Exiting the European Union (Transport)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise in support of the Cableway Installations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These regulations would come into force if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal, which would clearly be catastrophic for the economy and our future.

However, why are we debating these regulations only now, nearly four months after the UK was due to leave the EU? If we had left with no deal at that time, what would have happened to the cableway sector and its regulation? It seems extraordinary that the Government are only now discovering regulations that need to be debated. How many more are at the back of the cupboard in the Minister’s Department and are yet to come to the Floor of the House? That is especially important as safety is paramount in these regulations. So much for no-deal preparations; even legislation protecting vital things like safety has been forgotten.

We have demonstratively seen how poor preparations for no deal are in the Minister’s Department—let us not forget the Operation Stack demonstration, for example. Clearly, his Department is not ready for no deal. Perhaps he can assure the House today, as I have asked his colleagues to do previously, that this is the very last regulation to come on to the Floor of this House to ensure that EU law is enshrined in UK law in the adverse event of the UK leaving the European Union. If it is not, how many more regulations can the House expect?

These regulations deal with the components necessary for the installation of cableways such as ski lifts, the Emirates line and funicular railways, and seek to establish parallel processes to those in the EU, with the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland taking over the role of the enforcement body. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service will then ensure that an assessment is made by an approved body—not by the Secretary of State—so that the components for installation meet the required standard. The setting of standards will sit with the Secretary of State, as a new extended power, but he will, in reality, work with industry to set the standards, which will sit under the British Standards Institute.

The CE—Conformité Européenne—certification marker will transfer to the UK, to be replaced by a UK marker. This transfer of functions is a practical solution should we end up with no deal. If we do, it is expected that there will be no divergence from EU standards for the industry—well, at least not to start with. However, it is not clear whether parity with EU standards will be maintained if EU standards advance. Can the Minister confirm this, and set out in what instances he believes there could be divergence, and how his Government will respond to that? Will he ensure that in that scenario, UK legislation will keep pace with EU legislation? Clearly, for the industry in this specialist field, and the resultant supply chain, it is in the interests of manufacturing and safety standards that there be no divergence, although we can always have better safety regulations, and that we are not forced into a no-deal scenario under the new Prime Minister.

Concern has been raised about fee setting for this process, not least by the Scottish snow sports sector and Transport for London. I note that the Department highlights that that does not come within the scope of the regulations, but will the Minister tell the House how this will operate in a no-deal Brexit scenario, since a transfer of authoritative bodies, inspection bodies and the enforcement body could impact on fees?

Labour will support these regulations this afternoon, but I hope to have some clarity from the Minister on the issues that I have raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Michael Ellis)]

The Department has funded a significant number of local authorities to trial innovative technologies and share good practice. Some of the connected traffic management measures, including the use of sensors to provide real-time parking space availability, for example, are already being adopted more widely. We are encouraging local authorities to install more of these systems.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Gareth Delbridge; Michael Lewis: today we pay homage to two rail workers who tragically lost their lives at work near Port Talbot. It is all the more shocking in the light of the report into the fatality of a track worker at Stoats Nest junction, which described Victorian methods of protection, brought about by casual labour, a zero-hours culture and the worker probably being fatigued, having had to work because his colleague had failed to turn up to work. It was clearly unsafe. Will the Secretary of State bring an immediate end to zero-hours contracts, as advised by the regulator, the Office of Rail and Rail, bring this work back in-house and end these exploitative and unsafe work practices?

[Chris Grayling]

I defend no unsafe work practices on the railways. I agree with the hon. Lady that the railways should always aspire to the highest safety standards. She should remember that we have the safest railways in Europe, but I am very clear, as I said in earlier remarks, that lessons need to be learnt when things go tragically wrong, as they have done on a small number of occasions in recent years, and I expect changes to be made as a result of the lessons that are learnt from those tragic incidents.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

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

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Compensation scheme for tenants—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme to compensate tenants adversely affected by the scheduled works.

(2) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.

(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

New clause 4—Independent peer review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent peer review of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) project.

(2) The review must include consideration of the project’s—

(a) environmental impact,

(b) economic impact,

(c) engineering, and

(d) governance.

(3) In this section, “independent” means it is carried out by persons who are independent of—

(a) Government,

(b) HS2 Ltd, and

(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.

(4) In this section, a “peer review” is a review conducted by experts of equivalent professional qualifications, expertise and standing to the persons responsible for each aspect of the project set out in subsection (2).

(5) A report of the review in subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

New clause 5—Non-disclosure agreements—

‘(1) The nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, must not enter into any non-disclosure agreement with any party in connection with the scheduled works unless the assessor of non-disclosure agreements related to the scheduled works (“the assessor”) has certified that it is in the public interest.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General must appoint a person to be the assessor.

(3) The assessor must be—

(a) independent, and

(b) a current or former high court judge, higher judge or Queen’s Counsel.

(4) In this section, “independent” means independent of—

(a) Government,

(b) HS2 Ltd, and

(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.

(5) The assessor must undertake his or her work with a presumption in favour of transparency and public accountability in matters connected to the scheduled works.

(6) The assessor must review any non-disclosure agreement between the nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, and any party in connection with the scheduled works and in place before this section comes into force to certify whether it is—

(a) in the public interest, or

(b) not in the public interest.

(7) The assessor may not determine that a non-disclosure agreement is in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1) or (6) except for the reason that it is justified because of exceptional commercial confidentiality.

(8) If the assessor certifies under subsection (6) that a non-disclosure agreement is not in the public interest that non-disclosure agreement immediately ceases to have effect.

(9) In this section, a “non-disclosure agreement” means any duty of confidentiality or other restriction on disclosure (however imposed).”

[Rachael Maskell]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends? When Labour envisaged HS2, it was a very different infrastructure project from what we see today. We recognised that the generations, particularly across the north and the midlands, needed far better connectivity. We wanted to regenerate the northern towns and cities of our country, and we saw the potential in the midlands to spark a new industrial age and how that was not being met.

After decades of disproportionate investment in London and the south-east, it was a Labour Government who saw how improved connectivity was needed to attract vital inward investment and to revitalise economies in the north. That is what Labour is about: creating high-quality jobs and opportunities to inspire a generation. It is in our name, Labour. Of course, we all knew that rebuilding connectivity had to start in the north, particularly with the east-west connections, to truly join up what is now aspiring to be the northern powerhouse. However, without the power of investment in the transport system, that will be nothing more than a soundbite. That is why Labour supports phase 2a, which will be the shortest leg of the route, at just 37 miles in total, and provide that vital north-south link, north of Birmingham to Crewe. Our support is not unreserved, though, and we believe colleagues should join us in the Lobby today to vote for Labour’s new clauses.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As the hon. Lady knows extremely well, I have opposed this Bill and its predecessor Act of Parliament, which inaugurated the first phase, absolutely 100% all the way down the line. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the new clauses that the hon. Lady has tabled, I cannot quite understand how she can reconcile what she has just said with the origins of the proposals. New clause 4 says that an independent peer review ought to consider questions relating to the project’s environmental and economic impact and its engineering and governance and that that review must be carried out by persons who are independent of the Government, HS2 Ltd and all the rest. It sounds to me like the hon. Lady is not terribly keen on the proposals.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention seems slightly premature, so I ask him to hold his breath as I come to talk about the other new clauses. This is clearly a massive opportunity, not least for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to benefit from more high-quality jobs, which our country desperately needs. I am sure that his constituents would want him to go through the Lobby to achieve that aim.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Surely the answer is that, right from the scheme’s inception, there have been serious concerns about the impact on the environment—I do not have time to go through all that—so it is perfectly logical for that to be included among any amendments. However, one of my difficulties with the scheme is that the costs are escalating. Some of my constituents are affected by it but do not get any compensation. From another angle, cities such as Coventry do not get anything out of it because it bypasses Coventry.

[Rachael Maskell]

I remind my hon. Friend that the whole country will benefit, because this is a national infrastructure project. Indeed, many jobs will be created in the supply chain in his very constituency, which I am sure he will welcome. Of course, the environment is a central plank of why Labour supports the Bill. We want to see modal shift—people moving out of their cars and out of the skies and on to trains—and this project will provide such opportunity.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. She quite rightly points out that this was a Labour initiative. Given the point she just made about trying to move people away from the skies and on to rail, does she recall that the original Arup proposal would have linked HS2 with HS1, so someone could have got on a train in Manchester and got off that same train in Paris? It was Lord Adonis who actually made changes to prevent that from happening and created an environmental catastrophe in counties such as Staffordshire.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

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

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Rachael Maskell]

I will, if I may, finish my point.

Although we all get frustrated because we want projects delivered sooner rather than later, what is crucial to us is that, if we do not start now, we will push the completion date even further away. That is why we are keen to get on with it today.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I share her enthusiasm for this ambitious project. She talks about journey times. To achieve that modal shift, particularly between Scotland and London, we need to get rail journey times below three hours. Does she agree that that requires much more ambition in the future to ensure that we have a UK-wide network, which includes integrating Glasgow and Edinburgh into the high-speed network?

[Rachael Maskell]

I certainly do agree with those excellent points, because HS2 cannot stop at Crewe. We must build further north and right into the heart of Scotland, particularly into the major cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, to ensure that we get the connectivity right in the future. We know the power of infrastructure to transform people’s lives. We want to see inward investment into those conurbations, which is why we believe that, at this point—this is where the Government have been far too silent—we need to ensure that we build that vision for Glasgow and Edinburgh and beyond as we move forward. As my hon. Friend is such an excellent champion for his city of Glasgow, I am sure that he will be making those points to the Government time and again until we see more action.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I wish to make a little more progress, and then I will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Let me continue talking through a bit of the history of this project. We know that, by 2011, HS2 was being mapped out at a cost of £37.5 billion. We have seen that cost rise to £55.7 billion today. The narrative around the project has also changed. Frustrations has been expressed by the public, and often echoed in this place, because they want to fully understand the benefits that this project will bring. I trust that the Minister will go back and review the communications on this, because clearly people up and down the country have been hearing about the costs involved but not about the benefits. We need far more clarity, particularly when we know that this will be such a powerful instrument in creating jobs. We also want to give hope and new opportunities to businesses in the supply chain up and down the country, and there is work to do on that.

We need to ensure that those people who are making a sacrifice for this project—whether it is their home or their business that they are having to relocate—get the answers that they need. Labour wants far better governance of the project so that the public get their answers in a timely way from HS2, so that they can make their plans in confidence as they move forward.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Scepticism is shared by many of my constituents, especially given the track record of non-delivery for the north. If we genuinely want to power up the north, major infrastructure projects are essential, but we need that Crossrail for the north. I am sick and tired of hearing about Crossrail for the south, and it is great to see some of the southern colleagues on the Government Benches now seemingly speaking up for some constituents in the north as well as those in the south—if only they had done that in the past. I want assurances that this will be transparent and that investment will go into the north.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course constituents right across the north really do want to see that investment, which is so long overdue. Therefore, again, the Government need to bring forward greater commitments in statute that they will deliver Crossrail for the north. We on the Opposition Benches are concerned that Crossrail 2, yet another infrastructure project in London, could well take priority and we will not see the full power being put into the electrification of the trans-Pennine route, which was promised, and let us all remember that that was cancelled by the Secretary of State conveniently on the day that Parliament rose. We want to see that investment for the future for our northern towns and cities, and that is certainly what we would see under a Labour Government.

[Michael Fabricant]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady: she is absolutely right about there being a need for a Crossrail in the north because the east-west communications are so bad, but I just want to ask her one thing. She is quite right to say that investment in the capital programme of HS2 will generate jobs and skills, which we so much need, but she also says it will create employment opportunities afterwards; does she not fear that Britain might go down the French route whereby jobs are in fact sucked south into London rather than being generated in the north?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

France is a very different country from the UK, and we must bear in mind the potential opportunities from improved connectivity across the north given, for instance, the power of the ports in Hull and of course in Liverpool. There is an opportunity for the economy to be built up through those ports, particularly when the Government are looking at our whole trade policy. So there is real opportunity in this project if we get the infrastructure built right, and that is why it is so important that HS2 does not stand alone but is fully integrated across the whole of our transport and rail network to ensure we get the power of the whole project.

[Sir William Cash]

I am not sure whether this will come as music to the hon. Lady’s ears, but I am proposing to vote for her new clauses. However, I am really puzzled by new clause 4(4) and (5) and what they say about the independent review, which I am completely behind, as it is to be completely independent of HS2 and the Government and the persons contracted and so forth. Is this not really just window-dressing, however, because the new clause goes on to say the report

“must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent”?

In other words, it will be enacted, although I want to see it repealed—[Interruption.] Yes, I do indeed. What is the use of a report being produced by all these incredible independent experts if it will simply not be carried through?

[Rachael Maskell]

There are two separate points. We want to ensure that we get value out of the project, and it is astonishing that the Government have not put in place the peer review mechanisms over it—both economic and engineering peer reviews—as has been the case for other major infrastructure projects. This is a way to build public confidence and to ensure that we have a real comprehension of the power of these projects. Unfortunately, HS2 is working very much in isolation, and that responsibility sits with the Secretary of State, who is not calling it to account enough; it is a shame not to see him in his place today because he is answerable to the House for this project, and he has not done his duty in ensuring that HS2 fulfils its responsibilities. But perhaps we will get a showing from the Secretary of State later—let us hope so.

I want to talk about the environmental concerns that have been raised and the costs. Many have also questioned the engineering itself. In my experience, senior engineers from across the rail industry—not necessarily involved in the HS2 project—have been making these points and have called for greater scrutiny. It is therefore really important that we identify any fault lines in the project to ensure that amendments are made. Of course, it takes time to ensure that there is a proper review and that the project is built for the long term.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Just before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the hon. Lady mentioned that she was in favour of—I think these were the words she used—a joined-up transport project with better co-ordination. At staggering expense, this project will take passengers from my constituency who want to go to Heathrow to a place called Old Oak Common. Now, I have never been there—it might be a most charming place—but I suggest that my constituents will want to go directly to Heathrow. If they wanted to go to HS1 and link up to Brussels, Paris or wherever, as it is they would have to go to Euston, and either walk down the pavement, get in a taxi or get on a bus. That does not seem to be very clever co-ordination of the most expensive railway that man has ever yet conceived.

[Rachael Maskell]

My new clauses are so important to ensuring that we get that desperately needed connectivity built into the infrastructure. The fragmentation across our rail network is incredibly costly; there are delays and there is no joined-up thinking. That is why Labour wants to bring rail together. It is so important to reunite the whole network in one public body, of which we envisage HS2 being a part. We will then get the connectivity that the public would expect from a rail network. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support my new clause later today to take that idea forward.

[Mr Paterson]

Does the hon. Lady therefore question the current arrangements as proposed, and is the Labour party prepared to vote against them unless this railway is realigned—with a direct link to Heathrow or a direct link to HS1?

[Rachael Maskell]

Labour is very clear that we will be supporting phase 2a that is before the House today, but we have called into question the way in which the Government are approaching the whole governance of the project. That is why we want to drive the project forward in a different way. I call on all hon. Members across the House to join us in the Lobby today to ensure that we get the right scrutiny over this project to drive it forward in the interests of their constituents, the public and the whole economy.

Members who attended the Westminster Hall debate last week will have heard the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who so eloquently set out the idea that we measure what we treasure. I heard the powerful case for the east midlands, where over 60,000 jobs—high-quality ones, at that—have already been created, and we know that this project will bring opportunities across the country.

I hear the same expectations from Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester; from Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region; from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the Mayor of the Sheffield city region; and from Judith Blake, the leader of Leeds City Council. Not only will 30,000 jobs be developed across the project; hundreds of thousands will also result from investment across the north and the midlands, including in my home city of York. That in itself is a game-changer in tackling social mobility issues and rebalancing national inequality, and will draw investment into places that are in urgent need of regeneration. The issue is not whether HS2 is the right project, but the governance that surrounds its planning and construction.

As I have already said, Labour would integrate HS2 with the rest of our rail enhancement programme and integrate the northern sections of the route fully with the trans-Pennine connections, ensuring the connectivity, journey times and reliability that are so desperately needed. This is what we can achieve with one transformative, publicly run rail service, and it is also what we believe the Government can achieve if they are serious about delivering the rail system needed for the future of the country. We also believe that the environmental value of this project needs greater scrutiny.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about why we need to improve the governance and oversight of this project, to ensure that the maximum benefit is realised for the country. I am thinking of the supply chain benefits, particularly in my constituency, which was once a world leader in locomotive and railway manufacturing. We are just about to lose the last railway engineering works in my constituency because of a lack of coherent planning. There is a lack of capacity in the rolling stock overhaul business in this country, because of the failure to anticipate it. That is exactly the opportunity that this new clause presents, to ensure that we can respond better to changes in the market.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

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

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

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

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Again.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[John Redwood]

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

[Rachael Maskell]

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

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

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

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

[Michael Fabricant]

I just want to emphasise the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I understand the logic of what the hon. Lady says about peer review and so on, but supposing that says that the project must be done in a completely different way, for example using the original Arup route to which I referred earlier. That will not be possible if the Bill has become an Act. Surely she should oppose the Bill, have a peer review and then decide whether to support the legislation.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman appears not to want to see the line built in his lifetime, my lifetime or the lifetime of any current hon. Member. The reality is that we believe that the route needs tweaking, changing and integrating, but that does not mean ripping everything up. We will never be able to satisfy everyone, because in the history of the railway there has always been a farmhouse, a field or a golf course in the way. Indeed, 27 vintage trees will be in the way on this section, and we are very concerned about them.

It is important that we press ahead, but that we review the project—especially the governance. That is about the management that we proceed with.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Would it not be right to think about my hon. Friend’s proposal in new clause 4 as an attempt to learn the lessons as we go along? It is not as though this is a project without review or evaluation. Already it has oversight from the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and it is subject to National Audit Office review. It is hardly as though people are completely deprived of information. What we need to do is pull together that information and learn clear lessons as we proceed.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend speaks eloquently and is right. We need to pool the information, including the scrutiny the House has put over the project and the external scrutiny, to ensure that we get the project right. That is what will build public confidence as we move forward.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in making the case. Does she accept that the information that is available to the House through the various bodies and institutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned is massively undermined by the number of non-disclosure agreements that have been applied to former members of staff of HS2? More than 270 NDAs prevent people from saying what they really believe about the capacity and costs of the scheme. What does she think about that in terms of transparency and openness?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point and I will return to it shortly.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

Not at this time—I am going to move on.

As raised in Committee, there is a major issue with compensation for those who rent. For example, a tenant farmer who works on the land may be moved and have to work away from their farm. People who rent privately consistently miss out when infrastructure projects force them out of their homes or away from their businesses. We believe that they must receive compensation. The issue was raised at the petition stage of the Bill and it would be right to respond today. The new clause would enable that to happen when the statutory instrument is laid.

Let me briefly move on to new clause 5. I am looking forward to the contribution from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and I confirm that Labour supports her new clause. There has been a lot of learning around non-disclosure agreements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) alluded to. I know from my time as a trade union official, and from my time on the working party on bullying and sexual misconduct procedures here, that these agreements are used to see that commercially sensitive information is not shared with external parties, but they are also used around failures of management, and bullying would be one such example.

If the culture is wrong, it is not right to put money into it, and the management should be held to account. My hon. Friend said that 270-plus non-disclosure agreements have been signed, so we need to ensure that there is proper scrutiny and transparency. New clause 5 addresses that issue very comprehensively, ensuring that commercial sensitivities are not undermined, and also that all of us can have a real grasp of what is happening in the culture of HS2. It is a sensible way of addressing the serious amount of money that is being spent on these agreements. We certainly believe that the culture in HS2 must move forward.

We will listen to the debate to decide how we handle the new clauses I have laid before the House. I hope the Minister will give us assurances on them, and I will be listening carefully to determine whether to proceed to a vote. With these enhancements to the Bill, the whole HS2 project could proceed with far greater confidence and far greater support.

[Sir William Cash]

I made it clear in my remarks to the shadow Minister that I am minded to vote for these new clauses. However, towards the end of what she said, serious doubt began to descend on the House as to whether she would actually push them to a vote. She is therefore welcome to come back to the Dispatch Box to tell me whether she in fact intends to do so.

On new clause 1, it would be eminently sensible to have quarterly reports on environmental impact, costs and progress. One thing that has been completely lacking is any proper analysis by the Government or HS2 of all three of those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are debating phase 2a of the HS2 project. That is the remit of the Bill—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That is for me to judge. I have been very lenient to Members on both sides throughout the debate. To try to stop these remarks at this late stage would be a bit unjust. I have tried to stop Members being tempted, but everybody is trying to build on the debate that took us out of scope, and I recognise that at times, we have gone out of scope. We have been in this area once already and it would be remiss of me not—

[Rachael Maskell]

It was with regards to my amendment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Of course we will come to your amendment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I just wanted to say to the right hon. Gentleman that my amendment can therefore apply only to phase 2a. His aspiration may be to review the whole project, but my amendment applies only to the contents of the Bill.

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

I am running out of time; forgive me.

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

[Rachael Maskell]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and in the light of the power of our new clause 4, I withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Independent peer review

‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent peer review of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) project.

(2) The review must include consideration of the project’s—

(a) environmental impact,

(b) economic impact,

(c) engineering, and

(d) governance.

(3) In this section, “independent” means it is carried out by persons who are independent of—

(a) Government,

(b) HS2 Ltd, and

(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.

(4) In this section, a “peer review” is a review conducted by experts of equivalent professional qualifications, expertise and standing to the persons responsible for each aspect of the project set out in subsection (2).

(5) A report of the review in subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’—(Rachael Maskell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

We have had an extensive debate on phase 2a of HS2. Although the Bill is not as robust as the Opposition would have wanted it to be, not least in respect of the accountability and transparency that are needed to make the project succeed, it is so important that we press ahead by investing in vital infrastructure that will benefit not only the midlands but the north and beyond.

We look back with nostalgia and admiration at the Victorian rail infrastructure that has served us for 200 years, but it was a very different story in this place at the time. If one reads the debates in which Members tussled over different routes and projects, it feels like our approach to rail infrastructure has rarely progressed. One of my predecessors as MP for York, George Hudson, took things to the extremes; I assure the House that my dealings seek to achieve consensus and, ultimately, the right infrastructure across the transport network for our long-term future, and to do so transparently.

I formally put on record my thanks to the Clerks who have been so helpful trying to support our efforts to improve the Bill. As ever, we are indebted to their wisdom and advice in ensuring that we can use the mechanisms available to try to improve legislation. I thank all Members who have participated in debates and Committees to ensure that this part of HS2 is given the necessary scrutiny. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) for their important role on the petitions Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who kindly stepped in for me in Committee when I totally lost my voice.

It is always hard to pass legislation on infrastructure when many of us may not live to see the project’s completion, or may live far from the line; however, HS2 is a vital legacy that we must pass on to the generations to come, because the whole country will benefit from this infrastructure project. We have heard about the power of jobs to transform people’s lives. Whether in respect of building the infrastructure or the inward investment that we will see in towns and cities throughout the country, it is such an important project.

As we connect Birmingham to Crewe, over just 37 miles in phase 2a, confidence can start to build and investment can start to flow into places such as Crewe. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) is fighting so hard for that. She will regenerate her community and provide all with new opportunities as a result of the decision taken by the House today. But it does not end there: the rest of the midlands and the north can now be encouraged that they, too, will benefit, as we start the process of debating the next phases, including delivering for Scotland. All we need now is to fully integrate HS2 with the rest of our rail network, to start to see the real benefits.

I am sure the House will not have to wait long, because a Labour Government is in our sights. We will build a public rail service, under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), that is there to serve towns and cities up and down the country. The power of modern rail services will not only transform communities and people’s life chances, but the scale of investment will enhance our environment as we realise the potential of rail to change how we move goods and people across the land. Let us have confidence that, in getting the arteries right to the midlands and the north, we can restart the heart of the economies and communities that have longed to connect to the transformative power that inward investment and jobs will bring. Labour is about transforming lives, and that is why we will support the Bill today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As my right hon. Friend will know, decisions on bus routes are down to the Mayor of London. I think he needs to focus on delivering for Londoners and not just faffing around trying to take selfies. He should be spending more time with Londoners to understand exactly the sort of bus services they need and which journeys they need to take.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

With transport emissions accounting for 29% of all toxic emissions released in the UK, and at a time when Labour has declared that climate change is an existential threat to our nation and planet, will the Secretary of State for Transport tell the House why he has failed to undertake a full environmental audit of road investment strategy 2—the most ecologically and environmentally damaging road building programme for a generation?

[Chris Grayling]

We have another example of the Labour party’s war on the motorist. The hon. Lady should understand that the more congested our roads are, the higher the emissions. We cannot destroy our economy and get rid of our roads. We have to decarbonise road transport, but we also have to ensure that our roads flow smoothly. Those on the Labour Benches do not get that. They want to scrap road improvements, and they want more traffic jams. Those traffic jams increase emissions. The Labour party just does not get it.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Secretary of State may think that that answer gets him off the hook, but when road transport accounts for 69% of transport emissions, and air pollution claims 50,000 lives prematurely, he should be less complacent.

UK roads killed or seriously injured 27,000 people, including 2,000 children, last year. It is the most dangerous mode of travel. Why does the Secretary of State not invest in developing a sustainable, integrated public transport strategy, including active travel, as Labour would, instead of this catastrophe of a road building project?

[Chris Grayling]

We now know the truth: the Labour party is going to be anti-motorist. It is going to be anti-road improvements. It is going to set itself against the things we are doing to try to boost our economy in all parts of the country, through connections to our ports and better motorway links, unlocking the economic potential of places like west Cumbria. Labour does not care. We will continue our work to decarbonise our car fleet and support the development of new technology in buses, for example. We also have the biggest investment programme in the railways since the steam age. Labour has no ideas, and just wants to go to war with the motorist.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 General Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I confirm that Labour support the draft regulations.

As we have heard, the Crossrail project provides vital infrastructure across London, and it will carry up to 200 million passengers a year when it is completed and create 55,000 jobs. The Minister has highlighted the issues of overrun of cost and time, and we look forward to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which is looking into such matters.

The draft regulations provide the Greater London Authority and Transport for London with the mechanism by which they can make repayments until 31 March 2033, so that they can complete the works without further financial barriers. We therefore support the draft regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The more we build in this country, the more we invest in research and development. In the north-east, we are seeing more of Hitachi’s capabilities coming to the United Kingdom. The same applies to CAF in south Wales and, in particular, to the great success of Bombardier in Derby. Bombardier currently has a huge amount of work, and is delivering new trains throughout the network. However, I am with the hon. Gentleman: I want more to be done in the United Kingdom. As we move further into the 2020s, I am very committed to ensuring that as much as possible of the new rolling stock that we are expecting is built in the UK.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My question relates to fair and consistent treatment of bidders. Given that the Department has confirmed that all three bidders for the East Midlands franchise were non-compliant, why were only Stagecoach and Arriva disqualified from the competition?

[Chris Grayling]

Because it is not the case that all three bidders were non-compliant.

[Rachael Maskell]

Well, that is certainly not what the Secretary of State’s Department is saying. He withheld sensitive market information between 1 and 9 April when disqualifying Stagecoach from the South Eastern and West Coast Partnership competitions, thus demonstrating that his interference further discredits the franchising process. Have any of the bidders for the other rail franchise competitions submitted non-compliant bids, and have they been disqualified? If so, why has the information not been made public?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s question is based on a totally false premise. She is incorrectly accusing me of interference, and she is incorrectly making assertions about non-compliant bids that are simply inaccurate.

South-Eastern Rail Franchise

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those questions. He has been a strong and tenacious champion for rail passengers in his constituency, raising issues with me and speaking in Westminster Hall debates. I share his impatience to get the benefits that are emerging from our franchises to his, and indeed to all, constituents. This is a huge and complex piece of public procurement, and it is right to take the time to make sure we get it right and to finalise this competition. The area is one of the most complex on our network; it has a mix of high-speed and commuter services, with a highly intensive use of infrastructure. I cannot tell him the date on which we will be able to make the announcement. This is a live competition involving market-sensitive information. There is an established method of communication to the House and the markets, so I cannot answer him and am able to say little on that point today.

I can confirm to my right hon. Friend why the east midlands franchise was awarded, with the rail review taking place. That was simply because it was considered that with the east midlands franchise award and this one we could get the benefits to passengers before the work of the rail review came into play. On compensation in respect of the two stations he mentioned, I will look at that carefully. On the point about the compensation following the May 2018 timetable changes, there were some significant problems, but they were not everywhere. The issue was to get the compensation to those who had been most affected. They received compensation that I think was appropriate, but I will check out those two stations and write to him as quickly as possible.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

So here we are again: a Transport Minister forced to the Dispatch Box to defend the actions—or, in this case, the lack of action—of the ever-failing Secretary of State. Following four delays on the south-eastern franchise, we now know that the Government are planning a direct award. After 12 other direct awards, including on south-eastern, is this approach being taken to avoid the embarrassment of failure further down the road? Two monopolies, Govia and Abellio, are left in the competition to run Britain’s most beleaguered franchise. Following a litany of failures under Govia, highlighted in Chris Gibb’s report two years ago, and a lacklustre response by the Secretary of State, who, frankly, should have brought the franchise under direct operation, the travelling public are being failed.

What discussions has the Minister had with the trade unions, as the hard-working staff face further uncertainty, not least over their jobs and pensions? Will he also confirm that there is no intention to cut pensions to staff through this franchise process? Are the Government going to stall on all franchises until the conclusion of the Williams review, which is undertaking a comprehensive look at why our rail system is floundering? If so, when will this report be published? In the light of revelations this weekend that sensitive confidential information was leaked from Stagecoach into the hands of Abellio during the east midlands process, what changes has the Minister made in his Department to ensure that commercially confidential information is not shared with competitors in this broken process? How are the Government measuring past failure of these rail monopolies? In the light of evidence, will he then rule out their bidding, as he has for other companies involved in other franchises?

With 176 million journeys being made each year, how can these passengers have any confidence that they will not pay the price for failure—something they have had to endure under the current award? They are paying some of the highest fares in exchange for one of the worst services, so it is clear that this franchising fiasco must end. If the Secretary of State will not take back control of our rail, Labour will.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. We are negotiating a short direct award to allow the competition to reach its end. This is not the end of franchising, which has been a significant ingredient in improving and turning around rail performance in this country. It has led to our having more services and passengers and at a greater level of safety than at any point in our country’s history. Franchising has been part of that success. This is an issue not of failure but of making sure that we get it correct.

Have I discussed the franchise bid with the trade unions? No, because the bids are assessed by officers of the Department for Transport, who anonymise them. It is important, market-sensitive information. Such information runs through a standard procedure, of which the hon. Lady should be aware; it operates in councils, in the Government and in devolved Assemblies, too. I have of course met the trade unions, and I was able to confirm with them that my aspirations for the rail industry include the careers of those who serve the industry. The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), asked about the same point in an urgent question just before the Easter recess. I do not want to see any cut to pensions; I want to see those who work on our rail services retire with secure and stable pensions. Nevertheless, we are talking about pensions from a private business, not something that comes from the Government.

The work on the Williams review is under way. I am sure the hon. Lady will have seen some of the evidence papers and heard about the emerging thinking that Mr Williams has discussed in some of the speeches he has made over the past few weeks. We look forward to seeing the output of that review. Franchising has been an ingredient in the turnaround of our rail industry that has been so fantastic for this country. The question now is how we take that to the next stage, which is what the Williams review is all about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of that issue, which my hon. Friend and I saw together, and I will ask the rail Minister to give him an early update.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are just eight days until the UK leave the EU. No deal or plan is in place; there is simply chaos across the Government. However, it is the chaos across our borders that is my concern today. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Prime Minister, in making her case to the European Council to avoid a no-deal Brexit and about how essential it is to extend article 50, highlights that a border between the EU and the UK will harm trade and the flow of goods, food and medicines and be catastrophic for the logistics sector?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady and the House will know, we do not want problematic arrangements at the border. Indeed, the deal that the Prime Minister has reached with the European Union would prevent such problems. The hon. Lady is right to say that there are only eight days left, so why does the Labour party continue to put party advantage ahead of national interest? Labour should support the deal next week, so that we can move forward with a constructive partnership with the EU.

Draft Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 General Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I start by referring to the draft Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. They seek to address deficiencies in the 2005 regulations, which were established for the licensing of passenger and freight train operators in Great Britain, by establishing the Office of Road and Rail as the licensing authority, allowing it to charge for applications for licences, and giving it powers to suspend and revoke licences. In addition, European licence holders, who will in future be known to hold a “railway undertaking licence”, will need to obtain a statement of national regulatory provision from ORR.

Clearly, the Labour party takes a very different approach to how rail operations should work. We believe, as does the industry, that track and train must be integrated. Has the Minister considered that issue? If so, will the licence be granted for both? The Government are currently undertaking a root and branch review of the railways—the Williams review. Should its conclusions recommend that rail should operate under one public body, would there still be a requirement for these regulations or would some major changes be required? If the UK Government were to be established as such an operator in the UK, could they be granted a European licence, subject to approval from the ORR, should they meet the required conditions of

“professional competence, financial fitness and insurance cover”?

In the light of the continuing proceedings on exiting the EU—clearly we do not know where that debate will end up—how will the fourth railway package affect these regulations, should it come to fruition before, and if, we exit the EU? I note that they will currently impact on just one operator, namely the freight operator Europorte Channel SAS. I further note that after a period of two years, the licence will no longer hold effect should bilateral agreement on a deal with the EU not be reached. What would happen if it takes longer than two years to establish a deal with the EU? Is it not foolish to put a time limit on the process? What recognition will the railway undertaking licence have beyond the two-year period? In the light of the Northern Ireland Assembly still not sitting, could the Minister set out what will happen in Northern Ireland? Rail operations will cross a border on the island of Ireland.

I turn now to the second set of regulations, the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The 2010 regulations of the same name came out of EU directive 2007/59/EC and established a common licensing and certification process for train drivers, and thus enable greater freedom of movement of drivers across EU countries. A common register is held by the Office of Road and Rail or the Department of Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, and there is common certification of drivers and inter-state recognition of training centres and examiners. The certification proves that a driver has achieved a level of competency and meets the medical standards required. The licence itself highlights the type of train that a driver is authorised to drive. Since 2007, there have been two pieces of secondary legislation related to the issuing of licences, and in 2015 a language test was also applied.

The regulations seek to ensure that data on train drivers receiving certification is held appropriately, and that the training element of the certification of train drivers is in order, including the content, the examination, the training centre, and the examiners themselves. I was interested to learn that the examiner may not hold a certificate for certain new rolling stock on which they are assessing a driver; could the Minister clarify whether that is the case? Safety is of the upmost importance on our railways, and our drivers undertake a tremendous job ensuring that safety is maintained, as I witnessed a few weeks ago when I took a cab ride. We want to ensure that those examining the drivers are suitably qualified.

Should the UK leave the EU, it will recognise EU licenses and certificates for two years after the date of exit. However, I again ask what will happen if the negotiations continue beyond a two-year period: will these regulations still be recognised, or will we be back here, debating this again? There are so many unknowns at the moment, in the light of the shambolic process in Parliament of leaving the EU—if, indeed, we leave at all. I therefore take it that these regulations could be held in abeyance for some time, and that we may need to revisit them if further changes occur across the railway network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

You are being quite tolerant, Mr Hosie. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw is correct to say that various opportunities will arise after we have left—I think we should be saying when, rather than if, we leave—the EU. It is fair to say that it would be easier to renationalise the railways when we have left, but the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on his use of the word “easy”, because it would not be easy, and despite the last Labour manifesto saying that it would be free, there would be a giant cost to it. Renationalisation of the railways is not a matter for today, but these regulations would not impact on it, if a potential future, mistaken Government chose to make that mistake.

Regarding preparation, the key thing is that not many people will be affected by the two-year implementation period, during which we would seek to ensure that anyone with a train driving licence issued in the EEA had it relocated and issued here. The same goes for a rail operator. It may help the Committee if I highlight that on the rail operating side, we think just one operator is affected. It is a small freight operator in Norfolk that is not currently operational, and the regulator is already working with it to sort out the amendment to its licence.

Between 1% and 1.25% of train drivers in the UK have their licence issued in the EEA. To quantify that, it is about 250 people. Work between the operator and the regulator to correct the situation has been under way for about four or five months. We are not anticipating any problems whatever. It seems that two years is reasonable, considering that we are already well under way and the industry has welcomed the work in all our consultations.

[Rachael Maskell]

Can the Minister confirm that when the new regulator comes into force, the licence will have a simple transition and there will be no re-examination of train drivers?

[Andrew Jones]

It will, indeed, be a very simple matter. Our work is welcomed by the industry, as it brings clarity. We have taken a very pragmatic approach. It is not a question of seeking to cause problems; it is about ensuring that we have a regulatory framework for the smooth operation of our railways. Not precluding any future changes or packages, it is about now and having regulations in place should we leave without a deal. The industry has welcomed the proposed legislation, and that is the point I want to make. Only a very few people are involved.

The changes will make our rail sector regime more effective and provide certainty to train drivers and rail businesses. They will ensure a seamless transition of the existing licensing regime on exit day—not if there is an exit day. They will maintain the status quo and provide clarity, so I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Andrew Jones.)

Draft Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 General Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

The draft Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will amend EU regulations 1071/2009 and 1072/2009, aim to address the impact of leaving the EU. Without an agreement, the UK would be required to leave the Community licence scheme. In debates on previous regulations relating to road haulage permits and trailer licensing, I urged the Minister to address the issue, but much time has passed since then. At the time, the Minister could not set out whether we would remain in the Community licence scheme, and now, with just 18 days until the UK is due to leave the European Union, we are still discussing this very important issue, which has a real impact on the road haulage industry. Hauliers are clearly worried, because mechanisms for granting and withdrawing licences need to be in place and EU road hauliers need to plan their logistics operations; the same is true for industry and businesses. If things are changed, that will be impossible in such a short timescale.

The draft regulations also address the rules on cabotage operations. Any disruption to current arrangements will bring our country to a grinding halt. Industry is worried, so why has the Minister left it so late to introduce the regulations? EU hauliers are currently permitted to carry out up to three cabotage operations within a seven-day period. It is intended that that should continue under the regulations, but I am disturbed to hear that the Secretary of State alone will have the power to suspend such operations. Such a suspension would be disruptive to businesses not only in the EU but in the UK.

In the UK, there are clear processes, for which responsibility sits with the EU, for applying for a Community licence, and for dealing with changes in circumstance or penalties for infringements. EU hauliers operating in the UK under a Community licence are exempt in domestic legislation from the obligation to hold an operator’s licence, so the draft regulations will have an impact across the UK and the 27 nations.

The regulations aim to make a minimum of change to the logistics sector, but if we leave the EU, the UK will no longer be able to issue Community licences, so road hauliers will have to apply to the EU for a Community licence. The regulations will address that deficit, so that instead of applying for a Community licence, UK hauliers will need to apply for a UK licence for the Community. It is expected that reciprocal arrangements can be made for EU hauliers to operate in the UK, but perhaps the Minister could clarify the point, since many of our goods are transported by EU hauliers.

The transfer of these powers will mean that the ability to determine their operation will move from the EU to the UK—to the Secretary of State for Transport in Great Britain and the Minister in the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Are those operations ready to work in both Ministries, either in 18 days’ time or by the end of this year? It would be really helpful to have clarity on the deadline to which the Minister is working. How many staff have been recruited for the operations in each jurisdiction? What has been the cost? Clearly this is about the duplication of functions that we currently have.

The traffic commissioners for Great Britain and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have responsibility for ensuring that EU operators and those of third countries operate lawfully in the UK, so can the Minister set out those bodies’ full functions, how they will operate, and the cost of running those new responsibilities in the UK, including how many people have been recruited to ensure that operators are compliant with the law? How will hauliers be inspected, so that we know that they are compliant with the relevant documentation?

Although the UK has declared that it will continue to recognise the EU Community licence, crucially it is still unclear whether the UK licence for the Community will be fully recognised within the EU. What assurances has the Minister been given? Where have they been confirmed? Have they been written in any legal format? That is a pivotal point that the Minister must answer. The guidance talks about an “expectation”, but with just 18 days left before we leave the EU, an expectation of reciprocal arrangements is clearly not enough; we need legal guarantees.

Likewise, there is a lot of uncertainty about cabotage arrangements. What will happen if the EU decides to suspend cabotage for UK hauliers? Reciprocating that could well damage UK business. Again, that will have a massive impact on road hauliers and raises questions, the answers to which must be backed up with EU legal guarantees that there will be no less favourable terms than those that would be in place if we remained in the EU. If there is any variance to that, we need to see agreement reached in a withdrawal agreement before we will be able to agree to the regulations. Can the Minister state that EU hauliers will be able to continue, without jeopardy, with the cabotage arrangements in the UK that they currently enjoy?

The EU has made temporary provision until the end of this year—31 December 2019. Is that legally in place? If not, what are the options of what could happen? Clearly, we need to know what will happen beyond 31 December 2019, which in all negotiating timeframes is just around the corner. As there has been, in the Government’s words, “no need” for consultation with the road haulage sector, what discussions has the Minister had with the sector following the publication of the regulations?

Although there is an intention to recognise the Community licence in the UK, what guarantee does the Minister have from the EU that it will recognise those who currently hold a Community licence, and for what period will it remain valid? Will it reach beyond 31 December 2019, if it is valid currently? That is, will it last for the duration of the licence, or only for a limited time—and is that guaranteed?

Also on cabotage, has the EU categorically agreed that there will be no changes to road hauliers engaging in further operations in EU member states after the 29th of this month? It will be no good the Minister stating that the only way to get those guarantees is to support the Prime Minister’s deal tomorrow. We all know that nothing has changed, and that her deal is sunk—and the Government with it. The reckless way in which things have been managed has put our country in real jeopardy.

The road haulage industry needs clear answers from the Minister today. Without certainty, Labour will be unable to support the regulations; however, we recognise the pressures on the road haulage sector, so although they are totally unsatisfactory in their drafting, we will not let the industry struggle further.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for her barrage of questions, to which I am very happy to respond. She deplores the time that it has taken to introduce the measure. All I would say to her is that the measure makes virtually no changes to the operating arrangements for UK hauliers, and indeed no changes for EU hauliers. It is therefore not something that has required enormous wrenching change of any kind. Essentially, we are tweaking, very slightly, the domestic regime in this area, in order to address legal concerns arising from the UK’s separation from the EU.

The hon. Lady asked whether there will be additional staff costs. I can tell her that as this is a minimal set of changes, there are minimal costs associated with it. There are no additional staff.

In response to another question the hon. Lady raised, we do not expect any additional enforcement, because the existing enforcement agencies function extremely well, as matters stand. She will be aware that the Treasury has agreed to fund any additional costs—up to the limits described—associated with any additional force that may be required, but we do not expect wrenching change in this area.

The hon. Lady will also be aware that these regulations come at this time not only because these things are always subject to negotiations, and we are just one half of a set of negotiators, but because we started out with a high level of alignment, and there has been a high level of mutual understanding and trust between officials in this country and in the EU, as well as in member states.

The hon. Lady raised a question about the Secretary of State having the power under these regulations to suspend operations. I point out to her that that is only for a limited period. Any further extension of the requirement to suspend operations would be subject to proper parliamentary process, as would be appropriate for the exercise of a power of this kind. That is the counterpart of the very liberal approach we are taking towards the EU’s cabotage rights in this opening period.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his response. Could he set out the timeframe for bringing forward more permanent legislation, which is what I understand he is saying will happen? How will that be brought forward?

[Jesse Norman]

As I recall, the Secretary of State has the capacity to suspend operations for a period of six months and then for another period of six months, after which the matter must come before Parliament. That is an appropriate use of the power. The purpose of it is to ensure that UK hauliers get a square deal in terms of cabotage, and so enable the rather liberal approach we have taken with regard to the EU. It is an index of how modest the change is that for UK hauliers, the Community licence is changing, in this country, to a UK licence for the Community. It is a very modest change indeed.

The hon. Lady asks whether there have been consultations with industry. My officials are having very close discussions with the industry. That process has been under way for many long months. I also meet regularly with representative bodies of the industry to ensure that we are closely aligned. Many of the measures that we have put forward have been welcomed by them, recognising the fact that the situation is not one that hauliers would have originally voted for or supported at the time of the referendum, but that is up to them.

As to negotiations beyond 2019, the hon. Lady will be aware that the European Commission has already made it clear that for the first nine months after exit, the draft legislation would apply. That legislation, as I have described, based on UK reciprocity, permits a relatively benign environment to continue. After that, the matter is subject to negotiations. Having addressed all those matters, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.