HS2 Reset

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman raises three fair issues, and I agree with his assessment that the previous Government were not just asleep but comatose at the wheel. He asks whether the alleged fraud in the supply chain will be fully investigated, and whether moneys will be returned to the taxpayer. I can assure him that no stone will be left unturned in getting to the bottom of this matter. He is also right to highlight the question of poor and inconsistent attendance by individuals who held my role, the Rail Minister’s role and Treasury roles. It is imperative that politicians who have oversight of these infrastructure schemes stay close to the detail of what is happening, both through their own officials and directly with the executive and non-executive leadership of the project. That is certainly what I intend to do. I know the Rail Minister has a monthly meeting with the new chief executive. We have already held a meeting of the ministerial taskforce, and there is another one due soon. I have had multiple one-to-one conversations with the leadership team at HS2.

The hon. Gentleman asks when I will be in a position to provide a full update on costs and schedule. Mark Wild has told me that he will require until the end of this year to do that full piece of work. I am not prepared to get ahead of that, because that is how we have got into problems previously. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that as soon as I have more information, in addition to the six-monthly report that I provide to Parliament, I will come back to this House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

This is the latest national scandal to arise in our attempts to bring in infrastructure schemes on budget and on time, but the taxpayer is not the only victim of the failure of this project so far; there are also the people of the north of England. HS2 was originally a scheme intended to help the economies of the north-west and Yorkshire and those communities on the way, so there is a complete failure there. What we will be left with is an extension to the London underground system, and that will not help people in Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Sheffield and elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State consider safeguarding the original routes so that when we get our infrastructure plans in place, we can build something that this country can be proud of?

[Heidi Alexander]

I gently say to my hon. Friend that the Mayor of the West Midlands might have something to say about his great city being seen as the end of an extension to the London underground line. It is completely right that our two great cities—Birmingham and London—are connected with high-quality rail services. Although this is a difficult day in exposing the state of the project, I have no doubt that in time it will be a railway we can be proud of.

I also say to my hon. Friend that I am aware of forecast capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester and in other parts of the country. We are investing, through things such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, in improving connectivity to other great cities in the north of England. We are determined to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live in the country, has an excellent public transport system that they can rely upon.

Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Cramlington and Killingworth constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to debate this important issue and to see the Minister for future of roads. It will come as no surprise to her that I will take the opportunity to talk about the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts in my constituency. We have become pen pals on this issue and I thank her for her responses and for meeting me about it.

I start by warmly welcoming the Government’s recent announcements in the regional growth statement, with £1.8 billion secured for the north-east; the emphasis on delivering capital projects in the spending review; and most importantly, the announcement on the Green Book. That will support transport infrastructure investment in communities such as mine in Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle.

For too long under the Conservatives’ Green Book we were disadvantaged—missing out on the investment we deserve due to outdated formulas. Those recent announcements show a Government committed to long-term growth and investment. I want that to be used to unlock the enormous potential of my communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I was delighted to spend my Easter holiday in the right hon. Member’s constituency, cycling the Cantii way. I stopped and took a look at Manston airport—and a sip of water from my bottle, because it was a hot day. I am looking forward to the outcome of the talks and the funding, and at that point I will be happy to look at the proposals from Manston and sit down with the right hon. Member to unlock that capacity.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that the air passenger duty, which was introduced by a Conservative Chancellor more than 30 years ago, has been studied intensively. Every study shows that the revenue generated by that tax is much less than the benefit of abolishing it. Will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State try to talk some sense into the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her officials, to get rid of this tax and benefit both aviation and the economy?

[Mike Kane]

I would never disagree with the former leader of my council, but on this occasion, I might have to. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as somebody who was chairman of the airport that delivered the only international runway in this country in 80 years. Air passenger duty is part of the rich mix of the aviation tapestry; however, last month in April, Heathrow had 7.1 million passengers through its doors, the largest number ever. Most airports and airlines are seeing demand go through the roof. We are modernising the airspace, decarbonising the fuel and unlocking the constraints on our airports, which is why we are seeing record passenger numbers.

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to put transport in the north-west into perspective. I would not like anything I say to be taken as a criticism of the mayor or of Transport for Greater Manchester. The Bee network, which is an excellent scheme, has put Greater Manchester to the situation London has had for the last 45 years, which we see as progress.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has just said, investment in transport is vital for economic growth. However, when we look at the national objectives, and as we have seen forever—since the second world war—more money is going into London and the south-east than the north-west. For all of Transport for Greater Manchester’s successes, it has had to fight the Department for Transport to get extra investment for Metrolink and fight Labour and Conservative Ministers to get money for investment.

There is great potential in the north-west. In fact, we would get more out of investment in transport links in the north-west than the south-east, because of what we are, in effect, doing when we invest in London and the south-east. All transport investment creates jobs and growth, but in London and the south-east we are then, in effect, subsidising congestion, because we get so much congestion that we need more investment afterwards. That is not the situation in Greater Manchester and the north-west. I am not against the Lower Thames crossing, but three quarters of a billion pounds has already been spent on assessing whether it will be any use whatever, and that money would benefit transport in Greater Manchester, and jobs and investment for the whole country, much more than it will the Lower Thames area.

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

We have suffered, in that we are not getting High Speed 2 at the moment. I think the campaign to get the rail link from Birmingham to Manchester and Manchester airport should continue. It is extraordinary to see the billions of pounds that have been spent on high-speed rail from London to Birmingham, mainly on tunnels.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the benefits of HS2 have been masked by the name High Speed 2 and that one of the main benefits of HS2 is actually capacity, which we desperately need on the railways?

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is precisely right: the real case for High Speed 2, as I am afraid it will always be called, was capacity. We are not getting that extra capacity between Birmingham and Manchester without HS2. If that capacity were to happen—it should happen—it would lead to the necessity of extra investment in the rail system east, west and internally within Greater Manchester. It would lead to more investment, so we need to campaign for it. All we have at the moment is an extension to the London underground system, which will benefit London and Birmingham.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the Metrolink going to Stockport, and I agree with her. For the first time for nearly a quarter of a century, we do not have viable plans that we know will happen, and we may have to carry on fighting Ministers and the Department for Transport for the next stage. Obviously, I would like trams to go to Middleton, as I represent part of it, but I agree that trams going to Stockport and other parts of the conurbation—perhaps Leigh as well—would mean transport and economic development. So I think we have to keep campaigning and making the case that bucks spent on transport in Greater Manchester will get us more than money spent in London and the south-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

In the context of the north-west, we are all friends on this matter. The hon. Member probably does not know, but a few years ago the Transport Committee did a study into north-west trains and found that train schedules in the north-west—not when the trains actually run—were slower when there was a Liberal Prime Minister. Even more surprisingly, it was not Campbell-Bannerman; it was Gladstone.

[Tim Farron]

May I point out that there were many more railway lines then, and therefore more trains to be slow? It was also mostly pre-electricity—so there we go. I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point.

The industrial capability of the west coast of Cumbria—not in my constituency—is significant to the economy of the whole country, and includes BAE at Barrow and Sellafield on the west coast. The railway line that serves them—the Furness line—saw a derailment a year ago and a flooding-related near disaster just a few weeks ago. We need to pay special attention to keeping the Furness line open, upgrading it and electrifying it if possible. I also want to make a case, on behalf of all my Cumbrian colleagues, for the Cumbria coastal line, which needs significant investment.

It is great to hear colleagues from metropolitan parts of the north-west talk about keeping the £2 bus fare cap, but for many of us in areas that are far less well funded, and where devolution has not really happened, such as Cumbria, we are stuck with the £3 cap, and we are worried about that being got rid of altogether. Before the cap came in, the most expensive bus journey in the United Kingdom was Kendal to Ambleside, which cost more than an hour’s wage for somebody working in the hospitality sector. Will the Minister confirm that the £3 cap will not be raised or got rid of any time soon?

It is my great privilege to represent a very rural area, but that means that even when the £3 cap exists, it is of no good whatsoever. It does a fat lot of good if we do not have any buses. Giving our local authority, Westmorland and Furness council, the ability to run its own buses is key to meeting the needs of many rural communities. I am honoured to chair an outfit called Cumbria Better Connected, to which all these issues are regularly fed in. One of the most important issues is connectivity and integration between bus and rail, but it is no—

Bus Franchising

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Modernising our transport infrastructure and delivering better buses are at the heart of our plan to kick-start economic growth in every part of the country to get our country moving. This statutory instrument is just the start of a package of measures; the buses Bill will deliver further measures on issues such as funding. Despite the challenging financial circumstances we find ourselves in—inherited from the previous Government—we are determined to deliver better bus services, growing passenger numbers and driving opportunity to underserved regions. All funding is rightly being considered as part of the spending review.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach for buses within local transport authorities. Franchising is just one way that this can be explored; there are also enhanced partnerships and municipal ownership. We firmly believe that our priorities to deliver better buses across the country are the right priorities, and we have the mandate from the British people following the general election to do just that.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Last week and this week have been the best two weeks for public transport for many decades, righting the wrongs of the privatisation of the rail service and the deregulation of buses. I did not hear an apology from the Conservative spokesperson for laying waste to local government finance over the last 14 years and destroying public bus services by handing them over to be run by profiteers, pirates and other completely unsuitable people—not in all, but in many cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a massive apology from the Conservatives for the damage they have done to public transport?

[Simon Lightwood]

I believe there should be a massive apology from the Opposition for the mess they have left this country in and for the mess they have left our bus services in. Following the previous Government, almost 300 million fewer miles are now driven a year compared with 2010. That is an appalling statistic. This Government will turn the tide for communities across the country by giving them the opportunity to control local bus services and to have a real say in developing the local transit systems that serve them. The Secretary of State said—I will say it again—that we will move fast and fix things. Here is the proof.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Thank you. I call Graham Stringer.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

That was earlier than I expected, Ms Nokes!

Before I come to the amendment I have tabled, I should say that I am probably the only Member in the Chamber who remembers the debate on the National Audit Office report after the original privatisation of rail, and if the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) applied her proposal to the original decision to privatise rail, against the criteria the then Government were using, she would find that it has been a complete failure. I remember that when in this Chamber I asked Teddy Taylor, a Conservative I respected greatly, how he justified selling off the railways for less than they were worth, which is what the National Audit Office report said, his justification—the policy of the then Conservative Government—was that it did not matter because they would take all the subsidy out of the railways. Had the hon. Lady been present then and had those tests been applied to the original policy, the Conservatives’ policy of privatisation would be seen to be a complete failure.

The other point I would like to make about what the hon. Lady said, which a number of interventions from the Government side brought out, is that a huge amount of money has been transferred to other rail systems and to pension funds in north America and elsewhere that could have been used to benefit the transport system in this country. Incidentally, one of the reasons why passenger numbers have increased on the railways is that the previous Government did not invest in roads over many years. That has led to congestion which has forced people on to the railways; it is not the privatisation of the railways that has attracted those passengers. Those profits have gone out precisely because the Treasury did not want the debt on the balance sheet, but one cannot have it both ways. If we are to repatriate those profits, which I believe taking the railways back into public ownership will do, we of course have to take the debt. An accountancy sleight of hand, because the Treasury does not like seeing the debt on the balance sheets, is the direct cause of the profits being taken out of this country.

On the Government side of the House, there is real enthusiasm for this Bill, and the sooner the train operating companies are back in public hands and that money is repatriated to this country, the better. However, I share with the shadow Transport Secretary a worry that officials in the Department for Transport may not be up to it. Excuses may be used to slow things down, because the operator of last resort is not ready and they are worried about taking on the extra capacity. It is a genuine worry, but it is a problem that should and has to be overcome if we want a publicly owned railway working for the benefit of passengers and the taxpayers of this country, not a privatised system. I have therefore tabled an amendment to remove clause 2(3), which could be used as a loophole as it would allow the Secretary of State to carry on with a franchise under certain circumstances. I ask my colleagues on the Front Bench to be explicit about what those circumstances might be, because my worry is that they will be getting advice from officials in the Department for Transport who have not covered themselves in glory and have failed with the railways over many, many years.

As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent likes evidence, I refer her to a Public Accounts Committee report in May that is excoriating in describing the officials in the Department for Transport and how they have dealt with the railway system. I will read some of the conclusions from that report, because it should worry us all if we want this Bill to work—not just to be passed into legislation but actually to work.

The first point made by this all-party Committee with a Conservative majority in May this year was this:

“It has been six years since the Department identified the need for a root and branch review of the railway, but it has achieved very little in this time.”

It then says:

“There has been too little focus on passengers and taxpayers and how to get them a better deal.”

Those are the first very worrying points from Labour’s perspective.

The report also says:

“Six years since the Department started work on rail reform, it has failed to resolve fundamental disagreements and clarify key aspects of reform.”

There are other points too, but I do not want to bore the Committee too much. The last point is:

“The Department has failed to engage with the workforce to successfully deliver its reform ambitions.”

That is also very worrying.

I note as well the comments of an official from the Department when discussing the appalling performance of Avanti, which I think is permanently in breach of its contract and which has laughed at the Government and the travelling public as it has received massive subsidies. It is not working for profit; it is not at risk. It has just been ripping off the taxpayer for many years—since it took over from Virgin in fact. A DfT spokesperson said:

“Stripping Avanti's contract would just cause more upheaval for passengers rather than solving the challenges the operator is facing. These include restrictive working practices that can’t be reformed without ASLEF’s agreement.”

I think those officials could be and have been a barrier to reform. I would not expect my colleagues on the Front Bench to do anything but be loyal to the officials who work in the Department, but I would like them to respond on how they are going to overcome some of the potential problems they will find in a Department they control. There are not only the problems where there will be resistance. Owing to the way the franchises are dealt with, some of the better train-operating companies—such as Greater Anglia, which has a reasonable record—will come up first, whereas Avanti has eight years left on its contract. It seems to me that it would be easy for officials to recommend dealing with the best first rather than the worst, which is not in the interests of passengers or the taxpayer. We really need as a Government to get control of that and deal with the worst first, because that is where we are losing money, that is where passengers are suffering, and that is where money is being taken out of the system. As I say, I do not expect the Front-Bench team to criticise the officials they have to work with, but I hope they will take on board the fact that there are real problems and that we need to deliver right across the rail system to create a wholly publicly owned industry as soon as possible.