M4 Upgrading: South Wales

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on opening today’s debate and enabling a strong debate on the urgent need for transport investment in south Wales.

The right hon. Gentleman represents a beautiful peninsula in south Wales and a vital transport corridor, which I have no doubt will be in more demand following the UK’s leaving the EU; but without the right infrastructure in place, it could result in a massive impact on his constituency and throughout the south Wales corridor. This level of detail has been ill-conceived by the Government. As 29 March next year is rapidly approaching, I urge the Minister to ensure that the risk analysis for all parts of his portfolio, including the impact in south Wales, is clearly attended to.

My fear is that the Prime Minister's plans will not contain anywhere near the level of detail needed, whenever we get to see them—maybe later today. I have also heard a real call for better connectivity to the whole of south Wales, and rightly so, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). We know that the Welsh economy has been seriously challenged by poor connectivity, and that recent decisions made in Westminster—not in the Senedd—have had the worst impact, not least on rail.

We will never forget how in 2017, the day after Parliament rose for the summer recess, the Secretary of State snuck out the announcement that he would cancel the rail electrification project in south Wales. That would have been a game changer to all communities in the region and would have enabled faster, cleaner and more efficient rail services to the valleys and conurbations. However, in writing off south Wales he has singly made the most detrimental decision to stem the potential of the Welsh economy and sustain a transportation challenge in the region.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the cancellation of electrification beyond Cardiff. Does she share my concern about the delays that there have been to the electrification as far as Cardiff? We have seen that put off again and again, with delay after delay. People are enduring really poor service on the Great Western main line, which has a huge impact on transport infrastructure.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I feel great pain as he speaks about the delays in improving the railway network. The situation is unsustainable. We should be investing in high-quality digital rail, which would build far more capacity across the network, as well as upgrading rail networks through electrification projects. That is why I believe that people in Wales will focus on this issue at the ballot box at the next election.

I want to put it on record today that Labour, in government, in Westminster, is fully committed to expansion of electrification and digital rail projects in south Wales. We believe in optimising every economic opportunity for the population of Wales. Further, our renationalisation programme for rail will be a serious game changer for all rail operations across Wales, including those in the M4 corridor, both in Wales and leading into England. That connectivity will move forward the economy in that part of the country.

I now turn to the wider transport brief. It was so important for me to start my contribution with a focus on rail because connectivity is not about segregated transport systems, with rail in one silo and roads in another, as the Government place them; it is about a joined-up approach to ensure that business, commuter and leisure passenger movements can be made with maximum ease and minimum expense. Labour has clearly set out how we will put a real emphasis on bringing about modal shift, helping to decongest our roads and create greater reliability. The sheer misery—which we have borne witness to in today’s debate—of those using the strategic road network in Wales has been palpable. It will be important, therefore, for the Minister to tell us how he will provide short-term relief for that, as well as long-term solutions.

In an age when climate change is having a devastating impact on our planet, and when cars are logjammed on our roads, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the current situation is polluting our atmosphere today and causing major air quality problems to residents along the M4 corridor. We know that that hits the most deprived communities the worst. We need an urgent resolve to get quick relief.

The current proposal for a 14-mile stretch of road around the south of Newport is expected to cost around £1.4 billion. Since 2016, the proposal, which has been on and off the table for the best part of 30 years, has been the subject of consultation, with the final decision to be made in the coming months. The pubic consultation closed this spring. The so-called black route has been the preferred route and the Welsh Government have stated that it is vital that the route resolves issues of capacity, safety and resilience along the M4 corridor in south-east Wales. As with any road project, clearly strong arguments will be made on all sides—and I have read them—both on the economic and transportation challenges and on the environmental case.

Some £50 million has already been offered to offset the carbon cost of the project. There is recognition that the project will have a serious environmental impact, as we have heard today. We would be disingenuous, therefore, if we did not all recognise that it is a difficult decision. On the one hand, we have pollution as a result of congestion, delays as a result of queues, and 100,000 vehicles using the route every single day. There is an urgent need for better transportation—better connectivity between sea, rail and active travel—and there is an opportunity to be grasped. For every £1 spent we will see £2 returned to the economy. Perhaps the greatest prize will be the 300 accidents that the project prevents. We cannot wait until 2023 to see that number fall dramatically.

On the other hand, there is serious environmental concern. We are familiar with the evidence highlighting the impact of induced capacity, which draws vehicles on to major routes, causing them to become a source of major pollution and future congestion. The Welsh Labour Government have done more than any other to impact-assess their policies against that, through the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. The figure that perhaps we should all focus on, here in Westminster and in the Senedd in Wales, is that the project is cited as becoming carbon-neutral by 2072. With nations that face catastrophic flood and drought, every decision we take must also seek to enhance our climate and focus on the humanitarian consequences. I know that such concern will be at the forefront of the Welsh Government’s thoughts as they conclude their deliberations.

Draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2018

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. Given what we have seen in the past week, it appears that this legislation will more or less be required as a result of the chaos ensuing in Government over Brexit, not least in the Department for Transport. The draft order puts forward the penalties that would apply should someone not have the required permits that have been discussed in the regulations we debated last week. Opposition Members challenged then the random nature in which penalties could be awarded, and that still very much concerns us, because a secure economy requires a systematic mechanism to award permits. That was clearly absent in the Government’s fall-back position.

I do not know what this financial penalty structure is meant to achieve or what evidence there is that it will achieve the desired outcome, in the light of the small amount of the penalties—£300 to £100. Will the penalty be used in part to offset the cost of running the scheme, and will it be included in or excluded from the amount set aside? What evidence is there that such a low penalty will act as a lever to ensure that goods vehicles have the correct permit documentation present? I await the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Let me pick up the questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for York Central asked whether the fines are set at a level that will ensure effective enforcement. We believe that they are, as does expert opinion, because the enforcement tracks the levels currently levied for domestic offences. If the offence goes further than that and becomes a matter of systemic abuse or fraud, then different laws apply and different fines—potentially much larger ones—can apply as well.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister refers to domestic offences, but we are talking about commercial offences, which are completely different. Could he comment on that and say where his expert evidence stems from?

[Jesse Norman]

For example, the fine for using a vehicle

“in…contravention of the requirement to possess a Community licence”

is £100. The fine for causing or permitting

“a breach of a prohibition…on taking a vehicle to a country without reasonable excuse”

is £300. These are well-recognised numbers within our domestic enforcement.

[Rachael Maskell]

What about commercial fines?

[Jesse Norman]

That is precisely what they apply to: the domestic commercial environment. If someone commits multiple offences, they can be fined on multiple different grounds. If someone commits systemic or fraudulent offences, they will of course be prosecuted at a significantly greater level.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked how long people have to pay. If it is a fixed penalty deposit, they are required to pay immediately at the roadside, and they can be immobilised if they fail to do so or if there is a risk that they might flee. In response to his other question, if they fail to do so they can be taken to court. The normal regime of enforcement applies.

[Jesse Norman]

In previous Committees I have described several scenarios and set out why we believe that hauliers will be able to get permits in each case, whether through a liberalised trade regime, through a European Conference of Ministers of Transport regime or through bilateral arrangements. None of those, however, is germane to the question before the Committee, which is what the fines associated with the various offences should be.

Let me fill out the picture. The Committee will recall that we undertook a consultation on the level of fines. There has already been considerable discussion with industry on the matter.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister has not yet answered my question about whether the fines will be used to offset the costs of the scheme. Will he make it clear where the money from the fines will go?

[Jesse Norman]

The fines will track our usual approach. They will go into general Treasury funds, as they would under any circumstances; they will not be used as some form of offset or—

[Rachael Maskell]

The Treasury, not the Department?

[The Chair]

Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, she should stand and intervene properly.

Draft International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft Trailer Registration Regulations 2018

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I think the hon. Gentleman may have misread or misheard the main debate, because there has always been a possibility that there would not be enough ECMT permits to go around. That is why there are elements for a fair allocation, even in that contingency. The point I have just made is that bilateral agreements also exist to provide further reassurance. As I have said, though, we do expect a liberalised deal to be in place before then.

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

I certainly heard what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun heard during the debate. We were given assurances that there would be sufficient permits to go around, and I am sure that the record will confirm that. Why have the circumstances changed?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will recall that there was an extensive debate on the question whether there should be any aspect of random allocation. The whole point about random allocation is that in circumstances in which there may not be enough ECMT permits to go around, further scope would be provided by bilateral agreements under this remote contingency. If that were to be the case, random selection would, of course, be applied to make sure that people were given a fair shot at getting permits, even if they had not necessarily pre-qualified through the prior application of the other criteria. That was covered in the debate.

The permit system will be operated by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, building on the existing vehicle operator licensing system, with which operators will already be familiar. The system will launch on 26 November to take applications for the ECMT multilateral annual permits, with permits subsequently being issued well ahead of exit day. There will be an application window for these permits, and a fee of £10 will be applicable for each permit requested. Successful applicants will be required to pay a fee of £123 ahead of being issued the permit. Those fee levels mean that there is no change in the cost of obtaining an ECMT permit.

The Trailer Registration Regulations 2018 will establish a regime for the registration of trailers used internationally to support our ratification of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. The ratification of the convention will allow us to issue international driving permits for all member states if a deal on mutual recognition of licences is not achieved. The convention will come into effect for the UK on 28 March 2019 and will apply irrespective of negotiations with the EU. Under the convention, trailers that weigh more than 750 kg are guaranteed access to foreign roads only if they are registered, so the registration of trailers is commonplace throughout much of continental Europe. This has been a source of disruption for UK trailers used on international routes.

The draft regulations will allow us to implement a registration regime for trailers that allows them to meet the standards outlined in the convention. Registration will be compulsory for trailers used for international journeys to or through a foreign country that has ratified the convention, if the trailer weighs more than 750 kg and is used for commercial purposes or weighs more than 3.5 tonnes and is used for any purpose. Use of unregistered trailers in those categories for journeys to continental Europe will be prohibited from 28 March.

The registration system will be operated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and will let users register their trailers from January. This will allow approximately three months for trailer keepers to register before the prohibition on the use of unregistered trailers for international journeys comes into effect on 28 March. The fee for registration will be £26.

Hon. Members will be particularly interested in how the draft regulations will affect Northern Irish hauliers. The permits regulations will not require Northern Ireland hauliers to carry permits when on international journeys to or through Ireland. This is in keeping with the UK’s position in the 2018 Act that we will not introduce permits on the island of Ireland without the consent of the Government of Ireland. On trailer registration, Ireland has not ratified the 1968 Vienna convention, so no UK trailers will need to be registered to be used in Ireland.

Approval of the draft regulations is an important step in ensuring that the UK haulage industry is ready to keep goods moving after we leave the EU in March 2019. The sector is incredibly important to the wider UK economy and we are focused on delivering the measures necessary for it to continue to operate after we leave the EU. Our package of instruments will take concrete steps to enable us to offer greater clarity to industry about the requirements that will apply to international haulage in future. With particular regard to the permits regulations, we are clear on the negotiation objectives and are making good progress towards an agreement that delivers for the sector, but it is crucial that we make progress with the instruments, which prepare the UK both for our desired outcome and for the unlikely prospect of no deal.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations, following our debates during the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act.

I turn first to the draft International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. We are legislating over the abyss of the unknown with respect to whether they will be required, but clearly my hope is that they will not be. I certainly hope that the Minister has been making strong representations for us to be part of the Community licence scheme, alongside EU and European economic area countries and other nations, working across frictionless borders with no cliff edges in sight. However, it seems increasingly clear that that may not be the case, so Labour will do everything we possibly can to make sure that we do not fall off the cliff edge on 29 March 2019.

The free flow of freight across borders is essential for trade and our economy, with 3.7 million tonnes exported and 4 million tonnes imported each year. We understand that if the worst-case scenario is triggered, the draft regulations will be necessary, so we will not stand in the way of their being passed. However, I urge the Minister to give us some assurance that he has been focused on ensuring that we remain in the Community licence scheme.

My first question asks for some clarity about regulation 3, “Application of these Regulations”. Will the Minister kindly say why, when the explanatory memorandum states that the draft regulations apply to the whole UK, regulation 3 segregates Northern Ireland from the agreement and states that there will be free flow throughout Ireland, north and south? Will he explain how that will prevent a border from being created across the Irish sea? My second question is about regulation 19. What criteria will be used to assess what will constitute a temporary exemption to the scheme, and under what circumstances?

We have had much debate on the number and allocation of permits and how industry needs to be able to plan in order to safeguard trade between the UK and the EU. Pan-EU manufacturing contracts are vital for the security of our economy and the future of jobs. Regulation 24 deals with the distribution of permits. Regulations should give clarity to framework legislation, but I have to say that these do not, so I ask again: who will get a permit and who will not? The industry wants to know the answer to that question, too. In the light of the Minister’s remarks, I am even less confident that there will be enough permits to go around.

Regulation 24(1) refers to Euro 5 and Euro 6 emissions, but what criteria will be used to assess those when deciding whether to grant a permit? Paragraph (1)(b) centres on whether hauliers—and, therefore, producers—will know what goods will find favour with the Minister, but it provides no clarity. A greater frequency of goods—the draft regulations do not say which ones—will be the determining factor as to whether an application will get support. How will that all be matched up with economic interest and that of jobs and our future?

I was taken aback by the Act’s ambiguity regarding random selection when it comes to supplying permits, and my response to regulation 24(2) is the same. That will have a massive impact on the choices that, for instance, manufacturing companies and those in their supply chain will make, thus affecting the future of our economy and jobs. We again stress that the use of random selection in issuing permits does not take seriously the needs of our economy. Businesses are crying out for security in the light of this Brexit disaster. Will the Government clarify that they will not exercise a random approach to securing our trade? If this goes wrong, we want to know what leverage a person will have to get their voice heard and their business taken seriously. Why is there no appeal process in the draft regulations?

On regulation 27, will the Minister clarify whether, if an operator breaches any condition attached to its permit and is fined, the permit will be revoked? The draft regulations are unclear. Will he also confirm that permits will now be available electronically, rather than only on paper? The draft regulations will come into force in 2019. How will the Minister ensure that all records will also be available online?

I have a final question on the first set of draft regulations. The Minister has identified £171,700, with an additional familiarisation scheme worth £13,000, to run the permit process each year. How will he monitor that, and how will the £75.8 million required to set up the scheme be factored into the overall Brexit dividend? We want to understand the economics of running the scheme. Will he also explain the staffing required to run the scheme? It appears that minimum staffing will be provided to administer the scheme, but what about inspectors of HGVs, to ensure that drivers have the appropriate permit documentation?

Turning to the draft Trailer Registration Regulations 2018, what has happened to the consultation on trailer safety? Many powerful speeches were made as the Act passed through this place, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who highlighted the scale, risk and tragedy resulting from failings in trailer safety. Whether the issue was driver awareness, speed, use, trailer and tow bar attachment or other features, it was clear that progress needed to be made, and I recall the Minister committing to doing so during the passing of the Act. Therefore, I would like to know where the consultation has got to.

Will the Minister clarify why regulation 5(3)(a)—this is repeated in regulation 19—states that it is a defence for a person to prove that they

“were unaware and could not reasonably have been expected to be aware”

that the trailer registration would be required, and why regulation 5(3)(b) states it is a defence to prove that they

“held a reasonable belief that the trailer was registered at the time of the alleged offence”?

Surely the Government have a responsibility to ensure that people who own and drive a vehicle with a trailer are aware that they should make the appropriate registration and abide by that. As with all legislation, in every sphere, there is a responsibility on Government to ensure that the public are made aware of the law passed in this place and what will constitute a failing to abide by that law. It is surprising that there is not at least a sunset clause associated with this measure.

I note the fee set out in legislation to register a trailer, and presume that will offset the cost of running the trailer registration scheme with the DVLA and the Department for Transport, together with the resource generated by the penalty schedule. While discussing cost, will the Minister state how much the setting up of the trailer registration scheme and its subsequent running costs will be? It would be interesting to learn how that is split between administering the scheme and the inspection, examining documentation and issuing permits. I presume that drivers will have to purchase the new registration plate, rather than it being issued by the DVLA, but the draft regulations do not make that clear.

There is a requirement to register a trailer only every 10 years. Will the Minister explain the significance of that timeframe? It seems that this is only a box-ticking process that does not lend itself to additional safety inspections in future, which we would want to see introduced for the safety of the public.

Finally, paragraph 7.13 of the explanatory memorandum states that people will be issued with

“a secure paper registration document and an electronic notice of registration”.

I am glad that the Minister heeded my call for ensuring digital documentation in that instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Members for York Central and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their contributions. Throughout the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 there was a valuable debate that allowed us to refine and improve the Act, and ensure that it laid out the framework necessary to deliver the objectives set for it, through these draft instruments. I am grateful once more for this opportunity to consider the detail of the legislation with Members and for their thoughtful and considered contributions.

The hon. Member for York Central acknowledged the value of the sector, for which I am grateful, and rightly highlighted the question of a cliff edge. I share her view and reassure her that we do not see any such cliff edge in this case.

The hon. Lady also asked about temporary exemptions. It is inevitable in a scheme of this kind that there might be a need to cater for emergencies or other special needs that we expect infrequently. It is important to include a provision that caters for all eventualities, and that is what the language of special exemption allows us to do.

The hon. Lady asked whether we will be in the Community licence in future. As she knows, as we have discussed and as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will also be aware, that is subject to negotiation. We have always been clear, including when the Bill was going through the House and in discussions about other statutory instruments, that we intend to maintain existing access but, of course, there are different ways to do that. There can be permits under the ECMT scheme or under a permitting arrangement, or liberal access bilaterally as well as liberalised collective access. There are different ways to ensure that possibility.

[Rachael Maskell]

Have specific representations been made to the Prime Minister and others leading the negotiation to ensure that we remain part of the Community licence scheme?

[Jesse Norman]

Representations of every kind are made continuously. The goal of the Government has always been that we should seek liberalised access for our hauliers and we believe that we will.

The hon. Lady also asked about random selection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman has had quite enough opportunity to make a comment, given the brief time he has spent in the Committee Room. The hon. Member for York Central, who has been here and has, in contrast to the hon. Gentleman, taken an energetic and careful approach throughout the passage of the legislation, is right to raise the question of criteria and I am happy to respond.

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government published in time for this Committee a detailed explanation of how the different criteria would play out. “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations” sets out the different criteria and the rationale for them, including all the criteria she has mentioned. It also addresses the question why an element of random selection is being used. The reason is that we wish to maximise the benefits to the UK economy. We do not wish to cut out smaller organisations, smaller hauliers, that might be excluded by a focus purely on intensity of use, proportion of international trade and the like. This provision allows a wider and more extensive use of permits, and we think that that is in the interests of the industry and of hauliers more generally.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a very negative indication to business to say that we will randomly determine whether to award a permit. Business needs security. That has been the big cry of business for the past two and a half years. To then say, “Well, you may plan your business ventures, but we will not provide any certainty about whether you can access the permit scheme,” seems an incredibly random decision by Government in itself, leaving aside the impact that it will have on the economy. If, as the Minister has said, there is a focus and small businesses are able to access the scheme, will he make that absolutely clear?

[Jesse Norman]

That is clear in the “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations”, and we have said all the way through that the point of including an element of random selection is to allow the benefits of a wider dispersion of permits to be felt. If we scored purely by intensity of use and/or proportion of international business, that would mean that a few hauliers might—in many cases, almost certainly would—get either all or none of the permits for which they applied. We think that that would be uncompetitive and unfair, so we have included this element. Of course, it applies only once all the existing criteria have been applied, so it is not a structuring principle from the outset of the way in which the permits are allocated.

The hon. Lady also asked why there is no appeal process. She will be aware that allocation is an automated process; there is no human discretion associated with it. It is not like a jury trial, where some judgment element might be applied in the application of the criteria. Therefore, to have an element of appeal would be to undermine the thrust of the policy and to cut against the principle that these things are automatically generated. But of course, as we have already indicated, we believe that there will be plenty of scope for existing operators to get permits, even if they do not get ECMT permits.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I just try to bring some clarity to what he has said? He said earlier that discretion will be exercised over these draft regulations in relation to small businesses being able to access the scheme. That would require human intervention, but he is now saying that there will be no human intervention. Which is it?

[Jesse Norman]

That is an ingenious but verbal distinction. In this case, there may be circumstances in which emergency loads need to be carried, and the Secretary of State has the discretion afforded under this legislation to allow him—or, in due course, possibly her—to make an allocation on that basis. That is in exceptional circumstances; we expect that provision to be rarely used. In the application process for permits as they stand, it is an automated matter, using the criteria that we have described and set out, very helpfully in detail, in the “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations”.

Let me turn now to the issue of trailer safety, which the hon. Lady has rightly raised.

[Jesse Norman]

These measures have been very widely published. The hauliers’ associations are very well briefed on the matter. How freight will continue after 29 March has been a topic of national discussion and interest. Therefore, we expect people to be very well briefed. I will also keep the matter under review, but we certainly expect people who are potentially at risk because they have to take international journeys or make international transfers to be aware of these rules and to act on them.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister has not responded to my request for clarity about road haulage permits with regard to Northern Ireland. We are talking about free flow throughout Ireland, north and south, and I asked specifically if that means that there will now be a border created in the Irish sea, because the framing of the draft regulations certainly leans towards that.

[Jesse Norman]

No, I do not think that is true at all. Both sets of draft regulations obey the principle agreed between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister that there should be no barriers in travelling between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and all sides are committed to that. The draft regulations do not create a permit regime or hard border on the island and that fits with our overall view, which is that trade and everyday movements across the border should be able to continue as they are. There is no extant bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland for road haulage. The UK Government are confident of being able to reach any agreement required at that time.

Let me pick up the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Further to the question of communication, it is worth stating that the Government are shortly going to undertake an extensive communication campaign, precisely in order to allow hauliers to understand the issue. Guidance has been prepared, with the input of the industry, in order to allow those messages firmly to be heard. That campaign is already under way and we expect it to escalate still further.

On the issue of trailer permits, the hon. Lady the Member for York Central asked about safety. We are continuing to work on the safety review. It is a very important issue. I have travelled to Bristol to talk to the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has taken a pioneering approach to this matter in the Commons, and we have discussed it extensively in prior Committee sittings. As the debate highlights, this is a complex matter and we have to be careful about how we proceed with it.

The hon. Member for York Central asked about the set-up versus running costs of the trailer registration scheme. Set-up costs have been covered by the Government, as we have discussed already. The running costs are being run on a cost-recovery basis, but hauliers will need to buy registration plates according to the costs and fees already indicated. Permits will be available under the regulations in whatever format is available. On haulage, ECMT permits are paper permits, under the ECMT agreement, but we are able to offer other potential sources of access if people wish to have them.

The hon. Lady also asked about DVSA staffing. She will have detected that the impact assessments are very modest for that—the impact on the industry is a few hundreds of thousands of pounds. DVSA is well advanced in preparing for a permit scheme and we do not anticipate that to be a material concern.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is talking about staffing, which, obviously, means people’s jobs. If either of these sets of draft regulations is not required, will people be laid off? What will happen to them, and what about refunds for people who have made applications for permits and licensing?

[Jesse Norman]

The people who have made applications for permits have essentially bought insurance in advance against the possibility that they will have to have a bilateral agreement. To that extent, they have been advantaged and we are not proposing to offer refunds to them. DVSA staffing is a matter for the DVSA itself.

These instruments represent an important stage as the Government progress with plans for leaving the European Union. Our negotiating position with the EU has been clear as we strive to achieve a deal with reciprocal arrangements that work for the industry. It should be evident that we are putting in place solid preparations for a range of outcomes, including the unlikely event of no deal.

Question put.

Draft Department For Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I wish to raise a number of points on which I seek clarity and answers from the Minister.

I note that the function of the regulations, which, as was established in the House of Lords, have not been consulted on, could have an impact on fees once they are set, and thus on hauliers and ultimately on businesses that depend on hauliers. I am concerned that the cost of living may creep up not as a result of a direct rise in fees but as a consequence of the changes to functions and the change of jurisdiction where certain functions are carried out.

The regulations themselves seek to amend three fees orders: the Department for Transport fees orders of 1998, 2003 and 2009. While not altering the fees themselves, the regulations transfer the functions by which fees are set from determination in the EU to determination in the UK or to determination in Great Britain and separately in Northern Ireland, where that is appropriate. If the Government bring about any divergence in the mechanism for determining fees, how will that not impact on the fees themselves? It may be that synergy is sought from day one but that changes are introduced later.

In the light of the fact that the UK will make its own determination in these matters, how will this change the cost of providing staffing, premises, equipment and facilities for carrying out the functions that are now carried out in the UK under British jurisdiction rather than in the UK under EU jurisdiction? Will there be any additional cost in administering the legislation, with or without divergence, by the Department for Transport’s Executive agencies: the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency? What discussions have taken place with these agencies about the potential financial implications of the changes that the regulations will introduce?

I note that the applicable functions are wide-ranging: driver licensing, vehicle registration, international road haulage permitting, vehicle type approval certification, the approval of tachograph calibration centres, international road passenger transport authorisation, licensing to operate public service vehicles, licensing to operate goods vehicles, and enforcement against UK and non-UK drivers and vehicles that break the law on such matters. If we leave the EU at 11 pm on 29 March 2019, the Government may find that access to information to carry out the functions that are repatriated from the EU to the UK is restricted, and that in order for there to be no divergence, one of the agencies in question has to purchase data. If fees then went up, and there was an impact on the end users, I would have to ask why there had been no consultation on the regulations. There could be creeping cost implications from all sorts of things, including providing additional staff who have the responsibility of monitoring the process involved and of determining the scope on which the fees are based. Someone will have to pay for this. If we multiply that across all functions of Brexit, we will see a heavy rise in the cost of living. Even if fees do not rise, someone will have to pay for this.

If bilateral agreements are struck, charges could be increased as a deterrent mechanism, as Lord Berkeley said—for instance, to dissuade non-UK drivers from coming to the UK. We all know that this would be catastrophic, as the road haulage industry has a serious recruitment crisis at the moment. Clearly that could occur if the Government were to apply their desired border controls, and I hope that this is not the case. Divergence at any time could have cost implications and should have been consulted on. Will the Government simply look to recover costs, or will they see these measures as a possible revenue stream as the economy sinks further and further into crisis after we have left the EU? How will the functions be policed and will that require more resources? Will there be a further border check, and will that be through paper or electronic documentation in this modern age? The Minister knows that I have a particular concern about that.

As we saw from the discussion in the House of Lords, and in the light of the fact that no one has a clue about what is in the withdrawal agreement, there is some uncertainty about why we are discussing the regulations now. A hard Brexit, where we sever all links with the EU, would look very different from a Brexit where there is agreement on continuing our full membership of the customs union and the single market for a period of transition, and it would look very different from everything in between. While the Minister is hedging his bets and we are preparing for being driven off a cliff edge and for crashing out of the EU, it could be that the regulations are redundant from 29 March 2019, or they could require further variance, in which case we could find ourselves debating amendments to the regulations. Baroness Sugg seemed to imply in her response to noble Lords that that could be the case. Does the Minister agree?

Earlier this year we debated the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which will enable the UK to introduce new permits for non-UK road freight. At the time, the Opposition expressed our desire to remain within the community licences scheme. What progress has the Minister made on that, as it would also have an impact on the regulations? Have discussions commenced on that? If so, how are they progressing? Baroness Sugg has said:

“We hope to agree a mutually beneficial deal with liberalised access”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. GC38.]

However, with just weeks—or perhaps we are now counting in days—until a deal is done, I find the word “hope” quite hopeless. How far away are we from having certainty on those matters? The vague responses by the Minister in the other place are certainly disconcerting.

Finally, paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“The Secretary of State will continue to carry out these functions, albeit under retained domestic law in place of EU obligations, and so will need to continue to set and collect fees and charges to cover their costs.”

If the costs of carrying out those functions are increased as a result of the regulations because additional personnel are required, which is a real possibility, how has the Minister scoped that piece of work? It seems to me that the fear of the Brexit cliff-edge is not recognising and knowing the unknown. What work, if any, has been done on that? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Chair]

Before I call any other hon. Members to speak, I must say that, although I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, because I sensed that she was coming towards a conclusion, her remarks went a little wide of the specifics of the order. I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will not seek to explore wider issues that are possibly being explored in the House at the moment. We will stick very much to the point of the order before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the two hon. Members for their contributions. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for York Central on many of the questions that she raised. I take the point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk as appropriately rhetorical, in flagging the potential efforts to which officials and Ministers have gone in ensuring that we will be properly protected in the event of EU exit.

I remind the Committee of the extremely modest length of this piece of secondary legislation. There are a very small number of changes, which are, broadly speaking, to remove references to EU obligations and to repose in the Secretary of State some powers that presently lie with the EU. That is in line with the general principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is to relocate within UK law powers that presently operate under EU law.

The hon. Member for York Central asked why there had been no consultation on the order. The reason for that was delicately alluded to by the Chairman when he reminded us of the proceeding’s scope. The regulations do not set fees; they only govern what considerations the Secretary of State can take into account in any setting of fees. As I said, fees themselves cannot be changed, except with a staged process that requires the agreement of the Treasury, a consultation with representative organisations that are affected and a consideration of the impact upon stakeholders. There has been no consultation on the order because it has no such impact. All it does is relocate laws from one jurisdiction to another.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Jesse Norman]

If I may, I will just finish what I am saying and then the hon. Lady can make further comments.

If there were any possible changes to fees, they would arise out of substantive Acts, rather than the scope that is demarcated by this purely formal change of location of powers. If that were to occur and there were some possibility that fees would have to go up, we would follow the process described, which would involve a consultation in the way the hon. Lady described. That answers her second question, which related to divergence, and her third question, which related to the cost of providing any functions. One cannot predict whether the functions cost would go up or down, but that is immaterial to these regulations, which bear on the considerations that the Secretary of State is entitled to take into account and were formerly taken into account under EU law.

The hon. Lady asked what discussions have taken place with agencies. Of course, discussions routinely take place between Ministers and agencies on a variety of things. In this case the agencies are aware of this change of law, but it is not—I repeat—a matter of changing the substance of any actual fees. Therefore, those conversations do not need to touch on anything other than the formal change that has been described.

The hon. Lady asked whether this will be used as a revenue stream after withdrawal from the EU. Fees are not used as a revenue stream. The whole point of this is to recover the costs associated with the activities in question. There is no revenue stream, in that sense, to be derived.

The hon. Lady said, “As the economy sinks into crisis.” I am afraid that her flair for rhetoric is getting the better of her. So far the economy is discounting any crisis—it continues to grow robustly and no one is expecting anything on that account. She then referred to a series of other matters that have been amply covered in discussions on the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, with several points raised in Committee and before the House. I refer her to those discussions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

The son of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent clearly had a terrible experience, and our sympathies go out to him. The Department is working closely with train operating companies on the Secure Stations Scheme, to give more stations across the network accredited status. CCTV will have an important role to play in stations, just as it does in the new rolling stock that we are introducing across the country. I remind Opposition Members that we want more staff working on our railways, not fewer, and for operators where there have been disputes relating to staffing levels, such as Southern and South Western Railway, that is indeed the case.

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

Every day, women make choices on the basis of their safety, continually planning, checking and trying to read situations. Since 2012, sexual crime has seen a staggering 167% increase on our railways, to a record 2,472 cases last year. Women are 13 times more affected than men and the highest increases are in areas where trains operate without guards. What strategy are the Government deploying to ensure that all women feel, and are, safe?

[Joseph Johnson]

All passengers and all women must feel safe when travelling on our trains. The Department takes this issue exceptionally seriously, as do all train operators and the British Transport police. In concrete terms, Project Guardian is ensuring that the reporting of sexual offences becomes easier than ever before. We have introduced a new discreet safe texting service, 61016, which has encouraged much greater reporting of sexual harassment on trains or assaults of a sexual nature—[Interruption.] Guards and conductors have not been removed from trains, as Opposition Members are suggesting. It is very frustrating that that line is being propagated in this misleading way. Driver-controlled operation means tasks such as closing doors can now be performed safely by the train driver, freeing up more time for guards to look after passengers, including women.

[Rachael Maskell]

Public order offences also rose by 116% over the same time period. A staggering 11,711 violent crime offences were committed just last year, with a total of 61,159 criminal offences in 2017-18, again hitting record highs. As we know, the presence of people in authority reduces the prevalence of crime, so can the Minister tell the House why he supports removing guards from trains—the very people who are passenger safety champions?

[Joseph Johnson]

We want the railways to be safe. In terms of crimes per million passenger journeys, they are safer than they were a decade ago. There are 19 crimes per million passenger journeys today, and a decade ago there were 30 crimes per million passenger journeys, but that is still too many and we want crime levels to come down. That is why the British Transport police are focusing on this very carefully. We have better reporting schemes, such as 61016, which I mentioned. As I said, we want more staff working on our railways, not fewer. That is the case for operators such as Southern and SWR, where there have recently been disputes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

Rail operating companies will be held responsible for that portion of performance for which they are responsible and accountable, and that is now under way. The Secretary of State has set in train a hard review of GTR, and at the end of that hard review, all appropriate options will be on the table and available to the Secretary of State and to the whole Government.

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

It was a Labour Government who established the NHS, and today we thank all who have served in it since.

Following the Secretary of State’s statement on the timetable chaos to the House on 4 June, he said in his response to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that, with regard to compensation, the train operating companies

“will have to meet the cost of that.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 59.]

That is so untrue. It is Network Rail that will be funding the compensation. Last year alone, it paid out £482 million through schedules 4 and 8. Does the Minister agree that, while the operating companies write the cheques, it is the state that pays?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Secretary of State has always been clear that we will review where responsibility lies, and the rail industry will be responsible for undertaking that appropriate compensation to make sure that passengers have the right redress. As Members will be aware, the rail industry is partly in public control through Network Rail and partly run by private operators. Each will pay its fair share.

[Rachael Maskell]

Astonishing. Network Rail paying compensation means that this is coming from the public, so, in effect, passengers will be funding their own compensation for delayed and cancelled trains, for missing exams, for being sacked from their jobs or for lost business revenue—passengers paying their own compensation. How much has the Minister budgeted for to pay compensation for the Secretary of State’s decision to press ahead with this rail timetable chaos, or will he instead cut more Network Rail projects to pay for it?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I have already said, the compensation involves four weeks’ cash compensation for passengers on the most severely disrupted routes on Northern services and one week’s compensation further afield in Yorkshire. Similarly, GTR announced yesterday a comparable package of special compensation for passengers on the most affected Thameslink and Great Northern routes.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I will be brief. I have supported the Bill’s passage and would give it a cautious welcome in terms of the haulage permits and trailer registration aspects. Being realistic, the UK Government do have to put in place procedures that might have to be enacted in case of a no deal, but as this is the only legislation coming through the House just now that actually can be relevant to a no deal, it shows how unrealistic it is for hardline Brexiteers to think they can get this Government to a place where they can seriously say to the EU, “We’re in a position to have a no deal and walk away in March 2019.” That is absolutely impossible and they are kidding themselves on.

I pay tribute once again to the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for the work she has done, and for the clauses on trailer safety and on reporting and analysis that she has succeeded in getting inserted into the Bill. I hope they will help us to improve trailer safety on the roads and the general safety of people on and around our road networks. With these remarks, I am happy to see the Bill go forward.

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

I rise to move amendments 4 and 5, and to speak to the new clauses and amendment 2. Without doubt, much progress has been made during the course of this Bill since its inception in the Lords. We have had robust debate, both in Committee and on Second Reading. I am glad that that debate has been extended today, not least by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who seems to have had an 11th-hour epiphany in turning up to speak on the Bill today. Had he been either at the Second Reading debate or in Committee, he would have heard the extensive line-by-line debate we had about so many of the clauses. I thank the Minister for the way he listened carefully during that debate, and he has certainly moved the Bill forward.

Through his amendments, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington expressed concern about the disastrous way in which this Government are approaching Brexit and the devastating impact it is having on business. There are many reasons why we are hearing weekly announcements from industry about resettling their business abroad, because delay in their supply chain hits their bottom line. The UK investment loss as the EU is preferred is devastating for jobs and our economy. That would be accelerated by the complex chaos that could ensue at our borders without proper arrangements.

Labour has always stated that we believe the UK should remain within the EU’s community licence arrangements—after all, why leave them? I doubt that a single constituent has raised this issue on the doorstep, yet to leave would not only create a whole new licensing scheme but result in more uncertainty. Not having orderly licensing will result in lorries stacking up at the borders, where, as Imperial College found, a two-minute delay will create a 10-mile hold-up at Dover alone. If further self-harm can be avoided, I urge the Minister to act to ensure that businesses can gain some confidence.

We have learned that the haulage trade will be issued with licences under clause 2(1)(c) in a possibly arbitrary way, although that is subject to the passing of amendment 4, which I tabled, and which would deal with such heightened uncertainty. Confidence is needed at our borders and new clause 1 certainly seeks to build confidence, as did the amendments Labour tabled that were lost in Committee. By not providing confidence, the Government show that they do not have business stability at the heart of their plans and are preparing for such a hard Brexit that businesses will be forced out anyway.

The EU community licence scheme simply works. There is recognition of licences within the EU area and, rather than uncertainty, we should simply adopt this scheme. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would have been shocked to hear in earlier debates that the licence will be a paper document. It will not even be electronic or a tag that can hold licence data; no, it will be on good old-fashioned paper, and an individual will come up to a cab, knock on the door and ask to see the papers. Instead of today’s secure electronic systems, the Minister prefers higher-risk paper documentation.

[Tom Brake]

I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates the difficulty for a party with 12 Members of ensuring that someone can be present at all debates, but I am indeed surprised to hear that the Government’s approach would be paper-based, because we have of course heard a huge amount from them about how all these things are going to be electronic, seamless, frictionless and based on new technology. Here is an opportunity for the Government to deploy technology, but they are actually deploying a piece of paper.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am sure that had the right hon. Gentleman been in Committee, he would have had much opportunity to join in the previous debates on this issue—

[Tom Brake]

We do not get appointed to Committees.

[Rachael Maskell]

All Members are entitled to attend Committees, even if they are not Committee members, but I do not need to tell the right hon. Gentleman about those facts.

It will be catastrophic if we get the licence-distribution process wrong, but the Government have yet even to say that their prime objective will be to remain in the EU community licence arrangements.

New clauses 1 to 3 also call on the Government to report to Parliament on the range of impacts that leaving the EU community licence scheme will create. Again, we have sought to do this previously, but to no avail, as the Government are not interested in the facts. They have their fingers crossed and the belief that all will be well as they drive us over the cliff. The Opposition value evidence-based decision making, and my biggest shock about this place is how low a priority analysis still is. Let me give an example: the Minister could not tell me in Committee how many permits will be needed. The high possibility of the need to evoke Operation Stack were we to end up outside the EU community licence arrangements is evident, yet due to the Government’s lack of care and attention, the proposed lorry park did not go ahead because of an error in the planning process.

I could give a lot more examples about the reality of borders, not least in Northern Ireland, and how the scheme will operate, but the Minister was unable to address such issues in Committee. Clearly, borders will be created between the EU and the UK. The Minister denied that that will be the case between the north and south of Ireland, despite their being different jurisdictions, but even should special arrangements be made to address that issue, there would most certainly be borders between the east and the rest of Great Britain in the west. Both scenarios are completely unacceptable, but the reality of being outside a central customs arrangement will create such a border. Understanding the environment means not only understanding the risks, but having high-quality data to back this up. That is why Labour supports new clauses 1 to 3.

This brings me to my amendments 4 and 5 which, along with amendment 2, relate to permit provision. Clause 2 is very concerning. As with all Bills, it calls for regulations to be made, but is rudderless with regard to why and how. Amendment 4 seeks to amend clause 2(1)(c), which states that the regulations will determine how the Secretary of State will decide who receives a permit, including the criteria for doing so. If there is a method of selection, and it is vague, one could argue that that is all well and good, as that is what regulations are there for. However, we believe that, in paragraph (c), it is more damaging to keep the two examples that are in brackets than to say nothing at all.

I am asking for this Bill to be tidied up this afternoon. It speaks of the utterly chaotic way that the Government are approaching international transactions over trade, and the way that they are handling vital business needs at home. First, paragraph (c) talks about a “first come, first served” basis. That means that a business has to be at the front of the queue each time it needs a permit. There is no identification of strategic industries, no understanding of business need or the need to be able to plan, and no concern over how new entrants further down the line will even get hold of a permit. That is a poor example. Moreover, to include such an example in a Bill as important as this one speaks of serious Government incompetence over logistical planning. May I gently advise the Government once again that it would be in their interests to leave out that example? It does not add any substantial detail, but sets a tone to desensitise business as to how logistics will be approached.

Let me come now to my second suggestion. Paragraph (c) mentions

“an element of random selection.”

I do not think that I need to say much more other than that those words have to go. A “random” approach to economic and logistical planning is the exact reason why businesses are seeking stability elsewhere. We on the Labour Benches get that. I suggest that the section is simply removed to give Government time to consider how they will approach the issuing of permits, before bringing forward secondary legislation. Why make things worse for themselves if they really do not have to? I am sure that the Government will see the common sense in what I suggest, and I trust that they will accept my amendment today.

Amendment 5 seeks to amend clause 9(1). If we are going to introduce a new permit scheme, we must properly review the process. Our amendment seeks to ensure that there is a greater understanding of how the permit system works. In wanting to know the number of permits requested, this simply highlights the scheme demand—something that is important for the Government to understand. Following on from that, the amendment will then require data to be provided on the number of permits granted and refused. In particular, it is important to understand how many were refused and why. For instance, was it owing to an error in the way that the application process was made or was working, or to there not being enough permits available to haulage companies in the first place? If either of those scenarios were the case, the Government would have firm data on which to evidence the change needed in the system. Labour also supports amendment 2, which protects the haulage trade—

[Mr John Hayes]

The hon. Lady is making a very compelling case for both her amendments. In the case of amendment 5 with the issue about review, I am not sure whether it would be wise to make that part of the legislation. It is perfectly possible for the Government to commit to a review in respect of the legislation. On her first very strong point about the criteria, the Bill as it currently stands uses the words “may include” and then it lists the two things that she describes. It is an inclusive, rather than exclusive, provision. I wonder whether that might be a way through this in a more collaborative vein.

[Rachael Maskell]

As ever, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. Regarding my amendment 4, clearly having the words on random selection in the Bill is really unhelpful to the Government because it sets the tone on trade. At this time, we must all acknowledge that business needs a confidence-building approach. It is unhelpful to know that a chaotic approach to the provision of permits is even being considered as a possibility. I trust that the Minister has heard that call. I am trying to assist in the passage of the Bill and what happens afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Consideration is now completed.

[Rachael Maskell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the exchange we just had, I was not asked whether I wanted to press my amendments to a vote or to withdraw them. Is that within order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes. I listened to what the hon. Lady said during her speech, and she did not move her amendments. It would be normal that, if the hon Lady—if I had read the debate in such a way as to think that the hon. Lady wished to call a separate Division on one of her amendments, I would have made sure that that could happen. I took advice on whether the hon. Lady intended to ask for a separate Division on one of her amendments, and the advice was that Opposition Front Benchers did not intend to put any amendments to a vote. It is now too late to change that. The hon. Lady looks askance, but perhaps the message from her Front Bench, through other Front Benchers, to the Chair was not clear.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. Lady would like to make a further point of order, I will allow her to do so, but we cannot change what has happened.

[Rachael Maskell]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see the hesitancy with which you are providing this ruling. I just want to clarify that, at the beginning of my speech in this debate, I did move amendments 4 and 5 formally. I want to put that on the record so there can be no doubt about it.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State can be in no doubt from the contributions across the House today that the rail chaos is having a devastating impact on people’s lives and jobs and on the economy.

The meltdown in the timetable and the revised timetable is causing serious pain to commuters. We have heard from hon. Members north, south, east and west. The whole nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) said, is facing the pain. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about how promised improvements were yet to be delivered, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who highlighted that the £9 billion spent has led to more chaos. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) reminded us that the northern press has united in its call for the Secretary of State to resign.

My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) and for Luton South (Mr Shuker) have all highlighted forensically how the buck stops with the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) shared heartrending stories of her constituents sardined into trains and having their safety put at risk due to overcrowding.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Western Mail has said that the Severn tunnel will now be shut for three weeks as the rail electrification kit rusts before it has even been used. Does my hon. Friend agree that if true, this is shocking, and that there need to be further checks to ensure that this important infrastructure project will be fit for purpose?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes the point so well—more chaos on our railways.

In the past 24 hours, hundreds of passengers have shared their experiences with me, including a relationship breaking down, trains so packed that people are standing for hours while paying more for their tickets, cancellations of trains for hours on end, and people leaving home at 5.30 in the morning to face a four or five-hour commute. One person had no choice but to walk home for four hours in the rain in the middle of their exams. There is lots of stress about getting to work on time and getting home to pick up the children, and lots of stress for those sitting exams and simply not knowing if they will get there on time.

A mother had to sing “Happy Birthday” to her child from Waterloo station because she would not make it home for their birthday.

We all know that the problem is much deeper rooted. Were Robert Adley alive today, he would have seen himself truly vindicated for his call to halt the Railways Act 1993, for he foresaw how fragmentation would eventually create complete chaos across the railways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the shadow Transport Secretary, set out. Mr Adley dubbed that Bill the then Tory Government’s “poll tax on wheels”. The fate of the poll tax is a stark reminder of what happens when Governments continue to blame everyone but themselves and fail to listen to the public. The public now overwhelmingly call for the renationalisation of the railways, which Labour will deliver.

The failure of one part of the Secretary of State’s Department to talk to the other, with franchises promising one thing despite Network Rail not having the capacity to deliver on his promises, demonstrates that the buck stops with no one but the Secretary of State. No Government can sleepwalk their way through a crisis, and this weak and floundering Government most certainly cannot. To ignore the public, to ignore the industry and now to ignore Members of this House shows utter contempt, for which the public will not be forgiving—not least when people have lost their jobs, been unable to sit vital exams, or missed precious moments of family life. Passengers are exhausted from working very long days due to their uncertain commutes. Passengers are unable to plan. Passengers are unable to have any form of life as their short journeys have been replaced by waits at stations that are 10 times the length of their journeys.

It is clear that commuters are not just frustrated with this totally avoidable Government failure, but with their own MPs for not securing change at the top. Today, we all have the opportunity to make the necessary change. If it is not addressed today, it most certainly will be at the ballot box, and MPs who were silent today when they had the chance to act on behalf of their constituents will find that those constituents will vote accordingly come the next general election.

The problem is that all this rail chaos, which was well known in advance by the Secretary of State, was allowed to happen on his watch because he put his ideology of private interests ahead of public service, because he failed to co-ordinate franchises across the divides in his Department, because he did not intervene and stop the timetable changes when he had the chance to do so, and because he evidently has put himself and his career above passengers and theirs. He was warned time and again but failed to act.

This afternoon’s vote is simply about confidence. Voting against the motion or even sitting on your hands would not only highlight how hon. Members are complicit in the chaos that has ensued over the last few weeks, but show support for how the Secretary of State conducted his Department, his actions in the months preceding the introduction of the new timetable, and the way in which he has let the public down consistently over the last 30 days. Constituents who were late to work again this morning will want to know how their MP voted today—did they place their confidence in the Secretary of State, despite all that has happened, or were they willing to stand up for their constituents and vote for this motion? When constituents miss their family meal and time with their children tonight, will they look up to their MP for taking action through the first step of removing the heart of the problem—the Secretary of State—or will they remember that their MP, when given the opportunity to do something, sidestepped the issue?

Perhaps the Prime Minister will show her full support for the Secretary of State this afternoon by neither voting for the motion nor taking any action to replace the person at the heart of the crisis, thus tying her own leadership to this national public disaster, or perhaps she will start to distance herself from all that has happened and find someone who can respond to this crisis. Surely she cannot continue to back a Secretary of State who has not only failed rail passengers but will continue to preside over the chaos that, as we have heard, he will unable to resolve for weeks if not months. Anyone who understands the need to make a fresh start after a public disaster knows that they need to deal with those responsible, which in this case means pulling Northern and GTR back into public ownership with immediate effect. The public will not forget how the avoidable rail chaos was woefully responded to.

There is one more issue that I want to raise: public safety. Even as we speak, public safety is being put at risk. We heard the Secretary of State take a swipe at the unions—he always does—but they represent the very people who work relentlessly across the network and, in particular, have kept passengers safe over the past few weeks. They have taken action today because they fear for public safety as guards are removed from trains. They are right to do so. If anything makes the case for guards on trains, it is the experiences of the last month. The guards are the very people who help the public in times of need. Labour will never put ideology above safety, let alone public service.

There is another public service issue on which the Secretary of State is failing. In this chaos, I have heard reports of stations crammed with passengers and trains crammed with people. Those people are fortunate to get on board—disabled people have been left stranded at stations because they cannot push their way on to trains. This is a seriously unsafe situation. The country must remember above all that national disasters have occurred when people have been squeezed into spaces that are too tight to hold them. When they are not just standing for hours on their commute but physically restrained on trains, it is easy to imagine how someone could fall on the tracks or fall ill on a train, especially in this heat. If nothing more, all hon. and right hon. Members should vote with Labour to put down a clear marker that they urge the Government to address this very serious issue. The choice today is to stand up for passengers, or to stand up for the Secretary of State and his failure on the railways. I trust that I will see hon. Members from both sides of the House in the Aye Lobby shortly.

Stonehenge: Proposed Road Alterations

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for opening the debate in such a fascinating way and drawing us into so much of the history, which he clearly has such a passion for. His sharing that was a privilege for all of us. He was absolutely right to remind us of the importance of our past and the still undiscovered past, which we will learn so much about. That is why today’s debate is so important and timely, given the proposals, as an opportunity to reflect once more on how to preserve our heritage to ensure we still have the opportunity to dig into our past—literally—and understand our history.

This is also about our future—hon. Members made that point well. The air quality along the A303 has an impact not only on the site itself but on the residents living in the area. Air quality is a real challenge in many areas of our country. Road users are among those who experience the worst air quality. It causes 40,000 premature deaths in our country every year, so we urgently need more action on that front.

I recognise the importance of the site—I remember going there as a child, back in the days when people could run around the stones—but this is not just about the stones. The point was made eloquently this afternoon that the whole of the site is significant—not just its aspect, but its richness and depth. It is important that the proposals preserve the site, because once it is damaged we cannot get it back. We really need to reflect on those considerations.

Several communities use the space. The local community, which uses it for commuting and obviously lives along the site, needs to find a resolution too. It is important that Wiltshire County Council looks at how to prevent rat runs, which hon. Members mentioned, and ensures that villages are not disturbed by traffic charging through them. There is more it can do to step up in that area.

Then there is the tourist traffic. I understand that about 1.58 million people go to visit Stonehenge every single year, which is of huge significance. We therefore need to understand how best to accommodate tourists. They do not have to park right next to the stones, and obviously there have been developments over time to pull that traffic further back. We need to think about how tourists approach the area and about whether we can do more to reduce the traffic using the area for that purpose. The Minister knows I am a keen advocate of modal shift. I have looked at the maps, and it is very doable on a bicycle—he and I are both cyclists. We must find alternative ways for people to reach the site and take that journey into Stonehenge. That is really important for the future.

There is also the east-west traffic, which moves down into the south-west. We want to see a significant modal shift in that area, so we have to think creatively. There are real opportunities: proposals are being put forward for peninsula rail—there is an aspiration for it to reach the south-west with Great Western. There are opportunities for a modal shift in the regular commute of those who use the road. We need to look at how to draw traffic off the road. One thing we know about road-building expansion is that it can lead to induced demand. Major expressways can suck traffic off other routes and leave us facing similar challenges.

[Steve Double]

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying, but can she clarify whether the Labour party supports the development of this new road and the solution of the tunnel under Stonehenge? It is important that those of us in the south-west understand what the Labour party’s position is.

[Rachael Maskell]

I will get to that point shortly. I want to talk about the other opportunities we must explore to ensure a modal shift. That is at the heart of the Labour party’s transport policy: we do not believe the future should be taken as it is now. We need to get people on to public transport, whether for leisure or business.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point about modal shift, but people will be going on holiday to Cornwall and Devon in the next six weeks, and our population is likely to double. At the moment, they are stuck going down the M5 and the M4. Any alterations to the A303 will make a huge difference to the people coming to visit Devon and Cornwall, so I would really like to know what the Labour party’s position is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

As I said, I will come to that point shortly. In York, we get 7 million visitors a year, so I understand the challenges that the hon. Gentleman faces. We believe the Government can do far more on modal shift. Obviously, there has been a bit of a crisis in rail in the past week or so, but we know that rail is a significant player in moving people around our country. We want public transport to be the mode of choice for the future. That will have a significant impact on people travelling by car. That is at the heart of our policy.

The Government’s proposal is a compromise. They are trying to do something to move traffic away from the current road location and take it through a tunnel, but it is a compromise and there are risks to their strategy. We recognise that there is a compromise on the resources. The question is not about the tunnel itself but about its length and the impact that cutting the throughways will have on either end of the tunnel. I learned a lot about water tables from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar this afternoon. I did not realise the effect they can have on the moisture of the land. I will certainly go back and have a look at that issue. The Government need to look again at where the tunnel is cut and where it is placed. My response to the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) is that that point needs to be reviewed. We understand the significance of the site, and cutting the western end of the tunnel could have a significant impact on the long barrows, which we have heard about this afternoon.

[Steve Double]

Just to clarify, is the hon. Lady saying that the Labour party does not support the current plans and would not support the development of this road?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am saying that we believe there are other alternatives, which would be far more significant in reaching the right balance, which the hon. Gentleman talked about earlier. We certainly do not believe that the solution that is on the table at the moment is the only one that needs to be looked at. There are opportunities to get this right for everybody.

Serious concerns and objections have been raised about the proposal, not least by the archaeological community. We note that English Heritage and the National Trust support it, but English Heritage also supported making a change of real heritage significance in my constituency, and it was only prevented by pressure from the community. We wanted the right solutions to be put in place. Our focus must be on getting this right for the future.

We must also scrutinise the Government’s decisions. In Transport questions just before the recess, I talked about ancient woodlands, and the Minister said that many ancient woodlands were planted only a couple of decades ago. The way he dismissed something that is important to the community of Arundel on the A27 puts doubt in my mind about whether proper work has been done on the detail, and about whether we have reached the ultimate conclusion. We clearly have concerns about the impact of the proposals on the archaeology. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections. I hope he will give us all confidence that everything is being done to ensure that the wider Stonehenge site is preserved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

May I say on behalf of us all, Sir Graham, how brilliantly you have chaired today’s proceedings with your normal aplomb and energy?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing the debate and on his excellent contribution. I was interested to learn that in his previous lives he has frolicked around the stones—I am sure not defacing but enjoying them, and I hope not breathing too close to the road—celebrating his druidical background. As such an erudite and scholarly man, he is a great adornment to the Commons. He has brought that bookish sentiment to this debate. If I may mis-quote John Osborne, with the current Member, there is no “book lack in Ongar”. I will allow the Chamber to enjoy that.

My hon. Friend quoted those famous experts in the area, Spın̈al Tap. It would be wrong of me not to remind him of this important moment in the lyrics of “Stonehenge”, as he will recall from the film:

“Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell

Where the banshees live and they do live well

Stonehenge! Where a man’s a man

And the children dance to the Pipes of Pan.”

Unfortunately, as matters stand, the children will not be able to dance, because they will probably get run over, and in any case they would not be able to hear the pipes because of the noise of a road travelling so close to the ancient ruins.

To engage with the point made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I thought her phrase the “undiscovered past” was a brilliant one and perfectly captured the proper concern that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar framed. She was right to draw attention to air quality and the community-use aspects of the site. Her joy in cycling, I am pleased to say, will be enabled and furthered by the greenways planned as part of the renewal of the site, alongside the removal of the A303. I must, however, put it on the record that I am very surprised and, frankly, sorry that the Labour party’s position is not to support the project. [Interruption.] I invite the hon. Lady to correct me. If the Labour party is ready to support the project, she is absolutely welcome to intervene and say that it will.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have made it very clear that we need to ensure that we have done absolutely everything possible to preserve the site. As I said, I was looking forward to the Minister’s speech to convince me that that is the case.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for that clarification—if it was one—so let me say this. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene before I finish to say that I have given her such assurances, that will reassure the many people in Exeter and Plymouth who might be worried about whether the Labour party supports the project.

Let me frame the proposals in their wider context. As hon. Members know, the A303 is the most direct strategic route between the south-west and the south-east and indeed the east of England. That makes it a vital arterial corridor, as has been noted throughout the Chamber during this debate. Several sections of the road, however, are single carriageway, causing congestion, delays and greater risk of accidents.

Would it were the case that only a visit from a serving President of the United States of America was required to interrupt the traffic and cause congestion. Tragically, as has been pointed out, congestion is absolutely an everyday feature—I visited the stones recently and sat in a traffic jam. The experience is a rotten one for all involved, awful for the site and not good for the stones themselves. Those points are sometimes forgotten.

One of the congestion points is precisely at Stonehenge. The distance of the road from the stones when it passes near them is 165 metres, or less than 200 yards, which is an astonishing fact. The sight, smells and sound of stationary traffic are brought directly into the centre of a unique prehistoric environment. That is bad for road users and local communities, while a world heritage site is cut in half and the setting of that iconic landmark is harmed. After many delays and many years of prevarication, therefore, the Government have decided that we need to take the chance to enhance the setting of such an extraordinary monument and to improve access to the surrounding landscape, while opening the south-west for further tourism and other business.

In the 2014 road investment strategy, the Government committed to a scheme at Stonehenge, and we are following through on that. The project is part of a longer-term strategy to create better links between the M3 in the south-east and the M5 in the south-west by upgrading the entire A303-A358 corridor to dual-carriageway A-road standard, thereby transforming it into a continuous high-quality route to the south-west, with significant benefits for tourism, jobs and the economy. As the House knows, we have already committed funding to three schemes: Stonehenge; the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch; and Taunton to the Southfields roundabout. The hope is to commit to the full upgrade of five other sections of road along that corridor in ensuing investment strategies.

The A303 and the Stonehenge site suffer significant congestion because of additional traffic. Given how little time I have remaining—I think only two minutes—I shall cut straight to some of the key points. The proposed road alterations include a twin-bore tunnel of at least 1.8 miles in length and other features mentioned today, such as the Longbarrow and Countess junctions. Both the Department for Transport and Highways England very much appreciate that the world heritage site contains an abundance of early prehistoric monuments. They are committed to minimising the impacts of the planned scheme. The heritage monitoring and advisory group, which includes a range of prestigious organisations, provides advice to ensure that heritage is at the fore of scheme design decisions, advising on archaeological surveys and the like. The scientific committee has directly influenced the scope of the archaeological evaluation strategy adopted for the scheme.

On Blick Mead, Highways England is carrying out an extensive heritage impact assessment to ensure that the scheme does not create unacceptable effects for important heritage features. It must be pointed out that Blick Mead is a full half-mile from the proposed entrance to the tunnel. The proposed use of a tunnel-boring machine means that the tunnel will be constructed in a sealed and watertight environment. There are a range of other mitigations and a great deal of work being done on the water table and the hydrology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar knows. The Star Carr site is in many ways not a relevant comparison, although it may serve as a warning, precisely because it was the victim of ill-thought-through land drains and acidification of the site, which I am afraid reduce its value as a comparator.

To round up, there will always be trade-offs of incommensurables of the kind that we have seen—between the history and value of a site, the economic, community and air-quality benefits to be had from it, and the like. The nature of politics is that we have to make such trade-offs, but only of course with the most careful expert advice and scrutiny, for the minimisation of the impacts, as we have discussed. In this case, we must be philosophers in practice. I would like to think that the Government have done everything that they can to strike the right balance along the lines that I have described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

There is guidance on this already, as my hon. Friend will know. I am not sure whether it is reflected in the road safety statistics, but I am happy to look at that.

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

Owing to the sheer scale of the damage the proposed A27 project will do to ancient woodland and the South Downs national park, let alone the eventual impact on air pollution caused by induced capacity, 10 of Britain’s leading environmental groups have written to the Secretary of State to highlight how his proposals contravene his own national policy statement for national networks. So has he changed his definition of “irreversible damage” or will he urgently review this scheme?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Lady will know, many of those ancient woodlands were planted only in the past couple of decades, so I am not sure that she has quite made her point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituency, so she will no doubt help the local authority and transport operating company to put together the best possible bid. The Access for All programme will provide step-free access to stations across the country, and I know how popular it is across the House. It will be open for bidding shortly. Stations will need to be nominated by the transport operating company, based on chosen criteria. Annual footfall and the local incidence of disability will be taken into account, as well as priorities such as industry and local factors such as proximity to hospitals and availability of third-party funding.

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

The Secretary of State has already slashed £50 million from the Access for All fund, and now Govia Thameslink Railways’ new staff guidance says,

“do not attempt to place persons of reduced mobility on a train if there is a possibility of delaying the service”

and that they should

“move from the train as quickly as possible”

someone having a seizure. That is not only completely wrong medical advice, but directly discriminates against disabled people. Why has the Minister not intervened, and why has GTR been allowed to get away with this direct disability discrimination?

[Ms Ghani]

Since 2006, about 200 stations have been made step-free and 75% of rail journeys are now step-free through stations. Funding has been made available and will continue to be made available. One of the biggest issues we have in getting people who are disabled to use public transport is confidence, so we need to let them know that we have accessible stations. Now I will respond to the point about GTR. There was one line in the document—

[Rachael Maskell]

It is so discriminatory.

[Ms Ghani]

Will the hon. Lady give me a minute to respond? It was not the best use of language, and I can update the House and say that my officials have spoken to GTR and raised concerns about that line and the language used in the leaflet. The leaflet is good overall, but the hon. Lady is right to point out that one particular line was not appropriate, and it will be revised.