West Coast Main Line

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My predecessor, like me, was given firm assurances at the Department that the competition was sound. That proved not to be the case. Once I knew and had the full facts, I made the statement that I made.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I used the west coast main line today and my train was early, for which I thank the Secretary of State. Can he assure me that when making decisions about the new franchises, he will take every opportunity to incorporate both quality metrics and performance satisfaction ratings from customers?

Rail Investment

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I welcome with inexplicable joy the announcement on the northern hub, which I have waited to see for so many years. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the amount of investment in the north-west, Yorkshire and the north-east puts to bed any notion whatsoever that the north does not get its fair share of Government funding?

[Justine Greening]

I absolutely think that. As someone who was born and bred in Yorkshire, I think that the sort of investment now going up to the north of our country is absolutely critical. There is so much talent up there; we just need to make sure we invest to unlock it.

Aviation

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless]

I agree. There is huge scope for what my hon. Friend describes. It would hugely benefit not just the Medway towns and the south-east region, but the country as a whole.

I want to talk about one other area where the lobbyists have a certain position. I received a document yesterday from the Mayor of London, who tells me that he is delighted that I am having this debate. He says:

“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week).”

The reason is that we have a bilateral treaty with Brazil, with a current limit of 35 passenger services a week between the two countries. Again, that is vastly to the benefit of BA, which routes flights to Latin America, including Brazil in particular, through the joint hub that it now has in Madrid, through Iberia following the merger. We do not get pressure from BA to change that, because it hugely benefits its profits, but BA’s market capitalisation is in the low billions. The idea that our whole airline policy and the network of treaties negotiated by the previous Government should restrict those flights and prevent Brazilian or Chinese airlines from flying into our large cities is a huge mistake.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Even if we were to rip up every treaty that my hon. Friend has identified as a block, does he seriously believe that there is sufficient capacity at our hub airport? Will a hub airport alone sustain newly developing point-to-point routes? Does he seriously argue that Heathrow could suddenly accommodate more routes to developing countries?

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I do argue that. The limit on Heathrow’s routes to developing countries is largely because of the fact that those who have the slots find it most profitable to put on vast numbers of flights to New York and almost as large numbers to Hong Kong. It would benefit the country as a whole much more if there were a wider network of routes, rather than just what happens to benefit British Airways and maximise its profits. To get to what my hon. Friend suggests, the treaty we need to rip up is the treaty of Rome, because it is under European directives—[Interruption.] The reason why the slots are organised as they are is that they have been capitalised into property rights for the airlines that historically happen to have used them, and it is because of European legislation that that has been allowed to happen. If we want a more effective route network for our country as a whole, within the existing constraints of Heathrow—of course, others will argue that it needs to be bigger or we need a hub somewhere else and so on—European legislation prevents us from having that. Anyone who wants to set up a marginal route to an emerging market needs to buy out, at vast expense, one of the existing airlines, particularly BA, which has a near monopoly power. They have to give BA a huge amount of money to take the slots they need for those routes. The reason why they cannot do that is cost, yet we have treaties that restrict the amount of access that overseas airlines have into the UK. They could otherwise be flying into Gatwick, Stansted or Birmingham as city pairs, but the routes and slots are at Heathrow, and the regulation creates that monopoly power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. In four minutes, I will speedily go through some of the points that I want to raise. First, may I mention the passengers? We did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) say much about them. It is almost as if they are a pain in the neck for wanting to travel. I happen to regard leisure travel as a good thing—rather liberating, in fact. May I also say—I did not hear my hon. Friend say this—well done to the Government? The Minister might be shocked by that remark, given my track record on aviation.

The South East Airports Taskforce has effectively sweated our assets in the south-east, increasing throughput at all major airports. Like the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I speak as a northern MP. Most of my constituents and businesses stopped using Heathrow as a hub long ago, which is one reason why Heathrow is already in decline. For the north of England, the hub is Amsterdam or Paris, which is a major national problem.

I congratulate the Government on their recognition, earlier this year, that we need a hub airport in the UK, and that we need only one hub airport. If I had more than four minutes, I could give a lecture on the economics of hub dynamics. There is no such thing as a twin hub; it is a contradiction in terms. I could tear out my hair in frustration every time I see that idea printed, or hear it being discussed. If we tried to make Heathrow and Gatwick a joint hub airport, all we would do is guarantee their obsolescence within a decade and the downgrading of the UK. It would be an absolute national disaster.

We have heard a lot about China. Some people say mainland China, while others say China, which allows us to accommodate Hong Kong into our calculations. Let me talk specifically about Wuhan, which has been of interest to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Air France has just launched a service to Wuhan to facilitate PSA Peugeot Citroën’s joint venture with Dongfeng Motor Corporation. Despite labouring under the heavy burden of the treaty of Rome, France has somehow managed to put its economic interests ahead of the interests of Brussels. How it managed it I would love to know, because we could then replicate it here. Clearly, it has put economic interests ahead of narrow, petty interests.

I am fascinated to note that COMAC—the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, a new Chinese aircraft manufacturer—is basing itself in Europe not in London but in Paris. I wonder why that is. Could it be because France has better links to China? Could it be because France is where China is getting inward investment from? Surely not.

If I had had more time this morning, I would also have mentioned air passenger duty. I realise that it is a controversial issue, but I make this plea: will the Department for Transport try to encourage the Treasury to conduct an independent economic assessment, bringing in all relevant factors, of the overall cost of APD to the UK economy? If I had more time, I would go on to talk about Chinese tourism. I know that it has been the subject of what might be called civil war in higher echelons in the Government, but it crystallises the problem that we face in this country. The problem is not that we have APD per se; it is the scale of our APD, compared to that charged by our competitors, that is a real problem.

We have heard lots of discussion about south-east airport capacity and about where airports should or should not be sited. We have also heard mention of New York, which has found what I would describe as a “string of pearls” solution—a number of sizeable airports, all of which act as international gateways, but none of which actually act as hubs. There is a perfectly logical and coherent argument to be put forward to say that that is what the UK might need. I would disagree with that argument, but it would be a rational argument to make.

Interestingly, in the Mayor of London’s submission, ahead of this debate, I could find no mention of Boris island. Can the Minister confirm that that option has been officially removed from the table? I looked very carefully; perhaps it was my eyesight, but I just could not see it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that one should not be able to speak to any organisation that gives money to one’s party, it will certainly free up a lot of time in the Labour party’s diary. Labour Members could cut out all those union meetings. The bottom line is that this Government and my predecessor and I have always approached all our meetings with absolute propriety, and that is the case on this matter, too.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T4. The Minister will be aware from her answers to my written parliamentary questions that the Labour party spent no money and completed no track work for the northern hub during its time in government. I am sure that the House welcomes the Ordsall Chord as the down payment on the northern hub, but can she assist those in the Chamber who might be frustrated by the lack of progress on how the new infrastructure projects, such as electrification, impact on the delivery of the northern hub?

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

It is right that the Government are making considerable progress on the northern hub, in contrast to our predecessors—not just the Ordsall Chord but north trans-Pennine electrification, improving the Hope Valley line and other improvements that will benefit Manchester, Sheffield, Bolton, Preston, Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford. I acknowledge that there is more to do, and the remaining elements of the northern hub will be carefully and seriously considered when we make our decisions on the next high-level output specification railway control period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I have been in regular contact with my colleagues at the Department for Education and the Confederation of Passenger Transport for some months now. Local members of the Youth Parliament in East Sussex have been to make a presentation to the Bus Partnership Forum, which I chair, and I have indicated to the CPT the need to work with the Department to address the issue.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that forward-thinking principals of further education colleges are using their bursaries to think of innovative community transport-based solutions, to ensure that young people who find that their bus service has disappeared can still get to college safely, securely and cheaply and continue their education?

[Norman Baker]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is certainly a role for community transport, which is why we have provided an extra £20 million over the past few months for investment in it. We have also encouraged the bus companies themselves to recognise that there is a potential future market in the age group in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact timeline, I can assure him that we are working hard on this matter, and he was quite right to raise it in the first place.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T9. I am sure that Ministers all welcome The Times campaign for safer cycling. What steps does the Department think it can take to ensure that cyclists join motorists in taking responsibility for ensuring their own safety while cycling—for example, by ensuring that their bicycles have bells attached and that they are not listening to music while cycling?

[Mike Penning]

It is the responsibility of everybody on the highway to ensure that they are aware of what their situation is, alert to what is going on around them—particularly if they are cyclists—and, at the same time, visible to other road users. At the same time, however, they need to be protected as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point and I completely agree with it. Like many Members in this House, I want to see a United Kingdom and one of the ways we can unite our kingdom is through high-speed rail.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Is the shadow Minister aware that on this issue we need to consider not only what the British Government can do, but what the Scottish Government can do? Is she prepared to consider allowing the Scottish Government to ensure that they can start to build the high-speed line themselves, using their own money and at no cost to English taxpayers?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to relegate or demote the Secretary of State.

Rail Fares

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I have already given way to the right hon. Lady and to the hon. Gentleman, so I will make some progress in my speech. At the very least, rail passengers would like tickets to state clearly the precise time restrictions that apply instead of simply being referred to some obscure part of a website that they do not have access to when purchasing a ticket.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I want to make a few points about what I have heard from passengers and will try to give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

Secondly, passengers want a legal right to be offered the cheapest ticket for the journey they wish to make, and they do not think that it is too much to ask that the cheapest fare must be clearly advertised. Should passengers not be entitled to a refund if they have not been sold the cheapest ticket?

Under this Government, it is to become harder to buy the cheapest ticket if plans to replace staff with machines and close all 675 category E station ticket offices are implemented, yet that is what Ministers are considering, along with cutting the opening hours of 302 category D station ticket offices. All the evidence suggests that many people are not sold the cheapest ticket when they buy a ticket online or from a machine.

Thirdly, passengers have told us that they want the cheapest fares to be available wherever tickets are sold, yet the cheapest fares often appear to be available only online. Should not the same fare structure apply to tickets purchased at train stations and other outlets as applies to those bought online, ending the digital divide that is arising and increasing costs for older passengers, in particular?

Fourthly, what really annoys rail users is when they make a genuine mistake or are forced to change their travel plans but find themselves treated as a common criminal in front of other passengers and required to get out their cheque book and cough up. Of course we have to protect revenue, but we also have to have some common sense. Within the same period of the day, there has to be greater flexibility to vary plans, even on pre-booked tickets. Trains are not airlines, and we do not wish to go down the road of airline-style ticketing, with no cheap walk-on option.

Finally, passengers told us—

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman will just let me get to the end of my points, I may give way to him.

Finally, passengers told us that they understand that sometimes a track has to close, such as for essential work, to keep our railways safe, but when a rail replacement service makes their journey longer, often adding considerable inconvenience, they want to know why their ticket costs the same. They can apply for a discount if their train is delayed, but not if it turns out not even to be a train and ends up being a bus.

Those are all ideas that we are looking at seriously, because for too long Governments have let the train companies get away with treating passengers in a way that would not be permitted in other industries.

[Paul Maynard]

Is the hon. Lady seriously arguing that peak hours on the west coast main line should be the same as those on Merseytravel lines?

[Maria Eagle]

I am arguing that it is important to have a national understanding of peak hours, so that passengers are not clobbered and do not have to wait until what seems like a long time after normal peak hours in order to get on a train home. That would be an improvement, and it would clarify the system. People would not be caught out as they frequently are, and they would not be inconvenienced by having to wait for hours after their meeting has finished in order to get on a train home.

If this Government are not going to stand up to the train companies and take on vested interests, we will. Those are all ideas that we are looking at seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

That says quite a lot about the Secretary of State’s reluctance to accept her own culpability for supporting the spending plans of the previous Labour Government.

I do not believe that the railway industry is broken, or a basket case. I was proud to serve as a railway Minister in the last Labour Government, and I understand the successes that have grown from 13 years of Labour governance of the railway industry. We have more people travelling on the railways than at any time in their history outside of wartime. We have more services every working day than ever before, and punctuality is at an all-time high. Those were achievements that this Government have managed to continue—and I hope that that continues—but fares are a fundamental weakness. They are the crucial interface between the travelling public and the railways and—irrespective of the public subsidy to the railways—if we do not make rail travel affordable for ordinary people, it will not be surprising if they feel that the railways are letting them down.

The previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), famously described the railways as a “rich man’s toy”. A few weeks ago, I challenged the Secretary of State in the Transport Committee about whether she agreed with that assessment and, understandably, she did not want to commit herself. She told the Transport Committee that she wanted to see the balance between the taxpayer and the fare payer move towards the latter. She also said that in the long term she wanted the fare payer to pay less. Well, she can have one or she can have the other, but she cannot have both. It is clear that unless the taxpayers’ contribution is increased, fares will not come down. The Secretary of State refused to answer that point at the time.

[Paul Maynard]

The hon. Gentleman raises the interesting question of whether the burden can be switched to the fare-paying passenger at the same time as reducing fares. Does he agree that if we do what McNulty recommends and try to reduce the overall cost base of the railways, that conundrum could be solved?

[Mr Harris]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who also sits on the Transport Committee, is as much of an expert as any other Member, and I will agree to consider his comments.

The Prime Minister was wrong today and failed to give the facts about the policy of the last Labour Government and the policy of this Government. Even if it was for only one year, Lord Adonis managed to challenge the rail industry on the so-called basket of fares and whether the RPI plus 1% policy should apply to individual fares or to a basket of fares. He got a lot of support on both sides of the House for insisting—against the arguments of his own officials and the resistance of the industry—that that policy should apply only to individual fares. As we know, if it is applied to a basket of fares, some can go up by 6%, instead of 1%. Whether or not that was a temporary agreement for one year, surely when a new franchise is let the Minister has a responsibility to challenge the industry and set such an arrangement in stone at the very start.

When the railways were first privatised, the policy—it was then RPI minus 1%—was applied to a basket of fares, as agreed with Ministers. That was what Lord Adonis succeeded in challenging, but sadly only for one year. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that, in future new franchises, the Adonis approach will be applied to fares to protect fare payers and to ensure that train operating companies take money out of their own pockets, rather than the pockets of fare-paying passengers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Paragraph 13 of the final McNulty report states quite clearly:

“Fares structures do not send efficient pricing signals, particularly in terms of managing peak demand, and are extremely complex.”

As a frequent user of the west coast main line I can only concur with that diagnosis, but what has struck me about today’s debate has been the lack of any praise for what the Government are doing to tackle it. I am not just talking about RPI plus 1 rather than RPI plus 3, or about the fact that we have more passengers on our railways than we did in the 1920s, but I find it strange that the Opposition find it difficult to recognise our investment, particularly in the north-west with the Ordsall chord, which is the first stage of the northern hub, and the electrification of the line to Blackpool—and that is before we get on to High Speed 2; I am told than those on both Front Benches are suffering a degree of HS2 fatigue.

I listened to the speech from the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, and I began to ask myself whether that was the new reality and the new approach for tough times or whether it was just about borrowing a bit more—the same old story and the same old solution—without saying where it would come from. That is not just a knockabout point, as it goes to the heart of transport policy. The previous Labour Government, rightly in my view, wanted to shift the burden of paying for our railways from the taxpayer to the fare-paying passenger, a policy that this Government are continuing. I am not quite sure I understand why the Labour Opposition do not want to continue with that approach. I began to get a bit confused. As I listened to the hon. Lady, I felt like I was watching a game of what I call policy Twister, where a Front-Bench team try to contort themselves into new poses to fit the leader’s latest re-launch. As someone who spent many years in an opposition front-bench team, I know what it feels like. I have been there, done that and bought the T-shirt.

I do not want to denigrate the hon. Lady’s proposals, as I thought that some of them made a lot of sense. For example, I have concerns about the digital divide and the availability of fares only online, and she was right to raise that. I feel, however, that in the wider debate we need a slightly more coherent understanding of what the McNulty review recommends. I am concerned that the debate seems to focus on what is said in the latest RMT or Transport Salaried Staffs Association press release. This is not just about ticket offices—and, by the by, I share many people’s concerns about the loss of ticket offices. We need to understand that McNulty goes much further than that.

Somewhere within rail policy, we must discuss where the burden lies and where the balance falls between the fare-paying passenger and the taxpayer. Given that McNulty called for a fare review and we are delivering a fare review at the end of the year, I am a little perplexed as to why the Opposition could not wait to see what is in the fare review. I am proud to serve on the Select Committee on Transport and I am looking forward to our cross-examination regarding the documents when they come forward. I have no doubt that we will find some flaws and will communicate those flaws to the Government in our usual courteous way, and that will be a good thing. Hon. Members have to recognise that there is a Command Paper coming out that will look at the structure of our railways and that there is a fare review coming out that will also address the issues.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood illustrated a useful point when she confirmed to me that one of her core beliefs is that the peak period should be the same in Euston as in Merseyside. I should think that would raise some very interesting problems. Anyone who uses the west coast main line, as I am sure she does to get back to Liverpool, must realise that at peak hours on a Friday the place is a hell hole. Passengers have to be put in cattle pens; it is not acceptable. Is she suggesting that we should reduce the standard national peak time? That would just cause that problem at Euston every day of the week and make it worse. Is she suggesting that we should have a much longer national peak hour? That would make it quite hard for many of our parents and neighbours who travel from Runcorn into Lime Street to do their shopping in Liverpool One to get there and back in a day on an off-peak ticket. That is an example of how the policies that the hon. Lady has suggested today have not really been thought through.

I would far rather that the hon. Lady recognised that the Government are taking relevant steps and are making a difference. They are bringing forward the fares review and the Command Paper on the structure of the rail industry that we need to see. I have a feeling that this debate might have been plonked on Opposition Members from above. I know that that happens sometimes—Members do not always choose to have a debate but might be told, “You’re having one.” They have done their best to cobble together a press release but I am afraid that although they get A-plus for effort, they get D-minus for homework. There is a debate to be had, but I am not sure that today’s debate was the one we wanted to be having.

Bus Services

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. The Committee’s inquiry has been one of the more enlightening and intriguing it has embarked upon since I joined it after the election. It certainly brought home to me the fact that buses should be part of total services, and that many people depend on them. In a relatively deprived constituency such as mine, where many people cannot afford a motor car or are not well enough or active enough to drive one, buses are essential. Extracting a definition of a socially necessary journey from some of the commercial operators who appeared before us was frustrating. They squirmed but could not provide an answer. They won the award for worst witnesses of the year so far.

The inquiry enabled me to mull over the Government’s role in bus services. Is it appropriate to expect a Minister in Whitehall to pull a lever, and to raise the quality of services throughout the country? It is an unavoidable truth that local bus services are best controlled by local councils, or some locally accountable body. Ever since the Committee’s first inquiry on economic growth in transport, we have heard talk of new regional bodies that will allow transport decision making closer to the ground. However, we have yet to see anything beyond potential names emerging from the Department, and I would welcome more guidance from the Government on when there might be progress.

The Government’s other role is to set a good example. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, we had some truly lamentable examples of consultation, and calling some of them consultation was a joke. It was a case of “We’re removing the service, and if the passengers don’t like it, hard luck because we’re doing it anyway.” That is not consultation; that is “get lost” or “get knotted”. Nevertheless, central Government have a role to play.

I was bored one Sunday afternoon, so I started looking at the Government’s official response to the report. I sat at my computer trying to open complicated Excel spreadsheets of statistical data. I am sure it is a marvellous resource if someone has a spare lifetime to get to grips with it. I was intrigued to note that a review is being conducted of what data are being collected. I hope that most of them do not disappear as part of some review. I was struck by a few statistics. I wondered why 77% of Scottish buses have ITSO card readers, but only 18% of buses in English non-metropolitan areas have them. I thought that that was an interesting difference.

I also noted that English non-metropolitan areas have now seen the third annual decline in a row in the number of overall passengers. For the first time, concessionary fare journeys dipped in English non-metropolitan areas over the past year. I know that statistics are not everything. I noted that in Blackpool, passenger journeys had dropped from 16 million five years ago to just 14.5 million in the past year. I know why: we have had major civil engineering works and it has been impossible to get anywhere in the town centre. Statistics can be a little misleading at times and do not always paint the whole picture, but they struck me as interesting examples of some of the trends in bus ridership.

I raise those statistics, but I do not want the Minister to think I oppose what he is doing. I think that what the Government are doing is fair and balanced and reflects where we are as an economy and as a nation within the global economy. There is a healthy dose of localism in what the Minister proposes. I also recognise the Minister’s own deep, personal commitment to buses and to public transport more generally, and I praise him for it. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside on the importance of the Competition Commission’s report, which is continually forthcoming. If I believe what I read in my newspapers, I hope it will criticise what seems to be an utterly dysfunctional market in certain parts of the country.

The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I wish to devote the bulk of my remarks to community transport. Rather than re-rehearse my ten-minute rule Bill, which called for the extension of the concessionary fares scheme to community transport, I want to reflect on some of the Government’s responses in the ninth special report. Like the Minister, I share the desire to put community transport on a more sustainable footing, requiring less public subsidy and building on the social enterprise model. In the long-term, that has to be the way ahead.

I welcome the dedicated £10 million fund for community transport. I welcome, too, the efforts of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the rural social enterprise fund. However, we must also acknowledge that community transport is not just a rural phenomenon —it matters greatly in urban areas, too. In some ways, for more vulnerable, marginal groups, it matters more in urban areas.

I certainly take the Minister’s point—I assume it is the Minister’s, because it sounded as though he had drafted it—in response to recommendation 13 and the creative imagination that local authorities must apply to circumstances in which they withdraw supported services. Where that is occurring, it makes immense sense for community transport to step in and fill a hole for a relatively small amount of money. I agree with the Minister that that is a sensible and useful way forward for community transport. None the less, I am concerned at the complexity of some of the legislation, which represents a barrier to many volunteers, who get terribly confused, as I continue to do, over section 19 and section 22 services—over who to pay and what to do. It is a technical and complex minefield. I recognise that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and traffic commissioners put a lot of effort into trying to guide providers through that minefield, but it is still deeply complex.

At the Community Transport Association’s conference this morning, I heard the Minister’s comments about why he was reluctant to extend concessionary fares to section 19 services. For those who were not there, I will paraphrase his point: it would cause a policy issue to allow those in what is essentially a private members’ organisation, club or society—whatever we want to call it—to have access to a wider concessionary fares scheme. I thought about that over lunch. It strikes me that that is coming at it from the wrong way. Many of those people have to join a dial-a-ride scheme because they cannot access mainstream public transport in the first place. This is perhaps part of a dialogue rather than a direct challenge, but I wonder whether the problem lies more with the Transport Act 1985 and the higher threshold it sets for accessing section 19 services, rather than the reason given not to extend concessionary fare schemes to section 19 services.

I am intrigued—I think that is the correct word—by the Government’s response to the wider issue of concessionary fares. The Department rightly points out that community transport will usually offer a

“more flexible, personal service”,

which could become

“the mode of choice for concessionary pass holders.”

I would not deny that a sudden, rapid overnight expansion of community transport would undoubtedly cause problems for commercially provided and supported services, but I struggle to understand why the provision of a high quality, excellent service that responds to people’s needs should be seen as a problem. I have never been one to believe in levelling down to the lowest common denominator. That is one reason I find myself on the Conservative Benches. I would like other mainstream providers to be encouraged to raise their game rather than be told, “Don’t worry, we are not going to make it too uncomfortable for you. We are going to make sure the community transport lot stay in their box and do not put you to shame.” That would not be terribly helpful.

I understand the Minister’s point about the possible dangers to supported rural bus services, but we must realise, as the report did, that although more people may have concessionary fare cards, they actually have fewer buses on which to use them. That is my underlying concern.

I am thoroughly pleased that the Government have lived up to the pre-election pledges of both parties to protect the concessionary fares scheme. That is entirely right and proper, but we now have to ensure that vulnerable citizens in my and other Members’ constituencies have the services that they need to ensure that they can get to where they need to go. I am not convinced that the mindset of local councils or local commercial providers is such that they understand that vulnerable people need to get to GP surgeries, hospitals and libraries, and that that is where the bus network should go. At the moment, it is a patchwork quilt of constantly changing routes and services that confuses passengers, providers and even Members of Parliament. I ask the Minister to do one thing: hurry up with his consultation toolkit and make sure that passengers are meaningfully involved when local authorities consult on service changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

Will the Minister confirm that it is interesting to note that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers was fully behind the scheme in the Isle of Wight?

[Norman Baker]

It is important to note that. That is a very relevant point and it leads me on, perhaps, to the points made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I am sorry that, unlike the Chairman of the Committee, who presented matters fairly and equitably, albeit in a challenging way, he sought to present matters as something of a party political rant. He was keen to say that this was the Government’s fault, but the Government have not cut bus services in Hartlepool—his local council has. Councils up and down the country have not been cutting bus services, and if all the services in Hartlepool have disappeared he needs to take the matter up with his local operator and council.

The picture varies enormously across the country. I am not pretending that it is easy for local councils; it is perfectly true that there are challenges as a consequence of the local government settlement. Cuts have been made across the country in local bus services, particularly in supported ones. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, I think, that the Campaign for Better Transport had found that three quarters of local authorities were cutting back on buses. That is unwelcome, but the fact remains that a quarter are not cutting back at all. Perhaps we should look at them for lessons on how they have managed to maintain their bus services rather than cutting everything in sight, which appears to have happened in Hartlepool.

Coastguard Modernisation

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

No.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and pay tribute to the great personal effort that I know he has put into visiting every affected coastguard station to ensure that consultation was both open-ended and reasoned. Can he none the less reassure me that when one of a pair of co-ordination centres closes, there will be a structure in place to ensure that local knowledge is transferred between staff and we do not see a sudden cliff-edge changeover?

[Mike Penning]

The closures are planned for March 2015, so there will be no cliff edge. I repeat that, having studied the results of the consultation extremely carefully, we decided to adopt the pair-based system because the current local knowledge of the topography would be retained. When I visited Swansea—and I expect that a Swansea Member will ask a question shortly—the station was closed while I was meeting the staff, and Milford Haven took over the local knowledge. That sort of thing is happening regularly, and it will introduce more resilience to the system.

Aviation Industry

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Donohoe]

I thank hon. Members.

I return to this afternoon’s important subject, which is the future of the UK aviation industry. The aviation sector is vital for the economy, bringing financial benefits both to the UK and to those who serve the airline business. It is also important for the skills and the high-skilled employment that it brings and because of the important growing marketplace that the airline industry is within.

Coupled with that is the importance of the aerospace industry, which is connected to the airline industry in every respect. I have such an interest in the subject because a fairly sizeable chunk of employment in my constituency is based on those two industries. Spirit, which employs more than 1,000 people, is based in my constituency. Goodrich, GE Caledonian and BAE Systems are just a few of the companies that my constituency has within the sector. All are major stakeholders in the future of the aviation industry.

The aviation industry requires the Government to step up their responsibilities to provide a political framework to allow the sector to grow sustainably, integrated with other transport modes, which are equally important. We were involved in a few discussions just a number of weeks ago, and I see the hon. Member for Blackpool South—

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

North.

[Mr Donohoe]

Sorry; I will always get that wrong. I see the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) in his place this afternoon. He has taken the lead on the case regarding High Speed 2, which is part of the overall package that we have to consider today.

More than any other industry, aviation operates in a global marketplace and needs global solutions to avoid market distortions that would prejudice against UK industry. In that respect, it would be dangerous for the UK to add or continue with unilateral actions that would serve only further to drive UK industries abroad, along with the financial and skills benefits they are associated with.

About 15,000 jobs a year are at stake unless the UK finds way to increase aviation capacity in the south-east. The management at Gatwick airport has argued in a submission to the Department for Transport that that is of great importance to its airport, as well as to the whole country. The UK stands to lose between £20 billion and £47 billion of benefits over 30 to 50 years unless the Government reconsider the current stance of no expansion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing the debate. I shall try to be quick, because I know other hon. Members want to speak, so this will be high speed, if not on high rail, which will make a nice change.

I welcome the progress that the Government are making on aviation policy. They are taking steps in the right direction. It is not fast enough for me or many in the industry, but perhaps we need to learn patience. Good, evidence-based policy is not one of Jamie’s five-minute meals. It needs good-quality evidence, and if we do not form policy based on evidence, rather than on prejudice, it is plain stupid. I am not here to boost Blackpool airport, although it is a wonderful airport to fly into and see the wonders of the Fylde coast. I do not even want to waffle on about air passenger duty. I do not want to tempt the Minister down a route that she probably does not want to go down, given that she is not a Treasury Minister. I do not even want to bang on about a third runway at Heathrow, because I think that is a stable door that was shut long ago, unfortunately.

We must discuss a more fundamental question: what does UK plc need from our aviation industry? What do we actually need? Hidden, buried away like a nugget of gold within the scoping document, are two fundamental questions that the Government must consider. What are the benefits of maintaining a hub airport in the UK? And how important are transit and transfer passengers to the UK economy? Those things may seem self-evident. How could anyone dispute them? Yet a fortnight ago I met a commercial director for a regional airport, who said, “There is no such thing as a hub airport. There is no Government definition of one, so they don’t exist. So we don’t need a hub airport any more.” That struck me as the most illogical and ludicrous thing one could possibly argue, but none the less he tried. I would prefer to focus on not Boris island but Boryspil airport, which, for those who do not know, is the main airport for the city of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. That is a classic example of an emerging market destination, which is economically crucial, and to which services from the UK are not sufficiently good. Yet all the aviation policy that we seem to be able to focus on is some future airport in the Thames estuary. We need to focus on the needs of the UK economy—of UK plc—here and now.

I welcome the work that I know the Minister is doing to make Heathrow and the other south-east airports function better, so that we get bang for our buck and extract the maximum from the capacity that we already have. I want London to be surrounded by a string of pearls in the form of excellent, functioning airports. One of them, however, cannot be a pearl but must be a diamond—the hub airport. To understand why, we must understand the definition of a hub airport, and why it matters to the economy. Transfer passengers do not exist merely for the benefit of Starbucks. The Frontier Economics foundation recently issued a report showing that there are at least 13 flights to emerging market destinations in which more than half the passengers are transfer passengers, who did not start their journeys at Heathrow. The more that we squeeze the short-haul flights that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) referred to, the harder it will be to sustain flights to emerging market economies, because we will not have the transfer passengers, which is a grave concern.

I confess that a few months ago I wondered whether the UK really needed a hub airport. The Japanese Transport Minister once famously said that Incheon in South Korea was now Japan’s hub. I know that for many of my constituents Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle is essentially their hub airport. I began to think, “Can the UK survive without a hub airport? Can’t we just fly to Paris or Amsterdam?” However, the Frontier Economics report makes the fundamental case why we cannot do that. It is explicit about the amount of trade that we are losing as a consequence of having poorer connectivity with the emerging market economies. It is a question of not only the number of people flying through Heathrow, but where they are going. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton rightly made the point that Heathrow’s number of destinations is gradually dropping. In the past five years, it has decreased from, I think, 227 to 180. Over the same five years, the number of destinations reached from the main competitor hubs in Europe has increased.

There is clearly a case to be made that Heathrow is entering a period of consolidation. It may be getting more passengers, but they are going to fewer places, and, in the cycle, that is usually the beginning of the end of an airport’s hub status. That is what happened to New York about 20 years ago, when the destinations started to drop off and it lost its hub status. While I fully expect that in the coming 20 years Heathrow will remain England’s major international gateway, I have concerns whether it will retain its hub status. Hon. Members may ask whether that matters. New York no longer has a hub airport, but it remains a world city. I question whether we—UK plc—can afford to sacrifice the economic benefits that come from a vibrant, well-connected hub airport, which I think is fundamental.

[Mary Macleod]

Does my hon. Friend realise that London has 92 flights a week to China, whereas Paris has 73 and Frankfurt 69? We have good connectivity with China, one of the most important growing economies. Surely the issue is about working with businesses in China and elsewhere to find out their requirements. Has he had any correspondence with businesses there to find out whether they require additional flights to Heathrow and London?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. Of course the main reason, historically, for our having far more flights to China is our historic tie to Hong Kong. The destinations that we serve are Beijing and Shanghai, and there are more than 3,000 seats a week going to Hong Kong. I think that Frankfurt serves five destinations and Paris four. We dominate on the Hong Kong routes, but we underperform in relation to all the other top 10 Chinese cities. Of course, economic growth in China is happening not in Hong Kong but in cities that most of us have probably never heard of—the likes of Chengdu and Dongguan, which no one is yet serving. Far more than focusing just on the number of people who are flying and the routes they are flying on, we must think about connectivity. Are we serving the places where the economic growth is?

I make a plea to the Government. I welcome what they are doing to make the airports around London and the south-east more suited to improvements in the passenger experience, but I ask that we should not overlook the benefits that can be provided by an active, well-maintained and well-funded hub airport, which works well and connects to the places that UK plc needs to be connected to for growth. That needs to be a fundamental part of our aviation strategy.