Category: Transportation

Louise Haigh – 2022 Speech on P&O Ferries

The speech made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Transport Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 March 2022.

I thank the Minister for that response. As he said, on Thursday the chief executive of P&O Ferries made a mockery of the rule of law in this country. As a result, seven of P&O’s eight ferries are now stuck in port, and on Saturday the European Causeway—the only passenger ship in Europe to be prevented from sailing over safety concerns—was seized.

P&O Ferries must face the most serious consequences for its misconduct. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State feel the same way, and I appreciate the contact they have made with the Opposition and trade unions, but every available tool at the Government’s disposal must now be used to force P&O Ferries to reinstate workers on the previous terms and conditions.

Will the Minister provide some urgent clarity? First, the Prime Minister said very clearly on Wednesday:

“we are taking legal action…against the company concerned”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 326.]

So has the Secretary of State given his direction to prosecute? If not, why not?

Secondly, given that the chief executive has shown no respect for the law, will the Secretary of State seek his removal under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and the removal of all those who authorised this unlawful action?

Thirdly, the Secretary of State has said he will review contracts, but livelihoods are on the line now, so will he suspend all contracts and licences of P&O and DP World today? Why is DP World still listed as a member of the Government’s trade advisory group?

Finally, time is running out. The deadline set by P&O for this Thursday for workers to agree severance amounts to extortion and has no legal basis. What powers do the Government have to extend that unlawful deadline? As the Minister said, workers must be reinstated on the same terms as before. Many are paid above the minimum wage, so will he commit to working with the unions and all ferry companies to agree a binding framework that will prevent a race to the bottom to the lowest international standards?

I know the House agrees that we must send a clear message that rogue employers cannot get away with trampling over the laws of this country. It is time to throw the book at P&O and save this loyal workforce.

March 28, 2022
Robert Courts – 2022 Speech on P&O Ferries

The speech made by Robert Courts, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 28 March 2022.

I know that the whole House has been left appalled and angered by the behaviour exhibited by P&O Ferries towards its workers over the last week. As a Government, we will not stand by and allow hard-working, dedicated British staff to be treated in such a manner.

This morning, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary wrote to the chief executive of P&O asking him to pause and reconsider and to offer his workers their jobs back on their previous terms, conditions and wages, should they want them. That is because we will return to the House to announce a package of measures that will ensure that the outcomes that P&O Ferries is seeking to achieve through this disastrous move to pay less than the minimum wage cannot be seen through. As a result, it will have no reason left not to reconsider its move.

As I said to the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last week, as soon as the package of measures has been finalised, we intend to return to the House so that Members can rightly scrutinise it. In the meantime, we continue to review the contracts that P&O Ferries has with the Government, and the Insolvency Service continues to investigate the actions of Peter Hebblethwaite, who brazenly admitted to breaking the law before two Committees of this House last week.

I am clear that P&O Ferries cannot and will not be allowed to get away with its actions. I hope the whole House will now support our efforts to ensure just that.

March 28, 2022
Adam Holloway – 2022 Speech on the Lower Thames Crossing

The speech made by Adam Holloway, the Conservative MP for Gravesham, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2022.

Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this important debate. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), to her place, although I am sorry that the roads Minister is a Member of the other place and cannot reply.

There is truly an opportunity for us to save billions of pounds that we are about to spend, unnecessarily in my view, on a new crossing of the Thames to the east of the current one at Dartford, to the east of Gravesend. The original idea behind having another crossing of the Thames was to ease the appalling congestion at Dartford. There cannot be anybody watching the debate or in the Chamber who has not sat for hours and hours trying to cross the Thames at Dartford. As is the way of Government, there have been endless studies and consultations on the best way to stop this awful gridlock on the M25. For years, Ministers have told me privately that the solution is to build another bridge at Dartford to ease the pressure caused by the inadequate north-bound tunnels. After all, the M25 runs through Dartford—it always has and it always will.

There is a huge problem that needs fixing, and that is how the traffic gets past the River Thames at Dartford and through Thurrock. During the course of those years of study, other options were explored—one would expect that—including a crossing some miles further down the river to the east of Gravesend. When Kent and Essex County Councils realised that a crossing further down the Thames from Dartford was in the offing, they made sure that the consideration was turbocharged, seeing massive economic benefits to both counties if they had a link road between them—that is understandable. So, slowly, the project morphed from one about how to fix the traffic at Dartford to one about economic development for Kent and Essex, with, to them, the secondary consideration that this economic development tunnel and new road network would also have the effect of reducing some of the pressure at Dartford, and also providing resilience.

Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adam Holloway

Yes, of course, I will give way. I did mention my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Jackie Doyle-Price

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend’s analysis of how we ended up with this route, but does he agree that it is all very well for Kent and Essex to draw a line as to where that road should go when it actually goes through Thurrock, to which they are not accountable? If they were really genuinely interested in supporting it, they should work towards the optimum route.

Adam Holloway

That is an extremely good point, and I wish that I had included it in my speech. If I have to speak about this again, I will make that point. I thank my hon. Friend and I totally agree with her.

This all became about economic development. The original purpose of easing traffic became secondary. The aims of the project changed completely, which meant that the problems at Dartford were no longer the priority—in fact, they became a secondary consideration. Then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the then Transport Secretary, opted for Kent and Essex’s preferred option, which will do nothing to ameliorate the situation at Dartford and will be yet another massive piece of Government spending on road infrastructure just at the moment in our history when roads are to be optimised by level 5 autonomous vehicles. The way I think of it is that if we look across the rooftops of London we see thousands of chimneys, none of them used any more. This road will end up a white elephant like them in future—and not far in the future.

First, the lower Thames crossing does not address the problems on the M25 at the Dartford crossing or provide any resilience in any way, shape or form. I will explain why. The M25 northbound at Dartford remains one of Europe’s worst traffic jams on a major national road—I imagine all hon. Members, even the Minister, can picture themselves there, having sat in those traffic jams.

The problems at the Dartford crossing are primarily caused by the outdated and undersized northbound tunnels. The southbound traffic coming over the bridge moves at pretty much the same speed as the rest of the motorway; it is not immune to traffic jams, but neither is the rest of the system. The problem is the tunnels. The left-hand one is 4.8 metres high and the right-hand one is 5 metres high. They are the cause of the horrendous jams, because no fuel tankers or hazardous loads are permitted unescorted, and no vehicles over 5 metres high are permitted at all.

What happens is that we end up with traffic, including very large vehicles, weaving and causing frequent accidents and incidents, as well as frequent red traffic lights to hold the rest of the traffic in order to extract an over-height vehicle that has managed to go through. Then, of course, a couple of times an hour all the traffic on the M25 going north is stopped, because they have to run the convoys with fuel tankers and hazardous materials in them. That causes congestion and queuing, and hardly a day goes by without a major incident bringing the M25 to a complete standstill and causing gridlock at Dartford.

The lower Thames crossing, the one to the east of Gravesend, does not address those problems at all, nor does it provide a satisfactory alternate route for M25 traffic. Let us note, by the way, that the M25 is not complete—it stops just before Dartford and becomes an A road, and then becomes the M25 again. We have not actually finished building the M25 yet.

Once the lower Thames crossing is built, the Dartford crossing will still be operating at capacity and the problems there will continue. The long-suffering residents and businesses of Dartford will continue to suffer, and I believe they are being hoodwinked. We must sort out the problem of Dartford first and foremost, either with the originally promised relatively cheap and cheerful bridge for northbound traffic, or with a variant of option A14, which is the idea to have a big tunnel going underneath Dartford and Thurrock, separating all the national, long-range traffic, so the existing crossings could be used by residents of Dartford, Thurrock and so on.

Secondly, we have been assured that having a completely different crossing will provide resilience, so what will happen when the incidents continue to happen on the northbound bit of the Dartford tunnel approaches? As soon as traffic on the M25 comes to a standstill, it will seek an alternate route to the lower Thames crossing, but to exit the M25 at junction 2, the junction just before, it will have to go through a traffic light-controlled roundabout, which will be totally inadequate for the volume of traffic.

Having negotiated that obstacle, traffic will head east towards Gravesend only to find that, unbelievably, there will be just one lane from the A2 to the lower Thames crossing tunnel to take traffic into Essex. Not only will Dartford be gridlocked, but so will Gravesend and the whole of the A2 eastbound from M25 junction 2.

Jackie Doyle-Price

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way, and he is now getting to the nub of the problems with the design of the lower Thames crossing. It is being applied as a piece of national infrastructure without sufficient thought to the impact on the local road networks in his constituency and mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). He highlights the lack of connectivity beautifully. For my residents in South Ockendon, if we have a tailback going south and the traffic backs up, not only do they face congestion at the Dartford crossing, but the lower Thames crossing arrives at Ockendon, so residents there will be subject to congestion from both crossings.

Adam Holloway

Absolutely. In a sense, my hon. Friend’s residents and those over in Essex are having it very badly with all the additional roads to be built as well, so I completely concur. We have established that when Dartford is gridlocked, so will Gravesend be, and her area at Ockendon.

With junction 2 of the M25 blocked, the M25 traffic will seek an alternative route to the lower Thames crossing. We will then find that the A227, and all the villages and lanes approaching the new crossing, will become choked with traffic. Just to be clear, although the project is terminal for my hamlet of Thong and terrible for the people of much of Riverview Park and the villages that will become rat-runs, the worst will be for the residents of Dartford—more on that later.

Of course it is absolutely correct that the new crossing will provide a useful alternative for traffic heading to and from the ferry port of Dover, but that is all. Channel tunnel traffic will still try to use the M20 and the M25 and so will still use the Dartford crossing. There is more. National Highways is busy planning another kick in the teeth to motorists once the new crossing is built. In its wisdom, it intends to split the A2 and M2 into two separate two-lane highways midway between the A227 and Marling Cross. The outer two lanes will be for M2 traffic going down deeper into Kent; the inner two lanes will be for the A2 to Strood and the lower Thames crossing, and the Hoo peninsula. That is a recipe for disaster. Not only will it cause dangerous weaving and accidents while the traffic tries to get into the correct lane, but the A2 will be narrowed to two lanes, which is completely inadequate for traffic heading towards the M2 at peak periods. It is ridiculous. In 2009, Highways England actually widened the A2 at this point from three lanes to four lanes to cope with increased volumes, and now the proposal is to narrow it to two lanes.

Let me return to the contention of Kent and Essex County Councils that this crossing would bring large economic benefits. The cost of the project for central Government has increased from £3.72 billion in 2016 to £8.2 billion now. We make these throwaway comments about billions, but imagine having a stack of a million £1 coins and then creating 8,200 stacks of £1 coins. That is an enormous amount of money, and because the project is no longer being privately funded, it is taxpayers’ money. We have a cost of living crisis. Every time people go into a garage or a shop, or pay their income tax, the money for this white elephant is coming off them. It is a financial turkey right now and truly it will be a transport white elephant in a decade—and it will inevitably end up costing more.

The cost-benefit analysis carried out in 2016 had mysteriously changed from the analysis carried out in 2013 to show a benefit of the lower Thames crossing of 2.4. But in 2013, the cost-benefit analysis supported the Dartford option and was against a crossing east of Gravesend, which then apparently provided a benefit of 1.1. Somewhere along the way the figures magically changed to suit the argument. Anyway, at a new cost of £8 billion, any benefit must now be marginal at best. I can completely understand why that might not matter too much to Kent and Essex County Councils, because it is not money from their budgets, but it is the money of hundreds of millions of people who will remain sitting snarled in their cars in traffic jams at Dartford over the coming decades. Far from a new crossing away from Dartford being a victory for the people of Dartford, they are now condemned to decades more noise and pollution. An intergenerational chance to sort out the M25 has been blown by muddled thinking and a political class in local government thinking only of their own political lifetimes. Now would seem to be an appropriate time to carry out an in-depth review to determine whether to proceed with the lower Thames crossing or to go back to the drawing board, sort out the M25 at Dartford and relieve the taxpayer of accruing yet more unnecessary debt for their children and great-grandchildren to repay.

The crossing will not prevent the delays, incidents and gridlock at Dartford, and it will not provide an alternate route for M25 traffic. It is a massive missed opportunity for the people of Dartford, who will have to endure more decades of misery until finally either the northbound bridge or the long tunnel under Dartford and Thurrock is built—one or the other will have to be built eventually. Indeed, I believe that the current tunnels are close to the end of their design life, so why are we building a white elephant further down?

The crossing is far too expensive at £8.2 billion and does not represent value for money for taxpayers. As we have discussed and I have outlined, better, less expensive solutions are available. I urge the Minister to think it through herself and stop listening to Highways England before it is too late and we commit all that money unnecessarily. If there were ever an opportunity for a Secretary of State to put a red line through a massive piece of spending, this is it.

March 26, 2022
Robert Courts – 2022 Statement on P&O Ferries

The statement made by Robert Courts, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 17 March 2022.

With permission Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the developing issue with P&O Ferries. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having found time for me to make this important statement.

Earlier today, P&O announced its decision to make around 800 seafarers redundant on several routes across the UK. Let me say right off the bat: the way that these workers were informed was completely unacceptable. I will say more on that in a moment or two. While this is fundamentally a commercial decision for the company, I wanted to come to the House today to inform Members about our latest understanding of the situation and what is now being done.

In taking this decision to make seafarers redundant, P&O has also today informed us that it will be suspending services, for approximately a week to ten days, while it locates new crew. The affected routes are Dover to Calais, Larne to Cairnryan, Dublin to Liverpool and Hull to Rotterdam. I know right across the House will share my concern over the loss of these routes, but I should stress that P&O says they are only temporary and that alternative provision will be provided by other operators, to whom I am extremely grateful.

Passengers will still be able to travel to and from the UK, including across the channel, with freight coming in and out of the country. I understand that DFDS is stepping in to provide alternative services for passengers with valid tickets, and I would like to thank DFDS for its swift action.

However, I must warn travellers that they should expect some disruption over the coming days. I have asked my officials to liaise with the Kent Resilience Forum and the Cabinet Office to closely manage traffic in Kent over the coming days while P&O works to restore services. Today, the Dover TAP—the Dover traffic assessment project—has been activated, although as Members will know that is not all that uncommon, and there is some queuing on Jubilee Way, although the Port of Dover expects this to reduce over the afternoon. I have also asked officials to remain in close contact with other resilience forums around the country, as well as the devolved Administrations, in managing this issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we of course have long planned contingencies for such situations and disruption, particularly around the channel, and I do not expect the supply of critical goods and services to be impacted as a result of this decision by P&O, although queues on the way to Dover are more likely to occur at times. Modelling suggests we have sufficient capacity to handle the temporary loss of these P&O ferries.

Let me turn now to the issue of the seafarers. These are hard-working, dedicated staff who have given years in service to P&O. The way they have been treated today is wholly unacceptable and my thoughts are first and foremost with them. Reports of workers being given zero notice and escorted off their ships with immediate effect, while being told cheaper alternatives would take up their roles, shows the insensitive way in which P&O has approached this issue—a point I made crystal clear to P&O’s management when I spoke to them earlier this afternoon.

As I told Peter Hebblethwaite, I am extremely concerned, and frankly angry, at the way workers have been treated today by P&O. As a matter of urgency I have asked my Department to liaise closely with counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that workers are being signposted to the most relevant support, and I am intending to call the trade unions immediately after this statement to discuss the situation with them.

There can be no doubt that the pandemic has had a devastating impact on the finances of many travel companies, including P&O. But while their finances are matters for them, and them alone, I would have expected far better for the workers involved. We will continue to engage closely over the coming days, and I commend this statement to the House.

Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)

The action taken by P&O Ferries today is a national scandal—a betrayal of the workers who have kept this country stocked throughout the pandemic. I have heard directly from the crew throughout the day: their lives upended, the jobs they depended on scrapped.

Workers are now left wondering how on earth they will put food on their families’ tables. The management did not even have the decency to tell them face to face: they were told this life-changing news on a pre-recorded video. Images are circulating of what we are told are handcuff-trained security staff, some wearing balaclavas, marching British crew off their ships. This is not a corporate restructure and it is not the way we go about business in this country. It is beneath contempt: the action of thugs.

It is quite simply a scandal that this Dubai-owned company, which received millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic has, without consultation or notice, upended the lives of 800 British workers, all while the profits of the owners, DP World, soared by 52% in the first half of 2021. We need a clear, unequivocal statement from the Government—no ifs, no buts. An overseas conglomerate cannot be given free rein to sack workers in secure jobs here in Britain at the click of a button and replace them with agency staff. The Government must not give the green light to this appalling practice. They must act now to secure the livelihoods of these workers, not signpost them to the Department for Work and Pensions.

This cannot stand. Will the Minister review any and every contract and licence that the Government have with P&O or DP World, to maximise leverage and force them to do the right thing? DP World runs two of the Government’s freeport schemes. Will he consider terminating those contracts? Will he convene urgent talks with P&O and the unions to look immediately at what steps can be taken to safeguard these jobs? Will he confirm whether the Secretary of State received notification, as required under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? Given that neither the workers nor their unions received notification, this action is clearly illegal.

Will the Minister act immediately and ensure that all those party to the decision are appropriately proceeded against? Will he join me in condemning Clyde Marine Recruitment and Interforce for the role that they have apparently played in today’s events and investigate any action that can be taken against them? Will he outline the full extent to which other operators will be able to cover this unacceptable disruption? It is impossible to conceive that we have sufficient capacity to cover a loss of 10 days. Finally, will the Minister look at clawing back every single penny of taxpayers’ money given to P&O over the course of the pandemic?

This situation must be set in context. For far too long, the Government have sat on their hands and chosen to side with bad bosses by failing to take action to outlaw fire and rehire. This is the cruel consequence of a decade of attacks on workers’ rights. No more excuses: it is time for Ministers to keep the promises they have made, deliver workers’ rights and outlaw fire and rehire without delay.

We are an island nation. British seafaring has been, and is, the envy of the world. We are rightly proud of the British sailors, ratings and officers, who make our fleet and whose name is known across the globe. What has happened is a straightforward assault on British seafaring. It cannot be allowed to stand. The Government must stand up, speak out and take action to protect the livelihoods of these proud workers.

Robert Courts

I thank the hon. Member for her comments. She is quite right: lives have been upended and jobs scrapped. My sympathy and thoughts are wholly with the people who had this terrible news this morning. She is absolutely right about the video, which I have seen. I agree. This is devastating news, and to be shown a video on a television screen rather than told the news face to face is not how we expect loyal, hard-working workers to be treated. She mentioned crews being marched off; I have heard the same reports. I expect people to be treated with dignity and respect at all times, throughout their employment.

Employment laws apply, of course. It is difficult for me at the moment to comment in any detail on where that might be. I urge anyone affected to consider legal advice. Clearly that is something that they should do, but it is difficult for me to comment on that, particularly as this is a fast-moving situation.

The hon. Member asked me to review contracts that may exist. I have asked my officials to do that. I apologise, but I cannot give her any details at the moment, although I will be able to provide information to the House in due course if required. Conversations about freeports would have to take place across Government, involving, in particular, the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The hon. Lady asked me to convene urgent talks with the unions; I will speak to them this afternoon. It is possible that that will be an initial conversation and then there will be others, but I need no persuading that that will happen. She hon. Lady mentioned illegality. I ought not to go into that, but obviously the Government have a number of concerns, and I urge people to take the advice that they will need.

The hon. Lady asked me to give details of the operations. As I have said, this is a fast-moving situation, but although I am assured that there is not likely to be an operations impact, I will be monitoring that closely. I will give the hon. Lady more details when I have them, and if there are any steps to be taken, I will consider what they should be.

The hon. Lady spoke of setting this in context. I of course reject any suggestion that we have sided with bad bosses. I have made absolutely clear, today and on other occasions, that I expect people to be treated with respect at all times, and that is not the way in which these people have been treated. No one should be treated in the way in which they have been treated today.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about seafarers. We will continue to do everything we can to support British seafarers, and I hope to be able to give the House more details about that in due course.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

Thank you for allowing the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also thank the Minister for delivering it so robustly.

P&O, that once great flag carrier of the seas, has made an appalling error. If it does not reverse that error immediately, reinstate the employees and follow proper process, it is hard to see a way back for it commercially. The parent company, DP World, needs to understand that the British public will not do business with companies that treat their employees with such contempt. Will the Government do everything within their power and influence, including tabling emergency legislation if necessary, to ensure that this appalling employment transaction cannot be completed?

Robert Courts

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I repeat that this is a fast-moving situation, and we are reviewing it both as it develops and as it exists. I will certainly review what arrangements exist as we go forward, and I can certainly commit myself to working with all Government Departments to consider what relationships we have with P&O. I will also try to see whether there is anything I can do in the particular circumstances with which we are dealing, although commercial matters affecting a company are primarily a matter for the company itself, within the constraints of employment law. In this country we have high standards of employment law, and we expect those standards to be respected and upheld.

Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me add that I agreed with every word that was said by the shadow Secretary of State and the Chair of the Select Committee.

Earlier today I said that the actions of P&O were deeply concerning, but as more information has emerged, it has become clear that those actions were shameful, insensitive and inhumane. The Government responded to the fire and rehire scandal with lip service and warm words, saying that fire and rehire was shameful but stubbornly refusing to back those words up with any legislative action. That inaction has had consequences. What P&O has done today in sacking 800 workers over Zoom with no notice or consultation, and dragging them from their place of work using handcuff-trained private security personnel, is well beyond even fire and rehire. Of course, our primary concern must be for the traumatised P&O staff and their families. People are now jobless, having gone to work as they would on any other day. Will the Minister support the staff who remain aboard P&O vessels, and call on P&O to end its attempts to forcibly remove staff members?

The villain in all this is P&O and its parent company DP World, which is owned by anti-trade union oligarchs in Dubai who have a shockingly bad track record on employment relations. P&O’s plan is for entirely new crews to operate vessels with zero or little time for acclimatisation. Does the Minister not agree that P&O’s aim of resuming shipping with new staff almost immediately is reckless and unsafe? The Prime Minister visited the United Arab Emirates yesterday. Was there any discussion between him and the Dubai Government, the owners of DP World, about P&O?

The Minister said that while this is a commercial decision

“for them, and them alone, I would have expected far better for the workers involved.”

I agree, but I would also expect far better protections for our workers from the Government of the day. Can the Minister tell us if there is anything—anything at all—that the Government can do to intervene and help these workers? If there is not, does that not demonstrate, yet again, just how broken UK employment law is?

Robert Courts

I hear the anger and anguish expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he speaks on behalf of constituents and others he represents. I would encourage all employers in any event to speak to their hard-working, loyal, long-serving employees. I would certainly urge them to engage with the unions, which I hope would have been spoken to in advance in any such incident that would cause distress to workers and certainly in one such as this. I urge them to do that. On safety matters, this is still an evolving situation and there are clearly safety regulations that have to be applied and complied with in any case, no matter who is crewing a vessel. I would expect that to be the case. Clearly there will be no shortcuts as far as safety is concerned. We will continue to look across Government and speak to colleagues, and to uphold the rights that are clear in law to protect workers.

Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which P&O Ferries and DP World have acted is shabby, disgraceful and utterly unacceptable? They have mistreated 600 loyal workers in Dover and in addition to this, they have brought traffic disruption and put at risk the economy and the trade routes through it. Will he meet me to discuss what more can be done to hold DP World and P&O Ferries to account for their disgraceful behaviour?

Robert Courts

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out so powerfully and forcefully on behalf of her constituents, who will be anguished, hurt and distraught at the news they have been given today. She speaks for them and I thank her for doing so. I will of course meet her; I will meet any hon. or right hon. Member from anywhere across the House to discuss any concerns that they or their constituents might have. My hon. Friend asks me whether I agree that the way in which P&O has behaved is unacceptable? Yes, it is unacceptable.

Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)

Does the Minister acknowledge that my constituency of Canterbury, and east Kent as a whole, will be particularly affected by today’s shocking news? What urgent support will the Government give to all those affected locally, including the hundreds of P&O workers who have been treated disgracefully, as we have just heard, and who are now facing no pay packet at all in the face of the soaring cost of living? They do not want a work coach; they just want their jobs back. That is not to mention the beleaguered residents of east Kent, who will yet again have to bear the brunt of serious disruption to our daily lives. I am glad to hear that the Minister will meet MPs across east Kent; that needs to be done urgently. Thank you.

Robert Courts

I thank the hon. Member for speaking out and making her constituents’ understandable anguish so clear in this place. That has been entirely heard by me and I share it. She speaks with anger, and I have expressed that anger in person to P&O today, because of the effect that this news will be having on people living in her constituency and elsewhere, particularly at a time that is already causing much uncertainty for many people. I would be delighted to meet her and any other Members who would like to meet me to discuss what we might be able to do. I referred earlier to some signposting within the DWP. That support is available, and if there are other things that would be helpful, I would be happy to hear from her. She also referred to disruption. There may be some disruption, but the only happy side of that is that we have good, well-rehearsed procedures in place to deal with that. I totally accept this situation will cause inconvenience to her constituents, but I hope that the well-practised routines we have in place will keep that to a minimum.

Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

When I was the shipping Minister, I oversaw the maritime growth study that built on the sector’s success. At its heart was the development of skills to build an even stronger merchant navy. This capricious, careless, callous decision by P&O flies in the face of all that.

Will my hon. Friend work with my old friends in the maritime sector, the RMT and others to recover any moneys granted to P&O during the pandemic and to ensure it reverses its decision? I will not let anyone tell me this is the free market. The free market put little girls in factories and boys down mines, and it put both at risk on the high seas. We thought those dark days had gone. P&O is either too dim to see it or too dastardly to know it.

Robert Courts

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the skills that have been demonstrated by extraordinary British seafarers over many years. This is key to the Government’s vision of what we want to achieve, and it is particularly important to me personally. We remain committed to doing what we can to support seafarers, and all the strategies the House has heard me talk about, from Maritime 2050 onwards, remain the case. Our focus on maritime skills remains. The Government are still determined to do all we can to develop British seafarers and to continue as a maritime nation, as we have always been. He can be assured that determination remains undimmed.

My right hon. Friend rightly speaks about employment rights, which are extensive in this country. They exist for good reason, they continue and the Government support them.

Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

As the MP for Liverpool, Riverside, I am disgusted by the actions of P&O today. Liverpool is one of the routes that will be affected by this action, and it is another example of fire and rehire by a despicable employer. Why have this Government stood by and ignored it? Actions speak louder than words, Minister, so let us take some decisive action against P&O.

Robert Courts

I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s anger on behalf of her constituents. I am acutely aware that they will be affected. I caution her that we do not know all the circumstances yet. We do not know whether this is a fire-and-rehire situation or something else.

Kim Johnson

They have fired 800 staff.

Robert Courts

The hon. Lady is right, and I have been absolutely clear about my view of how that has been done. I am merely making a point about the contractual arrangements that exist. We need to understand that, and I will continue to work with her and others to see what we can do to help.

Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)

I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House so swiftly. We are all shocked, outraged and appalled by the treatment of P&O staff, and I welcome his condemnation of these dreadful employment practices. Will he continue to update the House on this unfolding situation?

Robert Courts

Yes. I am acutely conscious that there are some details I have not been able to give to the House today because the situation is evolving, and there are some things that we do not know and I do not know. As and when I do know, of course I will give the required information, either verbally or in some other way.

Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the people of Hull, who stand united tonight in our utter disgust at what has happened to the seafarers who have been sacked by P&O. It is simply a lie that P&O must sack 800 British workers to survive. P&O paid out £270 million to shareholders last year while taking furlough money from taxpayers.

The Government have to be clear about whom they back. They cannot just say this is a commercial decision. This is a choice between predatory employers that are sacking workers on Zoom in their levelling-down race to the bottom and our loyal, hard-working UK workers who are fighting for their jobs. Will the Minister instruct Dubai-based DP World to stand down the replacement crews, send their security muscle home and reinstate immediately those who have been sacked?

Robert Courts

I thank the right hon. Lady for speaking on behalf of Hull and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) to make their voices heard. Her question, of itself, shows the importance of the maritime sector to the entirety of our United Kingdom. There are hon. and right hon. Members from every corner of our United Kingdom expressing their anguish on behalf of their constituents and themselves, and she is right that furlough money will have been available to P&O. The Government have supported this company, as we supported the whole economy during the pandemic.

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asks whether we are on the side of levelling down and a race to the bottom. No, we are not. I have been clear today that we expect rights to be maintained and supported. She asks whether we are on the side of hard-working workers. Yes, we absolutely are.

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)

My background is in the travel industry and this is not how the travel industry behaves. P&O is a great British company, but can the Minister make it clear that there is a difference between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises? P&O Cruises has nothing to do with this disgraceful incident. If the parent company of P&O Ferries has made British workers redundant to replace them with agency workers and then in a week’s time expects to carry on as normal, the British public will not travel with it in any case, but surely the Minister should suspend its licences.

Robert Courts

I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise. He is absolutely right about the values of the wonderful travel industry that we have across the whole of the maritime, aviation, cruise and wider travel sector. His point about the distinction between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises is accurate; they are separate entities and the two are not connected. He is right to make that absolutely clear and I thank him for doing so. I have made it clear that the behaviour we have seen today is absolutely unacceptable, and I will continue saying so. Not only that, but the British public will have noticed, as he rightly points out.

Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

We hear a lot of anger and sympathy from the Minister, but he is from the Government and the clue is in the title—they need to govern and take some action. We have not heard about any action whatsoever. It would be helpful to hear more from him on that. We have just been discussing St Patrick’s Day and our relationships with Ireland. Has he had any discussions with the Irish Government or with Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the impact on both Northern Ireland and Irish trade?

Robert Courts

I understand the points that the hon. Lady makes. I am also keen to stress that I have come to the House as quickly as I can to make a statement, which means that I have not had that much time to act. I have already spoken to the management of P&O—I made sure I did that—and I have asked my officials to undertake a number of actions so that I understand the wider system that exists. I hope she will bear with me while that work takes place. I have not yet spoken to the Government of Ireland, but if that is helpful, I am happy to do so.

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)

This afternoon, I have heard people talk about British employment law and discussing this with other Governments overseas. However, the legislation that covers this area is simply the maritime labour convention, an international convention that applies not only to vessels ordinarily engaged in trade, but where a vessel is operating under the flag of a country that has ratified the MLC, which the UK has, or it is operating in the waters of a country that has ratified the MLC. That ensures that there are terms and conditions for seafarers, including those who may not be part of the navigation team on the ship; it applies to everyone, including on issues such as repatriation. Will P&O or indeed DP World be repatriating the crew and everyone on the ship? Will that be paid for by P&O? Alternatively, it can be paid for by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. If it is, will the Minister ensure that that money is repaid back to the British taxpayer?

Robert Courts

My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. There are different legal regimes applying here, and things depend on which one is applying. One is employment rights, which we have referred to, but he is right to say that there is also the MLC. This will depend upon what circumstance we are looking at. It is not entirely clear exactly what has happened. I will continue to look at that. I would expect that any ramifications that arise because of decisions taken by P&O would be ones that it would put right and not look to the Government to do so.

Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

P&O Ferries’ actions today, in sacking 800 workers via Zoom, are despicable and disgraceful, as has been said by Members from right across the Chamber. Of course we now need deeds, not just words. Some £270 million was paid in dividends and about £15 million paid in furlough. We need some teeth there. Those workers should be reinstated and that requires ministerial intervention. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) referred to the arrangement with licences—well, let us get on with it and show solidarity with those in the RMT—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and all their families.

Robert Courts

The hon. Member is right that the behaviour we have seen today is unacceptable. I will be meeting the RMT later to hear what it has to say, and I will work constructively with it to see whether there is anything that I can do in support. He asks us to think about those affected and their families, and I of course entirely agree. I will talk to colleagues across Government and speak to the unions and those affected to see whether there are any further steps that we can take.

Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)

I join other Members in saying that what has happened today is completely unacceptable. On the face of it, it also seems to me to be potentially unlawful, although I understand why the Minister will not want to say at this point whether he shares that view. I also understand that in the discussions that have already taken place today there has been doubt about what law applies, in relation not just to the individual workers but the company’s obligation to notify the Government when it comes to redundancies. When the Minister has a better understanding of the legal obligations to the workers and to the Government, will he update the House so that we can take an informed view as to whether the company has potentially broken the law?

Robert Courts

The important thing to understand is that maritime contracts can often be quite complicated. Different contracts can apply for different seafarers at different times. I do not want to be in a position where anybody is looking to me for legal advice from the Dispatch Box. That is not my role as a Minister. I urge everybody to obtain their own independent legal advice so that they can take any steps that are necessary. It is for lawyers to provide that assistance, not Ministers.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)

For how long are the Government prepared to allow companies such as P&O to treat loyal workers with contempt while they leach off the UK taxpayer? The Minister will know that there is a £146 million deficit in the pension fund for P&O retirees, yet P&O’s owners, DP World, just spent £147 million on sponsoring the European golf tour. After taking £10 million from taxpayers for furlough and demanding a further £150 million from the public purse to keep its operations going, the company paid out £270 million to shareholders in dividends and is now trying to fire 800 loyal workers. Does the Minister accept that P&O is taking him and the Treasury for fools? Does he regret the Government’s failure to back the measures in my private Member’s Bill that would have prevented these 800 seafarers from being treated so disgracefully?

Robert Courts

As I have said, we need to take stock of the situation as we understand it. The hon. Gentleman referred to fire and rehire; this may not be a fire and rehire situation—

Barry Gardiner

I said the measures in my Bill.

Robert Courts

I am happy to look at what the measures in his Bill were, but we need to understand exactly what has taken place. I agree with his wider points about the actions that P&O has taken at the same time as treating its workers this way. Treating long-serving, loyal, hard-working, skilled people in this way cannot be defended.

Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make this statement and compliment him on the tone with which he delivered it, but the Government clearly must do more to protect British workers. He mentioned 800 redundancies, but the jobs are not redundant: the reality is that those 800 British-based seafarers are going to be replaced with 800 overseas seafarers who will work for cheaper rates. It is an absolute and utter disgrace. People anticipate that the Minister and his Government will do something about this to prevent it from happening again in future. If they do not, other employers—such as Heathrow airport or anyone else—could go down a similar route. Did the Prime Minister discuss P&O Ferries’ plans with anyone from Dubai-based DP World during his recent trip?

Robert Courts

The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to the fact that we have and will continue to have a need for seafarers. We are a maritime nation and we depend on such links for connections in respect of people as well as in respect of freight. The hon. Member is of course right about that. I am passionate about championing British seafarers, about their skills and about ensuring that more people have the ability to benefit from a fascinating, rewarding and enjoyable career. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see what more can be done on that.

Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

I, too, thank the Minister for coming to the House on this matter and for the tone that he has adopted. I am sure that we all share the feelings that this is completely despicable and unacceptable behaviour by the company. Rather than just signposting people to help, have the Government considered taking this company into public ownership, in the way that they have with previous companies, such as railway or aviation companies, to ensure that the jobs are protected and that our vital transport link with the continent is protected? Have the Government considered that and if not, why not?

Robert Courts

The hon. Lady is not drawing direct comparisons. As I understand it, this is not a company that is at risk of immediately ceasing operations, so the parallel she seeks to draw is not entirely accurate. I can be absolutely clear that, while commercial decisions have to be taken by companies, they should engage with people, they should consult, they should discuss things with them, and, at all times, they should treat them with the respect that they deserve.

Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)

The news today is terrible for the workers and their families, and I pay tribute to them and to the RMT union. I notice that the Minister did not answer the question of my good friend, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), regarding the Prime Minister being on tour in west Asia and being in the United Arab Emirates—DP World is based in the United Arab Emirates. Has the Prime Minister had a discussion with DP World or any of the proprietors regarding the situation? If not, why not? Does he also agree that it was short-sighted and unreasonable of the Government to block the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on banning fire and rehire?

Robert Courts

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

Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

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

Robert Courts

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

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

Other trade unions will be looking on at this, thinking that it is P&O workers today, and, if this stands, it is their workers tomorrow. Some of us with long memories can remember other flashpoints in industrial relations, such as Grunwick and the miners’ strike, which became very big disputes indeed. We do not want that around our ports. The simple way to avoid that and to avoid seeing workers being forced aside for the police to allow people through so that P&O can continue business as usual is to take business away from P&O at our ports. Have the Government considered that?

Robert Courts

As I said when I answered the shadow Transport Secretary, I have asked my officials to understand what level of contractual engagement Government have with P&O. I do not yet have that information, but that is under way as we speak. None the less, the hon. Gentleman draws a wider point around the importance of engagement. We do not want to see disruption, and we do not want to see any difficulties with industrial relations that cause wider problems. I have been absolutely clear that the way that workers have been treated today is absolutely unacceptable. P&O should have spoken to the unions. I have told it that it should be speaking to the unions. I do not think that it has done so, but I will certainly be doing so later today.

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

Today DP World has inflicted the ultimate pain on workers by sacking them on the spot. They are safety-critical workers in a safety-critical industry; they cannot simply be replaced. Will the Minister ensure that no ship sails with agency staff crewing it in the future? Will he ensure that he works with Nautilus and the RMT so that our shipping industry is put in a safer space than it is in today?

Robert Courts

I thank the hon. Lady for rightly drawing attention to the critical importance of safety. As I said earlier, there are no two ways about safety: any ship sailing has to be safe. I have total confidence in those at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency who regulate maritime safety. That will continue to be the case and they will continue to ensure safety in the same way they always do. I have total confidence that that is the case, no matter who is crewing which vessel under which company at any one time. She asks whether I will work closely with the RMT and Nautilus. Yes—I am due to meet them after this statement, and I will listen to what they have to say, but of course at any time I will seek to work closely with the unions and all right hon. and hon. Members.

Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)

First, I express solidarity with the RMT and Nautilus workers refusing to leave their ships. Will the Minister properly and fully condemn the use of balaclava-wearing, handcuff-trained security in any forcible removal of workers? It is like going back to Victorian times. Secondly, will the Government use their full powers to prevent P&O ferries from using British waters at all until this matter is justly resolved?

Robert Courts

I have been absolutely clear about my view of the way that workers have been treated today. I cannot comment on specific circumstances until I have had them confirmed—I have seen things reported on social media, as has the hon. Gentleman—but I have been clear that the way workers have been treated is absolutely unacceptable.

March 22, 2022
Andrew Stephenson – 2022 Statement on HS2 Progress (March 2022)

The statement made by Andrew Stephenson, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2022.

Review of High Speed Two (HS2) including programme update, local community impact and engagement, environment, benefits, and programme governance.

Overview

This is my fourth update to Parliament on High Speed Two (HS2). I can confirm that the project remains within budget and on schedule in delivering Phase One (London-West Midlands) and phase 2a (West Midlands-Crewe), we have hit major construction milestones, made substantial progress on key procurements, and made significant progress to take HS2 further North. Work is also already underway to implement the proposals set out in the Government’s Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands, for example with the recent introduction of a Bill into Parliament to build HS2 between Crewe and Manchester.

Key achievements in this reporting period—September 2021 to January 2022 are:

HS2 is now supporting over 22,000 jobs.

Introduction of a Bill into Parliament to secure the powers to construct and maintain HS2 between Crewe and Manchester. This will increase capacity, bolster connectivity, and reduce travel times from the North West to London and Birmingham and will be critical to generating transformational economic change in the North West.

The Government have published their Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands.

Award of the £2 billion contract—under budget—for the delivery and maintenance of HS2 trains for Phases One and 2a. The state-of-the-art train fleet, capable of speeds of up to 225 miles per hour, will be designed and built by a Hitachi/Alstom Joint Venture based in the North East and Midlands.

Launch of the first Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) in the Midlands, the third on the programme. The two other TBMs in the Chilterns are making good progress and have now driven a combined distance of approximately 3.5 miles.

Public commitment to power HS2 trains with zero carbon energy from day one—supporting the goal of making HS2 net zero from 2035—and publication of HS2 Ltd’s Environmental Sustainability Progress Report in January 2022.

The five years of compulsory purchase powers on Phase One provided by the Phase One Act ended on 23 February 2022 with all planned notices served by the deadline set by Parliament.

Release of the Invitation to Tender for the Phase 2a Design and Delivery Partner (DDP). The DDP will act as a strategic partner for HS2 Ltd to drive efficient design and construction in extending the railway to Crewe.

A decision has been taken to support greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations at Euston. This has potential to deliver construction efficiencies, along with significant passenger and place-making benefits at Euston and the surrounding area.

I am delighted to confirm that we are expanding Sir Jon Thompson’s role, an existing non-executive director on the HS2 Ltd Board, to become Deputy Chair. Sir Jon will chair meetings of the Board until a permanent Chair is in post.

This report primarily uses data provided by HS2 Ltd to the HS2 Ministerial Task Force for Phases One and 2a and covers the period between September 2021 and January 2022 inclusive. Unless stated, all figures are presented in 2019 prices.

Programme update

Schedule

On Phase One (London to West Midlands), the forecast for initial services from Old Oak Common to Birmingham remains within the Delivery into Service (DiS) range of 2029 to 2033. The revised schedule agreed last year has held to date with local delays being largely mitigated.

Over the reporting period, good progress has been made on closing out the majority of enabling works, with the remaining work due to be completed by early next year. Good progress has also been made on tunnelling activities. Additionally, HS2 Ltd has advanced its earthworks. Maintaining construction progress depends on the detailed design and consents needed to support a further very significant increase in civil works on earthworks and structures in 2022.

The main areas of schedule focus remain in the southern section of the line-of-route and tunnels leading into Old Oak Common Station from outer London, which form the critical path for initial services. Any delays in these sectors could delay the whole project. Other key watch areas include Bromford Tunnel, Birmingham Curzon Street Station and the route into Birmingham where the urban environment generates significant logistical challenges.

Phase 2a remains on track to be delivered between 2030 and 2034. Land possessions have commenced and enabling works started in early 2022.

As confirmed in the update on the Phase 2b Western Leg (Crewe to Manchester) Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) in January 2022, the Department has set a schedule range of 2035 to 2041 for the opening of the Phase 2b Western Leg.

Affordability

HS2 remains within budget. The overall budget for Phase One remains £44.6 billion. This is composed of the target cost of £40.3 billion and additional Government-retained contingency of £4.3 billion. The target cost includes contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd of £5.6 billion for managing risk and uncertainties.

To date, out of the Phase One target cost of £40.3 billion, £14.9 billion has been spent, with an additional £0.8 billion for land and property provisions. £12.7 billion has been contracted and has not been spent, with the remaining amount not yet under contract.

HS2 Ltd has drawn £1.3 billion of its £5.6 billion delegated contingency, meaning £4.3 billion remains. Contingency drawn to date reflects an increase of £0.5 billion since my last update—from £0.8 billion to £1.3 billion.

HS2 Ltd’s is reporting £1.7 billion of potential future cost pressures that are currently presenting across the programme. This reflects an increase in potential further cost pressures of £0.4 billion since my last update—from £1.3 billion to £1.7 billion.

Since my last report, the aggregate increase in actual and potential additional costs is therefore £0.9 billion—£0.5 billion from increase in contingency drawdown plus £0.4 billion from potential further cost pressures. While these pressures are manageable within the target cost given the remaining contingency, I am nonetheless concerned at the rate of their increase. I expect HS2 Ltd to maintain its focus on delivery to the target cost.

Should these or other cost pressures materialise, HS2 Ltd will continue to draw from the contingency it holds, of which £4.3 billion remains—as outlined above. Out of the £1.7 billion of net potential pressures currently being reported by HS2 Ltd in its January 2022 data, over and above the contingency drawn down so far, the key pressures are:

An estimate of £0.8 billion—increase of £0.2 billion from my last update—for potential additional main works civils costs stemming from additional design costs and slower than expected progress in some areas.

A pressure of £0.4 billion on the cost estimate for the HS2 Euston station. The move to a smaller, less complex 10-platform single-stage delivery strategy at Euston, as confirmed in my previous report, is now the basis for ongoing design work and other activities. The Department anticipates that this will assist in addressing the cost pressure at Euston, as the updated station design is developed over the coming months. This work will also consider and address the appropriate level of contingency that should be held to managing risks that are likely to arise during the construction of an asset of this complexity. The Department will provide further updates as this work progresses over the course of the next 18 months.

A pressure of £0.2 billion against HS2 Ltd’s budget for changes to Network Rail infrastructure at Euston and Old Oak Common that are required to facilitate the new HS2 stations.

There is a further £0.3 billion of net cost pressures presenting on other parts of the programme. This is the aggregate total of smaller potential cost pressures.

Over £0.8 billion in savings and efficiencies from across the programme—increase of £0.5 billion from my last update—have been identified against HS2 Ltd’s budget, principally from awarding the rolling stock contract under budget, contracting a common supplier for lifts and escalators, and savings in the acquisition of land and property. These have partly offset gross cost pressures. HS2 Ltd continues to focus on realising further efficiencies and opportunities to reduce the costs of Phase One.

On covid-19 costs, HS2 Ltd’s assessment of the likely financial impact of the pandemic on delivering Phase One remains estimated within the range of £0.4 billion to £0.7 billion. Formal claims will be subject to Government scrutiny and will require formal approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury before funds from Government-retained contingency can be allocated.

For Phase 2a, the overall cost range is £5.2 billion to £7.2 billion. We intend to set a target cost alongside publication of the full business case next year

As confirmed in the update on the Phase 2b (Crewe to Manchester) SOBC, the estimated cost range for the Crewe-Manchester scheme is £15 billion to £22 billion. It is project delivery best practice to set a range and to narrow this down over time.

Lastly, the Department and HS2 Ltd are currently working to assess and mitigate the impact of global inflationary pressure on materials and labour supply on the programme where short term increases are being seen. This is likely caused in part by the recovery of global construction demand following the covid-19 pandemic.

Delivery

On Phase One, delivery continues to build momentum at 340 sites. Tunnel drives are underway at two sites. In the Chilterns, Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) ‘Florence’ and ‘Cecilia’ have been making good progress and have currently tunnelled a combined distance of approximately 3.5 miles. In December 2021, we saw the launch of ‘Dorothy’—the first TBM in the Midlands—which will preserve the Long Itchington Wood in Warwickshire. The tunnelling team will operate the machine for around five months as it excavates the first bore of the one-mile tunnel. This will be the first HS2 tunnel to be completed on the project, with the machine set to break through its first bore at the south portal later this spring when it will return to the start to begin the second parallel tunnel.

At Old Oak Common Station, significant progress has been made in constructing the 750,000 metres-cubed box structure that will facilitate the six subterranean high-speed line platforms, as well as the works required to facilitate the start of tunnel boring to Euston in the east and Northolt in the west. Work is underway with the Old Oak Common and Park Royal Development Corporation, the London Mayor and the Department for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities to bring forward proposals for the regeneration of the area around the station.

In the West Midlands, stage one of the two-stage design and build contract for Birmingham Curzon Street Station will conclude shortly subject to agreement of an affordable target price. A solution for co-construction of the West Midlands Metro tram extension while delivering the station has been agreed with Transport for the West Midlands so that benefits of both projects can be brought to Birmingham as soon as practicable.

In September 2021, HS2 Ltd launched the process to appoint a design and build contractor to complete Interchange Station in Solihull. Contract award remains on schedule for summer 2022. Central and local government are also working with the private sector to bring forward proposals to release land for development. This would enable approximately 350 acres of land to support the Arden Cross Masterplan, creating a space for innovation, business, learning and living, providing up to 27,000 new jobs and 3,000 new homes and is backed by conditional Government funding of £50 million.

A decision has been taken to proceed with greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations at Euston. The Department and Network Rail are developing the business case for the redevelopment of the Network Rail station concourse at Euston in parallel with the HS2 build, which will support greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations. HS2 Ltd and Network Rail, with support from The Euston Partnership, are working together to develop a cost effective design that provides integration between the HS2 station and the redevelopment of the Network Rail station and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. This integrated approach has potential to deliver construction efficiencies, along with significant passenger and place-making benefits at Euston.

I am delighted to confirm that we reached a major milestone on the procurement of HS2 trains. In December, an Alstom/Hitachi Joint Venture was awarded the £2 billion HS2 rolling stock contract for Phases One and 2a and is expected to support around 2,500 jobs across the UK. This contract includes the design and build of 54 new high-speed trains and an initial 12-year maintenance period. The trains will be manufactured in Newton Aycliffe, Derby and Crewe and then maintained at the new depot in Washwood Heath, Birmingham. The second-placed bidder, Siemens, continues to challenge the procurement decision legally but has not sought to impede the award and delivery of the rolling stock contract.

HS2 Ltd continues tendering for Phase One and 2a rail systems packages—including track, catenary, mechanical and electrical fitout, power, control and communications. Over the coming months, HS2 Ltd will request bidders to submit their final price and I anticipate that we will begin awarding these packages in early 2023. In the next six months, HS2 Ltd will further develop their approach to integration of these rail systems packages. This will include testing operational processes and systems, development of its leadership capability and standing up of interim governance arrangements.

On Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe), HS2 Ltd has invited tenders for a Design and Delivery Partner (DDP) in January 2022. Additionally, the start of procurement for the Main Works Civils Framework is expected to commence later this year which will provide the construction capacity to be managed by the DDP. Early environmental works and early civils works have also begun.

Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

The Government have published their Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands. It sets a £96 billion strategy of rail construction and upgrades for the North and Midlands to be delivered over the next 30 years. Work is also already underway to implement the proposals set out in the IRP.

For example, £249 million was invested to further electrify the Midland Main Line between Kettering and Market Harborough with work started at Christmas 2021. The HS2 Phase 2b Crewe-Manchester scheme sits at the core of the IRP, bringing high-speed rail to Manchester and providing vital infrastructure necessary to deliver the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) scheme. On 24 January 2022, the Government introduced the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill to secure the powers to construct and maintain the HS2 Phase 2b Western Leg. Once approved, the railway will be critical to generating transformational economic change in the North West of England. Once the Crewe to Manchester section of HS2 opens, the railway will reduce travel times from 2 hours 5 minutes to around 1 hour 10 minutes from London to Manchester. The introduction of the Bill into Parliament was accompanied by an environmental statement and an update on the 2017 SOBC.

The IRP also confirmed the Government’s intention to take forward HS2 East, a new highspeed line between West Midlands and East Midlands Parkway, enabling HS2 to serve Nottingham and Derby city centres. In conjunction with plans for the electrification of the Midland Main Line, this will also allow HS2 trains to continue direct to Chesterfield and Sheffield. Following a pause to design work on the HS2 Eastern Leg as a result of the Oakervee Review, the Department and HS2 Ltd are considering how best to take forward this new West to East Midlands high-speed line working closely with Network Rail. The IRP provides £100 million to look at the most effective way to run HS2 trains to Leeds, including understanding the most optimal solution for Leeds station capacity and starting work on the new West Yorkshire mass transit system.

Local community impact and engagement

As HS2 Minister, I expect affected communities to be at the heart of our plans for this project. I am therefore pleased that HS2 Ltd’s refreshed community engagement strategy—‘Respecting People, Respecting Places’—has this vision at its core and sets out HS2 Ltd’s renewed commitments to the communities impacted by the programme.

One of the ways that the HS2 project counterbalances some of its negative impacts on places is through the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund. These funds have now supported 192 projects through £11.1 million of grant funding along the line-of-route and play a crucial role in ensuring a positive legacy for communities most affected by construction.

HS2 Ltd has also recently launched several initiatives to continue actively engaging communities affected by HS2. For example, ‘In your area’ is an interactive map which informs people of HS2 works in their area. Furthermore, independent construction inspectors continue to support the assurance of the delivery of works. Where problems do arise, the Construction Commissioner provides a means of escalation and independent consideration. I am pleased to report that the existing Construction Commissioner, Sir Mark Worthington OBE, has been reappointed for a further three years. Additionally, I am currently recruiting a replacement for the outgoing Residents’ Commissioner, Deborah Fazan.

Targeted protester activity continues to have some impact on Phase One delivery. However, following successful removal of the unlawful protester site at Small Dean near Wendover in October and November 2021, protest impact on Phase One has now been reduced significantly. HS2 Ltd estimates that ongoing protester activity, including the removal of encampments and protest-related delays to the programme, has cost just under £12 2 million, an increase of £42 million since my last report. HS2 Ltd continues to work with its supply chain, local police forces and wider Government to minimise the impact of unlawful protester activity.

Land and Property

I am pleased to announce that the five years of compulsory purchase powers on Phase One provided by the Phase One Act ended on 23 February 2022 with the serving of all planned notices by the deadline set by Parliament. While work to complete the land acquisition and, crucially, settle compensation for affected property owners will continue, this is an important milestone for the programme.

Significant progress has also been made to implement the proposals set out in my 2020 Land and Property Review: three-quarters of the proposals have now been implemented. The response to our recent public Land and Property consultation was also published in February 2022.

Environment

In January, HS2 Ltd published its ‘Environmental Sustainability Vision’ which reaffirmed its commitment to provide low carbon rail travel for a cleaner, greener future.

I was delighted to confirm, as part of that Vision, that HS2 trains will use zero carbon energy from day one of operation. This will support HS2 Ltd target to achieve net zero in construction and operation from 2035. The commitment is a key part of the new HS2 ‘Net Zero Carbon Plan’ which sets out a suite of ambitious new targets to reduce the carbon footprint of the programme.

The Vision confirmed that HS2 Ltd will seek to deliver a 10% net gain in biodiversity for replaceable habitats on the Phase 2b Crewe-Manchester scheme. I also intend to explore going beyond the existing no-net-loss of biodiversity target for Phase One and Phase 2a, to secure biodiversity gains where this is cost-effective and possible within existing funding limits.

Lastly, HS2 Ltd published its first ‘Environmental Sustainability Progress Report’ in January. This provides a clear and up-to-date account of HS2’s environmental impacts and the progress being made to mitigate any adverse effects.

Benefits

I am delighted to announce that HS2 is supporting over 22,000 jobs and to date over 2,400 UK-registered companies have delivered work on HS2. To date, there have been 1,674 jobs starts by people who were previously workless. The programme will create 2,000 apprenticeships, with 825 having been started since 2017.

In November 2021, HS2 Ltd construction partner Balfour Beatty VINCI opened a new ‘Skills Academy’ in the West Midlands in partnership with South and City College of Birmingham.

As stated in the Government’s ‘Levelling Up White Paper’, this year, the Government will publish a HS2 Local Growth Action Plan, setting out how it will work with places hosting Phase One and 2a stations to realise their local growth ambitions. The new railway will stimulate growth around HS2 stations and further afield, helping to level up the economies of the Midlands and North.

Promoting active travel along the HS2 route and at stations is also a key priority for me. To ensure that opportunities for lasting legacy improvements are realised, I have asked HS2 Ltd to explore the potential for the re-purposing of temporary construction routes, into new vehicle-free connections between rural communities that could connect other emerging local authority cycle proposals to provide a wider active travel network along the spine of HS2. This will not only benefit the environment, but also improve the health and wellbeing of residents and commuters. In addition, I have asked HS2 Ltd to upgrade active travel provisions at 12 locations across Phase One.

Programme Governance

An updated HS2 Ltd framework document and HS2 development agreement will be concluded shortly to continue effective governance between the Department and HS2 Ltd. Furthermore, we have relaunched the search for a new Chair with updated role criteria to appeal to a wider set of candidates. In parallel, we are expanding Sir Jon Thompson’s role, an existing non-executive director on the HS2 Ltd Board, to become Deputy Chair. Sir Jon will chair meetings of the Board until a permanent Chair is in post.

Lastly, as committed to in my previous update, all recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report of 22 September 2021 have now been implemented.

Forward Look

On Phase One, over the next six months we will continue the ramp-up of construction work, launch the fourth TBM on the programme to start excavation of the London tunnels, and we will see HS2 Ltd award a contract for the construction of interchange station.

On Phase 2a, focus will be on progressing environmental and enabling work, early land acquisitions plus the procurement for the DDP and progressing the procurement for the main works civils framework.

On Phase 2b, following the introduction of the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill into Parliament, the Environmental Statement Consultation is now underway, which will close on 31 March 2022. The priority for HS2 East is to develop the next stage of design work for the West to East Midlands high-speed line.

I will continue to engage closely with Parliament and will provide my next update in autumn 2022.

March 21, 2022
Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on Transport

The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 25 February 2022.

Further to my statement to the House on 21 February 2022, I am updating the House on a new extraordinary funding settlement between Transport for London and the Government which expires on 25 February. I have agreed with the Mayor of London a new settlement to 24 June 2022.

This new settlement demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting the capital, while balancing the interests of the national taxpayer. It provides Transport for London with £200 million of emergency funding as it recovers from the pandemic and continues to work towards financial sustainability. It also continues the Government’s commitment to cover fare revenues lost due to the pandemic. Together, this takes the Government’s overall contribution to close to £5 billion, on top of an ongoing annual capital commitment of just over £1 billion through the spending review, in line with previous levels of funding.

Furthermore, the Government recognise the need for certainty and stability in Transport for London’s capital investment programme. The Government are therefore willing to consider a longer-term capital settlement for Transport for London, which we intend to agree before the start of the next financial year. This will be on the condition that Transport for London co-operates fully and openly with the Government and provides sufficient information and data about its capital investment plans.

Transport for London needs to ensure that it is both financially sustainable in the short to medium term and in good financial health in the long term, ensuring good value for money for the UK taxpayer. Within this next funding period the Mayor has agreed to: prepare a plan setting out options to realise operating cost savings, up to and including £400 million in 2022-2023; progress with consultation on the options he has identified to raise between £0.5 billion and 1 billion per annum of additional revenue from 2023; deliver against TFL’s accelerated modernisation plan and make significant progress in moving the pension fund into a financially sustainable position.

Transport is devolved to the Mayor of London. It is therefore for him alone to take responsibility for the decisions needed to return TfL to financial sustainability. The Government will continue to work with the Mayor and TfL to ensure London’s transport system delivers for local citizens and businesses and contributes to the country’s economic recover. At all times the Government will continue to balance our obligations to the national transport network as a whole and to provide value for money for the taxpayer.

February 28, 2022
Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on TFL Funding Extension

The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 21 February 2022.

I am updating the House on an interim extension of the current Transport for London funding settlement that was due to expire on 18 February 2022 by one week to 25 February 2022. This was requested by TfL and has been accepted by Government.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have supported TfL with over £4.5 billion of funding through extraordinary funding settlements for Transport for London. We have recognised the reliance of London’s transport network on fare revenue. We have recognised that demand and therefore passenger revenue has been volatile and have responded accordingly, compensating TfL for that revenue loss to ensure services can be maintained.

The Government are still committed to supporting London’s transport network as we have since the start of the pandemic and they had offered TfL and the Mayor of London a fourth extraordinary funding agreement. TfL has asked for an extension of one week to allow the Mayor of London to consider the terms of the settlement letter and agree it with Government.

The Government are committed to supporting London and the transport network on which it depends, balancing that with supporting the national transport network. I will update the House on the details of the next financial settlement after the close of this extension period.

February 22, 2022
Wendy Morton – 2022 Speech on Rail Connectivity in Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham

The speech made by Wendy Morton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 February 2022.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on securing this debate about rail connectivity between Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham. The cities of Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham lie at the heart of this country, serving as beacons of productivity and potential, and so understanding the needs of their communities, passengers and businesses is absolutely crucial in delivering a rail network that works for everyone. That is why the Department for Transport set up Midlands Connect to help to develop a pipeline of proposals for the region, informed by local people, businesses and councils that know what is best for their region.

Midlands Connect is a partnership of local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, Network Rail, National Highways and the business community. It published its first transport strategy in 2017 and has spent the past 18 months refreshing its evidence base in order to produce a new strategic transport plan, which will be published in April. I eagerly await the plan, which will then set out Midland Connect’s investment priorities for the next decade.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her contribution this evening to that broad evidence-gathering effort. I know her advocacy of investment in the local rail network service serves as a valuable representation of the needs of her constituents. I am sure it will be understood that, given the constrained fiscal environment we find ourselves in, competition for funding is stronger than ever and not all proposals will receive funding. However, she is taking the right approach in advocating for rail investment in her region and, along with Midland Connect’s ongoing work to develop proposals, this work is vital in shaping the future of the rail network in the east midlands, even if funding availability proves limiting in the short term.

Lilian Greenwood

I appreciate that our region has to compete with others, but the Minister will know that the east midlands region has the lowest level of transport rail spending in the country and has had for some time. If she is serious about levelling up, do we not have to invest in transport links in the east midlands region? Nottingham and Coventry are 108 minutes apart. They are about the same distance apart as London and Reading, yet the journey times in the south-east are so much faster. Should she not be investing to make that difference?

Wendy Morton

I will come on to some of the investments we have been making, but let us not lose sight of the fact that we are investing a massive £96 billion in the midlands and the north through the integrated rail plan over the next 30 years, which is about delivering benefits for passengers.

Taking a long-term approach to rail investment by developing a pipeline of deliverable proposals is the right way to ensure that the east midlands can receive investment as and when funding becomes available. Midlands Connect has produced a strategic outline business case setting out the case for connecting Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham by rail. This provides a useful overview of how rail connectivity between those three cities could be delivered and the benefits it could yield. Midlands Connect has made strong arguments for the proposal, describing a range of economic, social and environmental benefits that it expects to arise from the implementation of the scheme.

I therefore appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Leicester East to improve transport links between the three cities. My officials at the Department are currently evaluating the case and will report back to me in due course. It is important that I reiterate that, in the context of an unprecedented economic strain as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, not all proposals we would like to deliver can be funded, but each proposal will be evaluated on its merits and affordability.

I also note that we are considering a number of other schemes proposed for the east midlands through the integrated rail plan. The IRP recommends improved connectivity between the east and west midlands via a new HS2 station at Curzon Street in central Birmingham and via existing stations at Nottingham and East Midlands Parkway. It also suggests that the Department works with Midlands Connect to develop connectivity to the east midlands and Coventry as part of the committed midlands rail hub programme. Although it is important to plan ahead and strive for more, I will take a moment to reflect on some of the excellent work that has already been done in recent years to improve rail transport for the east midlands.

Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on securing the debate. Does the Minister recollect, as I do, that the press described the east midlands as the big winners of the integrated rail plan? Connecting places such as central Nottingham with central Birmingham will massively improve journey times. It will not only improve connectivity between Nottingham, Derby and Birmingham, but open up other cities in the west midlands for onward connections.

Wendy Morton

My hon. Friend is another passionate advocate for rail and he is absolutely right. The IRP has committed a massive £96 billion for the midlands and the north over the next 30 years, which is the biggest investment.

As I was saying, our work to electrify the midland main line represents the biggest improvement to the line since it was built in 1870. Along with the new timetable, the upgrade boosted the number of seats on services across the east midlands and cut travel time between London and Derby, Leicester, Sheffield and Nottingham. Meanwhile, the electric trains introduced between Corby and London are quieter and much better for the environment, because they produce nearly 80% less carbon. That means that people living near the railway will breathe cleaner air and experience less noise pollution.

Additionally, Leicester City Council was recently awarded £17.8 million from the levelling-up fund to make improvements to the station building. Following the Government’s devolution deal with the West Midlands Combined Authority, which allows local authorities to deliver local priorities, Coventry City Council is undertaking an £82-million redevelopment of the city’s station. Working with Midlands Connect and others, the Department will continue to seek opportunities to improve rail transport in Leicester and in other towns and cities across the midlands.

I will touch on a couple of specific questions that the hon. Lady raised. She sought some clarity on whether Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham are part of the midlands rail hub. The Department wants to work with Midlands Connect and other regional stakeholders to consider how we improve connectivity between the cities and towns of the midlands. The recommendations in the integrated rail plan, which will provide a direct high-speed link between Birmingham and Nottingham, will have an impact on the current MRH proposals. Those impacts will need to be considered fully. We look forward to receiving the updated Midlands Connect strategic plan and its recommendations on that area.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of funding for the next stage, which I believe is the outline business case.

Claudia Webbe indicated assent.

Wendy Morton

The hon. Lady is nodding. The pipeline approach is designed to ensure that future rail projects are properly planned and scrutinised to deliver maximum value and benefit to rail users and taxpayers, and that the portfolio is balanced and affordable. It is important that projects continue to be assessed and prioritised based on their business cases and how they contribute to key Government priorities.

The updated rail network enhancements pipeline is due to be published soon and we will set out our revised programme following the spending review. We will continue to work with stakeholders to develop proposals for future funding rounds should it not be possible to take forward particular proposals at this time.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Leicester East.

Lilian Greenwood

Will the Minister give way?

Wendy Morton

I will continue to conclude.

I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East for securing this debate and shining a spotlight on rail connectivity between Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham. She should be assured that a lot of work is ongoing to understand the needs of the region and to plan a pipeline of work to deliver a better rail network for Leicester and the east midlands. I urge her to continue her work with the Department and with Midlands Connect to bolster our understanding of the transport needs of Leicester and the east midlands and to shape future rail investments for the good of her constituents and the wider region.

February 9, 2022
Claudia Webbe – 2022 Speech on Rail Connectivity in Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham

The speech made by Claudia Webbe, the Independent MP for Leicester East, in the House of Commons on 8 February 2022.

I rise this evening to discuss rail connectivity between the east and west midlands, specifically the connection between my city of Leicester and Nottingham and Coventry. Currently, the public transport links between Leicester and Coventry, in particular, are woefully inadequate. Leicester has a strong and proud railway history. For a century, roughly from the 1850s to the 1950s, Leicester had seven railway stations within its city boundary. Today there is just one—London Road. That is why I am making the case for real investment into new links for my city and constituents.

In response to my request, I am sure the Minister will talk about the integrated rail plan and the £96 billion investment into our railways. Of course, investment in public transport is welcome, especially during a climate emergency. Leicester did receive some support via plans to electrify the midland main line through Leicester, but more ambitious plans for unlocking capacity at the station were sadly overlooked.

It is also worth noting that the electrification would have already been completed by now if a Conservative Government had not cancelled it in 2017. All the mentions related to Leicester in the 162-page integrated rail plan document are simply a repeated formulation of the electrification policy. Crucially, the long-awaited and long-delayed integrated rail plan was silent on the Coventry-Leicester-Nottingham project, apart from an opaque mention of Coventry and of improving links in the midlands rail hub. I would be grateful if the Minister informed the House whether that mention was indeed a nod to this critical scheme. I and many Leicester residents would welcome some real clarity on that point this evening.

For the Minister’s ease, I will read the relevant sentence on page 16 of the Government’s integrated rail plan:

“By redeveloping the Midlands Rail Hub business case it focuses on improving links to Hereford, Worcester, Coventry and regional links to South Wales and Bristol.”

As the Minister is aware, the midlands rail hub includes a Coventry-Leicester-Nottingham project within its broadest scope. Will she please confirm whether the Government share the view that the Coventry-Leicester-Nottingham scheme is part of the midlands rail hub?

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration at the delays that we constantly get from this Government? It has been almost a year since Midlands Connect developed the strategic outline business case for these improvements, but we have still not had any funding decisions. Does she agree that it is now time for the Government to bring this important scheme to its next stage so that our constituents start to feel the benefits sooner rather than later?

Claudia Webbe

I do indeed. My hon. Friend makes an excellent and important point.

Will we be able to access funding via the rail enhancements pipeline as a result of the opaque mention in the integrated rail plan? The view that we should is held not just by me, but by Conservative Members and by Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands, who is regularly lauded from the Government Dispatch Box, so I would be grateful if the Minister cleared up the issue of scope for us this evening. That would put a lot of minds in the region at rest.

A recent report by the sub-national transport body Midlands Connect set out plans to reinstate direct rail services between Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham for the first time in two decades, creating more than 2 million extra seats on the region’s rail network every year. The proposals would cut journey times by 30% between Coventry and Leicester and by 35% between Coventry and Nottingham.

Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for fast connectivity. My constituents in Coventry North West need fast, frequent and reliable public transport in order to commute, stay connected and access vital services. It is therefore scandalous that railway journeys between Coventry and Leicester often take longer today than they did before the first world war. Does she agree that is further proof that investment in the vital east-west route is long overdue? If levelling up the west midlands is to be anything more than a slogan, the Government really need to get on with fulfilling their promises.

Claudia Webbe

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, it is hard to think of two UK cities that are as close as Coventry and Leicester yet so atrociously connected by rail. It can take up to an hour to travel less than 25 miles, and passengers have to change trains halfway. It is simply not good enough.

No wonder 97% of trips on the route are made by road, compared with 30% of trips between Coventry and Birmingham, which enjoys a regular, fast and direct rail connection. Let me reiterate the point: only 3% of trips between two great midlands cities, Leicester and Coventry, are made by train. Surely, given all the Government’s words, pledges and legislation on carbon and climate change, this project is a no-brainer. It is good for the environment and it is good for passengers.

I believe that by reintroducing faster, direct connections, we can encourage more people to travel sustainably, strengthen working relationships and increase productivity. We must now move ahead to create detailed plans for delivery, but that is possible only with the support of the Government. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the next business case, the outline business case, will be funded, even in part, by the Department. Can she, this evening, give me that assurance? Let me stress that the outline business case would cost about £1 million. That, in the realm of rail projects, is a modest amount with which to explore the possibility of this regionally critical project. May I press the Minister to comment on the funding, as a real priority, in her response?

Subject to funding, with costs likely to be in the region of £90 million to £100 million, the first direct trains could run as soon as 2025, bringing benefits of over £170 million to the local economy. About half that £170 million will consist of wider economic benefits, which means that nearly £80 million-worth of jobs, growth and trade will be created as businesses in Leicester trade with firms in Coventry and people move and spend in those two great places. The other half of the £170 million will cover journey time improvements as people can finally travel between our cities more quickly and easily. Fixing our links will therefore have a massive overall economic benefit.

The project also has widespread public support. When more than 3,000 people in and around Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham were polled recently, 87% supported these improvements. Journey times along the route will be cut significantly, with trips from Coventry to Leicester falling from 54 minutes to 38, while those from Coventry to Nottingham will come down to 70 minutes from 108. Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway will also have direct and more frequent links to Coventry.

To reach its target of becoming carbon neutral by 2050, the UK must reduce emissions by 100% compared with 1990 levels, but transport emissions have fallen by just 5% over the last 30 years. What is being proposed would significantly increase the number of inter-city journeys made by rail, which produce 80% less carbon than travelling by car. The scheme could also benefit the freight industry by allowing freight trains to run from the south of England to the east midlands, thus taking lorries off the roads, with the many environmental benefits that that brings.

For too long, there has been a missing link between the east and west midlands, and this is our opportunity to re-forge it. The Government talk a great deal about “levelling up”. If they are truly genuine about addressing regional inequality, they will embrace this plan, which is supported by local people, supported by local councils, supported by our local Mayors, and supported by politicians of all parties. These rail plans will further open up Leicester and its jobs, leisure opportunities and universities to communities across the east and west midlands. At present, the midlands’ east-west rail connections are substandard, holding us back from a more productive and sustainable future. Turning these plans into reality is an essential step in boosting prosperity and public transport use across our region. On behalf of my constituents and residents across the midlands, I urge the Minister to embrace this crucial project.

February 9, 2022
Neil O’Brien – 2022 Statement on the Private Parking Code of Practice

The statement made by Neil O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Local Communities, in the House of Commons on 7 February 2022.

I am informing the House that the Government are today publishing the Private Parking Code of Practice. This is a key milestone which takes forward the implementation of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and supported by the Government.

The code sets out the requirements that parking operators must follow when enforcing parking restrictions in England, Scotland and Wales. These include a compulsory 10-minute grace period to prevent operators issuing charges for being just a few minutes late, higher standards for signage and surface markings, and a crackdown on the use of aggressive and pseudo-legal language.

These changes will bring much-needed consistency to the private parking sector, benefiting millions of motorists. It will boost our high streets and town centres by making it easier for people to park near their shops without being unfairly fined.

Operators will need to make some changes to adhere to the new code. The code will come into force following an implementation period to give the industry time to adapt.

Parking operators will be expected to fully adhere to the code before 2024, by which time we will have introduced a new single appeals service for motorists to challenge unfair private parking charges. The industry should update their processes and procedures as quickly as possible from today so that motorists can benefit from the new code immediately.

The code has been produced through extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including consumer and industry representatives, which took place through a steering group appointed by the British Standards Institution. We have published a fuller account of this process in our Private Parking Code of Practice explanatory document, which accompanies the code. This document also explains the provisions of the new code in an accessible manner and assesses the impact of the changes on motorists and the parking industry.

There were a number of issues relating to the code which the Government consulted on separately, in parallel with the BSI process. This included proposals to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with local authority penalty charge notices.

Alongside the code, the Government have now also published their response to this further technical consultation on private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and an appeals charter, which ran from July to August 2021.

After a careful consideration of respondents’ views, the Government have decided to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with the system in local councils. This means that parking charges will be more proportionate to the level of harm caused.

We are also prohibiting parking operators and debt recovery agencies from levying additional enforcement fees over and above the cost of parking charges.

We will review these arrangements as part of a more general review of the code within two years of it coming into force.

The code is part of a wider enforcement framework, which includes a new certification scheme for parking operators, the establishment of a scrutiny and oversight board to monitor the new system and the creation of a single independent appeals service.

As per our commitment in the Government’s response to our previous Code Enforcement Framework consultation in March 2021, I can now update the House that we have begun a product discovery to inform the design and delivery of the single appeals service. We will finalise the certification scheme for operators and establish the scrutiny and oversight board this spring. In autumn of this year, the conformity assessment bodies will have received their accreditation and will begin to certify parking operators against the code’s new requirements.

Spring 2022: certification scheme finalised, and scrutiny and oversight board appointed.

Autumn 2022: conformity assessment bodies (CABs) accredited by United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

From autumn 2022: all new car parks will conform to the new code.

End of 2023: Single appeals service appointed and transition period ends. Parking operators must now follow the requirements of the new code of practice.

We now welcome parliamentary scrutiny of the code of practice. I will return to update the House in future on the further implementation of the code, its wider framework and the single appeals service.

February 8, 2022