Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

I will address this point later, but as the police gather data around the causation of accidents, is it not right that they should also record whether or not causation is related to the towing equipment of a vehicle?

[Jesse Norman]

It is certainly true that police gather information on factors that may bear on causation—of course, causation itself is a judgment rather than a fact. The case for recording such data is under active consideration, but we are concerned about the balance between the amount of potential infraction and the good that it would do by creating an additional burden in an already very full assessment process. That is precisely one of the things that would come out of the wider assessment we are doing now, and is therefore of a piece with the direction of travel of the Government. We recognise that this is an important issue: I have asked officials to consider in the safety report what data may inform further investigation, and this may cover exactly the points raised by the hon. Lady.

The vehicle defect contributory factor is a useful starting point, which is already in the report. Relevant case studies may allow us to explore within that category the question of tow bar safety. Tow bars are clearly integral elements when taking a full picture of the trailer safety situation, and it is correct that they are considered in the report, although I hope, for the reasons outlined, that the hon. Member for Bristol South will not press her amendment.

The hon. Member for York Central has tabled amendment (b) to new clause 1 to outline with greater clarity that the report will cover both commercial and non-commercial trailers. To assuage any concerns that hon. Members may have about the scope of the report, it is important to say that the current drafting covers all accidents involving trailers in Great Britain, without distinction between commercial and non-commercial usage. Those terms are not actually defined in the Bill and may be shaped by the consultation, so it would be premature to insert that requirement. There is no trailer weight category excluded from the trailer safety report, so making the amendment would not change any of the requirements on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 1. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.

Under amendment (d) to new clause 1, the Secretary of State would be required, for each year following the first report, to lay subsequent annual reports on trailer safety, compulsory registration and periodic testing. The first report will provide a valuable opportunity to consider trailer safety in depth and, as I have said, will draw on recent data recorded under existing recording systems. We also wish to consider how else we can bring in additional data or contributions from industry stakeholders, to ensure that we consider the full breadth of issues relevant to trailer safety, but at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to make a commitment to further reports without knowing the outcome of the first report. Either way, the effect of this amendment would be to place a costly requirement on the Government, which is not necessarily warranted unless the first report turns out as feared. None the less, I am happy to consider the need for further reports based on an initial assessment of the overall waterfront, which the first report is designed to do. If the report recommends further registration and testing of trailers, that will take considerable time to implement, and it is important to be aware of that. Equally, if an extension of registration and testing is not recommended, an immediate further report may well offer no additional value.

The parliamentary debate has been valuable and considered. As my noble Friend Baroness Sugg said, we have considered extensively trailer safety and what more Government can and should be doing. That underlined my commitment to undertake a report on trailer safety. The process will allow us to consider how to take this matter forward, but I hope the hon. Member for York Central will be minded to await the initial report before making further commitments as to how this issue is best addressed.

I have gone through this quite thoroughly, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for the way he outlined new clause 1 and responded to the many amendments before us on trailer safety. I would like to speak to many of those amendments, and indeed an amendment to an amendment.

First of all, may I welcome the progress made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe? His contribution particularly focused on trailer safety, and it is right that we acknowledge that, as well as the contribution made by Baroness Sugg to the progress leading us to new clause 1. It is clear that we will be supportive of the new clause, because we believe it is an improvement on the substantive Bill.

In making such provision for the inclusion of more trailers, should the evidence point to more trailers needing registering to keep the public safe, regulation should be brought forward. It has been welcome to hear that the Minister will be making those considerations once the report has been put together, but in response to his speech, I want to question how he envisages building up a more robust database. He refers to, in the time period allowed, not going to the depths of all the sources that could be available for formulating such a report, so it would be good to know how he plans to proceed. My amendment (aa), which seeks to have further reporting, could be a source of addressing a more in-depth study.

We could not have been more moved by the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Of course, we all know of her tireless and tenacious campaigning to improve trailer safety following the tragic death of young Freddie Hussey. Just three years old, his life was taken by a trailer that was out of control—a trailer that was only 2 tonnes in weight, that lost connection and then moved forward to failure, due to the position of the handbrake on the trailer. That demonstrates how important it is that we look at the detail of trailer safety and design fault, as well as operator poor use and malfunction. I trust that in the report, we will be able to look at those fine details, because that will be informative for the Minister in determining the best mechanisms to reduce risk on our roads. Ultimately, this is what I believe new clause 1 is trying to achieve: a real understanding of the risks that are presented and the nature of the faults, and therefore what measures can be taken to improve public safety.

Other safety features could also be included—for instance, tyre safety. We certainly know that incidents—some of them tragic—have occurred as a result of the ageing of tyres, and the Minister may want to consider bringing that under regulation and going further than just trailers. We also need to make sure that the work is comprehensive, so looking at weight limits could be an important consideration. I appreciate that we are looking at commercial and non-commercial trailers; I made the point earlier that the ownership of a trailer should not make a difference to the risk. We need to ensure that that is comprehensive. It may be that the data and the evidence show that 750 kg is not the right weight limitation. We need to keep an open mind and trust the reporting of incidents when considering that.

I will ask what I believe is quite a simple question on the changing jurisdiction. The Bill sets out that reporting will be for the UK, but the new clause talks about England, Wales and Scotland. What has happened to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister consider separate data for Northern Ireland, which I appreciate will probably be under a different jurisdiction? Will he take that into account, or was the new clause a tidying-up measure to remove Northern Ireland from the data sources?

My amendment (aa) is to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South and is incredibly important. It would provide for monitoring incidents and ensuring that we create a culture of the highest standards. While many trailers are privately constructed, it is important that they are built to the highest safety standards and subject to inspection. The Minister’s comment on the scale of this and how we can bring in inspection regimes was interesting. The offer of free tow bar checks from the leadership of the National Trailer and Towing Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham set out on Second Reading, is certainly a progressive step that could well address the question that the Minister posed in his opening remarks.

We need to ensure that trailers, whether for heavy duty or occasional use, are up to standard, and therefore a one-off test may not address the issue. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave evidence of that when talking about the corrosion of trailers. We need to understand more about the lifecycle of trailers to ensure that safety is adhered to. Amendment (a) seeks to ensure that the report considers the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.

My amendment (b) to new clause 1 considers a point that the Minister addressed in his remarks on commercial and non-commercial trailers. As I have said, the risk seems to occur across the board, but we should look at recording the distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, because there may be a higher propensity in the non-commercial field, for example, of the attachment of trailers to create a higher risk, because the full operation of locking down that attachment may not be as efficient as when done by people who do it every day as part of their work. We therefore need to look at the distinction across the board to identify where risk sits in the system, and gathering data on that would be invaluable.

My amendment (c) to new clause 1 looks at the reporting of road traffic accidents, which the Minister referred to earlier. I believe that the police gather comprehensive data on accidents, and directly correlating or associating those with a trailer incident will be invaluable in understanding the risks created by trailers. The amendment would be an important inclusion in the Bill. We are not asking for additional work to be done, just for inclusion in the Minister’s report. I hope that he will consider that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

On the point about compliance, which is part of the purpose of my amendment, it is also distressing for the people carrying out those checks, in garages and such places, to tell people that they are not compliant and would fail a test, and, because they have no real ability to make that person do something about it, then see that trailer go onto the road. We need to find some way of supporting the next stage of those checks.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has so much expertise in this field: I think we are all in awe of her knowledge. She is right. We debate things in this House because we care about public safety. We want to know the detail because that is important in order to make informed and correct decisions. If there is risk—and clearly there is; we have heard the evidence—we need to respond to it. It is on our watch, and we fail the public if we do not; and, tragically, we could fail the public severely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about how we should take this issue forward. It is incumbent on the Minister to look into these matters and give assurances that he will bring forward proposals about how we address the whole issue of the safety of trailers, attachments, tow bars and operators’ use of them. We can then inform the industry that we have heard them and take these issues seriously; that, ultimately, should legislation be required, we will not be afraid to enact it; or, should stronger advice and support from the Department for Transport be needed to educate and support the industry and users of trailers, that we will take that forward as well. I trust that the Minister will consider that and I look forward to hearing his remarks.

[Karin Smyth]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. My purpose in trying to amend the Bill, working with the noble Lords, on Second Reading and here in Cttee, has always been safety, following the representation made by my constituents, Donna and Scott Hussey, about their tragic loss. I am grateful to the Minister and Baroness Sugg for their support through the Bill and for the wider campaign on the family’s behalf.

My main issue with the Minister’s amendment was the loss of “comprehensive”, without specifying any new consideration. That led me to be concerned about the Government making a further report based on the existing data, which would not take us any further forward than we were before the Lords debated it. I therefore tabled the amendment to push the Government to make an assessment of roadworthiness and, as we have just said, of compliance, which would inform that report.

I am assured by the Minister’s comments. He has said that they will look at the existing data and what else needs to be included. Although he reiterated that the data is considered comprehensive, those statements acknowledge the need to look further and wider.

On the STATS19 form, the Department has admitted that it is difficult for a police officer who attends the scene after an accident to identify the factors that contributed to that accident. For those who have not read it—I can send it round—the STATS19 form is hugely complicated and difficult. Hon. Members can imagine filling it in on a quiet road of a dimly lit evening and deciding what it is necessary to report in it. It is the basis of the evidence collated. There are 78 factors to choose from. It is a subjective issue for the police, who I have been working with to inform the system from the bottom up. That is my concern—that we look more widely at doing that. The Minister has heard that loud and clear on a few occasions, and I look forward to working with the civil servants to try to address it.

My work in the last three years has convinced me that the wider issue is weight and its distribution. Driver awareness is really important, and I am grateful to the DVSA for its campaign, which will continue. On driver behaviour, we want to make driving with an unsafe trailer as socially unacceptable as drink-driving or driving with a mobile phone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, tow bars and their attachments are also very important. Those issues apply in the commercial and non-commercial sectors, which is a point that has been made well today, including by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.

I, too, have met the National Caravan Council, which is concerned about the issue. It has been running a scheme for several years, as have others. We need to learn from best practice across the industry. No one wants to have unsafe trailers on the road, and I look forward to working with all those organisations to continually get the best data, share good practice and inform the report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.

In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I concur with the Minister on the need for good inspection regimes, whether that is applied to tyre safety, tow bars or trailers. Will he therefore look at what the tow bar industry is doing with regard to the free inspections it is offering the public? Perhaps the Government should support that while looking at the wider issue of trailer safety.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. At the trailer summit, I had a chance to talk to the people running the programme, but there is no doubt that we can do more.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned a range of issues that might have a bearing on this—design fault, operator misuse or the safety of the equipment. All those factors need to be included in the comprehensive consideration I have described. I have said that we expect that to include more data and sources. The vehicle defect category may offer more scope for enlargement if we want to gather more data. She has rightly stressed having an open mind, which is very much what I bring.

We want to involve an expert consideration with stakeholders as part of our reflection. I have found that enormously helpful in other aspects of my portfolio—walking, cycling or road safety—but it is an integral part of the discussion. When we are trying to bring an amorphous body of data under control, it is important to include case studies, which we can do. I hope therefore that what we achieve will be genuinely rich and satisfying, and provide the basis for proper further consideration and, if necessary, action.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that that summary of how the amendments replicate the relevant provisions for the testing of trailers has been useful. As with clause 13, I hope Members agree that my amendments will allow us to ensure that our intent can be fully achieved with an approach that is consistent with the rest of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Opposition welcome new clause 2 and believe that good progress is being made in addressing vital safety issues. New clause 1 addresses reporting and understanding the evidence, and new clause 2 concerns the application of what happens next, so in some ways it is the most significant part of the Bill. As I have indicated, we want to ensure that significant steps are taken to improve trailer safety and that a solid inspection regime is put in place.

Clearly, we will want to see an initial report on the evidence gathered as a result of new clause 1 to know how best to proceed, and I believe that new clause 2 will enable that to happen. However, we will need to ensure that there is then proportionate follow-up action that provides public safety first and foremost. We want an opportunity for regular inspection, but that action should feed into trailer design to ensure that products on the market are safe and of the highest standard, that trailers are used safely, and that we learn from evidence.

Let me raise one further point. We have talked about British trailers, but obviously people from other countries use our roads. I wonder how an inspection regime will impact them and ensure that the highest standards are achieved across our roads and that safety is upheld at all times.

[Sarah Champion]

I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:

“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?

I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.

Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. We are looking not just at the trailers we produce ourselves, but at the use of trailers no matter where they come from. Depending on which jurisdiction they enter our roads from, they could carry risk. If tow bars are not fitted correctly, if the attachment is not locked down, or if the driver is driving carelessly, they pose a risk to the British public. How will the Minister respond to that?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 23

Regulations

Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—

(a) the first regulations under section 1;

(b) the first regulations under section 2;

(c) the first regulations under section 13;

(d) the first regulations under section 18;

(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);

(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Extent

Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—

“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commencement and transitional provision

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 25, page 14, line 16, at end insert—

“(1) Where as an outcome of the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union’s Community Licence regime, sections 1, 2 and 3 will cease to have effect.”.

This amendment would mean that the powers set out in section 1, 2 or 3 would not be available to the Secretary of State where the UK remains in the European Union’s Community Licence Regime.

We have made excellent progress on the Bill this afternoon. In tabling this amendment, Labour was seeking assurances about what we do should we find that the legislation is not necessary. We believe that inserting a sunset clause would be a helpful way of tidying up that element of business. As we have learned from today’s debate, there are still a huge number of uncertainties about the future management of the Bill in the light of the negotiations taking place about the future, not least in relation to the community licensing scheme, which we trust that the Government will seek to be a part of as we move forward. In the light of our discussions and the greater clarity from the Minister today, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Short title

[The Chair]

We now come to Government amendment 14 to clause 26. The amendment is starred on the amendment paper as it was not tabled with the usual notice to be called today. I have, however, selected it for the convenience of the Committee.

Amendment made: 14, in clause 26, page 14, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment removes the “privilege amendment” inserted by the Lords.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Trailer safety: report

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—

(a) involved trailers, and

(b) caused injury or death to any person.

(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether— The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.

(a) regulations under section13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;

(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.

(3) In this section—

“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—

(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;

(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;

“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”.—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Trailer safety: testing regulations

“(1) Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers.

(2) The regulations may amend provision made by or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(3) The regulations may, in making consequential or other provision as mentioned in section 23(1)(a), amend any Act (whenever passed or made).

(4) No regulations under this section may be made before the report is laid before Parliament under section (Trailer safety: report).

(5) In this section, “relevant trailers” has the meaning given by section (Trailer safety: report)(4).”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to introduce a system of periodic testing for trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

We have had an essential debate this evening on a Bill that we really should not have any necessity to debate. Although the title of the Bill sounds somewhat niche, the Government’s complete failure to secure trading arrangements with the EU means that the haulage industry could come to a complete standstill without this Bill. For that reason, we will not stand in the way of its progress to Committee this evening.

The haulage industry contributes £13.1 billion to gross value added, with 3.7 million tonnes exported and 4 million tonnes imported each year. It employs 319,000 HGV drivers. Although it is 45,000 drivers short, and the settled status is also creating uncertainty for EU nationals, Parliament must, without doubt, understand the importance of this sector to both the economy and jobs, especially with all the other uncertainties in the industry over Brexit, such as driver hours, custom borders and many of the issues that we have heard about this evening.

Negotiations should have established that the UK would be part of the Community licence scheme, along with all other EU countries, European economic area countries and others. This would enable the continuation of the free flow of goods to service our economy, and that is Labour’s position. However, even that most basic provision has caused much division on the Government Benches.

Today, the Government have tried to brush over this Bill as a “just in case” measure. The reality is that a no deal scenario, or even a “frictionless as possible” deal, and all things in between, highlight what a complete and utter nightmare our borders will prove to be without Community licensing or a customs union.

Currently the UK has permit-based agreements with Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, the Russian Federation, Tunisia and Ukraine and liberal agreements with Serbia, Albania and Turkey. They are typically managed through the DVLA, which in itself is already overstretched. Similar reciprocal arrangements exist, but now everything is up in the air. Therefore, for a lorry to drive on the continent to a destination, or to drive through another country to reach its destination, or within cabotage rules, the haulier will need documentation to prove that they have permission to be there.

We are debating this legislation when we still have no clarity over what the European negotiators will determine is required in these matters, so it is only a “virtual” Bill on something that the Government have no clue about what will be required. As the Secretary of State said, the Government are still, at this 11th hour, consulting on the content. We may pass legislation here, but without knowing for certain that the EU will accept the UK regime, this Bill could be redundant anyway. It is as if we are passing legislation to guide a negotiation process, such is the weakness of the Government with their chaotic Brexit.

Those of us on the Labour Benches are clear: be part of the Community licensing regime, and remove these completely unnecessary trade barriers and uncertainties. This legislation will give the Government powers to create a permit scheme for UK hauliers to be recognised across the EU. It will establish a trailer registration scheme in line with the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which this Parliament ratified on 28 March 2018, so UK trailers are registered for use on EU roads.

If hauliers are looking for clarity over how these new arrangements will operate and how much it will cost them, I have to tell them that they will have to wait until secondary legislation is laid, except, of course, for the £75.8 million from the Government—or should I say the taxpayer—in set-up costs. That is another Brexit expense. Therefore, this is simply an empty Bill, built on a possible negotiated position, with no clarity over how the scheme will operate, or how much it will cost the operator for needing to go to the EU to save our economy—an emperor’s new clothes Bill.

For those Brexiteers who now feel that they can say, “Well, at least this means that our borders will be secure”, I am afraid to say that this Bill does not automatically stop international road haulage either. But they are right to suspect the worst-case scenario: vehicles stacking up without the right documentation. Research already suggests that two additional minutes spent on checks will result in 10 miles of lorries stacking up. Get this legislation wrong and we will have gridlock at our borders.

I have asked the Minister whether licences could be electronic documents. “No”, was the reply. Can Members believe that we are talking about a new system only issuing paper documents? Even in 2018, drivers will be expected to carry paper documents as they cross borders that could be subject to checks. If a permit is not present, fines could be issued. We therefore need an inspectorate. Where will this be based? How will it operate? I am afraid that that is not clarified in the Bill either. We have to wait for the regulations, but that will be all too late to create any certainty for the industry, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has highlighted with regard to the music industry.

Commercial traders over 750 kg and non-commercial traders over 3.5 tonnes will need to be registered with the DVLA and will be required to carry paper, not electronic documents. We are told that most caravans and horse trailers will be exempt, unless owners opt for the voluntary register, which we have not heard about in today’s debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a powerful case as to why we also need comprehensive safety measures for light trailers. The tragic loss of little Freddie Hussey showed why this Bill must be amended in Committee to bring about greater public safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) further highlighted the impact that tow bar safety would have, not least as 91% of trailers have failed basic safety tests. We need another inspectorate of certificates and trailers in order to ensure compliance as well as administration in the issuing of registration certificates. This means more unknown costs to the industry. Failure to comply could lead to imprisonment and/or a fine.

The noble Lord Tunnicliffe of Bracknell rightly won a vote in the House of Lords on improving safety standards and recording accidents. In Committee we must look at measures such as improvements to exhaust emissions, trailer safety and tyre safety in order to keep the public and drivers safe. He also sought clarity that there would be no restrictions on the number of permits issued—this is so vital for trade to flow—and said that we should not create even more obstacles.

I must seek clarity over the Irish border question with regards to haulage licensing. We are being led to believe that there will be no new restrictions that would limit cross-border road haulage on the island of Ireland. This means that EU to UK haulage and UK to EU haulage will flow without checks. However, when probed on this the Minister said that there could be differentiation across the Irish sea. This is completely unacceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland, and is the central point of the whole customs union argument.

As we understand it, road haulage—for example, originating from Germany—will travel into the Republic of Ireland as it does now, and will be able to continue its journey into Northern Ireland without checks, without borders and with “no new restrictions”. However, it will need a permit if it crosses to England, Wales or Scotland. In effect, are the Government saying with this Bill that they are going to create borders across the Irish sea and therefore cross other red lines? Clarity is needed and has not been provided by the Secretary of State. These important issues need to be resolved, particularly across the whole island of Ireland. This is too important for the Minister just to skim over in his reply, so I trust that he will spell out in detail exactly how these borders will work. Finally on Northern Ireland, the Bill requires a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but we all know that the Assembly is currently not sitting. I would be pleased if the Minister told us how he plans to handle that situation.

The true cost and chaos of Brexit can be judged by this Bill. We will hold the Government to account throughout its passage, while advising that we should remain within current arrangements. There is no reason for the UK to leave the Community licensing scheme, but this is a matter for negotiation—something so simple to establish, but which appears to be too controversial for the Conservative party to unify on.

Electric Vehicles and Bicycles

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who was incredibly helpful in the advice that he gave the Government. Whether in the Paris agreement, Committee on Climate Change reports or numerous High Court rulings, the Government have clearly had serious warnings about how pollution is killing our planet—and is also killing us. Of course, transport is the major pollutant.

I place before the Government a big question about inconsistencies in their policies and the lack of connectivity between different announcements across Government. I also say this as an MP representing the highly polluted city of York. Certainly, announcements that we will see the end of the electrification of trains, and that a new generation of diesel trains will be put on the tracks, seem to clash with the Government’s ambitions—or perhaps, as we have heard, the lack of ambition—for electric vehicles.

We heard that, by 2030, India will no longer sell petrol vehicles. For Norway that will be in 2025, and for Scotland it will be in 2032, yet for the rest of the UK it will be in 2040. We also know that cities such as Paris, Madrid, Mexico City and Athens will ban dirty fuels in their cities by 2025, as will Copenhagen from next year. Meanwhile, air pollution causes 50,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. When will the Government’s Road to Zero plan actually see the light of day? It has been long promised but not yet seen.

The Government’s spending around active travel is woeful. Cycling and walking must come centre stage and must be seen as the mode of choice for shorter journeys, supported by more public sector options. We also need to address the strain that the increased use of electric vehicles will put on our national grid and look at the options available to decarbonise our energy at the same time. We need to ensure that investment goes in the right place. We heard how investment in our manufacturing sector will give a real boost to our economy, but we must not ignore the threats, particularly from China and the investment opportunities that it will see in the future.

We need to look at all modes of transport when looking at electric vehicles—not just rail, as I have mentioned, but buses, taxis, trucks, vans, motorcycles and bicycles. We need to see the Government now put their foot on the accelerator to bring forward the electric vehicle revolution, as opposed to creeping forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned the need for infrastructure. If we look at places such as Denmark and the Netherlands, we see real investment in infrastructure, and we need to see that here also. What has actually happened to the £400 million invested in the charging infrastructure investment fund? It is deeply embarrassing that the Government announced that but did not have any equity behind it. What other incentives will the Government put in place to encourage people to switch, whether through scrappage schemes, grants or, indeed, looking at the Mayor of London’s toxic vehicle charge? The market share for plug-in cars was less than 2% last year. Why have the Government cut grants for plug-in cars and for home charging? What impact will that have? Again, I believe that puts forward a mixed message.

On electric bikes, it is incredibly important, as we have already heard from so many hon. Members, that we get people back on to their bikes with confidence. We need to take on board the shocking obesity figures that are continually presented to Members and to see that, while electric bikes can be a real step up to exercise, they can also help other people to step down without having to revert to cars.

What consideration has the Minister given to the cycle to work scheme and the opportunities that that could bring for electric bikes? The Cycle to Work Alliance has clearly said that there should be £1,000 grants for bikes and safety equipment and £2,500 for electric bikes. Will the Minister look at that proposal and report back to the House on how we will move forward? If grants from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles are available for electric cars and motorbikes, why can they not be available for electrically assisted bikes, too? The benefits of that would be even greater in the future.

The Opposition have been clear: we will be ambitious, whether on development, manufacturing or use. I trust that the Minister will want to match our approach as we clean up and green up our transport system.

Transport for the South East

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on what has been an incredibly constructive debate this afternoon. He was absolutely right to set the tone and say that transport should be about serving our wider economy. It plays an important role.

We find ourselves yet again debating transport across the south-east, which has been a regular theme in my role as the shadow Minister for Transport. It is significant because we know that 9.2 million people live across the south-east region and investment is therefore really important, which we must get right as we move forward. As the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said, this matter is not only about the economy. It is about housing and infrastructure and making sure that we get a wider connectivity, and we must recognise the importance of that.

Transport infrastructure requires a strategic approach, not least because of its significance to London, but also because far better orbital routes are needed to rebalance the London focus back into the region to develop wider regional economic opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made the point about how investment in transport is crucial if we are to see the revitalisation of our coastal towns. Across the ports in the south-east there is currently concern, however, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) said, about the customs arrangements that could well operate in a post-Brexit environment. The ports provide a vital gateway to the British economy. They are a major employer in the region and support millions of passengers each year. Business is dependent on the pace by which freight flows through the ports and moves onto its onward journey. Customs equivalence is therefore essential, and the whole industry is nervous about the Government narrative, and the contemplation of less favourable terms.

The technology that the Prime Minister has raised to address a bad deal does not currently exist, so it would be years before technology could undertake the task required. With her hard Brexit approach, there is a risk that ever more lorries will stack up on local and main roads or, more likely, that they will not come at all. The roads infrastructure cannot cope as things are now, but that would be a challenge too far. The road freight infrastructure deficit and the lack of lorry parks were exacerbated by the latest fiasco of not following process and having to scrap the lorry park plans at Stanford West. Local people’s calls for the Government to get things sorted out have been ignored. Operation Stack needs decisions to be taken now, and actions to be expedited.

The rail network always dominates the debate, and its fragmentation creates barriers not only between the London and south-east footprints, but within the south-east, which has hosted a plethora of rail operators over time. The lack of capacity is straining the infrastructure, but the Government have been too slow in managing the avoidable mismanagement of the services, not least on Govia Thameslink Railway. We are nine months on from the publication of the Gibb report, whose importance has been mentioned in the debate. It is important for the Minister to update the House on progress that the Government have made with the recommendations in the report.

We have heard how fragmentation, and the issues with Southern across the network, have been a distraction from the provision of what I would call basic passenger services, including wi-fi, which, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) said, is essential for increasing productivity.

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend’s speech about the region’s transport challenges is a tour de force, and I am grateful. The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) made the point incredibly well about the lack of wi-fi, and some of the technological advances that we are missing, but it is worth pointing out that most trains running from Hove to Chichester do not even have toilets on them. They are class 313 trains, which were mostly built in 1976, before most of the Members present were even born. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the technological advances that have been mentioned we need to get really good rolling stock, so that people who work on the trains, as well as passengers, can from time to time use a toilet?

[Rachael Maskell]

I could not put that better than my hon. Friend has done. Toilets on trains are a public health issue as much as anything, and we need to make sure that the transport system can provide all passengers with the basics. That would be Labour’s focus on the transport system—seeing it as a service to the public, and therefore ensuring that the infrastructure is in place.

I want to discuss devolution, because it is important that decisions can be taken as close as possible to the communities that they affect, so that local expertise can be invested into the transport system. Westminster currently has far too much power, and the level of centralisation of decision making by the Secretary of State for Transport and his Department is unbelievably constraining. It also ignores local advocacy. We must see devolution as about moving powers and resources from Westminster to the regions. We do not want new bodies to become talking shops; we want them to have power to make a difference to their communities. Transport for the North was recently established, and it has powers of strategy setting and advocacy but still has to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State.

Earlier this week I raised concerns about the inequality in decision making between Scotland and Wales. The country is becoming a patchwork of entirely different powers, and some areas have no voice at all. It is a mosaic of chaos and confusion, leaving all frustrated. I advocate redress and with a Labour Government the public will be confident in how strategic planning will be embedded across the transport system, giving devolution a strong place across the country, with no one left behind, and equality as things move forward.

That brings me back to transport in the south-east. I welcome Councillor Keith Glazier to the Public Gallery. I was reading some statements made by Councillor Tony Page, who also sits on the shadow board of Transport for the South East, which was launched last month, in which he highlighted why the region was plunged into chaos after the Government scrapped the former regional transport board in 2010, and set out the regional and strategic focus that is needed. I realise that the Secretary of State is now trying to make up for lost time. However, I must emphasise the slowness of the pace of reinstatement of the board. More could be done to bring it forward from 2020 to 2019, and I urge the Minister to do that and make sure that the process does not continue to be so protracted. The blueprints for regional boards are already out there, and I want the Minister to put more emphasis on bringing things forward. There is cross-party support for doing it by 2019. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

Since I have been in post, I have listened to numerous debates, questions and MPs’ concerns about the need to future-proof the south-east’s transport infrastructure and investment. I recognise the inequality that has grown across the nation with regard to transport spend, and it is vital to redress that, for the sake of the economy and communities of the north, but it is no secret that the south-east’s infrastructure is creaking and that at times things have almost ground to a halt for passengers and freight on roads and rail. The region hosts the UK’s most significant airports, and yet connectivity between them is poor, and air pollution from ground access alone is poisoning communities. Those are urgent matters, and there has to be a regional approach to them now.

We just seem to move from one underwhelming environmental piece of the Heathrow expansion plan to the next. It has, to date, failed to address the serious environmental standards that are demanded. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is right to press the Minister about the importance of the western link into Heathrow—just four miles of track to improve air quality significantly and bring about modal shift back on to the railways.

Labour cannot stress enough the urgency of improved infrastructure links to the many important coastal ports, and the fact that rail and road connections to most of them are nearing full capacity, if they have not reached that point already. Without the use of strategic regional intelligence to future-proof the transport system, the country will continue to stumble forward to the next hurdle. Devolution is also urgently needed to drive a sustainable transport system in the south-east. The heavily congested road and rail networks demand a completely different approach. Seventy-one per cent. of people currently commute by road. We need a modal shift away from car reliance and its environmental consequences. The Government have spent a lot of time in court defending the indefensible with respect to the nation’s poor air quality. Instead, they should bring the focus of a strategic vision for the transport system.

As is, sadly, often the case, buses have not yet been mentioned in the debate. Nevertheless, a strategic bus plan in the region is important, and I wish to ask the Minister what investment his Government are putting into the next generation of sustainable buses. We hear much about cars, including the significant investment in electric cars, but that will not solve the issue of congestion because there will still be an equivalent volume of vehicles in the south-east, and the roads cannot cope with that. Many journeys carried out by car could, as an alternative, take place by bus, and bus tech is really important for the future. We must invest in R and D in bus tech, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s plans on that and their focus on our bus network.

Labour has focused on buses in recent weeks. We will offer all those under 25 free bus travel where there is municipal ownership—rightly putting buses back under the control of local authorities to provide a public service, rather than allowing bus companies to cherry-pick the most profitable routes. In a region with the highest age demographic, that point will not be lost.

[Mr Dhesi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must fully support the work of Slough Borough Council, which is trying desperately to ensure that bus services continue in the area? A current operator has decided that certain routes will no longer be operational, but the council needs support from the Government. As yet, that support has not been forthcoming. Does she agree that the Government need to step in and support local councils?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

It is crucial that local authorities such as Slough Borough Council have control over bus routes. Buses are servants of the community and must determine how best to service the wider needs of that community. Quite simply, bus operators put other interests such as the profits they make above the service they provide. We must ensure that people again have confidence in their bus service. We have seen how successful that has been here in the capital, where a real investment has been made, and we are clear that local authorities must again have that control over the bus system.

Finally, I wish to mention the promotion of active travel across the region. Cycling and walking have not featured in today’s debate, but they should be the transport mode of choice, particularly for short journeys. Sadly, however, the car is often seen as the most convenient way to travel because of the barriers that have been put in people’s way. What does the Minister plan for the south-east regarding the promotion of cycling and walking? To date, I believe that the Government’s plans have not been ambitious enough to see a modal shift or a real embrace of the cycling and walking agenda.

In conclusion, it is vital to have a far more strategic approach to transport planning across the south-east to ensure that resources are in the right place, as well as a longer-term vision. As we have heard, start-stop control periods do not give authorities enough time for substantial planning. We must advance our transport system, because it is imperative that we rebuild our economy and build a sustainable environment for the future, whether for freight or for passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I was coming to the specific issues that have been raised. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the current roads investment strategy scheme includes a package of improvements to the existing route. We expect consultation to start in spring 2020, and are providing funding toward a feasibility study for a larger-scale bypass. Those options are being developed as we speak.

If I may press on, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to STBs. The Secretary of State will consider each on its individual merits, and the creation of bespoke arrangements for each STB will reflect the varying local transport and economic growth needs of the area. Creating these organisations permanently by statute is a serious matter and is not to be undertaken lightly. It requires the proper level of local consensus and commitment, but if it is done properly, the payoff is that the entity increases its impact and influence, as well as its longevity, and therefore has the potential to play a role in delivering transformational change.

The shadow Minister raised Operation Stack and the M20. We will recall that the disruption in 2015 was not brought about by any Brexit-related activity but by unions and by other factors. As she will be aware, the Department has asked Highways England to develop and deliver an interim solution to mitigate the worst effects of traffic disruption on the M20 by March 2019. A series of potential options can be used as part of that, and our goal with all of those is to allow non-port traffic to continue to travel in both directions.

One colleague mentioned the extension of Crossrail to Abbey Wood. I can confirm that the route to Abbey Wood is safeguarded, from our point of view, but the focus in the first instance, as one might imagine, must be to deliver Crossrail on time.

One perfectly understands why hon. Members mentioned A27 investment. They should be aware that we expect to make preferred route announcements for the improvements at Worthing and Lancing, and for the bypass at Arundel, by summer 2018.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) mentioned the Heathrow rail link. He knows that that important proposal will be considered alongside other national priorities through the planning process for the next control period. That will ensure that the rail link provides maximum benefit for passengers, and will allow us to understand the journey opportunities and other possibilities that such a link could provide.

I was asked whether the concerns of Gravesham residents will be reflected in the decision on the lower Thames crossing. I can confirm that Highways England will continue to work with all stakeholders.

It is a little hard, and self-contradictory and inaccurate, for the shadow Minister to accuse the Government of introducing too much centralisation. Let us not forget that, since 2010, the Government have created local enterprise partnerships, metro mayoralties, Transport for the North, Transport for the South East and other sub-national transport bodies. They do represent not centralisation but devolution. It is self-contradictory to say that too much centralisation is going on and that devolution has created a patchwork or mosaic. With devolution comes diversity and difference. Part of the strength of devolution as an idea is precisely that we can take advantage of the best efforts and the best opportunities and examples used locally and the creativity that pushing power down unleashes.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the Minister recognise that Transport for the North was absolutely clear that it wanted the electrification of the Transpennine route? The Secretary of State denied that opportunity to TfN. While the Government have created spaces for dialogue, they certainly have not given power, which is what devolution has to be about.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will know that TfN became a statutory body literally weeks ago. These are very early days. There remains a role for national policy making where issues of cost and benefit, passenger satisfaction and the proper spending of public money are in play—that is entirely as it should be. The key point is that TfN exists and is functioning. It is working hard to reflect the interests of the constituencies and the economic priorities of its diverse region, which we massively welcome.

The shadow Minister offers what she calls a completely different approach. Since our approach is long term, strategic and integrated, and involves a significant increase in funding, I wonder which part of long term, strategic, integrated or higher funded her new approach will differ from.

[Rachael Maskell]

I will again draw on the electrification example and the words of sheer frustration coming from the rail industry at the Government’s stop-start approach to control period 5. The industry has seen only blocks of funding, as opposed to the Government looking at the 30-year planning process needed across the rail network, which Labour will certainly adopt.

[Jesse Norman]

It is certainly a helpful clarification that the shadow Minister’s comments apply only to rail. I thank her for that.

The shadow Minister raised bus tech. She will know that bus companies are investing significantly in new ticketing technologies. We rightly fund them to the tune of, I think, a couple of billion pounds a year through the bus service operators grant. The proposal she seems to be making amounts to expropriation of the bus companies if a Labour Government are elected. That seems to me to be not only economically unwise but thoroughly contrary to the interests of passengers.

Finally, the shadow Minister raised cycling and walking. I invite Members to raise their hand if they cycled to the House of Commons today.

[Rachael Maskell]

indicated assent.

[Jesse Norman]

I am delighted. I congratulate the shadow Minister for sharing my commitment to the cycling and walking investment strategy. I assure her that our new cycling and walking review is gathering an enormous number of good ideas about how we can put public money and better regulation, co-ordination and co-operation to better support cycling and walking. She is absolutely right to raise the importance of this issue and the importance of modal shift, and I thoroughly concur. She will know that, as a result of our cycling and walking investment strategy, public funding for those areas has roughly trebled since 2010. That is a record on which I would like us to continue to build.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We made the decisions about electrification on the midland main line and the line between Cardiff and Swansea on the simple basis that spending hundreds of millions or billions of pounds to achieve the same journey times in the same trains was not sensible. The trains on the Great Western route are already in operation, delivering services to people in Swansea, for whom it is a great and important investment. Trains on the midland main line require the addition of one engine to provide a little bit of extra acceleration, but they already exist, and will be great for that line as well. So let us hear none of this nonsense from Opposition Members. In fact, during the years when they were in government, this was their policy: they believed that what was important was capacity and delivery, not electrification, and I agreed with them.

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

Facts matter. In a written statement on 20 July last year, the Secretary of State said that with bi-mode trains it would be possible to

“achieve the same significant improvements to journeys”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 72WS.]

However, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), it is clear from National Audit Office reports that that statement cannot be correct.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Wrong question.

[Rachael Maskell]

No, this was about the Cardiff to Swansea route as well.

Why did the Secretary of State give those assurances? Now that he has come to the Dispatch Box, will he apologise?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear. I stand by every word that I said then. We will deliver smart new trains and improved journey times for passengers on the midland main line, as we are currently doing and will continue to do on the Great Western main line, and as we will do on the east coast main line and the transpennine route. [Interruption.] As I have said, we will also deliver new trains providing better services for passengers on the midland main line. The only difference made by £1 billion of spending would be a one-minute saving in the journey time, and that is not good value for taxpayers’ money.

Rail Announcement

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but I am perplexed as to why he has come to Parliament to announce a set of administrative arrangements. There are so many pressing rail issues that the Secretary of State should be bringing to the House, not least the promise to come back to the House about future arrangements on the east coast, which was of course due weeks ago, rather than to announce invitations to tender for rail franchises. If this House spent all its time looking at every franchise, we would not get through any other business. The statement is simply thin gruel. Once again it sets out vague aspirations and possible options. Yet again it is evidence that the Government will not set out a strategic direction, but instead just delegate decisions to the private sector.

There are huge questions about the recent history of track and train alliances. That did not work on the south-western railway; it failed. Why will it be any different under this partnership? Today’s announcement about an announcement is setting the course of the Government’s real priority, which is privatisation of the infrastructure: a partnership with a private company, but extending its grip into the infrastructure, too.

Why would the Secretary of State bring the profit motive back into safety-critical parts of the railway? We must never forget why Labour brought Railtrack back into public ownership: it was for the safety of the great British public. None of us on the Labour Benches will ever forget the past, and how private profit was the objective. With private, we know that the objective is to put money into the shareholders’ pockets, not to invest in the public. This is why Labour’s plan to rescue the railways and bring them back into public ownership is more imperative than ever; the public demand it. Labour would never take such a risk with public safety, nor with public money.

Last month’s supplementary estimate report said that the Department for Transport’s rail revenue from train operators was down nearly £250 million this year and a Treasury bail-out of £60 million was needed. That is hardly evidence of a system working, is it?

Franchising has completely failed, with 13 direct awards and extensions to contracts. The west coast, however, is the jewel in the crown of the rail network. The Labour Government spent £9 billion upgrading it, but now the Secretary of State wants to flog off the family silver before it is even in public hands.

The UK railways have the best safety record in Europe; will the Secretary of State’s plans guarantee this excellent safety record? The UK railways’ safety record has been based on a rigorous risk management system; how will these plans ensure that the risk management approach will continue across the whole network? Is this not a return to the bad old days of Railtrack?

Of course, the railway is about the growth of our economy, and the Secretary of State is handing over responsibility for the economy of the north to these private companies; no wonder people do not believe in the northern powerhouse. Why will the Secretary of State not do what the last Labour Government did in 2009 and take this franchise back into public ownership? That is the best way to preserve the taxpayers’ money and the public interest.

Labour’s integrated public rail will benefit the economy, the environment, the Treasury and the public. We look forward to the right to run our railways again.

[Chris Grayling]

This is the first time that I have been told off for being informative to the House about what we are doing. We are publishing today a pathfinding franchise agreement that will pave the way for Britain’s most expensive and most substantial new railway for more than 100 years, and I am explaining to the House how we are approaching the issue of making that transition. This does not seem to me to be something I should not be informing the House about, but I am always surprised in this place.

The trouble with Labour is that it just thinks everything private is bad; it seems to be a completely ideological statement. After many years when the Labour party took a relatively common-sense approach to the balance between public and private, it has now walked a million miles away from that: everything private is bad, and it wants to nationalise everything and drive investment out of this country. Let us take an example. Labour cannot explain to us, in its plans to renationalise the railways, what it would do with what will by then be approximately £19 billion of privately owned trains on the network. All the new trains that are coming now and all the new trains that are being delivered in the future are privately owned. Where will the money come from to pay for those, and to pay for the new trains in the future? We get no answer at all from Labour on any of that.

The hon. Lady talked about safety, and safety is paramount in this country. We have an excellent regulator, and an excellent chief inspector of railways who does a very effective job, in my view, of holding the public and private sectors’ feet to the fire to ensure that we maintain safety standards on the railways. That is something that will continue for the future. She also asked about the northern powerhouse. Let us look at how little investment in the railways took place in the north when Labour was in power. We are replacing every single train in the north, and I have just announced a £3 billion upgrade to the trans-Pennine rail line. We have done upgrades to the Calder Valley line and electrified the line between Liverpool and Manchester. We are currently electrifying the line to Preston. Those are things that never happened under Labour. The replacement of every single train in the north of England is something new or nearly new. None of that happened during Labour’s 13 years in power.

The hon. Lady wants to take the west coast main line back into public ownership, but that is a railway line that is performing well and has very high levels of passenger satisfaction. The last thing we would want to do is to hand it back to the Government. Let us allow it to carry on succeeding. That is what we are aiming to do. We are setting a path that will lead us to what I hope will be a fantastic new world for Britain’s railways when HS2 opens after 2026.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to ensure that passengers get the compensation payments to which they are entitled. Of course, the compensation structure is much more complex and there are far more issues than those that have been highlighted in the media in recent days. I am very clear that the move that we are going through this year to provide digital ticketing across the whole network will make it much more straightforward to give passengers the compensation that they deserve and need, and enable them to do so simply, without having to fill out long, complicated forms.

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

The estimates report was very revealing, showing how hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on compensation, underwriting failure and bail-outs. In control period 4 alone, a staggering £339.4 million of public money—our constituents’ money—was handed over to private operators, while passengers were forced to pay over the odds to travel. How much more public money will the Secretary of State pass to these failed rail operators?

[Chris Grayling]

The Opposition keep talking about the huge amounts that are paid, but they fail to understand that less than £3 in every £100 that is spent on the railways remains with the companies. The rest is going into the biggest infrastructure investment programme, better services and newer trains—the kind of improvements that people could only dream of in 13 years of Labour Government, but which they are getting under a Conservative Government.

[Rachael Maskell]

That is certainly no apology to our constituents. The Secretary of State’s lack of due diligence has caused chief exec David Brown, of embattled Southern rail fame, to announce that he has done a—expletive deleted—good job, and that he will bid again for the next franchise contracts. Virgin and Stagecoach will do the same. These companies are on a huge gravy train at the expense of taxpayers, so why is the Secretary of State being held to ransom and why he is even prepared to consider rewarding their failure?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady talks about a privatised gravy train. I would encourage her to look at the conversation that the French Prime Minister had about a state railway, where he said:

“The dilapidated network, delays, abysmal debt…The situation is alarming, not to say untenable. The French, whether they take the train or not, pay more and more for a public service that works less and less well”.

I would say to her constituents that I am delighted that over the next 12 to 18 months the people of York are going to see every single train, pretty much, that serves their station replaced as new, or brand new trains—trains that they have not seen for decades.

A5 Upgrade

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on not only giving us an incredibly good history lesson today, but extolling the virtues of all that is planned for his constituency and the surrounding area.

When we are talking about the scale of 60,000 new homes, we have to have a serious discussion about whether we are just talking about development of a new express way, or if we need to look at other modes of transport that are available for local communities as well. If we are talking about that scale of economic opportunity, particularly with the developments that we have heard about this afternoon and the potential of 3,000 new jobs, we need to think about how people are travelling to and from work. While the road provides one option, I think that where we are building significant new developments we also need to start exploring other modes, particularly the future of rail.

As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) just highlighted, HS2 should be about creating new opportunity, as opposed to limiting choices for people in the area. If HS2 does not open up new opportunities and does not connect, we have to ask serious questions about what the point of it is in the first place. Although we can see that new stations in places such as Toton will provide new economic development, we need to make sure that everybody along the route benefits from greater connectivity. That will be absolutely essential as we scrutinise the route’s development, the plans moving forward, and the connectivity.

I believe that a very strong case has been put forward this afternoon by hon. Members. I wonder if the costing of £10 million will be the final sum proposed. It sounds like a rather small amount of money, so I was a bit confused by that sum. We know that improvements to roads are incredibly important. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke about removing the rat runs from the villages, as they create such a nuisance. We heard about the distress of constituents over delays, which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) highlighted. Delays do not just eat into a person’s evenings, night after night; they also affect whether someone gets the chance to get home to see their kids in the evening. For some, it will mean whether they can chose to go for a particular form of employment. It is therefore really important that all factors are considered when looking at new developments.

The other important point made by a number of hon. Members was on safety. Although capacity is vital and should be looked at in the future, travel safety has to be the prime consideration. Road improvements, whether changing the camber on the road or providing safe access on and off the highway, are vital. I am sure the Minister will hear that.

I also want to draw out the process of decision making. I have several concerns about phase 1 of the road investment strategy. Although hon. Members may well have put forward a strong case today, we know that a number of projects have been delayed in phase 1. Nineteen schemes have been pushed back into RIS 2, which means that resource that could have been dedicated to the project highlighted today—the expressway—could be delayed in further planning and payment processes. We need to look at that. Six schemes have been cancelled altogether—or, I should say, “paused for further review”. Sixteen projects have been delayed within the RIS 1 period, and there is a bunching up of 54 projects at the end of the phase. That clearly has an impact on the ability to deliver the programme at the end of the phase, in 2019-20 in particular.

In recruitment and skills, we are also seeing feast and famine across the construction sector that we really need to look at. We also need to make sure that we are able to recruit and train locally. The feast-and-famine approach means that people have to go further afield, and as a result, the costs of projects go up.

I would like the Minister to commit to moving on from that feast-and-famine approach—not least because it builds expectations from constituents. When the de-electrification of the trans-Pennine route was announced, I know from my own constituents how hope in the project plummeted. It is really important to do due diligence now, to make sure that every mode of transport has been explored to bring the best economic value into the midlands area. If there is a commitment, it is important they are adhered to in a timely way. We cannot have overprogramming and overpromising, then a deletion of expectation. I trust the Minister will speak to that in his contribution.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

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

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

I have listened carefully to today’s debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I have heard the concerns and opportunities that the second phase of HS2 will bring. The high-speed rail journey began under the last Labour Government, who recognised the need for greater capacity and better connectivity.

The Victorian rail network has served us well, but nearly 200 years on it is overstretched. If we are to see a significant modal shift in the future—as Labour encourages—and if we want to see rail as the vehicle of choice for distance travel, we cannot stand back and do nothing, nor should we. It was from the Victorian age that our nation witnessed the foresight of a new generation of engineers to radically advance our country and the world. Yet today our trains are slow, crowded, and depend on outdated technology and infrastructure. It is therefore vital that, as a nation, we put ourselves in the driving seat again, strive to be world leaders and propagate the next generation of engineers, with both women and men taking on new careers in the sector.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it was not only the engineers of the Victorian age—great as they were—but also the capital that was provided which ensured that these schemes were actually put into effect?

[Rachael Maskell]

We could spend a long time talking about the shenanigans that also took place in this House over the creation of the Victorian railways.

Future capacity is vital. Although longer trains, digital signalling and infrastructure upgrades connecting with new rolling stock may get us through the current period, we will need more lines if we are to look further ahead. If we are to develop more lines, it is right that we seriously consider where they go.

HS2 gives us a real opportunity to think about the future of our country and how we connect it to address the unacceptable levels of inequality across Britain. HS2 is not just about the route itself but about freeing up capacity on the west coast main line and on our roads. This will bring benefit to current road and rail users, as well as creating new opportunities for further development of passenger and, importantly, freight paths on the west coast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) highlighted and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked for.

Of course, Labour would, as always, be looking at the bigger picture, embedding HS2 at the heart of a wider rail and transport strategy. It would be absolutely nonsensical to make such significant investment in a new rail line if we were not properly upgrading the north-west to north-east routes—the HS3 routes. The Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment, but I hope that he will take heed of this. It is not too late to reverse his decision to de-electrify the plans and put power back into the northern powerhouse. The cities in the north demand it. We believe that HS2, integrated with a new, dynamic rail plan, must bring economic investment to the midlands and the north, creating good jobs for a secure future, not least with the new skills required in designing and constructing HS2 through the 30,000 jobs it will create.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) eloquently set out a strong economic case for proper connectivity through a regional rail hub at Crewe, this being at the centre of a network to feed Cheshire and the wider counties, and north Wales. That is vital for the future economy of Crewe. I can think of no better politician than my hon. Friend to speak up for her town and to make that case.

We must remember that HS2 is not an entirety in itself but a bridge to enable economic growth and industrial investment. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) made a similar point, again focusing on how to build the economies of the north-west by ensuring connectivity. It is vital that HS2 talks to the region, and we must dissect this in Committee to ensure that it does. I note his calling for the line to north Wales through Chester. We should not dismiss this opportunity for some of the communities in the UK who most need this infrastructure stimulus. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) also stressed the need to focus on connectivity. A clear call for integration has been made—one that Labour will support.

Phase 2a is set to deliver nearly £4 billion of benefits over the 60-year appraisal period, with a cost-benefit ratio of 1:9 and wider economic impacts. This indicates upper-end medium value for money, but accelerating this phase will represent very high value for money. Around Crewe, we will see 40,000 new jobs and 7,000 homes, opening up the life chances that have not been seen in the area before and starting to address the complete economic imbalance that we have in our country. Extending this to the Constellation Partnership will deliver 100,000 new homes and 120,000 jobs—20,000 in the Cheshire science corridor alone, putting the UK on the international stage in terms of science and technology.

I assure the House that Labour will never stand in the way of providing such opportunities to communities that have been crying out for investment—a point powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill).

[Jonathan Edwards]

I take the point that the hon. Lady is making. However, the KPMG report that looked into the impact of HS2 on various economies across the British state indicated that south Wales would be absolutely hammered. Is the Labour party not at all concerned about the economy of south Wales?

[Rachael Maskell]

Of course we are deeply concerned about the economy of south Wales. That is why we electrified the line to south Wales that helped to boost the economy in that region, and also ensured that HS2 fed into north Wales, helping the whole of the Welsh economy to grow.

We have some concerns, and it is absolutely right that there is tight scrutiny of every part of the project, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) highlighted. At a time when the economy continues to fail, not least in the north, Labour understands why people are questioning the economic benefit of spending £55.7 billion on a rail route. This 36-mile section will cost £3.5 billion. At a time when our public services are crying out for investment, it is right that critical questions are asked about the project. However, the benefits are also clear, and it cannot be an either/or. This is about getting the Government’s economic strategy right. We will make sure that every decision brings maximum inward investment, as the economic opportunity is already estimated to be £92 billion across HS2.

We hear the concerns about the environment. It is vital that real consideration is given in Committee to the impact of construction and of the final network on the environment. That cannot just be about mitigation elsewhere, and I will push for us to maximise this opportunity. I will also want to ensure in Committee that modern, advanced engineering is able to find answers to the many questions raised about the environment and how the habitats directive, no matter which side of Brexit we are on, is seen in its fullest sense.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke particularly well on behalf of his constituents, highlighted how important it is to ensure that his constituents’ concerns are picked up. I assure him that in Committee, we will listen carefully to the points he has to make. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) spoke of her vast experience in dealing with HS2. It is really important that lessons are learned and that there is good communication, and we must certainly end corridor deals.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady just said that in Committee, we will do such and such. I think she may have misunderstood the nature of the procedure. It will be a hybrid Bill Select Committee, not a Committee of the House.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do understand the process. Petitions will be brought forward, and we will listen carefully to them.

Labour will want to ensure that all opportunities for cyclists and walkers are harnessed from the HS2 route. Not much has been said about that to date. Labour is committed to cleaning up our air and our environment by cleaning up on the actions of Government when it comes to transport. Labour believes that investment in public and, I must add, publicly owned transport—we are not going back to the past, but moving forward to the future—is the way forward to deliver a rail system fit for the 21st century.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been a fiscal settlement which has changed over time, very much in consultation with and with the support of the Scottish Government. Of course, any changes to UK funding in England will be followed by Barnett consequentials, with an impact in Scotland.

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

Well, investment does not seem to be working that well. The Carillion staff working on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston electrification project had their contract suspended this week. So can the Minister clarify this: should all these workers only expect the jobcentre phone number, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, or can he guarantee that these works, and all similar infrastructure undertakings, will continue to completion, with the current workforce, apprentices, supply chain and project plan?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government have made it clear that anyone turning up to work on those schemes through subcontractors will continue to be paid in the normal way. It is important to get that message out there, and not to spread misinformation or misunderstanding about it.

[Rachael Maskell]

The problem with the Minister’s reply is that the vultures are already circling over the Carillion contract carcases, which will place these projects into future risk, not least as companies such as Interserve and Mitie have had profit warnings served in the last six months. So what due diligence has he instructed officials to undertake of all contractors, and will he end his market speculation by taking these contracts back in house?

[Jesse Norman]

Had the hon. Lady done her homework, she would know that there is almost no exposure to the rail sector through the companies that she mentioned. The fact of the matter is that the contracts have often been reinforced and proofed. Certainly on the road side, which I obviously know best—I can refer her question to the rail Minister—we have joint-venture partners that are jointly and severally obliged to pick up these obligations, and they will do so.