average dividends of £6.7 million each. It cannot be fair that profits can be extracted from the travelling public to fund Dutch public railways while our own rail network pays the price by losing guards. Is it too much to ask that they take a smaller slice of the profit so that passengers—who fund their profits, let us remember—might continue to have a safe and secure service?

HS2 Update

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The taxpayers are paying the bill, but believe me the Treasury keeps a pretty careful watch on public spending and I have no doubt that it will be keeping a very weather eye on those costs, as will all the various bodies that look at public procurement projects and public construction projects. We have a good recent track record in delivering major projects on time and on budget—people have only to look at Crossrail to see that. We should be self-confident as a nation and say that we can do this. Why would it be the case that other countries can deliver projects such as this and for us to think we cannot—I think we can.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The strength of HS2 is about expanding the capacity of the rail network as a whole, so will the Secretary of State give me an absolute assurance that Liverpool will be directly connected to a new high-speed line and also to Northern Powerhouse Rail?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady knows, Liverpool is one of the cities that will be served from the start by HS2 trains. When we have finished the Golborne link, I expect that in the end to become part of the connection that becomes Northern Powerhouse Rail, but I am waiting for Transport for the North to bring forward its detailed proposals. My view is that Liverpool will benefit enormously through reduced journey times, but I also expect it to be part of Northern Powerhouse Rail. As she knows, I know the city well and I am keen to make sure it benefits from the investment we are putting in.

Emissions and Vehicle Type Approval

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Third Report of the Transport Committee, Volkswagen emissions scandal and vehicle type approval, HC 69, and the Government Response, HC 699.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

In September 2015, the American non-governmental organisation the International Council on Clean Transportation discovered that Volkswagen had been cheating on emissions tests around the world. The purpose of such tests is to ensure that vehicles comply with standards on nitrogen oxides—a poisonous emission. Volkswagen eventually admitted that its cheating started in 2006. Defeat device software was installed so that emissions were reduced only when the vehicle was being tested in the laboratory and did not reflect what happened on the road. The consequence was 11 million VW vehicles worldwide—1.2 million of them in the UK —pumping out poisonous gases at many times the acceptable level. This is an issue of consumer confidence and public health. Emissions standards exist to protect our health; each year, in the UK alone, nitrogen oxides cause 23,000 premature deaths.

The Select Committee on Transport was determined to find out what had happened. In October 2015 we first heard evidence from Paul Willis, the managing director of Volkswagen UK. It quickly became apparent that this was not just a case of one rogue company—it exposed deficiencies in the vehicle testing process. We launched our inquiry into VW emissions and vehicle type approval in November 2015. Our report published in July 2016 made findings in three major areas.

First, Volkswagen showed a cynical disregard in its treatment of European customers. We were astonished to hear Volkswagen apologise for what it had done, and subsequently deny that it had done anything wrong. Its continuing refusal to provide UK customers with any compensation remains deeply unfair. Secondly, the vehicle type approval process was not fit for purpose; riddled with conflicts of interest, its inadequacy meant that VW was able to cheat the emissions standards for years without detection. Thirdly, much needed to be done to improve the emissions tests overall. Like the type approval process, emissions standards have undergone review at EU level, but before the emissions scandal they had been allowed to become hopelessly out of sync with developments in vehicle technology.

We have continued to pursue this issue as regards Volkswagen’s culpability for its deception and in pressing for fair treatment of its UK customers. Doing so raises the question of the adequacy, or inadequacy, of the action of UK authorities.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s impressive speech. Does she agree that the Government are out of pocket because a higher level of vehicle excise duty should have been paid? The vehicles were not as environmentally friendly as they were made out to be, so, in addition to the claims of individual consumers who were misled, the Government are short of tax revenue, which we desperately need for public services. Does she agree?

[Mrs Ellman]

I certainly do. Indeed, I will refer to compensation later, because it relates to the taxpayer, and the Government, as well as to individuals who had purchased vehicles. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

We have continued to pursue this issue both as regards VW’s culpability for deception and in order to seek fair treatment of its customers and, indeed, the taxpayer. Let us look at what happened. Volkswagen’s response to the uncovering of the scandal in the UK has been pitiful. I regret that the Department for Transport has so far been unable to convert its strong words condemning VW’s behaviour into action that delivers concrete benefits for customers and the public, including fair compensation for both.

When Mr Willis first gave evidence to us, and when he came in January 2016, he told us that Volkswagen was committed to uncovering what had happened and making sure it never happened again, and the company apologised for its action. Indeed, if I recall, I do not think that Mr Willis and the company stopped apologising for what it had done for much of the session. We were told that it had hired the law firm Jones Day to investigate and produce a report that would be made public. We were told that the investigation involved 450 people looking through the equivalent of 50 million books. Great importance was attached to that; indeed, Mr Willis told us that he declined to answer a number of our questions because the issues would be dealt with in the Jones Day report that was to be made public and that we would clearly then have access to.

When we questioned the same Mr Willis in Committee two months ago we heard an entirely different story. He assured us that the Jones Day findings were contained in the statement of facts published by the United States Department of Justice as part of its deal with Volkswagen —a document that is 29 pages long—and told us that no other Jones Day findings would be published at all. He implied that a report might not even exist; it might just be this statement of facts—29 pages and not to be published. It stretches credulity that the findings of such an extensive investigation can be summarised in 29 pages. The statement of facts produced for the US Justice Department focuses on events in the USA, and Volkswagen itself repeatedly stated that the events in Europe are entirely different.

We pursued Mr Willis further to seek clarification of a number of points. One was that he appeared to speak in direct contradiction to the evidence given to us by the Minister, who followed him in the evidence session. We received a written response from Mr Willis. That response was not to my or the Committee’s satisfaction; it did not clarify the issue. I have therefore written, on the Committee’s behalf, to Hans Dieter Pötsch, chairman of VW’s supervisory board, seeking further information and, I hope, clarification of where the truth lies.

After so much effort, Volkswagen’s refusal to release in full the findings of the report that we were told so clearly would be published is deeply suspicious. I wonder what the company has to hide and why it is doing this. Mr Willis had told us at an earlier point that it was “implausible” that a senior Volkswagen employee would have known about the defeat devices; indeed, we were told that the scandal originated with a few rogue engineers. Clearly, that view is not shared by the American and German authorities, which are actively investigating several senior VW employees. Oliver Schmidt, who gave evidence to our Committee last year, is among those now being investigated in the States—a situation that hardly inspires confidence.

If VW’s position is that the scandal was caused by a few rogue engineers, it must release the full Jones Day findings to prove that contention. If VW refuses to do so, I ask the Department to act. I recognise that the Department has asked for the Jones Day report, but as far as I am aware, it has not been produced. Will the Minister update us on his efforts to secure the full Jones Day findings and place them in the public domain? Also, what discussions has he held with his American counterparts about the possibility of sharing the information already given to the US judicial system?

Compensation for UK customers is a critical issue. Mr Willis was full of apologies on the company’s behalf when he first gave evidence in 2015, but since then, his tune has changed dramatically. In fact, it is now VW’s position, as Mr Willis stated to us in Committee a short time ago, that the company has done nothing wrong in the UK or the rest of Europe and that therefore no compensation is due.

That is treating the UK with contempt. I remind hon. Members of the position on compensation in other countries. In the US, Volkswagen has agreed to provide each owner with between $5,000 and $10,000, while a deal agreed in Canada will give owners between $4,000 and $6,000 US. Here, they will get nothing at all. Why has no action been taken by the Department for Transport, the Serious Fraud Office or the Competition and Markets Authority? I have asked that question in the past and been told that the issues were being considered, but as far as I am aware, no action has been taken; I hope that the Minister can give me the latest information.

A few moments ago, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised the issue of compensation. Can the Minister update us on whether he has secured the additional £1 million that he demanded from Volkswagen? That is one of the issues over which we are in dispute with Mr Willis: the Minister told us that the company had not given the Department what it asked for, but Mr Willis appeared to tell us that it had. We are still trying to clarify that issue through correspondence, so if the Minister could help us on it when he replies, it would assist us very much.

I would also be grateful for an update on European Commission proceedings. The officials who appeared before the Committee in February spoke of an ongoing dialogue. What has that delivered, and what action will be taken? I am aware that the Commission proposes to take action against the UK Government for failing to act in relation to its responsibilities to enforce appropriate standards; it would be helpful to know the current position.

I will briefly address the technical measures implemented by Volkswagen in the wake of the emissions scandal. Again, Mr Willis recently told the Transport Committee that the fix had no impact on real-world emissions, and we were told that nothing was wrong. He was asked why, if nothing was wrong, the vehicles were being fixed, and we were told that the sole reason was to ease customers’ minds about how vehicles had got through the testing programme—the company is spending money on so-called fixing, but the company did nothing wrong and is doing it only to ease customers’ minds. I find that completely implausible. That cannot be the situation. We are also told that the technical measure had no impact on vehicles’ performance. I said to Mr Willis that if that was correct, surely he would have provided a warranty to cover the technical measure. I know that the Department has been seeking that warranty, but as far as I am aware, the company has done nothing.

I receive numerous communications almost daily from members of the public who report that their vehicle has been impaired since they had the fix applied. A closed Facebook group bringing together people who have been affected now has 1,400 members. Many have told me about the stress of suddenly finding that their vehicle was not working after the measure was applied. They relayed instances of the vehicle going into limp mode, or not going above a certain speed; in one case, it happened on a motorway, and other cars had to swerve to avoid a collision. In many instances, when customers raised concerns, they were told that it was a coincidence and asked to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds for the fault created by the so-called fix to be investigated and put right.

Mr Willis told the Committee that he would give us an assurance on that matter and said that it could not be the case, but that the company would investigate free of charge all reasonable concerns raised by VW owners after the fix was applied. I suspect that Mr Willis’s definition of “reasonable” might differ from his customers’. Will the Department monitor what happens in that regard?

The scandal was not only a case of a rogue company; it could never have happened if the regulatory structures for vehicle type approval had been adequate. We must remember that the cheating was uncovered not by a regulator, but by a US non-governmental organisation, the International Council on Clean Transportation. European Community whole vehicle type approval is the process ensuring that vehicles meet the relevant environmental, safety and security standards. An approval authority—in the UK, the Vehicle Certification Agency—certifies that the vehicles meet the relevant standards. Approval authorities work on the basis of information collected by technical services organisations that witness the test and collate the information.

As well as being an approval authority, the VCA provides technical services to manufacturers. The Committee concluded that that constitutes marking one’s own homework; it is a clear conflict of interests. In addition, the VCA competes with other European approval and technical services agencies across Europe for business from car manufacturers. The incentive to be unduly lenient on car manufacturers is clear. That conflict of interest works against consumers and ultimately damages public health.

In their response to our report, the Minister told us of various measures being considered to manage potential conflicts of interest, including more independent assurance and audit and increased training for emissions engineers. We were also told that an end-to-end review of the technical service process was taking place. Can the Minister update us on the outcome of that review? What plans have been put in place for type approval as part of the Brexit negotiations? We currently use European standards; what will happen after Brexit? Is that part of the negotiations? Is it expected that the UK and EU countries will continue to accept vehicles type approved by one another? How will it work?

Our report emphasised the importance of in-service surveillance, or the process of spot-checking vehicles on the road to ensure that their pollution performance is still within an acceptable range. The Minister told us that a new, robust system of in-service surveillance was being implemented, which is to be welcomed, but in the first instance, that surveillance will focus on new vehicles entering the market. Can the Minister update us on the performance of the new market surveillance unit? What progress has been made in ensuring that that unit operates beyond new vehicles?

A gap exists between real-world emissions and those emitted in the laboratory; it is the result of developments in technology and flexibilities allowed in the test procedure. Can the Minister update us on the progress of setting the final requirements for Euro standards? Is he satisfied that they are sufficiently robust? The Department told us that it had written to the European Commission to press for further improvements. What has the response been?

A year and a half after the emissions scandal came to light, Volkswagen has still not been held to account. Instead of providing the information, compensation and warranties that have reasonably been requested of it, Volkswagen maintains that it has done nothing wrong. Surely it is time that the Minister committed to using the powers available to him.

The scandal goes much further than Volkswagen. In the course of our inquiry, it became abundantly clear that the type approval system and emissions standards were not fit for purpose. Their support for manufacturers at the expense of ordinary people, consumers and public health was well known, but nothing was done about it before the emissions scandal erupted. I ask the Minister today for clear information on how the situation has improved.

The Volkswagen emissions scandal was shocking, but it has shone a light on deficiencies in the testing process. UK consumers are being treated with contempt. What action is the Minister taking to correct this outrageous situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weir]

I see absolutely no reason why it cannot. Obviously the American consumer organisations are slightly different from our own and seem to be better at getting things into court and sorted out much more quickly than is the case under our system, but that should not be the case. Volkswagen, which clearly reacted quickly to the problem it had in the United States—presumably because of the damage to its reputation and market share in the US—should have done the same in Europe. That prompts the question as to why Volkswagen thought that it did not need to do that in Europe.

It is imperative that the UK, along with other European jurisdictions, takes action to show that they are not immune from what is happening in the United States. We must put consumer rights at the heart of this, as well as taxpayers’ rights, because the taxpayer faces a huge and ongoing bill, probably for many decades, due to what has happened over the last few years.

I was commenting earlier about the possibility of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I was a solicitor before I came to this place—some years ago now, admittedly—and that is not an easy route for individuals to take. The Government note they are not privy to the terms of the contracts between individual owners and the company, but many individual owners will have contracts with the third parties who sold them the cars and will not generally have contracts directly with the company, although some may, depending on the type of contract.

However, the most problematic area is simply the impracticability of any individual car owner taking on a massive multinational such as Volkswagen in the civil courts. Such actions are not cheap at the best of times and when such a huge technical issue is involved, the costs are likely to escalate quickly. Also, whatever the sum that an individual may be claiming, there is an incentive for the multinational company to fight the case, because it is not dealing with just one such case but potentially thousands of such cases. There would be a real David and Goliath battle, and it is difficult to see how any individual would have any chance of success.

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very pertinent and interesting points. The change in Volkswagen’s attitude towards the Committee, from the first time they appeared before us to the last time, two months ago, was dramatic. Initially, they were full of apologies, but on the last occasion they said they had done nothing wrong. I can only feel that that is because they believe that they have got away with this and will not be challenged. Does he agree that that makes it even more important that the Department for Transport considers its powers to challenge, so that individuals are not left isolated and vulnerable?

[Mike Weir]

I was just about to make that very point. It is not within the power of the individual to take on these companies. It seemed clear to me from Mr Willis’s attitude when he last appeared before the Committee that Volkswagen would try to defend its actions, if it says it has done nothing wrong, which would leave the individual consumer in an impossible position. It will only be by Governments—not only in the UK but in other European nations—acting together and going after the company, and making certain that there is a compensation scheme akin to the one that has existed in the United States and Canada, to compensate ordinary victims of this scandal in the United Kingdom.

This is not an isolated case; there are other scandals in the motor industry. For example, there is the Vauxhall Zafira, which kept bursting into flames. The motor industry is an important industry in many parts of the United Kingdom and it may well become even more important as things progress. However, it must get its house in order, because if these scandals continue, there will be a great loss of confidence in many of these vehicles among ordinary consumers. I would ask the Minister to consider that and also to say whether he has discussed with other European jurisdictions the possibility of a joint and multilateral approach to getting a consumer compensation scheme to cover the European Union, or at least several countries together.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on securing this important debate and bringing this subject to our attention once again. Let me be clear—I apologise if this is repetition, but repetition from one’s own mouth always seems like re-affirmation or re-emphasis; repetition only seems to come from other people’s mouths—that the Government continue to take this matter extremely seriously.

As you would expect, Mr McCabe, I want to deal with a number of the specific points raised in the debate, but if I may, I will first address a couple of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) in his remarks, which preceded my contribution. I do not want to be distracted from the main subject of the debate, and you would not allow me to be, Mr McCabe, but air quality is relevant, and we debated it yesterday in this place. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He will understand if I am circumspect about the exact details of what the draft plan on which we will consult will look like, but I am prepared to say —it is right that I am open with him and this Chamber—that I think it is important that public transport is part of our response to the air quality challenge.

My view, which I have made crystal clear in the Department, is that if we can get fleet purchasing and public transport, including buses and taxis, in a better place in respect of emissions—by that I mean getting those kind of vehicles moving to a low-emission metric, although I have no fixed idea of exactly what that might look like—we can make quite a significant difference in the worst-affected areas in particular. He will know that we have taken a zonal approach in the past, and I see no reason why that should change fundamentally.

That is not to say that air quality is not a national concern. The policy will, of course, be a national policy, but it will be focused on the zones where air quality is at its worst, because we know that air quality is closely related to wellbeing. It has a deleterious effect on health, particularly for vulnerable people—the sick, young children, elderly people and so on—and its effects are exaggerated in urban places, unsurprisingly, because of the density of traffic and population and the coincidence that that brings.

Similarly, the hon. Gentleman knows that that plan will be a matter for consultation. A draft will be published, and we will consult widely on that draft with Members of this House, local authorities in the worst-affected areas and others who have interests in this business. We are genuinely open-minded about that. I have worked very closely with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have been meeting weekly with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), which is a great pleasure in itself, but is also a productive, professional business. She and I have engaged our officials to ensure that we get a joined-up approach to this issue.

Of course, DEFRA leads on air quality, but as transport is so salient in finding the right solutions, we are very conscious that there has to be a close association between DEFRA’s perspective and ours, and that of other Government Departments. We have been in close liaison and association with them too. It will be an open-minded approach, founded on a clear determination to do the right thing.

Mr McCabe, we did not enjoy the pleasure of your chairmanship yesterday, so I hope you will not mind if I inform you and others of what I said then. It is absolutely my view that we must not, in our determined efforts to tackle air quality, disadvantage those who are already worse off—I am thinking in particular of the less well-off drivers of older diesel vehicles. We have to be careful that an unintended consequence of any otherwise efficacious policy should not put those people into a very difficult position indeed. Yesterday, in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), we talked about a targeted scrappage scheme, as that was the case he made. I say now what I said to him: of course, we always welcome contributions to the discussion. He made his contribution and that will be fed into our work and our thinking. If one is to have a genuine, open-minded consultation, one must take into account a range of views and opinions, ideas and schemes. Forgive me for repeating—but that did not sound any worse than it did yesterday, at least not from my perspective.

The other matter that the hon. Member for Cambridge raised, and quite properly so, was the upcoming changes to testing. It is important to be crystal clear about what the new emission tests are and why they matter. The changes introduce a compliance criterion that is defined as a conformity factor. The conformity factor is the ratio of emissions recorded during the real world test, which is the limit on the laboratory test that must not be exceeded during the real world, on-road testing.

In the proposal, the requirement for the real driving emission tests is phased in in a two-step process, to allow manufacturers time to bring compliant products to the market. Step one mandates a conformity factor of 2.1 for all new model types by 2017. Step two achieves full compliance with Euro 6 standards for all new model types in January 2020, with an additional conformity factor margin of 0.5 to take into account measurement uncertainties. That proposal means that after 2019 all new models brought to the market must meet the Euro 6 limits in the real world tests. That is the bottom line, with a margin for measurement error of the test equipment. The hon. Gentleman asked what the UK’s position had been on that. I can tell him, and I think he will be reassured, that the UK pushed very hard in the negotiations for the introduction of those changes on the timescale I have described. We were anxious to make sure that there was no delay in moving to those real world tests.

That point gives me an opportunity to deal with some of the specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and others and to say a word about how we got to where we are on air quality and emissions. I do not see the air quality challenge as a partisan matter, taking it as read that Members across the House take it seriously. Bluntly, the challenge has been compromised, and I would go so far as to say worsened, by the failure of the EU vehicle emissions regulations to deliver the anticipated reductions in air pollution—we know that now—and by neglect and cheating by some diesel car makers to avoid reducing emissions as they were supposed to. The pollution limits in EU law agreed under the Labour Government in directive 2008/50/EC were based on the assumptions that improvements in vehicle technology were deliverable. Although it is true that in the UK we meet the majority of our air quality limits, it has become clear that, like 17 other countries, we breach annual targets for nitrogen dioxide.

Yesterday I committed to make available to those who were in the Chamber then—my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is one of them, and the hon. Member for Cambridge is another—the breakdown of the sources of that gas by transport type, which includes shipping, trains and all kinds of other sources. I will make that available to other Members present today, as I think it will be helpful in informing future consideration. However, we are certain, and other Members of the House will be too, that diesel vehicles are a significant part of the problem. They are not the only part, but they are significant. It is right that the hon. Gentleman emphasised buses and other vehicles, because we often think that is about only cars. It is about not just cars but light goods vehicles, HGVs, buses and so on.

The failure of Euro standards and the failure therefore of the anticipated improvements to air quality are a pressing problem across Europe. I hesitate to say it is a scandal, but I would say that it is a fundamental failure of the approach of the EU. As in so many other areas of our national life, we have been injuriously affected by the European Union. How wonderful that we will not have to face that prospect in the future as we leave.

[Mrs Ellman]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

Oh, I have provoked the Chairman of the Select Committee to intervene.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am sure that the EU is not without fault, but national Governments are responsible for their own certification systems, and our certification system and the type approval process has been found severely wanting. I hope that the Minister will tell us in due course what he as Minister in this country is going to do about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

All hon. Members have made important points about the scandalous behaviour of Volkswagen and the broken testing and type approval system. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response about the work that he has done, and I urge him to continue it so that individuals and the taxpayer receive compensation and the promised fix. I ask him to keep pursuing the Jones Day report and, so far as he is able to, to enable its publication, because it contains vital information. It is a shame on Volkswagen, a major international company, that it seeks even to deny the existence of a report that could expose the horror of its shortcomings.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Third Report of the Transport Committee, Volkswagen emissions scandal and vehicle type approval, HC 69, and the Government response, HC 699.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct to point to the importance of trans-Pennine links, be they road or rail. I am very familiar, as I am sure he is, with the Skipton to Colne campaign and the Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership. I wish it well, and I hope that it features strongly on all the local growth fund bids that come in to the Department.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Transport for the North has great potential to transform the northern economies, but what powers will it actually have? When will it become a statutory body, and will it have the same powers as Transport for London?

[Paul Maynard]

We continue to consider carefully what powers we want to give to Transport for the North. I very much hope that it will be placed on a statutory basis in the future, and we will make an announcement in due course. There is an awful lot we can do together with Transport for the North even now, on matters such as smart ticketing and infrastructure improvements. Transport for the North is a great success already, whatever its basis.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Louise Ellman Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

New clause 1 calls for a national strategy that sets out various targets and objectives. I feel sure that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), sees one of the targets as the need to have accessibility for all who use the buses. I understand that the Government have already considered that issue after it was raised in Committee, and that they have very valid reasons for not going forward with a national strategy. However, by tabling the new clause, the hon. Gentleman has raised several important issues, and I want to mention some of them briefly.

In particular, there is a need for consistency. I welcome the change the Government have made with regards to information for bus passengers, which will help all our constituents. Some of my constituents have contacted me about the importance of having information available on the routes that they are taking. That is important not only for partially sighted or blind passengers, but for one constituent with autism and special needs who contacted me. This will help that individual, as well as a broader group.

As my noble Friend Baroness Campbell pointed out in the other place, other issues of national importance for people who use buses would fall within the national strategy proposed by the hon. Gentleman, such as wheelchair priority and access policies more generally. The Minister’s comments in Committee on wheelchair priority are very heartening. Following the Paulley case, it is important that an advisory committee will be set up. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he has given further thought to the composition of the group’s membership. Does he intend to involve the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee? He should consider that carefully. The Minister did not touch on that detail in Committee—perhaps it had not been all worked through at that stage—but perhaps he could take this opportunity to assure the House that, subsequent to our debate in Committee, the discussions as part of that advisory group will be acted on quickly and that all relevant people will be involved.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that these measures in the national strategy would give bus services the status they deserve and recognise the fact that so many more people travel on buses, and make more bus journeys, than they do on trains, which are much more widely recognised in national policy making?

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about the difference in the way trains and buses are treated. I do not necessarily agree that there is a need for the national strategy to ensure parity, but she makes an important point. There should not be undue differences in how we treat bus operators and train operators, in particular on disability issues. I will take that point one stage further before I finish.

When the Bill was discussed in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Campbell said that there is a need for an accessibility policy with teeth to ensure that it is effective. As the hon. Lady said, there is a real contrast between how the Government treat buses and trains in respect of disability access and the conditions for licences for those who operate these important public services. It is a condition of a train operator’s licence that they comply with disabled people’s protections policy and state how they will protect the interests of disabled customers. That is enforceable by the regulator, with fines associated with lack of compliance. Why, therefore, is that not the case for bus operators? Perhaps in the absence of a national strategy, a condition could be put in place to ensure that such provisions exist for bus operators. Buses are an important way for disabled passengers to get to work and to social engagements, and to be a part of the community. Such provisions for bus operators would ensure parity between train operators and bus operators in how they support disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause may well not be accepted today, but I think that in the fairly near future, when the Bill becomes an Act and the benefits of re-regulation are seen, we will move towards regulation throughout the country.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he recall that, over three Parliaments, the Transport Committee has investigated bus deregulation on five occasions, and does he agree that that reinforces the case that he is making for fundamental reform, starting with this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a huge amount of respect—that I have listened to bus operators and passengers in my constituency. We now have more bus services in our remote communities and villages that we did, say, 20 years ago, when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was standing for election to a rural Norfolk seat—and he nearly won that seat in 1997; I think it was Mid Norfolk—because SMEs have stepped up to the plate.

I have taken enough of the House’s time. Let me simply say this to the Minister. I believe that the amendments go a modest way towards improving the Bill, without undermining or sabotaging parts of it. I think that they will help bus operators—especially the smaller ones—and passengers and local authorities by providing clarity.

[Mrs Ellman]

I want to talk about the new clauses and amendments relating to franchising, including amendments 14 to 23, 26 and 27.

The strength of the Bill lies in devolution, and its proposal that decisions on how to provide local bus services should be devolved to local transport authorities, which should consider what works best in their areas. It is important to remember that the Bill has come about because of dissatisfaction among members of the public—people who want to use buses—with the way in which the current system operates. There have been a number of attempts to change the Transport Act 1985, which deregulated transport services, but none of those attempts —which have been made under successive Governments—has resolved the problem. The Bill is important because it tries to address the difficulties that the public have experienced, and to create a thriving bus sector.

The Transport Committee examined the Bill in detail from the perspective of passengers. We welcomed the possibility of new and smaller entrants to the bus market, but what worries me about the new clauses and amendments is they may prevent the proposed devolution from taking place. There are two aspects of that. The first relates to combined authority areas with directly elected mayors having the power to proceed with franchising. There is a lack of clarity about the regulations that will be introduced, or imposed, to impede the ability of the mayors to do that. Will it be an absolute right, or will onerous, complex and perhaps unknown regulation be imposed? I hope that the Minister will clarify that issue, because it relates to a fundamental part of the Bill.

Secondly, the Bill proposes that transport authorities in areas that are not run by combined authorities with directly elected mayors may have powers to introduce franchising in certain circumstances. The amendments make that proposal extremely complex. It would be impossible to assess whether the transport authorities would be able to proceed with franchising if they wished to do so. The Transport Committee looked at good practice, and concluded that transport authorities should consider existing ways of operating in partnership with operators before moving to a franchising system, but we did not think that that should be part of the regulations. This proposal introduces new hurdles, but it is not fully specified what those hurdles are, or—this is equally important—how they would be assessed before the authority could adopt the franchising system. That, I believe, strikes at the heart of the Bill.

The Bill is intended to improve transport services in localities and devolve to local transport authorities the ability to act on the needs of their areas, but the hurdles introduced by the amendments might enable future Ministers to impede its objectives, and I am sure that present-day Ministers would not wish that to happen. I am extremely concerned about the amendments. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what they mean, and will make clear whether the Government intend franchising to go ahead, as they have stated, without introducing complex hurdles which would make the proposed system extremely difficult to achieve.

[Graham Stringer]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee. As she said earlier, the Committee has considered this issue on a number of occasions, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned this—we have never been able to find a reason why London should have one system and the rest of the country should have another. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) grins at that, and I do not blame him, because the regulated system in London is superior to the system in the rest of the country.

I listened to the responses of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about his not wanting to wreck the Bill, and I take that at face value. However, I do not think the amendments reflect the reality of the nature of bus services, certainly in urban areas. I am not an expert on bus services in Norfolk and suspect the hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about Norfolk, but if he is concerned about small bus companies, he should support this Bill as it is or seek to improve it, because what has happened in the west midlands, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the great urban areas of this country is precisely the opposite of what he wants: small companies have been driven off the road by large companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I just wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments in the previous group. I was not quick enough on my feet to catch your eye at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been in this place long enough to know that one should quit when in front. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that my amendment 25 is going to be incorporated in the guidance and for the useful reassurances he has given me on amendments 15, 26, 27 and 28. I was disappointed on the issue of compensation, but, as he pointed out, there can indeed be scope for the authorities to compensate if need be. On that basis, I will not seek to press those amendments to a vote, although I say so a touch belatedly.

[Mrs Ellman]

I rise to support amendment 1, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). This is all about devolution and local transport authorities deciding what is best for their areas. No good reason has been put forward for not permitting new municipal operators as an option. The Government have expressed concern about possible conflicts of interest, but that cannot be taken seriously. We need look no further than the experience in Nottingham, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and in Reading to see that there is the perfect ability—this has already been done in those areas—for the proper distance to be established between the local authority as a local authority and the transport operator as an operator in terms of letting out franchises. The Bill is about giving more local choice, and it is entirely unjustifiable to remove from local authorities the option of having a municipal operator. The Department has found a way to put forward complex regulations on franchising and if it still has concerns about this topic, regulations could also be introduced on setting up municipal bus operations. I therefore urge the Government to think again.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I support amendment 1, and we had a long discussion on this issue in Committee. I spoke then and on Second Reading about the success of Nottingham’s municipal operator, and so, much as I love Nottingham City Transport, I will restrain myself and not repeat myself.

I continue to question the Government’s motivation for their determination to ban local transport authorities from establishing new municipal bus companies, as Ministers have simply not made the case for such a ban. The Transport Committee, chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), describes it as a “disproportionate response”. Clearly, this measure is anti-localism and it prevents councils from acting in the best interests of their residents. In Committee, the Minister said that there should be a split between the commissioning and the provision of bus services. I do not disagree on that, but this ban goes far beyond that. As was noted in Committee, local authorities with municipal operators have proved themselves very capable of managing just such a split when tendering for supported services.

In Committee, the Minister also suggested that the existence of municipal bus operators

“could easily deter investment from the private sector”.

When I asked him what evidence he was drawing on in making such an assertion, he admitted

“of course we do not have any evidence for it. I am just looking at what the risks may be.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 67.]

The Minister’s risk aversion is simply unnecessary and can be shown to be such. Nottingham has an excellent municipal operator, but it does not deter private sector investment; as the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, we have excellent private sector operators in Nottinghamshire, such as trentbarton. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will rethink their commitment to what I can only describe as an ideological obsession, and take this opportunity to end their unreasonable position and accept amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

The Bill is an important step in achieving a modern, thriving bus sector, and I welcome it. In doing so, I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues and to the shadow team for the work they have done. I also commend all the members of the Transport Committee for the work they did in scrutinising the Bill. Although some of the points we made have not been acted on, some have been considered, and this is now a better Bill.

I first spoke on bus deregulation a very long time ago. When it was introduced through the legislation in 1985, I was the leader of Lancashire County Council. I opposed the legislation very strongly because I was concerned it would result in a reduction in bus patronage outside London, and the intervening years have indeed shown that it did. The Bill does not repeal that legislation, but it does make substantial changes to it, which I very much welcome.

A thriving, comprehensive bus network across England is not an optional extra but an absolute necessity. The basic principle of the Bill—that there should be more devolution, and that local transport authorities should decide what is best for their areas—is the right one, and I welcome it very much. Although I am disappointed that the Government have not gone as far as I would have wished in some areas, I welcome the Bill as we have it now.

I welcome the provisions on the accessibility of buses, and particularly those on access and information for people who are impaired. If information about bus services and the operation of individual buses is made more accessible to people who have a disability, everybody else benefits as well, so it improves the bus sector as a whole.

I thank everyone who has been involved in the Bill. It makes major strides in producing better bus services for the people of this country—those who currently use our buses and those I hope will do so in future—and I am pleased to support its Third Reading.

Aviation Security

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute guarantee. We are talking extensively to the whole industry. It is very much my hope that we will not end up having to take further steps, but we need to be constantly mindful of the evolving security threat. The security and safety of British passengers will always be absolutely at the top of our priority list.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am reassured that security is paramount, and it must remain so, but will the Secretary of State please clarify exactly how passengers will know which arrangements they have to make for individual journeys? Is he still looking at the situation in overseas airports where it is known that there are security concerns?

[Chris Grayling]

We have a widespread effort to make sure we provide protection to our citizens, both in the UK and in other countries. We do extensive security liaison work with other countries, including in the region affected. I am very grateful to all the countries we work with for the co-operation and support they provide us with in this important work. It is in all our interests that we continue to maintain aviation and tourist flows and to provide the economic benefits to all parties that good aviation brings. We will do everything we can to work with those partners to make sure we have as safe an aviation sector as we can.