Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Those improvements are still going on and, as I said at the time of the statement, the most important thing is to achieve some of the line-speed improvements to allow us to operate six trains an hour from St Pancras, as opposed to the five trains per hour at present. That work is going on as we speak.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

On 25 June, just seven weeks after the election, the Secretary of State announced that the Government were shelving vital electrification upgrades in the midlands and north— projects that Ministers repeatedly promised to deliver before and during the general election. Will the Secretary of State say categorically when he first became aware that Network Rail thought a decision would have to be made on the future of those upgrades? Was it before or after the election?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is worth noting that when I made the statement the shadow Secretary of State said that it had been well known that the electrification programme was in some trouble. If so, it is interesting that he never asked a question on it at any Transport Question Time. The first time I was told that a pause was needed was a week before I made the statement to the House.

[Michael Dugher]

That is not an answer to my question. The Secretary of State says that he was in the dark, but we know that the Government were warned by the rail regulator in November last year, and by the Transport Committee in January, that costs were escalating and big rail projects such as those were in trouble. The chief executive of Network Rail, Mark Carne said:

“People knew perfectly well there were high levels of uncertainty about this, it was widely flagged at the time, and it would not be fair for people to forget that.”

I wonder who he was referring to. Ministers knew all along that they were going to shelve those projects, but they continued to con the public. It is completely shabby. Should not the Government now live up to their election promises, reinstate the electrification work and not pull the plug on those vital upgrades for the north and midlands?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The last time a major upgrade was done by the Labour party, it set out as a £2 billion scheme and ended as a £12 billion scheme—and then was, I think, scaled back to a £9 billion scheme. It would be wrong of me, therefore, to say exactly what the future course of action will be until I have Sir Peter Hendy’s report—he starts work today. However, I am committed to seeing the electrification as laid out, and to the 850 miles that we will be putting in place over this period of electrification, as opposed to the 10 miles of electrification that the last Labour Government put in place in their full 13 years.

Davies Commission Report

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his fairly brief statement, and I join him in thanking Sir Howard Davies and his team for the vital work that they have done since 2012 in producing what is a very important report. I also pay tribute to both Heathrow and Gatwick for the impressive campaigns that they have run.

The report constitutes a substantial piece of evidence-led work. Sir Howard Davies has proceeded in a calm, open and assured manner throughout, and we welcome the fact that he has now produced a clear recommendation. The report states:

“A new Northwest Runway at Heathrow delivers more substantial economic and strategic benefits than any of the other shortlisted options, strengthening connectivity for passengers and freight users and boosting the productivity of the UK economy.”

It also states that the recommendation is

“a fundamentally different proposition from previous proposals to expand at Heathrow.”

Sir Howard Davies added this morning:

“The proposal in place then was a deficient proposal; it did not offer the economic advantages of this proposal.”

As the Secretary of State has said, aviation plays a massive role in our economy, and has the potential to play an even greater role in the future. The sector employs hundreds of thousands of people, contributes more than £50 billion to our GDP, and pays the Exchequer more than £8 billion in tax every year. However, as we know, the ongoing growth of our aviation sector is now at risk. Heathrow has been full for 10 years, and Gatwick is set to reach capacity within the next five.

A decision on aviation expansion should have been made many years ago. That was a failure on the part of all previous Governments, but failing to act this time is not an option. Just a few weeks ago, a report by the Independent Transport Commission revealed that if a decision was put off yet again, we would face a significant loss in productivity and inward investment, with the UK economy potentially losing up to £214 billion over the next 60 years. The evidence is clear: more airport capacity is vital to our economic success, and we need action if we are to maintain our status as Europe’s most important aviation hub.

As I have said, the report is a significant and substantial piece of work, and, like the Government, we will take an appropriate period of time to analyse and scrutinise its findings carefully; but will the Secretary of State assure me that, if the report and Heathrow can demonstrate that the main recommendation meets a number of key tests, the Government will make a swift decision to proceed? Those tests include, first, that there is robust and convincing evidence that the increased aviation capacity that is required will be delivered by Sir Howard’s recommendation; secondly, that the recommended expansion in capacity can go hand in hand with efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions from aviation and allow us to meet our legal climate change obligations, which is absolutely crucial; thirdly, that local noise and environmental impacts have been adequately considered and will be managed and minimised; and fourthly, that the benefits of expansion will be felt in every corner of the country, including any infrastructure, employment and supply-chain benefits, and that regional airports will be supported, too.

The public and businesses across the UK have been clear that they do not want any further dither or delay. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that, no matter how tempted the Government might be, he will not kick this into the long grass? The short-term interests of the Conservative party must not take priority over what is in the best long-term interests of the country.

This is the biggest decision for UK plc this decade. The message from the Labour Benches is clear: we will study the report carefully and, if our key tests are met, we will back the report and a decision that is in the long-term interests of the country. I know there are profoundly difficult issues within the Conservative party on this issue. The Secretary of State has my deepest sympathies, as always, but there is a majority in the House of Commons willing to do the right thing by the country. The Government will have our support, but they must make the right decision—and they must make it quickly.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. It was calmer than the response I usually get from him on transport issues.

[Michael Dugher]

Business as usual next week.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think I will have to wait that long.

The hon. Gentleman says that there are difficulties on the Conservative Benches, with colleagues having strong views, but I beg that he looks just behind him, because certain of his colleagues oppose an expansion of airports, not least one of the leading contenders for the nomination of Labour candidate for London Mayor, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who said this morning:

“This is a bad decision. All Londoners should know if I’m elected mayor I will do everything in my power to stop this health and environmental catastrophe blighting London.”

Rather than trying to make it seem as though there is opposition just on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Gentleman and other Members should recognise the very big concerns that a number of people have and will have on any expansion of major infrastructure. That is something that I have been always careful to do as Secretary of State for Transport, whether in dealing with this subject or other subjects that cause local people a lot of inconvenience. Sometimes a scheme is basically unacceptable to them. I assure him that we will study the Davies report in great detail. It is a very good, well researched report. I will come back and inform the House further later this year.

Network Rail

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s total failure to deliver a fit-for-purpose railway has today been completely and damningly exposed. First, the publication of the latest national rail passenger survey—I note the Secretary of State did not mention it—shows that passenger satisfaction has dropped once again. Now we have the Secretary of State announcing that vital investment projects, such as electrification of the midland main line, which he promised to deliver, are being shelved owing to his repeated failure to get a grip of Network Rail. The electrification of the trans-Pennine express railway line between Manchester, Leeds and York has also been shelved—so much for the northern powerhouse—and we remain concerned about the future of the electrification of the Great Western line.

The Secretary of State spent the election campaign repeating promises that he knew he would break after the election. That is what has been revealed today. The truth is that passengers have had to endure a catalogue of failure on our railways by Ministers since 2010. There was the Christmas rail chaos, which the Secretary of State referred to, although he neglected to mention that Ministers had been warned about that and failed to act. While delusional Ministers talk about “fair fares” and “comfortable commuting”—which is a world away from the misery for commuters at London Bridge—there have been inflation-busting fare rises of on average more than 20%. We have also seen the collapse of the west coast franchise competition, which cost the taxpayer £50 million. Ministers may try today to shift all the blame to Network Rail, but this happened on the Government’s watch and the responsibility for the mess lays squarely with the Government.

Let me turn to a number of specific questions. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the Government placed the development of key Network Rail projects on hold for up to two years after the 2010 election, important preparation work was not undertaken, and therefore, as the rail regulator has said, they committed to the projects in 2012 based on “limited development work”? We know that Network Rail started to put together a list of projects that would be axed back in November. Why has it taken so long for the Government to reveal them to the House and to be honest with the travelling public? Crucially, can the Secretary of State confirm that he received a report on 1 September last year on the state of those programmes from Network Rail, his Department and the regulator? He has refused to publish it. Why did he sit on the report and pretend to the public that everything was fine until after the election?

Labour first raised the issue of delays to the Great Western project in the House more than a year ago. Why has it taken so long for the Government to admit that there were fundamental problems with the project? Why did the Secretary of State not listen to the Transport Select Committee six months ago when it warned that key rail enhancement projects had

“been announced by Ministers without Network Rail having a clear estimate of what the projects will cost, leading to uncertainty about whether the projects will be delivered on time, or at all”?

Why did he not raise the alarm when the estimated cost of electrifying the midland main line rose from £250 million to £540 million and then to £1.3 billion; or when the cost estimates for Great Western electrification rose from £548 million to £930 million and then to £1.7 billion?

Just two weeks ago, the Secretary of State refused to answer my questions about the need to tackle the failures at Network Rail and whether he was planning changes to Network Rail. Will he explain why he has dithered for so long when he has had the power to exert more ministerial responsibility over Network Rail, including by appointing a special director, since September last year?

The Opposition have warned time and again that fundamental change in how our railways are run is needed, that Ministers need to get a grip, that passengers should have a proper voice and that more public control is needed. We welcome the appointment of Sir Peter Hendy as chairman of Network Rail, and we will look carefully at some of the other announcements that the Government have made.

The news today exposes a catalogue of failure by Ministers, and it deals a fatal blow to the Government’s claim that they are delivering a better railway for passengers. Is it not clear that the Government’s real legacy is one of rail fare hikes, plummeting passenger satisfaction, ongoing disruptions and delays, major projects running years behind schedule, promises of vital investment betrayed, and a railway that is not fit for purpose, and all the while out-of-touch Ministers sat in Whitehall overseeing a complete and utter shambles?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is true that I have been Transport Secretary for two and a half years. Despite the catalogue of terror that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, over those two and a half years there have been only two occasions on which the Opposition have chosen to debate transport on Opposition days. One was a day after I was appointed, and the other was on the day that the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was sacked as shadow Transport Secretary. With regard to their warning us and wanting the subject lifted up the political agenda, we have heard nothing from the Opposition, because they are truly embarrassed by their record, whereas we have invested in the railways, lifted them and given encouragement to the railway industry.

Today I have made no cuts whatever to the rail investment strategy—the largest rail investment strategy that has ever taken place. The amount of money invested is exactly the same as it was last week—the budget within which the strategy has to be delivered. I will take no lessons from a Labour party that in 13 years electrified 10 miles of railway lines; we have electrified more this year than it did in all that time. Then there is the £895 million project to rebuild the railways around Reading and to remove major bottlenecks; the £750 million transformation and upgrade of Birmingham New Street station; the refurbishment of Nottingham station, with all the investment going into it. There has been more investment in Nottingham in the last five years than was seen in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. Then there is the new station built at Wakefield; the completed Ipswich Chord and the Doncaster Chord; phase 1 of the £6.5 billion Thameslink project; the completion of Crossrail tunnelling. I could go on a lot more, Mr Speaker. I will take no lectures. I am determined to get on top of, and see the delivery of, those programmes, which are so important for our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know the Minister with responsibility for rail, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), is more than happy to discuss that project with my hon. Friend following her stunning electoral success.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Recent reports suggest that the Government are looking at breaking up and privatising parts of Network Rail. We know that under this Government Network Rail is still underperforming and needs to improve. That was again highlighted by the recent investigations by the Office of Rail and Road—and just ask anyone enduring the misery that is commuting into London Bridge at the moment—but does the Secretary of State agree that the last thing we need in the railways is more privatisation and more fragmentation?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the papers. I sometimes think he writes some of the press releases and then believes what he has written, but they always seem to be inaccurate. Network Rail has a very big job to do in delivering its enhancements, but it is no good complaining that the work inconveniences people because we are building a far better railway network, and that is absolutely essential.

[Michael Dugher]

That was not an answer, so we will try again. The Secretary of State’s own Department—this is not my press release—refused to deny recently that it was looking at changes to the structure and ownership of Network Rail. The truth is we need improved co-ordination across our railways, we need to put right the fact that the only people who have no say in the running of the railways are the passengers themselves, and we need more public control, not less. Can he now tell the House categorically that his Department is not looking at or considering options to break up or sell off parts of Network Rail?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Such a scheme has been identified in the draft national transport plan for Wales as contributing to access to services. We will discuss the matter further with Welsh Government officials to assess their priorities, but no one could have campaigned harder for it to be examined than my hon. Friend.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

This week, following the Government’s privatisation of East Coast, Stagecoach released a trading update announcing that the privatisation would “significantly enhance” its profits. We know that the chief executive of Stagecoach, Martin Griffiths, is scraping by on £2.2 million a year—which, by the way, makes him eligible for the Government’s tax cut for millionaires, so his week is getting better and better. At the same time, Stagecoach is threatening to withdraw its buses from the north-east, simply because the local transport authority wants to do something about the fare rises and bus route cuts that have marked the Government’s failure and broken promises. When will Ministers condemn what Stagecoach is doing in the north-east? Do we not need a Government who deliver for the travelling public, not for the Stagecoach shareholders?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What we need, and what we have, is a Government who are investing record amounts of money in our transport infrastructure—far more than the last Government invested in both capital projects and revenue projects. I can only take what was said in Transport Times by the editor, David Fowler, in his latest edition this week:

“On rail franchising and speed cameras”

Labour’s policies

“seem to be going against the weight of evidence.”

We have seen a dramatic improvement in our services, provided by the private sector. The Labour party is so opposed to the private sector and everything it stands for that it wants to destroy it, on the back of our seeing one of the most successful turnarounds of the rail industry in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Last week the “Buses in crisis” report from the Campaign for Better Transport revealed that since 2010 more than 2,000 bus routes have been cut and bus fares have risen by 25% on average—five times faster than the rise in average wages—while bus companies continue to make big profits and big bonuses for people at the top. Why will not the Government back Labour’s proposals to legislate to give London-style powers to city and county regions in England, which would give passengers the power to control fares, set routes and integrate services? If it is okay for Boris, then why not the same powers for Bristol, Birmingham, Bedford, Brighton, Burnley, Bradford, Burton, Blackpool and Barnsley?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not know quite where the hon. Gentleman gets his facts from. Between 1997 and 2010, the annual average increase in English bus fares, in real terms, was 2.25%, whereas between 2010 and 2013 the increase was 1.5%, so there was a lower increase under this Government than during the whole period of the previous Government. The simple fact is that buses play a very important role in offering transport opportunities both to younger people and older people. That is why we have kept, and will keep, concessionary bus fares for older people.

Rail Network (Disruption)

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the major disruptions to Britain’s rail network over the Christmas period.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

As I made clear at the time, the disruption at King’s Cross and Paddington after Christmas was totally unacceptable. Passengers deserve a reliable rail service, they deserve clear information, and they deserve rapid help when things go wrong. I am sorry that in this case they did not get those things.

Before I give the House further details of what happened, I wish to pay tribute to the 11,000 engineers who were working on the track across the country over the holiday period on 300 projects at some 2,000 work sites, often in difficult conditions—a record level of activity and investment and part of the £38 billion being invested in our railways by this Government, working to create capacity, increase reliability and make our railways safer. The vast majority of complex projects were completed on time. For instance, a vital new flyover opened today at Reading—a complex scheme on time and on budget—and London Bridge reopened after key work on the Thameslink programme which will continue for some time. When things go wrong, however, we expect the industry to have proper contingency plans, so let me turn to what happened at Christmas and what is being done to put them right.

First, at King’s Cross, Network Rail had in place a vital scheme to replace and modernise some seven sets of points and crossings, and associated track and overhead wiring. It involved the replacement of more than 1 km of track, some 12,000 tonnes of ballast and 14 dedicated engineering trains. That work needed to be done and was planned for Christmas to limit impact. It had been planned that two lines would be opened on 27 December to operate a limited service in and out of King’s Cross, but some elements of the work took longer than expected. A decision was taken to run an alternative service terminating at Finsbury Park. As a result, many passenger journeys were seriously delayed and disrupted. The planned modified services were able to restart on Sunday 28 December.

Secondly, at Paddington, work on signalling was intended to allow lines to reopen in the morning. Safety testing meant that trains were able to operate only as far as Ealing Broadway until mid-afternoon. Neither of those situations should have occurred. It is inevitable that major investment in the railways will, from time to time, mean some disruption, but all of us who use the railways need Network Rail to complete such vital engineering works on time, as were most of its other schemes. Let me turn now to the response.

I worked closely with Network Rail on the day and afterwards, and I have left it in no doubt of the importance of getting this right. Mark Carne, the chief executive, ordered an urgent review of what went wrong. A report, which will be published, will be provided by the end of this week. One of the questions that needs to be answered relates to the timing of its major works programmes. The industry’s conventional wisdom is that it is generally better to carry out major disruptive work over holiday periods when passenger numbers are lighter than usual. The Office of Rail Regulation is conducting its own parallel investigation, which will determine whether any regulatory enforcement action is required and ensure that lessons are learned. It will work closely with Passenger Focus.

I and my officials were briefed on key elements of Network Rail’s engineering programme and the associated planned changes to services. We were not, however, involved in planning for the operational aspect of the works programme or the contingency planning. That is as it should be. Network Rail is an operationally independent body and it needs to be able to get on with its job without political interference. If it gets things wrong it will be held to account. We have made it clear to the company that we expect it to deliver the outcomes for which it has been funded over the current control period, including the largest programme of investment since the Victorian era and a reliable daily service. When services do not run as planned, passengers are entitled to be reimbursed if they are delayed significantly. Train operators have compensation schemes in place. In the new franchises, we are improving compensation compared with that left by the previous Government.

Things should have been done better. I have set out my understanding of the events at King’s Cross and Paddington after Christmas. The level of disruption is wholly unacceptable and I am confident that Network Rail will learn the necessary lessons to minimise the chances of it happening again.

[Michael Dugher]

In his new year message, the Prime Minister said that Britain faced a choice between competence or chaos. Ministers at the Department for Transport clearly did not get the memo, because at Christmas we saw both chaos and incompetence on our rail network, resulting in misery for passengers who have seen their fares rocket by more than 20% since 2010—three times faster than the growth of wages. The recent chaos all started with the Secretary of State’s decision to allow a near shutdown of train services on Boxing day, letting 17 operators run no service whatever with vastly reduced services everywhere else. The next day, work overran at more than 200 engineering sites, resulting in thousands of passengers facing appalling disruption.

It was right that Network Rail accepted its responsibilities, and so too should the contractors, but is it not also time for the Secretary of State finally to face up to his share of the responsibility? The Office of Rail Regulation published a damning report back in November on Network Rail’s performance. Was this report not a massive warning sign for Ministers that there would be serious delivery challenges associated with the planned maintenance work over Christmas? What assurances were sought by Ministers on whether the plans for the Boxing day shutdown were robust enough, whether adequate contingencies were in place and whether there was sufficient resilience in the system to ensure that continued disruption would not run into the weekend?

Where were Ministers during the rail chaos? They were AWOL. It was only after days of disarray that the Secretary of State finally put down his selection box and leapt to action, releasing a statement on the Saturday evening in a desperate attempt to shift the blame entirely on to others. On Sunday morning, the rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), sent a message to the thousands of passengers who had had their Boxing day and weekend ruined. What words of sympathy and consolation did she offer? She said she was “so chuffed” with the state of the railways—Calamity Claire, the gift that keeps on giving.

These problems happened on this Government’s watch. The warning signs were there. The Secretary of State has spoken about the lessons that must be learned, but must they not be learned by Ministers too and an apology be made to the travelling public?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not hear me apologise. I think his script was prepared before he heard my answer. I have made it fairly clear that what happened was unacceptable, whereas all we have heard from him is empty noise—from a party with no plan and no ideas, from a man who was special adviser at the Department for Transport when Railtrack collapsed and the network fell apart, from somebody who knows all about chaos, because that is exactly what he caused then. He called his predecessors “trainspotters” in the Daily Mirror, but now he pretends to know how to run the railways. I will not take too many lessons from him.

The hon. Gentleman says that fares have gone up by 20%, but in fact, in real terms, they have gone up by 3%, and this year’s rise was the lowest in a decade. It was his party in government that put them up by 42% in cash terms—a policy that we have ended. He said that Network Rail’s bonuses should reflect what has happened, and I agree, but will he add that the bonus payments agreed by Labour in 2009-10 were nine times this year’s figures?

[Michael Dugher]

Where was the Secretary of State over Christmas?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Where was I at Christmas?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend, along with the Grimsby and Scunthorpe Telegraph, has led an interesting campaign. I am pleased to say that after consideration of the responses to our consultation on the Northern and TransPennine Express franchise, we have decided to retain the Cleethorpes services within the TPE franchise. The forthcoming invitation to tender for the TPE franchise will specify that direct services between Cleethorpes and Manchester airport should continue. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) have both been at the forefront of this campaign, and I am very pleased to announce today that it has been successful.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Polling shows that a majority of the public oppose the Government’s plans to privatise the east coast main line, and people in their thousands are signing the petition launched by Labour this week. Given that the east coast service has achieved the top customer satisfaction rating for a long-distance rail operator and improved performance, and given that the public sector operator will have returned over £1 billion to the Exchequer before privatisation, why is Directly Operated Railways not even allowed to bid for the contract? When will the Secretary of State finally listen to the travelling public and call a halt to this privatisation?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I welcomed the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box last week when I answered his urgent question, but as this is his first Transport questions, I again welcome him to his post. I have to tell him how interested I was in the interview that he gave to the Daily Mirror on Tuesday, in which he said:

“I want to be a Transport Secretary not a train-spotter . . . there have been too many train-spotters in the job.”

Anybody in this job is not a train-spotter but is interested in what happens to the motorist, the passenger and the cyclist, and should not distinguish between them.

I come back to the point that I made last week. The tendering process has given great rewards to those areas, and will bring more services and better facilities to passengers on that route. I followed the route that the Labour Government followed for 13 years. When the last Labour Transport Secretary brought in DOR, he said that it would be a short-term solution.

Road Investment Strategy

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. However, the whole country has had advance sight of these projects, first when they were announced in June 2013 and subsequently at the time of their re-announcement in November this year. This latest re-announcement represents not so much an upgrade of the nation’s roads as an upgrade of the Government’s press releases. If the Government were as good at upgrading roads as they are at making announcements about upgrading roads, life would be considerably easier for Britain’s hard-pressed road users.

The Secretary of State is right to talk about the vital importance of our road network to families and businesses throughout the country, but is this not a classic case of all talk and no delivery from the Government? We know that they have failed to deliver, not just on roads but on their infrastructure promises. Will the Secretary of State confirm that infrastructure output has fallen by more than 11% since 2010, and that only a third of the projects in the national infrastructure plan will have started by 2015? If the prehistoric builders who began work on Stonehenge had taken the approach to construction that the Government are taking, we would still be waiting for the first stone to be erected four and a half thousand years later. Is it not high time that the Government backed Sir John Armitt’s proposal for an independent national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs? Why do Ministers disagree with—according to the CBI—89% of businesses about the need for such a commission?

We support proposals to tackle congestion hot spots, and we support long-term funding for roads, but given the Government’s track record, we will be looking at the detail very carefully, and scrutinising their plans against clear objectives. Those objectives are that the public get value for money, that the schemes support economic growth, and that the schemes deliver tangible improvements for road users.

Labour spent £94 billion on the road network between 1997 and 2010, delivering significant improvements in both strategic and local road networks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, in marked contrast, the Government’s record includes the cancelling of schemes for roads such as the A14 and their subsequent reinstatement, a process that wasted millions of pounds; promises of private investment on which they failed to deliver; and the repeated issuing of deadlines for the completion of improvements, which they missed time and time again? We know that the Government cut £4 billion from Labour’s planned road investments in 2010. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced today includes no money in addition to that which the Government have previously announced?

The Secretary of State said nothing about tackling the desperate condition of many of our local roads, and the pothole crisis throughout the country. The Department’s own statistics for this year show that spending on local authority minor roads has fallen by 20% since 2010. The latest figures also reveal that over 2,250 more miles of our local roads now need maintenance. That is the equivalent of the distance from Land’s End to John O’Groats and back again. What is the Secretary of State doing about the urgent need to improve the condition of those local roads?

Let me now comment on some of the individual proposals that the Secretary of State has announced today. First, we favour the long-term investment in our roads that the road investment strategy provides, but when will the Government present firm proposals for the new strategic highways company? Secondly, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the possible impact on the five-year funding settlement of a delay in the proposed reform of the Highways Agency? Thirdly, the £l00 million for cycle schemes and cycle-proofing is welcome, but cyclists and transport planners are right to ask what the Government are doing to deliver much needed long-term investment and planning for cyclists. Fourthly, will the Secretary of State publish the environmental impact assessments of all the proposed road plans?

Finally, we know that the current Government’s sudden interest in roads has more to do with the forthcoming general election than the transport needs of the country. This is a sad attempt at motorways for the marginals, new lanes for soon-to-be-defeated Liberal Democrats, and trunk roads for Tories about to be turfed out by Labour.

Ministers will be judged not on what they say they will do after the next election, but on what they have actually done since the last election. The sad truth for Britain’s hard-pressed road users is that this is a desperate pre-election move from a Government who have failed to deliver on our nationally strategic roads, and when it comes to our important local roads, the reality is that things have got much, much worse.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I heard in part of that rant a commitment to support a roads investment strategy. That is much needed in this country. The simple fact is that we have had such a strategy for the railways for the last few years, and we should have one for the Highways Agency and our strategic roads, because big projects like this do take time. On the idea that somehow we have ignored these projects, I would point out that since 2010 we have completed eight major road schemes left to us by the last Government, and we have completed a further six started by this Government. We have also started construction on a further 14 schemes. Mr Speaker, because you like short replies I will not list them all, but I could easily do so if I needed to.

On funding for local highways, between 2005 and 2010, at the time of the last Government—when the hon. Gentleman was a spokesman for the former Prime Minister and for some time did the job of writing his press releases—local highways maintenance funding was £3.7 billion. Between 2010 and 2015, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the spending on highways authorities has been £4.7 billion. So, yes, Mr Speaker, I make no apologies for the fact that we have had to cut some schemes that were announced in the very late days of the last Government, but we have also invested in the roads programme—and we have invested substantially, and we will continue to do so.

[Michael Dugher]

What about local roads?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The answer I have just given was on local roads. As I said, between 2005 and 2010 the funding was £3.7 billion and between 2010 and 2015 the spending going to local authorities is £4.7 billion.

Today we have set out some ambitious programmes, because I am ambitious for the roads of this country, but that should be set alongside the ambition that we have also laid out for the railways and the investment we are making in them, which is seeing more people use the railways today than at any time in our history. We have also got to make sure our road network is sufficient for future generations. That is what today’s schemes will achieve.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the details. They were set out in the written statement I made this morning. Four documents explain what will be expected of the new roads investment strategy and the new highways department.

East Coast Main Line

Debate between Lord McLoughlin and Michael Dugher

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the Government’s decision to award the franchise for the east coast main line.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

This morning, I announced the intention to award the InterCity east coast franchise to Stagecoach-Virgin, exactly on the schedule that we promised two years ago. That is great for passengers. It will bring more trains, faster trains, newer trains, better services and better value for money. It is good for towns and cities up and down the east coast. It is good for our economy and for jobs. It is proof that the right route forward for our railways is the private sector and the public sector working together. This deal will make the route of the Flying Scotsman a world-beater once again.

We have heard different advice from the Opposition—led, of course, by the unions. They told us to leave the route in the hands of the emergency public sector operator. They do not understand how that would deny the east coast line new ideas and investment. They do not understand that the operator was set up as a short-term measure by the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport. That is why the noble Lord Adonis said at the time:

“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

Indeed, the then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said that

“one reason we are able to invest record sums in our railway service is the revenues that the franchises bring in and the premiums that they pay”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 430.]

They were right then and they are wrong today.

It is this Government who are powering ahead with better plans for our railways. The new franchise will be good for people who use the line. The deal will strengthen the vital links from London to Scotland, all the way along the route as far as Aberdeen and Inverness. Passengers will benefit from regular, faster, more frequent services to places such as Falkirk, Stirling and Edinburgh. Journeys between London and Edinburgh will regularly be down to just 4 hours by May 2020. Leeds will see regular journey times go down to just 2 hours.

Places such as Leeds, Bradford, Shipley and Harrogate will see more direct services each day. Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield and Dewsbury will get new east coast services. There will be the first direct service from Huddersfield to London since the 1960s. Lincoln, which gets just one train a day to London under the current operator, will get one every two hours with the new one. We have protected the service levels to every current main line station as well. By May 2020, all those destinations will be served by the new intercity express trains, which will be built in the heart of the north-east at the new plant in Newton Aycliffe.

I ask the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher): why does he want to deny the north all those benefits? The new operator will provide 50% more capacity across the east coast network, a 40% increase in peak seats to and from King’s Cross, and a refurbishment of the existing fleet. It will cut some of the most expensive fares by 10% from May next year.

The franchise is not just good for the passengers; it is good for the staff. There will be investment in skills, with a graduate programme and new apprenticeships. There will be a national academy for rail professional education based in London, York and Derby. The franchise is good for taxpayers, too. It will run for eight years, with the option to extend it for a further year. In that time, it will return £3.3 billion in premium payments to the taxpayer. These figures are robust and have been subject to rigorous scrutiny, including by independent auditors. The deal will bring more services, more passengers and a growing return.

The Government’s franchising programme is creating the railways that this country needs. Passengers in Essex, London and the south-east already benefit from the improved services that a partnership between the public and private sectors can provide for our railways. This award is further proof that private competition is good for passengers, staff, communities and taxpayers. The quality of the new operator’s plans will benefit the whole country.

[Michael Dugher]

If this is such a good deal, why did the Secretary of State not offer to come to the House and make a statement, to share all the good news with us? Are the Government desperate to avoid scrutiny of their shambolic approach to franchising, which has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds?

First we had the west coast fiasco, which wasted £50 million, and then Ministers presided over the loss of hundreds of millions more, with delays to investments and franchise extensions. Now, on the east coast main line, we see Conservative dogma on privatisation put before the interests of the travelling public.

It is absurd in the extreme that our own public operator should be the only rail company in the world that has been barred from challenging to run its own services. It is not too late to halt the process, but given that the Secretary of State is adamant that it will go ahead, that we are only months away from an election and that there is no political consensus for this major decision, will he give a formal written ministerial direction to his permanent secretary to outline that he is still insisting on proceeding with this flawed process?

The Government say that £3.3 billion will be paid to the Exchequer over eight years, but the operator says it will be £2.3 billion. Why the discrepancy? Is the Secretary of State’s announcement already unravelling? Given that Virgin charges some of the highest peak fares in the country on the west coast, will passengers on the east coast main line face more fare rises to pay for this decision? Is it time that the Government legislated to allow a British not-for-profit public sector operator to take on and challenge train operators on a level playing field?

It is clear that the whole franchise process should never have happened. It was rushed through on a rigged political timetable, and by the time this service is privatised it will have paid more than £1 billion to the Exchequer. The entire process is a disgrace. The taxpayer and the travelling public have been sold down the river.