Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Time is against us, but I call Mr Alan Reid.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that Machrihanish is on the shortlist to become the UK’s first spaceport. It is far from any centres of population, it has a 3-km runway and the facilities of an RAF base, and I believe that it is the ideal candidate. I hope that the Department for Transport will support Machrihanish’s case.

[Mr Goodwill]

We are certainly looking at all the candidates in Scotland, Wales and England, and we believe that Britain will be at the forefront of the space race to get satellites into space cheaply and to introduce space tourism.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am pleased that we are making progress that was not made between 1997 and 2010. We are making huge investments in trains and I am very pleased about that. The invitations to tender will be issued shortly and I hope to be able to say more about it then.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

T5. The Department for Transport is consulting on removing the MOT exemption for HGVs based on Bute, Islay, Mull and Tiree, but the exemption is there for a very good reason: there are simply not enough HGVs on those islands to justify the cost of an authorised testing facility and the cost of taking an HGV to the mainland is very high. Will Ministers please stop this burden on island businesses?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the consultation is being looked at on a Great Britain-wide basis and specific exemptions are indeed made for local service and delivery issues. I encourage him to continue eloquently to make the case for the existing exemption in his neck of the woods.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

It is great to hear that. The point for Stoke-on-Trent is probably to liaise better with the rail authorities and the authorities here to make sure that it is represented and gets a better deal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as an assiduous MP—probably the finest Stoke-on-Trent has had—will indeed be doing that. I am sure that will now be very welcome in Stoke-on-Trent.

It is in Scotland’s interests to have the high-speed rail link. It is also in Scotland’s interests to make sure that the north of England is well connected, because we want to make sure that when we are independent we have on our borders a prosperous region of Europe. The north of England becoming a prosperous region of Europe is therefore exactly what Scotland wants. When Scotland is independent it will do everything it can to facilitate and help that.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is, let us say, a bit blinkered when it comes to Scottish independence.

[Mr Reid]

Of course I agree that it is important that the high-speed rail link is extended north to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman said that he was speaking to the amendment on behalf of his party. Let me draw his attention to the Scottish Government’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Question 174 was answered by a representative from Transport Scotland as follows:

“The view of the Scottish Government is that we are content with the Bill as it stands.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 100, Q174.]

The hon. Gentleman’s party runs the Scottish Government, so if it is content with the Bill, why is he speaking to an amendment on its behalf?

[Mr MacNeil]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, thinking is always evolving. When a person is content, they can become happier as a result of improvements. The Liberal Democrats started from a position of being opposed to student tuition fees and seemed to be content with that, but the position evolved so that they wanted £9,000 tuition fees for students, and they seemed happier still. He will probably understand that I think that our evolution towards happiness is perhaps a bit more understanding of the needs of citizens, whereas the evolution of the Liberal Democrats’ thinking leaves many people in debt, unfortunately.

We want Scotland to be linked to a high-speed European network. The mistake made earlier, originally by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), was to think that this is some sort of political project. It is not. There are high-speed rail links all over the place. They go to Helsinki through the Baltic states, and there is no movement for political unity between those states. They fiercely retain their independence while supporting and helping each other to get rail links, including high-speed links, through their countries to move into the main European markets. That is a natural and understandable thing to do. Many states in Europe are independent and co-operating together. In fact, Europe has not been as together as it is now, with its 50 independent states, since the empires declined.

Coastguard (Maritime Incident Response Group)

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the Transport Committee on its report and on paying close attention to so important an issue, as well as on securing this debate. I join the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), in paying tribute to both professional and volunteer coastguards—the professional rescue services and the volunteer lifeboat crews, who devote a huge amount of time to rescuing people from the waters around our coasts.

The Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, has investigated the implications of the changes for the coastguard service in Scottish waters. The Forth and Clyde coastguard stations were the first to close, with their functions being transferred to Aberdeen, Belfast and Stornoway. During its inquiry, the Scottish Affairs Committee found that the Government had clearly failed to carry public opinion with them on changes to the coastguard service, and recommended that the Government

“do more to provide reassurance to seafarers who may need to contact the coastguard in an emergency.”

The lack of public confidence in the changes has not been helped by the fact that Belfast, Stornoway and Aberdeen have consistently been understaffed since the closure of the Forth and Clyde stations. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), the Minister placed in the Library a table showing the number of coastguard watches that were staffed below risk levels during the year from May 2012 to May 2013. The table makes uncomfortable reading, particularly in relation to Belfast. From December 2012, when the Clyde station closed, to May 2013, Belfast was staffed below the risk assessed level 71% of the time, which is extremely worrying. During the same period, its partner station, Stornoway, was understaffed 17% of the time. The table does not tell us how often Belfast and Stornoway were both understaffed at the same time, but the figures show that that must inevitably have happened on several occasions.

For the east coast, the figures are slightly better, but they are still worrying. From the closure of the Forth station in September 2012 to May 2013, Aberdeen was understaffed 52% of the time. The only bright note is that its partner station at Shetland was hardly ever understaffed.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting those figures, which are in the Library. The conclusion that I draw from them is that confidence in Maritime and Coastguard Agency management is not what it should be. I lack confidence in it, as I think do people in my community, due to the very figures that he mentions.

[Mr Reid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the community does not have confidence in the new system. The seafaring community was very nervous about the closure of the Clyde station, particularly because of the loss of local knowledge. When figures show that Belfast, which has become responsible for most of the Clyde area, was understaffed 71% of the time during the six months following the closure of the Clyde station, that clearly increases the seafaring community’s lack of confidence. I hope that the Government will address that point.

More positively, I am not aware of any incidents since the closure of the Forth or Clyde stations in which understaffing at coastguard co-ordination centres has caused a problem in responding to incidents. That is a tribute to the professionalism of the coastguard staff, but we cannot be complacent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) said, the system will be put to the test when there is a major incident. We all hope that there will not be one, but one will inevitably happen at some point, and that will test the system. I hope that the co-ordination centres are all fully staffed before that happens. The Government have undertaken recruitment programmes, and I hope that the Minister will report that they have been successful and that understaffed watches are a thing of the past.

Concern about the loss of local knowledge was one of the main reasons why seafarers were not convinced about the reorganisation of the coastguard. I hope that both new recruits and existing staff now covering a different area will have been trained and tested on their knowledge of the area for which they are responsible. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House on that.

I am pleased that the Government have listened to the concerns that were expressed and have arranged for two emergency towing vessels to be available in Scottish waters. However, there is concern on the west coast that both vessels are based in the northern isles, and that one is no longer based in Stornoway. I note from the Government’s response that in moderate sea conditions it will take approximately eight to nine hours for an emergency towing vessel to arrive at a position between North Minch and the Little Minch and, in heavier weather when an incident is more likely to occur, it will take about 11 to 12 hours. It will take even longer for the emergency towing vessel to get to the southern Hebrides in my constituency. I hope the Government will have another think about basing an emergency towing vessel in Stornoway and bear in mind the extreme environmental damage that an oil spill would cause. They should compare the costs of a clean-up with the costs of an emergency towing vessel based in Stornoway. After all, prevention is better than cure.

[Mr MacNeil]

Iceland, which has suffered major financial trauma in the past five years, has actually gone in the opposite direction from that taken by the UK Government in northern and western Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that a huge error has been made here and that the calculation that should be done is the ongoing cost versus the cost of any incident that could occur? I have a terrible feeling that the Government are spoiling the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar and that we really should have that emergency towing vessel in Stornoway now.

[Mr Reid]

As I have said, prevention is definitely better than cure. It is important to stress that there are two emergency towing vessels in Scottish waters—the same number as there were before—so the Government clearly listened to the concerns that many of us expressed. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes the important point that one of the vessels should be based in Stornoway to cover the west coast.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman says that there are two vessels, but it is their location and what they are actually doing that is the problem.

[Mr Reid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not the number of vessels that is the problem but the location. There is no vessel based in Stornoway to cover the west coast, and I hope that the Government will take that on board.

I also note that funding for the emergency towing vessels is only guaranteed until the end of the current spending review period in 2015, which is not far off, so I hope that the funding will be guaranteed on a permanent basis. The seas around the west coast and islands provide the basis for much of the local economic activity. Preserving lives and the environment is vital, as is reassuring seafarers that rescue will come quickly if they get into difficulties. Our coastguards, both professional and volunteer, and the professional rescue services and volunteer lifeboat crews do a tremendous job. They deserve to be backed up by a properly resourced system of co-ordination and emergency vessels. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on the issues that I have raised today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not making any particular comment on what the final incident report might be in that respect; I am merely reporting to her, as I am sure she is already aware, the concerns that were expressed by the Caister lifeboat crew.

There are also issues regarding the Clyde and Forth closures, which have been already referred to, including the fact that those services are now being operated out of Belfast. In my own neck of the woods, in Blackpool, we are concerned about the closure of the Liverpool centre. There is significant concern about all its work being done out of Holyhead. Mr Ken Harcombe, from the National Coastwatch Institution’s Rossall point observatory, just outside my constituency, said:

“Our concern would be if there was any delay dealing with someone 300 miles away, that could cost lives.”

We are keen to maintain some local community with Liverpool.

Blackpool attracts some 10 million visitors a year. We have a lot of problems with sea tragedies and, if such problems are exacerbated, that will make things far worse, not just in Blackpool, but along the whole coast. That is why the coroner for the area has expressed her concerns in the past and why the Blackpool annual patrol report for 2011 stated:

“The impending closure of Liverpool Coastguard Rescue Co-ordination Centre, is anticipated to have a significant effect on beach/sea safety at Blackpool.”

Before I leave local issues, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), who is unable to be with us today, tells me that in Swansea there remains considerable concern about the decision to close the centre there. There was a huge cross-party campaign against the closure. Questions still remain about why Milford Haven was chosen as the site, as opposed to Swansea.

We have heard about the situation regarding emergency towing vehicles in Scotland. What lessons have the Government learned from the experiences there about the need to maintain a Government-backed ETV in the interests of ensuring safety and protection from maritime pollution? I am not in a position to say what the extent of that provision should be, but surely in this situation we should consider those things. What is the state of the procurement process, to find emergency towing vehicles support in Scottish waters? What are the long-term plans to ensure the stable, reliable provision of ETV support in the rest of the UK’s waters?

The Government did not explain, in their response to the Select Committee’s critical question, how the ETV in the northern isles would effectively serve the west coast. We have heard concerns about that this afternoon.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is highlighting these concerns. He speaks as the Labour party spokesperson, so perhaps he will tell us whether the Labour party would, if it won the next election, propose to have an ETV on the west coast?

[Mr Marsden]

That is a nice try, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot make commitments to future funding until we have seen the books, after the next election. He also knows that the first step in making decisions in this area is to do a proper analysis, which the Government have failed to do.

When the Government responded, initially—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

The MCA has addressed that explicitly in the document. The ability to recruit new officers, particularly at the lower end, suffered because of the lack of a career path and opportunities. I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me say that we have agreed a new grading system with enhanced responsibilities and a clear career path, and that is reflected in a rise in civil service grading. I hope that that will make this a much more attractive and rewarding career to many people. I also hope that now that the new roles have been settled and there is an ongoing vacancy recruitment process, we will shortly be able to report a considerable reduction in the number of shifts below assessed risk level.

I turn to the implementation timetable, which we set out in November 2011. We now accept that some of it is no longer achievable because of the need to ensure a safe transition to the national system. We have made small but necessary and sensible adjustments to the planned closure dates. They have been communicated to staff and to search and rescue partners, and I have written to all hon. Members. The stations at Solent and Portland will close in September 2014 after the busy summer season, when the new NMO centre will be staffed and operational. The centre at Brixham will close in November 2014, followed by Liverpool in January 2015 and Swansea in March 2015. The final centre to close will be the Thames centre at Walton-on-the-Naze in June 2015. The full technical infrastructure for the new national, fully resilient system will be in place by the end of 2015.

Understandably, that final confirmation will disappoint several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Like her, I praise the coastguards at Brixham, but the new system will ensure safety round her shores. She raised a particular issue regarding Hope Cove and I understand that the MCA is working with the coastguards there to resolve that. I will ensure that my officials speak to the team at Hope Cove, and I will respond in writing to my hon. Friend to address her concern.

[Mr Reid]

I was pleased that the Minister announced the 59 extra staff. Does he have the figures to show how staffing at Belfast and Stornoway compares with what their establishment should be? If he does not have those figures, will he write to me?

[Stephen Hammond]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me a minute, I may be able to supply those figures. I can tell him what the current vacancy level is, but I will ensure that my officials give him the figures he asks for.

I turn to a couple of other points that the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised. He spoke about the volunteer arrangements and I intervened to make the point that they refer to volunteers on the front line and not to the co-ordination centres. I do not believe those arrangements need to change because they are excellent. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the other voluntary coastguard systems provide a magnificent service, and to suggest that we are trying to alter that in any way would cause much disquiet. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that they provide an excellent service.

The hon. Gentleman asked about handing over following the closure of MRCCs and I made a statement on that a moment ago. I reiterate that that has been done in a staged way with shadowing and a gradual handover. I hope he will be reassured that it was not a case of one station closing one day, and a new one opening the following morning. Far from it, there have been traditional pairing operations and the handovers have been based on those pairing operations. Indeed, there was significant time in-between to ensure that all the arrangements were in place.

I turn briefly to emergency towing vessels in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, referred. The Government have undertaken the necessary analysis and assessment. We all accept that shipping is not risk-free, but the world has moved on considerably since the Government funded tugs. There have been improvements in technology, navigation and safety systems, with the advent of new ship routeing and reporting.

We continue to take the view that it is for the shipping industry to manage and to mitigate the risks that its activities present to the maritime environment and to make full use of the established arrangements for the provision of commercial towage and salvage. Those commercial arrangements are working well in some areas where the Government used to provide funded tugs, particularly in the south-west approaches and the Dover strait. Indeed, those commercial arrangements have now been the norm for almost two years, and have worked well.

The Government accept that there was an issue with the availability of commercial tugs in the waters off Scotland, which proved to be more problematic, so we gave a commitment to fund a single emergency tug based in Orkney. However, due to the excellent working across Government and with the oil and gas industry, we have been able to put in place arrangements that permit a vessel that is normally engaged in commercial operations to be released from its contracted duty to perform emergency towage in the waters off northern Scotland. That has been available at no extra cost. The Secretary of State led those discussions and the discussions on the future of emergency towing vehicles in Scotland. The Scottish Government were also involved. A solution has been found for the next two years with a vessel commercially funded by the offshore industry. That is welcome and provides the necessary resilience for the coast there.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about the complement in Belfast. Shetland is six down but we are in the process of recruiting three officers, so it is only three below complement. Stornoway had been two officers down, but the recruitment process has resulted in two officers about to join, so it will be at full complement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not sure I was forced to do anything, but I was asked by the Public Accounts Committee to do proper research and to back up the case for HS2. I dare say that if yesterday’s report had come out negative, all those people who are against HS2 would have been shouting it from the rooftops. Because it came out positive, they are opposed to it.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The KPMG report showed that every region of Britain will benefit from plans for HS2 to go as far as Leeds and Manchester, but Scotland and the north of England would benefit even more if the lines extended to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle. How are the Secretary of State’s discussions with the Scottish Government progressing in that regard?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am prepared to have the meetings with the Scottish Government. I announced last October that we would be looking to take the line to Scotland. That work is ongoing.

Cycling

Alan Reid Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on introducing the debate, and all members of the all-party cycling group on their excellent report, “Get Britain Cycling”. I support the report’s recommendations, in particular for an annual cycling action plan and for sustained funding for cycling.

Liberal Democrats have long recognised the positive benefits of cycling. It assists in tackling road congestion, reducing air pollution and supporting our economy. Not only is it a fast, cheap and green mode of transport, it promotes a healthier lifestyle too. It is a sobering fact that only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle. Our European neighbours put us to shame in this regard. It is also important to note that approximately half of all journeys made by car are only a few miles. Surely we can encourage people to make some of those journeys by bike. I am pleased that targets are included in the motion, and I hope that the Government adopt them.

In 2010, the gross contribution of cycling to the UK economy was almost £3 billion. According to calculations, if we encourage more people to cycle we could save the UK economy a few hundred million pounds through reduced road congestion and about £70 million to £80 million through less pollution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the Minister for cycling, has been a champion of cycling for many years. I am pleased that he has continued that attitude in government and done a good job supporting cycling. For example, last March the Department for Transport published its door-to-door strategy, which set out how the Government are encouraging people to combine different methods of transport in their journeys and increase the number of journeys made by bicycle. In April, my hon. Friend the Minister for cycling announced £40 million of funding, which is being used at 78 locations to make roads and junctions safer for cyclists. All those schemes are due to be completed within 12 months.

In August, the coalition Government announced a dramatic boost for cycling funding. The Prime Minister showed the Government’s commitment by making the announcement himself, which represents the biggest ever single cash injection for cycling. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for more people to be able to ride out with confidence on our nation’s roads. This Government are a good supporter of cycling. However, we cannot afford to be complacent on this issue. The all-party group’s report offers us the chance to support cycling and ensure that the Government continue to work hard to promote the needs and safety of cyclists, alongside those of other road users. I wholeheartedly support today’s motion. I hope the Government will build on the good work they have already done by taking forward the report’s recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The Opposition have to decide whether they want investment to continue at the levels that we are putting in to the railways. If they do, it has to be paid for. I believe the cost has to be shared between taxpayers and those who use the services. I make no apology for the amount of investment that this Government are putting in to Britain’s railways. It is desperately needed and the right thing to do, but it has to be paid for.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

T9. I am pleased that in recent years the volume of freight being carried on our railways has increased, and it is important that that welcome trend continues. What plans do the Government have to encourage as much freight as possible to transfer from road to rail?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. He will be as pleased as I am that since privatisation, freight transport has increased by 60%. We are helping the rail industry to develop a strategic freight network, which will make rail freight increasingly competitive, so that we can get even more freight off our congested roads and on to our railways.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Alan Reid Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I very much welcome the Bill. It is an important stage in implementing a promise from the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, subject to the approval of the Treasury, to incur expenditure in preparation for the high-speed rail network. The language used in the Bill is open-ended because it states that this expenditure must include at least rail lines connecting London, Birmingham, the east midlands, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester, and which connect with the existing rail network. The “at least” phrase means that the HS2 expenditure being approved under the Bill is not limited to the cities and regions mentioned, but prepares the way for further extension of HS2 in the future.

This is in line with the Government’s wish to work with the Scottish Government on this issue, with the aim of having a third phase to connect the high-speed link on from Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh. By enhancing connectivity between Britain’s large cities, HS2 will make investment in the regions outside London and the south-east far more attractive. This is vital if we are to help rebalance the UK economy and increase jobs and growth. HS2 will underpin the delivery of at least 100,000 jobs, and hopefully far more.

It is estimated that HS2 will transfer approximately 9 million journeys from road to rail and 4.5 million from air to rail. This will ease road congestion and reduce some of the pressure on our airports, allowing our economy to grow in an environmentally friendly manner. Passenger demand is expected to grow and if we do nothing, it is anticipated that the west coast main line will reach full capacity during the next 15 years. High-speed rail provides the best possible option to cope with ever-rising passenger demand and to ensure that we have sufficient future capacity to satisfy the needs of the UK economy.

HS2 will also help to free up capacity on the existing rail network, in particular the west coast main line. As well as improving services for passengers, it will free up capacity for more freight on the railways. HS2 will radically shorten journey times between London, the midlands and the north of England and Scotland. For example, it will shorten the journey time between London and Edinburgh by 45 minutes. That is after phase 2 is completed and without waiting for phase 3.

[Mr Sheerman]

Has the hon. Gentleman seen some of the research that shows that rather than strengthening the provincial cities, HS2 will reinforce the power and influence of London and do the absolute opposite of what most people thought it would do?

[Mr Reid]

I have seen some of that analysis, but I disagree with it. All the past experience is that by connecting cities, we bring jobs and growth to both ends of the network. Our Victorian predecessors had great vision. No doubt there were people in those days who said, “This will all be a waste of money. Rail will never take off”, but experience shows that when we connect up people and cities, we create more jobs at both ends of the network.

It is important to point out to the Scottish National party, whose Members have departed and have not bothered to stay for the full debate, that it does not matter where the railway line starts—whether at the London end or the Scotland end. The journey time cut by each mile of track is the same, no matter which end one starts from. Were the SNP’s plans for the referendum to come to fruition and Scotland and England became separate countries, I cannot see a UK Government building the line any further than Manchester, whereas if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, I am confident that we will, in time, see high-speed rail all the way from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

It is important to point out that other countries, such as Germany, Japan and China, have already invested heavily in high-speed rail and have several rail connections that are much faster than ours. The United States also has plans to develop a high-speed rail network. If we do not go ahead with HS2, there is a great danger that the UK will fall behind our international competitors. We must make plans to meet future passenger demand, provide more capacity and cut train journey times for millions of passengers. The railway lines between our major cities are overcrowded and far slower than they should be.

I believe that the case for HS2 is clear and overwhelming. It will bring much economic development, delivered in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Bill is an important step towards delivering a vital high-speed rail network and I urge the House to support it tonight.

East Coast Main Line Franchise

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think the important thing to bear in mind is that the service is not failing in the ways the Minister said it was. If a Government propose a policy, it has to be based on the right evidence and not on an inaccurate interpretation of the situation.

Let me now talk about what East Coast does with its profits. In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough pointed out that whereas private operators are obliged to pay dividends, public operators can reinvest all their profits back into the service, which in East Coast’s case has amounted to more than £40 million since 2009. One of the criticisms that has been made in the past and might still be levelled now at a public operator is that, because the dead hand of bureaucracy lies on it, such an operator cannot be as efficient and as fleet of foot as a private sector operator, but it is true to say that East Coast is organisationally distinct from the Department for Transport. It is staffed by railway professionals and is therefore able to take the best of a private sector company in terms of efficiency, innovation and entrepreneurialism, but because it is in the public sector, any profits it makes are available to the Treasury and all of us as citizens of this country and taxpayers.

I am concerned that talking down East Coast to justify the proposed refranchising will damage morale at the company. That is most unfair, because staff and management have worked extremely hard and achieved good results, with 1 million extra passengers carried in 2012 compared with 2009 and record passenger satisfaction. I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister will correct his remarks on punctuality and premium payments; acknowledge that East Coast reinvests all its profits and can emulate private sector efficiency; and congratulate staff and management on East Coast’s success. I think that that will be an important message to send back to the work force.

Given East Coast’s success, it makes no sense to prioritise its reprivatisation while other long-distance operators are being offered long extensions. Under the Government’s initial franchising timetable, the new west coast main line contract was due to start in October 2012. Under the new timetable, and as a result of prioritising East Coast, the current operator of the west coast main line, Virgin, will be offered a total of four and half years of extensions up to April 2017. Similarly, for the new Great Western contract, which was meant to start in April this year, the operator, First Group, is being offered three years of extensions up to July 2016.

Let us look again at another reason the Minister gave for prioritising the east coast main line over others. He said that the line

“connects industries in the north with commerce in the south, provides cross-border services to Scotland and helps to drive the development of tourism and the success of Edinburgh and Leeds as key financial centres outside London. That is why it is at the forefront of our new rail franchising programme”.—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 252WH.]

I accept all those things, although many of them can be said about other rail lines.

It is important for business that we have a good, strong railway service on the east coast main line. I am regularly accompanied on my weekly commute by an increasing number of business travellers, many of whom work in my city’s sizeable banking sector. Those people have often been attracted away from short-haul flights by East Coast’s excellent new first class offer, which in the long term could benefit our environment. Business travellers are also attracted by the new services that have been introduced, including a later evening service and an earlier morning service, which enable people who want, or have, to travel to London for business meetings to do so by rail in a way that was not possible before.

However, the west coast main line and the Great Western line are also important for business. The west coast main line connects five of the seven largest conurbations in Britain, and Great Western serves Bristol, Cardiff and the prosperous Thames valley, so the claim that the Government have decided to prioritise the east coast main line because of its importance to business does not really stack up—at least, it is not a reason for prioritising the east coast main line over the other services that were previously due for refranchising.

By deferring proper franchise competition on these other lines in favour of extensions, the damage done to business on those routes could well outweigh any benefit accrued by prioritising the reprivatisation of the east coast main line, because extending those franchises involves little or no competition. It is likely to cost franchises a lot while failing to deliver any improvements in service.

It also leaves the Government in a weak bargaining position with the franchise operators by offering them those franchises without competition. After all, one of the reasons the Government would no doubt give for wanting to franchise is to have competition that would drive innovation and improvement. However, as far as the other lines are concerned, it is more or less a case of giving the operators an extension.

The only bargaining chip that the Government appear to have is to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways, presumably as some kind of threat to the franchise operator, so that if it does not settle for a reasonable sum the line might be given over to Directly Operated Railways. That seems rather odd, from a Government who are telling us that they do not want rail lines to be operated in that way.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument, but I am afraid that I have lost the thread a bit. Will she clarify whether she is opposed to the refranchising of the east coast main line in principle, or does she simply want it to be held back for a certain length of time so that other franchises can be retendered, which is what she seems to be arguing for?

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

Yes, we can speculate about who might take on the franchise, but it is incredibly profitable and I am sure there will be no shortage of takers. That money should be going into the Treasury at this time of austerity, however.

[Mr Reid]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I am still not sure whether he is arguing for the east coast main line to be operated by a publicly owned company permanently or just for a temporary period that happens to be longer than the Government propose?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I can give a direct answer to that: yes, I am arguing for permanent public ownership. I am in favour of directly delivered public services, and although I do not want to take up too much time, I have some pretty powerful arguments on why that should be the case.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) talked about competition. Even if someone could not support the entire network being in public ownership, I think a reasonable person might be able to say that, for reasons of having a comparator, we should keep the very successful public provision through DOR, to act as a test and yardstick for us to assess how the private sector is doing. Instead we have the preposterous position of a failed private operator of the franchise not being barred from bidding, but instead being allowed to rebid to operate it. The Government seem quite happy to allow that.

Another perversity is that the Government seem to have this ideological, dogmatic hatred of nationalisation and publicly provided services. They are against the idea of a directly operated public service on the east coast. They are quite happy for public sector companies based in Germany, France and Holland to operate such franchises, but not UK public sector companies. That seems completely inconsistent.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gave some interesting statistics about the cost of season tickets. It is interesting to look at the costs in some European countries. Research shows that a 24-mile commute into Paris costs about £924 a year, a similar commute into Berlin costs some £700, and a similar commute into Madrid costs £654. A similar commute into London costs £3,268 a year. How can anybody suggest that the privately operated service is a huge success and stands international comparison? This follows a decade of inflation-busting fare increases which, although never welcome, are putting an unbearable strain on family budgets at a time of austerity, with wages frozen and in many cases falling.

I understand that the rail Minister is a regular user of the network—after being persuaded to swap his chauffeur-driven ministerial limousine for the train. Has he had a chance to explain to other commuters exactly what privatised rail has delivered for the taxpayer—other than the highest fares in Europe? It certainly has not delivered investment. Sir David Higgins, the head of Network Rail, has warned that it would take

“30 years of continuous investment to ensure our railways get to the level of some of the European railways that we admire”.

Dividends to shareholders of the big five transport companies that are contracted to run the UK rail service have reached nearly £2.5 billion since 2000, and there are plenty of examples of excessive boardroom pay; some of the highest paid directors have received in excess of £1 million.

However, East Coast and Directly Operated Railways offer a genuine alternative, with all profits being reinvested in services or in the Treasury—money which otherwise would have been used as dividends for shareholders or bonuses for fat cats. According to the “Rebuilding Rail” report, the cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation. It is estimated that privatisation costs the equivalent of £1.2 billion a year—more than the cost of public ownership.

In the face of multiple market failures, higher costs to the public in fares and subsidies, and lower premium payments, there is nothing more ideological than the Minister and the Tory party remaining wedded to this disastrous railway privatisation policy. I hope he will listen to the concerns expressed today by Members, and by the British public, and end this failed franchise policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The east coast main line is vital in providing connections between Scotland, north-east England, Yorkshire, eastern England and London. Liberal Democrats in government are delivering a massive investment in rail infrastructure and are determined to put passengers at the heart of the railway system. That is why, as part of this coalition Government, we are investing £240 million in the east coast main line between 2014 and 2019.

On 25 March, the coalition Government announced that the franchise for the east coast main line is due to be returned to the private sector in February 2015. Officials from the Department are meeting interested parties, including Transport Scotland, to ensure that future changes to the east coast main line are co-ordinated successfully. Part of the programme will be the establishment of new vehicles for the inter-city east coast franchise, which will replace the existing set of diesel-powered high-speed trains from 2018 onwards.

It is true that under the nationalised operating company, there has been an extended period of successful operation, but—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the new rolling stock is not linked to the refranchise?

[Mr Reid]

The Government are providing the money for the new rolling stock. Yes, it is perfectly possible that if the railway was to continue under the directly operated company that new rolling stock could still be provided.

Before the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) interrupted me, I said the word “but”, and I want to draw the House’s attention to one of the conclusions of the Brown review. It highlighted that any significant delay in the resumption of the franchising process could have a negative effect on investments involving rolling stock, upgrades and expansion and could result in some international suppliers deciding to make alternative investments outside the UK.

In a supporting letter from Mr Brown to the Transport Secretary, dated 31 December 2012, he wrote:

“I have come to the conclusion that the franchising system is not broken, but, on the contrary, it has made a major contribution to Britain’s increasingly successful rail network. There is no credible case for major structural change.”

That demonstrates that the operation of train services indefinitely by the directly operated company is not an alternative to our system. Direct operation is a key part of the private franchising model, but it was only ever meant to be a short-term mechanism as a measure of last resort.

We heard Labour Members arguing for the continuation of the directly operated model, but the Labour party is divided. By my count, we have two votes for nationalisation for ever, one for nationalisation for an indefinite period and, from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, one for “Don’t know”. I do not think I received an answer to my intervention, but if she wishes to clarify that I am perfectly happy to give way to her a second time. The resumption of the franchise process should take place at a speed and pace that works for the Department and allows it to make necessary improvements. That was one of the key proposals of the Brown review and is why the Department will now ensure that no more than three to four franchise competitions are delivered per year in total.

Let me conclude by reiterating the commitment from the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition Government, to the improvement of our railways. We and our coalition partners are determined to place the passenger at the heart of the rail system and deliver better value for money in the system following years of extreme inefficiency under Labour. That is why we are delivering the biggest investment in our railways since the Victorian era. The east coast franchise and the new vehicles that are coming with it are an important part of that investment package.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

But the crux of the matter is this: is it Labour party policy that this service should remain in public ownership for ever or simply for a temporary period that happens to be longer than the one the Government have set out?

[Graeme Morrice]

As I have just mentioned, we will hear from our Front Bencher on this shortly. My own view is that this should be for an indefinite period, but the clear blue water between us and the Government on this issue is that we support a successful public service, whereas the Liberal Democrats are as one with the Conservatives in supporting the privatisation of this service. We have to question the reason why. Has this been proposed for the right financial and service reasons, or is there another, perhaps more partisan, explanation?

I wish to raise a relatively straightforward issue of fact. In an answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister of State said that investment in the east coast main line’s infrastructure is not dependent on reprivatising passenger operations. He said:

“Funding for the 2014-19 upgrade of the east coast main line will be delivered through the Office of Rail Regulation approving a £240 million increase in the value of Network Rail’s regulatory access base. Network Rail may then borrow up to this amount to fund the upgrade works.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 2W.]

However, he has since asserted otherwise on a number of occasions. For example, at the Transport Committee meeting on 24 April he said:

“What I think is important, looking to the future, is how you make the needed and important investment in the East Coast Main Line to bring it up to scratch. You will be as aware as I am that part of the electrification is very antiquated and needs to be replaced and upgraded because it is causing significant problems to the quality of service. I do not believe that keeping the East Coast Main Line in public ownership is the most effective and swiftest way of getting that investment. I believe that returning the East Coast Main Line to a franchise operation offers the best opportunity to move forward. In addition, the Government and the rail industry, through Network Rail, are continuing to invest in the East Coast Main Line, but we need to accelerate that and increase it.”

Then, at Transport questions on 25 April, the Minister stated that

“yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]

Despite a number of hon. Members raising this with the Minister in the debate a fortnight ago, he failed to address this point in his reply. Therefore I would be grateful if he could now state once and for all whether any elements of replacing and upgrading the electrification on the east coast main line are dependent on the transfer of the operation of passenger services to the private sector. Similarly, it would be helpful if he could explain how this investment will be delivered more swiftly if reprivatisation takes place. Finally, can he provide more detail of the increased investment, over and above the taxpayers’ money being put into the line, that would be delivered as a result of privatisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I cannot speak about that as I was not here, but the fact is that we now conducting a thorough review of the how the railways are structured. East Coast should be kept as a not-for-dividend operator, and we are committed to doing that.

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, as I want to make some progress.

Decisions on rolling stock have been postponed and a lack of orders is hitting the supply chain, threatening jobs and skills. The National Audit Office has raised serious concerns over the Department for Transport’s ability to deliver major projects, including HS2, and the Thameslink rolling stock contract is only now being signed after an unacceptable three-year delay.

With that background, it is no surprise that the rail industry has been shaken with a loss of confidence in the franchising process, hurting not just those on the front line, but the wider industry as well. Instead of concentrating on the problems caused by the collapse of the west coast and Great Western tenders, the Government are selling off the one part of the network that is benefiting from an extended period of stability. The east coast line could benefit further if the Government only had the courage to support it. Management have prepared a five-year plan for improving services, but Ministers have damned East Coast with faint praise, conceding that it is doing a good job, yet pushing through their politically motivated timetable for privatisation.

As Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said this week, it makes no sense to reprivatise an East Coast service that is working. Let me quote the noble Lord:

“East Coast is doing a great job and it should be allowed to get on with it…It has an impressive performance record, it has a loyal customer following and it is making big payments back to the government from its profit—to keep fares down for the travelling public—without needing to pay dividends to private shareholders …The government’s decision to rig the franchising timetable to get this unnecessary privatisation under way is requiring them to agree costly extensions to other contracts, wasting tax-payers’ money.”

He is right, and I hope that the Government listen to that argument.

We now have an opportunity to learn lessons and improve the rail industry for the better. Ministers should proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and promote what works instead of relying on political dogma. So it is disappointing to see them repeating the mistakes of the 1990s, when the ill-thought-through privatisation of the rail industry left us with problems with which the network is still grappling today. Now we have this unneeded, unwanted, and unjustified privatisation of the east coast main line—a service that has quietly and successfully improved the quality of journeys; a not-for-dividend operator that has delivered good value for money and reinvested profits in the service, unlike the private operator that walked away. There is no financial or operational case for privatisation. It is a transparently political act from a Government who are prepared to risk undoing the progress of the recent past. Passengers deserve better. I hope that Ministers will listen to the arguments made in the House today and halt this costly and unnecessary privatisation.

Railways

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The fourth railway package is the latest effort by the European Commission to reform a European rail sector still dominated by state-owned railway businesses that control both tracks and trains. Most national domestic markets in Europe are largely closed—other than the UK, only Sweden has opened its rail markets. Because the UK already has an open market, it is unlikely that infrastructure separation proposals will have a significant impact in this country. However, the package offers new opportunities for UK operators to enter other European markets with the same ease that European operators have found when trying to enter the UK market. I understand that the package would not affect metro and light rail operations. That makes sense, and I hope the Minister will confirm that today.

I would like to raise a couple of concerns. First, the Commission is proposing to remove the existing exemption that allows the direct award of contracts that do not exceed 10 years. I believe that the 10-year period could be reduced, but there must still be a shorter exemption period to allow for the occasional need to extend rail public service contracts or combine them in a different manner. Even with our competitive tendering arrangements, the Government used that exemption following the cancellation of the competition for the inter-city west coast franchises. Furthermore, temporary arrangements for the east coast main line service, which has operated in the public sector since 2009, would no longer be allowed. We need an exemption that allows for temporary operation backed by the public sector.

My second concern is the proposal to centralise powers that currently rest with national safety authorities with the European Railway Agency, as that seems to conflict with the subsidiarity principle. The move from a two-certificate system to the issuing of one safety certificate makes sense, as do proposals to standardise administrative measures across all European Union agencies. I do not, however, see the need to shift responsibility for issuing those safety certificates from national safety agencies to the European Railway Agency—NSAs will be far better able to appreciate circumstances in their own countries than the ERA. I hope that those issues can be satisfactorily resolved, and I support the Government’s aims as laid down in the motion.