High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Antoinette Sandbach

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

[Antoinette Sandbach]

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to support new clause 4 and the call for a full peer review of this project. I will also call for the review to go wider, particularly to look at the geographical impact of the HS2 investment and the impact on cities and towns. I raise this because, like most Members of this House, I strongly support the need for substantial investment in our transport infrastructure. I think it needs to increase; we should be spending more capital investment on transport, particularly on our railways, especially given the climate change challenges we face.

The more we look, however, at the current Government’s transport infrastructure budget, the more doubts we should have about the continued focus on cities, rather than towns, and about the continued concentration of the capital budget on cities, rather than towns. HS2 and its plans raise those serious questions, which is why serious issues need to be reviewed about whether or not HS2 is the right priority now, given the need for investment in our towns. According to the National Infrastructure Commission, the Government propose to spend £4.5 billion a year on HS2 between now and 2025, but only £200 million a year on Northern Powerhouse Rail. We must bear in mind that Northern Powerhouse Rail is also predominantly focused on cities.

I want to set out the impact on my constituency, but the towns there could reflect many across the country. It is not clear that HS2 will have any benefit for Normanton, although Ministers say that it will mean faster trains to Leeds. Normanton used to be at the heart of the rail network. We used to have 700 jobs on the railways alone in Normanton and 700,000 passengers used to go through it. Normanton used to be a central railway town, but now there is only one train an hour to Leeds, even though it is less than half an hour away. Therefore, any benefits from speeding up journey times for anyone in my constituency just disappear, because the connections into Leeds are so rubbish. From Castleford, Pontefract and Knottingley, there are a few more trains, but they are often cancelled or late, or there are just too few carriages and so people cannot get on.

After the May timetable changes, things got worse. One constituent told me that on his regular trains the seating capacity was reduced by between 58 and 130 seats, making it impossible for many passengers to get on, so they were just stuck on the platform. Some trains currently run to London from Pontefract Monkhill, but it has no disabled access. So I have had constituents with wheelchairs who have been stranded on the platform as a result or who, in one case, have had to crawl over the bridge. Yet there is no sign of the investment in our station just to get basic disabled access. This is the capital investment we need in our towns.

We are told in other parts of our area that the regular trains cannot go any faster because the lines need upgrading, but there is no sign of it ever happening. Time and again we are told that HS2 will mean better connections for our country and for our towns, but we never see it—we never see any credible plan. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who spoke from the Front Bench, has rightly talked about boosting the connectivity between Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. I strongly support that, because I believe that it will hugely benefit the north. Indeed, I think the House of Lords report was right when it said that investment in improving the rail links in the north of England would deliver greater economic benefit for every pound than HS2 would.

Having those connections between our northern cities would be substantial, but the economic benefits from better connecting our northern towns with neighbouring cities would be huge. That would boost our towns; give employers in our towns and our cities a far bigger catchment area, for staff and for customers; and build the size of local markets. Those town connections should be done first, before any of this, but we do not see it ever happening. We do not see it ever coming. As a result, we do not believe it is ever going to come. We get all these promises from these massive national infrastructure projects, which always concentrate on our cities, but we do not believe this is ever going to benefit our towns.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Antoinette Sandbach

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

Customs and Borders

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Antoinette Sandbach

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

May I make some progress first?

Three specific objections to a customs union tend to be presented. First, people say that we do not need a customs union because there are alternatives, usually based on new technology. Secondly, they argue that we will be better off outside the customs union, and that being outside is a price worth paying for the benefits that we will enjoy as a result. Thirdly, they make an emotional appeal, claiming that it is somehow at the heart of our sovereignty or the Brexit vote. I disagree with all three counter-arguments, and I will deal with each of them briefly.

Let me deal first with the claim that a customs union is not needed and we can solve everything with new technology instead. So far the Government have put forward two alternatives: a customs partnership and “max fac”, which seems to be the latest name for a streamlined arrangement described as “maximum facilitation”. The customs partnership—to be honest, I had to struggle to get my head around it—seems to involve our collecting EU tariffs at the border, tracking products, and then paying some of the money to the EU. I understand that both the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Brussels have agreed that it is unworkable. It is quite a triumph for the Government to have come up with a proposal whose unworkability has managed to unite Brussels and the Brexit Secretary and those whom he defends.

The alternative is speeded-up customs arrangements at the border. The idea is that all the customs forms would be filled in online, customs checks would be carried out at the trader’s own premises rather than at the border, and there would be cameras and automated number plate recognition. An extreme version of that was proposed by the Financial Secretary, who compared it with the congestion charge between the Islington and Camden borders.

Let me be clear: I think we could do a great deal more with new technology at our borders. In the interests of trade, we should be improving the technology, and the use of technology, at our borders and at borders throughout Europe and the world. However, there is still a limit to how far we can go. First, it will take a long time and a lot of investment to roll out many elements of the technology. Secondly, in the case of the congestion charge, the cameras identify only the cars, not what was in them, so cameras do not solve all the problems involving checks. Thirdly, we would have to rely on the willingness of France, Belgium, Ireland and other countries to provide the same level of investment in the technology at the same pace.

The proposal also assumes a higher level of tolerance of smuggling and evasion of tariffs. The Prime Minister, for example, has suggested that in Northern Ireland 80% of trade—the micro, small and medium-sized businesses—could be exempt from all checks. That level of exemption would require agreement with other countries. There is also the question of how enforcement would take place to ensure that there was no systematic evasion of tariffs.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Would that not also be in breach of World Trade Organisation rules? It would require exemption in all the most favoured nation states, effectively creating a massive inability to monitor huge amounts of goods coming into this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right. It raises huge questions about the rule of law, about how the system would be enforced, and about how it could operate in a sensible and fair way without being opened up to challenge from other areas.

Crucially, the technology approach relies on cameras. I have no doubt that part of the response at Dover will be the introduction of new automated number plate recognition and other such mechanisms. As I said to the Prime Minister before Christmas, cameras are infrastructure. If we add a whole load of cameras to the Northern Ireland border, we will still be creating the infrastructure and—crucially—the targets that the police fear will become a focus for dissident groups who want to disrupt the peace process. That, I understand, is why everyone, including the Government, has concluded that cameras at the Northern Ireland border are not a sensible solution and should not be part of our approach.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Antoinette Sandbach

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The timing of the vote matters, but so does its constitutional status. That is why I think it immensely important for this to be a statutory vote.

Let me explain why the Government’s words and the Prime Minister’s words—in the written ministerial statement, in various letters and so on—are not enough, and why we need to vote on either amendment 7 or my new clause 3. First, the Government’s unwillingness to put their promises on the face of the Bill is a problem. Parliament needs commitments in legislation before we can give the Executive such strong powers—such constitutional powers—and we need that commitment on the face of the Bill before and not after we do so. Secondly, there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Without either new clause 3 or amendment 7, it would still be possible for Ministers to offer only a vote on a motion on the withdrawal agreement, and that indeed is the Prime Minister’s intention. The written ministerial statement published this morning says:

“This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship.”

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady share my concern about the fact that the vote on the motion of both Houses will come after the ratification of the treaty, and the fact that this House has no power or ability to change treaty terms under the ratification, which renders any vote on the motion meaningless?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Antoinette Sandbach

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As Select Committee Chairs, he and I have both heard evidence about security and wider issues, and I also share with him my personal views about the importance of having a transition period and a smooth process. To be honest, whatever people’s views on whether there should be a transition and on how we should respond to different negotiating outcomes, it should still be for Parliament to debate and to decide before exit day, not after. That is what Parliament should be for. Frankly, the Government would be irresponsible not to give Parliament the opportunity to debate and take a view on the terms and on the timing once they have been agreed.

There is a con in what the Minister said earlier, because the Government actually do recognise that there may be circumstances in which exit day has to be changed. The Minister said that clause 17 will not apply and that somehow it will not allow the Government to change the exit day through regulations after it has been agreed in the Bill, but that is not the advice I have had—it is not the advice the House of Commons Library gave me this afternoon, for example. In fact, the combination of clause 9 and amendment 383 will still allow Ministers to change exit day, if they so choose and if they think it appropriate. That is the impact of the Henry VIII powers throughout the Bill.

We understand why Ministers might want a provision to be able to come back and say that exit day needs to change because we have reached the 11th hour, because the negotiations need to be extended by an extra month or because the process needs to be changed. Ministers have kept that power in the Bill for themselves, but why should the power be reserved just for Ministers? Why cannot Parliament have that power, too? That is the flaw at the heart of the Bill. If in unforeseen or difficult circumstances Ministers need to change the timetable, they can, but Parliament will have no choice, no say and no ability to do so.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if Parliament did have that opportunity, it would be taking back control and sovereignty would be returned not to the Executive but to this House?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right. We had all those debates about taking back control and parliamentary sovereignty, yet somehow the Minister seems to want to rip it all up. The Government are trying to concentrate huge amounts of power in the hands of Ministers, rather than giving the whole of Parliament a say.

Ministers have to stop infantilising Parliament and treating Parliament as if it is the enemy. The truth is that the sky did not fall in because Parliament had a vote on article 50. The Government told us that it would, and they told us that the whole process would be stopped, but it was not stopped because each and every one of us understands that we have obligations and responsibilities towards the referendum result, just as we have obligations and responsibilities towards the negotiation process that the Government have to conduct on our behalf, and that we cannot directly conduct for them. We know that we have those different responsibilities, and we know that we have to take mature and responsible decisions given the complexity of the situation that faces every single one of us. We just do not think that those decisions should be entirely in the hands of Ministers; we think that the whole of Parliament should have a say on something so important.