Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The Government retain responsibility for delivering heavy rail. We are making an investment of £1 billion into electrifying the north Wales main line, which I would have thought the hon. Member would welcome. As over the coming years we develop the funding for local transport spending, Wales will get Barnett consequentials in the usual way.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There is a deep democratic point in all of this. The Secretary of State was elected at the last general election with the expectation given by the then leader of the Conservative party that HS2 would be built. Partly because of the Government’s financial incompetence, they are now cancelling it. A Prime Minister—not the Secretary of State—whose own party did not support him, and who has certainly never put himself before the electorate as Prime Minister, is cancelling it. The current Secretary of State is following a scorched earth policy whereby it will be impossible for either the elected Mayors who are looking for alternative funding for carrying on the second phase or an incoming Labour Government, to build out the full scheme, with all the benefits it would have. That is fundamentally anti-democratic. Will the Secretary of State not consider, on a democratic basis, protecting the line of HS2?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raised two points. On the first, I make no apology for basing a decision on the facts. The facts have changed—both the costs have increased and the benefits have reduced—and pouring taxpayers’ money into a scheme where that had happened would not make a lot of sense. On his second point, I am now thoroughly confused: I thought the Labour Party had now accepted that HS2 was not going to happen and that it preferred all the alternative things we wanted to spend the money on. It cannot have it both ways. If he and his colleagues want to complete the second phase of HS2, they must go and tell everybody else that they do not want to spend the money on all those other things that we are going to spend it on. We have to make choices in politics. We have made our choice. I am happy with our choice and will defend it. They cannot have it both ways.

High Speed 2

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for the work that they did on the Select Committee. I will, of course, take that message back to Treasury colleagues.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give an unambiguous answer to this question: is this Government still committed to building HS2 to Manchester from Euston? People in the north need to know whether they are being abandoned, because it looks like that to me from press reports, which have not been made up by journalists. Is it not the case that the Minister is fronting a Government who will not dare tell the electorate that they are abandoning the north?

Road User Charging Schemes

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that a petition being debated today indirectly relates to a case about the expansion of the ultra low emission zone; the case is ongoing, and therefore sub judice. Mr Speaker has agreed to exercise the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow reference to the case, given the issues of national importance that it raises.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 599985 and 633550, relating to local road user charging schemes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. We are here today to discuss two petitions. The first seeks the revocation of local government powers to charge for clean air zones, low emission zones and ultra low emission zones, and the second seeks amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to remove the Mayor of London’s power to impose road-user charges.

I often lead these petition debates, and I always look at the argument from both sides. For every petition, there is an opposing view; it is important to consider all aspects and that everyone’s voice is heard. Cancel culture has no part to play in a healthy democracy. I have therefore taken the time to speak to not just the petitioners but, among others, Asthma + Lung UK and the Ella Roberta Foundation.

Let me start with the facts: who put the legislation forward, and who was in charge of putting the schemes in place? The then Labour Government gave local authorities the ability to charge road users in part 3 of the Transport Act 2000, and the Mayor of London was given powers by the GLA Act 1999 under the same Labour Government.

The Transport Act gave those powers to local authorities to reduce congestion and to help with air quality. Schemes have now been put in place in London, which has both a ULEZ and a congestion zone, and clean air zones are currently in place in Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Tyneside—all Labour or Opposition-controlled authorities. I am pleased to announce that I have had reassurances from the Labour Mayor of Doncaster that my city will not be subject to one of these schemes. Pedestrianisation is already doing untold damage to the local economy, and one of these schemes in my city would surely be the final straw.

I will speak first on behalf of those who oppose the petitions—those who think that these schemes are not just necessary but vital for our country. I met Tim Dexter and Andrea Carey. Tim works at Asthma + Lung UK and understands that these schemes can cause controversy, but believes that they are not a big issue with the wider electorate. He believes that pollution is too high and says that young people are growing up with decreased lung capacity. Tim also stated that having clean air in the city and avoiding losses to businesses does not need to be an either/or situation, as he believes that pedestrianisation, alongside ULEZ and clean air zones, can be shown to increase footfall. For the record, I have not seen any evidence that supports that to date.

Andrea is the chair of the Ella Roberta Foundation, which supports the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, also known as Ella’s law. Ella is a young girl who died when she was nine. She lived close to the south circular and had been diagnosed with asthma. Her long walk to school meant that she was exposed to car fumes, and air pollution was stated on her death certificate to be a secondary cause. Andrea says that, each year, 38,000 deaths are attributable to illnesses related to air quality. She says that a lot of money is spent on treating people with lung conditions, and businesses would benefit from cleaner air as that would mean that employees took less time off due to ill health. Those are fair points.

I will now speak on behalf of the petitioners. I met Edward Green, who had much to say on this subject. Edward, who lives in London, said that these schemes are bad for business and families, and that they increase isolation. He described them as a tax on the poor, a cost to freedom, undemocratic and an abuse of power. He also stated that the scrappage schemes are ineffective.

In addition to my evidence-gathering sessions, I recently visited Sheffield and Doncaster and asked businesses there what they thought of the schemes. They all agreed with Edward. One contractor in Sheffield said that he had 20 vans on a construction site, so the scheme introduced in the city earlier this year is going to cost him close to £50,000 this year in extra fees. Every construction site in every city with such a scheme will now face similar costs, and as we all know, those costs will eventually be passed on to the public—to us, to me and you, Mr Stringer. Carers, tradespeople, health workers and others will be prevented from working by the punitive charges.

That will be catastrophic for the economy in London’s suburbs, as workers from Essex, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire will simply not be able to work in the suburbs. Every county surrounding London will be significantly affected, and for the worse. I have spoken to shop workers who have said that if the charges are introduced where they work, they may have no choice but to find alternative employment. Not only will businesses suffer because of decreased footfall, but they will suffer when trying to find staff to help run their businesses.

These issues have been debated in the House before. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) stated:

“If we price people out of their vehicles, without potential alternatives available, we will not just be hitting people’s pockets by charging them more to use private vehicles; we could be costing them their livelihoods.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 137-138WH.]

He is correct. In the main Chamber, I have mentioned the concept of 15-minute cities. When I see all the cameras being installed, I ask whether that is the end goal for Labour-run authorities. The question needs to be asked.

As Members can see, there is much opposition to road user charging schemes. Nobody disputes that we all want cleaner air; the question is whether clean air zones and ultra low emission zones are the way to achieve that. Personally, I think not. In tourist hotspots, where visitors come from all over the world to spend money, an American or Chinese tourist will not be put off central London because of the ULEZ, but even then, it still hurts everyone who works in the city who needs a vehicle. I know some people will still argue that the ULEZ is needed in the very centre of London, but what about Sheffield, Doncaster and thousands of other towns and villages? Is such a scheme needed there, where the economy is built on servicing the needs of local people? I think not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

It is 55 years in Doncaster—55 years of a Labour council in Doncaster. Fifty-five long, long years.

I agree with net zero; I just think that it can be done in a better way than this. People want more power locally, but too often it is given to the wrong people. The cities that I mentioned are testimony to this statement. These schemes show how out of touch and disconnected politicians at local level are from the people and from businesses. The people and businesses do not want these schemes, but the politicians wilfully ignore their wishes, on purpose and with no care about the terrible impact the schemes have. This situation cannot be acceptable in a democracy.

I will close by simply asking the Minister to consider seriously the petitioners’ requests. They make an awful lot of sense.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I ask hon. Members who wish to be called in the debate to stand. This is a three-hour debate, so I do not think there is any necessity for a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

She is the deputy chair of your party!

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Elliot Colburn]

I have long been opposed to ULEZ.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend. I just thought it would be worth reflecting on the quote given by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. Back in 2020, there was no proposal from the Mayor of London to expand ULEZ to the Greater London boundary, so whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who is not present, was saying in 2020—I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) let her know that she was going to mention her in Westminster Hall—was not in support of whatever Mayor Khan has put forward. It was not anything about what is being debated today because that was not the ULEZ proposal of Mayor Khan at the time. That is largely the point of some of the petitioners who have been in touch about today’s debate.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We are not under any real time pressure, but can I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point? They are gradually getting longer and longer.

[Elliot Colburn]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. I will quickly move on then, and just say that the Minister is absolutely right.

Like other colleagues, I have seen at first hand in my postbag the local, organic opposition to ULEZ continue to grow—not just from my own petition, which is continuing to grow by hundreds of signatures every week, but from the very real stories that we are receiving from constituents about how expansion of ultra low emission zone will impact them. In Carshalton and Wallington alone, it is estimated that 30% of all vehicles will be deemed non-compliant; that means that roughly 30,000 cars will not be deemed compliant if the expansion goes ahead. How many people will be impacted by that? How many families? How many small businesses? How many pensioners? How many charities? These are real concerns voiced by real people, yet how are they portrayed? How are they dealt with? The Mayor of London, seemingly deaf to these concerns, labels them wackos, nutjobs and conspiracy theorists—and that is when he is not too busy trying to sell his book or going around the world advertising marijuana farms.

Where do my constituents go for help? The Mayor is not helping them—the Conservatives are the only party opposing the expansion—so what about their local council? Behind all the smoke and mirrors is the inescapable fact that the Liberal Democrats have been consistently pro-ULEZ. That dates back all the way to 2020 when it was actually a Lib Dem Assembly member who berated the Mayor for not introducing a whole-London ultra low emission zone. Then, closer to home, a Lib Dem Assembly member has welcomed the expansion of ultra low emission zone as “right and necessary” and Sutton’s Lib Dem councillors have been voicing their support for the expansion of ULEZ to our roads for years. One went so far as to state boldly on social media that

“Yes we are in favour of ULEZ”

and voted down a motion moved by the Conservative group on Sutton Council to call on the Mayor to drop it. Even now, even when they are trying to claw back some kind of credibility, they can still only go as far as to say that they want a delay. Well, a delay is not good enough. The only acceptable thing to do with ULEZ is to scrap it. I am looking towards the Opposition Benches: it does not surprise me that it is not only the Labour party who are not here, but the Lib Dems, too.

It is incredibly heartening to see Conservative colleagues working together across London and outside of it, and I congratulate the five Conservative-run councils that have brought forward this proposal. However, having heard your warning about this matter being sub judice, Mr Stringer, I will not go any further than that.

We are not only dealing with constituents who are frustrated and worried—worried to their wits’ end. There are also other groups and sectors who I fear have been left out of this conversation. One is charities—for many charities, buying a new ULEZ-compliant vehicle would be tantamount to financial ruin. I believe that speaks volumes about the weaknesses identified in the heavy-handed approach to ULEZ that has been adopted. Tens of thousands of Londoners, including many people in Carshalton and Wallington, will receive no help from the Mayor of London’s scrappage scheme and, as we have already heard, the scheme is not nearly enough even for those who do qualify. Many Government Members have long argued for a broader and more holistic approach, rather than the current scheme.

That goes back to the crux of the issue. The Mayor of London seeks to punish people for being unable to afford to upgrade their vehicle instead of encouraging people to have a greener lifestyle. Instead of spending millions of pounds on ULEZ enforcement cameras, he could have invested that money elsewhere—for example, on expanding London’s green bus fleet; improving the connectivity of outer London boroughs; beefing up the scrappage scheme; fixing the massive failures in his solar panel roll-out; or bringing back the boiler scrappage scheme that the last Mayor had in place.

Take Carshalton and Wallington as an example. Like the borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), we have a terrible public transport accessibility rating for a London borough: it is just 2. We do not have the tram, the London overground or the tube; we have bus networks and a limited number of national rail networks. As my hon. Friend said, those are often unreliable.

The expansion of the tram to Sutton was scrapped by this Mayor and yet he has the audacity to say that he will somehow improve the public transport network, which, in our case, is a super-loop bus that already exists and has a limited number of stops. How can my constituents get to work, visit friends and family, and go about their daily lives if they cannot afford the £12.50 daily charge and there is not a sufficient public transport network in place? The short answer is that they will not.

Rather than encouraging people to take action through proactive means, the Mayor has decided to go with the heavy-handed approach of slapping hardworking Londoners—the least well-off in our communities—with an arbitrary fee just to leave their driveways. That is not the way to do things, so I urge the Government to consider again the petitioners’ asks. We cannot allow this ULEZ expansion to go ahead.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

When the integrated rail plan was published, it made reference to a Leeds area study that needed to be published, which in itself would unlock money for a mass transit scheme for Leeds. We will shortly bring forward that route study, which will provide the answers on how HS2 trains can go up to Leeds. Until then, the safeguarding will remain in place. I am keen that we get those answers, so that we either find a solution to get HS2 trains up to Leeds—again, that will be down to the study and responses—or, if that is not possible, decisions will need to be made about land and property that is currently blighted. That will occur once the route study has been published and responded to.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I have great respect for the Minister, but I feel sorry for him today, because he is having to defend the completely worthless words of previous Secretaries of State for Transport, and Ministers, over a decade. Let me explain to him what is really happening. The Government are showing, yet again, their complete disdain for the north of England: no trans-Pennine investment, after 13 years of this Government; cuts to phase 2b; and cuts to the rest of high-speed rail. This is not about the economy because, when one looks at Crossrail 1, the Oxford-Cambridge link and all the rest of the investment in the south-east, there are no cuts. We have seen the Treasury take control of transport, putting the money where it always likes to—into London, not the north of England—and we know where that will lead. It will lead to tax cuts that will benefit the south of England at the start of next year for the general election.

[Huw Merriman]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member, and I served alongside him on the Transport Committee, but I take issue with him on there being no investment going into the north. The integrated rail plan is £96 billion of investment going to the north and the midlands. The HS2 statement commits to the completion of Old Oak Common to Curzon Street because that is where the construction is being delivered. It talks about a rephasing of two years on the section that goes to Crewe, and on the line from Crewe to Manchester—phase 2b—there is no change to the indicative timeline at all. Once phase 2b is delivered, we will see the benefits of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which we are committed to as well. I could not speak to projects in the south-east that are anything like those I have mentioned over the last minute, because the bulk of the investment in rail is going to the north and the midlands, and that will continue to be the case.

Airport Parking Charges

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lord]

I have two points. On the point the Minister just made, normally a service provider will provide a service for which they charge. There is no service being provided. We just want an area where we can drop off our passengers. To go back to the earlier point about sustainability and air quality around Heathrow: if that was a main driver, should not electric and low-emission vehicles be able to drop off for free?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short and to the point.

[Huw Merriman]

I will go into detail on the second point, but to come back to the point about electric vehicles, that is something that airports are developing. They are slightly hampered by the lack of HGVs, but it is something that they are working on in conjunction with other matters.

Let me address the point that drop-off zones were supposed to be temporary during covid. Airports have been implementing drop-off zones and charges since before the pandemic, as part of their work on delivering sustainable and affordable travel options. Charging for the use of drop-off zones may encourage airport users to make more journeys to airports by public transport, which will assist with the wider sustainability ambitions of the Government. However, I recognise that at airports such as Bristol, rail options are few and far between. As demand for air travel returns, with people understandably keen to resume their lives, airports have further indicated that drop-off charges will help to avoid a car-led recovery.

I know that information and signage is important to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. Given the choice for drivers, it is even more important that airports are transparent in their parking offer. The Government expect and encourage airports to be clear on the available choices for parking on their websites, along with information on how to access them. I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments on this matter. This information must ensure that there is a clear and visible signage point at the airport to ensure that drivers are well informed and aware of the arrangements and requirements, as well as the other parking options. I have raised this matter with my colleague, the aviation Minister, Baroness Vere, to see whether we can underline the importance of this matter in our communication with airports, and she has confirmed she will do just that on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire.

Avanti West Coast Contract Renewal

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

As I have said, departmental officials engage with Avanti on its recovery plan, as I touched on in an answer to a previous question: it is about not just accepting its assurance but going into the details of what the plan is. Every week, there is engagement at senior management level. Ministers are engaged through departmental teams with the progress that has been made on reassurance. As I have said, at the moment we are confident that Avanti can deliver its plan in December —there is a requirement for trade union co-operation as well, which we accept is slightly out of its control—and that is our key focus in ensuring that we manage this every day, as we are conscious that significant improvement is needed.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is no accident that Avanti has reached the pinnacle of incompetence within the rail industry. It has done that by cutting costs and putting profit before service and people. It has damaged the economy all the way along the west coast main line. People who use that line do not want it to continue. I do not want it to continue. Why is the Minister giving this dreadful company a second chance?

[Kevin Foster]

As I have already said, we are clear that the six-month extension is to give Avanti the final opportunity to implement the improvement plans that it has put in place, which we are starting to see the benefits of—we are starting to see drivers coming through—and that will then allow us to take a final decision in the early part of next year about what happens. Alongside all that, we are already doing the relevant preparations in the OLR.

Avanti West Coast

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Of course trains need to operate seven days a week, which is why the system of train drivers volunteering to work on those rest days is no longer sustainable. A 35-hour shift and volunteering to work rest days, while it has provided considerable extra income for train drivers, is no longer sustainable. That is exactly what we will tackle through the modernising workforce programme and Great British Railways.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about partnership with Avanti. May I suggest to her that, if she looks at it objectively, that partnership is not working, and the best thing she could do is plan to get out of it? She should sack Avanti, which is not only not running services to Manchester—it has cut those services by two thirds—but, when it eventually gets passengers on to its trains, drops them off at unpersoned stations in an unsafe position. This is not just about running services: Avanti is a dreadful company, and should not continue with this franchise.

[Trudy Harrison]

As I set out previously, Avanti has particular challenges that other train operating companies do not, in that it took over from Virgin and had 16 weeks before the pandemic hit. The very nature of training drivers requires close contact in a cab, which has prevented Avanti from being able to recruit and train the necessary number of drivers. Again, that is not an excuse; it is the reality of the situation.

I met with Avanti and the West Coast Partnership yesterday at the Women in Transport event, where we discussed the need to improve the current 12% level of women train drivers. When 51% of society is women, the train driving sector and the transport sector more widely are clearly missing out on incredible talent across this country. We are talking to Avanti about how they will recruit those train drivers, because whoever runs these trains, they do need to be driven.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Let me first say that we on the SNP Benches and my colleagues in the Scottish Government support HS2, such as it is. We support anything that increases capacity on our rail network and improves the prospects of driving up modal shift for journeys between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe, whether for passengers or for freight.

The UK has lagged hugely behind comparable European countries for years—decades, in fact—in rolling out modern, technically advanced high-speed rail networks, but rather than dwell on how late Britain has come to the party, let us welcome the fact that it has turned up at all. I, too, welcome the plans by HS2 to locate a depot at Annandale, creating jobs in the southwest and border regions.

However, as always with this Government, it is not the headlines that give the picture; it is the small print and the details that tell the real story of what their priorities are. We saw that the other week, as has been mentioned several times already, with the cancellation of the Golborne link. We have been told time after time that HS2 would deliver transformational change on our cross-border railways. HS2’s website boasts:

“HS2 will re-balance the country”,

while the UK Government tell us that Scotland will,

“receive the best possible HS2 service”.

In reality, now that Golborne has been chucked in the bin, no doubt we can expect another bargain basement bodge job, designed to keep the Tory Back-Benchers happy rather than provide real investment in our transport infrastructure.

Scotland has been told for years that the rationale under which we will benefit from HS2 is reduced journey times and increased capacity. We support HS2 on that basis. Now we are told—or rather an announcement is whispered elsewhere on the day of the Tory leadership boorach—that a crucial connection between the classic network and the high-speed network is to be scrapped, with any prospect of an alternative link delayed indefinitely.

The Government’s own Union Connectivity Review, which has already been mentioned, said plainly,

“Further work is needed to determine the…benefits, costs and deliverability of an alternative connection”.

Or, in other words, “We haven’t a clue how, where and when an alternative to Golborne will be delivered, other than pointing vaguely towards Preston on a map and promising, it will definitely, positively, absolutely be built there—honest.”

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree with the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but can he clarify the SNP’s position? Is the party in favour of having high-speed lines on both the east and west side of the country, to Edinburgh and Glasgow?

[Gavin Newlands]

We were in favour of phase 2b’s being constructed all the way to Leeds, which would allow for that development of twin-tracking high-speed lines to the border, but that has been cancelled. The Scottish Government have long supported HS2 and has a memorandum of understanding with the Government for HS2 to be delivered to Scotland, massively improving journey times and helping to drive the modal shift I have spoken about previously.

The decision to cancel the link highlights once again that the UK Government cannot be trusted to lead on levelling up, especially when it comes to Scotland. The move has met near-unanimous objections—despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter)—especially from the rail industry. A combined statement from the Railway Industry Association, the Rail Freight Group, and the High Speed Rail Group said:

“It is hugely disappointing to discover that, on a day when much political attention was focused elsewhere, the Government confirmed that the ‘Golborne Link’ is to be removed from the HS2 project.

Only six months ago, the Golborne Link was included in the Integrated Rail Plan, as well as the HS2 Phase 2b Bill. The Link has been provided for in the budget for HS2 and is needed to allow adequate capacity on the national rail network to fulfil its vital function of handling the nation’s longer distance movements of both passengers and freight. Without this connection, a bottleneck will be created north of Crewe on the West Coast Main Line, which in turn will negatively impact outcomes for passengers, decarbonisation and levelling up.”

The statement went on:

“Such an important, strategic question of how HS2 services connect into Scotland cannot be left open or uncertain.”

The move has been seen as a cynical betrayal of Scottish interests, aimed at placating Tory voters and MPs at the expense of Scots. With levelling-up funds disproportionately invested in Tory seats, a Tory cost of living crisis undermining any possible progress, a Prime Minister who cannot even be bothered to turn up to his own party’s levelling-up conference and now key levelling-up projects cancelled on a whim, this Tory Government cannot be trusted to deliver levelling up. While the UK Government continue to withhold and abuse money that is meant to replace EU funding, Scotland will continue to be undermined by a Tory Government without integrity, honesty, or a plan.

If the UK Government do not want to spend the money needed to properly link up HS2 with the classic network, they should give the money to the Scottish Government, who can do something real and tangible with it. With electrification costs in Scotland less than two thirds, and an aim to get to nearly half, of those in England, Transport Scotland will get a bigger bang for its buck, and ultimately at zero extra cost to the UK, as until two weeks ago it planned to spend the money anyway.

That £3 billion of extra funding for Scotland’s Parliament to spend on Scotland’s transport network would be welcomed by a Government who have been matching big ambition with action, whether on rail electrification, zero emission vehicles or active travel spending that is nearly eight times that of England. The benefits of HS2 will be substantially reduced if, at the end of a Rolls-Royce service through HS2, the rest of the rail network is a clapped-out banger.

Thankfully, in Scotland we have invested in both electrification and new rolling stock, meaning that HS2 arrivals in Glasgow and Edinburgh—should they ever get there—will be met with modern railways. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the north of England, which is again at the back of the queue when it comes to improving the railway that the majority of people will continue to use, and where cities such as Leeds and Bradford are still left in the sidings of what should be a 21st century railway.

I also want to mention Wales, since the Treasury has magically created a railway line serving Wales that has not a single inch of track in Wales—I hope the Ordnance Survey have been notified of the Government’s ground-breaking cartography. Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive Barnett consequentials from HS2 expenditure, as they should, but Wales has been told that HS2 is a joint England and Wales enterprise, despite its being entirely in England, and that not a penny of consequential spending will find its way to Cardiff Bay.

That consequential funding could be invested in one of the Welsh Government’s priorities, like the South Wales Metro or even the Cardiff to Swansea electrification previously binned by the Westminster Government. Instead the Senedd will get nothing. Even the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has an inbuilt Tory majority, called for Barnett to be applied to HS2 to give Wales the fair funding it should receive. The progress of this Bill is an opportunity for the Treasury to think again, do the right thing and ensure Wales gets the money it deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Oh, it absolutely would. We are in a Second Reading debate on HS2 and I appreciate that we can veer away from the subject, so it is very tempting to go into a rant about the lack of capacity through Deansgate, Oxford Road and into the current Piccadilly station. That is a huge issue that this does not resolve.

However, what will be resolved is that some of the east-west links, if they can be tunnelled under Manchester into the new Piccadilly station and beyond into Yorkshire, will free up some capacity in the rail network around Manchester, although it does not fundamentally solve the problem between Deansgate and the existing Piccadilly station, despite lots of promises we have had over a very long period of time that we would increase capacity through the Piccadilly corridor.

[Graham Stringer]

On my hon. Friend’s final point, only platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly will deal with that issue. On the major thrust of his arguments, he will not be surprised to know that I agree with him. We are often told by Ministers about the success of the regeneration at King’s Cross, where the land next to King’s Cross was used to bring enormous economic benefits to that part of London. Does he agree that what is happening at Manchester Piccadilly is that Manchester is being denied those benefits because of blight caused by ill-thought-through proposals?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will let the House know that we both went on a walk around Piccadilly, with Transport for Greater Manchester officers and combined authority officers, to have a look at what is being proposed and what could be developed there—indeed, the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) attended the tour as well—and the tour was illuminating.

For a start, keeping the ugly monstrosity of Gateway House on Station Approach in its place means that when people come out of the new Piccadilly station, as proposed by the Government and HS2, they will be at the delivery bay of Greggs. It is just not the welcome we want for Manchester. It is not even the shopfront of Greggs; it is the back door, with the bins and the ovens. Let us have a bit of vision here, and let us free up the front. Let us have a nice piazza, and a nice welcome to Manchester.

More than that, let us get the economic development in place behind Piccadilly station, and do not just take my word for it. Business leaders in the Financial Times today are urging Ministers to revise what they call—not my words—a “hugely shortsighted” design. They say—not me—that the economic development around Piccadilly would bring in the equivalent of £333 million a year of additional economic benefit if we get this right. That is why I do say to Ministers: let us look again at getting a better solution for Manchester and a better solution for the north to Piccadilly station.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in such an important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan). I was fascinated to hear his points about his town. I represent a town that also grew dramatically due to the railways. Indeed, the whole spread of southern England, from west London through Slough, Reading and smaller places such as Didcot, Swindon and over to Bristol, benefited hugely from that historic railway investment. We look forward to further investment and benefits from Crossrail and the Elizabeth line, and I send the hon. Gentleman good wishes, and hope that his constituency benefits in the same way.

I have a few important points in general support of HS2. This is a crucial piece of national rail infrastructure, and even though it does not directly relate to the part of the country I represent, I believe it is a national priority for us all. I will also mention the overall benefits of rail investment as a mode of transport, the need for further investment, and the need for more sensitivity and thought from the Government on some of the finer points. In particular, we should learn lessons from Crossrail, which is a fantastic project and piece of investment that we should all be proud of in this country. Hopefully, the lessons of that huge infrastructure project can be learned for HS2.

Starting with the wider point about national infrastructure, it has been fascinating to hear the speeches tonight. One or two Members have mentioned how our country has sadly lagged behind other western countries and, indeed, some emerging economies in investment in high-speed rail. The economic case for investment at scale is clear, and HS2 is a huge national priority. I am proud that the last Labour Government began the process that has continued under the current Government. There is cross-party agreement and it is a national priority.

HS2’s benefits are about capacity, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly pointed out, but also reducing time and, as others have mentioned, the regeneration of major cities and smaller towns around the country and the overall benefit to British industry and engineering prowess. We should all be very proud of that and support it. I hope that those who have reservations about HS2 can see the benefits, and I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was right when he challenged one of the strident opponents to think about some of the benefits. The Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), made the same point.

On supporting rail investment as a whole, HS2 fits within a wider range of investment in rail as a mode of transport. Rail has so many advantages over other modes of transport, particularly on our highly congested island, where we suffer from enormous amounts of car pollution. There are physical limits to capacity for car travel in most British cities and towns, and through rural areas. We all have residents who are concerned about traffic, congestion and parking from the number of cars we have in the country. We need to think more about using rail, which in many ways is an under-utilised national resource, yet is so wonderful in its economic and environmental benefits.

I want to pick up on a couple of examples to illustrate the need for wider rail investment and its benefits to the country as a whole. We have discussed the benefits in connectivity and time on many fronts, but it is also worth considering the significant advantages of rail in reducing carbon emissions in the UK. Even rail that uses fossil fuels as a fuel has a far lower level of emissions per capita than other modes of transport. It is a much more effective means of transport in that way, and electrification and using renewable, low-carbon or zero-carbon energy has huge benefits to this country and will help us to meet our ambitious carbon reduction targets in a way that is difficult to envisage for other modes of transport.

We need to see investment in rail in the broad sense as a huge national benefit, both economically and environmentally on a big scale. It can help the local environment in our constituencies by getting people out of car commuting and into rail commuting and easing the pressure on neighbourhoods, which can be blighted by car travel. Obviously some people need to use roads for work if public transport is not available, but the two things can be complementary. In my town and the surrounding suburban areas, there are huge benefits when people use public transport. It frees up road space—that is at a premium, and it is extremely difficult to create any more in urban areas—for people who have to travel, such as those who have a trade or an urgent need to drive or are using a route not provided by public transport. On balance and in general, we need to think about the overall benefits of rail investment, and on that basis I am pleased to support the Bill.

I would like to challenge the Minister and the Government on a number of ways in which they are falling short at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is right that we should deliver HS2 in full. It is a very ambitious line, but comparable countries have had much greater investments in high-speed rail over a long time. I remember travelling on the Eurostar from Geneva to Paris in the early 1990s as a student and being staggered by the speed at which I could get across France. That was 30 years ago; we need to invest properly in this link for the whole of England so that the whole route is properly delivered, as was originally envisaged, to provide the benefits we would all like to see for communities across the country—the kind of benefits that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly highlighted in his own area.

The Government need to be careful to listen to MPs and local councils in the north of England, many of whom are rightly holding them to account and expressing serious concerns about how the current proposals are selling local communities short. In particular, the failure in the east midlands is significant. The failure to complete the eastern part of the HS2 network is a huge shortfall to large parts of the north and midlands. If I were representing that region, and particularly if I were a Government MP, I would be disappointed in my colleagues that that change is being put forward.

I will move on to some brief lessons from Crossrail and in particular some local ones from our area in the Thames valley that apply nationally. We need to see significant infrastructure projects not as an end in themselves, but as a resource for future projects. The team that delivered Crossrail have achieved amazing things. It was the biggest infrastructure programme in Europe for many years, and the emphasis is now shifting on to HS2, which will become the greatest exercise of its kind in the continent. We need to learn from the technology and the project management skills.

Getting things back on track when they go wrong with a complicated project of this type is extremely difficult, as I have learned on two visits to Crossrail and the Elizabeth line. I am sure there will be times when there are issues with HS2; we need to address those and learn the lessons of other major infrastructure projects. Problems with delays or teething problems are not just a British phenomenon; the long-delayed new airport in Berlin has taken seven years over its original planned time to be rolled out. I am sure the Minister, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) knows that only too well, but I urge him to work closely with the team that delivered Crossrail to learn the full lessons on project and programme management, engineering advances, the skills and training that were delivered and the interconnection with local communities and local business needs.

In our area, we would have seen Maidenhead as the western terminus of Crossrail, had there not been heavy lobbying within Berkshire and the wider Thames valley for Reading to be that terminus. Obviously, I have a slight bias towards my own home town being the terminus, but arguably there were bigger economic cases to be made. Every council in the Thames valley area, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, supported Reading becoming the western terminus. Parties worked together to get the good for the whole area, and in the same way we worked together on other projects and programmes, including the western rail link and other enhancements to our region.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to learn the lessons of major infrastructure programmes. Does he agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that if we get major infrastructure right, it lasts for hundreds of years? We are still benefiting from the Victorian investment 200 years ago and 150 years ago in railways. The current methodology for assessing the benefit of HS2 belongs in the 18th century, not the 21st century. The Department for Transport is not really trying to capture the economic regeneration effect and the fundamental change in the structure of transport in this country with the way that it assesses it.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is right that we need a wider look at the methodology. It is extremely complicated to make long-term economic predictions at this time, but back in the first phase of the rail revolution in this country in the 19th century, visionary engineers did amazing things that we still benefit from, as he rightly mentioned. Imagine how much potential we are yet to tap into with HS2. We should think of this as a once-in-a-century project, as he rightly says. It benefits all of us across the House, whatever party or area we represent.

In terms of other lessons from Crossrail, I once again urge Ministers to work closely with colleagues from the Government and the Opposition, local councils and, above all, business. We were able to reap the benefits in our area with this huge inward investment to Reading town centre. Companies relocated from within the south-east and from car-dependent developments in such places as Surrey. For example, Ericsson’s European and British head office has moved from an industrial estate in Surrey, which was poorly connected to sources of graduates and highly skilled people and physically to other locations such as London, Swindon or Slough. It came to Reading town centre because of that rail connectivity. We need to think in those terms with business and in a much broader sense across party. We need to think about relocating attractive new business opportunities into the transport hubs that have long-term sustainable connections, that do not suffer from delays and congestion like road transport and that are much quicker and more flexible. I am grateful for the Minister acknowledging those points.

Finally, before I sum up, I would like to reiterate the economic and environmental benefits. We need to see them in tandem rather than in contrast to one another, particularly the economic benefits for advanced manufacturing and the regeneration of cities, and the environmental benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Regenerating cities as liveable and walkable places is important in itself, and of huge environmental benefit in reducing suburban congestion from cars.

To sum up, I support the Bill and I am grateful for the cross-party co-operation. We need to have a very long-term approach, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. The Government could do more to engage with local political representatives and business. I look forward to them doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what Sir Peter Hendy looked at in his Union connectivity review, which makes that point about the links across the UK, to Ireland and to the continent.

By investing in the improvements that I have outlined, we can prepare the ground to bring much of north Wales within a two-hour journey of London once the London to Crewe 2b section of HS2 is completed. Work on some elements of that agenda has already been conducted, or is due to be undertaken shortly, meaning that initial works could get under way sooner rather than later. I look forward to meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury shortly, alongside my colleagues in north Wales, to discuss further the soon-to-be-updated RNEP.

HS2 is an important British engineering and infrastructure project, which, like the M6, will be located in England but will benefit north Wales. There are those who say that HS2 should be considered an England-only project with Barnett consequentials arising for Wales. Journeys to and from north Wales overwhelmingly run on an east-west axis, and in my view there is absolutely no value in engaging in separatism and seeking to pretend otherwise. However, after many decades of underinvestment, the time for a significant financial commitment to the Crewe to Holyhead line has well and truly arrived. With such investment, HS2 will bring greater benefits to north Wales and thereby help to bring the Union closer together. With that in mind, I hope the Minister can give some clarity about when we might anticipate the Government’s full response to the Union connectivity review.

The inclusion in the Bill of a Crewe northern junction joining the west coast main line and HS2 north of Crewe is important for north Wales in ensuring an adequate throughput of northbound services at Crewe, and therefore sufficient connecting services for my region. I was pleased to help to lobby for this northern junction some years ago, alongside colleagues at the north Wales and Mersey Dee rail taskforce, who lead the Growth Track 360 campaign that I have mentioned. However, it is vital that funding be found for a fit-for-purpose Crewe hub station building and infrastructure, and that the design be future-proofed to allow rapid connections and HS2 through services to north Wales.

I move on to the recent announcement that the Golborne link will no longer be constructed. That brings with it potentially good news for north Wales, assuming that the route northbound via Warrington is to be upgraded accordingly. I encourage the Minister to examine that possibility carefully.

I recently met the head of public affairs for Manchester airport, Andy Clarke, who outlined to me the airport’s enthusiasm for HS2 but emphasised the need for several matters to be properly examined in the near future, including the likely impact of construction, the concern over the requirement for a local funding contribution towards the new airport HS2 station and the need to ensure that public transport links between the new station, the existing station and terminal buildings are up and running from day one. Once again, I hope the Minister will take that on board.

[Graham Stringer]

On the point about Manchester airport, does the hon. Gentleman think it is discriminatory, and that it certainly does not help the levelling-up agenda, for Manchester airport to be expected to make a financial contribution to the station at the airport, when none of the other airports along the line are expected to do so?

[Dr Davies]

That is a valid point. I do not have the detail of other airports and the value that they are destined to derive from HS2. Clearly, Manchester international airport is a busy and successful one, and perhaps it can contribute towards the costs. It needs to be closely involved in the precise design and costings of the proposals.

This Bill will provide significant opportunities to level up across the UK, while protecting and strengthening the Union. It will also create very many well paid jobs during the construction phase and beyond. I urge the Minister to ensure that the potential opportunities for north Wales from HS2 are seized upon, in part by confirming and ensuring that the future through running of HS2 trains from Crewe on to an electrified north Wales coast main line is a serious aspiration for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend and I have met several times on this issue. I am keen to meet him again and continue to work with him to address the challenge of respecting the challenges local residents face while delivering this transformational project.

It is worth me focusing on Manchester Piccadilly underground station, as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and for High Peak (Robert Largan) all mentioned this one issue. There has been extensive engagement with stakeholders on the underground station. Following three years of engagement between HS2 Ltd and Greater Manchester stakeholders, the Secretary of State proposed a four-platform overground station in January 2013. That was followed by a formal consultation in January 2013 and in 2016 a further design refinement consultation on proposed changes around Piccadilly was also announced. As the same time as the 2016 consultation, the Government provided funding for Greater Manchester to create a growth strategy for the Piccadilly area. Between 2017 and 2018, the Government again worked extensively with Greater Manchester partners to refine the options.

The Government have always been clear that there needed to be a strong business case to justify the extra spending on an underground station, because we always believed that it would be the more expensive option. The Bechtel report, commissioned by Manchester City Council, was one example of making the case for an underground station. The Government, however, felt that there was no new information in the 2019 Bechtel report, with nothing to change the Government’s fundamental conclusion that a surface station design can cope with the full capacity of the HS2 line and that the underground station option remained hugely more expensive to deliver. In June 2020, I commissioned HS2 to investigate further options on the underground alternative.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful that the Minister has listened attentively and is answering some of the points, although not to my satisfaction. Will he do two things? Will he meet a delegation of the Greater Manchester MPs who have spoken in this debate to discuss the matter further? Secondly, I think he dismisses the Bechtel report too quickly. Will he agree, after a discussion, to commission a report that looks at the cost of the opportunities lost by not having an underground station?

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Committal

Graham Stringer Excerpts

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

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There are three possible positions to take on the Golborne link. There is the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has just put very convincingly that it should still be able to be considered during the passage of the hybrid Bill and that one should be able to petition against it. She made the powerful case in support of it, not just the facility to talk about it.

There is a second case, which the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) made in the previous debate, that there was significant disturbance to his constituents and that on their behalf, which he is completely entitled to do as a constituency MP, he objects to the Golborne link. That is a completely reasonable position to take, although, when it comes to building high-speed lines that are good for a region or the whole country, it is inevitable that there is little immediate benefit for many constituents. It is the nature of high speed that it will go “whoosh” past a lot of places, and people will not be able to get the normal benefit they get from a train service by going to the local station. This is a particularly difficult project for national, and not local, benefit.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Is it not the case, though, that by having a high-speed network we will take the pressure off the existing Victorian network and allow more routes for passenger services and particularly for freight, which will help us to reduce our carbon footprint?

[Graham Stringer]

Absolutely right. I was talking about the inconvenience and disamenity there is to a local community. In many cases, they will not be able to get on the high-speed link, because it will have very few stations—if it had a lot of stations, that would defeat the objective of high speed. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made a strong case against the whole of high speed 2, which, again, he is completely entitled to do. However, a previous Member for Buckinghamshire, Cheryl Gillan, managed to get a great deal of money out of the Government for tunnels under Buckinghamshire, and one point that could be made is that not only are we unable to discuss the link, but we will not be able to discuss amelioration of that route.

I am left with those two cases, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield and the hon. Member for Leigh. The third case has not been put. We have not heard at all from the Minister about what the alternative is—just that he will have a look at it. That is a strange way for Government to do business. “We have a perfectly good line that will cause some disruption; we will not allow you to talk about it and we will not pursue it, but we don’t know what we’re going to do instead or how much it will cost.” That is not a good way for Government to do business.

I am left thinking that maybe there are other reasons, and I have two suspicions. One is that we suddenly get that change not because of the powers of persuasion of the hon. Member for Leigh, strong as they may be, but because of the desperation of a Prime Minister under pressure, wanting votes from his Back-Benchers before a vote of confidence within the parliamentary Conservative party. That may be over-cynical, although I suspect there is an element of truth to it. The other side of the argument is that this is not a cut of £3 billion that is waiting for another scheme yet to be specified by the Government, but simply a cut.

[James Grundy]

That is a very interesting theory from the hon. Gentleman that this decision was somehow buying me off. However, the problem is that my position is also the position of Labour-run Warrington Borough Council and the Labour Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). This is immensely frustrating from my view, and I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree. He says that there has not been enough debate on the Golborne link, but we have been debating it for nearly 10 years. Is it not time for the suffering of my constituents to end?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I said there has not been enough debate. We have just had the Second Reading of the Crewe to Manchester hybrid Bill. There has been a great deal of debate all over the north-west about the link, particularly in Wigan and Leigh, but I was referring to debate in this Chamber, where it should be taking place and where, in the future, it will not be allowed because it is not part of the hybrid Bill.

It may or may not be coincidence that the decision was made. Other people from different political parties may agree with the hon. Member for Leigh, but if the Prime Minister wanted votes from the parliamentary Conservative party, he would not go to Wigan Council looking for those votes; he would go to his own Back-Benchers.

The second reason not to do with the Prime Minister is that this is simply about cuts. We saw £3 billion appear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield made a persuasive argument that there is no cheaper option but only more expensive options. So, when they have spent time on this project from the very beginning, are the Government looking at ways of cutting it? Leeds and Yorkshire have lost out. Parts of the east-west link have gone. It looks to me as though, if it is not about votes for the Prime Minister, it is about cuts. I cannot see any real alternative explanation.

That brings me to an overall point that was also referred to by my hon. Friend. If one goes back 40 years to when this country first started looking at high-speed rail—I was a Manchester politician then, leader of the council, not a Member of Parliament—we were promised high-speed rail coming into Manchester Piccadilly when the cross-channel link was made, but it was cut. The trains were bought for that route. They used to say in French—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not speaking widely about the general concept, because we are not on the Second Reading debate now; we are very specifically debating motions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I have allowed him to range quite widely. However, I hope that he is not going to range too far as he should be speaking specifically to these motions, not making a Second Reading speech.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will now finish in two or three sentences. I was trying to make the point, while not extending the debate too widely, that over a long period there have been cuts to the original high-speed link and to this high-speed proposal that a Labour Government originally decided to take forward in 2010. We have had a long history of cuts. I think the most objective view of what is before us is that it is not a chance to look at an alternative, because there is no such chance within the hybrid Bill; it is another cut in a series that has gone on for a long time.

Future of Rail

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

If William Gladstone, when he was Prime Minister in the 1880s, had organised a debate such as this on the future of the railways and came back today, I imagine he would be shocked. The UK was the great industrial powerhouse, and he would have expected the railways to have improved. However, as the Transport Committee found when it looked at regional railways, the timetables are slower than they were in Gladstone’s time.

There are three primary reasons for that. First, the over-application of public sector borrowing requirements starved the railways of investment for decades. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said, there was the privatisation of the railways. The railways were under-sold—the National Audit Office recognised that they had been massively sold at a loss. They were then prey to unregulated rolling stock companies, which hired trains at massive profits. Thirdly, Railtrack—the people running the railways—decided it was a property company, not a railway company, and killed people. That is what privatisation did.

Now the Government are showing some faith in the future, and we are going back to a similar structure to British Rail, but we need integration. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) said that we could have different timetables every day of the week. Privatisation meant that when people sat down to work out timetables, there were about five times as many people as there were under British Rail. It was inefficient.

I have three quick points. We need investment in the pinch points in the rail system. In Manchester’s case, we need platforms 14 and 15 at Piccadilly station, which would help the whole of the north of England. We need HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East correctly pointed out that HS2 should benefit the whole of the north of England. In fact, it should go to Scotland. HS2 should be the backbone of our rail system.

Finally, a point that everybody else has made, although it is not necessarily about the future of the railways: the site of the Manchester Exchange Station in Salford, which had the longest platform in the world, going to Victoria Station, should be the home of GBR. This was the home of the first scheduled passenger rail service between Manchester and Liverpool.