Rail Timetabling

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I will certainly look into the point that my noble friend raises. She is quite right to point out that, because of these changes and the reduced timetable that has been brought in, trains are not stopping at every station. It is important that we deal with the train operating companies and do all that we can to communicate with them. However, I will certainly look at the provision available to transport passengers if they are not able to get off at the stop that they wish to.

My noble friend raised an interesting point about driver training. The necessary driver training was not completed in time and my noble friend is quite right to point out that sometimes train drivers move to other franchises. We are hoping to benefit from that in this situation. We are working across all train operating companies to see whether we can use other drivers on these lines to deliver better services. But the point about the transfer of drivers to different franchises is certainly something that I can take back.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that in Cumbria there has been appalling chaos with cancellations, and what we have seen is a complete failure of co-ordination on the part of the disparate interests involved in running the modern railway? Does she not accept at least in principle that the answer to a failure of co-ordination is stronger public control? If she accepts that principle in the north—she may not want to see a renationalisation of the railways and the creation of British Rail—at least will the department consider giving real powers and money to the newly set up Transport for the North, a public body, to give it a much stronger role in co-ordinating services in the region? If she is not prepared to do that, what meaning does the northern powerhouse now have?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this Government have devolved more power to Transport for the North to manage railway systems. As I said, it co-manages the franchise with the Department for Transport. John Cridland, the head of Transport for the North, is satisfied with the powers that he currently has. I acknowledge that this has been a problem of co-ordination with many different train operating companies and Network Rail. That is something that we need to improve. But we think that the solution is evolving the way that we run the railway to rely on the track and train operators across the network with closer joint working between the train operating companies and Network Rail in different parts of the country. That is being supported by Network Rail’s own devolution into a series of regional businesses. As I said, the rail strategy, which we set out last year, aims to move more towards that alignment of track and train, which we think will help.

Rail Update

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I am pleased that the noble Lord’s experience of staff on the trains is positive. He is absolutely right to say that they are committed. When we are making decisions about future franchises, we are also trying to provide consistency and structure for them, so that they have the security of knowing that the services will continue. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord on privatisation. I have spoken before about the amount of investment it has brought in. Passenger numbers have doubled; we have one of the highest satisfaction levels and safest networks in Europe. New trains would not have been delivered without private investment from rail franchising. Some 7,000 new carriages will be introduced to the rail network between now and 2021.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the interests of my noble friend Lord Judd as a regular traveller on Virgin trains and agree with his kind remarks about the staff. I seek a point of clarification from the Minister about what she said in the Statement and in answer to questions. Is she saying that the Secretary of State has no legal power to ban Stagecoach from seeking to operate this franchise in future? Is it being seriously suggested that if Stagecoach tried to take the Government to court, because it was not allowed to bid, a judge would uphold its right, given the way it has let down the taxpayer in this instance?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as Stagecoach is meeting its contractual obligations to support the franchise, including full parent-company support, and because it has operated the services on the east coast, there are indeed no adequate legal grounds to restrict it from bidding in future franchise competitions. That is the current situation: we will continue to look at it as the months progress and we look at future franchises.

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

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the regulations. I am glad that the Government are bringing them forward, and I echo the words of the Minister when she said that some excellent work had been done by Transport for the North since its inception.

I shall raise two issues. The first relates to the constituent authorities and the definition of them. There is a list of them on the second page of the regulations. What happens if the structures change? There could be different structures of combined authorities, for example. How easy might it be to change the regulations to reflect any structural changes to those constituent authorities? I am thinking in particular of the North East Combined Authority and North of Tyne, but also of the discussions going on in Yorkshire.

The Minister is absolutely right that the main function of Transport for the North is to prepare a transport strategy for its area. It is hugely welcome that there will be one; as the Minister said, it will be by the north for the north. However, I would like to ask the Minister about money. Does she accept that the north of England has not had its fair share of investment in recent years? Given that, does she accept that one of the key roles for Transport for the North will be to define and prioritise the resources needed across the north of England? In that event, do the Government accept that there would be little point in Transport for the North doing a lot of work and raising expectations if the Government do not meet the financial consequences of that work?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Cumbria County Council and, more particularly, as a railwayman’s son from Carlisle. I, too, welcome the establishment of Transport for the North. I think it is excellent that we will now have a planning and co-ordinating body that will bring some coherence and, we hope, a transport strategy for the north.

I follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said about resources. In repeating the statement, the noble Baroness referred to a sum of £260 million for which Transport for the North would be responsible. What caught my eye in the recent Budget Statement was paragraph 4.53 on infrastructure delivery, which talks about the Infrastructure and Projects Authority setting out a 10-year projection of public and private investment in infrastructure in Britain of around £600 billion.

The interesting question is how much of this £600 billion will come under the purview of Transport for the North. I very much look forward to the noble Baroness being able to tell me in her reply. Mr Hammond promised some worthwhile things in the Budget. For instance, in the transforming cities fund, there was £243 million for Greater Manchester and £134 million for the Liverpool City Region. There was a £300 million fund for ensuring the links between HS2 and other infrastructure in both the north and the Midlands, but £300 million is not very much. Of course, there is the new rolling stock for the Metro—one of the finest achievements of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, when he was Transport Secretary in the Callaghan Government.

We need more information. My county of Cumbria has vast unmet infrastructure needs. I have a letter here that I could read out about Cumbria’s requirements for road investment. I am conscious of the requirement for rail investment. The west coast main line has been modernised, but the coastal railway, which goes through some of the most beautiful country in England, up to Sellafield and then on to Carlisle, is back in the 19th century in its infrastructure. Yet we are talking about a new nuclear power station being built in west Cumbria and how we try to relieve traffic congestion in the Lake District. These questions need to be addressed, and they will all cost money.

I say just three things on money. First, in my view, London and the south-east should make a bigger contribution. They constitute one of the richest parts of Europe, and I would like the Mayor of London given power to raise more money through property taxation in London for infrastructure investment. Secondly, as long as you stick to the traditional cost-benefit analyses of how transport schemes are assessed, you will always end up with London and south-east projects at the top of the list. That is because there is not a broad enough conception of public value in how transport projects are assessed.

Thirdly, I do not want the Secretary of State for Transport telling us that he has no money in his budget, because that has been exposed as a total fallacy by his decision on the east coast franchise in the last few weeks. He has basically allowed Virgin and Stagecoach to run away with hundreds of millions of pounds that they owed on their franchise payments—possibly as high as £1.5 billion, I am told. He has allowed them to run away with that, because he was not prepared to go along to the House of Commons and admit that their franchise had failed. That is money that could have been spent on transport projects in the north of England; it has not been spent—and what is the explanation?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that so many local authorities have got together and persuaded the Government to form this new organisation. As the Minister said, in geographical terms it is probably the 10th-largest area of its kind in Europe. It goes from Newcastle down to Lincolnshire, right across to Cheshire and Liverpool and up to Cumbria; it is an enormous area, and it is a real success that they have managed to do this.

The Minister said that it would be useful for the Department for Transport—I hope that I have got this right—to give advice. From Regulation 5, “General Functions”, it seems to me that Transport for the North will be giving advice to the Secretary of State. It says that among its general functions is,

“to prepare a transport strategy”—

yes. Then it refers to providing advice to the Secretary of State about how he should exercise his transport functions. Thirdly, it has the function,

“to co-ordinate the carrying out of transport functions”.

Fourthly, it says that it must tell the Secretary of State if it thinks that TfN can do it better. To me, that is very much the Secretary of State retaining control. Perhaps the Minister could explain where the devolution is in all this. It is nice having lots of advice, and everything, but the devolution does not seem to be there; it is still going to be the Secretary of State who has the control.

Other noble Lords have mentioned money. The £250 million that the Minister mentioned is really pretty derisory, compared with Crossrail 2, which I believe will cost £30 billion and HS2, which I think will cost £100 billion, which, of course, connects to the north. But I suspect that many people in that enormous area, as other noble Lords have said, would like to be better connected within the area rather than getting to London 10 minutes quicker. So there is a real mismatch between what London is getting and what the north needs to get. I hope that the Minister can put me right on both those issues. Is it real devolution? Can Transport for the North really make decisions and have the money to spend it as it wants?

Last week, in a local newspaper in Bolton, Lancashire, a comment was made that the Secretary of State had refused the Mayor of Manchester—and this may also be the case regarding other big stations in the north—control of the station so that they can do it up and make it more attractive, getting more passengers and more retail. Why does London have to control the colour of the paint, or what is done locally in these stations, if the local people want to do it and can make some money? We really have to let go of London having control of everything and let this new organisation have real powers. If it fails, the Government know what to do, but I think that it will be a great success.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

I did not intend to intervene in this debate. I normally find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on most issues and I greatly respect his record as a supporter of what one might call green policy. However, on this occasion, I speak declaring an interest as a Friend of the Lake District and believing that special circumstances relate to national parks which make them different from other local authorities. I saw this first-hand in my capacity as chairman of Cumbria Vision, the sub-regional body of the North West Development Agency, which was responsible for promoting economic development in Cumbria.

There are two fundamental differences. First, the people who work on national parks go into it with a very strong personal commitment to planning. I found the quality of staff working for the national park authority to be extremely high. That was not true of planning in all the other district councils in the county of Cumbria. I will not name names, but there were some problems there on the planning side. There were not, however, problems with economic development with the national park, which had a very constructive role in sustainable economic development.

The second difference, which is a fundamental difference from a local authority and the question of a Secretary of State’s potential call-in powers, is that with a national park the Secretary of State nominates quite a high proportion of the members of the authority. Therefore, if the Secretary of State believes that the national park is not getting the balance between development and the environment right, he or she can nominate members. That is my simple point. I shall give way.

[Lord Deben]

I thank the noble Lord for taking the opportunity to find a disagreement between us because we are both singularly embarrassed by the similarity of our views on a whole range of issues, from Europe to planning. However, if what he says is true, would it not be very surprising to get rid of people whose normal attitudes were extremely good but, because of something specific, things had gone wrong? Surely it would be much more sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to deal with this with a precise measure, rather than a sacking. As I understand it, these people are under a contract for a period of time and the Secretary of State would have to wait some time to remove them if they were so wrong. However, I understand from his noble friend that they very rarely get it wrong.

[Lord Liddle]

In my experience, they very rarely get it wrong. My point was simply that if the Secretary of State felt that the overall balance of the way a national park was operating was not right, there is a remedy available to him or her, which is not the case for a local authority. Anyway, I would urge a special provision for national parks because, on the whole, they are a very precious element of our polity, introduced by the post-war Labour Government, and I do not think we want to tamper with them and their independence.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report and, under the convention in the Companion, no Member may speak more than once to any amendment.

EU: Financial Stability and Economic Growth

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, as many noble Lords have said, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was very timely in choosing the topic for debate today. I agreed with virtually everything he said in his speech, although for the sake of the record I ought to say that I disagreed with his description of the previous Labour Government as an awkward partner in Europe. He should go to Brussels and ask what people today think of the coalition. We should remember the influence the previous Labour Government had over the Lisbon strategy, European defence and climate change policy. There were three new treaties. We greatly increased British influence in Europe. Our problem was that we did not make a strong enough case for Europe in Britain. This is what we now have to do.

The central issue in the debate is how Britain should keep its place among the adults, as my noble friend Lord Harrison said, at the European dining table. Some people think that Europe is irrelevant. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is among those who think that the single market is relatively unimportant. For the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, it is a complete waste of time. I will give one example of something good that the Government did this week in my home town of Carlisle. They gave a grant to Pirelli tyres, which employs 1,500 people in Carlisle, to develop innovation in new tyres. Why is Pirelli in Carlisle? Because it gives access to the European single market. People such as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would destroy those jobs.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Liddle]

I am not giving way. The single market is a difficult bargain. The Government say that they want to promote it, but when a lot of people are worried about its social effects, how will they be effective in promoting it at the same time as they are trying to withdraw the United Kingdom from our social and employment obligations? This is a fundamental issue for the coalition and a fundamental contradiction in its policy.

I agree with right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells and with other noble Lords who said that the single market in itself is not enough. We need a European plan for growth. It is not difficult to put that together. Hundreds of millions of pounds lie unused in structural funds, many in the United Kingdom. What will the Minister do about that? The European Investment Bank already does far more to support small businesses in Britain than anything the British Government do. We could expand that role very considerably.

Several noble Lords have said they think devaluation is needed as part of growth. May I draw their attention to an article in this morning’s Financial Times? Its respected economics editor, Mr Chris Giles, points to some striking figures, comparing the net trade contribution to GDP since 2008 for the UK and Spain, both hit badly by the banking crisis. For the UK, with 30 per cent devaluation, trade has improved our GDP by 2.5 per cent; for Spain, stuck in the eurozone single currency, its trade contribution to GDP has improved by 6.3 per cent. Devaluation is not the cure.

I said that this debate was timely and serious. It really is serious, because as the eurozone hovers on the brink of an existential crisis, we should recall the words of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that if the euro fails, Europe fails. For Germany, that would be unthinkable. Such an outcome should be unthinkable for the United Kingdom, too.

Let us recall that the euro was not conceived as a foolish political venture that took priority over the single market, as some noble Lords appear to think. Instead, it was the only practical means to sustain the single market once capital movements were liberalised under the 1992 programme that was so strongly advocated by the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Free capital movement made it impossible to continue with the system of managed exchange rates under the ERM. At the end of the 1980s, Europe faced a simple choice between reverting to free-floating exchange rates, which risked competitive devaluations and a return to protectionism—destroying the single market in its wake—or going for a single currency. Europe chose the single currency.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned Bretton Woods, where Keynes’s essential argument was that free trade and open markets are far more important to economic dynamism than flexible exchange rates; and it is very difficult to have both at the same time. That is why the present situation is such a threat to Britain’s vital interests. Let us not kid ourselves: if the euro fails, we will not see a return to the status quo ante. I do not agree on this point with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for whom I have the most wonderful respect and admiration. The likelihood is that if the euro broke up, the single market would break up as well, in a new Europe of competing currencies. Member states would take protectionist measures against each other to prevent what they see as unfair competition.

For Britain, which conducts so much of its trade and which has so much investment dependant on the single market, this would truly be an economic catastrophe. It would not be just an economic catastrophe. The collapse of the euro would, as Mrs Merkel said, put the European Union itself at risk. I believe that the single market is the foundation stone of the European Union and, as I have argued, the euro is its essential cement. Pull that away and in place of the remarkable unity that we have seen in Europe since the Second World War, we retreat to a Europe of fractious nation states.

This is what it would be: we in Europe decide to become Westphalian pygmies at the moment that Brazil, India and China become globalisation giants. What hope would there be for our ability to promote the values that we share, with Europe and not with the United States, to back international development, reduce world poverty, tackle climate change, advance democracy and human rights and help to solve the problem of failing states? What would happen then in that disastrous situation to the ideals of the founding fathers of the European Union who fought for a Europe whole and free, at peace in a co-operative partnership of nations where elements of sovereignty were pooled in the cause of democracy, freedom, prosperity and social justice?

Britain will be an enormous loser if the European project founders. It must not happen. We must strain every sinew as a Government and as a Parliament to avoid that terrible catastrophe. In doing so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that we are not traitors to our national interests but are giving a practical expression to modern patriotism.