Draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 General Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I represent a constituency within the proposed jurisdiction of the newly-established Transport for the North, and I declare an interest, in that I want to ensure that we get the establishment of Transport for the North absolutely right.

We have seen the power of real devolution and the impact that it has on economic regeneration and opportunity, and how, when transport and the economy are combined into spatial planning, we can build a country fit for the future. Over the past 18 months we have seen that power in London in particular, with Transport for London’s ability to drive economic opportunities for the city and what it has done through its transport plan to connect communities, address social mobility, attract inward investment and kick-start a house building strategy. By determining that public transport must be prioritised alongside cycling and walking, TfL has been able not only to map its mobility objectives, but to relate business, housing, environmental and health priorities to them, for full connectivity from a fully integrated transport system, and a fully integrated overarching strategy for Greater London. Similar benefits have been brought about through Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales.

With that approach have come resources—although they are being withdrawn without the necessary transitional funds—and powers to make decisions and bring about change. However, as we head north we see a different concept proposed in the regulations. Labour’s ambition for devolution and, in particular, devolution for the transport system as set out in part 5A of Labour’s Local Transport Act 2008, which makes the regulations permissible, reaches well beyond the scope of what is set out in the regulations before the Committee.

As I have already set out, Transport for London, utilising all its powers, is able to realise the ambition of its community and deliver a transport system for the future. Northern communities already get a 10th of the spending that goes to London, and the new regulations restrain opportunity for the new sub-national transport body. In a variety of announcements, the Secretary of State first scrapped the promised investment, but proposed that he would deliver devolved powers that would allow the north to address its own transport needs. However, the statutory instrument delivers neither resource nor the powers that he promised just months ago.

I want to begin by talking about the schedule and the governance arrangements. Labour will be supportive of the proposals set out for the co-ordination and governance of Transport for the North. We believe that to have equal voices representing the breadth of communities in the north is right, and the ability to determine on simple majorities, population size or track coverage proportions to the weight of votes is right, when it comes to certain matters such as franchises.

It is essential, for any strategic body to function, to ensure that partners can engage; robust scrutiny is also vital, to ensure that the challenges are put within the system, and that the strategic body keeps being held to account over its determinations.

That brings me to the area of contention, namely regulation 5. I ask the Minister whether it is lack of ambition or lack of trust that has determined the regulation’s limitations with regard to the powers to prepare, advise and make proposals. Is the Minister really serious in introducing regulations for a new strategic transport authority that has the right to put its hand up and say, “Please”? It is staggering, when we all know why rail is failing so badly at the moment, with the fragmentation conspiracy held at the heart of Government, that the regulations provide zero power to drive a different approach or culture into our rail system.

Let me take each point in turn. Regulation 5(a) specifies the power to prepare a transport strategy. Should it not at least specify the power to prepare and set the priorities? We need legislation to enable TfN to deliver an integrated transport strategy linked to an economic plan and a spatial plan. We hear about the northern powerhouse, but we just get the right to prepare a strategy and pass it on to the Secretary of State, who then has the powers to do whatever he so chooses with it. Labour would bolster that power, to bring real power to the north.

It gets worse. Regulation 5(b) sets out the power to “provide advice”—just provide advice—to the Secretary of State about the exercise of transport functions in relation to the area, whether they are exercisable by the Secretary of State or others. I know the Secretary of State would seriously benefit from the provision of advice from a strategic transport body, but honestly, this is completely substandard and does not need legislating for. Anyone can provide advice. There is no credence given to the depth of the advice or how it will be received, and there is nothing in the regulations to say whether any of it will have any effect and see the light of day. In other words, the Secretary of State gets someone to do his homework for him and then decides what he wants to do with it. He may rub it out if he so chooses; he is given no obligations on how to respond to that advice.

Labour wants Transport for the North to have the powers to implement the strategy; to co-produce, at the very least, the plan to implement the strategy; to determine the priorities for the area covered; and to be able to make decisions on the strategy. Of course, Labour’s move to a publicly owned railway system will reflect the strength of devolution right through its structures and will ensure, through Transport for the North, that local authorities will help to determine their destiny, while also ensuring national co-ordination to bring economic opportunity to all corners of the nation, with a transport system that delivers the right solutions to the country.

The continued economic inequality and failure will not abate if all the decision making is still taking place at the Department for Transport and by the Secretary of State. He must let go of his powers and start trusting those who are experts in the north and know what is needed for local growth. We must break the Secretary of State’s Stalinist grip on the railway, where every decision must go across his desk. That is exactly why we need Transport for the North and why we need a Labour Government.

Let me give the example of TransPennine Express. The leaders of all the authorities within the Transport for the North footprint have been absolutely clear that that major artery needs to be electrified and to provide the high-speed, high-capacity service necessary for economic opportunity. It must be Transport for the North’s role to determine what is needed. Clearly, the Secretary of State has got it wrong in downgrading that scheme, switching the power off in the north. Everyone in the north knows that and has been incredibly vocal about it; however this remote Government do not understand its importance.

Transport for the North must be able to set the strategy and priorities and then implement them. These regulations fall completely short of that. I urge the Government to redraft the whole of regulation 5, but I have not finished yet. Regulation 5(c) provides for a co-ordinating role between the authorities to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Should those powers not also extend to an arbitrating role? Co-ordination is good if everyone agrees, but when they do not we need to ensure that the broader interests are determined, and therefore the powers of Transport for the North should be extended to achieve that.

Then we get to regulation 5(d), under which if Transport for the North believes that effectiveness and efficiency can be improved, it has the power to make proposals. Once again, there is nothing that must be acted upon. These are not powers. We need to ensure that proposals are turned into determinations that can be delivered. Then we have regulation 5(e), where proposals can be made to the Secretary of State about the role and function of Transport for the North. Once again, we can ask, beg and plead, but there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to be cognisant of such proposals. The whole of regulation 5 is poor—really poor—and I call on the Minister to amend it. Subsections (2) to (6) of section 102H of part 5A of the 2008 Act enable the Secretary of State to go further, and I urge the Minister to take that on board.

I have a few further points to make about the remainder of the regulations. It is unclear how the instituting of advanced and smart ticketing will be specifically resourced in the longer term, after the £150 million allocated for now has been spent, or how it is proposed that that will be interrelated across the rest of the transport network outside the jurisdiction of Transport for the North. We urgently need smart ticketing that is intermodal and dovetails into the national ticketing scheme. Will the Minister give a clear response to that?

Let me briefly move on to highways. I note that, again, the Secretary of State will sign off on initiatives on trunk roads and the acquisition of land, its use and its environmental impact. Surely, these matters should be devolved to Transport for the North, under the direction of the Secretary of State. It speaks of a lack of an existing national strategy for the highways, and a lack of faith in a northern body such as Transport for the North having the ability to make these determinations. Labour believes that it should.

Regulation 11 sets out the relationship between TfN and local authorities on highways matters. May I point out to the Minister that, although it mentions footpaths and trunk roads, it is silent on bridleways and cycle paths? Is there intent behind that omission, and if so, why? Labour believes that far more investment is needed in walking and cycling to tackle poor air quality and congestion and to improve health.

Finally, funding is key to growth and economic and social success, yet the regulations are virtually silent on the matter, save for saying that contributions will come from the local authorities in a proportionate way, and for the initial resourcing. Section 102L of part 5A of the 2008 Act makes provision for grants to be allocated. Why has that not been included in the regulations? Will the Minister share more details? Labour’s intent with the 2008 Act was to ensure that real power was devolved to strategic regions, and it is deeply disappointing that the Government have not shared our ambition. We wholeheartedly support the setting up of Transport for the North, and I speak for the vast majority of local authorities in the north in saying that we are deeply disappointed with the regulations and that we want the Government to redraft regulation 5. Transport for the North should have the powers to set and implement a strategy that it owns, and the Secretary of State should be bound not only to fully consider it but to support it, unless he can provide strong evidence of why it should be refocused. As things stand, the power in these regulations sits in the wrong place.

In order to make progress in the setting up of Transport for the North, Labour will not block these regulations today. However, we seek a guarantee from the Government that they will go back and extend powers to Transport for the North, to enable it to be a truly strategic body across the whole transport system, delivering for all communities in the north.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson for her comments. Let me address the several points she raised.

First, the regulations have been drafted with the support, and in some cases at the formal request, of Transport for the North and the constituent authorities themselves. The Government are acting not in a vacuum but very closely in consultation with the constituent authorities and Transport for the North’s own management and executive team. Therefore, I do not think it is correct to say that those things are in some sense not supported locally; on the contrary, the reason the Labour party supports them and the reason they command support across the north is that everyone recognises that this body is a very important step for this important subject, in a central area of our future economic development.

Secondly, it is very bold to talk about devolution in a grand way. The Labour party ought to be careful to think about what that actually implies. We have national networks in road, rail and other areas mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, and devolution can upset national flows and the coherence of a national strategy. It is important for Government to recognise and respect that. I have no doubt that any Government in this position would be concerned about the national aspect of such important networks.

Thirdly, these powers are absolutely not unambitious, as the hon. Lady suggested. I remind the Committee that this is the first sub-national transport body, and important powers are being allocated to Transport for the North. The power to produce the statutory transport strategy is important, and the fact that it is statutory gives it an authority and status that commands respect. This entity now has the capacity to fund organisations that can deliver transport projects—smart ticketing, for example—and the Government are working with and giving the power for TfN to work with local authorities to fund, promote and deliver schemes, and to be consulted on schemes, which is important. Those are important powers, and an important devolution of autonomy and control to the region, and rightly so.

As I have said, 56 authorities were consulted and the idea that they form an entirely coherent group that is able to speak with one voice is fanciful. It is important for TfN to bring together all those concerns and mould them into a strategy, and in due course we will see the results of its work on that. The idea that there is somehow a single voice, and therefore a comparison with Transport for London, is far-fetched. We are in the early stages of setting up a new institution, and anyone who wishes to ask whether that institution speaks with one voice, and whether more powers should be devolved to it, should ask from which local transport or other authority those powers will be removed. Is the hon. Lady genuinely suggesting that Transport for Greater Manchester should have some of its powers removed to go to Transport for the North, because that is the implication of creating a body of the kind she described? This is far from unambitious—these are ambitious and far-reaching proposals on which this Government, and future Governments, could build if they are successful.

This Government are the first to have introduced a national walking and cycling strategy. They inherited a situation in which walking and cycling were being funded at the rate of £2 a head per year, and that is now £6 a head per year. That is not enough, but it is a significant improvement.

I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive points, and we will obviously attend to them. We see the establishment of Transport for the North as a significant step for the north and the country as a whole. It will work with the region’s transport authorities and elected Mayors to build a long-term vision for transport across the north of England. As the voice of the north in that area, Transport for the North will have unprecedented influence over Government funding and decision making. The Government have demonstrated that by setting up this institution and backing the election of metro Mayors, we are giving the north greater autonomy and control, and a powerful voice to articulate the case for new transport projects.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I wish to come back on a number of issues. First, let me be clear that Labour fully supports the setting up of this sub-national transport body, Transport for the North. We want it to be successful, but we do not underestimate the real challenges faced by the new strategic body, and we therefore want to ensure that it has the powers and authority to deliver what it needs to deliver on behalf of local authorities and strategic bodies across the north. That is why we have made a close determination about what those powers should be, in dialogue with authorities across the north, as well as Transport for the North.

I challenged the assumptions made by the Minister because there are successful bodies, whether in Wales, Scotland or London, that have greater control over their transport determinations, and we must question why a similar determination cannot be made by a body in the north. Transport for the North should clearly have greater powers to determine the destiny of the economy and communities of the north, and that is why we urge the Minister to go further in future.

I challenge the Minister’s claim that TfN has those wider powers, because there is still a massive dependency on the Secretary of State making determinations. We are not talking about taking any powers away from local authorities, because we believe in devolved decision making. However, the regulations are too dependent on the Secretary of State making the determinations and the sign-off.

Although we recognise the importance of a strategic national plan for our transport system, it is important that those powers are devolved down into a sub-national transport body. The Secretary of State should produce evidence of why that should not happen and why it is he should affirm such decisions. I question the Minister’s claim that our proposal would not function, given what is happening in other areas.

The Minister also raised the issue of not all the strategic bodies speaking with one voice. That is exactly why we recognise the role of collaboration, but we also argue that, where a dispute occurs between authorities, they should be able to access arbitration. Of course, there will be different interests and approaches. Those are determined by the difference and variety of communities across the north. We believe that the strategic body for transport in the north should have greater powers at that level.

Finally, on walking and cycling, the latter is funded at the rate of £6 per head, but we want the figure to be increased to £10 per head. We want to be ambitious and to change the approach. I specifically asked the Minister why cycle paths and bridleways were omitted from the regulations, while footpaths, roads and highways were included. Is that an omission by default or was there intent behind it?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have a few points to make in response. There are two kinds of devolution: the first relates to whether more powers should be devolved from the Secretary of State, and the second to the relationship between Transport for the North and its constituent authorities. I will take those two in turn.

The hon. Lady’s appeal with regard to Transport for London relates to the second issue. If Transport for the North is to function in due course in any way analogous to Transport for London, that will require local and transport authorities to give up powers to TfN. She has to answer whether she—and those authorities—are comfortable to give up those powers, because that is what is implied by her comparison to Transport for London. I do not think that those authorities would be comfortable with that; there is no evidence for that. They have vigorously asserted the powers that they have received under the metro Mayors, and rightly so, and in many cases they are doing exciting and interesting things with those powers.

That is one aspect of devolution. As to the other aspect, which is whether the Secretary of State should devolve more powers, the hon. Lady said I did not offer an argument, but in fact the opposite is true: I offered two arguments. First, this is a new entity. It is the first sub-national transport body. Let us see whether this entity, with all the embedded conflicts and properly articulated differences of priorities, can pool that into a concrete set of proposals and work effectively with this and future Governments to prove its worth. When it has done that, the case for further devolution of powers will become clear. The regulations already provide substantial devolution.

Secondly, one must be very careful to ensure that devolved powers do not conflict with national networks. We do not want to do that. In this country we have always run the strategic roads network as a strategic network. Increasingly, with the development of the new major roads network, we are running a network on a national routes basis, and it is important to respect that.

The hon. Lady’s final question concerned cycle paths and footpaths, but they are a matter for local authorities. They do not need to be mentioned in the regulations and can perfectly properly be managed, as matters presently stand, by local authorities. That is the principle adopted by the regulations.

[Rachael Maskell]

Clearly, the Minister and I, and our parties, have a completely different view of devolution. We very much see it as taking power from the centre down into the regions. Evolution is how I would describe the taking away of power from local authorities—we certainly do not support that.

I have a couple of final questions. On a point of clarity, the Minister indicated towards the end of his response that there would be further devolution of powers. Does he intend Transport for the North to have greater powers in future? Is this a staging process to achieve that, in line with other transport authorities, which are clearly on a different statutory setting? It would be interesting to hear his response, given the weakness of the powers in the regulations.

Secondly, I need to correct the Minister: cycle paths and bridleways are not mentioned in the regulations but footpaths are. I asked why there is that disparity. The Minister now says that footpaths and cycle paths are for local authorities, so why are footpaths in the regulations? I need clarity on that point because it is now more opaque than when we started.

[Jesse Norman]

On cycle ways and footpaths, I will write to the hon. Lady with details of the history of that, which should settle the matter. On future powers, the Government have made no judgment. The thrust of my argument is that, once Transport for the North is a fully functioning, successful body and able to discharge the functions it has presently been given, it will then be open for it to make the case to this or future Governments for the devolution of further powers. That would be a perfectly proper exercise of its voice, which has been given statutory authority by the regulations. The Government have made no decision on that but have not ruled it out.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017.

Rail Franchising

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Fares, franchises and failure, all entwined: that is how my hon. Friends have summarised the issues that dominate passengers’ experience of the railways today. My hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Ms Lee), for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) really brought to the fore the impact that this is having.

The rail sector is full of fantastic people, but it is distracted from its core function of providing passengers with affordable access to a fully integrated system—train and track, wheel and steel—that works across the entire network and enables seamless intermodal travel. While the Secretary of State is firmly at the faultline, defending a broken system that he has made far more centralist in its control than even Labour’s national rail service will be, it is passengers who have to straddle the cracks, continually having to pay, and pay again, for the basic purpose of going to work or having a day out with the family, and as we have heard, they pay for poor performance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) set out.

It is not just Labour Members who are increasingly highlighting the failure of the Government; the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) also spoke of problems with franchising. “Putting passengers at the heart of the rail service” should be the Government’s mantra, but sadly it is not. Research by Transport Focus, the official voice of the travelling public, found in the largest survey of its kind that failure on ticketing is the No. 1 issue for passengers. The issue is not only the 32% rise in fares since 2010—three times the rise in wages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said—the 3.4% increase on last year’s ticket prices and the 3.6% increase for season ticket holders; everyone believes that they are being diddled out of a fair price—and they are right. There is different pricing depending on which operator runs the service, what time a person logs on to book their ticket, and when and at what time of day their journey is.

When this is coupled with extortionate ticket price increases, passengers ask where their hard-earned cash is going—and it is a good question. Let me tell them: £725 million went straight into the pockets of shareholders. While Thomas might be under the Fat Controller’s orders, today passengers are most certainly under those of the fat cats. It is a great train robbery. Then there is the financial haemorrhage from multiple tiers of private subcontractors across the network, each taking their cut, and the exorbitant cost of leasing trains and the huge profits harvested there. Fragmentation brings additional costs, too. But this scandal pales into insignificance when passengers consider that when Richard Branson’s Virgin Group gets into a bit of a pickle, it goes cap in hand to the Secretary of State, and makes demands of him. Just look at how quickly the Secretary of State buckled on this—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Keighley (John Grogan), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney).

The Department for Transport, under the Secretary of State’s orders, set up a franchise on the east coast that would involve Network Rail in delivering infrastructure upgrades, but due to the Government’s failed control period 5 process and the scaling down of the infrastructure upgrades, Network Rail was unable to deliver. The Government did not even speak to Network Rail about this when touting for an operator who would rip the service out of public hands—which, by the way, put £1 billion into the Treasury, to be reinvested in public transport. No, they just blindly put out a contract that was undeliverable, and the Government need to understand that it is their responsibility; they let the franchise. VTEC said it could not reap the gains it was hoping to under the infrastructure improvements, and guess what it did? It went to the Government to put the pressure on and now has been let off £2 billion, and the Secretary of State will not come to the Dispatch Box to deny this fact. It is a complete and utter shambles, as are so many other services; we have heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about the impact these services are having on their communities.

So not only are the passengers paying for this now, but they are also having to prop up dodgy deals. And they are dodgy deals: we just need to look at the way these train operators are working their way through the system to get as much money as possible not just out of ticketing, but also by threatening to sue the Government and seeking compensation payments. It is a complete scandal.

The problems are clear: a failed, fragmented franchise system; private profits over passenger interest, with a resultant decline in patronage, as we are now seeing; and a Secretary of State who refuses to put the passengers’ interests at the heart of the railway. That is why Labour will introduce a new public railway owned by the public and working for the public. This is not about going back, as we will not revisit the models of railways past, but take us forward—and not just take our rail services forward, but our economy too.

Drawing on global best practice, Labour’s rail system will really be for the many and not the few—fares overhauled; smart ticketing; new lines opening; more capacity; more seats; more trains; embracing high-tech and digital rail; making space for freight and smart logistics; clean and green with electrification, not a return to dirty diesel; planning for the long term; and no more on-off, start-stop funding. The whole railway system will be working as one, with passengers and businesses knowing the deal and being at the heart of the deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has called for for Wales—and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East has said he does not want to see the fragmentation reintroduced now by the Scottish Government.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) said, we must make our railways safe, and we will make them safe and accessible by ending the scrapping of the guards—a resolve the trade unions are calling for today—so that disabled people can have their dignity restored in using rail, while women can feel safe on trains both day and night. This is the rail service that the British people are demanding, and it will take a Labour Government to deliver it.

Before I sit down, may I welcome the new Transport Minister to his place, and hope that he does not take to defending the indefensible in his new role, as he sought to in his previous role earlier this week? We have a transport crisis and we need this Government to do something about it or, better still, make way for a Government who will.

Tolls on the Mersey Crossings

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for making such an excellent speech, proving once again that he is the right advocate for the people of the City of Chester. He exposed the fact that across that 20-mile stretch of the River Mersey there is real confusion in the Government’s management of the river crossing and how it is paid for. I thank all my hon. Friends for their powerful speeches.

Before I specifically address the bridge tax, I want to look at what is happening about the disparity and the growing inequality in our country, not least the fact that the north is receiving around a 10th of the economic and transport infrastructure compared with London and the south-east. Of the 18 river crossings in Greater London, not one attracts a toll—Dartford is outside Greater London, of course. Yet in the north-west, we see tolls being extended to bridges that have never had tolls in their 60-year history. This is a region where wages are significantly lower. Therefore, a tax of £4 for a double crossing, which is £1,000 a year, is a real penalty on the north, and is not putting the power back into local people. We heard about the impact that this has on driving congestion in some of the cities, and on air pollution, with air quality deteriorating in places such as Warrington, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned.

We need to look at why we came to the point where we needed a second bridge. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said—that it was absolutely necessary—but we must recognise the completely failed public transport infrastructure. I met people from the region who told me how train journeys took so much longer than driving. Therefore, they had no choice. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) that it seems that people do not have the choice of cycling or walking across that bridge. Choices for people in the north are being narrowed. We know that this is all about choices, because we need only to think that last week, the Secretary of State for Transport tried to conceal a deal on public transport with Stagecoach and Virgin, burying £2 billion, which should have gone into the state but was taken out. We could have had an additional £2 billion, which more than covers the cost of these bridges. This is all about choices, which need to be addressed. If that can be done at one stroke, I am sure that this problem can be redressed at one stroke. That makes it even more shocking.

We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) talk powerfully about the accountability of Merseyflow. People cannot even access information from that company, and we cannot even communicate properly with the company to represent our constituents. It is absolutely crucial that the Minister gets control of that company and sorts out some of those really basic issues. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and others about the impact on local businesses. A penalty is being put on businesses and our public services, not least on Christmas day, when people not only visit their families but go to work for our public services. We heard how people using the NHS are having to pay this tax to cross the river.

We know that there are 80,000 crossings a day, so it is absolutely clear that this is all about enhancing connectivity, improving social mobility—another issue where the Government are in desperate need of solutions—and improving economic growth in one of the country’s most deprived regions. We have to seriously examine why there are four crossings that have to be paid for in the north-west, when there are none in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, with the removal of the tolls on river crossings there. We are down to just seven crossings. I was just looking at the list: funnily enough, it is mostly in Labour areas where people still have to pay tolls.

It is clear the Government will have to bring redress to back up their rhetoric about economic investment. We have heard about how the former Chancellor seems to be planting money trees all over the place. Unfortunately, he then pulls them up after the polls have closed on election night. It is so important that the promises and commitments are followed through. For the residents of Warrington, Cheshire, Halton and the whole region, those promises must be honoured. There is a huge disparity. We heard so eloquently from my right hon. and hon. Friends exactly how that disparity and the way in which the system operates do not make logical sense.

Local people have been failed, particularly with the signage not being complete, having to understand a system that is not explained to them, and having to use the internet when perhaps they do not have a digital connection. It is a complete mess. The Minister needs to get a grip and get a hold of this situation to make the changes. Why are local residents having to pay so much for the scheme? I understand that in the Mersey tunnels alone, they have already paid for the cost of those tunnels 23 times, and now they have to pay again not just for the building of the bridge but for the public finance initiative scheme, paying about £113 million more. Surely that is a huge injustice.

I will not take up much more time, because I know that Members want to hear from the Minister. We need him to get hold of this problem, not pass it on to someone else. It is not local authorities’ problem. He needs to take responsibility for this issue and to ensure that he honours the words of this Government, who said they would address the charges—the bridge tax—that residents have to pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

At a time when we are seeing technology move very fast, people have to get away from a set focus on an individual form of motor power. Not every 125 mph train has to be powered by a particular power source. In the coming years we will see more development of bi-mode technology, battery technology and hydrogen technology. We will use the systems that make the most difference to the passenger the most cost-effectively.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite the creaking electrification infrastructure on the east coast, the 43-page “Connecting People” was jammed with funding reannouncements, possible reopenings, readjusted delivery dates, delayed promises and a lot of words to try to hide what we all now know was the central purpose—to conceal the deal on the failed Stagecoach franchise.

The new partnership that passengers want is their trains to arrive on time, so when will we see the upgrade to the electrification works needed on the east coast?

[Chris Grayling]

As I said earlier, the key point is that the next investment control period contains a programme of continued upgrade and investment for the east coast main line, to go along with the arrival of a new generation of smart, new, effective, passenger-friendly trains. All of that will happen so that we deliver those improvements and passenger services. Having heard the shadow Secretary of State’s questions earlier, I think that he has not understood that this will be a completely fresh partnership with potentially new partners and a new way forward, delivering better services for passengers in a more joined up way.

[Rachael Maskell]

More structural changes, but the electrification wait continues. Let us look at these new rail partnerships. They are moving a public service to the control of private companies. This is not devolution to the rail authorities or to the people, it is devolution to the shareholders; it is further fragmentation and privatisation of the railway, failed operators now being handed the tracks as well as the trains, and nothing to address the electrification upgrade.

Is it to recoup these costs that the ticket prices will be soaring by 32% since 2010 after Christmas?

[Chris Grayling]

Two points: Labour Members should remember how much fares rose when they were in power; and they might like to explain why their friends in the unions have in their training manuals a requirement for negotiation for RPI increases in the future. Why is that? Why do they not tell their union friends to change their ways of operation?

Rail Links: South-west England

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Evans. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this excellent debate—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who led this debate and asked some serious questions. The universal call from across the Chamber is for the Government not to prevaricate over bringing these much needed rail improvements to the south-west, and, for the first time, to put investment into the region at the scale that has been experienced in so many other places in the country—not least in London, where we see continuing significant investment compared with in the other regions.

In our party we believe that rail is not just a transport system in and of itself, but the gateway to economic regeneration, jobs and opportunities. That is why as a party, Labour—this is in its name—has demonstrated that it is about work and investment in work, and about making sure that infrastructure builds in to that to enable people to have the best opportunities. We believe that the Government should also prioritise that over their transport strategy. That is why the Leader of the Opposition committed £2.5 billion in funding to address the recommendations of the peninsula rail taskforce and—this is really important— to unlock £7.2 billion of gross value added and £1.2 billion of transport benefit. This is about investing to grow. We are starting to hear the Government moving along that line—we have been calling for it for some time—but I would also like to see that from the Department for Transport.

When research is undertaken and economic opportunity is identified, we want to see investment not only in local economies, but in productivity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said. I know that the Government are in real need of help to understand how they can drive productivity. I suggest that productivity in the south-west would improve if rail connectivity was far improved, and I ask the Minister to address that issue today.

When we see a lack of investment in rail, we see the effect on the finances of individuals in the region, so we need to look at wages and the impact on them. We know that in the south-west, the average wage is about £2,300 less for individuals, but in some areas, that can be as much as £9,000 less because people do not have the connectivity to open up the opportunities.

Some 75% of the south-west’s 98,000 businesses rightly demand the vital upgrades that are needed, and that are needed now. They say that cutting journey times and ensuring that trains are more frequent, accessible to all and reliable would sustain the economy and help it grow. The bitter experience of Dawlish in February 2014 cost the economy £1.6 billion, and then there was the sustained under-investment. As we have heard, that brought a focus to people’s anger and angst at the lack of urgently needed investment. That should sharpen the Government’s mind and bring into focus the need for more sustainable investment across the rail infrastructure through a strategic rather than a piece-by-piece approach, to ensure that long-distance trains arrive on time, are reliable and provide opportunities to people across the country.

The south-west is home to many growing areas of the economy. Members have talked eloquently about those areas, and particularly about digital infrastructure and tourism. Aerospace also has a major footprint in the region. Although such parts of the economy might be in their infancy, we need connectivity for them to grow. When we hear heard that train times to Exeter could be cut by 25 minutes, to Plymouth by 49 minutes and to Penzance by more than an hour, we must ask why the Government are delaying in moving things forward. We heard today about Devon banks project, which could improve train speeds, improving that part of the economy.

We want new rail technology. Signalling upgrades, electrification—switched on and not then switched off again—straightened tracks and new trains all help. The Government could also confirm today that they will revisit the peninsula rail taskforce report, ensure that it is scrutinised, go through it with rigour rather than setting it aside and ensure that it is put at the forefront of investment for the economic strategy for the south-west, not just for a separate rail strategy.

Greater connectivity in the south-west—for instance, to the airports, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi)—will make a difference and bring the region into parallel with other conurbations, rather than setting it back. It will boost the economy locally. We also need investment in infrastructure; we have heard a call across the House for investment in wi-fi. Trains are workplaces for many making long journeys, and the infrastructure is already there; we have an opportunity through the GSM-R system to ensure that we can upgrade the network quickly, without waiting for the next control period, so passengers get the high-quality service that they deserve. Freight—moving our goods—has not come up in the debate, but it also needs investment. The Government’s lack of focus on smart logistics is damaging the economy and clogging up our roads. We need to move more goods, not just people, on to our rail network.

We have heard clear demands from across the House on the environment. Yesterday we heard that 50,000 people in our country die prematurely each year due to poor air quality; people in bottlenecks in the south-west know those risks all too well. We need a serious modal shift in our transport system. Climate change in particular is increasing some of the risks. We have heard about Dawlish and the Somerset levels, where changing weather systems are impacting on how people travel. We must ensure that we address climate change in resolving our transport issues.

This is not just about climate; it is also about congestion. We must ensure that people can get on efficient forms of transport, and that rail is built to be resilient for the future. Essential upgrades have been made Cowley Bridge, Teignmouth and Dawlish, as well as an avoidance route for Dawlish, to ensure that disruption is not repeated as the climate changes. That is why it is important to draw the Environment Agency report identifying the risks into the rail strategy as we move forward.

We need the Government to understand that the Department for Transport’s modernisation of Great Western Railway is seen as a disaster at every level, not least the fiasco involving the franchises, which I understand the Secretary of State is thinking of fragmenting even further, the new rolling stock procurement in which trains cost twice as much as on the west coast main line, and the incompetence and profligacy apparent in the intercity express programme. That is not my assessment, but that of the National Audit Office, which highlighted a lack of strategic oversight causing project costs to rise by more than £2 billion.

In November 2016, the Minister put the final nail in the coffin by announcing that he would defer four “costly and disruptive” electrification projects in the region, but cancellation rather than deferral seems to be his action, meaning that dirty diesel on our lines, which pollutes the region, is preferred to electrification, which would improve connectivity. We have heard from all Members who have spoken in this debate the importance of getting on with putting the right infrastructure and the right investment into our rail system.

That is why the public support Labour’s national rail service. It is simple; there is straight accountability, no wastage on endless contracts and straight investment into the railways. It is long term, whereas contracts in the south-west lurch from year to year without strategic oversight for the long term or the long-term investment that follows it.

Now that the Government are starting to focus on borrowing, perhaps they will consider borrowing across the transport network to ensure that vital upgrades get under way now to bring economic advantage into the future. Labour has identified a transformation fund to address the issue by putting in the infrastructure needed and bringing the electrification and digitalisation services that we need. We will move forward. We will consider consulting on reopening branch lines, opening stations and improving the service to make sure that it ties in with economic development across the region. Station improvements will be part of moving forward. Plymouth is a particular station that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention; the funding gap of £15 million there must be addressed.

From this debate, I believe it is plain that Labour has a detailed national plan for the railway, strongly tied into economic growth and job opportunities and a vastly improved passenger service. We want rail to be the transport mode of choice moving forward, over long distances as well as for short journeys. We long to see regions such as the south-west reach their full potential and not be left behind. I trust that the Minister’s response will address that issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I think that the rail authorities have already heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have noticed that I now get my seat reservation and my ticket on the same piece of paper, instead of on five. As we move towards more forms of paperless ticketing, we should have no pieces of paper at all unless we want them.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We were told £45 million, but the cost was £96 million. We were told 11 train operators co-ordinated, but it was just five working separately. We were told all passengers, but it was just season ticket holders, and full season ticket holders at that. Only 8% of those now eligible are using the system, with its scope cut, and it being overspent and massively overtime—and then the Government handed the problem back to the train operators. From this example in the south-east, can we really have confidence that the Government can deliver smart ticketing?

[Paul Maynard]

There is quite a straightforward reason why we can have confidence about the future, and it is largely because the south-east flexible ticketing programme did not just deliver smart ticketing across the south-east, which many passengers are now using, but put in place the architecture and computer systems that will enable smart ticketing on national rail to be a success.

[Rachael Maskell]

Well, it was a pretty damning report from the National Audit Office. Yet again we have a Government unable to deliver on the railways and on something as simple as smart ticketing. Labour will be at the cutting edge of rail tech, while this Government still expect people to book separate tickets from separate operators—one national chaos under the Tories, one national public service with Labour. How much longer will the Government champion fragmented ticketing on a fragmented railway?

[Paul Maynard]

I always get rather frustrated when people have had an answer but paid no attention to what I said—but there we go. The report from the National Audit Office was important. It contained a number of lessons, which we took on board when setting out the national smart ticketing programme. Technology is changing rapidly. We have to make sure that the schemes we put in place now meet what technology can do in a year’s time, or two or three years’ time. We will be moving fast with tickets, and tickets will be unbelievably advanced by the time the Labour party ever gets back into power.

HS2: Phase 2b Route (Manchester and Leeds)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for bringing this debate forward. It is so important that there is proper scrutiny in this House of the plans. After all, a Bill will not be laid before Parliament until 2019, so we have a window of opportunity to scrutinise every inch of track to make sure that the right decision is being made.

The clearest comment I have heard in this debate is that the Government have got to get a grip of what is happening. After all, it is the responsibility not of HS2 Ltd but of the Government to make sure that our infrastructure is right. That is why Labour wants to see the development of the UK’s infrastructure. We supported high-speed rail for that reason: to improve capacity and connectivity, and to boost the economies of cities, particularly in the midlands and the north.

We cannot have a siloed approach to HS2. It has to be embedded within a wider integrated transport strategy. Economic development across our towns and cities, which feel so ignored, has to be at the heart of everything. Therefore, while HS2 will provide a main artery, we cannot ignore that objective, which sometimes gets missed. The focus is often on the engineering expertise and the excitement around that, but that misses the point of what high-speed rail is all about. It is about moving goods and people to help the economy grow.

There is real disappointment among Labour Members at the Government’s strategy of late around rail, full stop. They are turning off the power in the north and we are not going to see the investment in HS3 that we were promised to make sure that there was east-west connectivity. Part of the original plans for high-speed rail was an inverted-A route, with high speed across the Pennines. There is a serious piece of the jigsaw missing. It was a deliberate ploy by the Government to make the announcement when even Network Rail had not made the decision. The Government jumped the gun, to cut off the north. Those kind of blatant decisions are really hurting people in my constituency and across the north.

We must recognise the need for investment in rail. We need to decongest the current networks and ensure better connectivity as we move forward, but not at any cost. That is what is so important. Points have been made powerfully today about ensuring that the details are right, understanding the engineering complexities and the environmental concerns that need to be at the forefront of the project, and making sure that people are at the heart of decision making.

Yes, we do want to see the economic benefit. I ask the Minister to ensure that clear economic benefit is mapped out from this development. If we get things in the wrong order and do not put the economic investment into cities in the north, I am concerned that their economies will be sucked down to the south-east and we will not realise the potential. I fear that that could happen to my city; we would just be another commuter zone. It is really important that we understand how the plans relate to the economy and economic investment, and that we get the sequencing absolutely right, to ensure that we see the benefit of high-speed rail. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) that HS2 cannot stop at every town along the route, but if it is well-connected—we do not even have a draft national timetable yet—it will serve those purposes.

Just south-west of my constituency, the little village of Church Fenton is now being described as a massive interchange. The origins of HS2 were very much about making sure that there was connectivity between the major conurbations of the north and the midlands. Although Church Fenton may have that elevated status, we have to look at the impact that that will have on a small village in North Yorkshire. Obviously, it does not want to just be turned into a car park. Those considerations are incredibly important.

There has been much discussion about Sheffield and that discussion must continue. I have real concerns about taking the line into the heart of Sheffield, because not having the electrification and connectivity going north makes a nonsense of HS2. We are not achieving the original aim of joining up the major conurbations, and therefore HS2 does not meet its objectives. Given the cost of the investment, if it does not even do that and is not even able to make those connections across a county, it is right that we ask serious questions of the Government. We must look again at the proposals and make sure that we get this absolutely right.

Where we place stations and routes will be crucial in how our economy grows in the future. I want to hear much more from the Minister about the connectivity issues. I also want to hear about why lines cannot be moved. As we have heard, 800 metres in one direction could make a huge difference to an area of environmental protection and present an engineering challenge. If we can move lines to reduce the risk to our environment and beyond—it sounds like that would reduce cost as well—the Minister has an absolute responsibility to do that.

I recognise that progress has been made on parts of the line through the consultation with HS2. We need to keep bringing HS2 back to the table time and again over the next 18 months to make sure that we make clear progress on the outstanding issues. Clearly we want to ensure that when we are making such a serious investment in the future of our country, at a time when perhaps we are most challenged as to where our economy sits in the wider sphere, there is a response on those issues.

I ask the Minister to site this issue within the rest of our investment in the rail network. The east coast main line is in urgent need of repair and upgrade, with the overhead lines needing power to run high-speed. We know that it will cost about £900 million for the southern route, but the northern route also needs a proper upgrade to take on the HS2 line heading north of Church Fenton, York and beyond. I want to know the timing of those upgrades. When will they happen? I also want to ensure that we bring real connectivity across the network, to make sure that it works.

Finally, I want to hear what the Government are doing about the cost of the project, which is, again, a matter of major concern to our constituents. It is a massive investment, particularly at a time when there are people in our constituencies who are hungry and starving. Billions of pounds are being spent on a rail service that perhaps will not connect to them. I want to hear how the Minister is keeping a lid on the costs and ensuring that the investment brings benefit to constituencies across the north and the midlands.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I shall do my best to cram as much as I can into the remaining 10 minutes. The hour-long debates in this place are neither fish nor fowl, I have rapidly learned.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for doughtily providing her usual list of issues for me to consider. She is a firm champion of the people of Eddisbury, and I shall try to focus on her main concerns, but I want briefly to address some of the points made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) from the Labour Front Bench. I agreed with much of what she said about economic investment and the need to ensure that things all join up. However, I must gently chide her on one key point: we have not stopped work on east-west links across the north. I met only the other week with both Network Rail and Transport for the North to talk about how they are bringing forward Northern Powerhouse Rail. I have always argued that HS2’s full potential will not be fully delivered unless we properly improve east-west links as well. It is not for me to determine the engineering solution that Network Rail will alight on for any particular line or stretch of line, but that work is ongoing—on a cross-party basis, as Transport for the North is also governed by Labour local government leaders across the north, who are also setting the objectives. That seems to me to be how things should be taken forward.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Maynard]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not; I am sure it will not be the last time we have the discussion, and I must give some time to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Her main concerns focused largely on some of the ground instability problems that we encounter in Cheshire, crossing the salt fields. As someone born and bred in Northwich I have been brought up on photos of houses that have collapsed because of subsidence, and have suddenly disappeared into the Bull Ring in the town centre. I am more than aware of those issues; but I reassure hon. Members that we are seeking to manage them actively.

HS2 has commissioned a specialist mining engineer, in consultation with the Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board, to undertake a study on the consultation route using available data such as those from the British Geological Survey, the salt industry and local authorities. Those light detection and ranging surveys have been completed by HS2 Ltd, identifying the wet rockhead features to which my hon. Friend referred near to the route, and will be considered with other LIDAR surveys. I think it is fair to say that between Crewe and Manchester every route option presents risks and issues. It is a matter of balancing those carefully and working out which offers the optimum solution. We carefully weighed those matters both in 2013, when we listened to concerns, and on the now-confirmed 2016 route. On our assessment those risks were more manageable on the latest version of the route. One of the key reasons for that was to avoid the gas storage caverns to which my hon. Friend referred. The route has been moved to better avoid salt brining and gas storage infrastructure, reducing underlying mining and geological risks during construction and operation. The route has also been raised to better allow for drainage and options for ground stabilisation. In terms of travel through Cheshire, other alternatives were looked at, including tunnelling options, but this was felt to be the best option of those on the table.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury referred to the report by TerraConsult. Its first report was taken into account before the November 2016 announcement, as was its second report before the July 2017 announcement. I further understand that HS2 Ltd is meeting on Tuesday 12 September with TerraConsult and Mid Cheshire Against HS2 on how HS2 Ltd came to make its recommendation on the alignment between Middlewich and Pickmere. Senior engineers with a background in geotechnical engineering will attend that meeting. I also understand that HS2, accompanied by engineers, is more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns and is waiting to confirm a date with her office. Once she has had that meeting, I will still be more than happy to put myself—with my limited expertise—at her disposal also.

I recognise that this is a sensitive and complex section of the route. There is more work to be done to further assess geological risks and to provide suitable mitigations for them. HS2 Ltd plans to carry out early geotechnical investigation work in the mid-Cheshire area to gather more advanced survey information. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend to try to ensure that the best mitigation possible occurs.

I also want to touch briefly on my hon. Friend’s concerns about the siting of the depot at Wimboldsley and its proximity to the primary school. The re-siting of the rolling stock depot to Wimboldsley has taken into account both the potential risks of the previous site in Golborne, which saw the demolition of a grade I listed property, and the potential impacts in Wimboldsley. The site is strategically located on the HS2 network, south of the Manchester junction, so that it can receive empty trains from both the HS2 main line—from Preston and indeed further north—and the HS2 Manchester spur. It is also located at the point where the line deviates from the existing west coast main line, so it is also well placed to receive empty HS2 trains from Liverpool. Other locations around Basford and Crewe are less proximate to where empty trains from Liverpool and Manchester might be coming from.

While I understand that there will be impacts associated with the rolling stock depot, I very much welcome the fact that HS2 Ltd is in conversation with the headteacher at Wimboldsley Primary, and I hope that any outstanding concerns get fed into me as well, so that I am aware of them.

In particular, this proposal avoids direct impacts on the grade II listed buildings to which my hon. Friend refers and also proximity to sites of special scientific interest. I recognise that there are still concerns about the Leeds and Liverpool canal. Indeed, other canals were also mentioned. As someone born in mid-Cheshire, I have a great fondness for canals and want to ensure they do not suffer in this process.

Thameslink

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, in this crucial debate. We have seen the passion presented by all hon. Members on the challenges that their constituents face not just day by day, but week by week, month by month and year by year. The sheer dissatisfaction, frustration and misery that commuters have had to put up with for such a long time shows that resolution is crucial. The passenger must be listened to. We have obviously heard about the disruption brought not only to the commute, but to family life. I give all credit to parents who try to arrange childcare under the best of circumstances, but when they face an unreliable train service as well, the pressures are immense. All hon. Members have articulated that well this afternoon.

When passengers turn into activists and take action against what should be a normal part of their routine and daily life—such as the Train Suffragettes and others I know as well—it really shows that the whole rail system is in meltdown and has to be addressed. As we have heard, it is not just about train operating companies, because this has been a sustained problem across the network for such a long time. However, Thameslink particularly stands out. It has the second-lowest level of passenger satisfaction, at 73%—only Southern, at 65%, is behind—and has issues with punctuality and reliability, as we have heard. Southeastern trains are also not delivering for passengers, which is now spreading to Northern as well. With regard to Thameslink, things have not improved for several years now. When a staggering 23% are satisfied with how the company has dealt with delays, it really shows that it is left wanting, as has the whole situation.

What we have really picked up on today are the consequences of that unreliability, the infrastructure problems, the desperate need for investment and the massive overcrowding issues. The overcapacity issue will not going away, as more housing developments will put further strain on the network. We have also heard about challenges with the choice of destination, the obvious need for improvements right across the network and the impact that late or cancelled trains have on commuters.

It is important that we listen to these real frustrations. We cannot allow the situation to continue in which the Government point fingers but do not lift one to sort out what is happening. We know that there is real chaos in the way the franchise was set up, as was rightly highlighted when the Gibb report was debated in the main Chamber on 4 July. We know that there needs to be effective governance over the whole structure, which has been lacking, to ensure that issues are addressed expediently and that proper dispute resolution mechanisms are put in also. At the forefront of everything, we need to make sure that passengers’ concerns are addressed and that their safety is safeguarded. We also heard about access needs, and the fact that some train journeys are simply impossible for passengers with disabilities.

Another point that was rightly raised was the financial cost to passengers. We have seen rail prices go up by 27% since 2010 on this rail network, which is the most expensive not only in the UK but in the whole of Europe, meaning that passengers are having to pick up the cost of this failed network. We are expecting further price increases in August, and we have heard the figure of 4%—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. We need certainty on pricing; all passengers, whether on Thameslink or other networks, really want to know what is happening on pricing. The Opposition believe that price rises should be capped in line with the consumer prices index. We have heard different answers from different Ministers from the Department: we have heard that price rises will continue to be capped in line with the retail prices index; we have heard twice from the Minister that pricing is under review; and we have also heard that things will be kept as they are this year—but that does not say what will happen next year. Passengers need clarity on pricing.

We need to make sure that we move forward with smart ticketing, which we heard several contributions on. Where are we at with part-time smart ticketing, which will impact on many of those parents? It is an equality issue and we need to move forward on it. We also need to make sure that we see greater flexibility in smart ticketing, including the extension of the Oyster card. With the technology that is in place, how is delay repay being rolled out on the Oyster card? There are opportunities there. Of the amount of money that the network gains, only a minimal amount reaches the customer. The process of trying to reclaim after a delay is difficult.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Many of my passengers say that they do not want to have to claim; they simply want the service they have paid for. Delay repay is better, but on the other hand the service needs to improve, because otherwise they just get money back for a bad service. That is not what they want; they want the journey they were guaranteed.

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. However, we also need to ensure that, where there has been a delay, passengers are properly compensated, given that they have paid so much for the privilege of travelling on that network. Between 2010 and 2015, the train operating company generated £575 million from Network Rail for infrastructure delays, yet only £73 million went to passengers, so we have to question who benefits. Again, it comes back to governance over the system, which is poor. That comes up many times. It is a theme that is repeated in every aspect of how the franchise works. The franchise has failed passengers. We need to see delay repay extended so that the customer can be compensated automatically, as opposed to trying to seek out that compensation.

We also need to look at what has happened with the Thameslink programme. It was first put in place in 2006, so those years are moving forward. We need to see that the objectives now being met are not at the inconvenience of passengers—such as major track work, signalling and station remodelling, improvements to the lines approaching London Bridge and the overhead lines north of St Pancras. The programme was very ambitious, but without proper governance it has not been realised. On the issue of capacity, as 24 trains an hour move through the core of central London, the risks increase. We cannot even get the service moving right at the moment. We need to hear from the Minister what mitigation is being put in place to reduce risk and ensure that trains run on time and that passengers reach their destinations on time. About 14,500 additional passengers will use that network.

The Gibb report goes further on the issues that need to be addressed across the networks. It also addresses GTR’s responsibilities and Network Rail. The issues it identified include rail renewal, switching and sleeper renewal. The list goes on to talk about telecoms and cable signalling and dealing with things such as vegetation, earthworks and fencing—it is comprehensive. We need to ensure that the improvement programme is put in place and delivered by 2018. We do not want the stop-start approach to maintenance and development. We want to see the investment running into the CP6 funding round from 2019. What exactly is the Minister doing to make sure there is ongoing investment in the railway?

We must thank Chris Gibb for his report, but we must also note the responsibility to move forward on many of the problems experienced across the Thameslink network. We also need to address the issues raised by the Transport Select Committee, which has identified how poorly the franchise has been established. The relationships do not work between the train operator, Network Rail and the passenger. That must be put right. Changing an operator does not change the environment, which is so important. It is right that the Committee highlighted the problems with the initial structuring of the franchise, the inadequate planning that was put in place, weaknesses in the franchising handover period, infrastructure and rolling stock failures, mismanagement, and poor industrial relations.

I want to talk about industrial relations, because it is so important that these issues are addressed. We have people working on the rail network who are seriously concerned about passenger safety and access. We have heard about the overcrowding, which increases risk, and the real challenges on the network. More commuters will be using the line and it is vital that public safety comes first. The unions have been clear that this is not a dispute about money; their concern is about public safety.

I have spoken to train drivers in the last couple of days, and they say it is vital that they have a second pair of eyes. If they miss something, the other person can help pick it up. They say it is vital that there is someone there to deal with incidents, whatever they may be, because it is unpredictable. It could be a driver falling ill, a fatality on the rails, a terrorist attack, derailment or a crash, women’s safety at night or antisocial behaviour disturbing other customers. Of course, guards play a much wider role in maximising revenue collection and providing passengers with a wider service. We have heard today how important that service is, particularly with the line of communication, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. They can let passengers know information, be the first port of call and be the passengers’ champion when needed.

I urge the Minister to address those vital issues. We must get the rostering right to ensure that the trains run on time and address the issues in this dispute. This is not rocket science; the dispute is simple to resolve. I know, as a negotiator, that the Minister just needs to sit down and make sure the guards are in place and can continue with their role. It is incumbent on him to sort this out. I know it is not beyond his wit, and I trust he will do so.

In conclusion, we have heard about the painful experiences of commuters. We must remember that the whole rail network is there as a service—a public service—to help passengers continue with their employment opportunities and their daily lives. It is absolutely right that focus is now brought on the way the franchises and relationships are not operating and that that is worked through, to bring the service back to customers. That is why the Labour party believes that public services now need to be a public accountability, in public ownership. For far too long, decisions have been made away from the passenger. We want to see the passenger at the heart of those decisions, putting safety and service needs at the forefront and building the structures around the passenger.

I have heard all the frustrations, and Labour will take those on board and work with passengers to make sure that we can provide the service needed in the future. We will keep the pressure on the Government, as the passengers’ voice throughout this process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The east coast main line between London and the north is in urgent need of infrastructure investment to end the disruption caused by failures of the antique overhead power lines. How much does the Minister expect Virgin Trains East Coast to contribute to that?

[Mr Hayes]

The east coast main line is the line I use regularly, and I am extremely familiar with the quality of that service. The hon. Lady will know that the new express trains we will be using on that main line by the end of 2018 will offer greater capacity, reduced journey times and more reliable services.

[Rachael Maskell]

So not only does the Minister not answer my question but he does not know the amount the operator has to contribute, yet he is about to dig into the back pockets of taxpayers to bail out the Stagecoach-Virgin consortium when, just two years ago, the Government took East Coast out of public ownership after returning £1 billion—£1 billion!—to the Treasury. How much will the Virgin Trains East Coast contract retrofit cost the taxpayer? Does he not draw the same conclusion as the Labour party that, as we pay for private and make savings from public rail, only a publicly owned rail franchise can operate in the public interest?

[Mr Hayes]

My goodness, Mr Speaker. This is like a journey to a past that never happened. I remember one of British Rail’s last, and perhaps most poignant, slogans: “We’re getting there”. Well, getting there is a pretty fundamental requirement of any journey. Could there be a less ambitious objective than merely getting there? That is what nationalised railways were like—we all remember them. They were a disaster. The cost of renationalising the railways in the way the hon. Lady recommends would be at least £19 billion, which is £19 billion that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and others want to spend on all these other schemes.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to the Chair, and thank you for chairing the debate. May I also put on record my proud relationship with working people through the trade unions, and declare my interest in that regard?

Today’s debate started abysmally. The Secretary of State for Transport failed to mention safety or access for disabled people once. His prejudices against working people came to the fore, clearly not from a party for working people. Thankfully, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) brought us back to the Gibb report, and we heard a total of 19 contributions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for highlighting the consequences of brittle rostering and the problems caused by level crossings. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) spoke of the bullying that drivers experienced in attempts to make them come to work on their days off. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) called for humility, and a focus on the breadth of the issues in the Gibb report. He also identified the Government’s failure of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked of rail chaos, but stressed that it was not due to industrial action. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who made the 18th contribution, focused on the issue of disability access.

The scene was set for the perfect storm. Today we have heard about the consequences for constituents, the industry and staff. Ageing infrastructure is failing because of a lack of resources and critical management to address vital maintenance. Heavy demand and over-capacity manifest themselves in overcrowding. New working practices—new timetables, new commencement of routes, new trains and technological advances—have been recommended, but there has been no strategic co-ordination to date. Above all, we have failed and fragmented franchises. Collaboration and strategic oversight were the last considerations, and the very worst outcomes from a profit-driven privatisation process have been apparent. Putting profit before passengers has resulted in their paying heavily: financially, for their tickets; in terms of the worst effects of overcrowding; and—Mr Gibb mentions this at every turn—in terms of having to deal with the complete unpredictability of the service. It has been utterly chaotic. The buck stops with the Government and the Secretary of State, whom even the courts have now told to exercise his force majeure to find a resolution.

It has all been matched by a safety-critical industry. Staff rightly fear that they will find themselves before an inquest following an incident involving a passenger, for whatever reason—perhaps because the technology has missed what a second, human, eye would see. It is all happening in a high-risk setting in which there is the potential for an accident, a landslide or terrorism, and the possibility of a driver or passenger falling ill, antisocial behaviour, or some other incident. Those with disabilities are pushed to the back of the queue when it comes to ensuring that people’s needs are met throughout their journey. As we have heard, only 3% of trains do not have a second safety-critical member of staff. We have to wonder why the Government cannot resolve this dispute, and give priority to the dignity of a disabled person who could be left on a platform.

All this is happening in a charged industrial environment in which the Government’s agents, and the Government themselves, have declared that rather than resolving the dispute, which would be easy to do, they are deliberately trying to fuel it—

[Jeremy Quin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I do not have time.

They are deliberately trying to fuel the dispute owing to their ideological aversion to trade unions—wanting to “break them”, in the words of Mr. Wilkinson, the Department for Transport official—as opposed to listening and addressing the real concerns that have been raised and are apparent for all others to see.

The stakes are high, and the Gibb report, although conflicted, recognises that. It is a serious attempt to analyse the multiple problems with the network, focusing on 10 different areas of failure, and then bring those findings together.

Cutting through the layers of self-interest—and no part of the network comes out particularly well—Gibb’s recommendations have sought to put passengers at the centre and he has pragmatically analysed the steps that need to be taken to build one Southern rail service which collaborates across operators, infrastructure bodies, the regulator and contracted services such as maintenance companies, with a reform programme that not only challenges behaviours, but sets a template for the industry to refocus.

The immense task set requires all parties to take a step back and listen to what Gibb is actually saying between the lines of text. This is an immense challenge. There has to be transition. Problem solving and working together is the only way through this and a new approach must be adopted by all. There has to be space for everyone to raise their concerns and, instead of being met by a wall of denial, a bit more flexibility would provide a win for everyone. When people talk about staff shortages, that must be addressed; and when people talk about safety challenges, they must be heard.

I want to return to the fact that we live in critical times and throw this challenge down to the Government. Technology is advancing at a pace, and this is something that we can be immensely proud of. Over the next decade, engineering and digitalisation across the rail industry will take us to new places that even today are unimaginable. But the rail industry is ultimately about people and, as we progress from generation to generation, the reassurances we seek do not change. In a safety-critical environment, passengers want safety guaranteed.

Incidents do occur, and I will never forget working in intensive care as the Potters Bar tragedy happened, and the carnage that I faced as a clinician trying to save lives and put bodies back together. Life is too important.

We lose 40 people on the Southern rail network each year through suicide. That is traumatic for our drivers and of course tragic for those involved. Passengers, or even drivers, take ill. Threatening and antisocial behaviour still occurs. Women can still feel unsafe travelling alone at night, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) reminded us—and I note that there is no woman’s voice in the Secretary of State’s team; perhaps that would have been helpful to understand those safety-critical issues.

Terrorism is now a reality that hovers in all of our minds. Overcrowded stations and overcrowded trains do create risks. A disabled person may need assistance, not just with boarding and alighting, but throughout their journey. Who will be the passenger champion on each train? Who will keep them safe? Who will have the vital training in order to carry out those vital tasks? Who will provide the second set of eyes to support safe departure and keep the public safe? Those are the real questions the workers are asking and the Government are refusing to hear, and these are the issues that must be addressed for the sake of the public.

The Government would never dream of taking away cabin crew on a short flight, and yet, on journeys which may take a lot longer, removing the one person who keeps us safe, can answer our questions and concerns, and can help meet our needs, is doing the reverse of establishing what Gibb is calling for: a passenger-centred service.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said, none of us want to stand at this Dispatch Box and lament, “if only”, and recite that “lessons must be learned.” That is why Labour would build a united, integrated, safe, accessible and functioning service for the passengers, and we would also champion the rights of passengers.