Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is right that the Orwell bridge is another key artery for Ipswich. I know that it is subject to ongoing work by Highways England that requires wind tunnel validation. I have been promised that that work will be completed by the end of September. From the Dispatch Box, I send a clear message to Highways England that I expect to see it on my desk.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Our transport industries have been devastated by coronavirus, but its frontline workers have kept the country going in difficult times. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

At the outset of topical questions, with 72 hours to go before the current rail franchise emergency measures agreements are due to expire, I expected the Transport Secretary to update the House. I am afraid my sheet is blank because no such statement, comment or indication followed. That is absolutely staggering. Are we to expect that, rather than something being reported to the House, it will come out over the next couple of days or the weekend, denying the House the opportunity to look into it? Will the Transport Secretary commit to making a statement to the House on Monday?

Let us be absolutely clear that in the last six months, with the current management agreements in place, while many parts of our transport sector have been denied the support they need, £100 million has been paid out to shareholders, many of which, by the way, are foreign Governments. That cannot continue in its current form.

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the first emergency measures were worth some £3.5 billion to ensure that our rail sector was able to continue. I have already described how passengers are now returning to them and the work that is going on to make sure that they are safe to return.

As the hon. Gentleman points out, it is the case that the EMAs, as they are called, come to an end quite shortly. I do not think the House would realistically expect me to stand here and carry out those negotiations in public, but I reassure him that I will certainly return to make a statement in the House as soon as there is something to say.

[Jim McMahon]

There are just 72 hours left to go—it is literally last-minute. It is a timetable that would make Northern shy. I do not know what is going on with the Transport Secretary.

We know that passenger numbers have fallen to 7% of what they would be in normal times, yet rail fares are set for another increase in January. The average commuter will pay £3,000 for their season ticket, which is over £900 more than they would have paid in 2010. To encourage commuters back safely, will the Government commit to freezing fares and introducing part-time season tickets, as Labour has proposed?

[Grant Shapps]

I hate to play politics at the Dispatch Box, but it is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that, under Labour, there were inflation-busting fare rises that added 4.9% during its time in office. Again, I want to make sure that we are speaking on the basis of facts. I will return to the House on the emergency measures.

It is not true to say, as I think the hon. Gentleman did, that the number of passengers is down to a single-digit percentage. As I said before, the number of passengers returning was at 42% last week. It is incumbent on all of us to demonstrate that the railways are safe; to take the railways from time to time, which I am sure Members on both sides of the House do; and to reassure people of the safety and efficacy of using the railways and all other public transport systems.

Aviation Sector

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before I address the debate, and with Mr Speaker’s permission, in my capacity as chair of the Co-operative party parliamentary group, I want to place on record my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Chris Herries, who passed away during the recess. She served the Co-operative movement with dedication for many years, most recently as chair of the Co-operative party. She was a woman of great character and strength who made a huge contribution, and she will be hugely missed by all in the movement.

I welcome the new Minister to his place, and wish him every success in his endeavours for the industry. I thank Members across the Chamber for what has been a good debate. It has probably been a long time coming, but nevertheless the volume of interest—59 Members, many of whom did not have the chance to speak—shows the strength of feeling about the impact of this issue on local communities.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place—part of me wonders why the Government did not use their own time to allow it to take place a little sooner. I also thank the trade union movement—Unite, GMB, the British Airline Pilots’ Association, and others—for giving a voice to workers in the industry during a difficult time. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for his leadership in giving detailed support to the sector on our behalf.

We have heard a number of concerns that the Government need to address. First, the impact on jobs has been significant. We heard about that impact in the opening speeches, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). We heard about it from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I hope he takes this in a good spirit, but if the current Transport Secretary is being given advice on performance from the former Transport Secretary, I would say we are in pretty grim territory. With respect, the issue of literally ordering ferries that did not exist gives me a bit of room to say that.

This is a serious issue, and for so long, Members have been crying out for concerted Government action to ensure that further job losses do not take hold. I am afraid, however, that the Government have been found wanting, because a lot of this was entirely avoidable. We heard in a powerful way about the impact on our regional economies if action is not taken. My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen) are all profoundly rooted in their communities, and they fully understand the impact of these job cuts.

We heard from Members across the House the strength of feeling about British Airways and the way it is treating its workforce. I wondered whether some Government Members were becoming trade union officials at some points during the debate, and it was a pleasure to hear that unity. Such behaviour has been outrageous, with loyal staff with decades of service being treated in such a way—that point was made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine).

It stands out that England and Wales have not been given the resource to provide business rates relief to airports, as has happened in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government should consider that—they should consider all options—and we must ensure that local authorities in those areas, particularly where there are rates retention schemes, are fully compensated for any intervention that may follow. That is critical.

Why is this sector important? It brings £22 billion a year into the economy. It is a critical part of the fabric of our economy. It supports 1.6 million jobs. We have all seen the impact of the cuts and what they have meant for staff: 4,500 jobs at easyJet; bases closing at Newcastle, Stansted and Southend; 12,000 jobs at British Airways; 3,000 jobs at Ryanair; and 4,500 jobs at Virgin Atlantic. The list goes on, including through the supply chain at Airbus and GE in south Wales. How many more? The warning signs are there.

We all knew that aviation would be profoundly affected, particularly because of its high operating costs and seasonality—and, of course, the quarantine measures that have been brought in. It will take longer to recover as a result, so in that context, why not extend the support? It makes complete sense, not least because the sector will be critical to our recovery. This country cannot get back to economic health if we erode the foundations of our economy. It is not that difficult to understand: we need action and certainty.

I do wonder: in respect of those who have already been given notice of redundancy, had the Chancellor given more confidence by declaring much earlier that he would extend the furlough scheme, would fewer people have been made redundant? A lot of this is about confidence and how long it can be sustained, given the quarantine uncertainty and the lack of sustained financial support. And it could get worse: some estimates put the potential job losses at 124,000. That is a significant impact.

It appears that everybody is calling for a sector deal for aviation—including, by the way, the Chancellor. It was not that long ago that the Chancellor reflected that the Government would have to make such an intervention. I am sure the conversation was had around the Cabinet table. So, where is the plan that we all—including the industry— were expecting, to capture all this into a sector deal?

On the funding that has been given to airline operators, why has there not been the conditionality to protect the loyal workforce? It is on the record, in the response to my written question that was published on 3 September: there was no protection for the workforce.

Why have the Government not done more to protect the staff at British Airways? Significant public money has gone into BA, but there is silence on the Government Benches. Why did the Government give £600 million to easyJet while turning a blind eye to £174 million being paid out in shareholder dividends—and when? When the virus was at its peak. Imagine saying there is no money and coming cap in hand, but paying out that amount in dividends. Where were the conditions to protect our environment and lead the charge to reduce carbon emissions? None of this is good enough. We need better and more concerted action from the Government.

And all that comes before we get on to quarantine. Before quarantine was introduced, more than 20 million passengers came into this country without any restrictions in place whatsoever. We were one of the last countries in the world to introduce either partial or full restrictions. Then, almost as a knee-jerk action, we saw the introduction of a 14-day, blunt-tool quarantine with almost no notice, causing absolute devastation to an industry already on its knees.

We were then promised air bridges. The idea of an air bridge is that two countries have an agreement about passenger transfer from one to the other. We did not get that: half the countries on the list had restrictions on British passengers on arrival. That is not an air bridge. This is why there was confusion: people were literally booking holidays only to discover that they would have to quarantine in the other country, potentially for 14 days.

There is now a refusal to take action on a pragmatic suggestion to have testing at airports, obviously with a test five days afterwards to make sure that the risk is captured. It will never be about one intervention by itself, so it is not good enough to say, “Well, you’ll only capture this percentage at the airport, and that wouldn’t be enough”; it is about the range of interventions that, taken together, put this country in the best possible position.

The Government need to do more. There will be more job losses if they do not take concerted action and have a coherent plan. A new Minister is in place now—step up to the plate, please.

International Travel

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Transport Secretary for prior sight of the statement, although I should say for the record that it arrived only five minutes before it was due to be made. I am not sure that is quite in the spirit of things, and it might be worth taking that back to officials to make sure it does not happen again. However, I should say that he made the effort to give me a call today, which is appreciated.

The Government’s response to the covid-19 crisis has been nothing short of chaotic. At almost every turn they have lacked a clear strategy, and that failure has been acutely felt in aviation. For months, even when the virus was at its peak, millions of passengers were coming from all over the world without any restrictions placed on them at all. By the time restrictions were introduced, we were one of only a handful of countries in the world that up to that point had failed to take action to put them in place. It is this pattern of the Government being too slow to act, coupled with blunt interventions to overcompensate, that has dogged the handling of the pandemic right from the outset.

First, there was a blunt quarantine for all, bar France, but then France was back on. Then air corridors were on the table; then they were not. What we then saw was not really air corridors, air bridges or whatever name is given to them, but essentially a list produced by the Foreign Office, half of the countries on which had placed restrictions on British travellers going there—no travel corridor or air bridge at all. Now we are seeing countries coming and going off the list, with very little notice for those who have decided to go on holiday and incurred the cost of doing so.

It is all very well for the Government now to change position and tell people that they should travel with their eyes open. It was not that long ago that the Government were defending a very senior member of No. 10 for driving for an eye test, let alone going with eyes fully open. The British public are not stupid. They understand fully the pandemic and what it means to everyday life, but people work hard, and they are desperate to return to a sense of normality. For many, that one holiday a year is something they save up for and look forward to, but they cannot afford a 14-day quarantine to be imposed with very little notice.

We need to see when the data was really made available. We all know that localised and regional data is made available across Europe, so why was it not reviewed when the decision was made in Spain, for instance, to have the restrictions on the islands? The point was made at the time and the Government did not move, but it strikes me that the evidence base was in place, so it makes sense to publish that evidence in the House of Commons Library, so that it can be reviewed.

We need to make sure that we do not take this intervention all the time. It appears chaotic because it is chaotic. There will not be a single intervention in itself that will keep this country safe; it will be a number of interventions taken together that make us safe, and a key part of that is testing. Frankly, it is beyond belief that people arrive in this country from all over the world without any tests being carried out, either at the airport or five days later. It is important that we now carry out a full review, not just of quarantine in the very blunt sense that the Government approach it, but also to ensure that a proper test and tracking system is in place. In my town, the national contact tracing system has failed to get through to half of those it should have made contact with. When we have that infrastructure and such weak performance, it is little surprise that the Government are constantly going from one crisis to another.

Aviation is on its knees. The limited support offered by the Government has meant job losses all over the place, in a sector that was always going to take longer to recover than other parts of the economy. The Government knew that, but even with the money given over to the airlines, where are the conditions to protect workers’ rights? It is a scandal that hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being given out with no conditions to protect the workers at British Airways or easyJet, and the rights that they have built up.

Labour’s position is clear. We have set out a plan for a sectoral deal, with six key conditions, supporting jobs, tackling climate change and providing fair play on tax. It is important that the Government now come forward with a proper sectoral deal. We will absolutely work in partnership, in the national interest, but the Government cannot continue to go from one crisis to another, because key to beating the virus is maintaining public support. I have to tell the Transport Secretary that we are in real danger of losing that support.

[Grant Shapps]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not getting the statement to him. I do not know why that happened, and I will make inquiries. As he mentions, I did call in advance, unrelated to the statement itself.

This is not a virus that any of us control, beyond the way in which we all behave individually and the extent to which we all have contact that we perhaps should not be having. It is easy to come to the Dispatch Box and be a professor of hindsight, saying, “You should have done this. You shouldn’t have done that.” If the hon. Gentleman could explain to me how he can find out that one week Jamaica will have three or five cases per 100,000 and the next week be breaching 20 cases per 100,000, even though the Joint Biosecurity Centre, Public Health England and all the other experts were unable to predict it, I would be the first to welcome that kind of detailed information and knowledge. It does not exist. I believe that no country in the world has combined as much information as has been pulled together here in order to work on a detailed island policy. In fact, it is difficult to think of another country in Europe that is doing more testing than the UK now, with testing capacity of a third of a million tests per day, going up to half a million today. I was speaking to my opposite number from France, who told me that there they would reach 400,000 tests a week—in this country, we can do that in a day and a half.

Our NHS test and trace system, combined with the passenger locator form, has enabled us to extract very specific data to know where infections are coming back from, and that has been extraordinarily useful. I reiterate—I cannot say it any more clearly, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say it again—that in these times when we travel we must accept that we have to go with our eyes open. I gave the example of Jamaica, but, unfortunately, the same thing exists everywhere else. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Is he saying that we should not have travel corridors at all and we should prevent everybody from travelling? That cannot be the case, because he tells us that he wants to support the aviation sector. In which case, some kind of corridors must be open, otherwise we would not be supporting it.

That is why we have pumped an enormous amount of money, via the British taxpayer, into supporting the aviation sector. Off the top of my head, 56,400 members of staff are using the furlough scheme, which will add up to well over £1 billion. There is a £1.8 billion fund, the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility, which has supported aviation-specific companies and there have been all manner of other funds, including the coronavirus job retention scheme, from which £283 million has gone to the aviation sector.

Of course we want the aviation sector to get going again. As I mentioned towards the end of my statement—I will come back to the House on this— testing is a part of that, but I also explained the complexity of testing on day zero. I did not hear whether that is what the Opposition Front-Bench team are calling for, but there are significant issues with testing on day zero in a manner that will not necessarily find those who are carrying the virus but that will convince lots of people that they are not. That approach is not the answer. We are working on all those things, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with us, rather than score points from us, when everybody is trying to the right thing, nationwide, to beat this virus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is right: the e-scooters brought forward due to the pandemic will be an excellent and eco-friendly way of getting around—I can see that many Members across the House are looking forward to getting on their e-scooters. They will, I am afraid, in the first place be available to those with driving or provisional licences. That is not through desire, but because of a quirk in the law—we are tackling a law from, I think, 1880, which, with great foresight, banned e-scooters long before they were invented. That was one way to allow trials to go ahead right now.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to our transport workers and reflect on those who have lost their lives to the coronavirus. Our economy is experiencing major shock. There is no doubt that the foundations were weakened after a lost decade of austerity and the failure to invest properly in our regions that make up the northern powerhouse. Had the north seen the same per-person investment as London over the past decade, it would have received £66 billion more. Even before the pandemic hit, estimates by the UK2070 Commission recommended investment of £15 billion each year for 20 years. Will the Secretary of State outline how much capital investment has been awarded to the north?

[Grant Shapps]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am the northern powerhouse Minister in the Cabinet, so I take this very seriously indeed. I do not want to disappoint him, but there are so many different elements of funding going into the northern powerhouse right now that it is difficult to provide an immediate figure for the total. I would be happy to undertake to write to him with those precise details, but I can tell them that it is billions.

[Jim McMahon]

I am not sure that my pre-prepared response quite expected the Secretary of State not to know the answer to the question about how much money has been allocated, but we can guess: it is a drop in the ocean. It will be a drop in the ocean when compared with the historic funding gap of £66 billion. It will be a drop in the ocean when compared with the £15 billion annual allocation, as recommended by the Commission.

We were promised a plan to level up Britain. We were told that we were at war with the virus, yet when it came to a Marshall fund, the nation was failed. The Government failed on ambition; they failed on scale; and in doing so they failed the hard-working people of the north. Let us be generous and accept that what has gone has gone. Today, will the Secretary of State commit, in future allocations, to the north receiving no less than the capital?

[Grant Shapps]

That is a lot of rhetoric, but, if the hon. Gentleman likes, I will go into some of the money that is being spent. For example, there is the trans-Pennine route, a multi-billion pound upgrade of the route from Manchester to Leeds. Then we have an extra £10 million initially to sort out the Manchester corridor, which was announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday. There is the High Speed North project, which runs into multi-billions. I will write to him, and I hope that he will come back to the Dispatch Box surprised and perhaps withdraw his words when he sees the multi-billion pounds that are being spent in the north right now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Jim McMahon. I congratulate him on his new job.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. May I start by paying tribute to our frontline transport workers, and may I offer my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives through covid-19?

The latest advice from the Government now explicitly rules out providing personal protective equipment, such as face masks, to drivers, instead reserving them for health and social care workers. The response on this is that the health advice apparently does not support it. If the evidence says that masks will not save them, gloves will not save them and banning the handling of cash will not save them, that begs the question: what will save them, given that transport workers, including bus drivers, are more likely to die from covid-19 than the general population? Can that evidence be provided to the House of Commons Library so that it can be properly looked at and investigated? We cannot allow transport workers on the frontline, working to keep our country moving, to face a greater risk than the general population.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State to his position. It continues to be Public Health England advice that face masks are not necessary outside clinical settings or where Health and Safety Executive employer risk assessments suggest that it would be necessary to protect against non-covid-19 risks. However, workers should refer to the guidance, which I mentioned, when considering whether wearing a face covering would be appropriate and they should consider using a face covering when social distancing is not possible.

Covid-19: Transport

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I also thank him for the way in which he has maintained communication and shown a willingness to work together in the national interest.

I know that everyone in this House and at home will join me in sending our thanks to all transport workers across the country. As with all our frontline workers, they are the very best of us. It is so important that we give a voice to those workers. Even today, the official advice is found wanting and it will lead to confusion. The scenes we saw yesterday on public transport were unsurprising when the Government ordered a return to work with 12 hours’ notice but without the guidance being in place on how people can be kept safe. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State why his announcement was not made before the Prime Minister’s statement on Sunday?

Secondly, the Government have produced guidance for bus passengers and operators, but it leaves too much to chance and fails to protect frontline workers. It risks a postcode lottery on standards and protection, and there is far too much “should”, “could”, “not always possible” and “as much as you can”, rather than clear, directive guidance. For bus drivers, for instance, the guidance is that PPE should not be used, but instead reserved for health and care staff. That is despite shocking figures released by the Office for National Statistics that show professional drivers, including those operating taxis, private hire vehicles, buses and goods vehicles, have some of the highest covid-19 fatality rates in the country. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State for the evidence base to support the position that the provision of PPE should not be provided for frontline staff on transport? What discussions have taken place to ensure co-operation across our devolved nations to offer clear and consistent standards for transport, such as buses and rail that, of course, crosses from nation to nation?

When the Secretary of State says he announced last week a £2 billion fund for cycling, it sounded awfully familiar. Will he confirm that that actually is not new money, but was instead announced pre-lockdown back in February? In that context, can he confirm whether it has now been paid to local councils?

The Secretary of State touched on the aviation sector in the guidance that has been produced. A number of airlines have already announced a significant number of redundancies, affecting tens of thousands of jobs directly and throughout the supply chain.

Even as we transition to a green economy, protecting jobs now so that people can be reskilled for the future is critical. It will be far easier to transition from a point of strength rather than of weakness. The Government have failed to offer a sectoral deal for aviation. There is a real chance to set conditions on staff wages, payments to UK-based suppliers, a shift to green technology, demand that those who seek our help pay fairly into the tax system, as well as halt the payment of shareholder dividends. Why have the Government failed to act?

Aviation is not alone. We have seen this with ferry operators and the announcement of more than 1,100 jobs at risk with P&O. The Prime Minister’s 14-day quarantine proposal is a total mess. It states that everyone must be quarantined, unless they come from anywhere in the world via France, which is one of the worst affected countries in Europe after the UK. Will the Government produce the scientific advice that justifies why France should be exempt from that policy? Why have the Government decided that now is the time to implement this measure, two months after other countries introduced it? More than 18 million passengers have entered the UK since January. Will the Government publish the scientific advice that led to that change now and not earlier?

Finally, we urgently need a comprehensive plan for transport. The public rightly demand an end to the chaos surrounding the exit plan. The risk is not just that more lives will be lost needlessly, but that the economic damage will be far deeper, hurting our communities for a generation to come. The Opposition will continue to work together in the national interest, but the Secretary of State must take a message back to the Cabinet table: no more confusion, no more reckless briefings, and no more delay. This is a national crisis that needs a Government who are fit to respond to it, and we hope for the country that that comes sooner, rather than later.

[Grant Shapps]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his new post. He is right to raise a number of those issues, in particular the extraordinary work being done by our transport workers. I thought it might be worth updating the House on the latest information I have about the number of those who have sadly died with covid-19, although that was not necessarily through their jobs—we do not know. The latest number I have from Transport for London is 42 people, and on Network Rail, including train operating companies, the latest number I have is 10. Our thoughts are with all their friends and families at this difficult time.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention concerns about overcrowding, and I contacted the office of the Mayor of London regarding Transport for London. We are working closely with him to try to ensure that the number of services is ramped up quickly. As I said in my opening comments, however, we can have 100% of services, but that will not prevent overcrowding because social distancing now requires much more space. I am working proactively with the Mayor to try to bring in as much marshalling as possible by TfL, and elsewhere, including on Network Rail. We have been working with the British Transport Police who even yesterday deployed several hundred people. Most of all, I appeal to the public to listen to our message, and to please avoid public transport unless they absolutely need to take it as a key worker. People should look for alternative means of travel, either active, or by using their car if they have one available.

The hon. Gentleman said that the advice is not specific enough, and I hope he has had a chance to read it. Other commentators have said that it is surprisingly specific and detailed across all the different sectors, including the two pieces of advice that have been provided today. I do try to provide the balance. His wider point seems to be that the advice is not specific enough, for example on what bus operators should do. Buses look and feel different throughout different parts of the country, depending on the make and model, and on the systems run by local bus operators. It is not possible to provide that level of advice company by company, operator by operator, because TfL will be very different to a Metro tram operator. We have provided very good overall advice. Our officials are working closely with the operators, unions, and others, and much of the advice is very similar. We all know about social distancing, washing hands, and the basics.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the evidence base, and I would be happy to organise a briefing for him on that. Public Health England, and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, have been very clear that there is no case for the use of medical level PPE in transportation. It depends, of course, on what someone is doing. Sitting in a cab driving a train is a fairly solitary activity, so there is no requirement in such a situation, but if someone has more contact with the public, things will vary. I extend to him, as I have done to others, the offer of a briefing on these matters. In fact, either tomorrow or Thursday we are giving a joint briefing to which I have invited unions and operators of buses and other forms of transport.

The hon. Gentleman also queried the £2 billion for cycling. I made this point clear when I announced the money. He will recall from before his time in this role that we announced £5 billion for bikes and buses. Some of this money—£1.7 billion—is part of that funding, as I said when I made the announcement. We have brought it forward so that we can get on with it, particularly given the emergency situation and the need to widen pavements and provide thoroughfares for cycling.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the airlines. I welcome the shift in tone from that of his predecessor, who never once encouraged me to support aviation. I agree about jobs, but he is wrong to say there has not been the support there. Almost uniquely, the aviation sector has enjoyed something that has not been widely advertised, but I will let him into it: not only can the industry access the very generous support provided by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer, which he extended further an hour or so ago from this Dispatch Box, but, in addition to all the other Government support, aviation can enter into a process of discussion if the existing types of support are not sufficient. Without breaching commercial confidentiality, I can tell him that a number of such discussions between the Department and aviation organisations, be they airlines, airports or ground support companies, are taking place.

Similarly, on P&O, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not spot it, but we have supported a range of maritime freight—in some cases, that has included P&O—to provide connectivity, not just from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but between Great Britain and 26 other ports in Europe.

The policy of quarantining for 14 days is a Home Office lead. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I can tell him quite straightforwardly that, going into this crisis, the advice was not to instigate quarantining, mainly because we had millions of Brits to bring home, but also because, according to the scientists—I had this very conversation with the chief medical officer before the lockdown began and he explained it to me—it would at best have delayed things by three, four or five days; sadly, it would not have prevented us from experiencing the epidemic. Again, he is very welcome to see that advice.

As we come out of this, as we control the virus in this country, with the facilities now in place to track and trace and the number of tests that can be carried out, of course we very much need to stop it continuing. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

It has taken seven minutes for the subject to be raised. I do not wish to disappoint my hon. Friend, but he will not have to wait very long. We will make an announcement next month.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the pre-announcement of the HS2 commitment, but our local services are important. Funds are being developed for a tram link from Bury to Middleton, and hopefully through to Oldham, but we need to connect the whole north-east of Greater Manchester. Will the Secretary of State commit to a meeting, at least, to discuss a link from Oldham to Ashton?

Thomas Cook

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are pretty strict rules involved in when the state can and cannot intervene in private businesses. If it intervened all the time, other much more successful businesses would be disadvantaged and those employments could be affected. As I mentioned briefly earlier, an accounting officer would not have signed off that kind of intervention because it simply would have represented a big problem for the state, and we almost certainly would have ended up having to repatriate people in any case, as we are today.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Three thousand people in Greater Manchester—the loyal workforce of Thomas Cook—are affected by this situation, and we are disgusted by the greediness of the directors and management of the company. The Secretary of State mentioned that the Turkish Government did not make an approach, and that the Spanish Government did but were too late. Why were the UK Government not proactive? Why did they not pick up the phone and make the call to those Governments?

[Grant Shapps]

Let me explain so that the House fully understands the situation. This is a private company that was getting on with trying to put together its own rescue deal, which—just to be clear—the British Government would absolutely want it to do. As I said before, why on earth would we want to lose a landmark British company? Of course, we would not want to do so. But it is for the directors of that business properly to organise for its rescue. Had any kind of substantial plan been put to us by the company, or by other interested parties or countries, we would have been very interested in it, but the truth is that no viable plan was put forward.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Member for York Central is smiling as she looks across the Chamber—[Interruption.] She says that it is unbelievable, but it is anything but unbelievable—it is entirely true and entirely credible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield backed me up on this. What is the point in having a first-class, independent review of the kind that is being advocated and saying that it will come into effect only after this has been made into the law of the land? [Interruption.] I see the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), chuntering, but perhaps he would like to come to the Dispatch Box and explain the nonsense that lies behind that reasoning.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that this is just good governance? If we are spending this amount of taxpayers’ money, we have to have decent oversight to make sure that the money is being used to the best effect. That should perhaps have been built into the process earlier, but the fact is that it is being brought forward at this stage. Presumably that is why he supports it, but let us be honest: whatever is introduced, he will never support this project, which I do strongly, because this is about not just rebalancing the UK economy but connecting the north to great opportunities across the whole of mainland Europe.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that I will never accept this project. I have made that abundantly clear not only by my votes, but by the arguments that I have presented. I come back to this point: we cannot say that there is transparency if this is turned into the law of the land. It is one of the most nonsensical new clauses that I have seen, notwithstanding the fact that I strongly believe that an independent peer review would be a good idea. However, it should come before Royal Assent, not after.

[Sir William Cash]

That all sounds frightfully interesting, but I am afraid that it is not what we are dealing with. We have this Bill and a project that is the biggest white elephant that has ever been seen in modern history, as far as the United Kingdom rail system is concerned. It is a complete outrage that my constituents should have this perpetrated on them.

I am serious when I say that I shall be campaigning not only for a review of these proposals but in pretty short order to have the Act repealed, because that is the only way this can be sorted out. It is a complete disgrace that the Government have introduced the Bill in the dying days of this Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) is laughing because she knows I am right. These proposals almost certainly would not survive the review that will be taking place under a new Prime Minister. I am making a fair assumption about who that person will be.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

I will give way again to this extremely energetic Member of Parliament.

[Jim McMahon]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not feel energetic. Is it not the case, though, that the zero-based review, which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury proposed, is not a genuine review of the project but is about creating a war chest to buy the support of Conservative shire candidates? It has nothing to do with HS2; it is about clawing back the money for a fighting fund.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman has very sensibly tempted me into saying something else that I believe. I am completely against these proposals in relation to my constituents and the national interest—it is the biggest white elephant of all time, as all the reports I referred to in my Westminster Hall debate demonstrated. There have been even more since, including one from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which rated the whole thing as amber—although in fact it probably thinks it is in the red. If only, it said, we could get rid of this ridiculous proposal and put the money where it deserves to go, which is across the country, east to west, which I happen to agree with very strongly. On that point, I had some sympathy with what the shadow Minister said.

There is another factor. This incredible waste of money could make an enormous difference to this country’s coffers in the not very distant future. It seems absurd to be wasting money like this. We hear all these ridiculous arguments about Brexit, but this is the kind of thing that is bringing the country to its knees by virtue of wasted expenditure on projects that are no more than a white elephant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Smith]

My speech is all about the way in which HS2 will help to deal with these matters, but I will speed it up, Mr Deputy Speaker. My apologies.

I am not for one moment suggesting that HS2 will solve all these problems alone, but it can and must play an important role as part of a wider strategy. As I said on Second Reading:

“My vision for HS2 is not as an end in itself, benefiting only businesses and commuters, but as a catalyst for the radical rebalancing of our economy”.—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 741-42.]

I firmly believe that we need to shift our economy towards investment-led growth. The choice that has been presented between HS2 and better east-west links in the north is an entirely false one. In any case, Northern Powerhouse Rail services will, at two of their most important regional links, run on HS2 infrastructure.

Some businesses choose to pay almost four times as much per square foot for premises in London and the south because of the poor connectivity in the north. Last year, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research North indicated that planned transport investment in London was two and a half times higher per person than in the north of England, and productivity in London is reported to be some 40% greater than in the north, demonstrating a strong correlation between connectivity and productivity. In its recent report, High Speed Rail Industry Leaders set out why it believes that improved connectivity will lead to greater regional productivity, and enhanced specialisation that will help us to bring about a more balanced economy.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes the case eloquently for her constituency. This independent review is so important because it is not about the pounds being spent globally; it is about the impact on jobs and local communities, economies and supply chains.

[Laura Smith]

Absolutely. The review is incredibly important. What does the review mean for places like Crewe? Crewe has the potential to build on the 360° connectivity it already has to become the key regional hub bridging the north and the midlands. The local enterprise partnership is working alongside Cheshire East Council on a proposal for a Crewe HS2 growth corridor that will bring together strategic development sites in Crewe, Middlewich and Winsford, so that they can build on their traditional strengths in high-value manufacturing. As for the model through which the LEP proposes delivering that corridor, it will invest up front to unlock development, and will be repaid through the generation of new business rates. Any surplus income will be used to help finance station improvements.

I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker; I get the impression that I might have pushed my luck a little, but I am still fairly new to this process, so please excuse me. I reiterate that the passing of this Bill is not nearly enough to unlock my constituency’s full potential. I would like the Government to commit to seven HS2 trains per hour stopping at Crewe, and more frequent regional train services to and from Crewe on each of the lines radiating out of the town. A northern junction at Crewe is essential to allow Birmingham-Manchester HS2 services to stop at Crewe, and to allow Crewe to be part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail network, which would open up the possibility of direct service to Leeds and other destinations east of the Pennines.

I am concerned that some appear to be flirting with the idea of scaling back HS2, either through short-sightedness or, worse, for political gain. HS2 has shaped our local planning framework, and so much work has gone into bringing all stakeholders together to realise the potential of HS2 in Crewe that it would be nothing short of tragic if the Government failed to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why I tabled new clause 5. NDAs should not be used to shut people up and prevent them from saying what is happening inside the organisation. Not only that, but NDAs are being used to deprive elected Members of this House and other officials of important information about some of the impacts and problems, which we should be scrutinising.

[Jim McMahon]

I absolutely respect that the hon. Lady is giving voice to her constituents, but she has been fairly negative so far. Can she think of one positive that HS2 will bring?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am glad to be giving voice, because I sound a bit croaky—I am losing my voice.

I agree that there are potential benefits, but the question is whether those benefits are worth the cost and whether the business case stacks up. I would much rather see the east-west Northern Powerhouse Rail connection happen as a priority.

When a rolling stock depot is moved from another constituency to mine and put next to a school, thereby requiring the whole school to move, there seems to be either a level of incompetence or staggering complacency in the management of the project. I have been at events where my constituents have asked questions and not received answers.

There have been ministerial orders to provide mock-ups of the rolling stock depot so that we can understand the scale and impact, and HS2 has just ignored them and said that it will not provide the mock-ups. Then there has been a change of Minister, who has taken a different approach.

My concern is that, unless this protection is in the legislation, we will potentially see a change of Secretary of State, and that we will then not have the protections in relation to this kind of infrastructure project that all our constituents deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Nobody has done a proper assessment of where transport infrastructure investment is going and what the impact is on cities and towns. Some assessment has been made of the impact on different regions of the country, and that is important. Actually, it is significant, because I think the New Economics Foundation cites HS2’s own figures showing that 40% of the benefits from HS2 will go to London, whereas only 10% of the benefits will go to Yorkshire. I want to see a broader assessment of the impact on cities and towns.

Job growth is twice as fast in cities as in towns. New digital jobs, service jobs, university-related jobs and cultural jobs are all being concentrated in cities, but manufacturing, distribution and retail jobs are disappearing from towns. That is a result of automation or changes to our economy, but public sector investment decisions, including on transport priorities, are making that worse. Public services are shrinking back from towns into cities, and the new infrastructure investment is always concentrated on cities rather than towns.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way, even though I said that the previous time was the last.

[Jim McMahon]

I took the hint from Mr Deputy Speaker that he was relaxed about interventions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her work to give a voice to towns, which is important. Does she accept that the capital focus of HS2 is one thing, but it is revenue spend that has massively affected towns? In Greater Manchester, we have lost 30 million bus miles because of central Government revenue cuts. One thing we could do today is reinvest the revenue that has been lost.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Certainly, for bus services, which are crucial for our towns, the loss of revenue has been particularly crucial and devastating. This debate is about towns getting their fair share of both revenue and capital investment. Currently, I do not think we are getting either.

The campaign to power up the north led by some of our regional newspapers is immensely important, and I strongly back it, but I also think that it is time to power up our towns, as they have immense potential and are not getting their fair share of investment. Time and again, whether through HS2 or Crossrail 2, too much money—the big billions—is still going into the cities rather than the towns. That is why I support this review, but ask for it to be broadened.

I urge the Minister to broaden it as well, because the truth is that Members from our towns have been respectful, we have asked sensible questions, we have been patient, and we have waited and waited and, frankly, we have got nothing. We see no sign of anything improving for our transport infrastructure. We see no sign of anything other than warm words about promises in the future. We need that review of the geographic benefits and we need a proper towns plan—a proper plan for major infrastructure investment. Until we have that, the Government’s transport infrastructure plan is simply not in the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

That is exactly the point that I am seeking to make. I agree. It is very interesting that the Lords Economic Affairs Committee found evidence that the costs of HS2 appear to be out of control. That does not inspire confidence in my constituents. If there is going to be improved connectivity outside our constituency, many of them would prefer to see it across from Manchester towards Leeds and Yorkshire, rather than further connectivity down to London, which they already think is quite satisfactory for their purposes.

The case for speed has never been made. People work on the train and, because my constituents will have to make a connection—whether it is from Crewe or elsewhere—they are not convinced that the slim time saving justifies the expenditure that will be incurred. If the aim of the project is to narrow the gap between the north and London, the investment needs to be in the north.

[Jim McMahon]

I accept that Governments need to balance the books—they cannot spend the same pound twice. Quite a few times in this debate, we have heard northern MPs call for the money to be shifted across, but when has the same been done in London? When does London have to choose between good infrastructure and capital investment on the one hand, and affordable, efficient transport at a local level on the other? London does not have to choose. Why should we?

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the series of junctions on the M6. Junction 17 of the M6 at Sandbach in my constituency needs improvement to take the additional traffic that is increasingly burdening it, particularly because of the additional house building. It is one of the few junctions in the country without a roundabout serving it. Each morning, we see huge pressure, in particular from those commuting from Sandbach to Manchester and elsewhere. It is highly unsatisfactory and another priority that needs to be looked at—in my constituents’ view, looked at in preference to the proposed investment in HS2.

There is going to be an impact in my constituency, because while HS2 does not pass through it, it passes within yards of it. It will pass through Stanthorne and the Bostock Hall estate, literally within yards of Middlewich. Many of my constituents will be impacted—the quality of their lives will be impacted—by this without any compensation being available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

I am happy to support the new clauses as they make a lot of sense in terms of accountability, evaluation and transparency, as well as ensuring constant review of a project as massive as HS2. It is also important to acknowledge the scandalous inequality of investment in the north of England that has been the case under successive Governments.

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, deserves some credit for the concept of the northern powerhouse and the whole principle of devolving maximum power, but that has to be accompanied by resources. Since the change of Prime Minister and because it was the former Chancellor’s project, the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to devolution and the northern powerhouse, and it is even less a central component of the Government’s agenda than it was in the past. So I will actually say that the Conservative Government did more in terms of devolution in principle in England than previous Labour Governments had done, but it was not accompanied by investment and, since the change of Prime Minister, that agenda has been sidelined.

[Jim McMahon]

I should say that I think Labour has a good track record on devolution and devolving power. Does my hon. Friend accept that the concept of the northern powerhouse is like the concept of a cake without the ingredients?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not want to hear too much about cake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I am going to come to that in a minute. I am wholly amazed by the revelations from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that, because I was really shocked by what my hon. Friend said. Given my experience of having a series of meetings with HS2 officials, all of which have been—at face value—thoroughly satisfactory and an open exchange of views, but have got absolutely nowhere, it now appears that there might some other reasons why that is. Given what she is saying, I cannot find out why, so if she presses her amendment, which I very much hope she does, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government will accept it. If they do not, I will be very happy to vote in favour of it. My hon. Friend has flushed out a most serious issue.

[Jim McMahon]

I absolutely accept the constituency issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises, and the poor consultation cannot be excused, but he must accept that with a route and project of this scale, the minor changes that are made in one part of it will have a massive impact if that is held across the whole route, and that has an impact on the budget and the timescale. Whether he supports the project or not, he must accept at some point that it is either time to back it or scrap it. There is this idea that we can keep throwing on hundreds of small, different issues and take that as a measure of the project, but that is just not a way forward. This is a major project for this country and it should be debated in that way.

[Mr Paterson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. He has been busy making these points throughout the debate and I understand that he is fully in favour of the project. I began my working life by spending 25 years on Merseyside. I am fully aware of the need for transport connections for the north, particularly including west to east across the north of England. I began wholly in favour of this broad idea, but the more I look at it, the more worried I become.

Let me finish my points on my local issue in the village of Woore. We cannot just dismiss these as tiresome little irritations in a huge juggernaut of a project. These are real people: 1,200 people live in Woore and they will have 300 trucks a day going through a village where, in some places, there is no footpath. In schedule 1, on page 48, Members can see some proposals on mitigations, such as a “realignment of the A525” in a few places. These are just passing places. They in no way satisfy my constituents with regard to what they are looking for and are not good enough at all.

Will the Minister, who is beginning to get her notes together, comment on the proposals from Woore Parish Council that section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be invoked? As I understand it, under that section, the unitary council’s—in my case—permission is required if there are heavy vehicle movements exceeding 24 a day. In Woore, we were faced with the horror of 600 movements. As a result of stretching out the length of the project, we are now looking at 300 a day, so we are massively over the threshold. I would like to know what would happen if Shropshire Council did not give permission as required under section 17 of that Act. Where would these trucks go? As I said, they are already taking a perverse route, over three sides of a quadrangle, to go from Baldwins Gate to Madeley.

I want to pick up some points that, again, could have been flushed out if the amendment had been properly drafted. Let me look at the economic impact. My worry about this project is that this is actually Victorian technology. Large steel boxes rolling around on steel wheels on steel tracks is not modern technology. [Interruption.] My neighbour, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), is laughing at that. We are looking at the most expensive railway ever imagined. The original proposals were set in 2010 and the projected cost was £32.6 billion. That is now up to over £60 billion. Some estimates are talking about £80 billion, while others suggest £100 million. Let us compare that with what we could do on broadband, where we are miles behind other countries. We have only 4% full fibre connections at the moment. Spain has 71% and Portugal has 89%.

Rail Infrastructure Investment

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on its detailed report and on the hard work that she puts into that brief. She is what we call in Greater Manchester a grafter—where I come from, there is no higher praise than that.

Transport is really important but does not act in isolation. There is an ecosystem that supports the society, community and local economy. It has been well trailed, but we have not seen any meaningful action on even beginning to address the regional imbalances in investment that have been well rehearsed in this place. It would be good to hear from the Minister about the practical steps being taken to invest outside London and the south-east.

We are told by the Library that overall investment in transport in London over the past five years was £33.4 billion, taking 27.6% of total transport investment. In the north-west it was £11.1 billion, taking 9.2% of the total; in the north-east it was £3.3 billion, or 2.7% of the overall transport spend. Looking specifically at rail, the gap becomes even wider. London gets 42.8% of rail investment, the north-west 9.4% and the north-east just 2%. How can that be justified, even with the difference in population? Given that the regions outside London and the south-east are seriously disadvantaged by Government investment, are we surprised that they are not realising their full potential?

The Library briefing makes it clear that the figures for the north-west and the midlands are temporarily inflated due to some of the early work on HS2. Geographical work tied to a region has been included, but the wider cost of HS2 has been pulled out of the figures, so it appears that the north-west and the midlands receive more through that project than they actually do. London is getting about half of the transport spend. How can that be right or fair, and how can it deliver a balanced UK economy in which every community can thrive?

I know Members here today are aware that there is a world of difference between our big cities and their surrounding towns. There are even bigger differences between the towns and the villages and districts. When we look at the transport ecosystem, it is really important that we are not just discounting. London is a benchmark and we discount for the cities, towns and communities, which means that most people in this country are poorly served by a transport system that does not work in the way it ought to.

We are not calling for any more or less than our fair share. I do not mind if London continues to receive the money that it has received for generations. I am not resentful if the forward view means that that continues, but I demand the same for my community. If the money can be found for London, it ought to be found for the north-west region, too—no more, but certainly no less.

We have heard about the cancellation of the electrification project in July 2017, when it was described as no longer affordable. We have seen timetable cancellations: there were a staggering 470 cancellations every single day in the summer of 2018. The Office of Rail and Road’s review concluded that that was partly due to the lack of clarity on who was responsible for what. There was mass confusion in the industry, and the Transport Secretary’s response was simply, “Well, I don’t run the trains.” If we have a Transport Secretary who refuses to acknowledge his own role in running the trains in this country and to have political accountability for that, it is little wonder that the operators get away with what they are doing. There is just no accountability, which for my community means that Northern continues to provide a completely sub-standard service on a daily basis. It not only botched the introduction of the new timetable; but is in constant disputes with staff who are at their wits’ end with the management and the way they are being treated.

The latest action is on whether carriages should have guards. People in Greater Manchester might think, “Well, even if there are no guards, we just hope there are some carriages”, because 11% of train journeys are shorted, which means that they do not have enough carriages to meet the demand from commuters. Some 5,500 journeys did not have the capacity to meet passenger demand. What is the answer? In the north-west, we have been sent trains that even the Iranian Government have decided are not fit for purpose. We have been sent more Pacer trains—from the north-east to the north-west—to make up for the fact that we have passengers who wait on platforms, without enough carriages to service them, in order to get to work and get their children to school. How can that be right? The trains were built in the 1980s and were always intended to have a shelf-life of about 20 years. They were a pragmatic and affordable way to get new stock on the lines, but they were never intended to be on the lines nearly 30 years on. That just cannot be right.

Passengers face a 3.1% increase in fares—the largest increase over the past six years—while shareholders continue to profit from a sub-standard service. We know that the Conservatives do not believe in nationalisation. Well, they do—provided it is another nation that runs our trains. Deutsche Bank, which owns and operates the trains in the north-west of England and serves Greater Manchester, is not providing an adequate service; it is making profit from that contract. Where is the accountability? We have a Transport Secretary who says, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv.” We have an operator that is taking money and creaming off the top while services are not running on time. They do not run at all in some cases—when they do turn up, often it is not possible to get on because there are not enough carriages. If the operator gets its way, pretty soon there will be no guards on carriages, and people will not feel safe. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has made it very clear that that is just not on, and he would not be comfortable with that. The truth is that it is a very raw deal.

I will talk about the wider transport ecosystem. We need to bear in mind that it is not just rail that has been hit by poor service. When the Pacer trains were brought in for their 20-year life—nearly 30 years ago now—bus travel was commonplace. It still is, but there are now 140 million fewer bus journeys in Greater Manchester than there were 30 years ago. That is a 40% decline in bus use in Greater Manchester. Why? Because there are 40 operators in Greater Manchester—we are desperately trying to get franchising off the ground, but the Government are not providing the investment required to get through the legal process and produce the business case—all with different ticketing systems, and all deciding where they are willing to operate.

Oxford Road—the university corridor in Greater Manchester—is one of the busiest bus routes in Europe, and one of the cheapest. One of the most affluent parts of Greater Manchester—the south—is the cheapest place to catch a bus. In the north, which is generally the poorer part, the fares can be 40% higher. Often the poorer a person is—depending on where they live and where the operators choose to operate from—the more they pay just to get to work. That, by the way, is if there is a bus that goes where they need to go at the time when they need to get there. Shift workers in Greater Manchester might as well give up on the buses, because they cannot get to most big employment sites, such as Manchester airport or Trafford Park, to meet shift-work patterns.

The ecosystem has been completely torn apart. Operators pick and choose what they are willing to do, the taxpayer is desperately trying to plug the gap but it is nowhere near enough, and the number of bus journeys is falling. Year after year, we see subsidised routes taken away because the money does not stretch far enough, and the same is happening with rail.

It is a raw deal for taxpayers, passengers and, critically—this is really important when we are talking about a future Britain beyond Brexit—the future of our economy. After Brexit, the country will be hugely vulnerable to the danger of financial services and the insurance market deciding to relocate and basing themselves elsewhere in Europe. That will expose how lazy this country has been in addressing the underperformance in our regions. We have relied on the City of London to keep the UK economy going, and that has allowed us to ignore the hollowing out of the economies in the regions. Transport is a key part of that. We know that investment in transport leads to growth and jobs and creates a more vibrant economy. People live better lives and can access job opportunities that they might not have been able to access previously. We need more action and Government spending.

There are different views on HS2. I am a supporter, partly because it is investment in the north, so why would we not support it? However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is already issuing calls for a zero-sum review of capital spend projects such as HS2. I put this down as a marker: the Government may believe that, because it is not in London or the south-east, it is an easy target to be deleted, but we are watching it very carefully. It is critical that we ensure that the UK can perform to its full potential. The routes and investment beyond HS2 to ensure that the north of England is connected are absolutely critical, too.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s concerns about future investment in HS2. There are good reasons to be concerned. When the transpennine route upgrade was firmly committed to in 2015, the DFT promised that, when the work was finished, the whole route from Liverpool to Newcastle, via Manchester, Leeds and York, would be fully electrified. The recent letter from Transport for the North’s chief executive board members reported that the DFT’s plans leave a crucial part of that route unelectrified—a gap of 18 miles in the 183-mile route. Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure to electrify that 10% will mean worse reliability and higher operating costs in the north for years to come?

[Jim McMahon]

I generally think that, with these types of capital project, once the decision to invest is made, the investment has to be seen through, because the full potential of the investment is only realised when it is done to the quality, standard and specification that was set out originally. When things are chipped away towards the end of a project, it is inevitable that the full advantage and economic return on the investment will not be realised, and the original investment will be compromised.

It is critical that the Government take a long-term view. There is far too much short-termism. They are looking to the next election, the next target seat and where their core vote is, rather than to what the structure of our economy will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Greater Manchester is trying to look ahead with its 2040 strategy, but it is very difficult to do that if it does not know what funding is coming down the pipeline. We can decide what is important for our regions, but the way the Government invest makes it very difficult for our regions to plan ahead and ensure they have a joined-up transport strategy. It also makes it very difficult for UK manufacturers and engineering companies to bid for that work and plan ahead, because they do not have a forward programme that they can organise and work towards. I speak to many manufacturers in my constituency. In Oldham, they have contracts with Transport for London and the German Government, but they say consistently that it is very difficult to get a contract with the UK Government. Part of the reason why the Elizabeth Tower is shrouded in steel from all over the world, apart from Britain, is that it is easier for other countries to get contracts from our Government.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case for investment and economic growth in the regions. I agree completely that this is about long-termism. The Minister obviously heard my comments earlier. Part of the reason why the Great Eastern main line taskforce has been pretty robust in our representations is that we have been working with businesses and local enterprise partnerships. We are giving businesses the opportunity to put the long-term case to the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that other regions should replicate that?

[Jim McMahon]

I agree with that approach. It is important that we have an economic view and can demonstrate the wider economic advantage and growth. Transport for the North is working to that end, and has built very good partnerships. It generally has a good relationship with the Government, although there are constant demands for the Government to plan further ahead and be more committed to finding resources. That partnership approach is extremely important.

This has been a good debate. I welcome the Select Committee’s report, because it is important that we shine a light on these issues. As a north-west MP, I thank the Committee members for this piece of work. MPs outside London will, for a period, continue to ask politely for our fair share. We have been doing that for quite a long time now, but the noise will get louder. If the Government are determined to look beyond Brexit and build a Britain that can thrive, they will have to put their hand in their pocket and ensure that every region in the UK gets its fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

How individual operating companies wish to own and run their rolling stock is up to them, but the point is that private investment and the private sector, whether it pays for a lease or for ownership, is delivering, and the public sector did not, which is why we have the long-standing Pacer trains on our network. The no-growth franchise was a significant feature. I am sure that those who let that now think that that was a mistake, because of course we have had significant growth in the north and we are playing catch-up.

It is fair to say that we had a difficult year on our rail network in 2018, as many colleagues here have said. We all know that performance declined, never more so than around the introduction of the timetable in May. But it is also fair to say that we have seen a doubling of passengers across our rail network over the past 20 or so years, which shows it is a ringing success, demonstrating the success of the public and private sectors working together to deliver significant and sustained improvement.

[Jim McMahon]

I accept that passenger numbers have increased, but the truth is that the summer delays and the autumn cancellations were not a surprise. The timetabling was agreed by Northern. It designed it, crafted it and failed to implement it properly. The delays in the autumn were down to autumnal weather, which obviously takes everybody by surprise. It is not as though it happens every year when leaves come off the trees and fall on tracks. The basic management is poor, and surely not fit for purpose.

[Andrew Jones]

We have had autumn leaves falling since time began, and whichever rail company has been operating—including nationalised ones—they have found them quite difficult to manage. To suggest that it is suddenly a bigger problem is a mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

We have received a further draft within the past few days. It is not the absolutely final version of the report, but I understand that we are very near it. I hope to read it, but I think that I should read it when it is finished, rather than in draft form—to be fair to Mr Brown. As soon as we have more information, I will keep the hon. Lady posted.

Regional spend has been a concern in this debate and more broadly. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) kindly said that I was definitely listening—to confirm, I am definitely listening, and definitely Yorkshire. The Government are clear that there should be a balance of rail investment across the whole network, to the benefit of the whole country. The Government and the Select Committee alike agree that capital spending in one part of the network can deliver benefits further afield.

I must stress, however, that the Department for Transport does not allocate funding on the basis of per head of population. Our railway is a network, with spending in a particular area benefiting users up and down the country.

[Jim McMahon]

Does the Minister agree that part of the problem with how schemes are assessed is that heavy consideration is given to economic return or gross value added? A mile of track in London will therefore always deliver more economic return than a mile of track in Manchester, Wales, Scotland or anywhere else, simply because of that economic assessment. Surely, to rebalance the UK, there has to be a levelling up in addition to that economic criterion.

[Andrew Jones]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and if that were the only consideration I can see how it could lead to inappropriate decisions, but that is not entirely the case. For example, the transpennine rail upgrade, which will be the biggest enhancement on our network over the next five years, would simply not be happening if we accepted his point. But I understand where he is coming from: we have to balance not only economic return and national efficiency, but the possible role in rebalancing our national geography. The lack of investment in some parts could easily be seen as a factor in economic performance.

Our decisions follow a rigorous and fair appraisal process that ensures spending goes to the projects and programmes where it is needed, delivering value for money for taxpayers and passengers. Sometimes that means that spending appears higher in some areas than in others. We cited various figures, but the numbers quoted are frequently from the IPPR. I have some reservations about the IPPR reporting, because it simply adds up future spending regardless of how far it extends. For example, its analysis includes 16 years of planned expenditure on HS2, where the most costly sections—because of land prices—are in London, but only five years of planned spending on maintenance for the other parts of our network. It includes locally funded spending by TfL, but not local, equivalently funded spending in other cities, which will result in a poor sample.

We look at data in a number of different ways. Investment in Birmingham, for example, could benefit users in Penzance, Edinburgh—anywhere across our network—and, of course, the west midlands. We look at two measures: where the investment is made and where the benefits will be felt. The numbers quoted so far on where spending is taking place largely have not taken into account where benefits are felt. However, spending figures going forward, as shown by the national infrastructure and construction pipeline, show that the Government expect to spend £248 per person in the north, compared with £236 in the south. There is an element of the phasing of schemes driving the individual spend in an area.

The rebalancing toolkit has been considered, which we have developed to support authors of strategic cases to assess how a programme or project fits with the objective of spreading growth around the country. I was asked whether it is being used. It is being used in the development of the transpennine rail upgrades and the Northern Powerhouse Rail business cases. The rebalancing toolkit is designed to help with the basic planning. It includes a checklist of questions to consider and potential evidence that can be used to help describe the rebalancing case for a project or programme in its strategic case. It is an ingredient. Does it need to be used in every single case? Given the amount of money we spend and the amount of time it takes us to plan our projects, I do not think it should be mandatory everywhere, but certainly it is an ingredient in making the right decisions. The toolkit’s objective is to make decision making more consistent by improving the focus, quality and transparency of the rebalancing evidence in the business case.

Let me answer some questions asked by colleagues. The transpennine rail upgrade offers the fantastic prospect of the north being the centrepiece of the next spending period. It is a £2.9 billion first phase of a scheme. Electrification will be a part of the proposals. It is phased to deliver the best benefits to passengers over the period. Freight will most certainly be considered; that is why we are also taking forward options for the development of the Skipton to Colne reconnection. It should be viewed as a phased activity.

The advice we have received from Network Rail is that if we spend any more money on that network during this period, with the amount of interventions required to deliver the schemes we will bring the northern rail network to a halt for just about every weekend over the next five years. We have taken the view that it would be an unacceptable price to pay, which would have a huge detrimental economic impact. We have listened to the industry experts and that is the advice they are giving us, so we are delivering this major project in phases. The criteria are about delivering the best benefits to passengers early, but our ambitions are not reduced at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

In the light of the comments by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, what representations has the Department for Transport made to reassert the case for HS2? Is the Minister confident that if there were a value-for-money review, the project would make it through?

[Andrew Jones]

I could answer that in a few ways. First, it is clearly right that the Treasury takes a view on managing the efficiency and delivery of public projects, because so much money is involved. We are spending half a billion pounds a week more on capital projects than the last Labour Government. We are catching up on investment.

What representations do we make? Of course there is regular dialogue between Ministers from all Departments, and certainly between the Department for Transport and the Treasury at both official and ministerial level. The Government remain entirely committed to HS2, which is part of the rebalancing of our national network. We need capacity on the network, and HS2 will deliver it.

[Jim McMahon]

The Minister has given way extremely generously, and I am grateful for that. Has the Treasury initiated a review of HS2, or did the Chief Secretary’s comment just reflect her personal view?

[Andrew Jones]

I am not the Minister with responsibility for HS2, so the day-to-day correspondence does not come across my desk, but the Government are entirely committed to HS2. The Treasury is right to say that we will look at projects to ensure that they come in on budget and on time, and that we do not see project-creep in terms of cost. The Treasury has been sighted, for example, on the way we are re-planning our investment process to ensure that decisions are made in as informed a way as possible so that there are as few surprises as possible.

Let me be absolutely clear to everybody that HS2 is a critically important project. Work is already under way to deliver it. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the appetite for it grows the further north one goes, and I am happy to echo that entirely. HS2 presents fantastic regeneration opportunities, about which I have had conversations with Judith Blake in Leeds, Andy Burnham in Manchester and Andy Street in the West Midlands.

The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the industrial relations issues that blight some parts of our rail network. The Government are keen to see a second person on trains. Indeed, we have said that there will be no blockage from the Government if that is what everybody wants. We can make changes to any agreements. Indeed, we have gone further than that and said that we will provide financial support. I have made those comments to the unions and the company. The dispute is between those two parties, but the Government can play a role in creating an environment to help them get around the table and talk, and I think I have done that. I want to see them get around the table and talk and, as they do so, stop the strikes, which have had a detrimental impact on the economy of the north.

I have not yet addressed the comments by the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) about devolution to Scotland. Rail is devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government set their own high-level output specification. The statement of funds available is above the Barnett formula for CP6. Off the top of my head, having discussed Scottish rail issues with colleagues in the Adjournment debate on Monday night—that was very late, so I understand that not everyone will have been present—I think it is £4.85 billion. There is significant funding available for the Scottish rail network, and the Scottish Government have control over rail.