Future of Rail

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for introducing the debate. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) here, because I want to talk about the journeys that we used to take together when we were first elected in 2015. Those hourly direct services from Chester to London have all gone during the pandemic and are yet to return. I understand that we are due to get some back next month, but not all of them will be restored. I have to ask the Minister, why are we waiting longer than everyone else to get a lesser service restored? Who is accountable for that decision? Will we ever get back to what we had before? What evidence are those decisions based on?

Those questions are important because the Department is also planning to award a new 10-year franchise to run the line later in the year. How can decisions be properly made on future service provision when the service is not yet back to pre-pandemic levels? What evidence base will the Department be working on for that decision? There needs to be a crystal-clear commitment that the new franchise will restore hourly direct services from Chester to London. I would like the Minister, when she responds, to say that is exactly what will happen. If she cannot do that, will she at least meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester to discuss what we would like to see in the new 10-year deal?

We cannot continue to have decisions made about our rail services without reference to Members in this place and our communities. I have suggested to Avanti already that if it does not want to run the service at the previous level, it should not only not bid on the current franchise but give the current one up. I am due to meet Avanti on Friday, and I will be interested to hear what it has to say. In the meantime, I hope that we have the Department’s support in restoring services to pre-pandemic levels.

Perhaps when I meet Avanti I will be told that it has been unable to restore services because of a lack of demand. Of course, if it does not put the services on, we do not know what the demand is. It may be the case that a huge increase in home working as a result of the pandemic has affected travel patterns, but I would not be surprised if there were other issues at play. If there is a feeling that businesses are using rail less, perhaps the answer may lie in the eye-watering costs attached to such travel.

Let us look at journeys of a similar distance between cities in England, Germany and France: Chester to London is 165 miles; Hamburg to Berlin is 159 miles; and Calais to Paris is 147 miles. The cost of a single rail ticket for the morning to arrive by 9 am for each of those journeys tells its own story: Hamburg to Berlin is £26; Calais to Paris is £39; and Chester to London is £155. Travelling from Chester to London costs nearly six times more than a similar journey in Germany and nearly four times more than a similar journey in France. In fact, I can get to Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt or to Tel Aviv in Israel for less money than it costs me to get to London by train before 9 am, so I can actually get to another continent for less money. Therefore, if we are going to do something about rail travel in future, let us make it affordable for everyone.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We have heard some excellent speeches today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and her campaigning on this issue over the past six years. She was absolutely right to talk about the work she has done there and the long list of employers that have tried this before, many successfully, highlighting exactly why a change is needed. Time prevents me from mentioning every speech in detail, but I will refer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East—a powerful and deeply personal speech about why this situation matters so much to him. As we heard, he has been campaigning on these issues for years, and surely now we must all regret that the Government have failed to heed his warnings.

My hon. Friend called this action industrial vandalism, and that sums up the situation perfectly. What has happened to P&O workers is nothing short of a scandalous betrayal. Workers with families to support, bills to pay and lives to live had their plans upended in three minutes by an unscrupulous employer acting in the most cynical and calculating way. Every Member of this House should be united in condemning the brutality we have seen: thugs for hire, some wearing balaclavas and carrying handcuffs, turning up to boot people off the ship straight after they were sacked on a three-minute video call. If that is not bad enough, the pariahs responsible for this had already lined up cut-price workers at the dockside to replace them: workers who, let us be clear, are going to be paid at a rate that drives a coach and horses through the minimum wage laws. Those who have been sacked have also been threatened with losing what little compensation they have been offered if they talk to anyone about it, further compounding the sense of injustice they feel and further exposing the bully-boy tactics of their employer.

We need to be clear that this decision cannot stand. Unscrupulous employers cannot be given free rein to sack their workforce, destroying secure jobs and replacing them with cheap, insecure agency work. Such actions must have consequences. Every tool at the disposal of the state must be used to its maximum effect, because if one company can divest itself of responsibility for its workforce in such a callous, cynical and frankly offensive manner without a serious response from Government, then others will see that as a green light to do exactly the same. This must be a line in the sand.

Condemnation, while necessary, is insufficient, and condemnation after the event from a Government who knew it was about to happen is simply not good enough. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), a memo was circulated beforehand that makes it clear that the intention of P&O was to replace staff on lower terms and conditions, and with agency workers.

[Jerome Mayhew]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry but I do not have time to give way.

That means that the Secretary of State should have known that this was not an ordinary redundancy situation. The memo also says that disruption was expected to last for 10 days. Why would there be disruption if normal consultation procedures had been followed? The Secretary of State himself said that previous redundancies had been made in the past few years and consultation procedures had been followed, but there was no disruption then, so it was absolutely clear that there was going to be something different this time. Despite those warnings, the Government could not find the time to make one single phone call before P&O went ahead with the sackings, neither to the company nor indeed to the trade unions. All the anguish, distress and heartbreak for these 800 families could have been avoided if Ministers had made the effort to contact P&O before it went ahead with its plan. Having said that, given that their first attempt at letter-writing to P&O after the horse had bolted was addressed to somebody who left the company last year, I do wonder how effective such interventions would have been. As we have heard, the Secretary of State’s big demand of P&O is that it change the name of the ship: absolutely pathetic.

The internal Government memo makes it clear that there is a level of acceptance that these measures are necessary to ensure that P&O can stay competitive, but paying workers well below the minimum wage is not being competitive; it is cheating the system. Sacking permanent staff and replacing them with agency workers is not being competitive; it is yet another example of a big company chipping away at job security and safety just to make a few extra quid.

[Karl Turner]

When I was on King George dock in Hull on Thursday, I met some of the new crew. They did not have a clue what they were doing there. They were told they were joining a brand-spanking-new vessel. They did not know they were there to take jobs. Does my hon. Friend want to say something about safety? Does he think that those new crew have been trained sufficiently—for example, in lifeboat practice and safety at sea? Those courses are absolutely crucial, not least given that a few days from now it is 36 years since the Herald of Free Enterprise went down.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made another excellent point. There really are serious safety concerns. We have to be absolutely crystal clear that the Government are enforcing all safety checks, because people simply cannot get on to a ship without any experience or knowledge of it beforehand, and that certainly cannot be done with an entire crew while expecting things to run okay.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

No, I do not have time—I am sorry.

The memo that the Government issued makes it clear that they are content for companies to ride roughshod over good employment practice. The net result is that bad employers have been emboldened by how little this Government do to protect the rights of workers. They think they can abuse workers and get away with it because for 12 years this Government have allowed exploitative work models to grow unchecked. They have let fire and rehire practices proliferate entirely untouched by legislation. Yes, guidance has been issued by ACAS, but that has not changed the legal position one bit. It has merely restated the existing law, but that law has been shown to be hopelessly unbalanced against the worker, open to abuse, and totally unacceptable in 2022.

The Government have the power to institute criminal proceedings against directors for this—I can assure the House that those P&O staff being sacked last Thursday felt like criminals when they were confronted with security guards carrying handcuffs—but it is those responsible for the decisions who are the true lawbreakers. Exactly how many people in the past have been prosecuted and hit with those unlimited fines? If anyone has been successfully prosecuted and fined for breaching these rules, the Government have kept remarkably quiet about it. Let us hope that this time the threats made to P&O are not empty and the Government follow this right through to the end and actually make some noise about it. If that does not happen, they must understand that they continue to send the message to these bad employers that they can carry on with impunity and that this Government are more interested in protecting their own Back Benchers’ second jobs than everyone else’s first.

On the review of DP World contracts, when will the Minister be able to update the House on the outcome of that? Why are the Government still just considering removing P&O from Government advisory boards? Why have they not done it already? What more evidence do they need that P&O is totally unfit to be part of these bodies? Labour stands firmly with the P&O workers and the work being done by the RMT and north-west unions to stand up for them. Today we are asking all Members to join us in standing up with them and for the rights of all workers, who deserve security and respect in return for an honest day’s work.

This is an opportunity for us to really say what kind of country we want. Insecurity is baked into so many workplaces that it is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness and inevitability about what has happened in this case. But it does not have to be this way. Job security does not have to be out of reach to millions; it should be the basic cornerstone of any civilised society, and one building block of that has to be an end to fire and rehire.

The destructive combination of weak employment laws, opportunistic employers and an indifferent Government is leading to a race to a bottom, and it is time that race was stopped. It is in all our interests that we have strong workforce protections. A secure workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and good for the economy. It creates a level playing field. Do we really think it is a healthy sign for our economy that the only way businesses think they can get ahead is for their staff to be paid £1.80 an hour and to live in a tent? Is that what we really want as a future for our country? Are we not here to try to improve the lives of the people we represent? Do we not think that security, fair pay and decency in the workplace are central to that?

For too long the pendulum has swung too far away from protection at work and too far into the hands of those who wish to exploit British workers. Changing that is a fundamental part of why Labour Members are here. We should not be bystanders but defenders of working people and workplace rights. If we let this go now, who will be next? Without job security, people have no security. We cannot—we must not—continue to allow the worst excesses of capitalism to stick two fingers up at the workers in this country. It is time that these disgusting practices met their end.

It is time that this place sent out a message—a message that was backed up by the full force of the law. We are not going to be the soft touch of Europe, we are not going to be the easiest of easy pickings for the billionaires who want to boost their profits still further, and we are not going to be a country where loyalty is rewarded with the sack and the race to the bottom is all that matters; we are going to be a country where employment protections have strength and meaning, where security, prosperity and respect run through every workplace like a golden thread, and where those who seek to undermine those values and rules are sent packing. I commend this motion to the House.

P&O Ferries

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Member will have noticed that this announcement was made only this morning, so, clearly, this is something that has come as a shock to the entire House. I hope that that clears up that matter for him.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I think that we can all agree that being sacked over Zoom with no notice and no consultation is barbaric. It also shows how broken our employment laws are in this country, because these people are being told that they are being made redundant when there is a group of workers waiting to replace them standing by the dockside. It is the fact that these workers are already in place that shows how pre-prepared and cynical this was. P&O had clearly been working on this for some time, so can the Minister tell us when it first informed the Government of its intentions?

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Member is probably right that P&O had been considering this for some time. The Government was first informed of this yesterday evening.

Bus Service Improvement Plans: North-west England

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) on securing this important debate on funding—or the lack thereof, as we have heard—and on her excellent introduction. As on many other subjects, she is an excellent advocate for her constituents.

I have spoken before about how the proportion of people in Ellesmere Port and Neston who use private motor transport to get to work is much higher than the national average. Perhaps we should not be surprised about that—we build cars in the constituency, and have done for many years—but I believe it is more a reflection of the poor public transport links that we have in the constituency. The threat to bus services and changes to bus routes are common issues that have come up on many occasions since I was elected. The subject is raised regularly with me by constituents, particularly elderly constituents who rely on public transport to get around, and of course those who travel by bus for work or for education.

The situation is a challenge across the whole constituency, but particularly in the Parkgate and Neston areas. On top of existing services being inadequate to meet my constituents’ needs, it is fair to say that over at least the last decade, there has been a battle to save a service probably once every couple of months. We have not even begun to think about what will happen because of the increase in fuel costs over the last few months—indeed, they spiked over the weekend as well.

Sometimes when facing such threats, we have managed to persuade the bus company to keep the route open. Sometimes the service is retained but rerouted, usually to maximise profit rather than convenience for customers, and sometimes we lose the route altogether. When that happens, it has a huge impact on the people who rely on the services to get to school, get to work, and access medical appointments or other public services.

A current example is the proposal by the Cheshire police and crime commissioner to close Ellesmere Port police station to the public. He proposes that those who need to speak to an officer in person will be able to go to Blacon in Chester. When I asked him how those who do not have a car will be able to get there, answer came there none. There is no direct bus route to Blacon from Ellesmere Port—again showing the lack of strategy and of thinking through the consequences of decisions of that nature.

I shall outline a few examples of how my constituents have been affected over the years by changes to bus services to highlight the really inadequate state of affairs at the moment. About four or five years ago, the No. 7 bus service, which catered for a number of retirement bungalows and people with no other option than to get a bus, was rerouted due to parking issues and the Saturday service was removed altogether. The council intervened but could only negotiate an arrangement to keep the Saturday service for 10 months. Unfortunately, the impact of losing a rural bus grant unfortunately was that we the service was not retained thereafter.

In 2019, Stagecoach, one of the main operators in my area, carried out a consultation regarding changes that it was proposing to services, which it sold as meaning better co-ordination and frequency of buses travelling through the constituency between Chester and Liverpool, as well as a Sunday service via Overpool, and more buses for the Hope Farm estate. What resulted, however, was that the 22 bus service, which was a vital route for my constituents in Neston and Parkgate to attend Arrowe Park Hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), was removed altogether due to low passenger numbers. Stagecoach proposed that customers use a different bus service, but the reality of that, one constituent told me, was having to catch three buses, taking more than an hour, just to attend a hospital appointment. That is not the better co-ordination of bus services that was being sold at the start of the consultation.

The proposed changes also left the Groves estate without any bus service at all along Chester Road between the Strawberry Roundabout and the Whitby High School, leaving a number of elderly constituents who use the bus service to get to the town centre and Ellesmere Port Hospital with a lengthy walk just to get to the nearest bus stop. One constituent told me:

“I will be 88 next month and like my friends and neighbours want to remain independent in my own home, but this lack of public transport is not helping”.

That brings home to me just how vital a proper co-ordinated bus service is.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On funding, in Bolton we need £30 million, otherwise one third of all buses will be cut. That will impact my constituency massively. Proper funding is so important. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Justin Madders]

Yes, I agree. At the heart of this, clearly, is a bus service that has been under-resourced for many years. There are two problems: lack of support for operators and lack of strategy, so we keep facing chopping and changing decisions based on commercial considerations that do not necessarily serve the communities. The example of the bus service I have just mentioned means that someone who wants to get to the hospital, even though if it is only a mile from their home, must now take two buses. It is too far for them to walk.

What was also clear from the process was that the consultations were not adequate. Numerous comments were lodged by constituents, but they seemed to make no difference to the results. As I set out, the 22 bus service was not even mentioned as under threat during the consultation. It is hard for people to argue to retain a service when they are not aware that it is threatened. Greater transparency is needed from service providers when they enter such consultations.

The last local change to mention was that, last year, the route of the No. 5, which is an hourly service between Mold and Ellesmere Port calling at Cheshire Oaks—a major employer in the area—was altered, leaving the Stanney Grange estate with reduced access. One constituent who contacted me was distressed about the impact that that would have on her learning-disabled son, who relied on the bus service to get out and about. When we made inquiries, we were advised that Stagecoach had served notice and it intended to reprocure the route and consider costs. Arriva received the contract on a temporary basis and, when there was a further reprocurement, it got an alternative timetable as part of the bid. Some of the routes were retained, but many roads previously served no longer are. Unfortunately, again, constituents lose out.

Those are examples of not only a lack of resources, but a lack of joined-up thinking and strategy on what bus services are for. They are for serving our communities and, clearly, this constant chopping and changing, reducing routes and leaving areas out altogether does not benefit our constituents at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said, 10 years of cuts have left bus coverage at its lowest level in decades. Since 2010, more than 3,000 bus routes and more than 350,000 passenger journeys have been lost, leaving people cut off from friends, family, work and education opportunities, and other public services.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister has no intention of keeping his promise of

“great bus services to everyone, everywhere”,

because, as my hon. Friend said, hidden away in the levelling-up plan is a massive cut to bus funding of £1.8 billion. Figures show that the cost of funding bids submitted by 53 out of 79 local authorities totals more than £7 billion, so it is clear that many areas will miss out. With this Government’s record of picking and choosing winners and losers, I have little confidence that my constituency will benefit from that funding at all.

I am sick of my area missing out on funding for improvements to the community, bus services and other local infrastructure. If we have ambition for the country, it should be for the whole country. We need real ambition; we do not need any more empty promises. We want a real say in the way services are run. We do not want to keep putting in bids for pots of money and then being left at the whim of commercial operators. We want control of our bus services and we want resources to be able to deliver them properly for the benefit of our communities.

Labour leaders in power in cities and towns across the country have the ambition to reverse the decline we have seen over the last decade. We want a London-style system that is run in the public interest, to make buses quicker, cheaper and more reliable for our communities. When I was first elected to this place, I was amazed that I could stand at my local bus stop and wait only a matter of minutes for a bus to turn up, and that I was paying £1.60. I could not get anywhere on a bus in Ellesmere Port for £1.60, never mind across half the city, which is what we can do here in London. It is chalk and cheese. The whole country should have that level of service. It is an ambition that is right for our country, and it is what I want for my community. It is what we deserve, because bus services are a vital part of our community.

How can we level up if we cannot get anywhere on a bus after 6 o’clock at night? How can we level up if bus services are removed at a moment’s notice by operators, without any regard to the effect that will have on the communities they are supposed to serve? How can we level up if we have no power or resources to direct where and when buses go? Let us get on with some delivery. Let us take back control of our buses and serve our communities the way that we want them to be served.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that if they wish to contribute, they are meant to bob up and down. I call Margaret Greenwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Lady makes the obvious point, so I will continue. There is £525 million to deliver zero-emission buses over this Parliament, of which £355 million is new funding, announced in the spending review. There is the £1.5 billion of covid support to maintain the service levels during covid until next April, and over £500 million from the city region sustainable transport settlement. There will always be more to do, but the Government, in particular my Department through the transport decarbonisation plan, have set out how we are spending billions in transforming the public transport network.

It is important to say how we can ensure people that get to the places they need to be, using the products they need. It is particularly relevant to the north-west that we recently appointed Chris Boardman as the interim chief executive for Active Travel England. With over £500 million of funding, he will have the ability to increase the infrastructure to encourage and enable people to walk and cycle. That will ensure that those networks that are proposed by our local authorities meet the essential criteria for a safe network. We are working with car clubs, such as Enterprise Car Club and Liftshare. Buses are a very important part of the network in getting people to the places they need to be, but they are not the only way that we will be able to do that in the future. It would be a good to offer a meeting to all of my colleagues across the north-west to discuss that in more detail. I understand that Members in this House are excellent enablers, champions and ambassadors for the way that their constituents can get about.

[Justin Madders]

I was struck that the Minister recognised the surprise that I felt, when I first arrived in the capital, at the ease and affordability of bus services. My constituents want to know when they will no longer be paying twice the fare to get half the distance on their local buses.

[Trudy Harrison]

I will return to my main points and hopefully address the hon. Gentleman’s queries. As has been said, the national bus strategy will be critical; we believe it is the biggest shake-up in a generation. We are absolutely committed to delivering the transformational changes that have been called for this morning, which passengers throughout the country deserve. Our strategy explains how we will make buses more frequent and reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated and cheaper. It sets out how we want to see fares, including low flat fares, maximum fares and daily price caps, become the norm in cities and towns.

English local transport authorities outside London have developed bus service improvement plans, setting out local visions for the step change in services that is needed, driven by what passengers and would-be passengers want. The central aim of our bus strategy is to get more people travelling by bus, and we will achieve that only if we make buses a practical and attractive alternative to the car for more people. Strong local plans, delivered through enhanced partnerships between authorities and bus operators or franchising arrangements, are crucial to achieving that. We have been clear that enhanced partnerships or franchising arrangements must deliver more comprehensive services, including those that are socially or economically necessary to drive forward the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

Authorities will submit draft versions of their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to the DFT by the end of April this year. Liverpool city region announced its decision to adopt franchising for local bus services on 4 March. On 2 February the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), unveiled the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, which sets out a plan to transform the UK by spreading opportunity and prosperity to all parts of our country. Local public transport connectivity across the country will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing. The Government will fund ambitious plans for bus improvements in areas where that can make the most impact, including the mayoral city regions, Stoke-on-Trent, Derbyshire and Warrington.

We must address the long-term decline in bus patronage; the bus industry cannot do so on its own. We need to develop a much closer collaborative working relationship with the industry; we recognise that this relationship has improved through the pandemic, and it must continue to deepen. The Government have made it clear through the national bus strategy that close partnership working, via enhanced partnerships, will be a condition of Government funding for buses.

We believe that only through such collaboration can the right combination of LTA action—for example, through more bus priority and operator action by improving services on the ground—and targeted Government funding increase overall bus patronage. Of course bus operators should do their part, by making long-term investments in buses and services to ensure that buses are an attractive alternative mode of transport to the car. It is vital that we go further and faster to decarbonise all vehicles, including buses, because they have an essential role to play in transport achieving net zero and driving our green transformation. A double-decker bus can take 75 cars off the road, helping to reduce the impact of transport on the environment. However, we know that we will achieve that only if we can demonstrate to more people that buses are a practical and attractive alternative to the car.

So we remain committed to supporting the introduction of 4,000 zero-emission buses and achieving an all zero-emission bus fleet. I will just repeat how pleased I am that Warrington has taken the lead in transitioning its entire fleet—all 120 buses—to battery-electric vehicles, because such action will support our climate ambitions, improve transport for local communities and support high-quality green jobs. In the spending review 2021, the Government announced £355 million of new funding for zero-emission buses and we are providing £525 million of funding for zero-emission buses in this Parliament.

It is also important to talk about the infrastructure that will be introduced at a brand-new bus depot in Warrington, which is part of the Warrington town deal. Over the past two decades, the bus and coach industry has made tremendous efforts to bring fleets into line with the Public Services Vehicles Accessibility Regulations, revolutionising access to public transport for millions of disabled people.

Significant progress has been made already, with over 99% of buses on local routes meeting the minimum legal accessibility standards and almost every bus operator requiring its drivers to complete disability awareness training. However, just as the nature of transport provision changes, so do the needs of our passengers, which is why, in the national bus strategy published in March 2021, we committed to review the ongoing efficiency of the accessibility regulations by the end of 2023. We have committed to require the provision of audible and visual information on board local services throughout Great Britain, and to consult on regulatory changes to improve access to wheelchair spaces.

The bus strategy also seeks to improve the convenience, integration and value for money of bus ticketing, through the introduction of multi-operator contactless capped fares within each LTA area. Work is under way to ensure that technology is in place to support that aspiration. Locally set fare caps should ensure that passengers making multiple journeys on a pay-as-you-go basis are charged no more than the price of a daily ticket, with little or no premium levied for using more than one operator, effectively converting a bank card and mobile phone into a virtual travelcard.

All enhanced partnerships will be encouraged to consider the development of a multi-operator ticketing scheme, to help make multi-leg journeys feel more joined-up. In turn, these partnerships will help to support the use of public transport to out-of-town employment, education and healthcare sites, among other journey purposes.

We want to improve passengers’ access to accurate journey planning information, including timetables, fares and location data, so that passengers can plan their journeys, find the best value tickets and receive real-time updates on the services they use. The bus open data service is a new digital service provided by the Department for Transport that is transforming the delivery of bus passenger information across England. Using open data and intelligent services, the aim of the service is to enable passengers to plan their journeys easily, find best-value tickets and receive real-time service updates at the touch of a button.

Perhaps now is also a good time to reflect on the work that our safety champions have been doing. Yesterday, which was International Women’s Day, I travelled to Birmingham to meet Laura Shoaf and Anne Shaw, in order to discuss the 13 recommendations that we very much hope will protect the most vulnerable people on our transport network. They are specifically aimed at improving the safety of women and girls across the transport system, but they are particularly relevant to the public transport system. They include, for instance, ensuring that we can design out crime, the natural surveillance that comes from a well-designed—

Transport Connectivity: Merseyside

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this important debate. Although my constituency is in Cheshire, we are very much in the hinterland of Merseyside. We are less than 10 miles away from Liverpool city centre, and our economic, educational, cultural and family connections mean that there are many people travelling across Merseyside on a daily basis. Sadly, it seems that we are an afterthought, suffering poorer services and higher costs.

I will not repeat the legitimate arguments made by my constituents about the two-tier charging system they face when they cross the River Mersey in their car through the tunnel or the over the bridge. What I will say is that we are now coming up to seven years since the then Chancellor George Osborne promised my constituents that they would not have to pay a fee to cross the bridge at Runcorn. Will the Minister tell us when that promise will be kept?

Constituents of mine travelling by train have a similar experience at the moment, as the Wrexham to Bidston line is operating a reduced service due to short staffing, which is understandable. For my constituents in Neston, that is the only route by public transport into Liverpool. We were expecting a half-hourly service by now, but the pandemic seems to have delayed that. The current service runs once every two hours, which hopefully will be put right shortly, but it seems extraordinary to me that the 7.10 am and the 9.10 am train have survived, but the 8.10 am train has been cancelled. Surely, as the peak morning service, this is the last journey that should be cut.

We are waiting for answers about this from the current operator, but when the Minister responds I hope he can say when we can get the half-hourly service that was specifically promised in the franchise agreement. Ultimately, passengers on this line need an end to the need to change at Bidston, and to get the direct line to Liverpool installed. That would deliver the true connectivity that we need in Neston.

My constituents in Ellesmere Port, on the other side of the constituency, already have a half-hourly service to Liverpool, although the price of tickets is an issue. We all know the cost of rail travel is going up, and indeed the cost of everything else is going up, but we seem to be paying more than others.

The cost of a ticket into Liverpool from Little Sutton is 30% more expensive than from a station just two stops further down the line, and three times as much as it would cost for a similar journey in London. I do not understand why those price differentials exist, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an answer as to why prices are so much more expensive for my constituents, or at least commit to looking into that.

There has been a 20-year campaign for a station at Ledsham, in Little Sutton, which was submitted to the railway renewal fund, but sadly rejected. The overall comment that the Department made was that it was

“a strong proposal with a well-articulated narrative on how the project could unlock growth opportunities in the area.”

It puzzles me somewhat that the application was rejected. Can the Minister enlighten me as to the reasons why it was turned down? The suspicion that we have seen in other areas is that decisions are being made on a party political basis, and not on the merits of the application. Will the Minister advise when there will be an opportunity to submit a further application? The problems that that station would solve are only going to increase.

Finally, I want to mention the crisis in school transport, which particularly affects my constituents travelling to schools on the Wirral. Driver shortages and increased fuel costs mean that some services are being pulled all together, or only offered on a termly basis, at a price that few can afford. As the schools are outside the catchment area, there is no financial support available.

I acknowledge that this will not be a priority for local authorities, with their stretched funds, but I know that this is not an isolated example and the pattern is being repeated across the country. Pupils have had enough disruption to their education during the last couple of years, so I would not want them to have to change schools because travel to the school of their choice has become unaffordable. Can the Minister comment on any assessment he has made on the cost and availability of home-to-school transport? That chimes with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said earlier about the paucity of bus services in the area, and the need for places like Merseyside and Cheshire to be given the powers, rules and resources to take back control of their bus networks. That is something I think we would all want to see.

Transport for the North

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

The hon. Gentleman is going to see over the coming years an acceleration of investment in the midlands and the north and a rebalancing of some of our investment programmes. Northern Powerhouse Rail will deliver two brand-new lines, from Warrington to Manchester and from Manchester to Marsden. In addition, we have a transformational upgrade of the trans-Pennine route far beyond anything committed to that route by any previous Government.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my constituent in Little Neston, Councillor Louise Gittins, who has been doing a sterling job as the interim chair of Transport for the North. Judging by some of the comments from Conservative Members, she has been doing her job a little too well. She, like me, has been campaigning for a half-hourly passenger service on the Wrexham to Bidston line, which we had hoped to see in place by now. Can the Minister guarantee that we will see that delivered next year?

HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE AND ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2020 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2020 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE AND ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she rightly pointed out, the laws regarding face coverings regulations are becoming increasingly convoluted, with amendment upon amendment. As she also pointed out, we are debating three instruments: one amends the wearing of face coverings in relevant places regulations for the third time, and the other two amend the wearing of face coverings in relevant places and on public transport regulations for the second and third times.

Before I talk about the regulations themselves, I will say a few words about the timing of the debate, because the timeline of these regulations is yet another example of the lack of transparency, strategy and accountability that has been the hallmark of this Government’s approach to the coronavirus restrictions. Hon. Members will be aware that I have consistently raised concerns over the way regulations are introduced; that is the view not just of the Opposition, but of hon. Members across the House and in the other place. These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law.

Each of these regulations contains the same phrase at the start:

“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

I accept that, earlier on, that would have been the case, but that cannot really be said of these regulations. What is the urgency for this set of regulations? They appear to be correcting oversights and omissions in earlier regulations and increasing the level of fines for transgressions. Is the Government’s position that correcting their own mistakes is a good enough reason to override parliamentary scrutiny?

More than 70 health protection statutory instruments have been introduced in this manner since March, including seven on the wearing of face coverings, with no debate and no vote before coming into force. While we have acknowledged on many occasions how, in the early stages, there was a need to act quickly under emergency procedures—that may still be the case at times—more and more of the regulations being introduced do not meet the urgency test and are being introduced as such merely because the Government have slipped into a bad habit.

The Opposition have repeatedly offered to meet at short notice to debate and vote on regulations before they become law, because we believe that scrutiny, debate and challenge in the making of our laws mean that, in the long run, those laws will be more robust and more effective and achieve greater public acceptance if they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate before coming into force. That is amply demonstrated today, because the regulations under consideration were laid on 22 and 23 September, just after the previous amendments to both principal regulations were debated in Committee on 21 September. We therefore debated amendments to regulations the day before further amendments to those regulations were made, which is a pretty messy and unsatisfactory way of dealing with things.

In the case of SI No. 1021, on the wearing of face coverings in taxis, it is hard to imagine that, on the Monday evening, the Government were not aware of their plan to lay further legislation the following morning. It is also hard to imagine a more convenient opportunity for the Government to bring draft regulations to the House for debate than when a Committee has been convened to debate regulations for the wearing of face coverings—they could be debated at the same time. Yet, as we know, that did not happen.

Furthermore, there was no mention of any new regulations that were forthcoming. It is a shame that the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, who represented the Government in those debates, is not in the Committee, because I would love to know whether she was aware that those regulations were coming the following day. In the case of SIs Nos. 1026 and 1028, I question whether the Government indeed intended to lay new regulations at all or whether they were laid as a direct result of questions and concerns raised by hon. Members in Committee on 21 September.

I have said before that a central part of controlling the virus is ensuring robust scrutiny of the regulations and their effectiveness. As a part of that, the Government need to have a clear strategy and road map, not to be leaping around from decision to decision. In that context, the laying of three separate statutory instruments on the wearing of face coverings in the space of 24 hours rather suggests that they are lurching from one crisis to the next.

That is not just the Opposition’s view. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said it is

“surprised that the Government is not doing more to coordinate such changes in a more structured way.”

It also pointed out:

“It is not helpful to have the law scattered between so many instruments.”

I agree.

When we first debated the lockdown regulations, I impressed on the Government the importance of the rules remaining clear and consistent as regulations changed over time. It is clear that that has not happened with regulations relating to the wearing of face coverings, from Ministers making contradictory statements at the outset about what should be worn and being unable to answer simple questions about the regulations, to the rules changing six times in two months. Who could blame the public for being confused?

If the Government want people to understand the rules and follow them, we need clear communication from Government and for the rules to make sense. That is particularly so on advice for wearing a face covering in enclosed spaces, given that it has not changed a great deal in that timeframe. I will come to that in more detail as we look at each of the regulations.

As we have heard, SI No. 1021 amends the previous regulations by extending the requirement to wear face coverings on public transport to those travelling in taxis and private hire vehicles. The explanatory memorandum states:

“Emerging data has demonstrated that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers”

are

“more likely to be vulnerable to Covid-19 due to being male (98% of drivers) or from an ethnic minority (53% of drivers).”

It also notes:

“The Office for National Statistics has identified drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles as high-risk…having higher rates of death involving Covid-19 (65.3 per 100,000) than bus and coach drivers (44.2) and van drivers (26.7).”

There is no doubt, therefore, that the regulations are needed. The issue I have is that those figures from the ONS are not new. They were published on 26 June, less than two weeks after the wearing of face coverings on public transport became law on 15 June. Why has it taken three months for these regulations to come forward?

I am sure that the Minister will point to the fact, as the explanatory memorandum does, that taxi drivers and private hire vehicle operators could, in principle, refuse carriage or make the wearing of a face covering a condition of travel. However, I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer, when it is not supported by scientific evidence about the level of risk. Of course, it is also the case that if that was the whole answer, there would be no need to introduce regulations now, as drivers could still refuse carriage. So I must ask whether this was, in fact, an oversight from the first set of regulations.

SI No. 1026 extends the requirement for the public to wear face coverings to theatres, restaurants, bars and public houses, except when seated to eat or drink, meaning that members of the public are therefore required to wear a face covering when entering, leaving and moving around each of these hospitality settings. It also requires employees and other persons providing services in public-facing areas of shops, restaurants and leisure or tourist attractions, such as museums, to wear a face covering, unless they are exempt.

This statutory instrument also amends the fixed penalty notice provisions to double the fixed penalty fines that are payable for any breaches of face coverings requirements, whether in a relevant place or on public transport, meaning that a first offence will now attract a fine of £200, rising to a maximum of £6,400.

I will come back to the issuing of fines later, because I first want to focus on the requirement for the public and workers to wear a face covering in the indoor settings set out on the extended list. As we heard from the Minister, the Prime Minister announced this change in the House of Commons on 22 September, which is a welcome departure from changes being announced by selected leaks to the media. The explanatory memorandum points to advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies that

“there is evidence to recommend the use of cloth masks in certain higher-risk settings as a precautionary measure where masks could be at least partially effective. These settings would be enclosed spaces where social distancing is not possible to maintain consistently, creating a risk of close social contact with multiple parties the person does not usually meet.”

The explanatory memorandum further says:

“Mandating the use of face coverings in additional hospitality settings and extending the requirement to staff and other workers working in customer facing roles, when used alongside other measures, therefore offers a reasonable protective measure to reduce the risk of infection on contamination by a virus”.

As in previous debates regarding the wearing of face coverings, my question is this: given that the Government have been advising the public since 11 May to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces where they might find it difficult to maintain social distancing and might come into contact with people who they would not normally meet, and given that the scientific evidence does not appear to have changed in that time, why was this requirement not extended to staff when hospitality venues first reopened on 4 July, or when a face covering became mandatory in shops and transport hubs on 24 July or in relevant places on 8 August and 22 August?

What are the reasons for not introducing the requirement to wear a face covering more uniformly across indoor settings at the same time? Would that not have reduced confusion over where and when face coverings were required or not required? Was it that scientific advice changed during July, August and September about the places where face coverings could be effective, or was there another reason why those changes were not made at that time?

In the debates about previous regulations on 14 and 21 September, we asked for an explanation as to why the wearing of face coverings regulations did not apply to those who work in shops, restaurants, pubs and other relevant places. From my perspective, I certainly did not get a particularly convincing answer at the time. It is probably overstating things to say that those questions in Delegated Legislation Committees had the effect of changing Government policy within 24 hours; that trick seems to be the preserve of the likes of Marcus Rashford. However, the point is that if we had debated these issues at an early juncture, before they became law, there might have been a different outcome, because these issues might have been picked up earlier and we might have been able to have fewer sets of statutory instruments. That really shows the importance of debate in providing scrutiny and challenge to ensure that laws are effective and robust. As Members of this House and some Members in the other place have rightly said, the delays and the piecemeal introduction of regulations have not only caused confusion over where people should wear face coverings, but cause people to lose trust in the Government’s message.

I also want to ask about the terminology used in regulation 2(4), which states that staff must wear a face covering if they come or are

“likely to come within close contact of any member of the public.”

The explanatory note describes this as being in “close proximity”. Are these effectively the same thing, and is the Minister able to put a figure on that in metres? Are we talking about the 2 metre rule here, 1 metre plus or some other measurement? I would be grateful for some clarity on that.

I also want to ask about the list of places where exemptions no longer apply, contained in schedule 3, added by regulation 2(11). It is a long list, but not comprehensive, so I have a few questions about what is not included.

Paragraph 1 refers to:

“A shop, but not including premises providing legal or financial services.”

What is the reason for not including legal or financial services? They are defined in paragraph 5 of the list:

“Banks, building societies, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and undertakings which by way of business operate a currency exchange office, transmit money (or any representation of money) by any means or cash cheques which are made payable to customers.”

To me, that seems to be a fairly comprehensive list of places that might provide financial services, but obviously some places are not covered. I will be grateful if the Minister sets out what they are and the reason for their exclusion.

Questions arise about two other premises. First, estate agents do not appear to be in the list; is there a reason for that, or are they included in the definition of a shop? Secondly—a category close to all our hearts—the premises of Members of Parliament are not included. Is there no legal requirement for members of the public to wear face coverings if they enter a Member of Parliament’s constituency office? I appreciate that separate guidance has been issued by the House authorities, but that is only guidance, not the law. Anything the Minister can say on that will be appreciated. Is there a plan to extend the rule to all workplaces? I understand that over the weekend the British Medical Association made that suggestion. It would certainly put an end to the dizzying list of exemptions.

The biggest omission from the list is of course pubs, which leads me on to SI No. 1028. Those regulations were laid on the same day as SI No. 1026, seemingly to correct on omission from that instrument, so that employees in pubs are now also required to wear face coverings. That was clearly an oversight, and a necessary one at that, and it highlights the much wider problem of the worryingly high number of instruments being laid to correct omissions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has noticed a recent increase in the number of correcting instruments, with several coronavirus instruments having to be revoked or amended immediately after laying due to errors, including SI No. 1028, which was made on the same day to correct the omission in SI No. 1026. In fact, during this Session so far, 8.5% of statutory instruments have had to be corrected or replaced —well above the 5% benchmark that is regarded as acceptable. In the period from July to September, that figure rises to 12.5%. That is an alarmingly high rate, which led the Committee to remind Departments to check all instruments thoroughly before laying them before Parliament. That should not need to be said, but here we are having to say it.

As I said at the start, it is no wonder people are confused when laws are made with mistakes in them and have to be changed rapidly as a result. How is anyone supposed to follow and comply with the rapidly changing coronavirus regulations in such circumstances? We are talking about rules that carry with them significant financial penalties. It is simply not good enough for omitted provisions continually to be slotted in afterwards.

I have a few more questions about the regulations. The explanatory memorandum states:

“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is expected to be positive. Requiring staff members and other workers to wear face coverings in public houses may give members of the public confidence to visit these premises which may increase visitors to these settings bringing benefit to the business.”

Of course, we all want our hospitality sector to thrive, but it seems rather odd to debate a measure that might encourage people to return to pubs on the same day that the Prime Minister is closing some down, so I want to press the Minister on that point. Does that statement in the explanatory memorandum mean that the measure was introduced purely for economic reasons, with no health benefit at all? I appreciate that she is not a Health Minister, so she might not be able to answer that, but I point out that the note goes on:

“The policy may also offer added protection to employees working in these settings, in addition to the existing mitigations that have been put in place by businesses already.”

Those protections would still have been available had the regulations been introduced at an earlier date.

Furthermore, the Minister dealing with previous sets of regulations, the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, wrote to me after an earlier debate on face coverings and why the rules requiring the wearing of them were not brought in at the same time as retail establishments reopened. She told me:

“As lockdown restrictions began to ease across the country, we felt it necessary to mandate the use of face covering in some indoor settings such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. As shops reopened, we anticipated an increase in footfall and introduced these measures to provide some reassurance to people and help them benefit from some small additional protection that face coverings can offer when it is not always possible to socially distance.”

It seems from the reply that the question of generating confidence for people when they visit shops had already been considered, which is why the original regulations came into force, but why was the issue of staff wearing face coverings not considered at the same time?

I turn to enforcement. As I stated previously, the Opposition support measures against the very few people who frequently and repeatedly break the rules, which are there to protect us all. As we have heard, the SI No. 1026 amends the previous regulations so that the fine imposed for a first offence under the face covering regulations is now set at £200, and continues to double at each subsequent offence to a maximum of £6,400, in line with penalties for other national coronavirus regulations. The explanatory memorandum says

“these amendments will further deter noncompliance and tackle those who repeatedly breach the requirement to wear a face covering”,

but will they? As I said in previous debates, compliance is important, but just setting out a schedule of fines is not enough. We need to understand how realistic it is that the fines will be enforced.

First, will the Minister say why those rules were introduced with such urgency? The penalty already exists; the regulations simply increase the amount an individual has to pay. That suggests there was an urgent need to increase the level of penalty to improve compliance. Is that the case, and can she produce any evidence in support of that? It is not the first time that penalties for non-compliance have been increased without any detail or explanation of why urgent action was required. These are bad habits.

On enforcement of fines for breaching the rule of six the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Federation said that officers simply cannot enforce new restrictions, and the chair of the Police Federation said:

“We just don’t have the resources.”

That was evidenced by the figures, which show that many police forces have not issued fines for breaches of regulations in the first few weeks. Over the weekend, new data showed that there are already significant differences across the numbers of all fines issued by police forces under coronavirus regulations. Up to 21 September, some police forces have issued more than 1,000 fines, whereas others have issued fewer than 100. Of those fines, only 89 have been given out by police for failing to wear a facemask; that was by 11 out of 45 forces in England and Wales.

I am sure that most hon. Members can point to a great number of concerns raised by constituents about people not wearing masks over the past few months. What does the Minister have to say about three quarters of police forces not having issued any fines? We see breaches of the rules every day—not just by the Prime Minister’s father—which rather suggests that there is no capacity to enforce the regulations, which is a dangerous place to be. If people see others getting away with it, they might conclude that they too do not need to comply with the rules.

How the police treat breaches should not be a postcode lottery, and compliance with the law should not depend on where people live. Of course, none of the 89 fines was issued under the regulations that we are debating, as they came into force a few days after the report. Can the Minister give us an update on the number of fines issued under these regulations and all the face covering regulations? Why does she think there is such disparity in enforcement across various police forces? Liberty has said the disparity was inevitable, because the rules had been communicated chaotically. It is hard to disagree with that, but does the Minister concur? Can she outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that impending changes are communicated both to those who have to comply with them and to those who have to enforce them?

A review by the Crown Prosecution Service has so far uncovered 63 unlawful charges under the health protection regulations, and the new figures have unsurprisingly led to further calls for a review of fines being given out. Are the Government also considering that? We also know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced significant concerns about the fines that have been given out, warning that black, Asian and minority ethnic people are being disproportionately penalised. What steps are the Government taking in respect of that concern?

Let us be clear: we are not criticising the police. We know that they have an incredibly difficult job in this crisis. We know the real pressures they face due to the reduction in numbers they have faced over the past decade. However, they cannot continue to be handed increased responsibilities without sufficient resources to enable them to carry out those duties. Last week, in the debate on the rule of six, I asked whether the Government would set out what additional resources would be available to police to ensure compliance, as the number of enforceable restrictions increases. I am still waiting for an answer. It is simply not good enough. I hope that we shall hear a little more today. We shall not oppose the regulations, but there are many questions that remain unanswered, which I hope the Minister will address.

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a great pleasure to respond to the questions put to me by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I thank him for his detailed questions and will of course address the points he made.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the urgency with which we brought in the regulations. He will know that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 provides powers for us to make a statutory instrument in exactly these circumstances. We face an unprecedented global health emergency. We must act with speed and we cannot hold up urgent regulations that are needed to save lives. We have been clear at every step that we will consult Parliament and hold votes where possible. In addition, the Government provide regular opportunities to question Government scientific advisors, and Members are given opportunities to access data about their own constituencies. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Health Secretary has made a commitment that, for significant national measures that affect the whole of England or the UK, we will consult Parliament, where possible, and hold votes.

[Justin Madders]

I appreciate what the Minister says, and of course I have no difficulty with certain regulations being introduced in this way, but I asked specifically about increasing the level of fines from previous regulations. What was so urgent about that that it needed to be done without following proper parliamentary processes?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am happy to come on to that. I have listed the hon. Gentleman’s points in the order he put them, and I will come on to it in due course.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high level of deaths among car, van and taxi drivers. He will know that when we first began to bring in regulations about the transport system and face coverings, we provided guidance to the taxi sector. Many people were of course already wearing face coverings when taking taxis, and many drivers were also doing so. Many operators had a “no face covering, no ride” policy, to keep their passengers safe. Further engagement with the sector made it clear that it was requesting greater certainty. The amending SI has therefore been introduced to create a legal requirement for passengers, in line with the majority of the public transport network.

The hon. Gentleman asked why staff in hospitality settings were not originally included. The rising rate of infection has meant that the Government have had to consider additional measures. All measures are kept under review, as he knows. As for the premises he asks about, I assure him that post offices, banks, building societies, high street solicitors, accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, saving clubs and money service businesses are included in the regulations, as are estate agents and letting agents.

The wearing of face masks on the premises of the House of Commons and in the House is not in the scope of this debate. It is a matter for Mr Speaker, who I understand has strongly recommended that we wear face coverings while we are on the estate.

[Justin Madders]

I think the Minister has misunderstood the scope of my question. It was actually about Members’ constituency offices, which is obviously slightly different from the parliamentary estate.

[Rachel Maclean]

Forgive me. That is not a matter for this debate, but it may be of interest to each individual Member of Parliament that they are required to follow the covid-secure guidelines within those premises, as are other businesses. That guidance is set out clearly. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it is planned to extend the provisions to other workplaces. Again, that is not in the scope of the debate, so I shall not comment on it now.

Before I go on to talk about fines, I want to make the point that most people are following the rules, and we are extremely grateful. We know that there are very high levels of compliance up and down the country in every constituency. It is obviously a challenge for people to comply with the rules, but we know that they are making those sacrifices to keep their communities safe.

On the enforcement regime, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we are making the penalty more stringent. Again, we know that most people will comply, but we are seeing a rising rate of infection. It is important that we tackle this now so that we are able to keep the hospitality sector open in places where social distancing might be more difficult in all scenarios. The number of fixed penalty notices does not reflect a lack of enforcement, because the police, as I mentioned, use the four Es approach. A fine will always be a last resort after all other measures have failed.

I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some data on the fines. As of 1 October 2020, officers stopped 159,286 people and prevented 7,526 passengers from boarding public transport services owing to non-compliance with face-covering regulations; 5,677 people have been ejected from services or directed to leave, and 533 fixed penalty notices were reported.

Finally, on the equality impact assessment, the Government have taken steps with every single regulation that has been brought in to ensure that the equality impacts have been considered. With that, Dr Huq, I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate.

The Government have always been clear that their highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. I am satisfied that the requirements imposed by the regulations as amended and the enforcement powers given to the police and Transport for London are necessary, reasonable and proportionate, given the urgent need to minimise the spread of the virus and offer maximum protection to members of the public and staff. Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that to protect themselves they must continue to follow social distancing measures, wash their hands regularly, and adhere to the isolation guidance.

Current Government guidance states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces, where social distancing is more difficult to maintain, and where people might come into contact with others they do not normally meet. The debate today has provided an opportunity for us in the Government—

[Justin Madders]

I do not think the Minister has addressed the question about why an increase in the level of fines had to be introduced in an urgent way. What necessitated such action?

[Rachel Maclean]

In line with all our policies and decisions, a decision was taken to protect public health and to maintain the balance between protecting public health, allowing enforcement measures to be introduced and allowing some of the hospitality venues and the transport system to stay open. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made during this debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is a vital part of the regulation-making process. I am pleased to have been able to set out the content for these amending regulations to the Committee. I hope the Committee has found the debate informative and that it will join me in supporting the amending regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Cttee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1026).

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Cttee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1028).—(Rachel Maclean.)

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Cttee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1021).—(Rachel Maclean.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that briefly to me already, so I know that it is on his radar. It is important that all our roads are managed by the appropriate authority in the interests of road users and local communities, and I would be quite happy to meet my hon. Friend and the roads Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

T8. A recent survey of social media found that the M56 was the most complained about motorway in the whole country. Junctions 12 to 14 are a complete bottleneck, causing regular accidents and frustration for local people, so I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that among the many announcements yesterday, those junctions on the M56 will also get some investment.

[Grant Shapps]

We are very keen, unlike the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team, to sort out the problems on our major roads. I would be more than happy to meet him or for another Minister to do so.

Transport

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Some 78% of people in Ellesmere Port and Neston use private motor transport to get to work, compared with a national average of 63%. Perhaps in a constituency known for building cars that is not so much of a surprise, but I think it is more a reflection of the poor public transport links we have. It seems that for much of the last decade we have, every couple of months, faced a battle to save bus services that are already inadequate. Sometimes we persuade the bus company to keep the route and sometimes it will retain the service with a slightly different route, but sometimes we lose the route altogether. We then see people who rely on a bus to get to work, to care for their family or to access medical appointments left high and dry, usually at just a few weeks’ notice.

We need to take back control of the bus network. We need a locally directed bus network designed to meet the needs of the local community, so that we are no longer at the mercy of commercial considerations and so that people, no matter where they live, are never too far away from a regular, reliable bus service. We can spend billions of pounds on shaving 20 minutes off the journey time from Crewe to London, but we still cannot guarantee the most basic bus service for many of our citizens. How are people supposed to be able to get work in certain places if they just cannot get there? How is one of the biggest employers in my constituency, Cheshire Oaks, expected to maximise the number of local young people it employs if they cannot get home from work after six o’clock?

This picture is repeated up and down the country; no wonder so many young people feel they have no choice but to leave their home town and venture into the city. It is no wonder that we have a chronic loneliness and isolation problem when so many older people cannot get anywhere because the bus service has been cut.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s decision on HS2 shortly. If it goes ahead, I have supreme confidence that it will eventually be delivered over budget and late; I have considerably less confidence in whether it will bring any benefit to the north, and my constituency specifically. We have a real chance of delivering real benefits to the north through HS2 if the project is accompanied by a meaningful rail investment programme across the whole of the north, alongside a concerted effort to attract new businesses to the north; otherwise, advertising the benefits of getting to London quicker will probably encourage more businesses to locate in London than the other way around.

My constituency is a perfect example of why rail investment must be matched pound for pound in the north. If I want to travel the 30 miles from Ellesmere Port to Crewe by rail, I have to get on three separate trains and the journey will take around an hour and a half. It will probably end up taking longer than the whole of the rest of the journey from Crewe to London.

Finally, in the time I have left I want to say a few words about the Mersey Gateway tolls. I make no apologies for raising this subject again because the same basic unfairness of that system is still there. We have repeatedly heard from Ministers about how tolls being removed can improve an area’s economic performance, such as in south Wales and Scotland, and there are no toll crossings in Northern Ireland and none in London either. Some 90% of road crossings are toll-free except in Merseyside. That needs to end.

Thomas Cook

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

We have this slightly strange situation where everyone is acknowledging how badly they think the company may have been run and expressing concern about the decisions that have been made and the directors, but at the same time saying, please bail out this failing—what people think is a failing—organisation. The simple answer is that if we thought that it was possible, we absolutely would have done something.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

My constituents who have lost their jobs are absolutely furious at the sight of directors waltzing off to Germany with their jobs intact, as I am sure the Secretary of State can understand. I hope that in due course the directors disqualification proceedings come in. In the meantime, people need the statutory payments due to them as soon as possible, so can he assure me that the Redundancy Payments Office is sufficiently well resourced?