Railway Industry

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Vara.)

09:30

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin, and to have this opportunity to debate the future of the railways.

I want to set this debate in the context of the economic situation that we face and express the concern felt in many quarters that the policies we believe that the Government may pursue could make things worse. I hope that colleagues will join me in welcoming the thousands of trade unionists who are coming to the House today as part of the TUC lobby of Parliament. They include many rail workers. I hope that we will listen to what they say before tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review.

I pay tribute to the rail workers who work in all conditions to keep Britain moving. It is important that their voice is heard in this debate; I hope to discuss their concerns and those of service users. I declare an interest as a member of various parliamentary trade union groups organised by the railway trade unions. I have also worked closely on the issues with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF.

It is important to remind ourselves of the three policy areas under consideration that involve the future of the railways. First, the previous Government, after the 2009 pre-Budget report, established a value-for-money review of our railways. According to the Government, the review, headed by Sir Roy McNulty, has no no-go areas; everything is up for grabs. The new Government have asked that the review be expedited. We understand that it will be published in March, but the Secretary of State has already been given the interim findings, which I am told are likely to be published in November. I also understand that Sir Roy told the Secretary of State that his interim report was not at a stage to be used to inform any decisions made in the comprehensive spending review, but will the Minister confirm that?

The second major policy context for this debate is the comprehensive spending review. Like other Departments, the Department for Transport will, we believe, be asked to make big cuts. There are understandable concerns that if we make cuts to our railways, we will damage the infrastructure needed to drive economic recovery and growth as well as to meet the ambitious targets that we set ourselves in the Climate Change Act 2008. There is also concern that the comprehensive spending review will punish UK passengers with even higher fares, although ours are already the highest in Europe.

The third major policy area is the Government’s review of rail franchising, which has generated headlines saying that the train operating companies are clubbing together to demand that the Government hand over longer franchises. The companies are also demanding more say in—and, we believe, eventual control over—our railways, including track, signals and stations. The suggestion seems to be that we should re-create the big, private, regional rail companies that the Labour Government eliminated in 1945 when we nationalised the railways.

Given those policy areas, I will use this debate to highlight some concerns raised by passengers and rail workers. We have read reports in the press that the protection afforded by regulated fares might be weakened, and that UK fares—already the most expensive in Europe—could rise by 30% or more. Passengers will find that hard to stomach, particularly as they know that senior directors of the big five transport companies that control most of the railways are still paying themselves salaries that most people, frankly, consider obscene. We know that the railways depend almost entirely on annual public subsidies and the revenues generated by fares. In effect, by awarding themselves such large salaries, railway executives are forcing taxpayers and fare payers to subsidise their excess.

The trade union RMT has researched the matter and provided me with some shocking figures. RMT says that Moir Lockhead—recently of FirstGroup, which runs First Capital Connect, First Great Western, Hull Trains, First TransPennine and ScotRail—was paid more than £500,000 last year, as was Ray O’Toole, recently of National Express, which runs c2c Railways. David Martin of Arriva, the highest-paid director, was paid almost £750,000, and Brian Souter of Stagecoach Group is paid more than that for running South West Trains and East Midlands Trains, but top of the tree is Keith Ludeman of Go-Ahead Group, who was paid a salary of £916,000 last year and whose salary has since increased by 35% to £1.2 million.

Will the Minister comment on those salaries and join me in agreeing that passengers, who face big fare increases and are likely to suffer the consequences of cuts in the subsidies provided to our railways, will find such salaries unacceptable? Those salaries are paid, in effect, by the taxpayer and fare payer. I hope that she will agree that transport bosses should be exercising pay restraint, particularly at a time when the Government are asking everybody else to tighten their belts. I also hope that she will agree to write to the transport companies asking them to exercise restraint.

My second point is about the behaviour of the privatised transport companies and the profits that they have made from privatisation. Over the past 10 years, the biggest five transport companies have paid dividends of more than £2 billion to shareholders. Over the past seven years, the three rolling stock leasing companies that own the trains have paid dividends of more than £1 billion. Professor Jean Shaoul of Manchester university estimates that since privatisation, dividends of more than £10 billion have been paid.

As colleagues will know, windfall taxes on utilities have been levied successfully in the past. The Government are also considering a levy on bankers. Will the Minister agree to consider imposing a windfall tax on the profits of the privatised railway system instead of penalising passengers with fare increases? At the very least, does she agree that instead of paying huge dividends, railway companies should be helping protect passengers and taxpayers at this time by agreeing to freeze dividend payments and invest all profits back into our railways instead?

Will the Minister consider the work of Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network? He undertook a study, a copy of which has been submitted to the value-for- money review, that considered the available sets of accounts for the six railway operating companies and three railway leasing companies operating in the UK between 2002 and 2006. He found that during that period alone, those companies owed £1.3 billion in unpaid tax that the Government had not chased. Will she read a copy of that study and examine its conclusions?

My third point relates to the future of Network Rail. The Minister will be aware from the McNulty review of the railways that the same companies paying their top directors such handsome salaries and making massive profits now hope also to profit by taking over the tracks and signals currently owned and operated by Network Rail. Although Network Rail is a private company, it is a not-for-dividend company. That means the £4 billion or £5 billion annual subsidy does not leak out of the industry in dividend payment; instead, any profits are reinvested in the railways. Whatever faults Network Rail may have, taking railway maintenance back in-house has clearly had the effect of reintegrating much of our railways. Indeed, I believe that that has been responsible for the significant improvements in punctuality since the Hatfield disaster.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. When the track renewals company Jarvis went belly up earlier this year, some 1,200 employees were made redundant and only about a quarter of them have so far got another job in the railway industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will need the skills of skilled track-laying workers, if they build the new north-south high-speed railway that will run from London to Birmingham and on to Yorkshire and the north-west? I regret that I must attend another meeting at 10.30 am, but will my hon. Friend press the Minister on what the Government can do to secure jobs for those redundant workers who have not yet got jobs themselves, so that their skills can be retained in the railway industry and used to build new railways?

[Katy Clark]

My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, to which I will return later in my contribution. The privatised rail companies propose to threaten the progress that has been made in the railways in recent years. They want their companies to take over the infrastructure, perhaps on leases that would coincide with the length of the franchises. There is talk of trialling such arrangements in Merseyside or Scotland. The train operating companies have promised that that will incentivise them to invest in the railways, but they have provided absolutely no evidence to support that submission. Indeed, the evidence of the past and of their tenure with the railway passenger services shows that they simply seek to maximise profit and boardroom pay, as I have already mentioned. In fact, the Government’s own consultation document, “Reforming Rail Franchising,” states:

“European procurement law makes clear that contracts over 15 years require significant investment to be provided by the franchisee. Therefore, our starting proposition is that 12 - 15 years should be the standard length of franchises”.

That seems to say that we should extend franchises to the maximum length at which franchise holders have no legal obligation to invest significantly and leave investment completely at the discretion of the franchise holder.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I assure the hon. Lady that, whatever the length of the franchise, we will be pressing for the best deal for the taxpayer, including investment with longer franchises—whether they are for 10, 15 or 22.5 years.

[Katy Clark]

I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that. However, if we are going for franchises of approximately 12 to 15 years, there will not be that legal obligation, which must have a consequence for the decision that companies make.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that franchise documents impose significant legal obligations, and we expect those to include investment in the railways, particularly where a longer franchise is granted.

[Katy Clark]

I am pleased to hear the Minister say that. If the Government decide to go down the path of franchises of such a length, we will be actively scrutinising the situation to ensure that the contracts in place not only are legally binding but are enforced and deliver for the taxpayer and those who use the railways.

We know that the train operating companies are demanding further fragmentation and privatisation of our national railway structure. The former Network Rail chief executive talked about simply sweating the assets of the railway infrastructure. If franchises were coming to an end and existing operators were either not going to bid again or were not shortlisted for replacement, there is a great deal of concern that there would be little pressure on them to invest.

I also ask the Minister to consider carefully concerns that breaking up Network Rail would have a negative impact on rail freight. There is a real fear that passenger operators will be tempted to fill any spaces in the timetable with their own revenue-raising services, which would push freight to one side. Freight trains are often heavier than their transport equivalents and can do much damage to the track, which raises the possibility that the private operator could limit free access or leverage high track access charges on the movement of freight. That would force freight from the railway to the road, which would have a series of unhelpful environmental consequences.

Many people in the industry and in the rail trade unions are also concerned about the arguments of those who are making the case for breaking up Network Rail. In particular, they are concerned about the report of the Office of Rail Regulation, which is quoted again and again as stating that, compared with other European railways, Network Rail is up to 40% less efficient. I say to the Minister that hon. Members may make such points today because they have read articles in the press, but many in the industry, the RMT and the other railway unions have a great deal of concern about that report’s methodology. They believe it is flawed and that it has cherry-picked different aspects of rail infrastructure efficiency from abroad to paint our railways in a more unfavourable light. The report does not seem to take into account factors that determine efficiency, such as adequate investment over long periods, the need for a unified command structure and, most importantly, the continued fragmentation of our infrastructure compared with European railways.

We need to consider the benefits of having an integrated, publicly owned railway. I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure that those conducting the rail review—and the Government themselves—do not just look at the issue on an ideological basis, but consider the comparisons with other European railways. There has been some concern about the ORR’s report and I suggest to the Minister that she should be willing to receive more detailed representation from those who are concerned about that issue. It is obviously vital that we make the right choices for our railways.

In June, the Secretary of State said:

“Passengers and taxpayers will rightly ask why it is that our railways in the UK are so much more expensive than those in the rest of Europe.”

I believe that the answer is already there for him to see. For example, the 2009 European Commission report into the rail market made it clear that the structure of UK railways is radically different from that of railways in the rest of Europe. In terms of passenger operation and infrastructure, most of the railways in Europe are publicly owned and accountable, whereas in the UK they are not.

Compared with other railways in Europe, the organisation and structure of our railways is horrifically complex—they are fragmented and have numerous interfaces. We have 24 operating companies, three freight operators, three rolling stock leasing companies, two infrastructure controllers—Network Rail and Eurotunnel —and seven major infrastructure renewal companies. That must lead to huge inefficiencies. There is a duplication of function and a loss of economy of scale. In addition, the fact that there are so many individual companies means that there are increased profit margins and transaction costs—even the legal and consultancy fees are duplicated again and again. Skilled personnel validate and monitor contracts instead of getting on with the job and, perhaps most damaging, there has been a loss of a rail culture that focused on getting the job done, with one company and one stakeholder blaming the other when things go wrong. I understand that the rail review has already indicated that the railways could save hundreds of millions of pounds a year by reducing that fragmentation and the number of different organisations involved with them.

I hope that the Minister will look at what is happening to railways across Europe, which are overwhelmingly publicly owned and far more integrated than those in the UK. I believe that that would provide a better service and cheaper fares for the public, that it would be better for the environment and that it would lead to more high-speed rail and more electrification. Will she give an undertaking that there will be a transparent consideration of an integrated and publicly owned railway and that the methodology used to consider those matters will be made public?

I pay tribute to those who work on the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) mentioned the Jarvis workers who have already lost their jobs. Thousands of Network Rail workers have been asked to make efficiency savings and many have already lost their jobs. I hope that we are now moving towards a period of stability and consolidation. We know, as he indicated, that many of the Jarvis workers are still without work and have lost their pensions. Given his comments, I suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister met me, him and other interested colleagues to discuss the plight of those workers and whether the Government can do more to ensure that alternative employment is available for them in these difficult economic times. Thousands of jobs have already been lost on our railways, on both the passenger and freight sides, and we are also seeing a gradual attack on train guards as companies try to introduce driver-only operations, which will reduce staffing levels even further and, I believe, raise significant safety concerns.

In Scotland, the Scottish National party Administration have taken advantage of the clause included in all railway franchises that allows railway companies to ask the Government to make good the loss of revenue caused by strike action. The Labour party in Scotland says that it will remove that clause from ScotRail franchises if it is successful in next year’s elections. Does the Minister agree that the current review of railway franchises should look at that matter and remove that provision from all franchises?

Many people who work in ticket offices are losing their jobs, with implications not only for them but for safety. We know that there is some protection for ticket offices, as train operators are required to consult passengers and Passenger Focus if they wish to shut offices or change their opening hours. Does the Minister agree that those protections must remain in place and should not be removed as a result of the review? Thousands of jobs are under threat in London Underground, many in ticket offices, as a result of the Mayor’s decision to renege on his election promise on staffing levels. Cuts will also fall elsewhere, including safety-critical railway maintenance jobs. As a result, there has been strike action on the Underground, as the Minister is aware. Indeed, the workers who were hailed as heroes after the London bombings in 2005 are now often vilified in the press as enemies of the state. I hope that there is a negotiated settlement to the dispute, and I pay tribute to those members of the RMT and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association who are taking a stand on behalf of passengers and rail safety.

I have put several questions to the Minister and am most anxious that she respond to them either today or, if she is unable to do so, in writing at a later date. I will mention those questions again, because they can often be lost in Adjournment debates. Will she clarify whether the McNulty review will inform the transport decisions in the comprehensive spending review set out tomorrow? Will she write to the executives of the big transport companies and ask that they practise pay restraint in the boardroom? Will she agree to a levy on the profits of the privatised rail industry or, at the very least, tell the companies to freeze their profits and invest them back into the railways? Will she meet me and other interested parties to discuss the continuing plight of the former Jarvis workers? Will she ensure that the franchising review results in the removal of clauses that allow taxpayers’ money to be used to indemnify train operating companies against losses incurred during industrial action? Will she ensure that the Government transparently consider the benefits of an integrated and publicly owned railway network and publish the methodology that they will use to consider the matter?

09:55

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important matter, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing the debate. Railways are a key part of our infrastructure, and if we are serious about global warming, investment in them is key. Today, however, I would like to focus on the challenge I face in my constituency. We have a delightful coastal railway—it starts in Exeter and terminates in Plymouth—running through Starcross, Dawlish, Teignmouth and Newton Abbot in my constituency. It is probably one of the most beautiful parts of the railway network and has been photographed countless times. More importantly, it is a lifeline for my local community, providing jobs and transport.

The records that I have been able to review show that 2 million people used that part of the network in the past 12 months. The local economy is heavily dependent on tourism. Devon as a whole had 5.3 million visitors in the past year, and those tourists are responsible for 7% of Devon’s economy. My constituency is in the district of Teignbridge, where tourism is critically important; it is the second most visited district in Devon. A third of the workers in Teignbridge—16,000 people—depend on tourism for their jobs. I urge the Minister to consider how important that stretch of railway is, not only because it is beautiful, but because it really matters to the economic viability of that part of the country.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady outlines accurately some of the benefits that railway provision can bring, particularly to areas that require tourism infrastructure, such as my constituency and hers. Does she agree that simple investment in railways, such as the passing loop system, which does not exist on single-lane tracks in my constituency and might not in hers, can help to build the tourist infrastructure to which she alluded and make the switch from private cars to railways so much easier?

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not claim to be an expert in railway loops, but the most important thing is to ensure that we have viable railway networks at an appropriate and affordable cost, which is something the Minister is best placed to look at.

My concern about the stretch of the railway network in my constituency is that there were suggestions during the last Parliament that it is not worth maintaining it and that we should instead consider an inland route. That proposal was made because the line, which is on the coast, is subject to coastal erosion. Clearly that is a concern, but given the work that was done during the last Parliament, I think that we all agree that maintaining the existing line was economically the right answer, despite the coastal erosion.

The House of Commons inquiry came up with the figure of £100 million to put in a new line. By comparison, I have been able to unearth a figure of £200,000 to maintain that stretch of railway. On the concern about erosion, the latest studies show that we are looking at a relatively safe period over the next 50 years. The expectation is that there will be a 0.3 metre rise in sea levels in the next 100 years which, while important, should not detract from the viability of maintaining this piece of track.

I would also draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that usage of this railway line is one of the fastest growing in the country; it is anticipated that it will grow by 19% over this and next year. It is obvious that the more we invest in maintaining pieces of railway, the less dependence there will be on cars. In rural parts of the country such as mine, there is already significant dependence on cars, so this line makes an important contribution. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the line and at continuing investment in it. The last conversations that I had with First Great Western and Network Rail indicated that there was no intention of reducing investment, but I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that.

My final question, which is related but of more national import, is about rolling stock. The trains that come down my piece of railway line are very full. I understand that, under the previous Government, obtaining new rolling stock was very much down to the Government, who controlled what rolling stock train operating companies could acquire. That put a straitjacket on the proper commercial operation of those businesses, and I would be grateful if the Minister looked at loosening that stranglehold so that companies can make sensible commercial decisions. Hopefully there will be sensible use of rolling stock down the line.

10:02

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I shall make several brief points. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I chair the RMT parliamentary group, as the Minister will know. We are hoping that through the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF, we can have a dialogue with the Government during this key period when critical decisions are being made about the future of rail. I would welcome an early ministerial meeting to discuss the interim McNulty report when it is published in November. It is a pity that it was not published before the comprehensive spending review, because it would have been helpful to see whether it influenced some of the decisions that will be announced tomorrow.

The RMT group met with Roy McNulty last week for an informal discussion of some of its concerns about what happened in the past and what seems to be occurring under this Government. We were hoping that there would be a more objective discussion about the future structure of rail in this country, but it appears that any prospect of looking at an integrated railway system under public ownership—even some element of public ownership in the structure which would enable a public sector comparator—has been ignored again.

I still cannot comprehend why we cannot at least consider using one of the franchises as a public sector comparator. We know from the experience in the south-east that when Connex was brought back into public ownership for a period, it ran more efficiently, more effectively and more profitably than most other franchises across the country. We hoped that the previous Government would at least maintain it in public ownership so that there could be a public sector comparator.

If Members trawl through Hansard, they will see question after question over past years in which Ministers were asked why we cannot have a public sector comparator. They were also asked what calculations and assessments had been made in respect of other systems across Europe that are under integrated public ownership, so that we could at least make some judgment of the private franchising system that has been in operation in this country for the past two decades.

Several lessons have come out of independent comparisons. It has been found that integrated systems under public ownership, without a panoply and multiplicity of various agencies—my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) listed 24 different companies and four or five regulatory bodies or Government decision-making bodies—are more efficient as well as more cost-effective. I am concerned that in Mr Roy McNulty’s review there is still a prejudice even against examination of a public sector option or role in any part of our system beyond Network Rail.

Briefly, on investment, the rail industry overall, including management and unions, hopes that commitments will be given by the Government in the comprehensive spending review statement to high-speed rail—we look forward to the consultation starting in January—and to Crossrail. That would at least allow us to see a longer-term future for investment in the infrastructure that we so desperately need.

I compliment the previous Government, who at least committed themselves to Crossrail and to bringing forward high-speed rail, although I was critical of some of the delays in investment. We need this Minister to tell us that that long-term programme is secure.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) discussed rolling stock. Even under this Government, we need a discussion about investment in rolling stock, which would stimulate British industry rather than the import market. With a limited amount of investment and a commitment to the purchase of rolling stock, there is potential to rebuild the rail manufacturing base in Britain. This relates largely to what my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said about the loss of skills over years if we do not invest in the rolling stock manufacturing base of our country.

Any lifting of the cap on protected fares will fly in the face of everything that the Government, when they were in opposition, said about their commitment to the development of rail as one of the key transport mechanisms that will help us to protect our environment. The threatened increases of anything up to 37% to rail fares on some routes, and now the threat of increased fares on London underground, undermine the Government’s green credentials from the outset. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment in the comprehensive spending review of the role that rail plays in tackling climate change, and therefore the importance of maintaining fares at a reasonable level.

Passenger numbers have increased dramatically over the past 13 years, largely as a result of the increase in economic activity. As we go into recession, there will inevitably be a reduction of passenger usage, and there will be a temptation to make up the funding gap by increasing fares. That would be completely counter-productive: it would push more people off public transport and, as a result, have a dramatic impact on our policies to tackle climate change and our environmental policies overall.

Finally, let me raise a staffing issue. The treatment of the Jarvis workers was a disgrace. The way in which they were notified of the loss of their jobs was appalling. They have almost been turned into roaming serfs looking for work. We hear stories of people having to move around the country on zero-hour contracts, and even of people putting up camps near to where they can bid for work the following day.

I raised the matter with the previous Government and said that there should have been an intervention by the Government and Network Rail, and that the contracts and staffing levels could have been maintained. Things were badly handled then, and there is a need for this Government to intervene now, because this is not just about how individual staff are treated; it is also about the expertise that we need for the future.

Surely to God we have learned lessons in the past that if we do not maintain expertise, and therefore do not maintain the track effectively, there will inevitably be accidents, loss of life and serious injury. We have had so many inquiries—surely we have learned the lessons. I urge this Government to intervene, to look at what happened in the displacement of ex-Jarvis workers and their expertise, and to see what can be done to secure not just their jobs but also their expertise for the long term.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in the debate, as I have a constituency development plan with the TSSA.

On the staffing point, does my hon. Friend agree that if we break up Network Rail, we will create not only more insecurity for workers, but a bidding structure for them? When rail was first privatised, the bidding war for drivers made the cost much more expensive because each franchise then bid for certain expertise.

A more important issue is safety. Already there is erosion of track inspection and other safety elements. If we fragment the industry further, especially track control, we will certainly make accidents, such as those at Grayrigg, Hatfield and so on, more likely.

[John McDonnell]

I could not have said that more eloquently. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I urge the Government to tread carefully when making decisions on franchising and the integration of track with operations, because we have seen what has happened elsewhere. Mr Armitt said that when companies have gained franchises in other sectors, they seek to “sweat the assets” to maximise their profits. That eventually has an implication for safety. Having a nationally integrated system would overcome those issues.

My hon. Friend also referred to the transaction costs involved both in that sort of breaking up and in individual franchising. The Government should carefully examine Roy McNulty’s work and the transaction costs that will result. On London Underground, I was assured by the previous Government that Metronet was a one-off failure and that Tube Lines would be secure, but we then had the failure of Tube Lines. The estimated cost of those franchises and setting up the public-private partnership was £400 million on consultancies, accountants and lawyers alone. The Government should learn lessons from the past.

On London Underground staffing, despite what people read in newspapers, RMT and TSSA have taken industrial action because 800 jobs will go if London Underground does not reconsider its position. Those 800 staff are based at stations including Hayes and Harlington in my constituency. If we lose those staff, we lose security and safety at those stations in the lead-up to the London Olympics. We are trying to put on a display for the world so that when people come here to enjoy the Olympics, they can travel in comfort and absolute safety. It would be a retrograde, short-sighted step to lay off those 800 staff, particularly at this key time.

I urge London Underground to return to the negotiating table and to seek a settlement with the two unions. Otherwise, there may be a long, bitter and protracted dispute that will affect the travelling public in a way that will jeopardise their safety in the long term. The dispute is a principled one. It is not about wages, but about looking after the safety of the travelling public. That is why I support it and have appeared on picket lines. There may be a role for the Government. If London Underground remains intransigent, the Government should intervene, because the matter is important.

I welcome this important debate engendered by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I urge the Minister to meet the union groups, to discuss the McNulty report on the long-term future, and perhaps to return to the matter in six months to monitor progress on the Government’s initial decisions.

10:09

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing it and on making a wide-ranging and knowledgeable speech about the railways, despite her inability to avoid a quick stab at the Scottish Government.

I want to concentrate on two areas that concern my constituency—the future of the east coast rail line and the plan for the high-speed rail network, both of which are vital to our economic future. The east coast line is vital to the north-east of Scotland because it provides the major cities of the north of England direct access to London and, importantly, to the cross-channel network through the Eurostar and Eurotunnel and, I hope, to Germany if the proposed connections to German cities come to pass. The line provides an important link for business and tourism and is a vital economic asset.

I have had serious concerns for some time about the future of services on the line, especially north of Edinburgh. I raised those concerns as far back as July 2009, and when the franchise went from National Express to East Coast. The line north of Edinburgh has long been a problem because it is not electrified, so it has been difficult to reduce journey times from Aberdeen to Edinburgh. When the previous Government committed themselves to purchase new dual electric-diesel trains to run the whole length of the line, there was considerable hope that that would lead to a reduction in journey times.

When the franchise was transferred, Lord Adonis, the then Secretary of State for Transport, assured me and others that there was no danger of cutting services north of Edinburgh. Unfortunately, shortly before the general election, he postponed the purchase of the new trains and left the decision until after the election. I thought at the time that that was an ominous sign, and so it has proved to be. The new Government have twice postponed the decision, more recently until the comprehensive spending review, which is due tomorrow. That has the ring of a death knell for the contract to purchase those trains.

I appreciate that the Minister will not tell us today, before the Chancellor’s announcement, what will happen, but I remain gloomy about the prospect for those trains. The matter is important, and I asked her a written question about the services north of Edinburgh. She replied:

“The current level of direct services between London and Aberdeen and Inverness will continue to be provided when the new East coast line timetable is introduced in May 2011.”

So far, so good, but unfortunately, she continued:

“The longer term future of direct services between London and Inverness and Aberdeen will be determined by forthcoming decisions on replacement of the current rolling stock.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 1244W.]

The Minister may say that I am wrong, but alarm bells rang because she seemed to be specifically linking the services to the rolling stock and, by implication at least, if the rolling stock is not purchased, long-term services are at risk. If I am correct, that is a short-sighted way of looking at the future of this important line because its importance is not only economic.

The coalition Government claim to be the greenest ever, but that seems to be a pretty shaky claim if they do not consider the need to reduce carbon emissions by providing more rail than air transport. Failure to provide regular services from the north-east of Scotland will seriously impact on that. I have used the line many times to travel down to London. I take the train from Montrose in my constituency, and it takes around six and a half hours to get to King’s Cross. From Aberdeen, the journey is around seven hours. Clearly, that is a long train journey, and business men coming from Aberdeen, which is Europe’s oil capital, are faced with the option of taking a plane from Aberdeen airport, which takes approximately one and a half hours to London. Even taking into account the time taken to check in and to get in from Heathrow, it is clearly quicker to go by air. However, even with the existing service, for someone travelling from Edinburgh the decision to travel by air or train is much more marginal.

The point is that if we are serious about moving travellers, particularly domestic business travellers, from air to rail, the issue that must be addressed is not just price, but time. We must ensure that there is a realistic alternative, and that can be provided only by speeding up journey times. I appreciate that the proposed new trains are not a magic bullet for the problem, and that the decrease in journey time provided by the trains alone might not be all that significant. The line has various other problems, not least the physical restraints at Montrose in my constituency, where part of the line is single track and the geography of the area makes it difficult for it to be dualled. However, the proposed dual fuel trains would send a clear signal that the Government are serious about investment in the railways, and in ensuring that we continue with the regular and worthwhile service that links Aberdeen directly with London and through to the continental mainland. Unless we look at such proposals, we will undoubtedly fail to persuade people to switch from air travel to rail, even if the Government use taxation to push up the price of flying.

[Julie Hilling]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about trains and the green economy. Does he agree that electrification pushes all the buttons for the green economy? Electrification makes trains greener, it is better for the environment, it increases the speed of the train and reduces the wear on the track. We must continue with electrification, particularly in my constituency where the previous Government were committed to the electrification of the lines between Liverpool and Manchester, and Manchester and Preston. Electrification speeds up journeys; today, a person would be crazy to take an aeroplane from Manchester to London, although that option was frequently used in the past. Electrification is a key part of the argument.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Whether electrification is greener than its alternative depends on how the electricity is generated, but that is an associated issue. However, she is right that the faster train journeys can be made, the more likely it is that people will use the train rather than travel by air. That is my point. Flying to London from Manchester or Birmingham no longer makes sense, but it does make sense to travel from Aberdeen by air unless something is done to speed up the train line. I appreciate that that is not easy to do, but the Government must look at the issue seriously.

My other point is about the high-speed rail network. The Government have announced their proposal to go with the Y route, which would run up the centre of England to the north-east and the west coast. It will speed up journey times and, if I understand it correctly, link up with the east coast line and provide a slightly faster journey time at least as far as Edinburgh. As it stands, however, although the proposal will considerably speed up rail travel to the north of England, it does not address the central problem of taking the line further north into Scotland. If the Government are serious about the issue, we must look at an extension of the line to ensure faster travel times from Scotland and encourage people away from the longer domestic flight routes. Unless we do that—and the same argument goes for the east coast—we will not get the green benefits that we hope for. As it stands, if I were to use the high-speed line to get home, I would probably have to change train twice to get to Montrose, and that will not significantly reduce the journey time.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman may recall from the coalition’s programme for government that we want a genuinely national network. Experience tells us that that must be delivered in phases as it takes some time. The ultimate goal, of course, is to take high-speed rail to Scotland. It would be interesting to hear whether the Scottish Government are willing to devote resources to that programme in the future. I have discussed the issue with them, and I hope that in the future they will consider whether they can devote some of their resources to aiding such a project.

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that the Scottish Government will do that. However, there is not much point in building a high-speed line if it does not link up with the rest of the network. At the moment, the high-speed line will run nowhere near Scotland. I understand that Network Rail had a proposal that would have taken the line into central Scotland. That would have made more sense, it would have linked central Scotland with the main high-speed network running south, and it would have provided the basis for an extension of the network further north. At the moment, as the Minister knows, the high-speed network comes nowhere near Scotland, and it will be many years before it gets as far as Edinburgh. The Government seem to take a London-centric view of the matter. If we were to tip things the other way so that the line ran south, the speed of journeys would increase faster and the green objectives of the Government and the Scottish Government would be met.

The Scottish Government have invested a lot in the railway in Scotland. I accept that that is their responsibility and that some of the work must be done in Scotland—there is no argument about that. For example, the Scottish Government opened a new station at Laurencekirk on the east coast line, although strangely enough the direct mainline services will not stop there, so people still have to get a train to another station to get on those direct services. ScotRail runs a good service to Edinburgh and Glasgow, but again, people have to change trains to get on to the direct line to travel further south. People going on business trips look for a direct service. New lines have been opened from Stirling and Alloa; there is a new line from the border and considerable improvements along the Paisley corridor. All those things have improved rail travel in Scotland, but we still need links to the lines that will take us to continental Europe through the Eurostar network. To do that, unfortunately we need to rely on the Government in this place taking action on the east coast line and the high-speed line.

My main point is to ask the Minister about the rolling stock for the east coast line, which is the responsibility of her Department. As the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, the new trains are vital to show that the Government are serious about investment in our railways and in the important economic asset of the east coast line. I appreciate that the comprehensive spending review is tomorrow, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the rolling stock is purchased and that a clear signal is given about the future of the line.

10:27

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate about the future of the rail industry, particularly as this is my first official outing as a member of the Opposition Front-Bench transport team. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing the debate today.

In recent years, a welcome consensus has developed around the importance of support for the railways, both the conventional and high-speed varieties. All parties recognise the important role that the rail industry must play in reducing the environmental impact of travel, and welcome the growth in passenger numbers that we have seen in recent years, to the point where more people travel by train today than at any point since the 1940s.

We need a system that works effectively and puts the needs of passengers, and indeed freight, at its core. We all want a clean, safe and efficient train network in the future, and one that is fit for purpose. The previous Labour Government were committed to providing that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we hope that the current Government recognise the need to continue the investment in the railways that our country so desperately needs. Given the comprehensive spending review tomorrow, we may well soon see how committed the Government are to the future of the railway industry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, I also welcome the lobby today by trade unionists and the TUC. We should remember that everyone is rightly concerned about the cuts that might be announced in the near future.

I would like to look at fares. The coalition’s programme for government stated that they were

“committed to fair pricing for rail travel.”

Will the Minister comment on reports from Channel 4 News over the weekend which speculated that we could face double-digit rises in train fares over each year of the spending review? It was reported that train fares are expected to be more than 30% higher by 2015, and industry sources pointed to a possible 40% hike in prices by 2015.

Media reports also suggested that the cost of a typical commuter season ticket between Brighton and London could increase from £3,104 a year to £4,260 by 2015, and between Swindon and London from £6,640 to £9,130. Does the Minister think that long-suffering train users will be willing to accept that?

[Mrs Villiers]

I would be grateful if the shadow Minister answered a question. Is he saying that if Labour had been re-elected, it would have cut rail fares?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to the Transport Minister for that, but of course it is my job to ask her questions. Labour is in opposition and I am asking whether she thinks that those kinds of speculative rail increases are fair on passengers.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the papers. The coalition is committed to fairness on rail fares. The announcement on the fares formula for the next few years will be made on Wednesday in the comprehensive spending review.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I appreciate that, but it could well mean that some lines end up with a pricing of RPI—the retail prices index—plus 5%. That is particularly ironic, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is now a Transport Minister, was elected on a pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto on train fares for RPI minus 1%; and the Secretary of State, as the Minister has reiterated today, has previously said that he has made a commitment to fair fares.

Passengers will not pay more for less. If they see increasing fares alongside cuts to plans for new capacity and infrastructure, that could mean fewer people travelling by rail. What guarantees do we have that fare rises will be matched by infrastructure and capacity improvements? I appreciate that the Minister will be reluctant—perhaps unable—to add much today and we shall have to wait to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review.

Franchising was mentioned. The Government’s consultation includes an intention to impose a far more relaxed and flexible specification. Flexibility can be a good thing, but there is a worry that a hands-off approach could allow train companies to become too focused on short-term profit and cost cutting, rather than delivering the best service for passengers and encouraging greater use of the railway. Will the Minister give me assurances that that will not be the case and that sufficient specification to guarantee socially important services will remain?

It is encouraging that there is interest in rail franchise bids from not-for-profit, mutual or co-operative franchise enterprises. Indeed, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has secured a debate on that topic in Westminster Hall tomorrow. However, there are still unfair barriers that prevent such bids from benefiting passengers and taxpayers, as we saw recently with the attempt by the Co-op through its Go! Co-operative initiative, which would have been the UK’s first co-operative train operating company.

I shall refer briefly to some recent investments in rail. It is important to acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and others did, the significant progress that the previous Labour Government made in the past decade in rebuilding the country’s transport infrastructure after many decades of under-investment, which happened, to be fair, under Governments of all political persuasions.

We have completed the £9 billion programme to modernise the west coast main line, resulting in massive reductions in journey times, as I thankfully know from experience. It is now less than two hours from Stockport to London and, more importantly for me on a Thursday, from London back to Stockport.

Performance, capacity, reliability and safety levels throughout the rail network have improved significantly. High Speed 1 was up and running ahead of schedule, and the stunning redevelopment of St Pancras station proved to be a fitting terminal for high-speed trains to and from the continent. We delivered Britain’s first high-speed rail line and set out plans for a new north-south high-speed rail network—points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

We more than doubled investment in local transport from 1997, improving accessibility and helping to tackle social exclusion in local communities. By May 2010, investment in transport had reached its highest level as a proportion of national income for 30 years. In addition, Labour finally achieved what previous Governments had tried but failed to do, in securing a funding deal for Crossrail. That is one of the most ambitious transport projects of recent years and will add 30,000 high-value jobs to London in the first 10 years and add an estimated £20 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product. We also set in place the £5.5 billion upgrading of Thameslink, which will introduce new cross-London routes and, with longer, more frequent trains, will allow for much-needed capacity, more seats and less crowding on key routes in the capital.

The northern hub made it an ambition over the next 20 years to increase the number of train services in the north, including cities such as Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, by 40%—700 more trains a day—making it possible for 3.5 million more passengers to travel by train every year. Those innovative and challenging projects were either delivered or planned. We need to continue that long-term focus on infrastructure and service if we are to provide Britain with the transport system that it needs to compete in the new global economy.

I wish to raise some specific issues with the Government. Transport cuts so far have totalled £683 million. That includes £108 million coming from Transport for London and £50 million from the better stations programme. I declare an interest, as that had a particular effect on Stockport station, which affects some of my constituents. The plans for hundreds of extra carriages to ease overcrowding have been put on hold.

In opposition, the Conservatives criticised the Labour Government in their 2009 rail review document, which recognised the need for extra capacity but accused us of not taking the problem seriously. There is a need for more trains, and I ask the Minister to tell us what the Government will do to alleviate that problem.

Can the Minister give me an assurance on electrification—an issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—both of the north-west routes and the great western main line, which are important projects to both regions? Likewise, can the Minister confirm that the Thameslink replacement of rolling stock will go ahead, which would in turn lead to the cascading of trains to the great western main line and the north-west routes?

The Government owe it to London’s business community and the travelling public to be open about their plans for Crossrail. Will the Crossrail project be delivered in full, as proposed by the previous Labour Government? Will there be any cost cutting in areas such as engineering, which could lead to shorter platforms and less capacity? Will the number of stations on Crossrail remain unchanged?

May I ask also about the bonfire of the quangos that we saw last week? What plans does the Minister have for Passenger Focus and what will its functions be now? How will disabled passengers be heard effectively now that the present Government have abolished the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee? The input of disabled passengers should be important, and that body provided a unique opportunity for both disabled people and industry to represent their case to Government.

The Government need to look beyond the period of the comprehensive spending review. We need a long-term vision for rail and we need to deliver these projects to build on our ambition for a world-class rail service in this country. The previous Labour Government left the rail network in a far better condition than we found it in. Rail passenger numbers increased by 40% in the past 10 years, and punctuality and quality of service improved steadily over that time, too. That is not an inheritance that the current Government should squander.

10:38

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing the debate, and congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), on his recent appointment and his first address from the Front Bench.

I thought that it would be useful to consider the questions that the hon. Lady helpfully repeated at the end of her speech. First, she asked whether Sir Roy McNulty’s work is informing the comprehensive spending review. Neither his interim report nor his final report have yet been published or finalised, but I can assure the hon. Lady that Sir Roy has kept my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and officials at the Department for Transport informed of his work, so that is feeding into the decisions being made on the comprehensive spending review. The early draft work, as it has been going ahead, has helped us to feed into the Treasury process and the CSR.

The hon. Lady also asked whether I would write to the executives of the rail operating companies about remuneration.

[John McDonnell]

Before the Minister moves on from the McNulty report, I point out that I asked whether she would meet the rail unions to discuss the McNulty report when the interim report is published in November.

[Mrs Villiers]

I was going to come on to that, but I am happy to answer it now. I have slight qualms about this while the industrial action is continuing on the London underground, because I am concerned about the huge inconvenience that that is causing passengers. As the hon. Gentleman is keen for me to meet the unions, I am happy to do that, but I would still urge them to find an alternative way to resolve their dispute on the London underground.

[John McDonnell]

The two issues are unconnected. We will make sure that the right hon. Lady can travel on a non-strike day.

[Mrs Villiers]

I suppose that I am particularly sensitive about the issue because the day on which I was due to meet the Transport Salaried Staffs Association coincided with a strike day so, for all sorts of reasons, it seemed inappropriate to go ahead with the meeting.

Turning to remuneration in the rail industry, the level of pay across the industry clearly needs looking at in the context of the McNulty review. I have discussed remuneration levels with the train operators, and I expect that dialogue to continue.

The hon. Lady’s third question was about introducing a windfall levy for the train operators. The Government have no plans to do that. Her fourth question was whether I would meet her and colleagues to discuss those who—tragically for them—were made redundant by Jarvis. Yes, I would be happy to do that.

On the franchising review, the hon. Lady asked specifically about a clause on ScotRail and she will appreciate that that is a matter for the Scottish Government, but she also asked a wider question about the approach that the UK Government will take in relation to the franchises for which we are responsible. I am not convinced that we should have a blanket withdrawal of that type of indemnity clause; there is a place for such clauses in appropriate circumstances. She then asked whether the McNulty review, and the Government considerations flowing from it, would look at an expanded role for the public sector and additional nationalisation. That is certainly one of the options that Sir Roy will consider.

The hon. Lady also asked about ticket offices and the loss of guards. In many cases those are matters for those operating services, but the overall approach in relation to the franchises is governed by the ticketing settlement agreement. We need to look at reforming that, to ensure that we get it right, but it is obviously important to consult properly with the communities affected by the decisions.

The hon. Lady also talked about the strike action on the London underground and the loss of guards. I am convinced that we need to modernise working practices in the rail industry. I am concerned, as I already said to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), about the damage to the London economy caused by the strike action that is taking place. We have to recognise that the way in which people buy tickets has changed, and that rightly will impact on London Underground’s decisions about the deployment of its staff.

[Julie Hilling]

Does the Minister consider important the feeling of safety of passengers travelling on the underground, and on the rail network generally? Stations can often be very lonely, scary places for all rail users but particularly for women travelling alone. The fact that we have staff in ticket offices and on platforms increases both the feeling of safety and the actual safety.

[Mrs Villiers]

Forgive me; I am probably trespassing on devolved matters because the relationship between London Underground and its employees is of course a matter for which the Mayor is politically accountable. I have to say, however, that of course I am concerned about security for women using public transport—I am a woman myself—but there is a real argument for saying that staff deployed on platforms are more valuable to passenger security than those stuck behind ticket office windows. I am not sure, therefore, that the security issue can justify the retention of ticket offices. Security focuses on whether people have access to staff in stations, which is not the same as whether a ticket office is open.

I shall go on to some of the wider issues addressed by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I would like to assure the House that the coalition has put rail at the heart of its strategy for transport, in terms of re-energising our economy, reducing carbon emissions and addressing congestion on our roads. I welcome the support shown today for taking into account the concerns of both passengers and rail freight—a point rightly made by the shadow Minister. Much will depend on the announcements made tomorrow in the spending review. It is clear that transport will not escape the pain that is the unfortunate consequence of the deficit that we have inherited from the previous Government, but I emphasise that the Chancellor has made it clear that he recognises the economic benefits of investment in infrastructure to support economic growth, and that he recognises in particular the importance of investment in transport infrastructure.

The shadow Minister asked me about Crossrail. I am sure that he welcomed, as I did, the support expressed by the Chancellor at the weekend for the Crossrail project. We have also expressed clear support for Birmingham New Street, we are taking forward plans on high-speed rail and we are working very hard on Thameslink. Our focus in all those projects is to ensure that we value-engineer costs down to keep the projects affordable and deliverable within the spending envelope that is now available.

[John McDonnell]

I emphasise that, although there is a commitment to the Crossrail project overall, people are concerned about the paring down of the project and the missed opportunities that might result from that. For example, in my own constituency, Hayes and Harlington station is to be redeveloped. If there is any paring down in the investment of such station projects, we will miss the chance to include modal transfer opportunities and to ensure the integration of our local transport network.

[Mrs Villiers]

Both the Secretary of State and I have repeatedly talked about our support for delivering the whole project, and it is worth bearing in mind the excellent work done by the team behind Crossrail to find lower-cost ways to deliver the same transport benefits, and to deliver the whole project.

It is true that there has been significant good news on the railways in recent years. Since privatisation there have been some striking successes, with train punctuality now at record levels and a significant increase in the number of passenger journeys. Also, the number of miles travelled on the railways has gone up by 75%. Since privatisation, therefore, a story of managed decline has been transformed into one of significant growth. Although the recession has subdued that trend to a degree, we expect it to resume once the economy recovers.

So, that is some of the good news about the UK’s railways. But the downside is that the cost of running the railways did rise dramatically under our Labour predecessors. If we are to deliver the improvements to services and capacity that hon. Members have called for today, and that passengers want, we have to find a way to get costs down. The disastrous deficit left for us by our predecessors makes it essential that we drive out cost inefficiencies on the railways, and we owe it to passengers to do our very best to get costs down.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does the Minister not also recognise that it was the investment by the previous Labour Government that led to the very improvements that she has just championed as a cause of privatisation?

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly recognise that the previous Government invested in the railways, and we would expect investment to continue under the current Government, given the huge importance of the railways to our economy and to our climate change ambitions. I covered the fares issue briefly in response to the shadow Minister, but I shall repeat my comments on it. The coalition is committed to fairness in rail fares, but the reality is that the crisis in the public finances means that we might have to take some difficult decisions on fares, as in other areas. As I have said, I am unable to give further details on the fares formula until it is announced for the coming years in the CSR on Wednesday.

There has been much discussion about the McNulty process, which is focused on trying to understand why the cost of the railways is higher in this country than in other parts of Europe, and I am sure that today’s discussion will contribute to and inform that process. It is important that a range of options be considered, and as part of our drive to deliver high-quality rail services at an affordable cost we need to consider how we reform Network Rail. Not even the levels of taxpayer support over recent years have succeeded in turning the company into the customer-oriented organisation that train and freight operators want. That fact was driven home when the rail regulator published the figures, to which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran referred: the potential 40% efficiency gap between Network Rail and European comparators. I acknowledge that there are always problems comparing Network Rail precisely with different railways in the rest of Europe, but these things should sound a warning bell that there is an issue to be addressed. If we are to be fair to passengers and the taxpayer, we need to find a way to make Network Rail more efficient.

[Katy Clark]

I think that it is accepted on all sides that there are issues to be addressed; indeed, that was why the previous Government set up the review in the first place. However, the Minister will have listened to what I said about the concern about the methodology used in the ORR report. Is she willing to hear further representations about that from those in the industry who have concerns? Given the publicity that the issue has had in the press, there is clearly a view that the Government will listen to the ORR report rather than taking a more forensic look at how other European railways operate.

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course I would be happy to accept further representations. One reason why we have continued with the McNulty study, which was set up by our predecessors, is precisely to find the true picture of the cost of Network Rail. The work done by the ORR is valuable, but it is just one point of view. Sir Roy is drawing on views and research from across the rail industry, including internationally, to find out what the facts really are.

Whatever reform we ultimately select, we will need to stress-test it in relation to the interests of freight operators. It is vital that we get the right balance between the interests of the railways’ passengers and freight customers.

In looking at the options for reforming Network Rail, it is interesting to look at what has been done north of the border. Network Rail has decentralised its Scottish operations, and accounting separation has been introduced. We need to look carefully at whether such decentralisation might improve Network Rail efficiency in other parts of the UK.

My officials are working with Merseytravel, the passenger transport executive for Merseyside, to explore whether to devolve the running of the track used by the Merseyrail franchise so that it is wholly governed by local decision making. That project could help to provide an important benchmark against which to measure Network Rail’s performance.

Another key issue is whether further contestability could be introduced for some of the work now carried out exclusively by Network Rail. Again, there is a Scottish example that is worth considering. In 2006, for example, Transport Scotland opened up about £20 million of rail funding for smaller-scale enhancements at stations and asked for offers from Network Rail and the train operators. By the end of the bidding process—if I recall correctly, this was under the Labour Administration— £19 million of the £20 million available was allocated directly to the passenger operators because their bids were judged to be better than Network Rail’s. A similar approach has been used for the national stations improvement plan in England.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked at length about franchise reform, which is the second limb of our work to improve the railways’ performance for passengers and to get better value for money. The Department for Transport has recently concluded a consultation, and we are considering the responses. As I assured the hon. Lady during her speech, we want to encourage greater private sector investment in return for potentially longer franchises. We would continue to impose legally binding contractual obligations in franchises, including on the scale of the investment promised. We hope and believe that longer franchises will help us to deliver the investment and improvements that passengers want, including better stations. Longer franchises should also make it easier for train operators to invest in long-term relationships with Network Rail and their work force, which are crucial to running the railways efficiently.

We want to move to a system in which franchises are less heavily specified. In response to the shadow Minister’s questions, however, I can assure him that we will continue to set demanding outcomes for train operators to achieve in terms of the quality of service that they deliver. We will have demanding and legally binding requirements to protect the interests of the passenger and the taxpayer. The difference is that in setting those outcomes, we propose to give the people running the railway more flexibility over how they deliver them.

[Katy Clark]

The Minister will recall that, in my initial contribution, I quoted the Government’s consultation document, which said that European procurement law referred to 15 years and that that was why a starting point of 12 to 15 years should be the standard length of franchises. Does she not accept that that rings alarm bells? Will she explain why there is a link between European procurement law and her starting point?

[Mrs Villiers]

Obviously, the UK Government are bound by European procurement law to procure public contracts in a fair and objective way. In the context of rail franchises, it sets a top limit of 22 and a half years for contracts that involve investment. The reference to European procurement law was included in the consultation document because it governs the maximum that we can deliver in terms of rail franchises. Throughout the process of negotiating franchises, however, we will look to secure the best deal possible for the taxpayer, and we will ensure that we continue to protect the passenger interest. Train operators that do not comply with the obligations we impose on them will face sanctions, which, in extreme cases, could include removing the franchise.

In the few minutes that I have available, I want to talk a little about the inter-city express programme in response to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). I can assure him that we have no plans to scrap through services to destinations such as Aberdeen and Inverness, which he mentioned. As he said, the report produced by Sir Andrew Foster referred to one of the alternative strategies for the IEP, which involved ending those through services. As I said, however, we have no plans to do that. We recognise the economic value of such services, and we have certainly received strong representations from the Scottish Government and Scottish colleagues about the importance of retaining them.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I have only two or three minutes, and I want to respond to an awful lot of points.

The hon. Gentleman and others talked about the electrification of the railways. We included our support for electrification in our programme for government and we recognise its benefits. It will support our sustainability objectives and improve services for passengers. It will become more and more of a greener option as we decarbonise the electricity-generating network. The pace at which we can deliver electrification will obviously depend on affordability and the priority of tackling the deficit. Much will depend on the comprehensive spending review announcement tomorrow. Of course, these decisions are also linked with the work on the high-level output specification rolling stock programme, Thameslink and the future of the IEP. An announcement will be made on those in due course.

Lastly, in the brief time that I have, I want to reiterate the Government’s support for high-speed rail, which is a vital upgrade for our transport network. We recently announced our support for a Y-shaped network, with a line to Manchester and trains running on from there to the west coast main line and Scotland, and another line splitting off at Birmingham and going through the east midlands and South Yorkshire to Leeds, with trains, again, running on to the existing network and destinations further north. We will consult on that shortly. We will also have regard to the communities affected by the line’s local impact before taking final decisions on whether to go ahead and what route to take. We appreciate that realistically these lines can be delivered only in phases, but our ultimate goal is to deliver the national network, for which I am sure there will be cross-party support.

Much has been achieved since privatisation, but we need a fresh focus on reducing costs in the railways that we already have. We need a drive to deliver high-speed rail because of the huge benefits that it can provide. The coalition is determined to meet both those challenges, and I welcome the representations that I have received on them today.