Network Rail

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I add my congratulations on securing the debate to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and her colleagues. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) in that, while it is always a delight to face the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), we hope that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), has a speedy recovery, hastened by not watching the debate and getting some rest.

The debate has been good and has included a number of powerful and well-informed contributions. I particularly enjoyed the Punch and Judy performance between the hon. Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley). On this occasion, I will resist the temptation to make another contribution about High Speed 2, leaving for another day the thuds that can be heard from the upper room of a home in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rugby.

The debate has rightly had a repeated focus on the performance and accountability of Network Rail. As hon. Members have pointed out, the debate is particularly timely given that, shortly before Christmas, the Office of Rail Regulation said that it considered Network Rail to be in breach of its licence for reliability in the freight sector and likely to be in breach for long-distance passenger services. In both sectors, performance is declining at a worrying rate. End-of-year targets for 2011 were missed and ORR remains to be convinced that Network Rail is doing all that it can to improve reliability. A striking fact that should be re-emphasised is that Network Rail has already admitted that it will not meet its 2012 target for punctuality, and yet we learn that that organisation believes that this is the right moment to put forward a fresh reward scheme worth up to 500% of salary over five years.

To state the blindingly obvious, the reliability of train service leaves a lot to be desired in so many parts of the country. The statistics are clear. In 2011, more than one in 10 long-distance services was more than 10 minutes late. Such underperformance is frustrating for passengers, damaging to business and, potentially, a real and significant drag on overall economic performance in the country and the regions. We need a railway that performs better, not least because hard-pressed passengers are being asked to pay fares that have recently risen by up to 13%.

The figures on the causes of delay are clear. A more reliable railway will require better performance from Network Rail. When our constituents complain to us about a delayed journey, the train operator as the shop front for the railway system tends to get it in the neck. Many operators, indeed, need to up their game, but month on month, year on year, the majority of delays are the responsibility of Network Rail. In the most recent period for which figures are available, the organisation was responsible for 646,000 minutes-worth of delays to trains, representing 59% of the overall total.

No one is pretending or should imagine that there is an easy solution. Network Rail, or whatever organisation or structure might be put in its place, is charged with operating a complex, extensive rail network that has seen differing levels of investment over many decades. There is more demand for rail travel now than in any peacetime period since the 1920s. Yes, some of the delays ascribed to Network Rail are largely outside its immediate control. In particular, as mentioned in the debate, cable theft has risen fast up the agenda in recent months. To dwell a moment on that, we now know that rising global metal prices have triggered an unprecedented level of theft of the more valuable metals, from the railways as from electricity suppliers, communications providers and, most despicably, churches and memorials. The theft of even a short stretch of signalling cabling from the railway can lead to the shutting down of huge sections of the network for hours on end, as we and our constituents have seen, causing immense disruption. In the current financial year, passengers are on course to suffer almost 7,000 hours-worth of delays because of cable theft, which would be a record.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Such cases are deemed to involve force majeure, however, and something over which Network Rail has no control, unless it was derelict in its duty to police the railway line. As such, Network Rail would not be seen to be failing, but I believe that it is failing on things over which it has control.

[John Woodcock]

That is an interesting point. We should examine repeatedly how such incentive mechanisms work.

In the case of cable theft, increased action and a tougher regulatory system are needed to enable Network Rail to perform better. Of concern is that it took so many instances of main lines and major stations coming to a halt before the Government were spurred to what we hope is greater action. Even though Ministers now seem prepared to legislate for a ban on cash sales of scrap metal, at the moment their actions fall short of what is required to end the scourge of thefts. Cashless transactions alone may prove too easy to circumvent. We need a licensing system for scrap metal dealers, strengthened police powers to enter premises that they suspect of selling stolen metal and to close such premises down if necessary, and a requirement to show verifiable identification, recorded at the point of sale, for all transactions.

Ministers still have an opportunity to put more comprehensive measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. They would have cross-party support in doing so. I am talking about measures that would genuinely put an end to the spiral of delay, disruption and extra cost being experienced by passengers and freight customers across the network. I hope that the Minister will outline whether he is prepared, from a transport point of view, to put pressure on his Home Office colleagues to go further on the matter.

There is a need for improved performance from Network Rail in areas over which unquestionably it has control. Those areas include the reliability of signalling systems and better management of planned shutdowns to limit overruns having an impact on the next day’s passenger services. Performance is highly variable across the network. Far more needs to be done to ensure that good practice is learnt from by all Network Rail regions.

There is real scope to improve performance by reforming the artificial barrier between track and train—one legacy of the botched privatisation of the railways. However, there remains real confusion about where the Government are heading on that. Originally, Ministers proposed handing over infrastructure to the private sector, raising questions about whether they had truly learnt the lessons of the Hatfield crash. Will the Minister make it clear whether they have abandoned those plans? In the absence of the much-delayed Command Paper, the confusion drags on, so will the Minister tell us when we can expect to see that Command Paper?

We also have concerns about something that has so far not been brought to the House but on which newspapers have been briefed, which is the Minister’s new idea about creating single management companies out of Network Rail and train operating companies, starting with a potential partnership with South West Trains. The Minister needs to say how a level playing field will be ensured when such franchises come up for renewal. How will other train operators, both passenger and freight, that use that part of the network fit into the alliance? How does the balance between a for-profit train operator and the not-for-profit Network Rail work in that context?

Hon. Members are right to focus on the need to improve efficiency. As part of that, we need to make procuring and building improvements more efficient without compromising safety. I have spoken to train operating companies, and a number of them have expressed concerns that having to use Network Rail to procure improvements to the non-safety-critical parts of the railway system, such as station buildings and car parks, significantly pushes up the costs of and delivery timeframes for those improvements. Will the Minister expand in his winding-up speech on plans either to allow TOCs to procure such works independently, or to ensure that Network Rail improves its processes?

A number of hon. Members raised, quite rightly, the issue of investment in various parts of the rail network. However, the way in which we currently manage investment in the railway system and, indeed, across the transport network needs to change. We need longer-term thinking that goes beyond artificial five-year horizons. We have a reasonable idea of where the pinchpoints in the system will be in decades to come, the capacity challenges and the emerging markets for new or faster services. We have had, for example, welcome albeit piecemeal announcements of funding for electrification. So far, that applies mainly to schemes developed by the previous Government. However, the five-year horizon of planning means that the Government are hindered from creating greater certainty about a rolling programme of electrification, which, at its best, could guard against the resources and skills employed by schemes such as the Great Western and north-west wiring schemes being lost at the end of those programmes rather than being moved to the next area, such as the midland main line or the Great Western route through to Swansea.

Labour is not calling for extra spending on rail in this comprehensive spending review period, but we do want the five-yearly assessment of what is affordable to be part of a longer plan for what is desirable and likely, so that industry can plan and British manufacturing can have the best chance of winning contracts.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is rightly emphasising costs, but a lot of the costs have to do with the method of contracting and sub-contracting that has been in use since privatisation. The contrast with British Rail is extreme, but there is also the contrast with costs abroad—other railway systems on the continent of Europe. Is that not something fundamental that we have to look at to bring those costs down, not just marginal changes to improve efficiency a bit, because we are talking about a multiple of costs?

[John Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to say that we need to look across the board at all options for improving efficiency. Avoiding inefficient procurement decisions, without returning to the days of the railway system that existed before the botched changes were made, which was not in itself operating efficiently, is the challenge and would be the challenge for any Government seeking to produce real, lasting and effective reform.

The deficit of accountability and transparency has rightly dominated speeches today. They have been powerful and well directed, but before I say more about where we share concerns in that respect, it is important to stress how far we have come since the days of Hatfield. Network Rail’s unusual structure was forged in response to the failure of its predecessor, Railtrack. The Labour Government were right to take action to bring the management of our rail infrastructure back under control, but the simple fact that we are in a relatively better place today does not mean that we can or should ignore the problems and shortcomings that beset the organisation a decade on.

The unusual nature of Network Rail has created a deficit of accountability. It does not have shareholders and does not respond directly to elected politicians, as has been demonstrated today. Most importantly, it is not properly responsive to the passengers who use the railway system. That can leave it unable properly to serve businesses, passengers and communities alike, and allow inefficient practices to continue. It has given rise to the alarming allegations that hon. Members have aired today and on which I hope the Minister will comment in his winding-up speech. [Interruption.] He still has 20 minutes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has to speak again.

[John Woodcock]

I will be brief. We want a railway that provides value for money for and is accountable to the taxpayer and the travelling public, a railway where passengers and freight customers can rely on the timetables and a railway that can plan strategically for the long term. That is why we are listening, as part of our policy review, to a wide range of ideas for improving the accountability of Network Rail, such as the Co-operative party’s proposals for mutualisation of the company. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us where his plans to review the ownership and accountability structures of Network Rail to make it better able to serve the public have got to and whether they will include improvements to transparency.

Finally, I come to the issue of bonuses. Network Rail’s accountability has been brought into focus today by the news that Network Rail’s senior management will next week seek to award themselves a new bonus and incentive scheme. We understand that that will include an annual bonus of 60% of salary and, in addition, a five-year reward scheme worth up to 500% of salary. The public will be staggered by such proposals. Network Rail is currently in breach of its licence. It must recognise that times have changed and that bonuses on top of salaries need to be for exceptional performance and not the rule.

There is a responsibility for Ministers here, too. Network Rail’s articles of association make it plain that the Secretary of State has a clear remit over pay and bonuses. She has a right to attend the remuneration committee and the board meeting that decides these schemes, or to appoint a special member to represent her. Despite the coalition’s pledge to make Network Rail more accountable, the Secretary of State has failed to take up that right. She still has the opportunity to do so. The Minister will be keen to know that Downing street seems to take a relaxed view on this matter judging by the lobby briefing this afternoon. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman agreed that there was a vote, but said that the decision rested with the Secretary of State. In his winding up, will the Minister say if his boss or he will attend the board meeting on 10 February to make it clear that such a package is unacceptable? Warm words about accountability are not enough—

[Mr Binley]

On a point of order, Mr Rosindell. I want to hear the Minister speak and time is very limited.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise his point of order, but I am in my last paragraph.

The Government need to get a grip on the organisation and its future, and they must start with this unacceptable bonus culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

The fact that efficiency savings or reductions in numbers take place does not necessarily mean that safety is affected. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s point has been well made, and I will take it back with me. Network Rail today is a significantly improved body from what it was in February 2007. None the less, we share the Office of Rail Regulation’s concerns about certain aspects of the company’s recent performance, such as punctuality over the past 12 months, some weaknesses in safety culture and poor implementation of integrated train planning under certain conditions.

The Government look to the Office of Rail Regulation to hold Network Rail to account and to continue to drive improved value for money from the company. As part of that process, the ORR has set Network Rail a requirement to make efficiency savings of 21% in its 2009 baseline by 2014. It will continue to produce annual reports benchmarking Network Rail’s efficiency against its international peers.

The Office of Rail Regulation’s latest annual report states that Network Rail has made progress against its efficiency targets, but that it has more work to do to justify all of its claimed savings. When Network Rail delivers on its current commitments, the ORR expects it to have closed around two-thirds of this efficiency gap by 2014 and the rest by 2019.

A key part of the McNulty review is to see much closer working and alignment of incentives between Network Rail and the train operators. A number of Members raised that, and it is something that the Government are focused on and it will feature in the Command Paper.

We welcome Network Rail’s regional devolution initiative to focus its business down to the route level and to work closely with train operators. David Higgins is taking forward work on structural reform to form closer alliances with the train operators. Moves towards asset management concessions and improved supplier engagement are vital.

We recognise concerns that Network Rail’s governance has not, so far, provided adequate mechanisms for holding the company’s board to account. That has been particularly apparent in respect of bonuses. The Secretary of State for Transport has been rightly firm on that matter, as indeed has No.10, despite what we have heard this afternoon. We expect bonuses to be dealt with in a responsible and a sensible manner by Network Rail, as we do by others. However, the Government’s powers, which we inherited from the previous Administration, to deal with those bonuses are extremely limited. Let me remind the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that in 2009-10, under the previous Government, Iain Coucher received a bonus of £348,184, and the top seven directors together clocked up £1,347,000.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister will be aware that the previous chief executive waived his bonus in the 2008-09 period when he was asked to do so by the then Secretary of State, Lord Adonis. When the former Secretary of State for Transport, the now Secretary of State for Defence, raised the issue of those bonuses to Iain Coucher, he was completely ignored.

[Norman Baker]

The fact of the matter is that we have not inherited powers to deal with those bonuses. This is the Network Rail structure that we inherited, and we are now trying to sort it out.

Let me deal with Network Rail’s performance, which comes within my portfolio. It is not as good as it should have been, and passengers are rightly unhappy when their train is delayed or cancelled, especially when that happens regularly. To be fair to Network Rail, we must put that performance in context. In 1997-98, the annual public performance measure was 89.3%. After the accident at Hatfield in 2000, it fell to 74.2%. Since then, it has risen progressively, and punctuality today stands at 91.7%. I am not saying that that is good enough, but it is not the catastrophic case that is sometimes presented. It is certainly not true that, as the Labour party spokesman said, performance has been declining at an alarming rate. It has not; it has been improving. It has not met the targets, but it has been on an upward trend.

The current high level output specification for the railways specifies a further improvement to 92.6% during the period to 2014, and that is what the Department is focused on, as is the ORR. There is still a lot to do. I am concerned that performance over the last year has been iffy for various reasons, including the previous two exceptionally severe winters and an increase in the number of external events, such as cable theft. What is happening about cable theft is not the full range of the Government’s response, and it is inaccurate to present it in that way. We are simply using existing legislation to do what we can. Further measures will emerge as and when we can take them. In addition to cable theft, other issues have affected Network Rail’s performance that I am told were within its control.

Remedial plans have been put in place to enable improvements by the end of the current year, and plans are being developed for the remaining two years of the current rail control period. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans that a great deal of work has gone into much better winter resilience, including third-rail heating to prevent the sort of problems that occurred in previous winters, to which she rightly referred. I hope that she will be reassured by the fact that I meet Network Rail and the train companies monthly to examine performance with a specific analysis to ensure that they are keeping up to scratch with their plans.

As has been said, the ORR has published enforcement orders requiring Network Rail to take further steps to improve performance, particularly for long-distance passenger services and freight services. Hon. Members will know of the letter written by the ORR to Network Rail—it is fair to say that the train companies also have responsibility to do their best to ensure that punctuality and performance are maintained—and I simultaneously wrote to the train companies about their responsibilities to ensure that they are doing what they can to maintain performance at their end.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred to the National Audit Office. Network Rail is officially a private sector company. That classification is determined not by the Government, but by the independent Office for National Statistics, and that is what it has decided. I am not aware of any precedent for the National Audit Office having jurisdiction over private sector companies.

Under the terms of the Railways Act 1993, as subsequently amended, Network Rail is subject to scrutiny and regulation by the ORR, which has access to information that it needs from Network Rail, properly to assess the company’s performance and efficiency. The ORR is part of the public sector, so it is subject to National Audit Office scrutiny. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have recently undertaken audits of the Office of Rail Regulation, taken evidence from Network Rail and others and produced reports on the regulator’s effectiveness.

We note and endorse the conclusions that the ORR must take steps to ensure that it has the capability that it needs properly to hold Network Rail to account and to drive it to close the efficiency gap with leading European comparators. I have sought assurances from the ORR that it will take such steps. Hon. Members have referred to the consultation that is taking place on the ORR’s powers. Any plans to expand the ORR’s role take account of its performance to date and its future capability, as well as comments that are received as part of the consultation process.

As a private sector company, Network Rail is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, nor could it be without primary legislation. However, Network Rail has promised that it is in the process of developing a voluntary information rights code, which will mirror many of the provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. We welcome that initiative and believe that, if properly implemented, it will provide an alternative to legislation. We expect the company to introduce the code alongside a broader package of Government reforms later this year.

My colleagues and I in the Department for Transport, including the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)—I am grateful for the comments about her accident, and I am happy to say that she is recovering well—will keep the matter under close scrutiny.

Hon. Members raised a number of specific points, but I must give my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans time to respond properly. If there are any points that I have not dealt with, I will write to the relevant hon. Members.

Northern Rail Hub

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing this important debate. How strongly Members from across the north feel about this issue has been highlighted by the strength and number of contributions that we have heard today. It is important that voices from both sides of the Pennines and from otherwise rival areas of Yorkshire and the north-west are heard speaking as one on this issue. Although many of the physical works of the northern hub programme fall to the west of the Pennines, the benefits of the hub would be felt across the whole of the north. I can contribute to that discussion because I am a Sheffield lad whose north-west constituency, although in Cumbria, still harks back to its routes in Lancashire in the old days.

As Members have pointed out, the rail network could play a significant role in securing economic growth in the north of England. As has been highlighted, however, that potential is currently limited by pinch points and other capacity restraints across the network that limit the frequency of trains, raise journey times and reduce reliability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said so well, the northern rail network reflects the needs of its 19th-century creators and the rivalries of Victorian railway companies. It is not fit for purpose in the different economic reality of the early 21st century.

Members from all parties have pointed out the benefits that the northern hub could provide, which include 700 extra trains per day running across the north, improved connectivity between major regional economic hubs, which would give those areas a chance to grow still further and provide vital regeneration, and the creation of up to 30,000 jobs.

Improving links between northern cities and the capital is important, which is why the previous Labour Government delivered the upgrade to the west coast main line and why we want a greater commitment to a new high-speed line serving Manchester and Leeds than the Government have given so far. If we are serious about rebalancing the UK economy and driving the growth that will return the country to long-term prosperity, we must not focus simply on travel between regions. Travel within regions, including northern regions, is also important, and that is seen in the strength of feeling and unity that has been displayed during this debate.

There are some positive things. We welcome the electrification and high-speed rail initiatives in which the new Administration are sticking to the commitments made by the previous one. Question marks and concerns remain in certain areas, but perhaps they are for another debate—I would be delighted if such a discussion could be scheduled for the near future.

The Ordsall chord is a useful piece of infrastructure, but as the hon. Member for Colne Valley highlighted, as long as Manchester Piccadilly has just two through platforms—as most hon. Members will be aware, those two platforms are unpleasantly cramped and overcrowded, and frequently cause delays to trains—the ability to use that station to deliver additional journey opportunities will be severely limited.

Announcing the electrification of the route from York to Manchester via Leeds is a positive move, but without the extra lines and loops to allow express trains to overtake stopping services and freight trains, as proposed in the northern hub, it will be hard to deliver extra services or significantly faster journeys. Ministers are obviously right to examine carefully the scope and scale of projects such as the northern hub before approving them, and it is essential to achieve best value for money. It is also, however, essential that the issues faced by the rail network in the north are addressed strategically and not in a piecemeal fashion.

Now is the time to commit to this scheme. The sooner that it is achieved, the sooner the boost to growth can be felt where it is urgently needed. In their spending priorities, the Government chose to back-load the cuts to rail investment, in contrast to other areas of spending. The bulk of the proposed cuts fall in the final two years of the spending review period, the second of which represents the first year of Network Rail’s control period 5, during which the bulk of the northern hub schemes would be delivered.

The Government are committed to finding almost £1.3 billion of efficiency savings and cuts from the Network Rail and passenger rail budgets over the period of the comprehensive spending review, although the National Audit Office has warned, understandably and rightly, that great uncertainty over where the axe will fall still remains. That is why the continued silence on this project is deeply concerning: as we can see, the lean period for rail investment is fast approaching.

Ministers have consistently said that the case for the northern hub is strong. They are well aware of the business case showing a return of £4 for every £1 invested in the scheme. Today’s debate has shown that hon. Members of all parties from across the north recognise the necessity of the extra capacity, new links and faster journeys that the northern hub will provide. I therefore hope that the Minister will make it clear that she recognises that, if we deal with the scheme in parts and do not implement the full package, the overall cost-benefit ratio will be significantly diminished. Will she make it clear whether she will commit to the full package of improvements provided by the northern hub project appearing in the high-level output specification for control period 5 when it is published this summer?

It is, of course, also important that the northern hub plans reflect the changing environment on the railways and are delivered on in the most efficient way possible, so can the Minister confirm that the Government are examining whether the package of measures can be revised to deliver equal benefit at potentially lower cost in the light of recent announcements on trans-Pennine electrification?

Confidence that the region’s transport infrastructure will be able to cope with the demands placed on it is an essential part of producing the confidence needed to secure investment, jobs and economic growth across the north. The northern hub would help to provide that. That is why we are urging Ministers today to give it their full support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I absolutely agree. This is a win for everybody concerned. Southern will deploy the new vehicles on its most overcrowded services, which will be of huge benefit and relief to passengers.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today’s excellent report from the Transport Committee highlights the scandal of dodgy whiplash claims that are hiking up insurance premiums for honest motorists. Why, just a couple of months ago, did the right hon. Lady’s colleagues reject Labour’s amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which would have curbed whiplash claims? In light of today’s report will she reconsider that opposition?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman would be better directing his question to the Ministry of Justice, which leads for the Government in this area. I very much welcome the Select Committee’s report and the work of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in raising the issue. The Government are already taking action to ban such things as referral fees. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will work very closely with the Ministry of Justice to see what action we can take on this issue.

Rail Services from and to Scotland

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for that sound advice, Mr Hollobone. May I say at length what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech about a critical issue for, of course, Scotland, but also for the economy of the whole United Kingdom. Throughout the debate, it is important that we keep that in mind.

In recent weeks, we have heard concerning noises from the Scottish Government on the future of not only rail services in Scotland, but cross-border services, as my hon. Friend described. Given the franchise renewal timetable—two of the three major cross-border operations are due to be re-let in the next 24 months—this is a timely moment to discuss Government policy on cross-border rail services. He expressed the importance of the subject well.

On a personal level, as a twice-weekly user of the Euston to Glasgow service to return to my constituency, I am very aware of how well used and often overcrowded such services are. Although the train may be overcrowded this evening and a little late, the journey back home to my constituency for Christmas will be made all the sweeter for having had the chance to take part in the debate today, so, again, I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on securing this debate on the last afternoon before the Christmas recess.

It is important to talk about the improvements made to both lines into Scotland over the past decade. They were often made at a greater cost than should have been the case, but were improvements nevertheless. Despite the overruns and pain for passengers arising from the west coast main line upgrade, the end product was reduced journey times to Glasgow, with a more reliable service, operated by modern trains. One hundred and six extra Pendolino coaches, which were ordered under the previous Government, will arrive in the UK to provide extra seats on the route, and Lord knows they are needed at peak times.

The number of trains has steadily increased on the east coast route, with a half-hourly service to Edinburgh, which my hon. Friend mentioned, running for much of the day. The major timetable change, announced by the Labour Government last year, cut journey times and reintroduced a Flying Scotsman service, which takes just four hours between the capitals. The CrossCountry and TransPennine Express services into Scotland have benefitted from new rolling stock and increased frequency. Nevertheless, significant shortcomings in cross-border services remain, which is why the Scottish National party Government’s policy to cut Scotland off from the rest of the UK is so worrying. As an aside, it is also worrying that no SNP Members are here for a debate that affects the links between Scotland and the rest of the UK and that is directed at the alarming decision their colleagues in Government in Holyrood have brought forward and seem set to plough ahead with.

Even now, overcrowding on some trains limits the capacity for the modal shift that we would like from domestic air travel to rail. Walk-on fares are high and the cheapest deals sell out quickly. Passengers have to endure periods of very poor reliability, leading this week to the Office of Rail Regulation taking enforcement action against Network Rail due to poor performance on those routes. Ministers need to address those concerns when they make decisions on the future of the west and east coast franchises.

The proposals for a 14-year franchise on the west coast do not require extra capacity to be provided before 2026 and Ministers have scaled back the size of the inter-city express programme, designed to provide new trains and extra seats on the east coast. I am afraid that all that points to lack of clarity and ambition for cross-border services over the next couple of decades.

As ever, my hon. Friend led the charge on high-speed rail to Scotland. He made his case strongly, as he always does. It is important that we are clear that Scotland will benefit if we secure the scheme that is on the table, but still, unfortunately, remains in doubt—that is, a new high-speed line right the way through to Manchester and Leeds. With through-running on to the existing network, that will reduce journey times from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow by at least an hour. By bypassing the most congested parts of the east and west coast main lines, HS2 can allow for a step change in the frequency of cross-border services, which I am sure everyone in today’s debate would want to see. That is why we are continuing to urge the Government to introduce a single Bill on the full route to the north of England, rather than simply for the route to Birmingham, as is currently planned.

I know that the Minister will be particularly grateful for potentially having considerable time to wind up today and deal with where she is on that issue at length. She can perhaps give us a preview of the forthcoming announcement on HS2, which we all expect and hope will be made early in January. Ministers claim to be committed to the fully shaped network, but we need more than words. As mentioned on the issue of going all the way up to Scotland—it is the same for going up to the north of England—the principle remains that the business case for high-speed rail is far stronger if it extends to Manchester and Leeds. The benefits that that would bring to Scotland are a key part of that case.

However, it is understandable that my hon. Friend has focused his concern today on the “Rail 2014” document produced by Transport Scotland. As he said, obviously, the bulk of its contents deals with internal Scottish services. The threat of having fewer trains calling at fewer stations is certainly worrying for the constituents of my hon. Friends here today.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I wanted to intervene on my hon. Friend before he moved off the subject of high-speed rail. Will he consider again the fact that it is of absolute importance that detailed planning for HS2 going to Scotland takes place at this stage, rather than waiting until the second hybrid Bill is going through the House? If we do that, bluntly, the chances are that high-speed rail will not go to Scotland for two or three decades. That would not be good enough.

[John Woodcock]

I hear—as do all hon. Members—the case that my hon. Friend has consistently made on that. The Government’s commitment to take the line only up to Birmingham and to legislate for that is alarming. Certainly, there is an opportunity here. Without delaying the building work and the commencement of construction by a single day, the Minister could easily create a single hybrid Bill that would legislate to take high-speed rail all the way up to Manchester and Leeds. She may want to say what the timetable implications are for the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made.

The cross-border services set out in the consultation document are remarkable. It is astonishing that a Scottish Government who claim to represent the whole of Scotland are suggesting the removal of through-services from London and other parts of England to towns and cities north of Edinburgh. That will force passengers to change at Edinburgh Waverley, with all the particular difficulties that my hon. Friend has laid out so well.

Under those plans, the roll-call of Scottish places that would lose their direct London trains is damning: Inverness, Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Falkirk, Kirkcaldy, Montrose, Arbroath, Aviemore, Pitlochry and Stonehaven. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) has rightly raised concerns about the possible loss of the Glasgow to Carlisle through-service. That concern would be felt in my county of Cumbria to the same extent as it would in his constituency and beyond. By my count, under the proposals that the Scottish SNP Government have introduced, just five locations in Scotland would retain long-distance services into England.

As has been mentioned, those services are important to businesses across the north of Scotland—as much to the oil industry in Aberdeen as, for example, to bed and breakfasts in the Cairngorms. The direct service is appreciated by older people, by those with limited mobility and, indeed, by families with young children or heavy luggage. I recognise that this is outside the confines of the debate, but if we could have a direct service through to my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the prospect of being able to negotiate the buggy and a week’s worth of luggage would be greatly improved for many more people than me.

Returning to Scotland, obviously the content of the consultation is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, who seem dangerously relaxed about restricting key transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. UK Ministers also have a responsibility. We welcome the Chancellor’s decision announced in the autumn statement to offer match funding to the Scottish Government to fund a replacement fleet of vehicles for the threatened sleeper services. In winding up, I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the Scottish Government have responded to that offer, whether she has made any direct representations on that issue and how the matter is progressing. Beyond that, can she let hon. Members know whether the UK Government will be responding to the Transport Scotland consultation?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Would it not be an irony if new sleeper stock were purchased but there were no sleeper services to operate as a result of a change in the franchise? My hon. Friend might recall—although possibly not—that, a few years ago, trains were going to provide direct services from Scotland and the English regions through to the continent of Europe. Those trains were never used for that purpose and, for a while, they ended up on the London to Leeds services. I do not know what has happened to them now, but would it not be an irony if money were spent—£100 million—on new sleeper rolling stock that was not actually used for that purpose?

[John Woodcock]

It would be more than an irony; it would be a travesty. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the continued importance of sleeper services. Although airports have expanded and capacity has increased, the sleeper service remains a hugely important way of connecting London with Edinburgh, Glasgow and beyond. We need to find a way to retain it, and it is alarming that the proposals will potentially withdraw it. Will the Minister therefore answer our questions about the sleeper services? Will she also tell us whether the through-trains to Aberdeen and Inverness will be protected when Ministers publish the requirements for the east coast franchise? Will she reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the bi-mode part of the inter-city express programme, which is key to allowing through-running to continue?

Ultimately, Scots and citizens in all parts of the UK will lose out if the SNP’s great railway robbery goes ahead. Over the years, SNP Members, who are not here today, have often been known as the Tories’ little helpers. It is now time for the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends in the Government to show that they will not let themselves be the SNP’s little helpers as it pursues its agenda of cutting Scotland off from the rest of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown]

I thank the Minister for the information she has just given us. Is there a finite time for which that offer of money will lie on the table, after which she will need to say that it is no longer there? In her interaction with the SNP Government in Edinburgh, she will discover that they will prevaricate on a whole host of issues and that they tend to put one obstacle in front of another. Does she therefore have a finite time for how long that offer of money will lie on the table?

[John Woodcock]

Good question.

[Mrs Villiers]

That is a very good question. I am not aware that the Chancellor or the Department for Transport have set a time limit for the Scottish Government to respond, but rapid consideration of this important decision would be welcome, not least because of the support for sleeper services, which was mentioned by both hon. Members who have spoken. It behoves the Scottish Government to get a move on and make a decision on this. The Westminster Government have put their money where their mouth is in expressing support for the sleeper service and potentially allocating £50 million to support its long-term future. It is now for the Scottish Government to step up to the plate and decide whether they are prepared to match that funding or lose it.

Ultimately, the running of the sleeper service will be a decision for the Scottish Government, because it is part of the ScotRail franchise, which is devolved to the Scottish Government. Ultimately, Westminster will not take the decision. As I said, I recognise the concern felt north of the border about this proposal and others made by the nationalists in the Scottish Government. I hope the disadvantages of such proposals will be thoroughly considered when the Scottish Government ultimately decide whether to match the funding we have offered and include sleeper services in the upcoming ScotRail franchise.

The Government are committed to a range of other improvements on our rail network to support and improve cross-border services. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, the west coast main line was given a £9 billion upgrade under the previous Government to deliver faster and more frequent services. As he said, the delivery was somewhat painful for passengers, but real improvements have now started to be delivered. In addition, west coast passengers will benefit from 106 extra Pendolino vehicles, a number of which are already in operation, with the rest coming on stream over the next 12 months or so. The intercity express programme will provide a new fleet to replace the diesel 125 high-speed trains on services between London, Aberdeen and Inverness. It will also potentially replace the electric 225s on the east coast line if the franchise operator wishes to go ahead with that.

Significant improvements are being made to the infrastructure on the east coast line as part of Network Rail’s control period 4 programme, which is funded by the Government. These include major work on the joint line via Spalding and Lincoln to provide a diversionary route for freight and free up space for more passenger services. The long-awaited Hitchin flyover is also going ahead, as are major power supply upgrades to improve services for all passengers on the line, including those on cross-border services.

Those improvements will make a real difference to rail passengers travelling between Scotland and England. Although they are important, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith outlined, they will not be enough on their own to deal with the long-term demand for inter-city transport capacity that our economy is expected to generate in the next 20 years. We expect rapidly rising demand for inter-city travel to outpace any measures we can realistically or practically take to boost capacity, given the constraints on existing lines.

That is why the Government have, this year, run a five-month public consultation—one of the biggest ever carried out—on proposals for a new high-speed rail network. The proposals would provide a step change in capacity and help bring our major conurbations much closer together. Our proposal for a Y-shaped national high-speed rail network would link London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, with connections to the west and east coast main lines from the proposed new line. Those connections are crucial to today’s debate because they would allow the through-running of high-speed rail services on to the west and east coast so that passengers could reach Edinburgh and Glasgow without having to change trains.

The Y-shaped network, plus the ability for trains to run off it and on to the existing network, would, as we have heard, cut journey times between Scotland’s two biggest cities and London to about three and a half hours. That is an hour less than many of today’s services. Such journey time reductions could give significant connectivity and economic benefits to Scotland. I know that those things are important to many in Scotland, including, I am sure, the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith.

There are also benefits in relation to air-to-rail switch, which is worth mentioning in this context. Experience shows that when rail journeys come down to three or four hours, they become more competitive with air services. The coalition Government’s proposal for a direct link to Heathrow as part of phase 2 of the Y network would provide important connectivity benefits to Edinburgh and Glasgow, with a seamless and effective connection to our major hub airport.

[John Woodcock]

The right hon. Lady has mentioned the benefits of the Heathrow spur in the context of going all the way to Scotland. Has she not seen, for a long time, the value of going via Heathrow in the first phase, rather than building an extra spur afterwards at greater overall cost to the taxpayer?

[Mrs Villiers]

I think that there is consensus between the parties that it is essential to have a connection to Heathrow. The Government’s proposal to include a spur as part of phase 2 would provide a top-class link to Heathrow, which would be great for passengers in both Scotland and England. As to the route that the Opposition have been considering, although they chose not to submit it to the consultation, I believe that others have submitted routes that are more or less identical, and I assure the hon. Gentleman now, as I have before, that all the route options presented for consultation will be rigorously assessed before the Secretary of State makes her decision on High Speed 2, and, if she goes ahead, before she makes her decision on the route.

There is a detailed process—and it is right that it is very formal—to ensure that every person who contributed to the consultation will be listened to, and that their representations will be dealt with fairly. The shadow Minister invites me to pre-empt the Secretary of State’s decision on that. He knows that that would not be a terribly wise career move. I assure him that she will announce her decision soon, but he will just have to wait for her to make the announcement. It would be unwise of me to pre-empt it with one of my own.

[John Woodcock]

It would be good if the Minister could say a little more about whether the proposal for a single Bill is under active consideration. There is cross-party consensus on that, so would not it make more sense, in relation to both the business case and the stability of the project, to lock in a single Bill now, and take things forward together?

Given that we have time, perhaps I may make a second point. In opposition, the right hon. Lady was in favour of going to Heathrow as part of the first phase. That must count for something, must it not?

[Mrs Villiers]

I always have been, and continue to be, strongly supportive of a connection between HS2 and Heathrow. I am also strongly supportive of a thorough, evidence-based consideration of all the options on routes, which is exactly what the Secretary of State is undertaking. I imagine that, as we debate, she is probably poring over the detailed submissions summarising the consultation, which provide her with all the information that she needs to take a decision on whether to go ahead with the project as a whole, and, if so, on the best route. I am confident that she will take the right decision. As I have said, the shadow Minister will have to wait just a little longer to hear that. He well knows that the coalition’s plans and proposals include a direct link to Heathrow in phase 2.

On the hybrid Bill, again, as we have had many opportunities to debate, the Government have concluded that the best way to take HS2 forward as efficiently and rapidly as possible is by two separate hybrid Bills—one for the first phase in the west midlands and one for the second phase to Manchester and Leeds. There are pros and cons about the procedures either way, but changing course now and suddenly deciding on a hybrid Bill to accommodate both phases might slow down the project. I think it would be risky. What is important is that once the Secretary of State has made a decision we should take whatever steps are needed to press ahead promptly with implementing it. I hope that the cross-party consensus that the shadow Minister has mentioned repeatedly will prove useful in proceeding with high-speed rail if that is the outcome of the Secretary of State’s deliberations.

Of course, the goal set out in the coalition agreement is to deliver a genuinely national high-speed rail network. It is therefore a timely moment to consider the impact on Scotland. Although the Y network that we propose would bring important benefits to Scottish passengers and the Scottish economy, because of the journey time savings that we have talked about and the relief of capacity pressure that the shadow Minister referred to, we still recognise the strong support for extending the proposed new high-speed line north to Scotland in the future.

The Government share the aspiration of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for high-speed rail one day to extend north of the border all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. He will appreciate that, constitutionally, the Scottish Government have responsibility for the rail infrastructure north of the border, including funding it. However, if we go ahead with HS2, phases 1 and 2, we will certainly expect to work with the Scottish Government on identifying and considering options for expanding the proposed high-speed network in the future. I assure him that there is no need to wait for completion of either phase before serious work is started in relation to potential further expansion of the network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Mr Hollobone has given us great latitude to wander far and wide in the debate, but I am afraid that I do not have a very detailed knowledge of the history of the construction of the M6. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is always wise to learn lessons from what has gone wrong with previous transport projects. I reiterate the importance that we place on playing our part to supply a high-quality transport network for the country as a whole. As I have said, infrastructure matters north of the border are rightly devolved to Transport Scotland, but we recognise the importance of our decisions on high-speed rail taking into account fully the interests of the economy and passengers in Scotland. That is why we are happy to engage with Scottish hon. Members and the Scottish Government. We need to view, with careful scrutiny and perhaps some scepticism or reservation, the promises that Scottish Ministers are now making about high-speed rail. It is difficult to judge whether their promises on funding are watertight, but we certainly welcome the enthusiasm with which they support the principle of high-speed rail.

Before moving on to through services on the current network, I will respond to the shadow spokesman’s criticism that the Government were somehow insufficiently supportive on high-speed rail. I remind the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that we were the first to champion the benefits of high-speed rail. Indeed, we were doing so when Labour’s 30-year strategy for the railways, published in 2007, had no place at all for high-speed rail.

One of the other key issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith was the controversial consultation document issued by Transport Scotland on the service pattern for the new ScotRail franchise to be let from 2014 onwards. As we have heard, that has posed a question on whether services north of Edinburgh should be a matter for the Scottish franchisee. As we have heard, that would mean cross-border services terminating at Edinburgh Waverley, with onward connections to Aberdeen and Inverness provided by ScotRail. That proposition has been dubbed the “Edinburgh Hub” by Transport Scotland.

As we have heard, the Scottish Government make three assertions on the effect of that change. First, they assert that it would return greater revenue to the Scottish franchisee and reduce taxpayer subsidy—that might be a controversial claim. Secondly, they claim that moving to just one operator would improve resilience—that ought to be carefully tested. Thirdly, they claim that the change would give the ScotRail franchisee more freedom and flexibility in timetabling and running services. Fourthly, they claim that there are advantages in vesting control over services north of Edinburgh in a Scottish franchisee with no reliance on services specified by the Department for Transport.

One of my concerns is whether that is an ideologically-driven proposal motivated by a wish to control as many rail services in Scotland as possible. I would be very concerned if that was a motivating factor behind Transport Scotland’s fairly startling proposals. It is very important for the decision to be made on a clear and calm assessment of the potential effects of such a change.

The proposals generated considerable opposition and debate in Scotland. We have had discussions with the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland about the implications of such a change. As hon. Members might recollect, this issue has cropped up before. In considering whether to proceed with the intercity express programme, the Westminster Government looked at whether east coast services should terminate at Edinburgh, so that they could all be provided by electric trains. We decided against a rolling stock option that would have required passengers to change trains at Edinburgh, because we were concerned about the implications of such a change. That is the conclusion that we reached, so, as the hon. Gentleman invited me to say, I certainly would have reservations about the Scottish Government’s proposal.

If, following the consultation, the Scottish Government decide that they would like this change to take place on the east coast line, we would of course consider their proposal in accordance with our mutual respect agenda. However, hon. Members have been clear in outlining the disadvantages of such an approach, which, as I have said, would have to be very carefully considered. It is disappointing that no one is here to defend the nationalists’ position or explain why they have chosen to consult on such a controversial proposal.

[John Woodcock]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but if she feels so strongly, would it not make more sense, for good governance, to be clear now that the proposal is not a goer? We would not need to go through the consultation, wait for a response and see whether something comes through. If she made it clear that this is not something that she would accept, it would allow people to go forward with greater clarity.

[Mrs Villiers]

I think that that would be unwise, because the Government take devolution very seriously. We are talking about rail services provided in Scotland. It is certainly not at all unreasonable for the Scottish Government to wish to have an input in how those services are run. At this stage, it would be inappropriate for the coalition to start dictating the outcome of a consultation on the ScotRail franchise. I will therefore confine my remarks to saying that we would have reservations about a route down which we did not chose to go in relation to the IEP, but we will listen to the Scottish Government if they choose to pursue that further.

Transport Disruption (Winter 2010)

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Dorries. This is an important and timely debate, and I congratulate the members of the Transport Committee on their valuable and constructive report and on securing this slot. I also congratulate the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on her excellent opening speech. She will be delighted to know that I will reinforce many of the points she made.

A year ago this week, Britain was hit hard by extreme winter weather and experienced the earliest snowfall for 17 years. Temperatures fell as low as minus 21°C—temperatures not normally associated with the UK. The snow and cold were extremely prolonged, extending right through to Christmas and the new year, and we are well aware of the impact they had on Britain’s transport networks: thousands of flights were cancelled at major airports; passengers were trapped overnight on stranded trains; motorways were closed for hours on end after accidents; and people were trapped in their houses as councils ran low on salt to treat roads.

It was an exceptional winter, and it would be unrealistic to claim that Britain could have got through it without some disruption to our transport networks. No one blames the Government for the thickness of the snow, but it is right to ask how prepared and resilient they enabled the country to be. The 2009 winter under the Labour Government was also harsh and caused transport disruption, leading to the establishment of the Quarmby review. The following year, it became clear that the new Government had not gone far enough in putting David Quarmby’s recommendations in place, despite having received the interim report in July.

On salt supplies, in particular, although the distribution method may have improved, as the Committee’s report noted, the Government gave the impression of being asleep on the job. In its April report on the winter disruption, the Committee identified criticism from the Local Government Association, which said that recommendations on reducing salt spreading rates came far too late in the planning process. The AA and the Royal Automobile Club had concerns about the resilience of the UK’s salt supply arrangements, while the Institute of Highway Engineers said that the strategic salt supply was inadequate.

The Committee noted that Ministers claimed credit for having a stockpile of salt left at the end of the winter, but the truth is that we got lucky. The UK went into the winter with less salt than recommended by David Quarmby’s report. From parliamentary questions I have tabled, we know that 60% of Britain’s stock of salt was used up by the end of December. Had milder weather not prevailed in the new year, we would have faced much more widespread road closures. Last winter, Britain’s salt stocks and distribution systems came close to being inadequate to meet the challenge we faced. We are fortunate that we have not faced early snow this year, but we need to know that stocks and systems are in place to respond if and when severe weather strikes.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered a number of questions on road issues. Is he confident that, as of today, the UK has a large enough stockpile to cope with a prolonged period of extreme weather? What measures are in place to ensure that stocks can be replenished, from domestic or international resources, over the winter? As an aside, let me say that I was grateful that the Leader of the Opposition sent me down the salt mine at Winsford last year. It was an excellent experience, and I recommend that the Minister takes the opportunity to visit it.

What measures has the Minister taken to ensure that the salt distribution network is robust, even in severe weather? Are his officials in a position to provide more timely information and advice to local authorities on the availability of strategic salt stocks and on recommended salt spreading rates? During last year’s severe weather, the Highways Agency phone line for providing information on road conditions and reporting hazards missed its targets for response times in three separate weeks. What measures have been put in place to ensure the phone line has the capacity to function properly this year?

Just as we cannot afford Britain’s road network to seize up, so we must avoid a repeat of the disruption, delays, distress and economic damage caused by the failure of airports and parts of the rail network to function as well as they should have during the severe weather. The Select Committee report acknowledges that decisions on investment in both sectors are often rightly in the hands of private sector bodies, but that cannot mean that the Government wash their hands of responsibility.

Our major airports are an essential part of our strategic transport system and our economic competitiveness. The Begg report clearly gave the impression that provisions at Heathrow for dealing with severe weather and recovering from a period of enforced closure were woefully inadequate. Heathrow’s status as a global hub airport faces intense competition, and an inability to cope well with severe weather will not help it in any way. Let me therefore reinforce the importance of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside by asking whether sufficient runway clearing equipment is now in place at Heathrow and other airports. What involvement have Transport Ministers had in signing off revised snow plans for those airports?

The major problems on the railways last year revolved around the third-rail electrified network in the south-east. I was pleased to note from a written answer I received that some de-icing vehicles were made available for that network earlier this year. In October I was informed that 16 anti-icing multi-purpose vehicles and six snow and ice treatment trains would be available from today, 1 December. Are those indeed in place? Can the Minister also confirm whether locomotives are available on the third-rail network to rescue stalled trains? In the longer term, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside alluded to, the Quarmby review recommended that Ministers should look seriously at whether the time had come to replace the top contact system of third-rail electrification. No one should underestimate the scale of the cost of such a proposal, but it has warranted no mention in the national infrastructure plan, which was published on Tuesday. Has there been any work on the recommendation, and what conclusions have been reached?

Last year, as has been mentioned extensively, one of rail travellers’ key complaints was the failure of information systems. Often, station information screens were blank, because contingency timetables had not been uploaded to the national computer system. What measures are in place to prevent a reoccurrence of that problem? Some train operators provided a good standard of information, through both traditional and social media methods, throughout the disruption. Others seemed at times to give up. What discussions has the Minister had with the Association of Train Operating Companies and individual companies to ensure that best practice will be spread across the industry and that poor performers can be penalised?

On several occasions last year, passengers were trapped on powerless, stalled trains, without emergency blankets or emergency supplies of food or drink. On 27 October this year at column 285W I asked a written question on whether provision had been made for such supplies to be carried on trains during severe weather. I was concerned to receive a response that stated simply that the matter was the concern of the operating companies. We need Ministers to take a more hands-on approach than that. If necessary, they should consider instructing companies to make such provision. Will the Minister make a commitment to consider the issue and carry out a full analysis of which operating companies have made arrangements to carry blankets, water and food?

Following three severe winters, questions are rightly being asked about whether we have the right balance of investment for winter resilience. Governments of all shades, in recent decades, have perceived a decline in instances of severe winter weather, and have made investment decisions accordingly. It is possible, whether as a result of climate change or not, that we may need to revise our approach. After last winter, the then Secretary of State made a commitment to studying whether there was evidence that the cost-benefit analysis of investment in winter resilience had shifted. I would be grateful if the Minister would update us on any such work that is taking place.

When the Minister answers the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside about the announcement of funding in the autumn statement, will he make it clear whether the investment that is being made will ensure that all the additional capacity that is being bought will be available this winter?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

A huge range of questions were asked in the debate, and I will do my best to get through them. I thank the Select Committee on Transport for initiating the study and for producing a helpful and balanced report—indeed, its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), made a helpful and balanced contribution today. The Committee is doing its job and the Government have found its comments useful in focusing our attention on the important issues.

As the hon. Lady and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), said, last winter was extraordinarily cold. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the temperature reached its lowest for 17 years; it was indeed exceptional. I am grateful that he did not seek to blame the Government for the weather—he almost did, but not quite. [Interruption.] If he wants to, that is fine. We were collectively—not just the Government, but local authorities and transport providers—better prepared in 2010 than in 2009, which also saw serious weather. I think that we are better prepared in 2011 than we were in 2010.

The availability of salt stocks has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said his leader sent him down a salt mine; my leader has not sent me down one yet, but perhaps that will come if I do not perform well this afternoon. I am happy to say that salt stocks are healthy: in October there were 2,755,000 tonnes of salt stocks, which compares favourably with—indeed, it is considerably more than—what we had last year. There were no problems with salt stocks either this year or last year. Had we had a Siberian winter, no doubt we might have had a problem, but even with an exceptional winter the salt stocks were perfectly adequate. We now have more stocks than last year, and having undertaken a survey of all local authorities, and all councils bar two have responded, we are confident about the figures we quote. In addition, we have published guidance on salt spread rates, which is available on the UK Roads Liaison Group website and through the Highways Agency. We are well prepared this year.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside asked whether all the Quarmby recommendations had been implemented in full. She will know that some of them were not for the Department for Transport, so I cannot definitively say whether all the local authorities have implemented all the measures identified for them. However, all the recommendations that relate to the Department for Transport have either been completely implemented, or have made significant progress toward implementation. If the hon. Lady wants to pursue a particular point, I shall be happy subsequently to provide her with information in recommendation-by-recommendation form; that is perfectly possible.

The hon. Lady asked whether we would have an independent review this winter. I hope that that will not be necessary. We are better prepared—I shall explain why I think so in a moment—and so are transport providers. If something were to go awry we would want to examine what happened—as would the Committee, I am sure—but I hope that will not happen.

The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) highlighted the importance of preparations by the Met Office and the capacity to identify future weather patterns—at least beyond a few days. I believe that last winter the Met Office forecasts broadly reflected what occurred, which was useful, but it remains the case that severity can vary over relatively small distances, so an element of operational judgment on how reliable the information is will always be required by transport providers and, indeed—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—by those who make their own judgments about whether to venture out. Weather in this country can change markedly within five or 10 miles, so it is difficult to get even local radio forecasts very accurate. Incidentally, I am not responsible for BBC local radio cuts, and nor are the Government: it is a matter for the BBC what it does. I simply hope that the BBC can protect local radio, which is a valuable service and information source for the country.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South both rightly asked about a potential £10 million investment in supercomputing capability for weather forecasting. We are considering that suggestion sympathetically. There is a need to understand the benefits of more detailed forecasting and its role alongside other measures designed to increase the resilience of transport infrastructure to disruption from extreme winter weather. We are working with economic and scientific colleagues across Government to review the evidence about winter weather patterns and to test whether current levels of investment in winter resilience are being optimised. The Met Office raised the idea of supercomputing capability. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, as Committee Chair, knows that the previous Transport Secretary commissioned a review by the chief economist and chief scientist at the Department for Transport to establish whether there was a case for greater investment in measures to improve winter resilience. That review is also formally assessing the business case, and, if it is viable, the potential funding options for such an investment. The present Secretary of State has the report on her desk and will publish it shortly.

The response of aviation was rightly raised. It is undoubtedly true that there were significant problems at Heathrow last year, to which hon. Members rightly drew attention. The Committee referred to the criticism that major airports were under-investing in winter resilience equipment, and thought that that was borne out. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside also mentioned the David Begg report in her opening remarks and the useful work that he has done. As she knows, we broadly agree with the thrust of the Committee’s observation on the level of airports’ investment in winter resilience. However, Heathrow and Gatwick have taken on board the need to do rather better than last year. They have put in place revised arrangements and made new investment to reduce the risk of disruption as a result of future severe winter events.

I can confirm that both airports have made significant investment in additional snow and ice clearance capacity and that Heathrow has committed more than £30 million to date, including on tripling its snow and ice clearance vehicle fleet and quadrupling staff numbers available for snow clearance. Gatwick has invested £8 million in further snow and ice clearance equipment, including the acquisition of snow clearance vehicles from Switzerland and the subsequent acquisition of 30 additional vehicles. Both airports have revised their operational command and control procedures to improve their response to severe weather.

At Heathrow airport, operators and others who use the airport have agreed capacity contingency plans that are enforceable through the airport’s local rules. Those plans will be initiated during periods of temporarily reduced capacity to deliver an effective schedule for passengers. Heathrow has tripled the number of vehicles available for snow clearance compared with December 2010—there are now 185 vehicles at the airport. It has increased the number of staff available for snow clearance from 117 to 468 per shift and it has a new reservist role, so that 950 non-operational staff can be deployed. It has agreed with industry on a new process for managing the necessary flight cancellations during disruption, which was mentioned, so that passengers have more timely and accurate information about whether their flight is operating. I entirely agree that it is important to do that given what happened last year at the airport. In answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, yes, I am confident that Heathrow and Gatwick are much better prepared this year than they were last year. There was, indeed, an ambiguity about whether Heathrow was closed. That was not helpful and I am hopeful—confident, even—that that will not occur this year.

The issue of emergency timetables was also mentioned in relation to Heathrow. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the former Secretary of State for Transport raised that possibility, and it is worth considering the matter. In principle, the Committee said that it can see the benefits to passengers of imposing an emergency timetable at busy airports. The Civil Aviation Authority will continue its work on improving airports’ resilience, including by monitoring the progress made by airports to improve their performance through the implementation of agreed capacity reduction plans in relation to an emergency timetable where appropriate. The operators and others at Heathrow airport unanimously agreed to capacity contingency plans being enforceable through the airport local rules. They will be introducing such plans if necessary as a result of the requirements that the winter imposes on them.

The Chair of the Select Committee referred to future plans for the CAA. Let me just find the relevant note on that. The hon. Lady was concerned about the draft Civil Aviation Bill and the plans for passenger representation. As I have already mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority will continue to monitor the progress made by airports to improve their performance. There will be enforcement through the CAA through licensed conditions to facilitate greater airport resilience and a better passenger experience during any disruption. The CAA is taking an active interest in that matter, as I think the hon. Lady recognises.

There has also been an attempt to ensure better surface access to airports during disruption, which the hon. Lady mentioned. I can assure her that the Department for Transport will be monitoring future events, including access to airports, to ensure that there is co-ordination between modes of transport. That was recommendation 14 of the Committee’s report. We are engaging and have engaged with transport operators already to ensure that contingency plans are in place to deal with any events this year. However, although we and the operators can make the best plans possible, we are dependent on the weather. We cannot prepare for every single eventuality; we can simply do our best under the circumstances and ensure that we respond as best we can.

The information provided to passengers was raised by a couple of hon. Members. It is certainly true that the information on airlines and trains provided to passengers was not at its best. Some train companies are better than others, but we are concerned that accurate information needs to be provided on a timely basis, including on whether or not to travel. That needs to be clear. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness asked what discussions I have had on either winter preparedness or passenger information during disruption. I have had extensive discussions with the train companies and with Network Rail. I have met them regularly on a monthly basis. During those meetings, we have considered passenger information during disruption and winter preparedness to try to ensure that, first, the trains are able to run—I will come on to the infrastructure points in a moment—and, secondly, that when something does occur, passengers are properly informed about what is happening and what action they should take.

That includes, as I mentioned in a debate yesterday or the day before, ensuring that when a train is stranded, appropriate steps are taken to ensure that passengers can get to a station as soon as possible, rather than potentially being stranded for a long time on a train. However, it is not appropriate to micro-manage train companies and for Department for Transport officials to count how many blankets are on trains. We have a responsibility to indicate to train companies that they should be prepared, but it is for them to take that forward on their own basis and to ensure they are properly prepared. Ultimately, the buck stops with them. We do not own the train companies, but we have a right to say to them that they should be prepared, and we have done that. However, it is up to them to ensure that they take that forward in their own way and they will be held accountable for any shortcomings that occur as a consequence.

Two or three hon. Members raised the matter of pavements. I entirely agree about the lack of attention that some local authorities have sometimes given to pavements. It is wrong simply to assume that people in vehicles are the only ones who matter. Many people have to get from A to B on foot and they deserve proper consideration, too. On a purely practical basis, there is no point keeping a bus route clear if the whole pavement around the bus stop is a sheet of ice, which I saw in my town of Lewes last winter. There needs to be some joined-up thinking. There also needs to be some thinking from local authorities to identify important passenger routes, such as doctors’ surgeries, to ensure that essential journeys carried out by foot can take place. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton West will appreciate that, again, it is not for us to tell local authorities which roads and pavements should be clear, but as I have made plain to the Local Government Association and others, it is incumbent on them to think about the needs of those who are on foot, as well as those who are in vehicles.

I hope that we have made it easier for individuals who want to help to take action themselves by removing the suggestion that they will be subject to legal action if they clear their path or help in any other way. It was unhelpful that that suggestion got around and we have knocked it on the head. We have made it clear that we welcome people taking sensible steps to keep pavements clear both for themselves and for other people. We are also grateful to the farming community for the steps it has taken to ensure that it can help with vehicles that, for example, are stranded in country lanes and that would otherwise be there for some time. The idea that people should help each other is not new, but it does not do any harm to reiterate it today.

I have dealt with emergency timetables, the CAA and the surface access. On the Highways Agency and crisis response, I am happy to say that the agency has developed and implemented a revised crisis management policy to co-ordinate its services better during a severe winter incident. That policy ensures that an appropriate level of Highways Agency command is in place to take over all strategic management. Its aim is improved co-ordination, thereby mitigating the impact of severe weather in the first instance and, if necessary, helping to speed up the recovery of the network. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, the Highways Agency did a pretty good job last year, but obviously there is still room for improvement and we are keen to see that.

[John Woodcock]

Does that include extra capacity on the emergency telephone line, if needed? If the Minister is not sure of the answer, will he write to me?

[Norman Baker]

I will mull that over and provide an answer before the end of the debate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about snow wardens. The Local Government Group has set up a website for local authorities to share best practice, including what to do about snow wardens and encouraging that process. I understand that many authorities already have snow warden schemes in place.

The hon. Member for Bolton West suggested that we might do more to lean on local authorities. We try to resist the temptation to suggest that Whitehall knows best—that we can always run what happens in Kettering better than people in Kettering can. We do not want to do that. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that a local authority has a general duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure, as far as is reasonably practical, that safe passage along a highway is not threatened by snow or ice. If she or anyone else thinks that local authorities are failing in that duty, they can of course pursue them appropriately, but that is the general duty that I hope gives some reassurance and cover.

I was asked about variable message signs on highways to improve the information that can be displayed. I take the point that sometimes messages are first seen from a long way away and may not be current when they are reached. I also take the point—I referred to it earlier—that localised weather conditions can be such that the message actually gives inaccurate information. However, the Highways Agency is widening the use of variable message signs to improve the messages that can be displayed during severe weather. They will now be able to be used to provide severe weather-related incident information and warnings of forecasts of severe weather, as well as messages saying that weather will be particularly bad in any particular area. The agency is trying to provide that information in a more localised and more up-to-date fashion, bearing in mind the constraints that I mentioned.

As was mentioned, the Highways Agency is developing a comprehensive publicity campaign for this winter, which is aimed at encouraging road users to take more responsibility for their actions during severe weather through focused messages. Road users are being encouraged to plan their journeys ahead of severe weather, to check weather forecasts before setting out, and to prepare their car and carry an emergency kit with them. Variable messages will be used to make that point to drivers. The campaign is called “Make time for winter”. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that that partnership marketing campaign takes on board the comments made by her Committee and responds directly to them. The campaign was launched on 24 October, in unison with the Cabinet Office’s “Get Ready for Winter” and Scotland’s “Ready Scotland” campaigns. I hope that they will be useful in making drivers consider their actions carefully throughout the winter period.

It is difficult to be specific about whether drivers should go out. Ultimately, people have to make their own judgments based on common sense. It is common for the Government to tell individuals not to fly to a particular country because of the political situation unless they have to. We have to rely on individuals to make those judgments for themselves. All we can do is put a flag up and say, “Hang on a minute, look at the facts in this particular case.” That is what we will try to do.

The information about Highways Agency telephone lines has now come to me. I am told that the agency has a wide range of channels for members of the public to contact it and is not aware of any particular problems with the telephone line systems. However, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness raised the matter, I will look into it and write to him with any further information.

The Highways Agency carried out a complete review of its performance last winter, taking into account the recommendations of both the Transport Committee and the Quarmby audit. It has worked with a number of key stakeholders to develop measures to improve preparedness for severe weather this winter. I have referred to some of those measures, but it is also carrying out a series of winter snow desk exercises and stakeholder briefing sessions to test its preparedness for the coming winter, and issuing guidance to service providers to confirm elements of the winter service that need to be exercised in advance of winter. It has taken other steps, including better liaison with the Met Office.

I mentioned that I regularly raise passenger information during disruption with train companies. It may be useful for hon. Members to know that the Office of Rail Regulation has been consulting on making good passenger information a licence condition for train operating companies. I understand that it is likely to announce its conclusions shortly, after consultation, and I will be interested to hear what it says—it is, of course, independent of Government.

It may be useful to comment on the train companies’ preparation in terms of both trains and the network, so that we can be more confident than perhaps some people have been in the resilience of the rail network for the coming winter. I think that it is fair to say that both the train companies and Network Rail have taken significant steps to improve their preparedness compared with last year—and, indeed, last year was better than the year before. Network Rail now has key route strategies for each route, which set out arrangements for keeping route lines and critical junctions open and which facilities can be expected to be provided.

On the routes that are electrified with third-rail current—a point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—which are by and large south of London, Network Rail has introduced conductor rail heating in critical locations, which will keep it clear of snow and ice. The pilot projects so far have been successful and we are considering further roll-out. Network Rail has also introduced a new and improved snow and ice clearance train, including a snow plough and equipment to keep the conductor rail free of ice and snow. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the commitment to meet certain deadlines by 1 December had been met. I am assured that the answer is yes, it has been met.

Extra point heaters have been installed in some locations to ensure that points remain operational—as hon. Members will know, points are particularly vulnerable to freezing, which can then cause a major problem in either direction for quite some distance—and maintenance has been carried out on existing point heaters to ensure that they remain reliable. The train companies have already undertaken maintenance work on their train fleets to improve reliability during winter operation, including action to minimise problems with frozen sliding doors and frozen couplings. Some fleets on the third-rail network have been equipped to spray de-icing fluid to keep the conductor rail clear of ice and snow. They have also ensured that supplies of salt and de-icing products are available at stations and depots, to keep platforms and other areas clear of snow and ice for the benefit of passenger safety.

The train companies are also being encouraged by us to liaise with local highway authorities to ensure that roads leading to stations and depots are kept clear of snow and ice—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside talked about co-ordination across modes—and staffing arrangements have been reviewed to ensure that staff are available to operate the service. A number of train companies have made arrangements to accommodate staff who are unable to get home.

Several train companies have produced contingency timetables that will be introduced in the event of severe winter weather. They have been validated by Network Rail to ensure that they are capable of being operated robustly. Improvements in timetabling software mean that they can be uploaded to industry journey-planning systems overnight. Steps have been taken—sometimes high-tech, sometimes low—to improve trains and keep them resilient, including, according to my crude understanding, stuffing a sock into the horn to ensure that it does not fail, because if the horn fails, the train cannot go out. Every possibility, therefore, is being covered by the train companies to ensure that trains run.

My experience last year was that the train companies tried hard to ensure that trains ran—for example, Virgin ran trains to get people home, although they had to run slowly. One of the points I make to officials and others in the rail industry is that it would not be right to penalise companies through their performance measures if they were doing the right thing and getting passengers home rather than meeting some abstract performance measure. Southern also performed well by running diesel stock down the Brighton main line, which enabled passengers to get home under diesel traction when the third rail was not available; other companies took similarly helpful measures. The information from one or two companies was clearly inadequate, which caused a great deal of unhappiness among passengers, but I am confident that those companies will be much better prepared to deal with passenger disruption this year.

I hope that I have covered most of the points made today. If I have missed any out, I will pick up on them and write to Members accordingly.

Bus Services

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Bayley. It is good to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time.

I congratulate the Transport Committee on securing this hugely important debate and on its excellent report, which shows just how much damage is being done to bus services up and down the country. The Committee’s words have been quoted already, but they are very important. According to the Committee, the current situation is

“the greatest financial challenge for the English bus industry for a generation”

and

“some of the most vulnerable people in society, including the elderly, will be most affected by these changes.”

It is not hard to see why the Committee had to use such strong language. Its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), set out the key decisions by this Government that have led to half a billion pounds being cut from local transport funding in this year alone. First, the 28% cut in direct funding to councils has removed £95 million from local transport. Secondly, £223 million has been taken from funding for the concessionary fares scheme for pensioners, which threatens services that are viable only because of that subsidy; as a result, many pensioners are finding time restrictions placed on their bus pass. Thirdly, a further £254 million will be taken out of support for buses next January, when support for bus fuel costs is reduced by a fifth.

Unfortunately, in their formal response to the Committee’s warnings about the damage being done to bus services, Ministers have displayed just how out of touch they are about the impact of the cuts to local transport and buses, which are being made too far and too fast. In their response to the Committee’s report—and, let us remember, after half a billion pounds has been cut from bus services funding in this year alone—the Government claimed that the bus industry was

“able to absorb this reduction without raising fares or cutting services”,

even though the Committee report is clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) flagged up, the cuts will lead to

“a disproportionately adverse impact on the provision of local bus services and the level of bus fares”.

The scale of service reduction and fare rises was reinforced by a report from the Passenger Transport Executive Group on the impact of the spending review on bus services, which found that by 2014 bus use will fall by a fifth and fares will rise by 24% in real terms. In addition, the Campaign for Better Transport has found that the cuts have already led to huge reductions in services across the country, with one in five supported services being reduced and three quarters of local transport authorities planning to cut back on their bus services.

Behind those figures lies the real damage that is being done by cutting our bus services so heavily. The cuts are hurting young people, who are already struggling as a result of this Government’s decisions to cut the education maintenance allowance, treble tuition fees and end the future jobs fund. A million young people are out of work, and trying to get to places of education or to start working is made even harder for them when their local bus service is taken away. The cuts are also hurting older people, who find themselves isolated and cut off from family and friends because the bus service on which they rely has been taken away. During the general election, all political parties promised to protect free bus passes, but many older people are now asking what is the point of their free bus pass if there is no bus for them to travel on.

Perhaps the most striking part of the Select Committee’s excellent report is the evidence gathered from bus users around the country about the impact of the Government’s cuts on their quality of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly raised the plight of people in his constituency. I will add the case of Mr Turpin, a 65-year-old in Somerset who had a quadruple heart bypass but who now has to cycle every week up a steep and busy A road because his bus service has been withdrawn. These are not statistics that we are discussing; they are real people who are suffering real hardship as a result of this Government’s decisions. Unfortunately, their stories are being repeated in towns and villages up and down England. In my constituency, the No. 60 bus in Ulverston is the latest service to come under threat, after just seven months of running unsubsidised. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made a good point about the paucity of the so-called consultation processes carried out by the private sector.

Bus services are being cut, communities are being left isolated and where buses remain the fares are soaring well above inflation. If the Minister wants to avoid being labelled the modern-day Beeching of the buses, he must tell us what he proposes to do about the damage that is being done to bus services. Can he say when the consultation toolkit being created by Passenger Focus for local authorities will be completed and rolled out? Has he started work with the Local Government Association to help community transport associations?

Finally, will the Minister accept the recommendation made by the Transport Committee and by my own party’s transport policy review that local communities and the transport authorities that represent them should be given a greater say in how their bus services are funded and provided? My party’s policy review is clear about that. It is not good enough for Ministers simply to devolve the blame for their cuts to local transport funding without giving local transport authorities the power to manage their own transport services. The answer is not simply to enhance the voice that communities have, important though that may be; it is to put them directly in charge of the local decision making on transport. That is what we are calling for the Government to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that I am not responsible for how the Department for Communities and Local Government has distributed its money, and I cannot comment on that in detail. What I would say, having looked at bus patterns across the country, is that it is not the case that southern counties have maintained their bus services while northern ones have not. The picture is much more mixed. The east riding of Yorkshire, for example, has done well on maintaining bus services. A north-south split is not reflected in the way she suggests.

[John Woodcock]

What the Minister has said is potentially important and will be listened to by councils throughout the country. Is he actually saying that if any council cuts bus services, it is the council’s fault and not a result of the drastic reductions in local funding imposed on councils by the Government?

[Norman Baker]

What I am saying—I hope that I have said it fairly—is that it is a challenging position for local authorities. They have received reductions in funding, which has meant difficult decisions for them, and I can understand why some of them have looked to their bus services. However, within the framework in which they operate, some have managed to protect their services, and, as in the case of Bedford, even enhance them. Others have made limited cuts. Others have taken an axe to services. Those who live in Hartlepool and elsewhere need to ask their councils why they have taken an axe to services when other councils have not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly putting that point on record.

Several Members raised the importance of consultation. I welcome the Transport Committee’s emphasis on it, and it is right that Members have mentioned it here. It is also right that councils and operators considering changing services consult properly. It is clear from the evidence that the Committee and I have seen that there are some good examples and some pretty ropey ones. The message that I want to give to bus companies and local councils is that they must consult properly and take into account the consequences of any changes that they propose. Actually, if they consult properly, they often get some good and constructive responses and end up with a solution that is better than the one proposed, not just for customers but for the company.

The Chair of the Transport Committee asked when I expect we will know what the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers is doing with its assessment. I mentioned the annual statistics, but the ATCO assessment is happening now, and we expect the results early in the new year. There is no reason why the Department should not share that with the Committee as and when it comes to us, so I will ask my officials to ensure that we are in touch with the Chairman then.

The toolkit has been mentioned by a number of Members. Passenger Focus is gathering evidence from local authorities and bus operators to find examples of good practice. It is receiving good support from the authorities it has contacted and we expect to see a first draft in January, so we and Passenger Focus are making good, swift progress, which is rightly important to Members present.

The only other points that I want to pick up on are two of the issues to which the Chairman of the Committee referred—namely the bus service operator grant and the concessionary fares reimbursement formula. Contrary to the information that has just been provided by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, it is a fact that the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, to which I spoke immediately after the spending review, told me that, in general terms, it felt that the BSOG reduction, given the notice that we had given and the limited amount of reduction, was one that it could in general absorb without fares rising or services being cut. That is what the industry told me. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the exact quote if he wants. That is what it said.

[John Woodcock]

I am aware of the quote, but does the Minister accept that, while it is one thing to look at that in isolation, the situation is entirely different if we combine it with the two other substantial cuts faced by the industry, and that it is simply unrealistic to expect things to remain the same?

[Norman Baker]

There is an issue as to the extent to which other elements of what is happening in the wider market, including the price of fuel, what is happening in the world market, the eurozone or any other factors outside our control, affect the operation of bus services. The hon. Gentleman has referred specifically to the BSOG reduction and the industry has given me a specific response. That is what it said and we should stick with it.

On the concessionary fare reimbursement formula, we have not changed, in any shape or form, the legislation that we inherited from the previous Government. It requires councils and transport authorities to deal with operators in a way that reimburses them so that they are no worse off and no better off from handling concessionary fares. That is a legal requirement and it has not changed. All we have done is issue guidance to indicate to local authorities how they should perhaps discharge that function. They are under no obligation to follow that guidance if they do not wish to do so. The remedy for bus companies that are unhappy with that is to go to an independent appeal. Not very many of them have done so and not many appeals have been won. If bus companies are receiving less money from local authorities and are not seeking to appeal, or do not win appeals, that suggests that they were overpaid previously, contrary to the terms of the legislation. That is a simple analysis of the situation. If, on the other hand, they win their appeal, it shows that local authorities have not been sufficiently reimbursing them on a no better, no worse-off basis. The legislation has not changed at all. I think that, to some extent, the argument is something of a diversion.

I am very conscious of the importance of buses in our country. I do not underestimate the difficulties of local councils in particular, and I am concerned about the level of supported services in some parts of the country, as opposed to the commercial services, which I think are, by and large, all right. We need to see the picture across the country. One effect of localism is that some councils are handling this very well while others are handling it very badly. It is not for us to say that a local council must follow a particular procedure, but I think it is the right of people in those areas to ask why there are no buses in their council area while they are running very well indeed across the border. That is a legitimate function for local people to practise.

We have supplied a lot of help to the bus industry in the way I have described—through the green bus fund, the local sustainable transport fund and the money that the Chancellor has given this week—and I hope to make further helpful announcements in the not too distant future.

National Policy Statements

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

This motion is brought before the House on the day that the Chancellor has unveiled his national infrastructure plan on which the UK’s economic recovery is supposed to rest. I have to say that those are grand hopes for a 150-page wish list with little coherence and even less sense of how it will be delivered. Although it is welcome that the House is getting the chance to debate the national policy statement on ports—an important innovation pioneered by the previous Government and made possible by the passage of the Planning Act 2008—it is time that Ministers faced up to the opportunities that are being missed because of failure to join up key decision making on transport infrastructure.

First, though, let me say what we support. We are pleased that national policy statements are going ahead and that Ministers have chosen to accept the Transport Committee’s recommendation that debates on them should take place in Government time.

We have heard today, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, that Britain faces continued stagnation. Unfortunately, it will take more than a national policy statement on ports, no matter how finely crafted, to return our flatlining economy to health. However, although not sufficient, thriving ports are necessary to any recovery. Any successful route out of these doldrums will require an economic rebalancing that includes Britain’s exporting more to the rest of the world.

With about 90% of world trade taking place by sea, we need more than ever to ensure that Britain has sufficient modern, efficient port capacity that is capable of handling the size of ships and containers that are coming to dominate global trade. That port capacity needs to be linked to a land-based transport network that provides reliable and efficient links for exported and imported goods. That means having fast and free-flowing road links to major ports and increasing capacity on key rail routes, not only in relation to train paths but to enhancing the loading gauge to allow larger containers to be carried. That is why the last Labour Government worked with Network Rail to allow containers of 9 feet 6 inches to be carried between Southampton and the midlands. Today’s statement on rail freight interchanges is therefore welcome.

Our ports are essential to this island nation. They are part of our heritage and our future as a global trader. In 2010, the UK’s ports handled 512 million tonnes of freight, making our ports sector the largest of any in Europe. Ports and directly related services account for about 58,000 jobs, widely distributed across the country. From Immingham to Southampton and from the Medway to Liverpool, ports are at the centre of local economies.

We support the principles behind the policy statement in that port expansion is essential economically but must be conducted in ways that benefit local economies, drive regeneration and are environmentally sensitive. That is because businesses seeking new markets will be looking to the new Administration to deliver on the significant expansions consented to by the previous Government: a two thirds increase in the handling capacity at Felixstowe, consented to in 2006; the London gateway port that the Minister mentioned, handling up to 3.5 million containers a year and consented to in 2007; a doubling of capacity at Liverpool, also consented to in 2007; and further major expansions given the green light at Bathside bay in Harwich, at Teesport, and at Bristol.

Although we agree with the underlying principles of the statement and will therefore support its approval, the way in which it has been presented exposes serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to planning transport infrastructure. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and make changes so that their already disjointed infrastructure planning does not deteriorate further.

The need to link ports with other infrastructure projects, particularly in road and rail, is obvious. However, the Minister has not given a satisfactory explanation of why he has ignored the recommendation of the Transport Committee to integrate the NPS on ports with the promised NPS on national networks.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Eddington report was published in 2006 or 2007. The previous Government did not get on with improving road infrastructure to the ports. I say gently that it is a bit rich for him to criticise this Government for not moving more quickly on that.

[John Woodcock]

Progress was made, but unquestionably more needs to be done. I think that it was incumbent on the incoming Government to respond positively to the recommendations made by the Transport Committee just before the last election. It is a matter of great regret that they have not done so.

The Government have chosen to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, yet the entire statement is written on the basis that the IPC exists. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in winding up, if he has time, or in writing if necessary, whether the end date that he gave of April next year is a firm date or simply a target, and whether that change will require further consultation on the NPS.

The House is being asked to approve the NPS without reference to wider ports policy, most notably on ownership models, including mutualisation. As the Minister is well aware, that is of great interest to many Members and local communities, most notably around Dover and the trust ports. The lack of any guidance on ownership and changes of status in the NPS demonstrates why it is not a substitute for a proper ports policy. I hope that the Minister, whom it is an unexpected pleasure to see today, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will commit to coming before the House with a comprehensive statement on ports policy, in which the NPS sits.

It is unfortunate that the statement gives such limited consideration to the economic and social impacts of port development proposals, particularly on local employment. After the fiasco of the Thameslink procurement process, Ministers claim to be alive to these issues, yet they seem to be little more than an afterthought in this document.

The Transport Committee recommended that the statement should include preference for port development to reduce inland road transport, yet that is missing from the statement. It contains no wider policy on how to achieve a reduction in the reliance on road freight. We hope that Ministers will consider revising the NPS to ensure that development decisions are taken in a way that specifically promotes and encourages a modal shift for onward transportation away from roads and on to rail and coastal shipping.

On climate change, there is little in the NPS on emissions. The Government need to make it clear whether they will accept the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to include the UK’s share of shipping emissions in the 2050 target.

Finally, we support and welcome the growing demand from the offshore energy sector for additional port capacity, including in my constituency of Barrow and Furness. The Government need to take a more proactive role to ensure that the UK takes a larger slice of this booming market. That is referenced in the NPS, but there is little detail. Will the Minister say how the Government intend actively to promote the potential for ports in the offshore energy sector?

The statement shows some progress but, with the economy flagging, the Government need to raise their game on ports and infrastructure across the piece.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I do not think I can add anything further about my approach to looking at this area, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the portfolio of transport that I now look after, and I will continue to do so.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I add my welcome to the Secretary of State? Although she is new to the job, does she recognise that motorists and many thousands of people employed by the motoring industry have already waited more than a year while Ministers have dithered over the proposal, and that they will still be in the dark after this exchange? Let us be clear: this out-of-touch plan would allow 800,000 more dangerous-to-drive vehicles to stay on the roads for up to a year longer. Will she listen to motoring organisations, such as the AA and the RAC, and ditch the plan, which could lead to more accidents and higher costs and burdens for the responsible majority of motorists?

[Justine Greening]

If we are ever going to get policies right, we need to go through the right process for developing them. As has been said in the House, the hon. Gentleman’s Government looked at this area—

[John Woodcock]

And rejected it.

[Justine Greening]

He says they rejected it but, ultimately, they considered this area, too. I met the AA and, indeed, the RAC Foundation yesterday, because they are part of the motorists’ forum we have established. There was a helpful exchange and, as I have said to him, I will make an announcement once I am satisfied I know what the scope of the review should be.

Cost of Motor Insurance

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this important and well informed debate, and to the Committee on producing its excellent and timely report?

The eye-watering rises in the cost of motor insurance in the past few years have been one more burden on families already hit by high prices at the pump, food inflation and soaring energy costs. Earlier in the year, annual increases in insurance premiums were running as high as 40%. Although the AA reports that by September the figure had dropped to around 16%, premium increases still far outstrip inflation. The average premium of £921, which my hon. Friend highlighted, means that more than half an average monthly take-home salary is used simply to insure a car.

We know that those likely to be earning least are paying most for their insurance. As we have heard, average premiums for young drivers are more than £2,000. Understandably, motorists resent those huge increases. The overwhelming majority of careful, responsible drivers feel that they are subsidising the careless, the reckless and the uninsured. Increasingly, they are aware that their premiums are increasing as a result of fraudulent or frivolous personal injury claims for non-existent or pre-existing conditions.

Although the Government should not get into the business of setting insurance premiums, Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that the market works fairly and in the interests of consumers. The insurance industry has made a strong case that the 75% increase in the number of compensation claims in the past five years is a key factor in driving up premiums. Increased access to legal redress for genuine injury is a good thing, but responsible motorists paying for insurance fraud is clearly not.

For many, the car is and will remain the essential way of getting around. For some—and, as we have heard, particularly young people—the fast-rising cost of insurance could make the difference between taking up a job that requires a car and being a burden on taxpayers by living on benefits. With job vacancies so scarce, transport to access opportunity needs to be affordable—that relates to motor insurance just as it relates to bus and rail fares.

The sky-high cost of motor insurance for young people has been an important part of the Opposition’s policy review. We urge the Government to implement the Committee’s recommendations to improve the education and safety awareness of young drivers and to consider further changes to the driving test.

It is important to stress that all drivers will benefit from having safer younger drivers on the road—that point was well made in the debate. Equally importantly, much has been heard about the potential of the black box and the relative lack of take-up so far. I am sure that the Minister will join me in praising insurance providers that use black boxes, but will he make clear what he is doing to encourage greater take-up of the technology among providers?

There is no excuse for breaking the rules, but as premiums rise we know that related criminal behaviour is at risk of increasing, potentially undermining the progress that the previous Administration made in tackling fraud and driving without insurance. The Association of British Insurers recorded a 9% increase in fraud.

[Mike Penning]

Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House what measures the previous Administration took against uninsured driving? This Government introduced the continuous insurance policy.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the continuous insurance policy was a measure that was set out by the Labour party and which he has taken forward, which we welcome. According to the Motor Insurers Bureau, however, there has been a 25% fall in insurance fraud and uninsured driving over the past five years, which we welcome and want to see continue.

On tackling uninsured drivers, the Minister mentioned the continuous insurance enforcement scheme, but to work effectively that needs the necessary tools to do the enforcing, so will he tell the House, either now or during his speech, what level of resource the DVLA has put aside to pursue and enable the prosecution of transgressors, and how many drivers who ignore official reminders that their insurance has expired have so far been given a fixed penalty notice under the new scheme?

Last week, the House had the opportunity to debate referral fees paid by claims management companies and personal injury lawyers to insurance firms in return for the details of potential claimants. For the past five or six years, these fees have greased the wheels of a perceived compensation culture, encouraging claims that have little realistic chance of success or which are simply fraudulent. The cost of those claims feed directly back into the premiums that all motorists pay, so I, too, pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on this issue. His investigation into the scale of the problem and his private Member’s Bill put pressure on Ministers to add clauses on referral fees, at the last moment, to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last week. However, as we made clear then, the Government have so far missed the opportunity to crack down adequately.

I shall list what measures the Government have so far rejected: making the soliciting for and payment of fees in road traffic accident cases a criminal offence; outlawing the blight of unsolicited phone calls and text messages; strengthening the rules on data protection and third-party capture; and tightening the rules for whiplash claims. It is unfortunate that as industry practice has been shown to be driving up costs for law-abiding motorist, the Government are ducking their responsibilities on this issue. If the Minister is serious about keeping premiums as low as possible, I hope that, even at this late stage, he will prevail upon Justice Ministers to change the Government’s position.

The Select Committee made the sensible suggestion that the Government examine international experience on restraining claims numbers. It is disappointing that Ministers have refused its idea of a proper study. I hope that they will reconsider. The Committee also rightly pointed to the importance of road safety as another key factor influencing insurance premiums. Despite last week’s horrific tragedy—the Minister visited the scene, at the M5 in Somerset, at the weekend—Britain continues to have the safest roads in Europe and among the safest in the world. However, the first two quarters of this year have seen increases in deaths compared with the same point the previous year. A continuation of that trend would mean 2011 would be the first year since 2003 to see a rising death toll on Britain’s roads.

It is worrying that these upward ticks in road deaths have come at a time when spending on road safety campaigns has been cut. If the trend of safer roads were to reverse, the country’s principal concern—everyone’s principal concern—would, of course, be the tragic human cost seen so vividly this week. We know that a knock-on effect of less safe roads would be further upward pressure on insurance premiums. That raises this question: has the Minister estimated what the impact would be on road safety and on premiums of his proposal to scrap the annual MOT—a move that could lead to 800,000 cars that are dangerous to drive being left on the roads for up to a year longer?

Motorists are feeling the squeeze. Many face being priced out of their cars and, by extension, out of their jobs. As the Transport Committee has so effectively set out, those motorists want to know that their Government are doing what they can to enable lower insurance costs. If Ministers wish to prove that they are not out of touch with those concerns, they need to set out how they will go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I completely agree—just as I often agreed with the hon. Gentleman during the many years when we served on the Health Committee together. The actuaries have to be able to look at risk in general; otherwise we will all be put into the same pot, which is unfair to those who are in lower-risk categories. I have concerns that addressing this issue will lead to premiums being increased, not reduced.

Many colleagues, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), have said we need to do more about the insurers, and I agree. I certainly do bring the insurers around the table, and I give them a very hard time. After all, they want things from me. They wanted the continuous insurance; they have been calling for that for years, and they have got it. They also want access to DVLA data in order to try to alleviate fraud, both intentional and unintentional.

People ask me, “What do you mean by ‘unintentional fraud’?” Well, I am a dad, and I was asked whether I would put my daughter on the insurance as an additional driver. I had to look very carefully at whether she was an additional driver or the main driver, but most parents would not know the difference, so we need to educate them on that. They think they are helping their young people by naming them as an additional driver in those circumstances, but if their son or daughter is, in fact, not the additional driver, that insurance will be invalid, and the insurer will almost certainly find that out—and if the son or daughter is involved in a crash, they will almost certainly not be covered, and anybody else involved in the accident with them will also be penalised.

Some Members who were present for the debate have moved on to other things, so our proceedings now feel a little like an Adjournment debate, where people have not returned for the concluding speeches. That is a shame, because this is not an Adjournment debate; it is, rather, a proper debate of the House with a motion before it. Perhaps as Members get more used to debates such as this, more of them will return to hear the concluding remarks.

I certainly will work with the devolved Governments in respect of their responsibilities. Responding to the comments of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I have serious concerns about the market as it operates in Northern Ireland. I am not responsible for the market, however; that is a Treasury matter, which is why the Treasury took the recent debate. I also understand that the Northern Ireland regulators are conducting a review, and I can assure the hon. Lady that if there is any evidence of collusion in the market—if any cartels are operating there or here—we will come down on them like a ton of bricks, as would be only right and proper.

As the Transport Committee has concluded, there is not just one simple solution to this problem. I agree, for instance, that there is a postcode lottery. In some ways, that is similar to the gender issue we have just discussed. Some postcodes cover large areas; that is certainly the case in my part of the world. It is fundamentally wrong for people to be penalised because of the road or neighbourhood in which they happen to live. Insurance calculations used to be based on theft and damage rates, but modern cars are very difficult to steal. Joyriders still steal ordinary cars, but most vehicle thefts are of high-value cars that are stolen to order. That is a completely different kind of theft from the thefts that affect premiums.

Let us consider why premiums are so high. It is not just to do with uninsured drivers. It is also to do with ambulance chasers. Some 50% of all personal injury claims are made on car insurance. How can that be right when, as we have heard this evening, we have some of the safest roads in the world, and certainly the safest roads in Europe? Our killed and seriously-injured rates are extremely low, although we need to get them even lower. The truth of the matter is that most of these claims, many of which are fraudulent, are not reported to the police. Very often they are reported after the incident; Members have referred to constituents saying people followed up on incidents the following day. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) touched on this in his speech. The police would never have been called in such cases; it will never be on the records of the police that that sort of thing has taken place. Some countries in Europe, including Germany, have carefully considered the speed that someone would have had to be travelling to be in an accident before they can claim for whiplash. I was with the relevant German Minister at a conference recently, and we discussed this and other measures, particularly priority. The evidence is that this does not appear to be working in Germany simply because people are increasing the speed that they claim they were travelling at before the accident.

[John Woodcock]

I just want the Minister to set out why he has rejected our calls to restrict whiplash claims, given the seriousness of this problem in forcing up insurance premiums. Will he not reconsider?

[Mike Penning]

I have not rejected that; this was done by a colleague in the Ministry of Justice, as it is a legal matter. However, I completely agree with my colleague, as he is a legal person and I am not. There are legal differences between Germany and this country. Everything is possible, and this Parliament can do whatever it wants to do. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is not the case—I see some of my Eurosceptic friends in the House this evening. There are certain things that I would like to be doing in my Department that Europe prevents me from doing.

As we have heard across the House today, insurers have to take responsibility and say, “No, we’ll take you to court and we will challenge this.” They should not just settle out of court because it happens to be cheaper than the possible consequences of going to court. Immediately we start to do that, the no win, no fee ambulance chasers will look very carefully at their cases, and people who should genuinely get their compensation will get it and those who are swinging a leg, as my grandfather would say, will not. I shall refer back to my time on the Select Committee on Health, because it is not just in this area that we have this problem with insurance. Our hospitals, in particular, tend to settle out of court rather than challenging claims, and that is costing the taxpayer and the NHS an absolute fortune, so this is a culture that we have to turn around.

Hon. Members have touched on other aspects in the report and the evidence to the Select Committee. I have significantly changed the driving test, the practical and the theory, since my appointment, and I intend to change it even more. I have said it before and I will say it again that people are currently taught to pass a test; they are not taught to drive. They are not taught to drive safely for themselves and for others, and we have to make sure that we have qualified driving instructors and that everybody knows they are qualified when they get into that car. One change we are going to make—I hope that the Select Committee will agree with me on this—is that someone who is not a qualified driving instructor will not be able to take someone out on their own to teach them to drive. I am not going to stop parents, grandparents and sisters doing that, but someone who gets into a car marked “driving instructor” should not have to look for a little badge on the windscreen that says that the person is a trainee. These people should be qualified driving instructors. The industry supports me on this and we will do this. There also has to be an ongoing training programme for driving instructors. Some instructors took their qualifications many years ago, and we need to make sure that they are au fait with what we want from the driving test, although we also want them to earn an income.

As we have heard today, there are also things that happen to people suddenly when they pass their driving test. Clearly, some people—young people in particular, but not all of them—appear to have some kind of lobotomy when they get behind the wheel of a car. I am talking about highly intelligent young people who are perfect role models in every other aspect of their life, and then they get behind the wheel of a car. Sadly, as has been discussed, testosterone is one of the leading factors. Drink and drugs are involved, but testosterone is one of the big problems here.

In my constituency, the place where most people pass their test is St Albans. Between my constituency and St Albans is a rather large motorway called the M1, and to get back from the test centre, people have to cross it. That means that someone could be driving for the first time on their own and as they turn left or right to come off the A414 they will be on the M1. I think we need to give people, particularly young people, the opportunity to learn how to drive on the motorway before they pass their test. That is why we will pass regulations to allow qualified driving instructors to take learners on to motorways. Can I make that compulsory? No, I cannot because some counties have no motorways, so it would be discriminatory to do so, but we will give qualified instructors the opportunity to do that.

We need to make sure that the test is not the endgame, but not—in my opinion or that of the Government—to make it compulsory to take post-test qualifications. Pass Plus was a partial success, but was never really rolled out properly.

High-Speed Rail

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing what has been an excellent debate, with worthwhile contributions from all parties, including an interesting contribution from the hon. Gentleman himself. He made many good points. He also spoke about the need for an all-party consensus on this issue and today he has spoken, if I may say so, like a one-man all-party consensus. He said that even today he has searched his soul and he remains a Conservative, and that is fine. However, in bemoaning the loss of the regional development agencies and the Northern Way, he is speaking like a Labour Member.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman, but before I do so I will just add that, in castigating his own Government, he is acting like a Liberal Democrat.

[Paul Maynard]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am fully behind the decision to abolish the regional development agencies.

[John Woodcock]

If the hon. Gentleman says so, that is fine. How he will get on with his colleagues after today I do not know, but whenever he puts forward sensible proposals, we will work constructively with him to further shared objectives, if he is willing to do so.

The hon. Gentleman made some important points about the northern hub, but Opposition Members believe that it is important to guard against letting the Government off and facilitating them by easing up on lobbying about delivering the project in parts and effectively leaving sections of the northern hub on the shelf.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

Of course. I welcome the Minister’s contribution.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Labour Government had 13 years to deliver the northern hub but they did not do any of it. We have already committed to delivering a major plank of it—the Ordsall curve.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

The Minister knows that much progress was made in planning under the Labour Government. It is critical to the area that the current Administration finish the job we started and I hope that, in her reply, she will expand on her attitude towards taking the project in parts.

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly odd of the Minister to describe us as having had 13 years to deliver the northern hub? The Labour party might have been in government for 13 years, but much of the first half of that time was spent sorting out the mess created by privatisation, and much of the second half was about developing the kind of proposals that we have spent our afternoon talking about.

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She knows that we took forward high-speed rail and the High Speed 2 project. We want the project completed by a future Labour Government.

[Mrs Villiers]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that only a few years ago, in 2007, the then Labour Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, produced a White Paper that ruled out high-speed rail for 30 years? It was the Conservatives who led the debate on high-speed rail.

[John Woodcock]

Let us see what the Minister says today about taking forward what are Labour’s proposals. I want to come on to why it is critical that she strengthen her commitment to the north of England.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

In the manner of the debate, it might help if northern Members of all political complexions could keep some consensus about the issue we are trying to debate.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am trying to set out the grounds for a consensus. I might suggest that if people did not keep intervening on me—[Interruption]––and disagreeing with me, I might be able to make more progress.

[David Mowat]

Will the Shadow Minister give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will give way one more time and then I really need to make some progress because I have only 10 minutes.

[David Mowat]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Shadow Front-Benchers have been ambivalent about this issue over the past 18 months? The Evening Standard recently stated that Labour had announced:

“a root and branch review of…transport policy with nothing ruled in or out,”

including high-speed rail. Is that no longer the position?

[John Woodcock]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in the House over the past couple of weeks for the important Back-Bench debate on high-speed rail, in which we set out with crystal clarity our support for the project. We were absolutely right to look at the project again in Opposition because it is a major one and will require substantial and sustained investment. We have concluded that we will back the Government, and try to strengthen their resolve when we think they are not giving enough of a commitment to the north.

[Paul Maynard]

I am sorry to have to intervene yet again. On Monday, the hon. Gentleman’s party announced support for a version of HS2 that would go through Heathrow and up the M40, which was the model that the Conservative party proposed pre-election, so can he confirm that he is not now supporting the Government model?

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I want to get on to it. I hope that I can now get an opportunity to do so.

We believe that the north of England and Scotland, indeed the whole UK, deserve a proper commitment from the Government to a new high-speed line running right up to Manchester and Leeds. Many Members on both sides have made that point today, and I hope that they will support us in agreeing that failure by the Government to legislate for that in one go leaves a question mark over their commitment to jobs and growth in the north. We urge the Government to reconsider, and I hope that the Minister will come back having done so.

The first stage of High Speed 2, as far as Birmingham, is vital transport infrastructure. It relieves the already mentioned congestion and overcapacity on the main line from Euston and cuts journey times to the west midlands significantly. It provides new capacity to shift freight on to rail, and could provide—from the outset, Opposition Members hope—fast links to Heathrow airport from across the country. On that point—as it was raised—the Minister was quoted as saying that our alternative suggestion was unhelpful.

Given the strength of our support for the overall scheme and the widespread unease about the current route, which is shared by many Government Members, I hope that the Minister will make clear what she really thinks in her closing remarks. Does she recognise that linking directly to Heathrow would strengthen the project because it would be cheaper overall than building the proposed route with a separate spur, it would increase the opportunity to lever in private investment in a way that the Old Oak Common proposal does not, and it would generate a complementary benefit for Heathrow by providing a rail substitute for short-haul flights, thereby releasing capacity, and that it is therefore worthy of serious consideration?

The second stages of HS2 beyond the west midlands to Manchester and Leeds would provide benefits that dwarf those of the first stage. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys does not like the word “transformative”, but this project could redraw the economic geography of the UK and that is why there is such wide-ranging support for the stages beyond Birmingham, not only from Members, as demonstrated today, but from business groups and local authorities across the north. Once completed, HS2 would bring Leeds and Manchester within 80 minutes of London and 96 minutes of Liverpool. In addition to the tens of thousands of extra jobs, it would create new businesses, new investment, a modal shift from domestic air to rail, more reliable journeys, more frequent trains and more seats, and God knows we need that on the line. A clearer commitment now to the extension beyond Birmingham, would make the business case for HS2 stronger and private sector investment more likely and secure valuable political and business support across the north.

There has been no shortage of warm words from Ministers in recent months, but we need a commitment to one hybrid Bill. There is no need to delay getting spades into the ground on stage one if the Government decide to re-consult and put the route to the north in the Bill.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the two Front-Bench speakers have a total of 20 minutes, so will he please make this his last minute?

[John Woodcock]

Absolutely. I was in my final minute. I hope that the Minister will make her commitment to the north clear, as it is currently under question. We know that we cannot start talking about detailed ticketing prices, but when will she agree to begin setting out the funding model as it affects passengers? High-speed rail that only the wealthiest people can afford will never deliver the full potential that communities across the north richly deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree thoroughly. I will come to that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has been influential not just today but in the general debate on the issue. On the route up to Scotland, the Government are always open to working with the Scottish Government on such proposals. Why did we decide to start in the south rather than the north? As he will be aware, the rationale is that crowding is more serious on the southern leg of the west coast line, but we are anxious to press ahead as quickly as possible. I understand the frustration expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South about the pace of delivery, but I emphasise, agreeing with the points made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, that in order to make progress on the project as quickly as possible, we need to retain cross-party consensus.

I welcome the assurances given by the Opposition in the Back-Bench debate on the Floor of the House, but Labour’s decision to propose a new route after the consultation closed was odd. It strikes me as last-minute, and looks suspiciously like game playing. However, I assure hon. Members that all route proposals submitted by the 50,000 people who took part in the consultation will be considered thoroughly.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is being clear—well, specific—about the point “submitted to the consultation”. Is she saying that our suggestion is being considered or not?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am saying that all 50,000 responses from the people who took the time to submit them before the consultation deadline will be thoroughly considered.

We see phases 1 and 2 of the high-speed rail project to Manchester and Leeds as the starting point for delivering a genuinely national network, but we should not underestimate the benefits that Scotland will gain from the proposed Y network even before high-speed rail goes north of the border. Trains running off the high-speed line to Scotland will cut journey times to about three and a half hours, producing major economic and connectivity benefits for Scotland, tipping the balance in favour of rail rather than air and providing significant environmental benefits as people switch from planes to trains.

We are not pursuing HS2 just because of the positive economic benefits. The case for high-speed rail rests on the pressing need to prevent big problems that would otherwise be heading down the track towards us. The demand for inter-city transport capacity is growing strongly. If we sit back and fail to deal with the capacity time bomb set to explode within the next 10 to 20 years, we will do lasting damage to our economy. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) pithily put it, in the end, it comes down to capacity. If we do nothing, our key transport arteries will clog up, choking growth and destroying jobs in the north and elsewhere. It is neither viable nor responsible to sit back, do nothing and hope for the best, as other Governments have done in the face of similar problems. HS2 is not about shaving time off the journey between London and Birmingham; it is about delivering the transport capacity between our cities that is essential if our economy is to thrive in future.

However many times they are tweaked and repackaged, none of the alternatives proposed comes near to matching the benefits that HS2 can offer. None can release the capacity that is crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, to the Government’s high-speed rail strategy. On the contrary, the options favoured by opponents of HS2 would apply major new pressures to timetables on our existing railways, fundamentally damaging reliability, as the hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Manchester, Withington pointed out. They would also involve immense disruption to the line during construction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) discussed.

Turning to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, the Northern Way did effective work. Like him, I want local enterprise partnerships and local authorities to have more of a say in transport decisions. I agree that it can be beneficial for local authorities to come together to make joint decisions about travel to work areas, but we do not want such solutions to be imposed from above. They must be bottom-up and proposed by the areas concerned. Like him and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, I have great admiration for the work done in Manchester to deliver an integrated authority that considers transport issues across the board for a major travel to work area.

I assure the House that investing in HS2 does not mean that we will stop investing in and improving our current transport networks. We recognise fully the importance of continuing to enhance our existing network, particularly by improving links between northern cities, not least because that is essential if we are to spread the benefits of HS2. Despite the deficit, we are undertaking the biggest programme of rail improvements since the Victorian era, many of which will benefit the north. Electrification will benefit Manchester, Liverpool, Wigan and Blackpool. The Ordsall chord project, which has received the go-ahead 30 years after it was first proposed, will benefit Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Hull. That is only phase 1 of the northern hub project. Our commitment to it demonstrates how seriously we view its importance and that we recognise the benefits that it can bring. We will assess it and consider carefully, when deciding what improvements can be delivered in the next rail control period, whether we can deliver the whole programme.

The intercity express programme will create new jobs in the north and a brand-new fleet of trains. New Pendolino carriages will be delivered on the west coast in the next few months. Manchester’s Metrolink extension is going ahead, and just a few days ago, Burnley and Accrington residents welcomed the fact that funding had finally been secured for the Todmorden curve. We are committed to continuing strong investment in the north of England to help its economy grow, complementing the benefits that will be brought by high-speed rail.

In conclusion, the HS2 consultation received more than 50,000 responses, every one of which will be used to inform the Government’s forthcoming decisions on high-speed rail. I welcome the valuable contributions made in this debate.