High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Committal

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committal (to a Select Committee)
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The five motions on high-speed rail—motions 4 to 8 on the Order Paper—will be debated together. The debate may therefore range over all five motions. I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected manuscript amendments (a) and (b) to motion 6, tabled by Yvonne Fovargue. The manuscript amendments are available in the Vote Office and online.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

(1) That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven members, all of whom are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

(2) That in determining the composition of the Select Committee the Committee of Selection shall nominate four members from the Government and three members from opposition parties.

(3) That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any petition against the Bill submitted to the Private Bill Office during the period beginning at 9.00 am on 21 June 2022 and ending at 5.00 pm on 4 August 2022, and

(b) any petition which has been submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of—

(i) any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill,

(ii) any amendment as proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or

(iii) any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,

(and references in this paragraph to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person).

(4) That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on petitions against an opposed private bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such petitions as are mentioned in paragraph (3) (a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day or days on which it will require appearances on those petitions to be entered.

(5) That any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition.

(6) That the Select Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in paragraph (5) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply.

(7) That in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body.

(8) That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it.

(9) That the Select Committee have power to make special reports from time to time.

(10) That three be the quorum of the Select Committee.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Motion 5—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction—

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—

(1) The Committee shall—

(a) make an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”), of the implications for a site within paragraph (2) of the provisions made in relation to the site by the Bill in view of the site’s conservation objectives, and

(b) make a recommendation to the House in relation to whether those provisions adversely affect the integrity of the site.

(2) The following sites are within this paragraph—

(a) the Rochdale Canal special area of conservation, and

(b) a site to which paragraph (3) applies that the Committee determines, in accordance with the 2017 Regulations, is likely to be significantly affected by a provision of the Bill.

(3) This paragraph applies to a European site (within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations) in relation to which—

(a) an amendment has been proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or

(b) the Committee has been provided with additional information by the promoters after the date of this instruction.

(4) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1) or a determination under paragraph (2)(b), the Committee may require the promoters to provide the Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require.

(5) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1), the Committee—

(a) must consult the relevant nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by the body within such reasonable time as the Committee specifies;

(b) is not required to consult the general public.

(6) In paragraph (5)(a), the “relevant nature conservation body” means—

(a) in relation to a site in England, Natural England, and

(b) in relation to a site in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Motion 6—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 2)—

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:

(1) The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—

(a) leaving out provision relating to the railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, except for a spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh in Cheshire, and

(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).

(2) The Committee shall not hear any petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan.

(3) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 4; and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.

(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (3) are—

(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station,

(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in January 2022 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and

(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations (other than Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport) on, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).

(5) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.

(6) Paragraph (5) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (3) and (4) above.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Manuscript amendment (a) to motion 6: Leave out paragraphs (1) and (2).

Manuscript amendment (b) to motion 6: In paragraph (4)(c), leave out

“, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from,”.

Motion 7—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Carry-Over—

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill:

Suspension at end of current Session

(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2023–24”).

(2) If a Bill is presented in Session 2023–24 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in the previous Session of Parliament (“Session 2021–22”), shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023–24;

(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in the current Session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2023–24;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph (3), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph (4), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph (5), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph (6), if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph (7), if the Bill has been read the third reading time and sent to the House of Lords.

(3) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2023–24;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2023–24 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2023–24, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(4) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(5) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(6) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(7) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Suspension at end of this Parliament

(8) If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2023–24, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2024–25”).

(9) If a Bill is presented in Session 2024–25 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2023–24—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2023–24 or in the current session or in Session 2021–22, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2024–25;

(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in Session 2023–24 or in the current session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2024–25;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph (10), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph (11), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph (12), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph (13), if the Bill was waiting for third when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph (14), if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

(10) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2023–24;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2024–25;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the Session 2023–24 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2024–25 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in Session 2023–24 or in the current session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2024–25, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(11) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(12) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(13) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(14) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

(15) In paragraphs (1) and (8) above, references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

(16) In paragraphs (3) and (10) above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.

(17) In paragraphs (2) and (9) above, references to the Habitats Regulations are to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Motion 8—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Select Committee: Additional Salaries—

That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I think we would all agree that we have to get high-speed rail right. Without the Golborne link, this is still a £13 billion to £19 billion scheme; including the Golborne link, it a £15 billion to £22 billion scheme. We have to get it right: we have to ensure that we are delivering the maximum reductions in journey times to Scotland, that we have the least environmental damage possible and that we are building this infrastructure —the infrastructure that the House has just supported on Second Reading—in the right way. That is why I believe we are right to bring forward the motion to remove consideration of the Golborne link from the Bill while we look at alternatives.

I would like to tidy up some misunderstanding, as this has been mentioned by a couple of hon. Members, about the decision to remove the Golborne link on Monday 6 June—a day when there was also a confidence vote in this House. I think anybody who is aware of parliamentary procedure—I know all the Opposition Members here are very well aware of parliamentary procedure—will know that for me to table a written ministerial statement on the Monday, I had to inform the House I was doing so the week before. I notified the House authorities and also tabled the title of my written ministerial statement, which was well before any confidence vote was anticipated.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said that his only other explanation for what this could possibly be about was cuts. With the £96 billion of rail investment in the midlands and the north in the integrated rail plan, this is the biggest ever Government investment in our railways, and it cannot be described—seriously, it cannot—as a cut. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to reduce journey times to Scotland.

I think we all have an interest in getting this infrastructure right, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Makerfield not to push her amendments to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction

Ordered,

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—

(1) The Committee shall—

(a) make an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”), of the implications for a site within paragraph (2) of the provisions made in relation to the site by the Bill in view of the site’s conservation objectives, and

(b) make a recommendation to the House in relation to whether those provisions adversely affect the integrity of the site.

(2) The following sites are within this paragraph—

(a) the Rochdale Canal special area of conservation, and

(b) a site to which paragraph (3) applies that the Committee determines, in accordance with the 2017 Regulations, is likely to be significantly affected by a provision of the Bill.

(3) This paragraph applies to a European site (within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations) in relation to which—

(a) an amendment has been proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or

(b) the Committee has been provided with additional information by the promoters after the date of this instruction.

(4) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1) or a determination under paragraph (2)(b), the Committee may require the promoters to provide the Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require.

(5) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1), the Committee—

(a) must consult the relevant nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by the body within such reasonable time as the Committee specifies;

(b) is not required to consult the general public.

(6) In paragraph (5)(a), the “relevant nature conservation body” means—

(a) in relation to a site in England, Natural England, and

(b) in relation to a site in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to motion 6. Do I understand that the hon. Lady does not wish to move amendment (a) or (b)?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

indicated assent.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 2)

Ordered,

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:

(1) The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—

(a) leaving out provision relating to the railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, except for a spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh in Cheshire, and

(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).

(2) The Committee shall not hear any petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan.

(3) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 4; and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.

(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (3) are—

(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station,

(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in January 2022 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and

(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations (other than Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport) on, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).

(5) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.

(6) Paragraph (5) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (3) and (4) above.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Carry-Over

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill:

Suspension at end of current Session

(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2023–24”).

(2) If a Bill is presented in Session 2023–24 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in the previous Session of Parliament (“Session 2021–22”), shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023–24;

(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in the current Session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2023–24;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph (3), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph (4), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph (5), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph (6), if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph (7), if the Bill has been read the third reading time and sent to the House of Lords.

(3) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2023–24;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2023–24 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2023–24, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(4) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(5) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(6) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(7) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Suspension at end of this Parliament

(8) If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2023–24, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2024–25”).

(9) If a Bill is presented in Session 2024–25 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2023–24—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2023–24 or in the current session or in Session 2021–22, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2024–25;

(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in Session 2023–24 or in the current session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2024–25;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph (10), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph (11), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph (12), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph (13), if the Bill was waiting for third when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph (14), if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

(10) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2023–24;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2024–25;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the Session 2023–24 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2024–25 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in Session 2023–24 or in the current session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2024–25, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(11) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(12) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(13) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(14) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

(15) In paragraphs (1) and (8) above, references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

(16) In paragraphs (3) and (10) above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.

(17) In paragraphs (2) and (9) above, references to the Habitats Regulations are to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Ordered,

That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill”.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Rail Strikes

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, there is a lot of interest in this debate. The winding-up speeches will start no later than 4.45 pm, with 10 minutes each for the Front-Bench spokespeople. John McDonnell is next for five minutes, but to get as many people in as we can, we will then drop the time limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ironic, or does he not think it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the minute people start—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman face the front, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. There is now a three-minute limit.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

To go back to close to the final comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), she said she was looking for a firefighter—well, here he is. I was a member of the Fire Brigades Union when it was thrown out of the Labour party because we were too militant, so I have been around this circuit many times.

I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quite frightening, because we can reverse that argument about the trade unions going back and getting ready for a fight. That is turning round to the British public and saying, “You voted Tory, so we’re going to punish you.” That feeling is as strong in my constituency now and in other parts of the country as it has ever been. This dispute does not need to take place, because it is too early to call this sort of strike. It is really early—we are right at the front. Why now? Why call a strike at such an early position? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has been chuntering away from a sedentary position for about the last two hours. Shut up! We are fed up with it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Let us be much more conciliatory—[Interruption.] That is my job, not that of the right hon. Gentleman. Let us be conciliatory and use moderate language throughout this debate. It doesn’t need any more heat.

[Sir Mike Penning]

What I am trying to get across is that there is anger here, on both sides, and my constituents will not be able to go to work, because people are on strike who did not have to go to work during the lockdown when the unions were getting their money. What is going on here is that we are being punished. My constituents are being punished by the Labour party, which will not come out against this strike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Let us try an experiment and see whether we can get through the next three minutes without any shouting on either side. I call Sarah Green.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind hon. Members that everybody taking part in the debate is expected to be here for the wind-ups and should stay for substantial amounts of the debate and at least for the next two speakers after they have spoken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

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

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

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

“First they came for the Socialists,

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

Then they came for the trade unionists,

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

Then they came for the Jews,

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I have been on strike a few times myself. Does he think that any Opposition Member who has received a donation from the RMT should put that money in a pot to help people who suffer during next week’s rail strike? Does he also think that other MPs who have stolen money from the mineworkers—165 grand in the case of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) —should pay it back?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please withdraw that remark about stealing money.

[Lee Anderson]

No.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You have to.

[Lee Anderson]

No, he stole it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, you have to. I implore you to withdraw the remark. Please, Lee, withdraw the remark and sit down.

[Lee Anderson]

I withdraw the remark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

[Ian Lavery]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

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

[Ian Lavery]

I will leave it there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much.

[Richard Burgon]

The only time we seem to hear Conservative MPs worrying about the future of our children, our public services, nurses, doctors and other workers seems to be when they are condemning a potential strike. Isn’t it funny that they do not seem to have this concern for working people at any other point?

Today, I was looking at an interesting letter, dated 27 May 2020, from the Secretary of State for Transport to the RMT. There was a handwritten flourish at the end of the letter in the handwriting of the Secretary of State, and it said:

“Thank you for your continued engagement with Chris Heaton-Harris and me as we try to bring services back together. Your members have been true heroes!”

Those are the words of the Secretary of State for Transport, written in his own hand, to the RMT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

The feeling is very strong. I believe the margin was 71%, which is well above the Government’s threshold. Indeed, the treatment of the RMT Union and its members seems to be part of a wider agenda to weaken employment rights. I was one of many Members, including my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and my hon. and right hon. Friends around me today, who were pressing the case for the Government to act on fire and rehire.

I was in the joint hearing of the Transport and the Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committees when we were taking testimony from the bad bosses of P&O Ferries who were boasting about their lack of consultation and their intention to drive down terms and conditions. We expect rather more from our own Government when it comes to the way in which the railway is being run. It is a huge and important national asset.

I want to put on record, so that there is no doubt, my solidarity with the RMT Union and with all the trade unions. Basic rights that govern pay and conditions at work were hard fought for and they were won through collective action; they were not handed out freely.

Let us not forget some of those appalling accidents at Ladbroke Grove, at Paddington and so on. One of the proposals that has been put forward is for 3,000 redundancies among people who maintain the tracks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call James Daly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana]

I absolutely agree. These tactics from the Government are to stop us talking about the fact that private rail companies take more than £500 million out of the railway system every year in private profits. It is the richest in the country who are truly raking it in, from the Chancellor, who is one of the wealthiest people in the country, to the record number of UK billionaires, one third of whom donate to the Conservative Party—[Interruption.] Tory Members can make all the sounds they like, but the facts are the facts.

That is all while working people are experiencing the biggest squeeze on living standards since the 1950s. Tory Members want us to believe that railway workers are the problem. They want us to blame refugees, not Tory cuts, for the crisis in public services and why they are at breaking point. They want us to think trans women are a threat to cis women. This House should be clear: the problem is not railway workers, it is not refugees and it is not trans women. The problem is this Tory Government and the billionaires who back them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Right. We have just over 20 minutes and there are 11 people standing to speak. If there is discipline, they will all get in; no discipline, and some people will not get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are eight Members standing to speak and we have 15 minutes. Do the sums, if you want to be friendly to colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I apologise to Mr Baynes, and I call Mr Butler. We will take the clock off for you, but please resume your seat at 4.45 pm.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary on grasping the nettle not just of recognising the needs of a modern-day railway, but of acting to secure a sustainable, efficient modern-day railway. It was right that public money supported the railways during the pandemic, but it is surely also right that public money is now focused where it is most needed, not least in the NHS and education. Unlike the Opposition parties, the Conservatives recognise that there is not a bottomless pit of money—taxpayers’ money, I would add—and the answer to every question is not spend, spend, spend without thinking how we would manage costs or how we would improve productivity.

It was abundantly clear during the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), that the Labour party has absolutely no answers, because she simply refused to take questions from this side of the House. I know that her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), is about to speak, and I would ask him two very simple questions, so that my constituents are absolutely clear about the attitude of Labour Members. First, will they condemn the strikes—yes or no? A one-word answer should not be too difficult.

The shadow Secretary of State said that if Labour was in power, which I have to say is a thought that sends shivers down my spine, Labour would sit around the table with the unions. In that case, would Labour give in to all the unions’ demands, and if not, which ones would it reject? Just so we are absolutely clear, that is what she said she wanted to do. What would her stance be? My constituents want to know because the workers who need trains to get to their jobs next week, the pensioners who need to get to their hospital appointments next week and the schoolchildren who need to get to class next week cannot do so because of these totally unnecessary strikes. Will Labour condemn them?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Standing Orders of the House state that a Member’s vote should follow their voice. No doubt people will have noted that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) shouted “No.” Would he be in breach of the Standing Orders if he did not vote no?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do not know who shouted “Aye” and who shouted “No,” but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the vote should follow the voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the whole House would agree about the importance of declaring our financial interests. Will you guide the House on whether Members should have declared that the RMT had funded them individually, their constituency party or their general election campaign in 2019 before speaking in the debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not up to the Chair to determine whether Members should or should not declare any registrable interest. It is up to each individual Member to do so. Members should therefore reflect on what their circumstances are. Should anybody believe that another Member has not followed the guidelines, of course they always have open recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to make complaints.

[Chris Stephens]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate, a number of Government Members quoted other Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will you confirm that it was in order for hon. Members to declare those interests?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If I have understood the point of order correctly, it is about Members who have stood up and declared on both sides of the Chamber.

[Chris Stephens]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Then yes, those who have done so are absolutely in order.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Carry-over)

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I rise not to detain the House for any undue period but to place on the record an issue hidden away in the Bill’s detail that will severely affect my constituents’ transport opportunities. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it—I have raised it at Transport questions and believe that we have a meeting scheduled after the local elections to discuss it—but, as we are talking about carrying over the Bill, I want to place it on the record so that the Minister can understand the issue at stake affecting my constituency and, hopefully, it can be resolved before Second Reading. The proposals that I will put to him are not insurmountable, especially when we consider the scale of the High Speed 2 project from Crewe to Manchester and the public expenditure that that will involve.

The Minister will know that there will be a great deal of work outside Manchester Piccadilly station and in its surroundings. The construction work to bring the high-speed rail line into the new station at Piccadilly will massively disrupt the streets and the environment around the current station, and that has an implication for the Manchester Metrolink service from Manchester Piccadilly through my constituency to Ashton-under-Lyme. The line to Ashton—the only Metrolink line that goes through Manchester Piccadilly—will have to be severed for the period of the construction work around Piccadilly station, which will result in the line being mothballed—[Interruption.] I realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am straying on to Second Reading territory, but I want to get the solution on the record before the Bill is read a Second time. That will involve the line being mothballed and a bus replacement service put in place, which is not acceptable to my constituents.

What we need is a depot building on Ashton Moss where the trams can be parked overnight and so that the tram service between Ashton and New Islington can be retained. That is a simple, constructive solution with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) which will keep the tram line running. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I was hugely generous there, Mr Gwynne.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Thank you.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to oppose the carry-over motion. This is a highly contentious Bill, particularly for my constituents in Tatton. While I know that you would not allow me to get into why I oppose the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are reasons why it should not be carried over, and I need to put them on the record.

Much has changed since the Bill’s genesis, and two things in particular. First, rail travel between cities has not returned to pre-covid levels or even close. That indicates even to those who agreed with the project in the first place that this expensive white elephant is no longer needed. Secondly, the cost of HS2 had continued to rise at an eye-watering rate, and that was before we saw the current huge rates of inflation, which will put it up further. Those are vital areas of contention where there has been a material change since the Bill started its passage, so it is vital that the House of Commons starts the process of the Bill afresh to see whether the project still commands its support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. Does the Minister wish to respond to those bits that related to the carry-over?

P&O Ferries

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments. She is quite right: lives have been upended and jobs scrapped. My sympathy and thoughts are wholly with the people who had this terrible news this morning. She is absolutely right about the video, which I have seen. I agree. This is devastating news, and to be shown a video on a television screen rather than told the news face to face is not how we expect loyal, hard-working workers to be treated. She mentioned crews being marched off; I have heard the same reports. I expect people to be treated with dignity and respect at all times, throughout their employment.

Employment laws apply, of course. It is difficult for me at the moment to comment in any detail on where that might be. I urge anyone affected to consider legal advice. Clearly that is something that they should do, but it is difficult for me to comment on that, particularly as this is a fast-moving situation.

The hon. Member asked me to review contracts that may exist. I have asked my officials to do that. I apologise, but I cannot give her any details at the moment, although I will be able to provide information to the House in due course if required. Conversations about freeports would have to take place across Government, involving, in particular, the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The hon. Lady asked me to convene urgent talks with the unions; I will speak to them this afternoon. It is possible that that will be an initial conversation and then there will be others, but I need no persuading that that will happen. She hon. Lady mentioned illegality. I ought not to go into that, but obviously the Government have a number of concerns, and I urge people to take the advice that they will need.

The hon. Lady asked me to give details of the operations. As I have said, this is a fast-moving situation, but although I am assured that there is not likely to be an operations impact, I will be monitoring that closely. I will give the hon. Lady more details when I have them, and if there are any steps to be taken, I will consider what they should be.

The hon. Lady spoke of setting this in context. I of course reject any suggestion that we have sided with bad bosses. I have made absolutely clear, today and on other occasions, that I expect people to be treated with respect at all times, and that is not the way in which these people have been treated. No one should be treated in the way in which they have been treated today.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about seafarers. We will continue to do everything we can to support British seafarers, and I hope to be able to give the House more details about that in due course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also thank the Minister for delivering it so robustly.

P&O, that once great flag carrier of the seas, has made an appalling error. If it does not reverse that error immediately, reinstate the employees and follow proper process, it is hard to see a way back for it commercially. The parent company, DP World, needs to understand that the British public will not do business with companies that treat their employees with such contempt. Will the Government do everything within their power and influence, including tabling emergency legislation if necessary, to ensure that this appalling employment transaction cannot be completed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

I have been absolutely clear about my view of the way that workers have been treated today. I cannot comment on specific circumstances until I have had them confirmed—I have seen things reported on social media, as has the hon. Gentleman—but I have been clear that the way workers have been treated is absolutely unacceptable.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House at incredibly short notice and responding to questions from MPs.

International Women’s Day

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she will give a clear definition.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This has been a very good-natured debate so far, and it may now be useful if we just move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate. She is a leader among women, and I thank her personally for all the help and support she has given to me since I was elected in 2019. Thank you very much.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made an extremely moving speech in which she read out a very long list of women who have been murdered over the last year. I would add the name of a women from my Loughborough constituency who was not murdered but suffered life-changing injuries at the age of 19 that mean she will never again live a normal life. Her name is Angel Lynn, and hon. Members will perhaps have seen the CCTV video of her being picked up by her boyfriend and physically carried into the back of a van. She was kidnapped and, to use the words of the court, “fell out” of the van at high speed on the A6 in Loughborough.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this case is sub judice.

[Jane Hunt]

No, it is not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is the advice I have received, so please be very careful. The Attorney General has referred the sentence as being too lenient.

[Jane Hunt]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Since it was first observed in 1911, International Women’s Day has been a driving force for change. It is a day not only to empower women and celebrate their achievements but to raise awareness of equality issues and the very real injustices that women still face today. This year is no exception, with the theme of “Break the Bias” encouraging us all to call out gender bias, discrimination and stereotyping to ensure greater female participation and progression in our communities, our workplaces and our schools, colleges and universities.

As an MP, I am incredibly fortunate to be able to use my experiences as a woman in the workplace and as a mother, as well as the experiences of the thousands of women in my constituency, to help influence the change that is needed. Sadly, however, I am in a very small minority of women who have had this opportunity, being the 499th female of only 559 to have ever been sworn into the House of Commons—this is, of course, fewer than the number of MPs elected at any one election.

Thankfully, we are seeing the number of female MPs increase, with 220 women elected at the last election, which is the most ever. That said, it means that only 34% of MPs are women, despite the 2011 census finding that 51% of the population are women. There is clearly a lot more work still to do to ensure women are properly represented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak again in the debate on International Woman’s Day. It has become something of a cliché for men speaking in this debate to talk about themselves as having suddenly awakened to feminism when they become fathers of daughters, and to me that has always rather prompted a question about what sort of world those fathers thought that the mothers of their daughters lived in. None the less, it is perhaps not a wholly useless lens through which to look at some of this debate.

I sent my daughter, Eleanor, to school on World Book Day dressed as Rosie Revere, Engineer, a character from a book by the American author Andrea Beaty. It is a series called “The Questioneers”, which includes a character called Sofia Valdez, Future Prez. For five-year-old Eleanor, the idea of a female Prime Minister is very much already on the table, and that is an idea we can all get behind, be we fans of Margaret Thatcher, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) or indeed the Deputy Leader of the Labour party. Perhaps the fact that I made Eleanor’s dress for World Book Day myself is also a glass ceiling smashed, although it reminded me that there is no word for “seamstress” that does not imply that only women can sew. We still swim in a soup of linguistic everyday sexism, and the fact remains that engineering and other male dominated professions have a long way to go.

When I was a Minister at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I was able to foster massive growth in the diversity of people working in AI and cyber only because we started from such incredibly low numbers. Strategies are in place. They start at school, and we cannot go fast enough. However, there is something that I would like to go slower, which is time. The vast majority of young women and girls report that they have been harassed or groped at some point. YouGov reports that more than two-thirds of women have felt unsafe walking at night, and only slightly fewer report feeling unsafe in taxis, with a tradesperson in their home, or even walking alone in the daytime. Those experiences are wholly alien to the vast majority of men, and that total disconnect is a huge part of the problem.

To put that another way, today Eleanor is five. How long have I got before she comes home to tell me that she was harassed, or worse, on the school bus? How long has she got until I worry when she has to call the plumber to a student house? How long has she got before she fears the route she takes walking home? What can we, from this privileged platform in Parliament, do in the meantime to try to address some of those fairly sickening thoughts? The answer, of course, will never be enough.

I commend the Government’s approach to putting more resources into the police and—crucially—into prosecution, to tackle the worst of violence against women and girls, as well as into education and beyond, to tackle the culture that will, in due course, see more women doing supposedly male jobs, and more men doing traditionally female jobs. We must all show, rather than simply say, that it can be done, although I am sure my dressmaking skills will be left to myself. This is society’s problem, not solely that of Parliament. This debate must be about equity as much as it is about equality, and providing everyone with the same opportunities to live, work and play safely means providing different people with the different tools they need to get over the same obstacles. I wholly endorse the approach of the Welsh Government to the telemedicine that was referred to earlier in the debate, and I hope that this Government will come to the same conclusion when they review that.

If I could pick just one area in which to urge the Government to go even further than they currently do, it would be tackling the multiplicity of factors that mean childcare still falls disproportionately on women—something exacerbated hugely by covid. In everything from the design of our towns and cities and the attitude of employers to the average time spent commuting, we can do so much more to give men and women equal opportunities to succeed. By tackling childcare we can perhaps unleash the productivity of half the population even further.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin]

I just could not let that go, sorry. Notwithstanding this Bill, which does look to streamline certain issues, there are many Brexit-related issues up and down the country, in our businesses and at our borders. I do not think the hon. Member can justify the comments she just made.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The good news is, this is not a debate about Brexit. I do not mind passing references to it, but let us not turn the debate into something that it is not.

[Jane Hunt]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This Bill is another step in the right direction as, by ending the effect of the Vnuk decision, we will remove needless and excessive liabilities that place an unnecessary administrative and financial burden on the Motor Insurer’s Bureau, businesses and policy holders. Indeed, I note that the Government Actuary’s Department has estimated that Vnuk would lead to an estimated £50 annual increase in insurance premiums for motorists and £2 billion in extra overall costs for the insurance industry. This would be a terrible outcome, given the current issues over the cost of living. I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that, given that £50 is only the average, younger drivers will bear the brunt of the increase as they constitute a higher risk.

We also know that Vnuk would impact significantly on businesses, in particular those in the motor sport industry. Ahead of the debate, I was contacted by one of my constituents, Mr John Kirkpatrick, who is a director of the Motorsport Industry Association. He has informed me that the association has been lobbying the European Commission against the adoption of the Vnuk proposal because, as the UK Government have acknowledged, it could lead to an additional annual cost of £458 million for the UK’s motorsports industry. I am told that the industry has a turnover of £10 billion annually and is of huge importance to the midlands, being the centre of motorsport valley and employing 40,000 people. It is also recognised globally as the centre of excellence and the go-to community of knowledge and innovation. So this Bill would go a long way to supporting the midlands economy and helping to level up the country.

Of course, since the ruling the EU has also taken steps to address its impact. This leaves the UK in the perverse situation that it is stuck with a snapshot of EU law at the end of the transition period, all while the EU itself is enacting reforms to address what it has described as absurd over-regulation. Well, amen to that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Taking all this into account, I will be supporting the Bill today, and I hope that the Government continue to work to remove all unnecessary red tape inherited from our membership of the EU so that we put the success of our businesses and the finances of consumers first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

One of the first things we did was to change the taxation on motorhomes, which is very important to my constituents because North West Durham is where we manufacture many of them. Under the EU regulations that came forward, gold-plated by our civil service, we would have seen a 700% tax increase, which we have been able to reverse since leaving the EU. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point, but does he think that we need to see all those practical examples laid out by the British Government to show the benefits of our having left the EU?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that, is there any possibility of steering his great speech back to Third Reading of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill?

[Anthony Browne]

I was talking about the underlying legislative process for the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree; there are probably many other bits of legislation such as this, and it would be good to get a holistic view of the impact of all that.

For all the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, before talking about European jurisprudence, I fully support this Bill. The Vnuk ruling is impractical, it is expensive to motorists, including myself, and it does not serve the deemed objectives. For the reasons mentioned by the Opposition, the Government probably do need to think about whether there are any other bits of legislation needed to ensure that there is no harm done by lack of insurance on private land, but this Bill is incredibly popular and I fully support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Indeed. Then, of course, we moved to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who said that Vnuk would be very difficult to enforce and just happened to mention that nearly two thirds of people there voted remain. In fact, that was the only place in the United Kingdom that I went to as part of the leave campaign where there were remain posters up in the windows as I knocked on the doors.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), not least for his help at the beginning of the debate. He and the excellent shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), also rightly made the point, “Hang on, motor industry, we have done you a pretty good favour today. How about looking after motorists?” Like so many organisations, it is very quick to put things up but not so quick to bring them down, so I hope that that was noted.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said that if there are regulations that we do not need, let us reduce them. My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) mentioned the cost—the £50 hike that would occur—and the consultation in which 94% were against the Vnuk decision. I am not quite sure what the other 6% were thinking about, but that is pretty high. I also thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who made a really important point, which I hope we dealt with in the Bill. At the beginning of the process, I was very concerned about that, too.

Let me turn to some of the people who are not in the Chamber today who have helped with the Bill. In particular, I thank James Langston of the Department for Transport and the team for all their assistance. I thank the excellent Minister at the Dispatch Box and the shadow Minister—without Opposition support, we could not have made progress today, so I am very grateful.

I thank Nick Robbins of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and David Holt of Weightmans for their immensely detailed knowledge and help. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who not only led the Westminster Hall debate but attended many stakeholder meetings, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who bowled one or two bouncers during the process, and I am very grateful for that scrutiny.

It has been gratifying to see such widespread engagement with and support for the Bill, including from the National Farmers Union and members of the all-party groups on motorsport, farming and historic vehicles, all of whose specialist area of interest will be profoundly impacted by the Vnuk judgment. I also thank, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) did in relation to the previous Bill, Adam Mellows-Facer, the Clerk of Private Members’ Bills, who I can embarrass—my right hon. Friend could not because he had left the Chamber, but I will embarrass him and say what a professional and helpful job he has done.

Finally, I thank Isobelle Jackson in my office, who helped in preparing all the work behind the Bill. Just getting a private Member’s Bill to this stage takes a lot of work and I have an enormous appreciation for all the work that she has done.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Even though some of the speeches veered all over the motorway, and Mr Browne’s hit the barrier several times this morning, congratulations on getting the Bill over the line, Mr Bone.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of insurance. She may be shocked and possibly appalled to learn that, as it stands, pedicabs in London have no licensing regime. Therefore, there is no onus on them to have any insurance. Currently, passengers getting into a pedicab have no understanding of the risk they are putting themselves at. There is no legislation that calls on pedicabs in London to have any insurance, and drivers are not checked. Operations conducted in recent weeks by Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan police found drivers who are wanted for sexual offences. Their vehicles have no form of MOT—there is no onus on the driver to have an MOT or any checks on their vehicle. That is why I have been campaigning, since I arrived in this place, to ensure we have a proper licensing regime that mirrors what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is trying to do with his Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Can I just stop the hon. Lady there momentarily and suggest that we go back to this Bill? I know and appreciate that the hon. Lady has a separate Bill, which may or may not have a Second Reading this afternoon, but we must focus on this Bill. I have given a little bit of generous leeway, but I think we should get back to the Bill.

[Nickie Aiken]

I appreciate and understand your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will understand my passion to ensure that everybody who gets a pedicab in London is safe, but I will move on.

I pay tribute to the outstanding taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers we have in this country. As Members have pointed out, it is clear that they have paid a huge price during the pandemic. One only has to go on to the streets of my constituency to see that the office workers and international travellers have disappeared. I talk to taxi drivers all the time and I know they are desperate for us to get back to normal after the pandemic. I hope the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is bringing forward today will give those who work day in, day out to provide a service the comfort that we support their efforts.

Let us not forget that private hire vehicle and taxi drivers provide us with a service, including in taking us to hospital. Many vulnerable citizens going to hospital may not want to get a bus. They may prefer to get a taxi. I have a taxi driver in my own family. I am very proud that my cousin-in-law in Cardiff, Alex, is a black cab driver. He does a brilliant job. I know from first hand the work he does. He supports children with learning difficulties by getting them to school every day of the week. I thank him and drivers like him who are doing that public service, taking our vulnerable patients to hospital and our vulnerable children and young people to school. Quite often, that type of work is forgotten. We think that taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers are just those who take us out on a night out or perhaps take us home after we have had a good night out.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this brilliant Bill. It will make us safer, it will make our drivers safer and it will ensure that our outstanding licensing authorities across the nation, and in particular across England and Wales, provide the extra level of security we all deserve when we get into a private hire vehicle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I rise like a bat out of hell to contribute to today’s debate. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for getting the Bill to its Third Reading in this place, and I welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench—I think this is the first time I have been in a debate for which she has been the Minister. This issue ties in nicely with two important local campaigns that I am running: the first is safer streets, and the second is reliable and healthy transport. Around this time last week, I was singing the praises of my own local taxi firms: how critical they have been in the community over the past 22 months during this global pandemic, and how much they are regarded as a core part of the community.

I welcome the Bill as it is drafted, but I would like to hear the Minister’s views on any unintended consequences. All legislators want to create good laws, and rightly so, but I am aware that cab drivers are really reliant on their jobs, and this Bill could potentially prohibit that. Although I have been a councillor for many years, I have never had the privilege of sitting on a licensing committee—partly because they were daytime meetings, but also because of the expertise and level of training required to sit on those committees—so once again, as others have, I applaud the quality of those discussions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington addressed this issue earlier, and I hope that the Minister will do so in her closing remarks, but my concern is where human error might lead to a particular taxi driver being on the list, so to speak. That should not prevent them from having due process and the ability to appeal, or render them unable to take on further jobs while the process is being followed through.

Other Members have spoken about the size of the industry—the 343,000 different licences and 276 licensing authorities that are out there. It is a really important and core part of communities up and down the country. My constituency is really reliant on taxis; although, as I have said previously, we have some great transport links north to south via public transport, both train and the tube, our east to west links are not so great. Although we have a bus service, it is not consistent enough to mean that people can use it as a daily means of getting around. I, for one, need either to drive to the station or use my local cab company to get there in order to commute down to London.

The other thing that is really important about this Bill is the confidence it will give to users of that particular mode of transport. We have already spoken about the safety implications not only for women but for vulnerable people and those who are younger—those who need that transport to get to school, sports clubs, or whatever it may be. Anything we can do to give them confidence and put safeguards in place is absolutely the right thing to do. It is probably worth remembering that 98% of taxi hire drivers are men, and about 2,500 reported assaults on women in 2018 were from one taxi app alone, so the proactive nature of this Bill is right and proper. I applaud the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and others who have spent many years trying to get to this point. I look forward to the Bill getting on to the statute book, subject to its progress in the other place.

We have not yet mentioned the wider use of taxi firms, but I hope that the Bill will also help in our battle against criminal gangs. A very small minority of cab drivers abuse the system—in county lines, for example—and I would argue that they are probably inclined to pursue other criminal activities as well. This process will make it harder for them to do so. It might be a slight inconvenience for local authorities and applicants, but it is worth it if the quality improves. I know from my conversations with drivers that they are proud of their industry and as keen as anyone else to remove the bad apples, and I think the Bill will make that easier.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. We have talked about a national database. Local authorities already have this information to hand, and all that the Bill is asking them to do is collate it in one system, so I do not think there is much of a barrier to getting this done relatively quickly and cheaply.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Lia Nici.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson]

With the leave of the House, can I place on the record my thanks to the Minister for her engagement with me? It has been a pleasure to work with her on the stewardship of this Bill, and I thank her for her speech this morning. I am particularly delighted to see the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), in her place. She has done so much work in respect of violence against women and girls. I had the great privilege of serving under her stewardship of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It was an exemplary performance. I am delighted to see her in her place today for the final passage of my Bill in the Commons.

I am grateful to all Members who have spoken today. I was going to list them all individually, but the Minister has done that already. I thank all Members for their congratulations to me. I also want to thank the sponsors of the Bill—some of whom are here and some of whom are not—everyone who spoke on Second Reading, those from across the House who served on the Bill Committee, the Department for Transport staff, who have been excellent in their engagement with me, and the House staff, who have worked diligently with me. Last but not least, I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), whose stewardship and guidance ensured that I was able to get this far.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, Peter—absolutely superb. I want to put on the record my gratitude to all the taxi drivers in the Ribble Valley.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I have given way three times already.

Ukraine is divided. The second-largest party in Ukraine is a pro-Russian party. It ranks very high on the corruption index. When it controlled eastern Ukraine, it did everything it could to deny autonomy to Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine. Members can agree with me or not, but they have to understand that that is the point of view of many Russian people, and they are entitled to their view as much as we are.

Learn from history: look at Afghanistan. Look at Iraq. We in the west are not prepared to fight for these people. Why are we destabilising the region by pretending we are when we know perfectly well—everybody in this Chamber knows perfectly well—that we are not prepared to risk a drop of British blood? We have to live with this Russian Government. We have to stop talking about expanding eastwards. We have to stop playing Putin’s game.

I know this is realpolitik. I know it is not redolent of great liberal imperialist speeches about how we must make the world safe for democracy, and that the Iraqi people, the Afghan people or the Ukrainian people have a right to live under a democratic regime. What nonsense I am talking—these are the facts of life. This is realism. Are we really prepared to muck up eastern Ukraine in the same way we have mucked up Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin prompt at 4.30 pm, if not before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups will start at 4.30 pm, so I am afraid that the limit is now five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I will crack on through as many points as I can in the next few minutes. To answer the central question of the debate about Russian grand strategy, in the realm of Europe at any rate, it is probably down to four things: first, the reabsorption of Ukraine and Belarus into Russia’s sphere of interest and control; secondly, the shattering of NATO; thirdly, the establishment of a sphere of influence line from Kaliningrad in the north to the Baltic and Transnistria in the Balkans, to the east of which is Russia’s sphere of interest out of which it will fight to push any western influence, including from Russia, Belarus—obviously, by now—and potentially the Baltic republics in future; and fourthly, the re-establishment by President Putin of a Russia that is virulently illiberal, hostile to the western interest and, in the Russian historical term, a Slavophile rather than a westernising nation.

The idea peddled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who to be fair, made some valid points, that that was inevitable, is simply nonsense. It was not inevitable at all and it is incredibly tragic that it has happened. More broadly, as several hon. Members have said, there is a battle this century between open and closed societies. Open societies are not yet prepared, but China and Russia are effectively engaged in forms of hybrid conflict—I will come to that term, if I may, because I think we are slightly misusing it—with the west. It is non-military at the moment, but there is no doubt that it is happening.

Some people say that Russia is a great mystery—as if we need to have some great cosmic understanding of it—but to be fair to the Russians, they signal clearly. Putin’s essay this summer on the historical unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people was a signal that he does not respect Ukraine’s borders—it is a no-brainer.

To return to the point about hybrid war, if anyone wants to understand what the Russians think contemporary Russian warfare is, I respectfully suggest that they read the Russian military doctrine that is available on the Russian MOD website in English and Russian. If they fancy a weekend project reading it, they will understand that the first characteristic of contemporary warfare, which we sometimes call hybrid war, is the combination of military and non-military effects in the service of state power with popular protests and special operations, combining the economic, political and military. It is all there written down. It is not a secret and we do not have to interpret it.

Hybrid war, as laid out by Frank Hoffman when he was originally talking about Hezbollah about 25 years ago, is the combination of military and non-military. It is not the non-military or the grey zone war, which is different to hybrid war. The purpose of hybrid war—the true definition that is used in academic circles—is the combination of military and other tools.

To be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and to President Putin, the Russians are under intense threat. In the past two political generations, they have experienced profound shock: the loss of the Warsaw pact, the loss of their buffer territory, the loss of former Soviet republics, two putsches, absolute economic decline and an utter change in their world. Since the end of the cold war, our view has been a rather woolly liberal internationalism. Their view has become a hardened aggressive zero-sum realist game. They sleep well when others do not. The great strategic conundrum is how to overcome that in the next two decades without war.

I have run out of time, because other hon. Members spoke for more than 10 minutes, which is a shame, so I will wind up with three points about Russian strategic culture. Historically, most historians and strategists would say that there are three elements of Russian strategic culture or three pressures that feed Russian strategic cultural thinking.

First, there is the sense of external threat—to put it bluntly, no borders. To be fair to them, they have been invaded by the Tartars, the Swedes, the Poles, the French and the Russians. Nowadays, that sense of threat is not only physical but more psychological, hence the need to control the internet and shut down non-governmental organisations that are pro-western or funded by the west. The sense of psychological threat is sadly reaching paranoid conspiracy theory levels among the Russian elites. Secondly, there is the defence of its autocratic political system. Thirdly, there is its desire to be a great power.

Those pressures feed into the nexus that is Ukraine, because without Ukraine, Russia feels less of a great power. It is threatened because if democracy works in Kiev, it can work in Moscow, and it is losing its buffer territory. For those three strategic reasons, so much of Russia’s strategic angst is focused on Ukraine. I will leave it there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume his seat no later than 4.30 pm, I call Daniel Kawczynski.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If everybody can resume their seats, I am getting information that there is likely to be a statement at approximately 6 o’clock. The debate would be paused for that period and would then be resumed after that, as I understand it. If anything changes, I will let you know, or Mr Speaker will give a statement informing the House what the procedure will be when he takes the Chair to chair the statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Just so that the hon. Member is aware of it, I am not giving way.

I would urge the Government to make sure that in their plans for reopening disused lines—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I cannot hear what Mr Corbyn is saying, and he is not giving way.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I would urge the Government in planning any reopenings, which generally I would support, to do a serious cost-benefit analysis and look at the potential of the line. In most cases, there has been a gross underestimation of the benefits that reopening brings. For example, the Edinburgh to Galashiels line, which is doing very well, should be opened right the way through to Carlisle.

The last point I would make is that to make the railways affordable we have to take the profit motive out of the running of the train operating companies, and we have to bring them into public ownership to make railways affordable for all. Otherwise, what are we going to say—that those less well-off can take the bus or those less well-off can take long-distance coaches, while the railways will be there for those who can afford it and for the middle classes? No, railways have to be there for everybody, and that means proper investment and public ownership.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are now going down to a three-minute limit.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I start by offering my wholehearted support to the shadow Transport Secretary, who has made an excellent contribution this afternoon, as have many other hon. Members across the House.

I feel deeply sorry for many communities across the midlands and the north of England, because they have clearly been badly let down by the Government. I know the rail Minister is a decent, hardworking Minister, and I am sure even he is disappointed with this rather thin offering—the way Nottinghamshire has been let down, the way the north-west of England has been let down, the way Bradford and Sheffield have been let down. They have all been badly let down by the Government, I am afraid, and indeed colleagues in London are about to be severely let down with the looming crisis in Transport for London, where the Government are clearly unable to do the decent thing and provide the right level of support to vital transport infrastructure in the capital.

All those things bode very badly for our country at a time when we need more investment and more economic growth. High-speed rail is clearly a driver of significant economic growth and regeneration for major cities and smaller towns, such as my Reading constituency, and offers huge advantages to communities across the country.

I draw the Minister’s attention to a number of points in my own area. In particular, I call for greater Government focus on electrification of the Great Western line to the west of Reading; at present the electric line stops at Newbury, which is clearly not far enough to the west. Indeed, the far south-west is not served by adequate rail infrastructure at this time. The electric line also stops in Cardiff, Wales, and Welsh colleagues have mentioned the serious flaws with that lack of investment in their country.

In addition, the north-south line that connects the south coast of England with the midlands and ultimately Manchester should be a priority for electrification. It is currently a narrow rail corridor with only one line going north and one going south. There are real issues there, but electrification offers greater efficiency, lighter rolling stock, much faster speeds on the railway and a more efficient railway all round. It requires more up-front investment, but it pays back great dividends in future. Many colleagues from Coventry and other midlands cities have mentioned that to me.

I realise time is limited, but I also draw the Minister’s attention to a number of other issues, particularly Reading Green Park station in the neighbouring seat of Reading West, which also serves my constituents who commute to work in the science park at Green Park on the west of Reading. We also need investment in other stations across Berkshire. I draw his attention to the need for the Western Rail Link, another crucial piece of rail infrastructure in the Thames valley that offers wider benefits to people from across the country. I appreciate that he is interested in the project, and I urge him to speak to local councils, myself and other MPs such as the shadow rail Minister on that point.

I realise time is pressing, but I would like to make a couple of other very brief points. Will the Minister also—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but not with one second gone. I call Lee Anderson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mohammad Yasin]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I have lost half a minute, so I will carry on.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

A minute has been added.

[Mohammad Yasin]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I listened carefully to the electrification plans in the integrated rail plan, and it is the third time we have been promised the electrification of the midland main line. As the electrification in other areas has been scaled back, who knows whether the plan will be followed up?

It is impossible to trust a word this Government say. They have so far refused to answer when I try to pin them down on the electrification of East West Rail. No new infrastructure plan should include the use of diesel trains if we are serious about reaching our net-zero targets. East West Rail must be electrified from day one to avoid the need for diesel locomotives and the future costs of retrofitting. Although it is important to investigate new ways to decarbonise transport, we know that existing technology such as rail electrification works now.

These rail plans that change as they go along make a mockery of the so-called integrated rail plan. It is not integrated if it rolls back previous plans. The scrapping of a major northern rail route should be the final straw for this Government, with their dead, buried and bogus levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Grahame Morris, I must say that I understand that during your contribution, Mr Anderson, you referred to another Member stealing, which is clearly unacceptable language. Will you please withdraw that?

[Lee Anderson]

Yes, the debate with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) did get a little bit heated. I apologise if I called him a thief but, just for the record, I am not a scab.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I did not hear the word scab being used; had I done so, I would have called that Member up as well. In the memory of Jo Cox, we really do have to have a far better atmosphere in this Chamber. I hope we can now start to move on with that.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the motion in the name of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

My constituency has minimal rail infrastructure. The reopening of Horden train station was a cause for celebration. It promised new opportunities for employment, education and leisure through making the major towns and cities in the north-east more accessible to people living in my constituency in east Durham.

We do not enjoy the embarrassment of riches in public transport that we see in London and, apparently, in some other constituencies, where missing a tube or a bus is not a major issue, with another service arriving just minutes later.

Seaham and Horden in my constituency are served by one train an hour, normally consisting of two carriages. For my constituents who are seeking to attend a hospital appointment, a university or college class, getting to work, or simply meeting friends, the reliability of the train has a considerable impact on employment prospects or educational success. To increase capacity and frequency, we are not talking about multi-billion pound schemes. If there were any truth in the levelling-up rhetoric, I would not be on my feet here tonight, pressing the Government for additional transport options, more resources and more frequent services.

I want to highlight a particular case for the Minister, who is a good man, about what the consequences are when we have severe overcrowding, I will, if I may, read out a letter that I have received, relaying the experience of a constituent. It is from the mother of Harry, an 11-year-old boy. This is what she said:

“Harry, 11, was standing squashed with his Dad. He started to go pale and felt sick. He then suddenly collapsed, went limp, eyes rolled back and he passed out. We pulled the emergency stop button. After about a minute, he came round, but was weak, limp and only just responding. There was no space for him to lie down”—

the train was so crammed—

“no space for me to even get to him. No space for the conductor to get to him to see if he needed medical help. The windows were closed. It was hot, airless, and people were packed to absolute capacity. What does it take for the train companies to understand that packing trains full to above safe capacity is a fatality waiting to happen. The conductors were encouraging people to get on an already dangerously full train.”

I invite the Minister to understand our experience in east Durham with these overcrowded crushes, which are a clear risk to health and safety.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will move on to the wind-ups now, but Rachael Maskell would have been next. Tan, you can have a bit more time, but would you allow her to intervene on you? I know that this is an unusual request, but I hope that you will think kindly of her when she decides to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been contacted by a constituent who has incurable secondary breast cancer. She has planned a Christmas holiday to Spain with her family, including her 12-year-old and 15-year-old children. The UK Government recommend a single dose of vaccine for over-15s which her daughter has had, but the Spanish Government are now saying that over-12s are to have two doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of a one-dose vaccine. My constituent is very concerned that her daughter could be prevented from entering Spain and joining them on their holiday. She is desperately seeking clarification on this matter, as it is not on the Government website or indeed that of the airline, and they are due to travel next Thursday. Given this, I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how to get a full response from the Foreign Office on what she can expect and how she can ensure her family can make travel plans before Christmas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order on behalf of her constituents. It is important that Ministers give timely answers to Members, particularly when they raise issues of an urgent nature. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point raised and I hope they will relay it back, but there will be other opportunities, including business questions tomorrow.