Gareth Bacon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I notice that the Minister did not answer my question, so I will assist him. The estimate is that Heathrow’s rates bill will increase fivefold to £600 million annually, putting substantial additional pressure on Heathrow’s finances. In the light of that, will the Minister confirm the long-standing policy that the full cost of a third runway, including related works such as relocating, tunnelling or bridging over the M25, will be fully funded by the private sector and not by the taxpayer?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Heathrow airport is already the largest single-site payer of business rates in the country, paying approximately £124 million annually. To fund the Chancellor’s next spending spree, the Valuation Office Agency is currently revaluating airports in England and Wales, and any significant increase could impact Heathrow’s ability to fund airport expansion and a third runway. Is the Secretary of State aware of the latest estimate of how much Heathrow’s business rates will increase by?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  In recent days we have heard that the Chancellor is about to announce her support for airport expansion at Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of airport expansion because we recognise the huge economic benefits that would bring. For Luton and Gatwick, as the Minister has said, planning processes are well under way, but the situation at Heathrow is rather different. A completed third runway at Heathrow would undoubtedly bring economic benefits, which we would support, but delivering that will not be straightforward because there are major logistical barriers to its construction. Those include, but are not limited to: hundreds of thousands of additional people being brought on to Heathrow’s flightpath; the potential for significant disruption to the M25 and M4, which could harm the economy for years to come; the fact that a large incinerator is in the way and would have to be demolished; and the need to address local concerns about noise and air pollution. The uncertainties do not end there, because to date Heathrow has not applied for a development consent order, and neither has it confirmed that it intends to do so. That all leaves the Minister with many questions to answer. What assessment has he made of the impact of building a third runway on the M25 and M4, which are two of the busiest motorways in Europe? How certain is he that any proposed plan will have the support of affected communities? What is the estimated cost, and who will pay not just for the runway construction, but for the massive additional work that will need to be done, including, among other things, rerouting motorways, demolishing the incinerator and rebuilding it elsewhere? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he provide that there will be an application for a development consent order? I sincerely hope that the Minister can answer those questions, because if he cannot it will be clear that this is not a serious policy, but rather a panicked and rushed attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distract attention from the state of the economy, which is currently withering under this floundering Labour Government.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I thank the Minister for his opening statement. The regulation of slot allocation is an important part of maintaining the efficient operation of the UK’s busiest airports, which are often constrained by capacity. The core objective of airport slot co-ordination is to optimise the use of available transport infrastructure, benefiting consumers and industry alike. Airport slots are allocated by independent co-ordinators to airlines for their planned operations, particularly at airports such as London Heathrow, London Gatwick and others, as the Minister outlined, where demand consistently exceeds available capacity. Historically, the system has adhered to the principles of historical rights and the “use it or lose it” rule. Those principles prioritise airlines based on past usage, requiring them to operate at least 80% of their allocated slots in order to retain them for future use. However, as the Minister said, recent events, particularly the covid-19 pandemic, have exposed vulnerabilities in that framework, which this statutory instrument seeks to address. The Opposition do not intend to oppose the SI or divide the Committee on it—quite the opposite. We support it, because it implements measures proposed by the previous Government’s consultation on airports slot allocation. As the Minister said, this SI proposes two key changes to the existing rules. Its first provision revises the definition of a new entrant in the context of airports slot allocation. As we heard, the amendment increases the threshold for airlines to qualify as new entrants from those holding fewer than five slots a day to those holding fewer than seven. This change is a significant shift in policy, with the potential to broaden access to congested airports for smaller carriers, thereby encouraging greater competition. The change is intended to make it easier for smaller airlines to obtain slots at busy airports, because the threshold for being considered new has been raised. We hope that it will encourage greater competition by giving smaller airlines a chance to access slots at crowded airports. The second provision introduces more extensive alleviation measures. These measures, previously temporary, will be made permanent and apply in cases in which airlines cannot meet their slot usage targets because of Government-imposed restrictions. The alleviation provisions state that those restrictions must significantly affect the viability of air travel—for instance, through flight bans, border closures, health crises or severe restrictions on airport operations. The goal of the changes is to make the aviation sector more resilient to unexpected events, such as another pandemic or health crisis. However, the introduction of permanent alleviation raises questions, particularly about the long-term impact. With the broad discretion given to co-ordinators in determining eligibility, there is a real need for clarity and oversight. I note that in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill did not outline how the Government will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the alleviation measures, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to reassure the Committee as to how the Government intend to ensure that the alleviation measures are applied judiciously, fairly and consistently.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I note the Secretary of State’s answer, but, in the real world, we know that the Government’s union paymasters will keep pushing for more. Labour’s plans to scrap the minimum service levels will give the unions more power to hold the railways hostage. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Christmas chaos will not be a one-off, and will in fact be the start of an ongoing decline in reliability?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was appalled to discover this morning that I have known the Secretary of State for the thick end of two decades. We have had various exchanges in various other fora, but this is our first exchange across the Dispatch Box in this House. I therefore warmly congratulate her on her appointment and welcome her to her place. The Government promised to deliver more reliable rail services, but over Christmas, what did we see? Chaos, cancellation and delays. The train drivers, having accepted the Government’s no-strings pay deal, chose to turn down overtime shifts, leaving passengers stranded and left in the cold. The Government’s no-strings agreement was supposed to bring stability to the railways, but it did the exact opposite, causing major disruption. Will the Secretary of State admit that the pay deal that they thought would improve reliability in fact only made services worse?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Government were prepared to do what works, rather than follow ideology in spite of evidence to the contrary. I have been the shadow Transport Secretary for 31 days and I am already on my second Secretary of State. I have known the new Secretary of State for almost two decades, since our time as councillors representing our respective London boroughs on the London Councils transport and environment committee. She is not in her place today—Secretaries of State cannot be everywhere; that is why they have junior Ministers. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will ably deputise for her this afternoon. I crossed paths with the new Secretary of State when I was Conservative leader on the London Assembly and she was appointed the deputy Mayor for Transport. Unfortunately, during her time at City Hall, London witnessed 28 strikes on Transport for London services, a 77% increase in complaints about TfL over three years, an extension of the hated ultra low emission zone, and, perhaps most concerning of all, a £4 billion overspend and three-year delay in the opening of the Elizabeth line. In defence of the right hon. Lady, though, the buck for all those failings does not stop with her—it stops with the Mayor of London. The right hon. Lady is, in fact, somebody for whom I have a high personal regard, and I look forward to welcoming her to her place. It is fair to say that the Conservatives have doubts about the start made by this Government. However, having said all that, I emphasise that His Majesty’s Opposition will not oppose the Government just for the sake of it. I do not believe that a single Member of this House wants a public transport system that fails. As I said at the outset, public transport is an indispensable part of our national life, and a successful transport system is vital to both our present and our future. If the Government get things right, we will acknowledge that. Where they get them wrong, we will continue to hold them to account.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on successfully applying for the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Public transport is an indispensable part of our national life, playing a vital role in our commercial, social and economic existence. We have had an interesting debate this afternoon, with noteworthy contributions from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton, for Horsham (John Milne), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) as well as just now from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) from the Liberal Democrats. From the Government Benches, the first speech was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). It was a thoughtful speech about bus use. I am sure that she will serve her constituents diligently in her time in this place, and I wish her well. She was followed by some capable contributions from the hon. Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington). I will begin by commenting on the previous Conservative Government’s time in office. It may have escaped the attention of hon. Members that between 2010 and 2024, the Conservative Government spent more than £100 billion operating and enhancing our railways. This allowed the completion of major projects including Crossrail, Thameslink and major upgrades to the east coast main line, the greater Anglia main line, the midland main line and the great western main line. We committed £36 billion to the Network North programme, which, unless the Labour Government stop it, will deliver long-term transformative transport projects that will benefit a great many people in the north of England. The programme is under review by the Government, with no guarantee that any of it will be taken forward. Obviously, we call on the Government to honour the programme in full. We electrified over 1,200 miles of track, compared with the mere 63 miles electrified in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. Some 75% of rail journeys are now taken on electrified tracks. We sought schemes that would reconnect communities to our railways, providing new stations for passengers to use, such as the proposed new station at Edginswell in Torbay, which would complement the delivery of a new station at Marsh Barton near Exeter, and would particularly serve the needs of Torbay hospital. I know that Torbay council is a keen advocate for that, and I hope that the Labour Government will offer the same commitment to it that we did. To support our bus networks, we invested an unprecedented amount of over £3.5 billion in the bus sector from March 2020 to support its recovery from the pandemic. We provided £525 million of funding to deliver 4,000 new British-built electric or hydrogen buses, and we extended the “get around for £2” scheme until the end of 2024, capping hundreds of single bus fares and helping passengers reliant on buses with the cost of travel—a scheme that we pledged to maintain for the entirety of this Parliament. I also remind the House of some facts that were curiously missing from the speeches of some hon. Members, particularly those sitting on the Government Benches. Let us turn our gaze to Wales, where Labour has been in power for a quarter of a century. The number of journeys taken on local buses has declined by almost a quarter in the past decade, with a severe impact on those in the most rural areas. The Welsh Labour Administration have spent £40 million on rolling out 20 mph speed limits to try to force motorists on to public transport that the Labour Administration themselves have made less reliable, less regular and less affordable. Let us look at London, which has been blighted by the leadership of Sadiq Khan for the past eight and a half years. London’s mayor recently spent £6.3 million of public money on yet more virtue signalling, renaming London overground lines—something that I am sure commuters thanked him for last week when the Elizabeth line was suspended and five underground lines faced severe delays. From a man who promised to roll up his sleeves and ensure no more transport strikes, we have seen more than 130 days of strikes during his term of office. We know what the Labour party promised the voters of this country. In its manifesto, it pledged new infrastructure, an overhaul of Britain’s railways and certainty for car manufacturers. It promised a utopian system of public transport. But the methods by which the Government have set out to achieve that have been depressingly predictable. One of the Labour Government’s first acts was to provide train drivers with inflation-busting pay rises, without securing any productivity improvements for passengers at all. That bribe to the unions has, entirely predictably, failed to prevent repeated threats of further strike action. Then, as part of the Welsh Government’s ongoing war against rural communities, they cut £1.3 billion-worth of road improvement schemes. The Government then increased the previous Conservative Government’s £2 bus fare cap to £3, increasing fares on hundreds of bus routes across the country. [ Interruption. ] Totally predictably, I get heckled about it not being paid for. As hon. Members will be aware once they have been in this place for a little longer, Government schemes are funded for particular periods of time, and then the funding is reviewed. The new £3 bus far cap, costing bus users 50% more than the previous cap, is guaranteed only until the end of next year, whereas the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment was to retain the cap at £2 for the whole of the Parliament. Finally, and perhaps most notably, the Government have introduced and passed the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. Instead of implementing the measured and sensible reforms set out in the Williams-Shapps review, the Government have passed an Act that will neither improve passenger experience nor make significant savings. Indeed, it may prove to cost the taxpayer significantly more. The Government insist that savings to the taxpayer will amount to £150 million because of the removal of fees paid to train operating companies. Even if that is correct, it will amount to a saving of a mere 0.6% of what is currently spent on the railways, and even that tiny figure is in doubt. Analysis conducted by rail partners suggested that removing the incentive to control costs could lead to annual subsidies being at least £1 billion higher by the end of this Parliament. From whatever angle one looks at it, it is hard to see this Act as anything other than an ideological move—one that has more to do with attempting to appease the radical elements of the Labour party, hungry for old-fashioned, hard-left policies, than the good of the passenger and the taxpayer.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the whole country. It also has the highest level of bus use. In the last financial year, the level of bus subsidy in London amounted to £646 million. In the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday, of the £1 billion of funding that she indicated, £700 million will be spent on producing bus planning documents, and only £243 million is going to bus services. That will not touch the sides, will it? Is the truth not that, far from it being generational reform, it is publicly funded window dressing?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Bus Franchising · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, I too offer my sincere sympathies to the family of the late Lord Prescott on his passing. On Monday, in her statement on bus funding, the Secretary of State said that a formula was being used to allocate funding. She said that the formula will allocate funding “based on local need, population, the distance that buses travel, and levels of deprivation…This formula and the funding allocated is a fair arrangement, ensuring that every area of the country gets the service levels it needs”. —[ Official Report , 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 43-45.] The formula, including the weighting given to the various factors by the right hon. Lady, has not been published. When will it be?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Bus Franchising · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State also said in her statement: “Councils such as Leicester, the Isle of Wight, Torbay and Cambridgeshire will see unprecedented levels of funding for services.” —[ Official Report , 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 42.] What levels of subsidy does she believe that bus services in those areas will require?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am just winding up. Such a failure will only further the approach—already taken by this Government—of prioritising political convenience over substantive action. We urge the Government to support these amendments and, in doing so, mitigate the negative impacts of their legislation and work to protect and support passengers.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the other place for providing these amendments. Although the measures in this Bill are not a surprise—and we have stated our opposition to its fundamentals from the outset—we have made the case that, in effectively nationalising the operation of our passenger railways, we risk going backwards. Its core provisions will mean that the progress made on passenger services since privatisation will not be carried on. That said, we do agree that there is a need for reform, and we support the reform laid out in the Williams-Shapps review. But the reforms proposed by this Government go too far and will undermine any potential progress. That is why the Lords amendments we are discussing are of central importance. Neither of the two amendments passed in the upper House descend from the Government’s intention to bring the franchises into public ownership, and they are clearly reasonable and measured. As the noble Lord Moylan pointed out, a “glaring omission from the Bill is, of course, the passenger.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1510.] This is the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, yet it says nothing about the passenger. Lords amendment 1 attempts to put that right and put the passenger back at the head of the Bill as the driving force in what the Government are trying to do, and to require Ministers to test their actions under the Bill against the standard of whether it will improve matters for the passenger. It clarifies that the Secretary of State “must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose”, which is the “improvement of passenger railway services”. It is a simple but deeply important amendment that will ensure that the Bill, which is little more than an ideological undertaking if it lacks the proposed amendments, would be required to act unambiguously in the service of passenger railway improvement. How could anyone oppose that? There is little public appetite for ideological measures that are not based on the improvement of the passenger experience, and to reject this amendment would be a tacit admission that the Government are rejecting the principle that legislation directed at the passenger services should be in line with service improvements. In doing so, they would reject the general public consensus. I urge the Government to support the amendment on those grounds. If they choose to reject it, it is incumbent on them to explain why they have decided to make a significant legislative change to our passengers’ railways that could risk worsening services. Lords amendment 2 contains a simple measure: to ensure that the Government, when terminating existing franchise agreements, consider operational performance and terminate the worst-performing franchises first, enabling franchises that are currently working well to continue. That would clearly be in the best interests of passengers.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making we are asking for. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making, and the proposed amendment would ensure that this legislation is in the service of improving passenger experience, not purely in the service of fulfilling an ideological undertaking. Lords amendment 2 would also ensure that the Government, alongside stakeholders, consider carefully what performance data is most relevant to passenger experience, and would ensure that that data is taken into consideration when undertaking the actions facilitated by the legislation. I fail to understand why the Government would be opposed to such a clearly reasonable protective measure, but I can guess. In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government have made clear their intention to utilise selective performance data. Rather than clarifying the relevant performance information for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, they are obscuring it, allowing the Government to fulfil an ideological project untethered from the public’s wish to see their experiences on the railways improved. Of course, the Government could choose to put politics aside and support the amendment, and we call on them to do so. If they did, that would signal that while they are undertaking this ideological rail project, they are also seriously considering the need for the legislation to make an actual improvement to passenger experience. This amendment will help the Government’s actions, and it is not founded on selective principles. A failure to accept the proposed amendments will also fail to ensure that the ideological measures being undertaken by this Government take into account the needs and experiences of passengers.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Bus Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for delivering her statement to the House, and for advance sight of it. It was, of course, the last Government who provided £4.5 billion of funding to the bus sector since 2020 alone. Some £2 billion of that was allocated to support every single local transport authority in England to deliver their local bus service improvement plans, helping to support buses following the pandemic and ensuring more frequent, more reliable and cheaper bus transport across the country. Conservative Members are familiar with the need to properly fund bus services, but simply spending a bit more money will not necessarily improve outcomes. As such, we would welcome details on whether and how the Secretary of State can assure the House and the taxpayer that the money allocated today will actually go towards the improvement of bus services in the long term. How will she ensure that the money allocated today, and the bus service improvement plans that go with this investment, will remain aligned with any possible future franchising? If the Secretary of State cannot give assurances on these points, there is a danger that the Government are taking short-term action that avoids facing complex long-term problems. Unfortunately, in the four months that this Government have been in office, that has been their approach to every single major issue they have faced so far. Whether it is the winter fuel allowance, the family farm tax or the increase to the bus fare cap, the Government seem at a loss as to why their policies are so unpopular, and why—only a few months into this Government—they are so deeply distrusted by the British public. Governing is tough, and it requires taking real responsibility and considering the consequences of decisions before they are taken. For example, the decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 will cost users more— [ Interruption. ] Wait for it. It will cost users more and—perversely—put at risk passenger services on certain routes, because it could counter-productively drive bus ridership down. Between 2022 and 2023, the £2 bus cap cut fares outside London by 7.4%, and the rate was 10.8% in rural and non-metropolitan areas in England. That is an example of a policy that worked, which is why the Government’s decision to increase the cap by 50% is such a disappointment. The right hon. Lady, in defending her decision to hike bus fares, has been making the argument—she has done so again this afternoon—that the fare cap was to run only until end of the year. But as she knows full well—her Back Benchers can be excused for not knowing this—it is standard Government practice to set funding arrangements until a given date. She has guaranteed the £3 cap only until the end of 2025 and has made no commitment to extend it beyond that. She is also well aware that it was a Conservative party manifesto commitment to extend the cap and maintain it at £2 for the lifetime of this Parliament. Not extending the £2 cap was not inevitable; it was a decision that the Government chose to make. Why do the right hon. Lady’s Government claim that they cannot afford to retain the £2 bus fare cap, which is making a real difference to the lives of passengers and the viability of public services across the country, and yet she can give hundreds of millions of pounds in additional funding here without any guarantee of success in improving service or delivery? While I await the right hon. Lady’s answer, I have a theory. She is set on an undertaking—the ideological drive for bus franchising—and, make no mistake, it is ideological. Bus franchising does work in some places, but by no means will it work everywhere. The Government claim that they will not impose franchises everywhere, but there is a danger that her push for bus franchising will force local authorities into feeling that they are expected to undertake this ideological venture—one that they say they may well be unprepared and unequipped for—which would lead to a worse outcome for passengers. I call on the Secretary of State to make clear her answers to those questions and assure the House and the taxpayer that all the money allocated will be held to account in delivering real and lasting service improvement for passengers, whose interests should, of course, be at the centre of all decisions made by the Government.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rail Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for sharing an advance copy. I agree that rail performance is a key concern to passengers throughout the country, and it is a fair criticism to say that several operators have consistently underperformed. That is why, when we were in government, we took action to improve performance on our railways, investing more than £100 billion to operate and enhance our railways since 2010, and electrifying more than 1,200 miles of track—compared to just 63 miles under the last Labour Government. I am glad that the Government are taking forward the framework offered in the previous Conservative Government’s Williams-Shapps review. Having a more joined-up rail network should indeed deliver key improvements. However, it is disappointing that the Government have progressed with their plans for the effective nationalisation of the rail operators by ending private rail operator franchising, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that that will be contrary to the aim of improving rail performance. We know that while in some cases it has been necessary in the short term to bring rail operators into public control, it has not made the difference in performance that the Government would have us believe. It takes only a cursory glance at passenger rail performance statistics to see that some of the rail operators operating under public control have done little or nothing to improve cancellations or delays in relation to other operators. For example, the Secretary of State mentioned TransPennine Express and a decrease in cancellations since the operator was taken into public ownership, but she made no reference to delays. Data from the Office for Rail and Road show that in the four years prior to the train operator coming under public control, passengers faced an average of 8,130 delay minutes per month. From period 2 of 2023-24, when the operator was brought into public ownership, up to period 4 of 2024-25, average monthly delays have increased by 1,677 minutes, to 9,807 a month. In addition, for the year ’23-24, data shows that train operators run by private companies in England had an average on time rate of 64.36%. For train operators in public control, by contrast, the average was 57.7%—a difference of just under seven percentage points. Public ownership is not the panacea that the right hon. Lady claims, so it is disingenuous for the Government to argue that wholesale public control of rail operation will do everything to improve performance, particularly for operators that are already performing well. Under the Government’s plans to end private rail operator franchising, the first contracts set to expire and be picked up by the Government are some of the highest performing franchises. The Government risk making the mistake of taking credit for comparatively strong performance, which will occur not as a result of their measures but as a result of the successes of the previous private franchising. That would mean the Government drawing the wrong conclusions from their actions, and it would have implications for future decision making. It should be appreciated that the role of open access operators has been one of the greatest success stories within our rail network. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to provide greater clarity to the sector on how their plans for the rail network will impact on open access operators. It is also essential that the Secretary of State finally clarifies the long-term plan for rolling stock under the Government’s measures. I appreciate that in Labour’s brave new world, all decisions are reflected through the ideological prism of “public good, private bad”, but there is a fundamental risk that the Government are taking ideological action to the long-term detriment of rail performance. Among our counterparts in Europe, it is widely acknowledged that rail privatisation has been successful in increasing passenger numbers, encouraging investment and controlling costs. In Italy, for example, prices have reduced by 31%, and Austria has witnessed a 41% increase in service frequency. There is a serious risk that the Government’s plans will take us backwards on those key areas without offering any promise of improvement on performance, or improved journeys or fares for passengers. We all fully acknowledge the difficulties facing our railways, and nobody should accept poor performance —we have, unfortunately, seen that in some areas of our network—but merely enacting demonstrative but counterintuitive measures designed to communicate action is no substitute for making measured and pragmatic choices. For example, the Government and the Secretary of State have chosen to offer inflation-busting pay rises with no working practice reform in exchange. Without substantial working practice reform, it is deeply unlikely that the cost of the pay deals will be offset by improved performance, and the failure to introduce working practice reform will mean continued performance difficulties on our railways. Can the Secretary of State offer a guarantee today that ending private rail franchising without implementing working practice reform will lead to demonstrably improved performance? If she cannot offer that guarantee, the Government should shelve the ideology and take a step back to pause and examine whether their package of measures will truly improve rail performance. It surely makes more sense to learn from the performance statistics; to understand from the experience of the continent and our past the improvements that the private sector can bring; and to prioritise the practical over the ideological.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Draft Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for his warm words of welcome at the outset. We recognise that the expansion of bus franchising was a Labour party manifesto commitment, and we are not going to oppose that mandate. In fact, in principle, we support the idea of local areas having more say over the services they can offer local people. But there are some question marks over these plans—questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised back in September in relation to the Minister’s statement to the House, and which, I am afraid, we are not yet fully satisfied we have heard answered. Will the Minister therefore answer them today? First, how much has been budgeted for the increased cost of this plan to the Department for Transport, to support local authorities to prepare these assessments and then to measure them against the criteria, and also to help local authorities plan their franchises when they do not have the experience to do so, which I believe the Minister has said is part of the plan? Secondly, how much has been budgeted for the increase in costs to local authorities, both in terms of the additional resources they will require to plan and run bus services, and in a business sense? In many rural areas, and even in Greater London, bus services lose money and often require subsidies. Where will that money come from? And, while we are at it, where will the money to buy the buses come from? The Minister suggested that the coming buses Bill would contain regulations about devolving funding—I would like to hear a bit more about that. If the answer is that we have not budgeted for it, or that it is coming from existing budgets, that can only mean council taxes going up, or cuts to local services such as social care or universal services such as waste collection. There would appear to be no third option. At the end of the day, passengers do not care who is running their bus; they care about the price, performance and reliability of services. We are yet to hear a convincing case for how these reforms will actually make a difference to passengers’ journeys. Are buses more likely to run on time and, if so, by how much more? Will these reforms help to restore the number of rural services? Will they make journeys cheaper for passengers? That seems unlikely, given the 50% hike in fares. I do not doubt that bus franchising can, does and will work for some areas, but the insinuation of today’s statutory instrument is that it should be happening everywhere. We have yet to hear anything that convinces us that that will be the case, and that is not to mention the fact that the proposal currently appears to be unfunded. I would be grateful if the Minister could assuage our concerns this afternoon.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Flight Cancellations · Hansard source

  More

  Flight cancellations are a significant issue that we took seriously in government, and worked across the sector to tackle. I am proud that in government we published the aviation passenger charter, which included clearer advice on how passengers can resolve issues to do with cancelled and delayed flights, as well as missing baggage and the rights of disabled passengers. In 2023, we halved air passenger duty for domestic flights. We also made a commitment to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority. Does the Minister intend to take that forward? When in government, we also published “Flight path to the future”, which included a substantial framework for increasing the efficiency of the aviation system and supporting passengers as we move further towards the goal of sustainable aviation. What further steps will the Minister take to ensure that the measures that we set out to improve the aviation sector and the passenger experience are taken forward? Frankly, this Government have failed the public so far. Last week’s Budget was, in large part, an attack on workers, businesses, farmers and the aviation sector. The Government’s decision to increase air passenger duty has led to a worried response from the passenger aviation sector, and Ryanair has already announced its intention of cutting flights to and from UK airports by 10%. The Government have so far shown themselves to be deeply uninterested in the consequences of their actions for workers, farmers and now air passengers. More in hope than expectation, I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to improve the relationship with the passenger aviation sector and ensure that passengers are well served?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), who made a heartfelt and moving maiden speech. She will clearly be a doughty champion for her constituents in the years to come, and I wish her well in this House. It has been barely five days since the Chancellor laid her first Budget before the House, and it was worse than anyone could have imagined. Far from protecting working people, it has punished workers, businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—the very people who help us to prosper as a country. It has spooked the markets. The cost of borrowing has gone up significantly, and debt interest will be higher as a result. So much for restoring stability. The Institute of Directors described it as a “painful Budget for business”, and the OBR has downgraded its growth projections for the next five years, and says that inflation will creep up again, which in turn means that interest rates will stay higher for longer, as will people’s mortgages. The IFS has warned that Labour’s national insurance hike will hit low-paid jobs the hardest, and will force firms to cut salaries, cut hiring and raise prices. So much for protecting working people. Astoundingly, for a Government who claim that they are all about economic growth, while private companies have seen their taxes hiked overnight, the public sector will be protected and given much more funding. Public services are important—no one would claim otherwise—but the wealth of this nation is built not by the Government but by private enterprise and entrepreneurs. It is the innovation, ingenuity and enterprise of the private sector that creates opportunity, growth and prosperity. The Government should recognise and reward it, not stifle and punish it. This was a Budget of broken promises. During the election, the Labour party promised voters 50 times that it would not raise taxes on working people. The Prime Minister promised it. The Chancellor promised it. The entire Front Bench promised it. Indeed, it was there for all to see, in black and white in their manifesto, but despite all their promises, they have raised taxes by £40 billion to an all-time high. That has been done on the backs of working people, on the backs of those who own a business, on the backs of those who take risks, invest in the UK and create jobs, on the backs of those who have worked hard and saved to own property or shares, on the backs of those who work in agriculture, and on the backs of those who send their children to independent schools. The Labour party does not think that those people are working people, but they are, and they will not forget it. None of this should come as a surprise, of course. We know, given the farcical verbal knots that they have tied themselves in over the past few weeks, that Labour Front Benchers cannot even define what a working person is. The British people have been betrayed, and everyone can see what the Labour Government have done. It is very clear that they had planned all along to jack up our taxes but would not come clean. They made all sorts of promises during the election—they were going to steady the ship and achieve the highest sustained growth in the G7—and said that all their policies were “fully costed” and “fully funded.” However, as soon as they got into power, they invented the so-called black hole, which no one believes exists, and which even the OBR has refused to legitimise. They have wasted no time in fiddling the rules so that they can borrow billions more for their lavish spending, subjecting the British people to misery through record tax rises. The British people will not forget what is being done to them. Those high-tax, high-spend policies will not protect working people. The prioritisation of trade union donors over small businesses and pensioners will not protect working people. The deliberate punishment of risk takers and job creators will not protect working people. But at this stage, it is not too late. It is not too late to apologise to the British public and rescue them from this disaster. It is not too late to listen to people who have experience of the real world —those who have set up their own businesses, taken risks and employed people, and created wealth and growth. It is not too late to change course, so the Government should show some humility and do so.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Sectoral Collective Bargaining · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s impact assessment for the adult social care sector confirmed that collective bargaining will be very costly for business. If pay awards match those of junior doctors, the cost of the increased wage bill will be £5.8 billion, driving up business rates, reducing employment or hours, and imposing further costs on business. Can the Minister confirm when further collective bargaining will be rolled out, to which sectors, and by how much those businesses can expect to be clobbered?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has consistently called for the power to impose rent controls across Greater London. He cannot do that unless the Government change the law. Whenever it has been tried around the world it has failed, typically with rental property supply falling and rents perversely rising. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity now to rule out the possibility of imposing rent controls in Greater London?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Paternity Leave and Pay · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on securing the debate. I also thank the numerous Members who contributed to the debate. I would run through them all—I have written them down—but there are 17 and I am conscious of time, so I will move forward. I welcome the fact that so many Members have come here to talk about this important subject. Opposition Members want to ensure that employees do not have to choose between a rewarding career and a fulfilling life. Due to reforms that were introduced by the previous Government, Britain now has a vastly improved paternity leave package. In July 2019, the previous Government consulted on whether the existing arrangements for parental leave and pay were adequate, and whether more could be done to better balance the gender division of parental leave and pay between parents. The consultation sought views on the costs and benefits of reforming parental entitlements and any trade-offs that might need to accompany such reform. The Government response, published in June 2023, set out detailed reforms to paternity leave and pay, fulfilling a previous manifesto commitment to make it easier for fathers and partners to take paternity leave. The reforms included: giving employed fathers and partners more choice and flexibility around how and when they take their paternity leave, as we have just heard, allowing them to take two separate blocks of one week of leave; giving employed fathers and partners the ability to take their leave at any time in the first year after the child’s due date or birth, rather than just in the first eight weeks after birth or placement for adoption; and changing the requirements for paternity leave to make them more proportionate to the amount of time the father or parent plans to take off work, cutting the amount of notice of dates from 15 weeks before the expected week of childbirth to 28 days before the leave will be taken. Moreover, the previous Government supported the passage of what was then called the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill—a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was at that time the hon. Member for Ogmore—to remove the qualifying employment condition for shared parental leave when the birth mother or adopting parent had died. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend for steering the Bill through Parliament. It provided an important extension of support and protection for parents facing one of the most challenging situations in their lives. I am conscious of time, so I shall wind up. His Majesty’s Opposition have taken note of the measures proposed in the Employment Rights Bill concerning paternity leave and pay. The Conservative party has always been the party of business, but we have also been pro-worker; getting the balance right is vital. We will therefore closely review the Bill’s provisions as it progresses through the House and will assess them on their individual merits.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Whistleblowing Protections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on securing this debate. I thank the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Congleton (Mrs Russell) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for their contributions this afternoon. I welcome the fact that so many Members recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without recrimination. Whistleblowers do absolutely crucial work to expose wrongdoing and ensure accountability. Forty-three per cent of economic crimes are highlighted by whistleblowers, and workers are often the first people to witness any type of wrongdoing within an organisation. Information that workers may uncover could prevent wrongdoing that may damage an organisation’s reputation or performance, and in extreme circumstances, even save people from harm or death. For authorities tackling corruption, fraud and other forms of crime, whistleblowing is a crucial source of evidence, as those activities and their perpetrators can often be exposed only by insiders. That was keenly felt during the height of the covid-19 pandemic when the Care Quality Commission and the Health and Safety Executive recorded sharp increases in the number of whistleblowing disclosures that they received; and during the Horizon scandal, when a whistleblower was featured in a BBC “Panaroma” documentary in 2015, as has been mentioned, which helped to expose the truth, contributing to the successful postmasters’ legal case in 2019. The UK’s whistleblowing framework was introduced through the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It was intended to build openness and trust in workplaces by ensuring that workers can hold their employers to account and then be treated fairly. It provides a route for workers to make disclosures of wrongdoing, including criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation. The previous Government recognised that there was weakness in that framework and made numerous attempts to improve it. In 2013, the Government published a wide-ranging call for evidence on the effectiveness of the framework, and in 2014, set out a plan of legislative and non-legislative means to improve it. That plan included extending protections to student nurses and midwives, regularly updating the list of prescribed persons and introduced a requirement of prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures that they receive. Moreover, under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the previous Government launched a review in March 2023 of the whistleblowing framework. That review examined the effectiveness of the framework in meeting its intended objectives, which are to enable workers to come forward and speak up about wrongdoing and to protect those who do so against detriment and dismissal. The initial fact-finding element of that work was completed by Grant Thornton in January this year, as I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned in his opening speech. The Government response and the recommendations were awaited, and that work was yet to be completed before the election was called. We on the Opposition Benches welcome the Government’s decision to strengthen protections for whistleblowers, including by updating protection for women who report sexual harassment at work. We will support the related measures in the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill. As Protect set out, this will “send a clear signal that anyone who has been sexually harassed, or witnessed it, can raise their concerns through whistleblowing channels and will be protected from being victimised or dismissed if they do so.” The Government have not yet published a response to the review of the whistleblowing framework. The review would provide an up-to-date evidence base on whistleblowing, allowing the House to effectively scrutinise the Government’s proposals. Will the Minister commit to publishing that review and, if so, when?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are approaching the end of a long and robust debate, with a total of 71 speeches so far and no fewer than seven maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) spoke powerfully and very impressively. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) spoke memorably of overcoming considerable adversity and of her considerable achievements, culminating in her arrival in this House. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) gave a moving tribute to her late parents. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) laid down an ambitious claim to have the highest number of castles in his constituency and talked of his grandfather serving on flying boats in world war two, which is something that he and I share. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) spoke of his and his family’s great pride in his taking his seat here in Parliament. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke fluently about the history of her constituency, in a deeply impressive speech. On the Opposition side, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) talked about the entrepreneurial spirit of Leicestershire and about her fears that it could be eroded by the Bill. She also, I suspect, achieved a first for Parliament by managing to shoehorn a reference to Showaddywaddy into Hansard . My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke movingly of her grandparents’ escape from Nazi Germany and amusingly of the Labour party’s contribution to introducing her parents, ultimately leading to the creation of a future Conservative MP. I commend all hon. Members who made their first mark in this House in a debate on so important a subject. I am sure that they will serve their constituents diligently in the coming years; I wish them all well. There is much that the Opposition believe is wrong with the Bill, but I have limited time, so I will focus primarily on one element—the role of the trade unions, because their influence runs right through it. If, as expected, the House declines to support the amendment in the name of the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and grants the Bill a Second Reading, there will be time to explore the Bill’s many other problems in Committee. A running theme throughout the debate was hon. Members’ enthusiastic declarations of membership of trade unions, but for some reason they forgot to mention how much they have received in financial donations from them. I remind them and the House that, according to the LabourList website, the Government MPs who have spoken today have accumulated a total of £371,974 in donations from the trade unions. Those donations are no surprise. The public are quickly becoming acclimatised to the idea that this Labour party is in the pocket of the highest bidder, whether that be Taylor Swift, Lord Alli or indeed the trade unions. I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the number of hon. Members on the Government Benches who have spoken in today’s debate. When I attended the Bill briefing kindly organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), just a handful of Labour Members were in attendance, but today they have turned up in great numbers to sing the Bill’s praises. It is to their credit that they are here. Perhaps they have read or watched news of the harm that this Bill will bring and are quietly apprehensive, but have put their heads above the parapet regardless. However, when push comes to shove, they remember that they will be up for re-election in four or five years’ time, and they have to think about their trade union donors. Very early in this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) said that the Bill is about not growth, but ideology. He is right. This is a trade union charter that will send Britain back to the 1970s. Of course, we know that that is a goal of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has said that she wants to repeal union legislation dating back as far as the 1980s. I appreciate that neither the Secretary of State for Business and Trade nor the Deputy Prime Minister was born until the 1980s, so they will not remember the time when Britain was brought to a grinding halt by the trade unions. The lights were switched off, bodies were left unburied and rubbish piled up all over the place. It is at this point that I remind Members that their constituents will see how they vote today. I understand that the inboxes of Labour Members are already full, following the freebie scandal, the cash-for-access scandal, the political choice to take away the winter fuel payment and the concerns about tax rises in the Budget. They have my sympathy, but I warn them that their inboxes are about to get even busier. When the junior doctors strike, meaning that their constituents cannot access important medical treatment, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. When local councils strike, meaning that their constituents cannot get their bins collected, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. When the train drivers strike, meaning that their constituents cannot see their loved ones, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. And when small businesses fail because they cannot cope with the massive extra bureaucracy and costs, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. As the letters pile high from constituents who are unable to access the services they expect, Labour Members might want to hire more staff, or ask their current staff to work late, but they will be prevented from doing so by the very regulations brought in by this legislation, which they support. Labour’s misunderstanding of labour relations goes right to the top. When the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that a deal had been reached with the British Medical Association, he said that he was making a real difference. However, we now know that the deal has failed and the BMA is already beginning preparations for further strike action just weeks after accepting the pay deal. I represent a Greater London constituency and I, of course, remember the Mayor of London’s promise that there would be no Transport for London strikes under his regime, but that is not going very well either. We now learn, thanks to the latest copy of Civil Service World , that there are set to be strikes in the Secretary of State’s own Department. All of that was before this Bill was introduced. It is clear that, despite being in the pocket of its trade union paymasters, Labour’s approach to industrial relations has failed and will continue to fail. Much of the reason for that future failure will be the rushed job that is this Bill. It has been rushed to the House so quickly that it contains fewer than half of the measures included in the plan to make work pay—a fact recognised by the Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document. A vast amount of it will require secondary legislation to take effect. The Prime Minister has talked incessantly of the Government’s mission to pursue growth, which is an entirely laudable aim, but growth does not just happen. Sometimes, the Government have to do things to facilitate it, and sometimes the Government must not do things that would jeopardise it. The measures in this rushed Bill threaten to destroy any prospect of economic growth. I am sure the Secretary of State will deny it, but the fact remains that the trade unions will always win out against the Labour party. The unions have donated almost £30 million to the Labour party since 2020. According to LabourList, 16 Cabinet Ministers and more than 200 Labour MPs have received training and donations, averaging £9,500 each. This rushed Bill is the first part of what the trade unions have bought with their money: the chance to massively increase their power base, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, especially in small businesses. This will not lead to growth, unless the Prime Minister is talking about growth in red tape and growth in the trade unions’ ability to choke the economy. This rushed Bill is not a charter for economic growth; it is a charter for industrial strife, plunging productivity, rising unemployment, inflation and economic ruin. This rushed Bill is not fit for purpose, and the Government should withdraw it and think again.