Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
1. What discussions he has had with the French authorities on preventing disruption to cross-channel services from the port of Dover and channel tunnel in summer 2015.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have had regular contact with Alain Vidalies, the French Transport Minister, and his predecessor Frédéric Cuvillier, both in the run up to and during the current dispute.
Damian Collins
Operation Stack has been in force on the Kent motorways for 14 of the past 28 days, closing the M20 and causing chaos on Kent’s roads. What consideration is the Minister giving at the moment to emergency measures that can be brought in this summer if there are further delays, to alleviate the pressure on the people of Kent and keep our roads open?
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The road situation in Kent has been intolerable for many local people, although it has to be said that because of Operation Stack we have managed to keep the coaches and tourist traffic flowing. A working group led by Kent County Council is looking at all these issues, considering short and long-term mitigation of the problem.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister is in regular dialogue with his French counterparts, but given that the gangs of people traffickers particularly change their tactics constantly, what measures are being discussed to resolve the problem of traffickers simply moving further away from Calais to attack lorry drivers and get into their vehicles, in order to circumvent the steps that have been taken at Calais?
Mr Goodwill
The Home Secretary made a statement on this problem on 14 July, and I know that measures are being put in place, including fencing, at Coquelles to try to improve the situation. I spoke yesterday to my opposite number in the Republic of Ireland, who expressed the very same fears about lorry drivers being put at risk by migrants, who may engage in aggressive tactics.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his update on the action to try to avoid the continuation of Operation Stack. As my fellow Kent MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), has said, it is causing untold disruption and misery to local people as well as to lorry drivers. Does the Minister consider it an option to continue Operation Stack during the summer? For my constituents, an alternative solution as soon as possible really is a priority.
Mr Goodwill
We continue to keep all options under review. I know that it has been suggested that Manston airfield may be used to store trucks, although that is 43 miles from Dover. One or two issues that can be addressed more urgently include queue-jumping. Queue-jumpers cause congestion on local roads and they also cause problems when they get to the front of the queue, when there is usually an altercation before they are sent back. We are looking at how we can make Operation Stack work more efficiently, but looking at alternatives too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Tourists going to France are being inconvenienced by delays. Lorry drivers are accosted by migrants in great numbers. There is clearly a lack of confidence in the cross-channel routes at this moment in time. What can the Minister do to reassure tourists and lorry drivers that they can cross the channel without any bother whatsoever?
Mr Goodwill
Obviously, this is a problem on the other side of the channel, of which the French authorities are all too well aware. We anticipate that it will be a continuing problem, but it is of course made worse by the industrial action in Calais. Although Calais is open, it still is not operating at full capacity. DFDS ferries are not able to use the port, and two of the five berths at Calais are occupied by striking workers.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had on the proposed EU port services regulation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I represented the UK at Transport Council when this was discussed last October. I have also met the European Parliament rapporteur, the hon. Gentleman’s socialist colleague, Knut Fleckenstein. My most recent discussions were on Wednesday this week at the all-party maritime and ports group chaired by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).
Stephen Kinnock
The previous shipping Minister indicated that the Government would be able to use domestic regulation to counter these regulations if they were passed in Europe, but the details of how it would be done remain unclear. Will the Minister reassure us that he has a clear plan of action to protect the UK’s interests and block any regulations that damage port business and threaten workers’ interests in my constituency?
Mr Goodwill
Our position is quite clear: competition between ports is the best way to ensure efficient operation within them. I am pleased that the general approach is better than the Commission’s original proposal. We have the competitive market exemption and more discretion on issues such as pilotage. I would certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss particular issues affecting Port Talbot, which is one of our most important ports.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland and what representations has he had from Northern Ireland ports about these regulations? Can he give an assurance that ports will be prevented from having to disclose the commercial information that these regulations will require so that the commercial operations can remain?
Mr Goodwill
I had unanimous support for our position that this is designed to fix a problem that we do not have in the United Kingdom. However, there are problems in other European ports, and cross-channel business and business across other seaways is important to the UK as an exporting nation. It is important to get a reasonable conclusion to these discussions, which I expect to happen under the Dutch presidency next year.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of recent trends in bus (a) fares and (b) service use in England.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of trends in the rate of take-up of low-emission vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
As more models come into the market, businesses and consumers are recognising that low-emission vehicles are cheaper, greener, and a great driving experience. Thanks to a strong framework of Government support, more than four times as many ultra low-emission vehicles were registered in the first three months of 2015 as were registered in the first three months of 2014. Last year, one in four electric cars bought in Europe was made in Britain.
Jeremy Lefroy
The United Kingdom is one of the world’s leading producers of low-emission engines. For instance, Perkins Engines, in my constituency, manufactures large engines for power generation, and Jaguar Land Rover, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), manufactures vehicles. What further measures is my hon. Friend taking to encourage UK motorists to start using low-emission engines?
Mr Goodwill
Never mind “one of the world’s leading producers”. I think that we are the world’s leading producer, given that all the i8 hybrid engines for BMWs are made at BMW’s £500 million Hams Hall plant, Donington Park has been chosen as the global headquarters for Formula E, and Geely is investing £250 million to make plug-in hybrid taxis at the new plant in Coventry, thus creating 1,000 jobs. So we are indeed leading the world. As more manufacturers make these models available, more consumers will be given that option at their local showrooms.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Minister will know of the report that was submitted to the Economic Sub-Committee of the Cabinet which showed that the cost to our economy of air pollution from diesel and other vehicles was between £9 billion and £20 billion. When considering low emissions, will he take into account particulate matter—the PM 2.5—and nitrogen dioxide?
Mr Goodwill
Internal combustion engines produce pollutants which contribute to air quality problems. That is why we need to ensure that more people opt for green alternatives such as electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and other technologies that are becoming available.
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
A report published in today’s Financial Times reveals that, in 2010, 9,500 people died prematurely in London alone as a result of pollutants that are commonly found in fumes from diesel trucks, buses and cars. As well as the human cost, such pollutants carry a financial cost of up to £3.7 billion, just in the capital. Will the Government look at that report, and consider commissioning a similar report applying to the whole United Kingdom?
Mr Goodwill
There is a cross-party initiative on air quality. I should add that I came in on my bicycle this morning, so I have not contributed to any of the air quality problems in London.
We need to make further progress in rolling out low-emission vehicles, while ensuring that the electricity they use is produced in a sustainable way.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Figures published this week show the scale of the air quality challenge that faces London, in addition to the carbon dioxide challenge that faces us all, and other towns and cities have similar challenges ahead. Why, in the Budget, did the Chancellor impose a financial penalty on hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, putting them in the same band as cars with far higher emissions? Is it not time that the Chancellor talked to the Transport Secretary, and that both of them listened to what the industry is telling them?
Mr Goodwill
When consumers are deciding which vehicle to buy, they will consider not only the level of vehicle excise duty that they will pay—which, incidentally, will be zero in the case of the very cleanest cars—but the total life cost of the fuel that they will use. It is pretty much a no-brainer to buy the most fuel-efficient car possible, and to opt for a plug-in vehicle if that suits the consumer’s lifestyle.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of private investment in the bus industry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Over the past few years, many incidents have raised serious concerns over maritime safety in the coastal waters of the highlands and islands. Those concerns have not yet been addressed. Will the Minister agree to meet MPs from the constituencies representing the west coast of Scotland to discuss those concerns and the provision of emergency towing vessels in the area?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am happy to do so. I have already had briefings on the issue of emergency tugs in the area. I am pleased that we have recently rolled out our new search and rescue helicopters, which are providing a far better service to people in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
T5. Junction 10 on the M27 has been identified for vital upgrading to an all-moves junction. Such work is vital to support the strategic development area of Welborne, bringing 6,000 new homes. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those works will be taking place in the first half of this Parliament, and that the funding shortfall of £30 million will come from central Government?
Mr Goodwill
I had an informal meeting with the Prime Minister immediately after the meeting the hon. Lady mentions, and we discussed what measures can be put in place to try and improve the safety of cyclists, such as looking at how junctions can be redesigned. We are proud of our record so far on investment in cycling, and we would like to see more cities taking up the option of becoming a cycling city and reaching the £10 per head funding which the existing cycle cities have achieved.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State has just said that potholes are a nuisance and a menace, but they are incredibly dangerous as well, particularly for cyclists. Can he encourage local authorities to use the money that has now been provided to act urgently to repair potholes?
London’s Licensed Taxi Trade
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on securing this debate on London’s licensed taxi trade, which he presented in his usual passionate way. I know that many taxi drivers reside in his constituency, as indeed they do in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. By the way, before we get any further, may I make it clear that I will be travelling home tonight on two wheels? The only carbon dioxide I will be producing will have come from my own lungs.
Before I respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle industry. The Government are responsible for creating the legislative framework within which local licensing authorities license taxis and private hire vehicles. In London, responsibility for licensing rests with Transport for London. It is Transport for London’s responsibility to decide who is a suitable person to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, or a private hire operator’s licence.
Jim Shannon
Just last Thursday, in the middle of the tube strike, I took a taxi from here to Paddington. The taxi driver informed me that on eBay it is possible to purchase a driver’s licence and permit without any regulation. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said the same in his speech. Is the Minister aware of this and, if so, what steps can be taken to stop it?
Mr Goodwill
That would be illegal. Criminal record checks, and all the other checks that need to be made before somebody can ply their trade as a private hire driver, need to be carried out, so that would certainly be an illegal transaction.
It is the job of Transport for London to ensure that all its licensees comply with the rules and regulations that govern their industry. I understand my hon. Friend’s desire to raise these concerns on the Floor of the House, but as licensing is the responsibility of TfL, while I might be able to address his points, it is within TfL’s remit to act if necessary.
The taxi industry has played a key role in keeping London moving for many years and has a fine heritage. The addition of the private hire sector has helped to ensure that this form of transport is available to all, particularly supporting those who cannot rely on other public transport services. TfL licenses some 22,200 taxis and 66,200 private hire vehicles making 300,000 trips every day. These vehicles make a vital contribution to London’s economy and help to keep the city moving 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The availability of both taxis and private hire vehicles offers the travelling public real choice. They can either instantly hire a taxi on the street or at a taxi rank, or they can pre-book a taxi or private hire vehicle. When pre-booking, passengers can make an informed choice based on factors such as price, availability and quality.
Victoria Borwick
The Minister makes an important point about quantity. We are talking about the free flow of London traffic, and although we have seen this explosion in the number of private hire vehicles, it cannot be said to contribute to the smooth running of London or to reducing pollution levels in London. When considering legislation or regulation, I hope he might consider whether we need all these private hire vehicles. Are they not just polluting and clogging up our streets? As he said, he is fortunate to be healthy enough to ride a bicycle, for which I commend him, but he will be breathing in the fumes of all these private hire vehicles.
Mr Goodwill
Some local authorities limit the number of licences they issue, but that is not the case in London. My hon. Friend makes a valid point about how the number of vehicles circulating looking for trade can increase congestion and pollution—and let us not go into the issue of bicycle rickshaws.
London’s tax service is recognised as one of the best in the world, with high vehicle standards, including disabled access and skilled drivers. By learning the world-famous “knowledge” of London, London taxi drivers earn the unique right to ply for hire on the streets of the capital. Private hire vehicles offer a different service, also with high standards, but allowing the customer to choose who they travel with. This combination of taxi and private hire ensures that the needs of as many Londoners as possible can be met. Indeed, while it is easy to flag down a taxi in central London, one would have to wait a long time for a black cab to drive by in some of the suburbs.
The traditional London taxi, or black cab, has become an icon of the city, but time does not stand still and the market is changing. New technologies are providing new ways of engaging taxis and private hire vehicles, and the industry must adapt. Smartphone booking apps are now available for both taxis and private hire vehicles, offering passengers real choice, including faster pick-ups and options for sharing, which can reduce the cost for travellers.
With change, however, come challenges, and TfL, along with other licensing authorities in the country, is faced with the challenge of accommodating 21st century technology in 19th century legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne might be aware that TfL has recently completed a consultation on the regulations that govern private hire vehicles in the capital. This was in response to the developments in the industry I have described, including advances in technology and changes to how people engage and use private hire vehicles. The outcome of the consultation will be known later this year, and some of TfL’s proposals might address some of his constituents’ specific concerns. I hope they do.
I am aware of the major challenges to established businesses being presented by Uber and other new entrants to the market. I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend’s taxi-driving constituents. Like many people, I was made aware of Uber, following the taxi drivers’ protest on 11 June 2014—unfortunately providing priceless publicity for Uber. Indeed, some used Uber for the first time during that protest.
Uber London Ltd has been licensed by Transport for London as a private hire vehicle operator in London since 2012. The company has now applied for and been granted licences in 25 other licensing authorities in England. In order to be granted a licence, Uber must meet the same standards as any other privatised vehicle operator in the local authority area. Therefore 26 different authorities have decided that Uber is a fit and proper company.
I know that the London taxi trade fundamentally disagrees with the view of Transport for London on how Uber calculates a fare. Many members of the taxi trade consider Uber’s smartphone app to be essentially a taxi meter. Taxi meters are, of course, forbidden in London’s private hire vehicles. My hon. Friend may be aware that Transport for London has recognised that the law in respect of this issue is unclear and has applied to the High Court for a declaration. We must now let the court make its decision as the next step in the process.
My hon. Friend may be aware that last year the London Assembly transport committee began an investigation into taxi and private hire services in London. This scrutiny resulted in the transport committee making a number of recommendations to the Mayor and Transport for London on steps they could take to improve taxi and private hire services in London.
The committee was in some cases critical of the role of the taxi and private hire section of Transport for London and I understand that members of both London’s taxi and private hire vehicle trades gave evidence to this committee as to their dissatisfaction with Transport for London’s actions as the licensing authority. This committee is responsible for questioning and scrutinising the actions of the Mayor, and it is not for the Government to comment on local licensing matters or the actions of the committee.
My hon. Friend will be aware that in 2012 the Department for Transport asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation. This was against the backdrop of the Government’s red tape challenge and legislation dating back to the early years of Queen Victoria’s reign and the age of horse-drawn Hackney carriages. As we have heard, the advent of the cab was very much earlier. Since that time, there has been additional legislation to allow for the regulation of private hire vehicles, but the law remains complex and outdated.
The Law Commission undertook a very comprehensive review and last year published its final report, which contained recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The Law Commission’s report provided not only crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law, but solutions designed to make a difference to both the travelling public and those who work in the industry. Updated and simplified legislation will provide a modern and simple framework, which will in turn ensure public safety and provide the trade with certainty, therefore making growth and competition easier. The Government are currently considering the Law Commission’s recommendations, and we will respond in due course.
It has to be said that the traditional London taxi is not the greenest or the most sophisticated vehicle on the road. Indeed, in April this year, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles announced the launch of a £45 million fund to support the roll-out of ultra-low emission taxis across the United Kingdom. This included setting aside £25 million specifically for the Greater London area to help taxi drivers cover the cost of upgrading to a greener vehicle. The Mayor of London has pledged an additional £40 million, which creates a £65 million fund to encourage the development of the cleanest and greenest taxi fleet in the world.
At the same time, Geely, the company that owns the iconic London Taxi Company, announced plans for a new £250 million state-of-the-art facility to produce the next generation of low-emission London taxis in Ansty, near Coventry. Geely was awarded £17 million from the Government’s regional growth fund to build the facility, which will create 1,000 new jobs and ensure that the London taxi continues to be designed, developed and made in the United Kingdom.
Those measures demonstrate the Government’s support for the taxi trade throughout the country, and mean that the London taxi trade will play a leading role as we meet our climate change obligations.
The Government are aware of the changing landscape of the taxi and private hire vehicle industry, and of the impact that new means of engaging services are having on traditional business models. The Government also support innovation in all sectors of business, including new ways of running businesses, the use of technology, and the sharing economy. There is room in this industry for small and large businesses alike, but, whatever their size, all new market entrants must operate within the legislative framework, ensuring safety and security for the travelling public.
Question put and agreed to.
High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–
(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–
(a) amendments relating to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed railway in the vicinity of the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal in the parishes of Fradley and Streethay, King's Bromley and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
(b) amendments conferring additional power to carry out works in the Borough of Slough and in the parish of Iver in the County of Buckinghamshire for the purpose of providing a new Heathrow Express depot in the Borough of Slough (to the north east of Langley railway station), in consequence of the displacement of the existing depot because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;
(c) amendments conferring additional power to provide sidings for Crossrail services at Old Oak Common in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham that could be extended in the future to create a connection between the West Coast Main Line Railway and the Great Western Main Line;
(d) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in
i. the London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing;
ii. the parishes of Barton Hartshorn, Calvert Green, Chetwode, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, The Lee and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire;
iii. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
iv. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth, Radstone, Thorpe Mandeville and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire;
v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Curdworth, Kenilworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Southam, Stoneleigh, Stoneton, Wishaw and Moxhull and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;
vi. the parishes of Armitage with Handsacre, Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, King's Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
vii. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Chelmsley Wood and Hampton-in-Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull; and
viii. the City of Birmingham;
(e) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:
i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea;
ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;
iii. the parishes of Chetwode, Denham, Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon, Stoke Mandeville, Turweston, Twyford and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;
iv. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
v. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Greatworth, Marston St Lawrence, Radstone and Thorpe Mandeville in the County of Northamptonshire;
vi. the parishes of Coleshill, Curdworth, Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Radbourne and Stoneleigh in the County of Warwickshire;
vii. the parishes of Colwich, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, Hints with Canwell, King's Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Weeford in the County of Staffordshire;
viii. the parishes of Berkswell and Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;
ix. the City of Birmingham;
(f) amendments to the definition of "deposited statement" in clause 63(1) of the Bill to refer to supplementary environmental information provided in relation to matters which do not require an extension of the powers of the Bill to construct works or acquire land;
(g) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in sub paragraphs (a) to (f);
(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–
a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and
(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
The motion relates to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill that is currently before a Select Committee of this House. The role of that Committee is to hear petitions against the Bill from those who are, to use the legal term, “directly and specially affected” by it. The Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), has already heard more petitions in 11 months than the Crossrail Bill Select Committee dealt with in its entire 21 months of sitting.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
But does this not demonstrate the rather crass way in which HS2 initially dealt with our constituents? I should like to praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms). He has a unique ability to put constituents’ minds at ease when they feel tense as they appear before a Select Committee.
Mr Goodwill
I would extend that praise to the other members of the Committee, who have dealt very well with people who can be nervous in that situation. I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the work done by my officials at HS2, who have gone the extra mile to address some of the petition issues before they even needed to reach the Committee.
As intended, the process has led to many sensible changes to the scheme in order to address the needs and concerns of petitioners. Some of the changes have been agreed by HS2 Ltd dealing directly with petitioners, and some were recommended in the Select Committee’s recent interim report, to which the Government responded on 4 June. Many changes can be accommodated using existing powers, but some require the powers in the Bill to be extended—for example, when a change requires the use of land that is not included in the Bill. In such circumstances, an additional provision is required. This is effectively a mini-hybrid Bill, with its own environmental statement and petitioning period for those “directly and specially affected” by the changes.
The motion relates to an additional provision that, subject to it being passed, the Government intend to deposit on 13 July. The additional provision contains 125 changes, along the line of route beyond Camden, that have resulted from the petitioning process and from HS2 Ltd’s continued development of the design of the railway. The changes are mostly of a minor nature. They include the realignment of access routes and the diversion of footpaths following discussions with affected landowners, or the relocation of areas of ecological mitigation to reduce the impacts on farming operations. I am tempted to say that this is a tidying-up process, but I recall that that was how some described the Lisbon treaty.
There are, however, proposals for three significant changes. As already announced, we propose to realign the route in the Lichfield area so that it runs in a cutting rather than on an embankment, as well as moving the route away from the Trent and Mersey canal. This will enable the line to go under the A38, the South Staffordshire railway and the west coast main line, which will significantly reduce the visual impact of the railway in the area. I hope the House will welcome this example of the promoter seeking to take on board petitioners’ concerns and integrate them into the HS2 project where we are able to do so. I am particularly pleased that, in this case, the solution will be less expensive to deliver.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will the Minister tell the House what effect those route changes will have on the proposed journey times?
Mr Goodwill
They will have no effect at all on the journey times. This is about delivering the project by and large as planned. HS2 is more about capacity than it is about journey times. This is about addressing the real capacity issues that we have on our rail network, particularly between Birmingham and London.
The most significant other change concerns the Heathrow Express depot. It is currently located at Old Oak Common, but it needs to be relocated in order to construct the new Old Oak Common station. It was originally intended to be moved to another site nearby, but more detailed operational work undertaken by Network Rail since the Bill’s deposit has revealed that that site would not work operationally. We therefore propose to relocate the depot to a site in Langley, near Slough.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Will the Minister shed more light on his statement that this “would not work operationally”? What I have heard on the grapevine, which has been my only source of information, is that there is more potential to make money out of the Old Oak site than out of the Langley site, and so Network Rail wants a depot out and more commercial development in.
Mr Goodwill
We looked closely at the North Pole depot site, but the Langley site is operationally more effective, and it also means that we would not block any proposal that might come forward for the Great Western line to connect with Crossrail at terminal 5.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain what he means by “operationally more effective”, because to any normal person it would seem odd that it is “operationally more effective” to have a depot that is not even on the route between Heathrow and Paddington?
Mr Goodwill
In these matters we are advised by Network Rail, which informs us that the practicality of operating these depots is such that the Langley site is the best one on which to locate this depot.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
In considering the Langley site, what work has been done on the knock-on consequences for transport within the Iver area? I ask that because there are specific schemes to relieve the heavy goods vehicle problem that is besetting Iver, and it is widely concluded that the project being proposed here will prevent those schemes from happening. In particular, I refer to the relief road into the back of the Ridgeway trading estate. This matters very much and will have to be sorted out if this proposal is to go ahead.
Mr Goodwill
Those are precisely the sort of issues that petitioners can come forward with as part of the hybrid Bill process that this additional provision triggers. May I make it clear that we are not, at this point, considering agreement on these changes? This is about setting the process in train so that these points can be made and the Committee can look at them.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify that last point? Will an environmental impact study be carried out on the difference between the two possible depot sites? Has that been considered or is it something that will come further down the line, if he will pardon the pun?
Mr Goodwill
There will indeed be an environmental statement to address the impact that will arise from the 18 changes that require additional powers in the Bill—for example, a new location for the replacement village hall for Burton Green. An environmental statement will accompany those additional provisions, and some changes that do not require additional provisions will also have their own environmental statement, which will allow those particularly important environmental considerations to be discussed.
The additional provision includes powers to build sidings for Crossrail at Old Oak Common which may in future enable a link to be built between Crossrail and the west coast main line. That is not in itself part of HS2, but doing the work after HS2 is built would incur significant expense and disruption.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is good that these points made by homeowners have been addressed. On Old Oak Common, what compensation is available to residents in Wells House Road and Midland Terrace in NW10, because they say that their suburban way of life will be demolished? Their gardens are being compulsorily purchased and then they will also have to deal with noise, disruption and all sorts of other things for 10 years. Whatever compensation scheme—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You can sit down and relax for a second, as I want to try to be helpful. The hon. Lady has just come in and normally I would just let that go, but we must have short interventions. If she wants to catch my eye to speak, I am more than happy for that to happen. That might be a good way to address this, but we must have short interventions as this debate will last only an hour and a half. Wherever I can be helpful, I will be.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes precisely the point that has already been raised by many residents about the existing provision before the hybrid Bill Committee. The additional provisions in AP2 will also allow them to have that say, so that, if necessary, mitigation can be put in place to lessen the impact of construction traffic and to look at alternative routes for traffic and other such things. I have been down the line of route, and I do understand many of the problems. Indeed, I was in Slough on Sunday, and saw the site from the train. I know exactly where it is located.
Robert Flello
On the future-proofing issue, the Minister may possibly be aware that I have a certain interest in Stoke-on-Trent being serviced ideally by HS2 directly. However, is the Handsacre junction also being future proofed to protect areas such as Stoke-on-Trent? Do these provisions address that?
Mr Goodwill
That matter does not specifically relate to measures in AP2. Where possible, we will ensure that, as we construct the railway line, we do not rule out other connections, which is precisely the point that I made about the west coast main line.
The changes in total will not increase the overall project budget or target price for phase 1. They result in modest additional costs, but they will be accommodated within the contingency, which is provided for that very purpose.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Will the Minister tell us what the total additional land take is for these provisions?
Mr Goodwill
I do not have those figures to hand, but it is minimal. In most of the additional provisions, which are in the document that has been provided for the convenience of the House, we can see that these are quite small additional areas of land. They are not major changes to the project, but tweaks. In many cases, they are changes made at the request of the landowner or farmer involved because it improves their situation.
As required by Standing Orders, we will be depositing an estimated expense, setting out the gross costs of these changes should the motion be approved. The motion instructs the Committee to consider these amendments and to hear petitions related to them. It is important to note that the motion does not ask the House to agree that these changes should be made; just that the Committee be allowed to consider them. If the House approves the motion, the additional provision and related documents, including an environmental statement describing the likely significant environmental effects of the changes, will be deposited in Parliament and in local authority offices in those locations affected by the changes.
Michael Fabricant
I am a little bit curious about the process. What is to prevent a ping-pong taking place, such as we have between the House of Commons and the other place, whereby petitioners say that they do not agree with the changes, and so subsequent changes are made? How does the process end?
Mr Goodwill
In most cases, there will be support for these changes. Indeed, as I have already said, many of the changes are at the request of the landowners who are, in many cases, the only people who are affected. In future, it may be necessary to come up with more additional provisions, and we certainly have that option.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the moment of the publication of a document showing the new changes in the site, blight afflicts the properties that are close to the areas affected by these amendments? As a Member of Parliament, I received this document only this morning. My parish council was already aware of the changes. It is an interested party in these changes, but not the landowner.
Mr Goodwill
That document has been provided for the convenience of the House to help with today’s process. The definitive document will be published on 13 July, and that will be the document on which any submissions on the petitioning process can be made. In addition, a supplementary environmental statement will also be deposited. That describes any new or different significant environmental effects that may arise, informed by new survey data that have become available since the deposit of the Bill, as HS2 Ltd has now been granted access to more land. As I have said, those deposits are all planned for 13 July. These documents will supersede the explanatory note made available in advance to MPs and published online last week.
I would like to make Members aware of two minor errors in the document. A change described on page 68 in Berkswell in the constituency of Meriden, while being correctly described and having the correct map, had the wrong plan. One other change relating to a footpath had the correct information provided, but did not clearly highlight the full extent of the footpath that will be amended on page 70. The documents to be deposited on 13 July will contain the full information.
As required by Standing Orders, notices in national and local newspapers will be published immediately after deposit, alerting the public to these changes and the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation, as appropriate. In addition, HS2 Ltd will be writing to those near the proposed changes to highlight the consultation. Once the notices have appeared, a public consultation on the environmental statement lasting 42 days, in accordance with Standing Orders, will commence. This is planned to run from Friday 17 July to Friday 28 August. As with the main environmental statement consultation at the time of Bill deposit, the responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading.
Mrs Gillan
Is it not a great shame that once again there is going to be a truncated consultation period for this increase in land take? Also, has the Minister considered the fact that the consultation is taking place over the summer? Many of the people who want to feed back on this may be away.
Mr Goodwill
I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that people go on holidays at all times of the year. Indeed, if we moved into the September period, many would argue that that is the party conference season and therefore those involved in politics might not be available. I am aware that there is a major leadership campaign going on in at least one of our political parties, which could also be seen as a reason why one time or another might not be appropriate. I believe that the four-week period is absolutely appropriate. We have had no problems in the past with people being able to provide their petitions.
There will also be a petitioning period of four weeks for those directly or specially affected by the changes in this second additional provision, so that they can submit petitions. That petitioning period will begin on Friday 17 July and end on Friday 14 August for all petitioners.
I hope that the House will agree that these amendments demonstrate that while the Government recognise the vital role that HS2 has to play in transforming our transport network and our economy, we also recognise the need to listen to those directly affected by the railway and, wherever possible, seek to mitigate those impacts. I commend the motion to the House.
Lilian Greenwood
I will take your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are undoubtedly issues to be tackled at Euston. Three times now the residents of Camden have been presented with different plans for Euston station, with all the uncertainty that brings. Their treatment has clearly been inadequate, and I urge the Minister to shed a little light on when we can expect those additional provisions—I hope that I am still in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that a number of my hon. Friends have not been informed of the fact that the additional provisions would affect their constituencies? I know from discussions with a number of Members that they have had no communication from HS2 Ltd, or indeed from the Department, and consequently have had only one day’s notice that the changes are being debated. I know that the changes are a cause of concern to a number of hon. Friends. That situation is unacceptable, so I hope that the Minister will take it up with officials. The situation must not be repeated when further additional provisions are brought before the House.
Mr Goodwill
We are not debating the provisions; we are debating the fact that the Select Committee can receive petitions and consider the changes. We are not debating the provisions at this point.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is clearly an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members who wish to make comments on behalf of their constituents to do so. It is only right that people are aware of the provisions that are being introduced and debated in this House. They will question what the value of these exchanges is if we do not raise concerns on behalf of our constituents.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that, when the Committee has issued an instruction regarding a particular section of the route, it will be acted on accordingly. This is a matter of particular concern in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). I would welcome a commitment that today’s additional provision does not represent an end to the question of land-take at the Washwood Heath site, and that a mutually agreed solution will still be sought with the site’s owners.
Residents face a plethora of compensation schemes, some of which have been withdrawn, while awareness of others appears to be low. As the HS2 residents commissioner has said:
“It is vital that those who are eligible for the Government’s property compensation and assistance schemes get clear information and know what they are entitled to.”
Will the Minister take steps to clarify what support is available to residents, including those who live outside the rural support zone? This applies particularly to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Unlike the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I do not welcome the order.
I have to say thank you to the Minister, who has been very courteous in informing me of what is coming up. That is in quite a degree of contrast to the HS2 project team, which has not kept Slough Borough Council fully aware of what is being proposed, and it has come as a bit of a shock to the council. As a place, Slough is very supportive of big transport infrastructure projects. Heathrow airport’s third runway will come into the borough of Slough, if it happens, yet we are backing it because we realise that these kinds of projects are essential to national economic growth. However, Slough has not been kept fully informed of what has happened, and therefore, I echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about the consultation period on these areas happening in July and August. Although the Minister is right to say that not everybody goes on holiday in July and August, that is when most of my constituents with children do. Because Slough thought that HS2 was to do with other parts of the world and had nothing to do with Slough—none of the original proposals involved anything to do with Slough—it will not be geared up for petitioning, whereas communities on the route of HS2 were geared up by newspaper stories and so on. That is a real issue.
The other issue is that paragraph 1(b) of the proposal has nothing to do with HS2; it is about the Heathrow Express. It turns out that the Heathrow Express terminal is to be moved. I wonder why. I hate to speculate, but is it possibly because, owing to the land values at Old Oak Common, the land can be flogged off for expensive housing? Those land values are rather bigger than land values in Langley, where that will not be possible. It strikes me that a possible reason for our suddenly finding that we need to move the Heathrow Express terminal is that we can make more money out of what happens in Old Oak Common. I do not know that, and if the Minister would like to intervene and assure me that that is not true, that would be nice.
Mr Goodwill
I point out to the right hon. Lady that I talked about operational problems, and one of the problems with the North Pole East depot is that it would require train movements across the Great Western main line. Maintenance works on the Great Western towards Paddington would also mean that the Heathrow Express depot at North Pole East would not be able to operate.
Fiona Mactaggart
That is what the Minister is told, but at least that depot is somewhere on the Heathrow Express route. The proposed depot is not on that route; it is actually to the west of the Heathrow Express route. I point out that the Heathrow Express franchise expires in 2023, so this is not necessarily a long-term need. I am deeply concerned about the western link into Heathrow, which is critical, and I am grateful to the Department for the way it has proceeded on that. It is obvious to me that at some point the western rail link into Heathrow and the Heathrow Express will become a merged franchise. There is land at Reading where the depot could be situated at that point.
I am worried that this is a short-term solution that has been invented because someone faced a problem with the Heathrow Express. In the motion, we are being asked to solve a short-term problem, which I accept exists, in a way that is not long-term and strategic. The Department could say, “This franchise expires in 2023 and, until then, Heathrow has a monopoly on it, but if Heathrow wants its third runway”—we do not know what the Davies commission will say—“perhaps there should be a price. Perhaps the price should be giving up the franchise and looking at how we can integrate it more intelligently into the rest of the rail network.” That would be a strategic way of dealing with this matter and it would help us to accelerate western rail access into Heathrow.
In the Minister’s courteous letters to me today, he wrote:
“The relocation of the Heathrow Express depot is both an opportunity for Slough and important part of the Phase One project”.
I do not think that it is an opportunity for Slough, because the jobs that come with it are just ones that are being moved down the line from Old Oak Common, where they are at the moment, to Langley. I tell him that that does not mean more jobs for my constituents; it means that people will commute from where they currently live to Langley.
Mr Goodwill
Some of the land that is required for construction will be returned once the depot is complete, so that land will not be lost altogether in respect of job creation in the right hon. Lady’s area.
Fiona Mactaggart
Actually, most of the land that the depot will be on is housing land. I represent the most overcrowded borough in the country, outside London, in terms of housing. In fact, it is more overcrowded than most London boroughs. There is a real need for housing in Slough. I am told by the council that this land has been identified as being able to provide 200 to 300 homes for local people. It will not be available for those homes when it has been used.
The construction of the depot will have an impact on air quality in an area that is already affected by a big incinerator, Heathrow and the biggest motorway junction in Europe, which will affect my constituents. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) pointed out, these plans will frustrate other issues, such as HGV links and western rail access to Heathrow.
I know that there will be petitions from Slough, but I also know that there will not be as many petitions from Slough as there have been from other communities on the route, because it came as a big surprise to the people of Slough about a week ago that this was happening to them. They can only intervene over the next few weeks—a very short space of time—when some of them will be dealing with their children’s end-of-term plays and planning to go on holiday. I predict that my constituents will be panicked about this and that, although they welcome major transport infrastructure projects because they know that we need them to create prosperity for Britain, they will think that they have been badly treated in this process. I have to say, I believe that they are right.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the motion, and grateful to the Minister for setting out the process, but I am afraid the measure raises some serious questions about the integrity of the process. It raises the question of whether High Speed 2 is listening to the petitioners, to the Minister or to the Bill Select Committee, which has begun considering petitioners’ concerns with interest.
The integrity of the process is fundamental. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the shadow Minister, said, we do not expect some kind of celestial design from High Speed 2. There are bound to be problems and they will need correcting. That is why the Bill Committee, to which I again pay tribute, is so important, and why hon. Members are so grateful that it is doing such a magnificent job.
The motion contains a couple of provisions for the Saltley business park that are intimately connected with the proposed rolling stock maintenance depot, which takes out a considerable chunk of the north of my constituency. I do not want to detain the House with the details of the proposal because I have mentioned it on the Floor of the House a number of times. Suffice to say that that area of land is the size of 100 football pitches. It represents one third of the available industrial land in the whole city of Birmingham, and it is located at the junction of two of the constituencies that are among the four most unemployed constituencies in the whole United Kingdom. If we develop the site in its entirety, we could generate 7,000 jobs, which is my estimate, or 3,000 to 3,500 jobs, which is the Minister’s estimate. That is still a very considerable number that could knock off something like a third of the unemployment in the city of Birmingham.
This is a site of such economic significance that the High Speed Rail Bill Committee has considered it in considerable detail. I was incredibly grateful that although the Committee did not side completely with my argument, it recognised that the issue of unemployment in and around the rolling stock maintenance depot had to be considered. The provisions set out today on the Saltley business park do nothing to address the Committee’s concerns; in fact, they take out even more industrial land in the city of Birmingham. It could be that the site is proposed today for the relocation of business, but we simply do not know.
The Committee said:
“We impress on HS2 the need to adjust the scheme”
to reach agreement with the site owner, AXA, to maximise the number of jobs and to minimise the time for which land would be required. HS2 was directed by the Committee to work with the site owners to deliver that solution. That judgment was passed down in December. Although there have been detailed technical committee meetings and the site owners have now presented a detailed redesign of the site that would minimise land take, we have seen nothing of those discussions reflected in the provisions this afternoon.
Mr Goodwill
It is precisely on that point that I wish to intervene. As the Select Committee’s interim report recommended, we are working with the owners and Birmingham City Council on land take to see how far land can be returned for development as early as possible to secure that development that could result in jobs being created.
Liam Byrne
I am very grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but I urge him to go further in his winding-up remarks. It is of course important to me that land is minimised and jobs are maximised, but it will be of interest to all right hon. and hon. Members of this House that HS2 not only responds to the petitioners and the Committee but is seen to do so. Frankly, we have scant evidence of that in the provisions we have seen this afternoon.
I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to endorse once again the Committee’s recommendations on the rolling stock maintenance yard. I hope he will urge HS2 to do the deal and come to an agreement with the site owner, AXA. I personally do not want to occupy the site in order to ensure that HS2 honours a recommendation from a Select Committee of this House. I hope the Minister will spare us all that spectacle and use his very good offices to ensure that HS2 will buckle down and listen to a Select Committee of this House and its recommendations.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I support HS2 and the potential for jobs, homes and regeneration in the Old Oak Common area in my constituency. I even appreciate some of the difficulties that everyone, from the Minister down, has with this scheme—not least because Old Oak itself must be one of the most complex as well as the largest development sites in London, and possibly in the country. It involves not only HS2, but Crossrail, Overground, the Great Western main line and, of course, the commercial and residential developments. The Minister will anticipate a “but” coming here.
The first I knew of some of these proposals was when I picked up the additional provision document yesterday, certainly in respect of the relocation of the Heathrow Express depot to Langley. That does not feature. Perhaps it is thought that it is more significant for my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), where it is going, rather than for me, from where it is being removed. Nevertheless, these are—as acknowledged by HS2 itself—significant changes. Indeed, I received an email today from HS2, saying:
“I understand there is a motion tabled for debate tomorrow on changes along the proposed HS2 route, including some substantial changes to the Old Oak Common area.”
It went on to mention
“three turnback sidings for the Crossrail service and passive provision for a West Coast Main Line Crossrail link”,
which I shall return to in a moment. It referred to the need to acquire additional land
“for the diversion of a sewer…for the construction of a temporary logistics tunnel…for…a construction compound…for…a conveyer route”,
and, as an afterthought, to the relocation of the depot. There is a public meeting on Saturday, which I cannot attend, advertised to my constituents, but no mention is made of some of these changes taking place.
It is right to say that some prior notice of the west coast main line-Crossrail link was given. HS2 was very clear to me that this was not an HS2 project, but a Crossrail project. Crossrail was very clear to me that it was not really part of the Crossrail scheme either. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, it is a temporary measure to deal with the construction phase. It must be the most expensive “diversion” ever in the history of the country. I am not quite sure exactly how many millions of pounds it is costing. It may be a nice adornment to the railway network, but nothing more than that. During the construction and when it is built, it is certainly going to cause very severe disruption.
As I say, I do not object to the proposals, and I am sympathetic to the difficulties of the logistics of the task, but I do find that HS2 acts in a vacuum and often in a way that does not appear to take account of anything else going on around it—and that includes other railways. I am pleased to have one of the country’s major interchanges in my constituency, but the way things are going at the moment, it is going to be a dog’s breakfast of an interchange. I missed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough, but I suspect she asked why she was getting the depot rather than it being in Shepherd’s Bush. I suspect that the real answer—the Minister cites purely logistical reasons—is that it is better to put it somewhere where prices are probably a little cheaper than in Shepherd’s Bush.
Andy Slaughter
I will give way to the Minister in a moment. There will be room for more of “Boris’s mini-Manhattans”, which is what we will be graced with: these sky-high blocks of flats—all of which are empty, all of which are sold overseas and all of which are safe deposit boxes for dirty money from abroad—that will loom over Wormwood Scrubs for the foreseeable future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think the Minister needs to come in on this.
Mr Goodwill
I wish that that were the cheapest option. We considered a number of options including North Pole East, the Crossrail depot, Reading, Southall, Ealing and Langley. Langley was the best option, as all the others involved operational issues, but it was certainly not the cheapest .
Andy Slaughter
I realise that the Minister is reading from his brief, and that he cannot be expected to know every single detail of all the immaculate plans that are in the document. However, those who are in the middle of this—and a very large part of my constituency is being developed: it is the largest development site in London—are genuinely worried. I plead with the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Government, and to appoint a tsar, a sultan or whatever the title of such a person might be, to oversee what is happening at Old Oak Common, because otherwise we shall end up with a terrible, terrible mess.
Mr Goodwill
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The first point that I should make is that the motion is about the process. It is about kicking the ball into play, and it is for those who are directly affected, and the Select Committee, to carry out the game. Having said that, I should add that many Members on both sides of the House have made very effective points on behalf of their constituents and the interests of their particular areas.
I want to make it clear that I will always be pleased to engage with colleagues around the House on these and future additional provisions. We are expecting to bring forward AP3, which will relate to Euston, before the end of the year. If Opposition Members have concerns, it might be easier to arrange visits to their constituencies through the pairing Whip, and I would be happy to do that if it is at all possible.
The consultation period was mentioned. A period of 42 days is set out in Standing Orders, and I believe that that is appropriate. Looking back over the whole scheme, we have had about two years’ worth of consultations on one aspect of HS2 or another, so it would be hard to say that we have consulted too little. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) raised some important points. I should point out that, of the 20.8 kilometres in her constituency in the Chilterns, only 3.3 kilometres will not be in a tunnel. I am sure that is largely due to her doughty campaigning.
Mrs Gillan
The Minister knows that it is impossible to over-flatter a fellow politician. Let me make it clear, however, that 45% of this railway will be in a fully bored tunnel in my constituency, and that 55% will be in a green tunnel or in cuttings, which will be a scar on the landscape and will damage the area of outstanding natural beauty. This is a PR exercise too far. We want a whole tunnel.
Mr Goodwill
My right hon. Friend raises a point that I am well used to hearing, and I know that the Select Committee is in no doubt about the strength of her feelings and those of her constituents on this matter. I would remind her that one of the major political parties stood in the election on a Stop HS2 platform and that, despite that, her majority was increased. I am sure she would argue that that was due to the strength of her campaigning, rather than to the scheme itself. Two of the four changes in the additional provision that relate to her constituency have been made at the request of landowners. That shows that we are reacting to people’s very real concerns.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) asked about certain concerns in her constituency, and I will certainly write to her with full details, but many of them will be in the environmental statement. For example, the Berkswell greenway change extends the greenway to Berkswell station, which will benefit existing users.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) asked why information on the petitioning period was not included in the press notice. The petitioning process depends on the motion being passed today, and we would therefore have pre-empted the will of the House if we had announced that information in a press notice. She also mentioned the maps and the information on land take. That information will all be provided in the environmental statement that will accommodate the deposit if the motion passes.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) mentioned western rail access, which is important to the future connectivity of our country. I can reassure him that the depot at Langley is compatible with the western rail access to the Heathrow scheme.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) raised the very real concerns of her constituents about the compensation arrangements. I should like to point out to her that the residents of Wells House Road are eligible for the need-to-sell scheme. Indeed, properties in that road that are in safeguarding can issue blight notices to have their properties purchased.
As I have said, many of the points raised in the debate should be raised in petitions and through the process that is commencing today. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on retaining that position unopposed. She and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) talked about the quality of the process. The process is about the people involved in it, and that means not only the members of the Select Committee that is considering the Bill but those involved with HS2—I know that they have had a bit of stick today, but by and large they are doing their best to address these problems—and the many people up and down the line of route who are being affected and who have engaged with the process in such a commendable way.
Liam Byrne
Do I take it, therefore, that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that HS2 will indeed honour the recommendations that the Committee hands down to it? If those commitments are not honoured, the integrity of the process will be called into serious question.
Mr Goodwill
Absolutely, and I think I have already given that assurance about land being released as soon as possible. If necessary, I will have a meeting with the right hon. Gentleman, with officials, so that we can get some assurances that, I hope, will satisfy him.
I commend the motion to the House. The hybrid Bill process is working for people.
Fiona Mactaggart
In response to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Minister said that this scheme is fitting in with western rail access. As I understand it, however, the Hollow Hill Lane bridge was to have been raised in order to improve the problems with HGVs, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman discussed. As an alternative is being proposed, those issues will not be dealt with by this scheme unless it is changed. Can the Minister answer on that point?
Mr Goodwill
I would certainly be happy to meet those concerned to get my head around precisely how we could improve the scheme to address those concerns. It is not an issue I am absolutely on top of, and I apologise for that—
Mr Grieve
I assure the Minister that if he has a discussion with his officials, he will see that I have had correspondence with them about this issue. It does provide a real opportunity but, as I have suggested on previous occasions, it is going to need a bit of a push from his Department if it is going to be brought to fruition. What I certainly cannot accept is that this scheme goes ahead and leads to it becoming impossible to implement a relief road, as that would be a catastrophic state of affairs for my constituents.
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely understand that this scheme should neither confound some of our other rail plans on western access, nor confound plans for highways improvement. I am therefore more than happy to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to get my head around these issues in particular.
The motion introduces changes to address issues that have been raised. It will put these proposals under the scrutiny of the Committee, and I am sure the House will be delighted to approve it.
Lilian Greenwood
Before the Minister finishes, will he clarify when he expects to introduce the additional provisions relating to Euston and when the Government expect to confirm the line of route for phase 2?
Mr Goodwill
We expect to bring forward provisions for Euston later this year. I am working actively with officials from HS2 to ensure that we are in a position to introduce a proposal that will address some of the problems, particularly the issues about continuing to use that station for the west coast main line at the same time as construction is taking place. I will certainly give the hon. Lady some more information on the other point she raises when appropriate.
I commend the motion to the House and I hope the House will approve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–
(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–
(a) amendments relating to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed railway in the vicinity of the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal in the parishes of Fradley and Streethay, King’s Bromley and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
(b) amendments conferring additional power to carry out works in the Borough of Slough and in the parish of Iver in the County of Buckinghamshire for the purpose of providing a new Heathrow Express depot in the Borough of Slough (to the north east of Langley railway station), in consequence of the displacement of the existing depot because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;
(c) amendments conferring additional power to provide sidings for Crossrail services at Old Oak Common in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham that could be extended in the future to create a connection between the West Coast Main Line Railway and the Great Western Main Line;
(d) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in
i. the London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing;
ii. the parishes of Barton Hartshorn, Calvert Green, Chetwode, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, The Lee and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire;
iii. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
iv. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth, Radstone, Thorpe Mandeville and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire;
v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Curdworth, Kenilworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Southam, Stoneleigh, Stoneton, Wishaw and Moxhull and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;
vi. the parishes of Armitage with Handsacre, Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, King’s Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
vii. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Chelmsley Wood and Hampton-in Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull; and
viii. the City of Birmingham;
(e) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:
i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea;
ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;
iii. the parishes of Chetwode, Denham, Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon, Stoke Mandeville, Turweston, Twyford and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;
iv. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
v. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Greatworth, Marston St Lawrence, Radstone and Thorpe Mandeville in the County of Northamptonshire;
vi. the parishes of Coleshill, Curdworth, Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Radbourne and Stoneleigh in the County of Warwickshire;
vii. the parishes of Colwich, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, Hints with Canwell, King’s Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Weeford in the County of Staffordshire;
viii. the parishes of Berkswell and Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;
ix. the City of Birmingham;
(f) amendments to the definition of “deposited statement” in clause 63(1) of the Bill to refer to supplementary environmental information provided in relation to matters which do not require an extension of the powers of the Bill to construct works or acquire land;
(g) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (f);
(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–
(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and
(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
EU Transport Council
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I attended the second Transport Council under the Latvian presidency (the presidency) in Luxembourg on Thursday 11 June.
The Council adopted a general approach on the proposed directive laying down technical standards for inland waterway vessels. There was broad support from member states and the Commission for both the text and the related creation of the European Committee for Inland Navigation Standards (CESNI). The Commission indicated that it would now attempt to capitalise on this success by looking to harmonise other standards in the inland waterway sector, including training for crew.
The presidency appreciated the support of all member states and the Commission in their efforts to reach agreement with the European Parliament on the complex technical pillar of the fourth railway package.
On the market pillar, however, the presidency was clear that more time was needed. I welcomed the improvements to date to address concerns on over-regulation but pressed that more needed to be done to ensure that competition could flourish and rail continued to be an attractive investment. In highlighting the success of the UK’s liberalised and competitive rail market, I invited other member states to visit the UK to learn from our experience. The main point of contention was the nature of possible exemptions from competitive tendering with the Commission supporting an exemption based on performance criteria while some member states called for an exemption based on their share of the EU rail market being less than 1%. I strongly pressed that any exemptions to competitive tendering had to be based on objective criteria and fully justified.
On air passenger rights, the presidency presented its progress report.
I underlined the UK’s strong support for the improvements in air passenger rights while reinforcing our position that the balanced and proportionate trigger points of 5/9/12 hours should be maintained, a view strongly echoed by some member states. I also voiced strong concerns on the proposed inclusion of a compensation scheme for missed connecting flights, highlighting the negative impacts for both passengers and airlines. Two member states called for a lower trigger point of three hours with another suggesting anything other than including three hours in line with interpretative case law from CJEU rulings was a step backwards in passenger rights. There was no discussion on the application of the regulation to Gibraltar airport.
Under any other business, the Commission presented the conclusions of its interim evaluation on road safety, taking stock of progress towards the 50% reduction in fatalities by 2020. With regards to next steps the Commission indicated that it was considering proposing a target for reducing serious injuries.
On the Trans-European Network—Transport (TEN-T) and Connecting Europe facility (CEF), the Christophersen- Bodewig-Secchi report which looks at making the best use of the new EU financial schemes for transport infrastructure projects, was presented. The authors called for urgent action to ensure the success of the European fund for strategic investments (EFSI) for the transport sector and presented 12 recommendations for bringing private capital to the transport sector. The Commissioner invited member state views on these recommendations ahead of the TEN-T days set to take place in Riga on 22 and 23 June.
The presidency presented the outcome of the third Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) Transport Ministers’ meeting where ASEM member countries made a strong commitment to fostering closer co-operation in the field of transport connectivity.
The Commission updated the Council on the Shift2Rail research and innovation programme. The Commission regretted the delay in the recruitment of the executive director but considered the remainder of the programme was on track. I joined several member states in thanking the Commission for the update and encouraging all efforts to ensure an accelerated deployment of the programme.
The Luxembourg Minister for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure presented the work programme of their upcoming presidency stating their focus would remain on the fourth railway package and achieving a general approach on the market pillar by the October Transport Council. He invited Ministers to an informal Council on 7 October focusing on cycling, followed by the formal Council on 8 October where there would be a policy debate on the Commission’s review of its transport white paper. At the December Council there would be a policy debate on social conditions in road transport.
[HCWS41]
EU Transport Council
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I will attend the final Transport Council under the Latvian presidency (the presidency), taking place in Luxembourg, on Thursday 11 June.
The presidency is aiming for a general approach on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. The proposed directive seeks to replace the detailed technical annex of directive 2006/87/EC with simpler standards to be developed by a new international body (to be known as CESNI). The UK intends to support the proposed directive as it streamlines existing processes; we have safeguarded crucial existing derogations for the UK inland waterway sector; and secured explicit links to the output of CESNI, which the UK considers to be the appropriate body to develop technical standards for inland waterway vessels.
There will be two progress reports, the first on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of the cancellation or long delay of flights and regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (air passenger rights). The presidency has held a number of working level meetings over the last few months to try to resolve four main issues: the trigger points for when delay compensation is due; compensation for connecting flights; extraordinary circumstances; and cabin baggage. Limited progress has been made during the working groups, with most member states still having significant concerns about at least one of these issues. On trigger points, the UK has supported fixed compensation amounts for delays of at least five, nine or 12 hours depending upon the length of the flight in question. Our analysis shows that such a regime would strike the right balance between adequately compensating passengers for time lost, while ensuring that burdens on industry are proportionate. The UK also considers that to include compensation for missed connections would place a significant burden on the operators of short-haul feeder flights, damaging connectivity.
On the issue of extraordinary circumstances in which compensation is not due to the passenger, we have supported the inclusion of a binding and non-exhaustive list in the text of the regulation. This would increase clarity while retaining flexibility regarding what can be considered as extraordinary. We also oppose limiting the use of extraordinary circumstances to the current flight and the previous flight to help to minimise burdens on industry. On the number and type of cabin baggage items allowed, I am of the view that this issue should not be regulated and should be a commercial decision for the carrier.
Although this dossier is currently down for a progress report, there may be a wide ranging debate at Council, including a discussion on Gibraltar airport. Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 was adopted prior to the 2006 Cordoba agreement and therefore contains a clause suspending its application to Gibraltar airport, as was normal practice at that time. The Commission’s proposal does not contain an amendment to remove the Gibraltar airport suspension clause from the original regulation. The UK will continue to press for the extension of the regulation to Gibraltar airport in line with the EU treaties. I will work with the Minister for Europe on this and other aviation dossiers to ensure that any language on Gibraltar is acceptable.
The second progress report concerns the proposal for a directive of European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2012/34 establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure and a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail (“market pillar” of the 4th railway package). Negotiations of the market pillar by the Council began under the Italian presidency in June 2014 and have progressed further under the Latvian presidency. The presidency has produced a set of draft amendments to the package. These have improved the text in a number of areas which could otherwise have resulted in additional burdens in the UK, for example the amendments no longer increase regulation of the transport planning process and have reduced the proposed new restrictions on outsourcing and co-operation by different businesses in the railway industry. The key outstanding sticking point is the question of when a public authority should be able to decide not to hold a competition for a rail contract and instead make a direct award to their chosen train operator. I plan to support the progress made by the presidency in reducing the regulatory burden the package would impose, while noting that there is still scope for further improvement. I intend to underline the success of liberalisation and competition in revitalising the UK railway market over the past 20 years and to argue that competition is vital for a competitive and sustainable railway sector. In particular I propose to state the use of direct awards should be restricted in order to promote competition. Any exemptions to competitive tendering of rail contracts therefore need to be based on objective criteria, where it can be demonstrated that a direct award is justified.
Under any other business, the Commission will provide information on its review of the road safety strategy 2015-2020 and will provide an update on the Christophersen-Bodewig-Secchi report on TEN-T and CEF ahead of the TEN-T days taking place in Riga from 22-23 June. The Commission will also provide an update on the shift to rail proposal. The presidency will report on the outcome of the 3rd ASEM Transport Ministers’ meeting held in Riga on 29-30 April at which the UK was represented at official level. Luxembourg, the incoming presidency of the EU will present its work programme.
[HCWS19]
Cycling Delivery Plan
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am today publishing the Government response to the informal consultation on the draft cycling delivery plan which sought views from interested parties on its content.
On 16 October 2014, I launched an informal consultation on a draft cycling delivery plan which set out how the Prime Minister’s ambition to “kick-start a cycling revolution” would be achieved over the next 10 years as well as our plans to increase walking.
The consultation, which was extended to a six-week period in total due to the high level of interest, sought general views on the content of the draft Delivery Plan via email, webchats and seven dedicated regional engagement events. Over 1,000 informal comments to the consultation were received from cycling and walking campaign groups, local government, transport and planning bodies and professionals, business, members of the public and others.
We received a wide range of comments, in particular, around the lack of a firm long-term funding commitment which was considered central to implementing aspirations and actions in the draft delivery plan. A further five common themes also arose during the consultation, including calls to give walking greater prominence, defining “cycle-proofing”, securing the future funding of the bikeability cycle training scheme, creating national standards for the design of cycling and walking infrastructure and providing greater clarity on the proposed call to action to local authorities to work in partnership with Government to increase local-level cycling and walking.
The Government response sets out our position on each of these matters and most notably makes clear our commitment to cycling and walking in the long term by placing a duty in the recently passed Infrastructure Act 2015 requiring Government to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy. The new duty requires us to put in place a strategy for England, which, among other things, must set out the financial resources which Government will make available towards meeting our cycling and walking objectives. This move has been warmly welcomed by our stakeholders.
Government are now considering how best to develop a long-term infrastructure programme for cycling and walking, drawing upon expert advice from cycling and walking stakeholders including the Active Travel Consortium.
It is also important to note that through the duties confirmed in the Infrastructure Act 2015, Government will be held to account by Parliament.
I will be placing a copy of this statement and the Government response to the consultation on the draft cycling delivery plan in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments are available at http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS507]
High Speed 2
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Grieve
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, they are similar to the Norfolk broads in terms of recreational amenity.
I was told at the start of the project that it would never be possible or economically viable to tunnel under the River Colne because that would cost in the region of £1 billion more than a viaduct—I remember that figure being given. By last month, we were told that, because the viaduct will cost so much, the true differential is a mere £185 million. In the great scheme of the £50 billion- plus we are talking about for this project, that seems to be something that the Government really ought to consider, given the damage to the environment not just for the local community and residents but for all the other people who come to make use of this recreational area. That same point could be made about the tunnel under the area of outstanding natural beauty, but I will focus on the Colne valley because of its importance not just to the local community but to the residents.
I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Heathrow spur would effectively not go ahead. That removes a great deal of potential blight from my constituency and it is quite clear that it was not needed. However, parts of the bits of the junctions and other infrastructure still remain in the Bill, which worries me about the potential for blight. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that such potential for blight is removed from the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I give my right hon. and learned Friend that reassurance now.
Mr Grieve
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That will be well received in my constituency.
Finally, we have heard a lot about compensation. The package has changed and been improved, but I still find something very odd about a situation in which we have a need-to-sell basis for getting a full market value for compensation for those people living outside the immediate areas close to the track, yet if they do not go through the paraphernalia of need to sell—I suspect that some cases will be done, I am afraid, by requests that may have a sleight of hand—they will not be adequately compensated. That cannot be right. I know the origin of the compensation system in this country, but it is antiquated and it is time that we moved away from it. We are actually forcing people to move, because otherwise they will not get the compensation that they need.
With those points in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response. However, I come back to my original point. The Government really will have to counter the growing volume of evidence that the project has serious flaws in its concept.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this debate on HS2, a scheme that affects a number of constituencies on its line of route, not least Kenilworth and Southam. I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) is in the Chamber.
I am tempted to go as far as to endorse everything that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said. Certainly, a project of this type, which is going to be constructed over a number of years, needs wide political support across the spectrum. Therefore it is good news that we have such a lot of agreement on it.
Of course, there has been considerable interest in HS2 throughout the country. When the scheme was last debated in Parliament, on Second Reading in April 2014, the support for it was clear: 452 votes in favour to 41 against. It is patently obvious that, with the west coast main line reaching capacity, something needed to be done. It is no good saying to those using this service that they must grin and bear it while we do nothing, watching our infrastructure grind to a halt and stifling economic growth.
Comments have been made about the report published yesterday by the Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee. Although I have enormous respect for our colleagues in the other place, I most heartily disagree with their report. The case for HS2 is crystal clear. It will have a transformational effect, supporting growth in the north by improving connectivity, freeing up space on our crowded rail network, promoting regeneration, boosting local skills, generating tens of thousands of jobs and helping secure the UK’s future prosperity.
Mr Goodwill
I am not going to give way. I have so many points to cover in a short time.
It is a vital part of the Government’s long-term economic plan, strongly supported by the northern and midlands cities, alongside our plans for better east-west rail links confirmed in the northern transport strategy last week.
We have been fully transparent about the project. HS2 will deliver more than £2 of benefits for every £1 invested, and the economic benefit of the project is clear. The strong support of MPs is shared by—
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful to the Minister. However, I do not know how he can say, “We have been fully transparent about the project”, when he has not published any of the Major Projects Authority’s reports and we cannot get up-to-date figures on the project.
Mr Goodwill
My right hon. Friend has tabled 355 parliamentary questions for the Department on HS2—
Mr Goodwill
And we have given her comprehensive replies to those questions. The report that she refers to is, of course, an historical report that is out of date. We are working on much more up-to-date information.
There is strong support from the Transport Committee, which backs the strategic business case and is confident that HS2 is the only practical way significantly to increase rail capacity. Indeed, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is a member of that Committee. One of its conclusions in a previous report states:
“Having reviewed the revised business case for HS2 and the KPMG report on regional economic benefits we remain convinced that the project is justified. Capacity constraints on the West Coast Main Line cannot be ignored and nor should demand be controlled by pricing people off the railway. Alternatives to building a new line will themselves be costly and disruptive and their benefits could be relatively short-lived if demand continues…as forecast. Only a new line can bring the step change in capacity which is required.”
The Committee agrees with the Government and the Opposition.
Demand for long distance rail travel has doubled in the past 15 years and without HS2 key rail routes connecting London, the midlands and the north will soon be overwhelmed, stifling growth in towns and cities across the country. There is also latent demand for more rail freight, for which no paths are currently available on the west coast main line. It is crucial that we press ahead with delivering HS2 on time and budget. We remain on track to start construction in 2017.
The Bill is now before the hybrid Bill Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), which has already heard petitions relating to about half the route of phase 1. In the nine months it has sat, it has heard almost twice as many petitions as the Committee on Crossrail heard in its 21 months of sitting. Clearly, there are many petitions yet to hear, but I am sure the whole House would want to thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the seriousness and diligence with which they have gone about their important role of ensuring that the project strikes the right balance between being sensitive to the needs of affected communities and the environment, and the long-term needs of the country as a whole.
Of course, the scheme has undergone particular scrutiny in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I take this opportunity to thank her for so assiduously ensuring that her constituents’ voices are heard. I note how much she has achieved, including helping to move the line of the route further south through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty in 2011, to avoid an aquifer, and extending the tunnel in her constituency. The scheme now boasts over 13 km of tunnel under the Chilterns. Indeed, of the overall kilometerage in the Chiltern area—there is 20.8 km of line there—46% is in bored tunnel, 12% in green tunnel and 28% in cutting. Therefore 86% of the route in the AONB is below ground level or in a tunnel. I think my right hon. Friend has made a tremendous contribution to achieving that for her constituents. This demonstrates both the Government’s commitment to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and the hard work of my right hon. Friend. This is an example of how passionate she has been in working hard for her constituents.
I will deal with some questions raised. I will not be able to respond to them all, so I will write to the hon. and right hon. Members I cannot reach. Hon. Members mentioned the independence of the residents’ commissioner and the residents’ charter. The commissioner will report findings directly to Sir David Higgins and will not be part of the standard staff structure. The direct link and the publication of the commissioner’s quarterly report will ensure that concerns and issues can be aired and addressed in a timely manner. The residents’ charter and residents’ commissioner’s report will be transparent. That transparency provides the best guarantee of independence.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) raised a valid question about the phase 2 spur. We are currently reviewing and assessing those decisions. No decisions have been taken yet on either Crewe or the spur.
Mr Goodwill
I only have two minutes to go, so I really must come to a close.
I shall briefly talk about the economic impact and the fact that we are not taking money away from other infrastructure investment. We are investing £73 billion in transport from 2015-16 to 2020-21 and £57 billion in other projects.
In terms of the economic case, I draw the House’s attention to a report in The Times today, which states that HSBC—I do not think it is our favourite bank at the moment—is going to relocate 1,000 workers to Birmingham:
“The bank already has three sites there employing 2,500 people, and some of those will move to the new building that it has its eyes on, not yet erected, on a site near Centenary Square in the city centre.”
The article mentions the
“ever improving transport links”
in Birmingham,
“including the planned HS2 fast trains bolstering a road-rail network crowned by Spaghetti Junction on the M6”,
which it states has added to its appeal. So this is already having an effect on encouraging employers to come to the area.
In conclusion, HS2 is about helping Britain to thrive and prosper. Although tough decisions have to be taken, they will be responsible decisions in the interest of making a better, stronger Britain. We understand that a scheme of this magnitude cannot be built without having some effects on the environment or communities, but as I have set out here today, we are going to great lengths to ensure that the impacts are mitigated wherever practical, particularly in areas with ancient woodland. I repeat our pledge that there will be no net environmental loss. We will make sure that this is done in the most sustainable way for any major infrastructure ever built.
Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Consultation Response
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am today publishing a response document summarising the views given during the consultation on updating the safeguarding direction for the proposed Crossrail 2 rail project, and providing the Government’s response.
The Government have considered the responses to the consultation carefully, and the Secretary of State has decided to issue the safeguarding direction with changes at Wimbledon, Wandsworth Common, Angel and Soho Square. The updated direction will come into effect from today.
Crossrail 2 is a proposed new rail line across Central London, running from New Southgate and Tottenham Hale in the north-east to Wimbledon in the south-west. The route passes through the City of Westminster, the London boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Merton, and Wandsworth, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Safeguarding is the first stage in the planning process. It enables the Secretary of State for Transport to issue a direction to local planning authorities to protect land needed for long-term infrastructure projects. Safeguarding does not necessarily prevent other developments from taking place, but it ensures that when they do take place the design can accommodate the planned infrastructure.
The response document will be made available on the Department for Transport website. Copies of the response document, the direction, guidance and associated maps have been made available in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS458]
Car Parking (Private Land)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this debate. I understand how important this matter is for him and his constituents, and I recognise that the practices of some private parking companies can result in complaints from constituents. I have tried to find a stronger word than “complaints”, but I suspect I would veer into unparliamentary language were I to use the words that sometimes come to mind when I hear about cases where companies have behaved unreasonably.
My hon. Friend has seen the written ministerial statement from the Prime Minister last week explaining that policy responsibility for off-street parking is now under the auspices of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Ministers in both Departments have worked closely together on a wide range of parking reforms, and it is my pleasure this evening to represent my Communities and Local Government chums in this debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) for raising the important issue of hospitals, where having a pay-as-you-leave car park that has a system of number plates or tickets that can be used at a barrier on leaving reduces the stress that people feel in not knowing how long their appointment will take or how long they may have to wait. Many people worry that by overstaying, through no fault of their own, they may incur a fine. She also mentioned places where parking is initially free and people then overstay. I have had correspondence from colleagues whose constituents have taken a break at motorway service areas, as they are advised to do, only to overstay the two hours allowed because they have fallen asleep.
The Government have taken decisive action during this Parliament to end clamping so that motorists no longer live in fear of their car being held hostage until they can pay for it to be released. I am sure that colleagues have heard horror stories from their constituents about the practices of clamping companies—practices that we have stopped. No longer are people being marched to cash point machines to secure the release of their vehicle. In my constituency, we had a big issue outside Whitby station. In Whitby, every car park is free after 6 pm apart from the car park outside the station, so it is little wonder that many motorists assumed that it would be free there too. Surprise, surprise—the parking company did not turn up until after 6 o’clock on most days because it was keen to catch as many people as possible. Thankfully, the car park was in the control of Northern Rail. Alongside Whitby Hospitality Association, we ran the company out of town. We then made representations to Northern Rail, which engaged a much more benign parking company that acted more reasonably and, at the same time, controlled parking in the car park, which is important for those who wish to use the railway station or the Co-operative shop nearby. There are plenty of reasonable companies out there, but unfortunately some of the others give them a bad name.
Good parking helps us to be good neighbours, and it is critical for a growing economy. However, as anyone who has driven round and round to find a space in a car park or has been blocked in will tell you, parking is not simple. The management of private parking can understandably be an emotive issue. Receiving a parking charge is never popular, but measures to control parking on private land are necessary to ensure that parking facilities remain accessible and provide value to all who use them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past few weeks there has been some talk about the fines that are imposed on those who allegedly park where they should not. There seems to be a grey area. Is the Minister able to give some indication of the fees that they charge, because I understand that some people will be able to claim that money back?
Mr Goodwill
I need to be careful because this matter is before the courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley talked about somebody in a pay-and-display car park who overstayed their time. It could be argued that the loss to the parking company was the value of the time that had been used, and therefore that these fines amount to many times that loss.
On the other hand, many businesses—my hon. Friend is a shopkeeper himself—rely on their own car parking areas outside their premises for their customers. If all the parking space outside a kitchen showroom, for example, was taken up by people who were not using that shop, the company could lose an order for a whole kitchen, which could represent several hundred pounds. We need to look more carefully at exactly why people may need to keep car parking for their customers. Many companies get frustrated when people park in the parking area that is meant to be for their customers and is integral to their business. If there is no car park outside, a person may drive by and go to a competitor.
Mr Nigel Evans
I understand the Minister’s point. However, The Whalley Arms car park is a relatively large car park for the village that is now used by the entire community, not for any specific shop. All the shops benefit from the fact that the car park is available. It is next door to a GP surgery. The two cases that I mentioned related to people who wanted to use the surgery; one wanted to pay and the other mistyped their registration number. Their loss is the amenity of the car parking space, which costs £1 an hour or £5 for the day—nowhere near £60, £100 or £150.
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely understand that point. The point I was trying to make is that there are situations whereby the survival of a business may be determined by it being able to make sure that its customers can use its limited car parking. However, in the case of a car park that might cost £1 an hour, it would be difficult to argue that the loss to the landowner or the parking company was anything like the magnitude of the loss to another company that would lose custom.
Drivers choose where to park their vehicles, and if they park on private land they do so in line with the terms and conditions that should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to the car park and around it. If the terms and conditions include that a motorist must pay and display, and stay no longer than the time they have paid for, those are the conditions that the motorist has deemed to have agreed to when they park their vehicle.
Parking management and control is necessary so that landowners who invite drivers to park on their land can exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit to which they are entitled from the use of their property. Without any form of control, indiscriminate drivers might park where they liked and for as long as they liked, breaching reasonable terms and conditions, and without fear of any recourse arising from their misuse of the land.
We are committed to striking the right balance to protect motorists from unscrupulous practices that some parking management companies may employ—we have heard about them this evening—and to ensure that landowners can control the use of their land and benefit fairly from it.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping and made a number of other changes to the law related to parking. It banned private sector wheel-clamping and vehicle removal where there is no lawful authority to do so, and, as a balance to that, provided landholders with extra powers to manage parking on their land.
Most private organisations, including private landowners and their agents, are not able to clamp or tow vehicles and have to rely primarily on ticketing to enforce parking conditions on their land. This could be by placing a parking ticket on a vehicle, giving it to the driver or sending a ticket to the vehicle’s registered keeper in the post.
Before the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a private landholder could only seek liability against a vehicle driver to recover unpaid parking charges and therefore needed to be able to identify who was the driver of the vehicle that incurred the parking charge. There was no requirement, however, for the registered keeper either to say who was driving the vehicle or to accept liability him or herself. This allowed both the vehicle driver and the registered keeper to avoid liability and meant that landholders could find it difficult to manage parking by ticketing alone.
Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act came into power at the same time as the parking sector introduced a new, free appeals service for motorists who received a parking charge. This means that motorists can appeal to the parking operator and to an independent adjudicator, and both those appeals are free to the motorist. However, I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point about an early payment discount, and the suggestion to extend the discount during an appeal certainly has some merit.
Despite perceptions to the contrary, I assure my hon. Friend that significant control is already applied to the operation of private car parking companies. The activities and standards of operation in the sector have changed substantially in recent years and parking trade bodies have improved standards further at the heart of their vision.
Where the terms and conditions of parking have been breached, parking management companies can apply for information about the vehicle keeper so that they can enforce appropriately. The Government control the access to those data through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there is a requirement for companies that receive keeper data from the DVLA to be members of an accredited trade association. Incidentally, the fee for access to those data is £2.50. That means that the parking company must abide by the accredited trade association code of practice based on fair treatment of the motorist, which requires its members to operate to high professional standards of conduct while allowing them to take reasonable action to follow up alleged parking contraventions.
We would expect any organisation that wanted to become an accredited trade association to be able to demonstrate that it has a code of practice that ensures that only a fair parking charge is asked for and that prominent signage is present outlining clearly the restrictions on parking and the charges and conditions that apply. There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land.
Stephen McPartland
What does the Minister think about the fact that the terms and conditions can change? I mentioned the ambiguity of three hours of free parking being reduced to an hour and a half on match days, but without match days being specified.
Mr Goodwill
I have not looked at that in any great detail, but from what my hon. Friend says, it seems unreasonable to expect a person to know when it is or is not a match day. It does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility to list days when there will be matches to address that particular situation.
The code helps to ensure that contact with motorists is not threatening, and that parking charge notices are issued promptly so that a driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must be allowed for payment to be made before any additional charges are imposed or the matter is escalated.
Even though strong requirements are in place to regulate the actions of parking companies, the disclosure of data from the DVLA is tightly controlled. Parking management companies are visited to audit their operations, and further in-depth checking of individual cases is undertaken to make sure that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and with reliable evidence to back them up. Car parking operators pay fees when requesting keeper details. The fee levels are set to recover the cost of processing requests so that those costs are not passed on to the taxpayer. The Government do not gain financially from the provision of such information, contrary to what one may read in some newspapers.
Inevitably, motorists who feel that they have been unfairly treated will complain. The parking operator needs to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice of its accredited trade association to retain its membership. The ATA exists to investigate and ensure that, where appropriate, remedial action is taken. It is for the ATA to decide whether the operator needs to be placed on notice with additional scrutiny, follow-up audits and checks to monitor future actions closely. In more serious cases, a decision may be taken to terminate an operator’s membership of the ATA. A company can still manage parking on private land, but if it is no longer a member of the ATA the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not provide contact details to enable breaches to be pursued. That has a serious consequence for a company’s survival, and it is an incentive for it to behave responsibly.
The DVLA plays a key role. Where sufficiently serious concerns are raised or ongoing issues are identified, it will consider whether continued access to vehicle keeper data is appropriate. Several parking management companies have had their ability to request vehicle keeper data suspended where shortfalls in the standards expected have been identified. In addition, trading standards departments can prosecute companies if they have breached consumer protection law. In short, if a company is not meeting the standards expected, there are serious consequences.
We recently announced a new package of changes to help tackle over-zealous parking enforcement. The changes are designed to help local shops, and they include the introduction of grace periods. As we have heard, drivers will get a 10-minute grace period where they have legitimately parked on the street or in council-owned car parks. That will prevent penalties for being just a few minutes late back to the vehicle. We have also introduced a new right to enable residents and local businesses to demand that their council reviews parking in their area.
Off-street parking has many synergies with policy about car park charges, land-use planning and high streets, so we have decided to transfer responsibility for all off-street parking to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government. That will enable the Government to look more easily at the contribution that public and private off-street parking can make to a place, and how it can support local economic rejuvenation. Communities and Local Government Ministers will now turn their attention to the behaviour of off-street car park operators, and they intend to ensure that unfair and unreasonable behaviour is dealt with in the way that the Government have addressed on-street parking abuses.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley to discuss any concerns he has directly with the parking operator, and if he is not satisfied, with the accredited trade association. Providing them with details of any cases in which his constituents have experienced questionable actions or bad behaviour will allow the ATA to investigate and to take the necessary action.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
It is because people have not woken up to the consequences of this Bill yet. Unless someone has gone through the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has in Earls Court and seen the consequences, people do not fully understand this. The Bill is short—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The hon. Gentleman says that a number of people have not woken up to the consequences. Would that include the right hon. Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who all aspire to be Mayor of London?
John McDonnell
People cannot help but introduce a bit of knockabout in all of this. I have not intervened in the mayoral election yet; I have not made any comment about any candidate so far—
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
What an extraordinary spectacle we have seen on the Government Front Benches! As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, a set of proposals are being brought forward on important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken at length—some might have thought that he spoke at too great a length, but that is not for me to judge.
During all that, however, those on the Government Front Bench have remained mute on an issue of great importance to Londoners and to us all. I want to know why the Government have taken that position. Has the Minister consulted with the great helmsman of infrastructure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not be happy that the Government are not putting forward a position on the Bill? If he wants to intervene on me, he is welcome to.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. This is private business. A number of amendments have been tabled that, in my judgment, have very little support, even on the Labour Benches and among London Members whom the Bill affects directly. I will make the Government’s position clear when we reach Third Reading.
Mr Marsden
I am sure the House is extremely grateful that the Minister is not going to take a Trappist vow of silence for the whole debate.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am not quite sure how far it will become a major issue in the general election, but I will certainly do my best to make it a major issue in Islington North, and I will draw the attention of the people of the area to what is going on with this Bill.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about sequential repair of the lifts at Tufnell Park and the disruption that could be caused. I am more than happy to get in touch with TfL and find out exactly why it is planning to do this work in this way and ask whether it has looked at alternatives.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am grateful to the Minister; that is helpful because there is understandable concern locally about the stations I have mentioned and their safety. If it helps him, I am happy to write an explanatory note about it and send it to him straight away, so that he can understand my concerns and the local concerns, and we can then have a serious meeting and discussion. I thank the Minister very much for that.