Bus Services Bill [HL]
Lord Woolmer of Leeds Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, while it is clearly right to explore these issues, I strongly urge the Minister to resist these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned London, but she will know that London is almost a city state. The circumstances are very different, and with very different funding arrangements. She mentioned the lower profit available to operators in London, but the reason for that is that they are taking less risk than in a non-regulated service.
This is all about accountability. If we are not careful, we might well find ourselves hurtling down the same avenues as we did during the debates on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill last year. Combined authorities with elected mayors, or any other local authority with an elected mayor, are very different beasts from local authorities that have not gone down the route of having an elected mayor. The appointment of a directly elected mayor provides those authorities with a considerable battalion of powers where they have agreed devolution deals with the Government. That of course includes the power to franchise local bus services.
Authorities with agreed devolution deals already have the necessary consent to pursue their new bus franchising powers and will be allowed to do so when the relevant parts of this Bill are brought into operation. However, I do not believe that that should be the case for other local authorities. They have not been through the process of acquiring what could be said to be a higher status in terms of local accountability. It is a fact that those authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have the powers by virtue of that process. We know that the process is not necessarily straightforward and requires hard-fought agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Earl emphasised mayoral combined authorities and mayoral powers. Why, then, has Cornwall—which is not going for a mayoral model—been promised franchising powers?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I do not know that, but I expect the Minister will tell us.
The agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas is hard fought. Some tough battles are still extant where devolution deals just could not be worked through. Through their earlier legislation, the Government have established a process for a new kind of local authority, which has wide-ranging powers but first has to satisfy the Government that the right kind of structures and accountability are in place. The amendments would give the same wide-ranging powers to local authorities that have not taken those brave and often difficult political steps.
I am afraid therefore that I disagree with those noble Lords who say that this Bill treats local authorities without elected mayors or an agreed devolution deal differently from those who have. There is no unfairness here. It is a simple fact that authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have government approval to introduce bus franchising; other local authorities do not. What would be unfair, I believe, is allowing any local authority access to bus franchising powers without having gone through the democratic process of electing a mayor and acquiring government agreement to a devolution deal. I am not at all convinced by the arguments put forward for these amendments and the Minister has my full support should he ask the Committee to resist them.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, before I turn to the detailed issues that I want to raise with the Minister, I will say a word or two in response to my noble friend Lord Snape. The Bill does not insist that local authorities introduce franchising; it gives them the option. My noble friend’s arguments to your Lordships appear to be that if they are given the powers they will use them. It will be a matter for individual authorities to assess the risks, the benefits and so on, and the Bill itself spells out a considerable number of assessments that they would need to make. So here we are really talking about whether franchising is an option that should be available if a local authority wished it. I have heard nothing from my noble friend, other than the feeling that he was against franchising in any circumstance, that would gainsay that.
I turn to the details in this clause and its subsections. I will seek clarification from the Minister and conclude with some observations about the amendments. First, new Section 123A(4)(b) to (f) refers to the range of different types of local authorities, which is the subject of my noble friend’s amendment. It is not clear from the wording in the Bill whether it is a category as a group or individuals that might fall within that category. Paragraph (f), for example, refers to,
“a combined authority which is not a mayoral combined authority”.
Does that mean that the Secretary of State would need to consider whether any combined authorities that are not mayoral should be a franchising authority, or could the Secretary of State authorise or approve one individual one? That is really rather important.
The wording is very vague. The only time one sees wording that appears to make that clear is in the memorandum on delegated powers, where it appears to make it clear that new Section 123A(4) relates to categories of local authorities. If that is the case, how could the Secretary of State provide regulations that would enable every authority that fell within the category to become a franchising authority? It might not make sense for some of them. What if it made a lot of sense for one out of five? Would that individual authority not be able to be a franchising authority because the Secretary of State felt that four others should not?
This is a very confusing part of the Bill, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could make it clear and, if need be, clarify in due course with his own amendments whether the categories in new Section 123A(4)(b) to (f) relate to individual authorities that fall within a category or to a whole category. This is relevant because, in order to authorise an individual or a category to become a franchising authority, the Secretary of State has to provide regulations. Will those regulations apply to all parties in the category—that is, even if not all of them have asked to be franchising authorities, they will get it because someone did—or would the Minister refuse to authorise one individual authority on the grounds that some others in that category did not meet whatever his criteria were?
That leads me to the question of criteria. What criteria would the Minister apply in considering whether any of these categories—or individual authorities within the categories, because I am not clear on that—could become a franchising authority? It is extremely important for transparency purposes that local authorities know what the criteria are. Will the regulations include the criteria, or will they be set out in some kind of advice or guidance? Will the House have the benefit of the draft regulations before Committee, and will the criteria be set out before then? If not, we will have no idea what the Secretary of State’s intentions are, which would be very unhealthy—effectively, your Lordships’ House would be giving the Secretary of State carte blanche.
If an individual authority within a category wished to obtain franchising powers—should they so wish to use them, and they may not wish to in the event—does it have to get all the other authorities in that category to put in a joint proposal that that category be approved, or could it alone make a proposal? In which case, would the Secretary of State be judging the individual authority’s proposal to become a franchising authority, rather than the group as a whole? If so, what criteria would the Secretary of State apply to an individual authority?
Noble Lords can readily see the problem for an authority—in my case, the West Yorkshire combined authority, which is not a mayoral authority. If it wishes to have franchising powers, should it wish to use them, how does it get them? It cannot apply to have them because its group has not been approved as a category that can have franchising powers. What would West Yorkshire do? How would it proceed? That is very puzzling and it would be certainly be very helpful to me to understand it. The Secretary of State might say, “Well, West Yorkshire, you might have a good case but actually we don’t want this whole category to be approved because too many are being granted franchising powers”. There is a hint in some of the clauses and subsections that they are about spinning this out. I forecast now that no franchising powers will be granted to any authority outside mayoral authorities this side of the next general election.
As with HS2, HS3 and the northern powerhouse, I have to say that we in the north of England are slightly fed up with hearing Governments announce not that they may do something but that they will do it, just as they announced that local authorities will get franchising powers. People think they are going to get such powers, but the Bill does not say that at all. It says, “Well, if you are in a certain category, you probably won’t get them. If you do, we are not sure what the criteria are, so you’ll have to wait for others to want them as well, and then we’ll consider it. We will have to get regulations through, and that will take time.”
On the evidence of the Bill, I am pretty sure that that is the case, which is a great disappointment to me. When I first looked at it I was encouraged to see that it was giving powers to local authorities, but the proposed new sections in effect set out the detail of the obstacles and the unknown difficulties being placed in front of local authorities wishing to seek franchising powers.
If a category of authority or an individual authority within a category—the Minister will enlighten the House about that—becomes a franchising authority, that does not mean it will be able to have a franchise. To have a franchise, the individual authority putting forward proposals will of course have to do all its homework and, if it wishes to go forward, it will have to make various assessments and so on, as set out in the Bill. Under proposed new Section 123C, the Secretary of State has to consent to a franchising authority even preparing a proposed assessment. The authority would have the power in principle, but if it wanted to develop a proposal, it would need the Secretary of State’s consent. That is the second consent. Will that consent fall within regulations, where is the power to grant consent and what criteria would the Secretary of State apply in deciding whether to give consent?
It would be ironic if the criteria for an individual authority to have the power to develop a proposal were exactly the same as those applied to becoming a franchising authority under proposed new Section 123A. That would mean going through exactly the same hoop twice, which is nonsense. However, if the criteria are not the same, why are they different? Why does an authority have to prove that it can have a franchise, and then have to meet different criteria if it wants to bring forward a proposal? I would be grateful to the Secretary of State if he expanded on that.
To conclude on the details of the Bill, it would be helpful to me, at least, and I hope to your Lordships, if the Secretary of State set out his understanding of the process by which a non-mayoral authority can acquire franchising powers and seek to implement them. What is the process, and what is his reasonable estimate at the moment of how long it would take? He must have some idea of how many authorities are interested in having franchises, and he must have thought through how long each of these of steps will take—the process of setting out regulations, and of developing and defining the criteria in the two cases—so how long will it take?
To come back to my earlier point, as I have examined the Bill in more and more detail, I have gained the distinct impression that obstacles are being put in front of local authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would be delighted, because the obstacles seem to me to protect large bus companies from having to compete for franchises. I fear that he may be able to reassure his colleagues that this will not happen this side of a general election, and then goodness knows what will happen.
The Minister—unless he surprises me—has disappointed me badly so far on the detail of the Bill. I look forward to hearing his response.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
Let me give a specific example. If West Yorkshire Combined Authority agreed tomorrow to have a mayoral structure, presumably that would immediately parachute it from one part of this Bill into another. I agree with the noble Lord in his remarks that that is bizarre. It would be very welcome, but as I say it is bizarre. That is not transport policy, it is a political policy on mayoral authorities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Perhaps I may respond to that. As I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, every devolution deal involves detailed discussions between the Government and those proposing the deal. No doubt if a particular area, wherever it may be, wishes to go down that route, it would be subject to discussions around the devolution deal.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, my noble friend yet again sets up a straw man. I am simply in favour of local authorities having the power to have franchising, not that they must use it. It should be an option available to them. My noble friends talks as if I am saying that they must. That would be silly. If bus services can be adequately provided in the way in which a local area wants without franchising, I am sure that no one would disturb it. I am certainly in favour of having that option, but not that it would be compulsory to use it.
Lord Snape
I am grateful to my noble friend for that definition of his view. However, that view would pertain only between reasonable people. We have to bear in mind that not all people—some of them elected—are necessarily reasonable.
In Tyne and Wear, for example, the passenger transport authority went to court to try to get what was called a quality contract under the previous legislation. A considerable amount of public money was spent, and eventually the people appointed to rule on these matters said that the existing service should be continued and denied the PTA the right to a quality contract. As I said, Tyne and Wear PTA went to court, and spent a considerable amount of public money, despite satisfaction ratings of more than 80% with the current services, as set out by Passenger Focus, of thousands of bus passengers countrywide, including in the north-east. We are not dealing entirely with completely reasonable people. I hope that I can convince my noble friend. I repeat that the temptation for any democratic body when being offered extra powers is not to turn them down.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the question of a franchising agreement is a last resort rather than a first one. The consequential amendments follow on from that. I hope that the Minister will feel that they are both sensible and reasonable and will be inclined to accept them. I beg to move.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Lord Woolmer of Leeds Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks to insert a new subsection saying that an operator can provide services only if those services are provided within an advanced quality partnership or another scheme that meets the outcomes set out in subsection (6). I support the amendment, as it seeks to ensure that we get some improvement in bus provision as a result of this legislation, and would leave less to chance.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made some important points about congestion, the effect it has on bus services, and the other effects of poor air quality in many areas, including some of our smaller towns, villages and hamlets.
If the Minister is not going to accept the amendment I hope that we shall get a full explanation, because the Bill is driven by the need to improve bus services and save them from further decline outside London, and the amendment would be helpful in that respect.
Amendments 19 and 68, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke, seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make further provision under regulations about “incidental matters”. We ought to be careful when we give powers to Ministers. I suppose it all depends on who defines “incidental matters” and what the scope of those matters is. I am not against giving sensible and proportionate powers to Ministers, but I also want to see clarity and openness, and these provisions have a feeling of opaqueness about them. So I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responds, we shall get a much clearer explanation about what is intended here; it will help the House enormously if he can give one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was right to raise this issue. It is important that we get these things on the record, so that we can see what the Government intend to do. There may be a number of incidental matters, but if they all come together they could become one quite big matter, so we should be very clear what the Government’s intention is in this respect.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
Before the Minister responds, may I take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Snape? It is true that some small bus operators may have run services that were not desirable or sustainable but, as the impact assessment makes clear, it is also true that there is often little real competition between the large bus operators. They operate, and have operated—certainly in West Yorkshire—in a predatory manner, to reduce competition and squeeze out smaller and new operators. That side of the reality needs to be included in the balance. That is one of the reasons why I support the Bill, why I commend the Government for their frankness in assessing all this, and why, later, I shall speak strongly in favour of franchising.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, clarified the point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke primarily to the next amendment that we shall discuss. We shall come to that, so I will cover the issues of congestion and so on in the next debate. Now, I shall deal with the amendments before us.
In relation to Amendment 6, the aim of the quality partnership under the Transport Act 2000 and the new proposals for the advanced quality partnerships in the Bill is to define a range of measures that are jointly provided by bus operators and the local authority in a defined area. For bus operators, these requirements are binding. To use any facilities, such as new bus stops or shelters, or to take advantage of any other measures introduced by the local authority to make buses more attractive to passengers, those operators must meet the standards of service specified in the scheme. That provides clarity for both sides.
The amendment suggested by the noble Lord seeks to impose outcomes on bus operators outside an advanced quality partnership regime. This would have the effect of mandating that every local bus service in England be governed by some sort of scheme that imposed the requirements of subsection (6). I must remind noble Lords that most bus services in England, outside London, are currently deregulated, in the sense that it is for commercial bus operators to decide how and where those services are provided. The quality partnerships regime is intended for use where a local authority believes, or authorities acting together believe, that particular requirements need to be imposed on operators to improve bus services in particular ways in a defined area. Failure to meet those requirements can result in a traffic commissioner taking enforcement action.
While it may be generally desirable for the outcomes of subsection (6) to apply to all bus services, it is for individual bus operators running services on a commercial basis in a deregulated market to decide to what extent those objectives are achieved or achievable.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Lord Woolmer of Leeds Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. He tempts me to go through my childhood recollections of buses. I do not think I will today, but perhaps we can exchange those thoughts over a cup of tea.
I welcome the Government’s recognition that—to use those fatal words—“something has to be done” to improve bus travel. I welcome many aspects of this Bill, particularly where it offers up new options and possibilities, as opposed to closing some down.
As so often in Bills nowadays, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, the devil is in the detail. There is a lot of secondary legislation lurking here. I counted 31 such provisions—although one of them, as my noble friend said, could be dealt with by either primary or secondary legislation—including one dealing with potential Henry VIII powers and four to be decided under the affirmative procedure. All are on very important issues.
I would like to concentrate today on one area of the Bill, namely franchising. I was fascinated by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. Pages 8 and 9 of the Department for Transport’s overview of the Bill, which noble Lords have undoubtedly read, tell us all about the advantages of franchising. It can help achieve better bus journeys by giving local government the power to decide what buses run, where and when; the types of ticket available, including discounts; the types of payment that must be accepted; what information is available; and whether additional accessibility features are needed.
The overview goes on to say that franchising can also achieve better value for money by enabling local government, which is accountable to local people, to set all fares, take a more strategic view of what services are needed and focus services where they are most needed rather than where they provide the best commercial opportunities.
Franchising creates effective competition, which is an important point. In West Yorkshire, a substantial number of services are run by two companies. They can kill any competition, and they do, by predatory pricing—they simply cut the prices and prevent smaller companies getting into the market. Paradoxically, franchising can improve competition by the competitive tendering of franchises. These are powerful reasons given by the Government themselves on the benefits of franchising, and I recognise that it is an option, not a compulsion, for local authorities.
Previous speakers talked a little about which authorities are able to make use of this option of franchising. The Bill says that a “mayoral combined authority” automatically has the option of franchising, but if you are not a mayoral authority, you do not. I understand from the documents that nine devolution deals involving elected mayors and franchising powers have already been reached.
However, Cornwall—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Whitty—is one devolution deal where a bus franchise has been granted to a unitary authority with no elected mayor. In the past couple of years, I have had a strong sense that whether or not bus franchising powers are granted has had more to do with the politics and ambitions for devolution of the Chancellor and others, and latterly the politics of Cornwall. I understand that, and am delighted that Cornwall has those powers. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm again, very definitely and firmly, that it is not a condition of obtaining bus franchising powers that a local authority has to be a mayoral authority. That is extremely important.
Can the Minister confirm that when the Bill becomes an Act the Secretary of State will have to bring forward a specific regulation proposal to give effect to the Cornwall franchise deal? As I understand it, the deal has been promised, but it still requires both Houses to approve a statutory instrument.
The Bill and its Explanatory Notes throw no light on what criteria the Secretary of State will use in deciding whether a proposal for franchising powers by a non-mayoral authority will be progressed. We know nothing about that at all. The one place where there is information is the memorandum provided by the department on proposed delegated powers, which I am sure your Lordships have read as avidly as I have. Paragraphs 22 and 23 state that justifications for mayoral combined authorities to have new bus franchising powers are that,
“the Government considers that they have the necessary skills and capabilities, together with responsibility for public transport over a sensible and coherent geography”.
Those are presumably the criteria for approving such powers. The document goes on to state:
“The Government considers that some other LTAs whose areas are in England are also likely to have the skills, capability, track record and geography to make effective use of bus franchising powers. Cornwall Council is a good example”.
Did the Department for Transport undertake a rigorous examination of the authorities provided with franchising promises within the criteria so stated, and were those criteria applied in the case of Cornwall? I say again that I am delighted that Cornwall has these powers; I cite it simply because it is the non-mayoral example that demonstrates for the purposes of this Bill that that option could be pursued.
My interest in these matters stems from that of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority—I am from Leeds —which is a non-mayoral combined authority. It is the UK’s third-largest city region outside London by population and jobs after the West Midlands and Greater Manchester. It has had a passenger transport executive or other named body answerable to West Yorkshire-wide elected councillors since 1974—some 42 years. It has operated plans and implemented the governance and regulation of passenger transport. It is a large area that contains the substantial urban centres of Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Wakefield and Huddersfield and so on. It is clear by any reasonable assessment that the West Yorkshire Combined Authority has the necessary skills, capability and responsibility for public transport over a sensible and coherent geography. If those criteria are applied, the West Yorkshire authority should be able, if it wished, to have an expectation that a proposal for franchising powers would be granted.
Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will assess requests for franchising powers solely on objective criteria and that the question of elected mayoralties will not arise? Will the Secretary of State issue any further guidance on the criteria to be used when considering proposals for franchising powers by non-mayoral authorities, and will that guidance be issued before the Committee stage?
The overview document from the Department for Transport sets out succinctly the potential benefits of franchising, and the memorandum powers remind us of the criteria that have so far been revealed behind the decision to go ahead for non-mayoral authorities. This is an option that the West Yorkshire Combined Authority should have in considering the ways of taking forward the improvement of bus services in that substantial area—the third-largest conurbation outside of London. Should a proposal come forward, I hope the Government will assess it objectively as regards the criteria which have yet to be published and discussed in this House.
North of England: Transport
Lord Woolmer of Leeds Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who, as I expected, referred among other things to the requirements of Halifax and Calderdale in West Yorkshire. As he says, all infrastructure is important but I am going to concentrate on the rail network, for reasons of time. Without doubt, the northern transport strategy is a step forward. The future governance of that body and the appointment of a powerful, independent chair will be extremely important. Will the Minister confirm that that is expected later this year?
The connectivity between national, regional, sub-regional and local transport networks, including their plans, projects and delivery, is complex. In my part of the north, we are developing a West Yorkshire single-transport plan to build on the framework provided by the northern hub plans. Leeds and York are fulcrum parts of our railway system—east to west or west to east, north to south and cross country from the north-east through Yorkshire and the Midlands, and down to the west and the south-west. I see my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his seat. That is an often underestimated but very important and heavily used route in this country. Those routes all pass through the York-Leeds axis. Leeds is the second-busiest rail station outside London. It has only slightly less passenger movement than King’s Cross. It is a very busy station, not just because it is Leeds but because it is a hub into the rest of the sub-region and the region.
In that part of the north, future transport and land use plans must be based on what will happen to the national system. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Beecham about HS2, which I regard as essential to the prosperity of the north. It requires a determination to make a change and to make a break from the past. We can finish up investing everything in London but the more you put in London, the more the population grows. In my experience, that means that there will be more investment. That is the lesson of London Underground and overground transport. In the north, we say, “We don’t want a strategic rail route going fast. We can’t afford it”. That is very negative thinking and shows no ambition or sense of changing not only the culture but the balance of the UK. I will come back to changing the balance a little later.
I am not thinking only of HS2 north to south, but of HS3 east to west. I agree with my noble friend Lord Prescott. It only makes sense if it eventually is to be Hull to Liverpool. In the shorter term, it makes sense for plans to be York-Leeds-Manchester but beyond that plans must be included for Hull to Liverpool. In connection with connectivity, it is ironic that, currently, HS2 plans to have a new railway station in Sheffield that is not alongside the existing station and in Leeds to have a new station that is separate from the existing one, which breaks connectivity between the national strategy and the regional network. On the face of it, that is madness. Politicians should be asking whether that makes sense in terms of what they are trying to achieve and is not just about what the technical people are saying. It is a political and strategic question. I appreciate that the situation in Leeds is being revisited and a lot of discussion is going on at the moment. I am not sure about the Sheffield situation. Bradford, in my view, has suffered greatly from having two separate railway stations with, unfortunately, a big difference in height levels; it is very difficult to envisage how you could bring them together, although I would like to think it could be achieved.
I turn to the electrification of rail routes, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. Before Andrew Jones became a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, he chaired the north of England electrification taskforce, which produced a report in March this year and sought to establish priorities in the law for England for rail electrification. Among other huge gaps in the electrified rail network in the north are all three cross-Pennine routes, which are not electrified; nor are the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester, Sheffield-Manchester or Leeds-Bradford-Halifax-Manchester lines. None of those is electrified, so there is no continuous electrification from east to west. To talk of a northern powerhouse based on the conurbations—while Crossrail is being built, and perhaps Crossrail 2, with new stations here and new underground stations there—when you have not even electrified the rail lines between east and west in the north of the country seems to be an abysmal failure. The only area where there was any hope of early electrification is the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester route, part of the infamous trans-Pennine express route. I will turn in a moment to the tale that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, told us about what has happened with that.
Mr Jones’s report told us in March this year that the existing rail electrification,
“already appears to be straining the current industry capacity”.
He told us that the north of England can currently expect a maximum of around 50 route kilometres of electrification per year. That is the expectation. On that basis, as the report says, it will be more than 40 years before the electrification of the rail system in the north will be complete. The report concludes that the electrification process needs more resources. We cannot achieve what the language of the northern powerhouse says without facing up to resources having to be put in to achieve it.
I turn to the electrification of the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester trans-Pennine route. Noble Lords should remember that this train does not even go to Hull, as my noble friend Lord Prescott said. It was announced in November 2011 by, I think, the Chancellor, probably in the Autumn Statement. The route would definitely be electrified by 2018-19. Mr Jones’s report on the strategy and priorities of electrification—do not forget that in March this year he became a Parliamentary Under-Secretary—says that he assumed that the trans-Pennine route would be electrified on time. That was in March. Soon after the election earlier this month, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, it was announced that it would not go ahead. The project has been postponed and we do not know when it is going ahead. There was no announcement that it had been put back by three or six months for such-and-such a reason—there was no commitment to timetable at all. That makes a nonsense of bringing together and planning the interaction between the transport planning. If, as we have done in West Yorkshire, you plan on the assumption that by 2018-19 there will be a service, with the impact that that will have on passenger use and so on, you build that into the preparation of interconnected transport routes. Then we are suddenly told that it is not necessarily going to happen for an unknown period of time. That is a disastrous situation.
Indeed, I understand that it is very unlikely to be completed before 2024. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm that. It is relevant because bidding for the two rail franchises—the trans-Pennine route and the northern route—is currently in process. What the companies putting in for the franchise think will happen to electrification in their franchise period must be important. As I understand it, that franchise period is due to end in 2024. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the expectation in the award of those franchises is that electrification across the Pennines will not be completed within the term of those franchises. If that is the case, it would mean that it would be at least 13 years before the Chancellor’s 2011 promise resulted in delivery.
It is good to have plans and it is good to hear a commitment from the Minister, but when one of the prime, straightforward elements of the rail system that would fit into that strategy falls at the first hurdle it gives a very bad impression of whether investment in the northern powerhouse will actually occur and whether it will be driven through by determined Ministers. I look forward to hearing, when the Minister replies, why the electrification of the trans-Pennine service has been put back; whether that will impact on the franchise; and when we can expect that that very first part of a key element of a transport network across the north will be completed.