Transport: Women’s Safety

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I completely agree with recruiting women to the front line. It is also important to have a staff presence where that is feasible. I am very encouraged, for example, by Transport for London’s commitment to take staff out of the ticket offices and put them out on the platforms and places where the passengers are. However, if we were to man every station at all hours at all times, we would unfortunately have to close stations because of the inherent cost.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

Does the Minister share my concerns about the cycle rickshaws or pedicabs that operate in parts of central London? Unlicensed, the drivers are not required to be trained or insured; nor do they undergo CRB checks. Do the Government intend to take up the recommendation of the Law Commission and create local authority licensing for them?

[Baroness Kramer]

My noble friend is absolutely right: the Law Commission has provided some instructive direction on this. We received the Law Commission’s report in May. We will be following up on that and providing our response shortly. As she knows, the situation on licensing is somewhat different in London from elsewhere.

Transport: Bus Services

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for tabling and introducing today’s debate, which has become a sort of annual fixture. It is a real pity that the importance of buses to the public is not reflected in the interest that the House takes in public transport generally and buses in particular. It is not just a courtesy at this point to say how much I welcome the presence of my noble friend Lady Kramer at the Dispatch Box. I have known the noble Baroness for many years and I know that her hands-on experience of transport, particularly the financing of it, is going to be of real benefit to the House, to the department and to the Government, so she is very welcome.

I wish to focus my few remarks today on the question of rural bus services, which is a topic close to my heart. Like many Members of this House, I split my time between my home in the country in a village of fewer than 200 people, and my flat in London, which is close to a main road along which around a dozen services run about every five minutes during the day and then continue to run through the night, so the contrast is very stark. About seven years ago when the gentleman who is now my husband first came to see me in Suffolk, he asked the Londoners’ question: “When is the next bus?”. “Thursday”, I told him. “We don’t need real-time passenger information; we just need a calendar”. Now my village does not have a bus service at all and I do not have a problem with that. When I was first elected to the county council in 1993, I recall looking at bus routes where the per-passenger subsidy was greater than a taxi fare, and that is clearly untenable. However, people who live in small villages still need to access services and not everyone can run a car. In my village the answer has come in the form of demand-responsive transport. It is called Suffolk Links and it is run by a not-for-dividend-profit organisation called Optua. Using a mixture of paid and volunteer staff it provides a very good service to villages like mine and, while it is not as convenient as a car, it is very much better than a weekly bus and much cheaper than a taxi.

These demand-responsive services are suffering from a combination of local authority cuts, regulatory burdens and an unhelpful financial regime, so I would appreciate it if the noble Baroness could perhaps write to me setting out what the Government’s current thinking is on the demand-responsive transport sector. It is becoming quite urgent as there is now very real pressure on these services because of the withdrawal of bus services from larger communities which in my day on the council would not have been considered marginal. Central government cuts to local authorities and to the bus operators’ support grant, along with changes to the concessionary fares scheme, have meant that many services are no longer seen as viable. Close to us in Suffolk is the village of Stowupland. It has a population of around 1,800 so it is a decent size. Due to its previously good bus links—it had an hourly service—it has a large population of retired people. There are also quite a number of people in the village living in socially rented housing. Having lost their weekend and evening services some time ago, First has recently announced the withdrawal of all bus services from the village. This is a terrible blow to the many people who rely totally on buses will have a major impact on the fabric of the village.

Lest noble Lords think that I am focusing too much on Suffolk, North Yorkshire County Council is consulting on a proposal to cut a further 25% of bus support, and Dorset 28%. In Norfolk, the popular Coasthopper service is to be cut by a third; that is perhaps what my noble friend Lord Bradshaw was referring to. These are all rural counties and many small communities will be badly hit by this level of cuts. We need to remember that 10% of the rural population does not have access to a car. Those people will suffer increased isolation and have real problems trying to access essential services. It is all very well for the Chancellor to stand up at his conference and say that jobseekers are going to have to go to the jobcentre daily, but how on earth are rural claimants to get there? There is a desperate lack of joined-up thinking in all of this.

As another example, most Suffolk villages, even the smallest, have a group of a dozen or so council houses which were built after the war. They were built at a time when land was cheap and families were larger, so on the whole they are quite big. It is therefore not always easy to find tenants for them. Having no access to bus services is not going to make it any easier to find tenants for these houses, especially when you couple that with the changes to housing benefit, which are making larger properties much harder to let.

I would like the noble Baroness to outline for us how the Government’s role in bus policy is currently being defined. Is there still a role for government or is it simply being left to a combination of market forces and cash-strapped local authorities to deal with? I wonder whether the Department for Transport is aware that there is a real perception that the Government are no longer supportive of the bus industry and its needs. We have heard the questions about the changes to the concessionary fares scheme and the bus service operators grant, which have not helped the bus industry one bit. The mood music really is important. For example, Eric Pickles’ proposal that people should be allowed to park on the road for 15 minutes is just plain daft. A succession of cars parking for 15 minutes is as bad as one being parked there for the whole day. If it blocks the road and makes the smooth running of buses and cars and safe pedestrian crossing more difficult, it is a very silly idea. Billing it as a pro-high street measure reveals a failure to understand the dynamics of people and traffic on high streets.

There is another area about which I am concerned, and I would be interested to know whether the department has had consultations and discussions with the Department for Education and the Department for Transport on home-to-school transport. In rural areas this has always been provided by a combination of large and small operators using the same buses on the school runs and the service runs. As the services are disappearing, the school runs by themselves will almost certainly not be viable for the operators. This is particularly key where there are smaller operators in the rural areas, because they are the ones who are finding the going tough and withdrawing from the industry altogether. Councils have a statutory obligation to provide home-to-school transport, so they could, ironically, end up having to run a bus fleet in order to get children to school, which would be very much more expensive than subsidising transport. I would like to know a little more about that.

Finally, it would of course be churlish not to welcome the Government’s Better Bus Areas programme, particularly the announcement today. My heart sings for Merseyside and so on. However, my plea to the Government, particularly to the noble Baroness, is not to forget rural areas. People rely on buses and they will be badly impacted by these changes.

Railways: East Anglia Network

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for investment in the rail network in East Anglia.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I thought that I would start with a Michael Caine moment. Not a lot of people know this, but the east of England is one of only two regions that make a net contribution to the Treasury. That is quite interesting, because when people talk about English regions, they talk about Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle. They do not think about Norwich, Chelmsford and Ipswich. It is a really impressive feat, particularly when you consider the rather poor investment in road and rail infrastructure that the east of England has had for the past half-century.

I wish to focus my comments today on just part of the region: the counties of Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex and of course my home county of Suffolk. I am really pleased to see that those areas are all represented by speakers in today’s debate. Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire are of course within the eastern region in government terms, but in rail terms they are quite a separate region, so I will leave them to one side. I want to try to make the case for more strategic investment in our region. Given her background, I know that the Minister will bring a real understanding of the issue and of the importance of investment.

Many parts of our regional rail infrastructure have had no modernisation in the past half-century. Much of the rolling stock is now 40 years old. Recent problems with the franchise holders and now with the franchise process itself have resulted in a miserable passenger experience for far too many people in our region. Passengers are being asked to pay higher fares every year, but experience a worse service overall. The award of an interim franchise to Greater Anglia, which has now been extended for a short period, has meant that investment in rolling stock, which is so desperately needed, cannot be made. It has improved the reliability of the service, but faces an uphill struggle against problems caused by poor infrastructure; notably signalling, which brought the entire line into London to a complete halt on Tuesday this week. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on the question of the franchise for our region.

It does not have to be like this. A few years ago, one of the very worst areas in our region was the misery line from Southend to Fenchurch Street, which has now been transformed by new investment. Right through the region and particularly on the main lines, keeping costs down in the old BR days resulted in a number of inadequate stretches of track. I am really pleased that some of these false economies have now been rectified. It is not on the tip of everyone's tongue, but the completion of the Beccles loop, which cost £4 million, has been transformative. On the East Suffolk line, usage has gone up 12% since December, because the Beccles loop and the associated signalling have enabled an hourly train service to run. That indicates how a relatively modest investment can pay dividends.

The eastern regional economy is driven by centres of growth in Cambridge, Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, supported by the market towns and their rural hinterland. Our region also plays a key part in driving forward the capital’s economy. That is especially true of Essex. At its most basic, without the tens of thousands of people who endure a daily commute into London from Essex, our entire economy would grind to a halt. Cambridge, Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Harlow are already hubs of science, innovation and new technology.

East Anglia’s ports have an unparalleled opportunity to develop the offshore energy industry. Felixstowe is already the fourth largest container port in the world and has created around 40,000 jobs in the area. If it is to compete with Antwerp and Rotterdam, it needs infrastructure that is fit for purpose. Some improvements have been made, but further improvement to the Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight corridor is an essential part of ensuring the continued growth, given the congestion on the adjacent A14. Investment in the Ipswich chord is another good start but we need to continue investing. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place today and speaking in this debate. He has done more to keep rail freight on the agenda than anyone else in the country.

East Anglia is one of the fastest-growing parts of the UK. Both commuters and long-distance travellers are growing in number on all the routes under discussion, both to London and between towns and cities in the region. More housing is planned—about 360,000 more houses in the four counties over the next planning period. When I talk to planners across the region, they say that they are concentrating the building, the new-housing growth, in areas with good access to the rail network. Of course, this is good transport planning, but only if the network has the capacity to cope with the growth.

Network Rail is currently basing assumptions on a 75% growth in passenger use over the next 30 years. This simply does not accord with the growth in recent years, and is considered by people who know to be a serious underestimate. The burgeoning economic strength of the region is being increasingly threatened by gridlock, congestion, and capacity shortfall on the network. Local business and quality of life are being undermined. Rail investment has transformed other parts of East Anglia.

I have mentioned the misery line, but the introduction of the Cambridge express service and other improvements on the King’s Lynn-to-London route have made a massive difference. They can unlock areas for sustainable housing and business growth. We need significant but not unrealistic investment in additional infrastructure and rolling stock, including tackling congestion in and around London Liverpool Street and lines to the north through north London, Essex, and Hertfordshire.

In Cambridgeshire, the Ely North junction is a bottleneck which causes problems throughout the network in our part of the region. This really needs to be unlocked to allow the growth of regionally significant routes, including freight. In Suffolk, a passing loop at Wickham Market would further improve the East Suffolk line and will be absolutely essential if Sizewell C gets the go-ahead. This needs to be coupled with more frequent inter-regional services.

A longer-term aspiration for the region, and one which has been talked about since long before I first came into local government in the early 1990s, is the east-west rail link, a link between Cambridge and Oxford. It is not about linking the two old rivals but about providing access between the south-west and south Midlands to the east of the country in a way which bypasses London and releases valuable capacity there.

The rolling stock on the main line is simply not fit for purpose. The Great Eastern main line is badly in need of new intercity stock or new and refurbished trains. We have a hotchpotch of rolling stock which has been scraped together from the rejects of other areas. It has an average age of 25 years. Greater Anglia has made some improvements in cleanliness which are greatly welcome, but, with the uncertainty of the franchise in recent years, travelling on our main line trains can be a pretty unpleasant experience, with tatty seats, malfunctioning doors, and, even worse, malfunctioning toilets.

It is not really just about the links between the main towns and cities. I live close to a market town, and I am very well aware not only of how important rail is to the prosperity of my town but also of the importance of branch lines to many of the smaller market towns. These lines across our four counties offer commuter, tourism, and everyday travel opportunities for communities. This connectivity can be further exploited to offer further economic opportunities and housing growth if the services were faster and more frequent.

Services are operated with basic trains, which, in many cases, have serious accessibility constraints. Line speeds are often poor and impaired by issues such as single sections and level crossings. Experience has shown that improving core services, frequency, speed, and so on vastly increases rail usage. The many different users of the lines to Southminster, Braintree, Sudbury, Harwich, Felixstowe, and so on would all increase in number if these constraints were improved.

These lines have been much promoted by thriving community rail partnerships, such as the Crouch Valley, the Gainsborough, Mayflower, Wherry, and Bittern lines. There are 11 community rail lines in Suffolk which have been really successful in raising the profile of the railway locally and in some cases doubling the number of passengers using them. Just to echo the point made by the Minister in the previous debate on buses, they really show the value of harnessing local involvement, because community rail partnerships are harnessing this enthusiasm, recruiting volunteers to work with local authorities in the rail industry, securing improvements to the appearance of stations, and so on. It has involved a lot of hard work by dedicated people.

But they can only go so far and in the end it comes down to the need for the continuation and security of local authority funding to keep the work of these community rail partnerships going, and the need for additional rolling stock to accommodate the greater number of passengers being carried.

I hope I have been able in this brief time to make a case for more investment in our thriving region and for the fact that it could produce even more revenue for the Exchequer than it currently does. I look forward to hearing contributions from other noble Lords and from my noble friend the Minister.

Railways: High Speed 2

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, this is the second time this week that I have found myself engaged in the parliamentary equivalent of speed dating—but here we go. High Speed 2 is not about shaving a few moments off the journey time between Birmingham and London. To really appreciate its true economic value, it has to be seen in the context of a national plan with links to both local schemes and European networks. Despite a highly disruptive £10 billion upgrade, the west coast main line has little room for additional trains while demand on the route has grown over 50% in the last decade and is forecast to keep growing. The challenge of operating long-distance commuter and freight services on the same line is almost insurmountable without further expensive and disruptive work.

Capacity released by HS2 will improve services to many West Midlands towns and into Wales. The east-west rail link for which I have campaigned for 15 years could become a reality. Phase 2 could relieve pressure on the east coast main line and avoid work, for example, on the Welwyn viaduct. With the amount of freight coming into UK ports increasing at 6% per annum, extra rail capacity is needed to prevent more HGVs on our roads. HS2 can be co-ordinated with local transport schemes and housing growth—for example, the new HSR station at Birmingham Moor Street as part of a local regeneration scheme, or the new station at London Old Oak Common providing a link into the City and east London. Experience from the Jubilee line extension shows that these benefits have traditionally been underestimated in conventional BCR analysis.

There is a growing network of European cities connected by high-speed rail, from which the UK outside London and the south-east is currently excluded. This is despite the growing evidence that it is successful at reducing journeys by air. High-speed rail can form an important part of our aviation policy in other ways. For example, Heathrow should be linked to places outside London via high-speed rail. Accessibility to Manchester in phase 2 could make a huge difference to its viability. Indeed, under phase 1, Birmingham Airport will be closer in time to London than will Stansted. The Government need better ways of capturing these benefits and of quantifying the cost of inaction. Applying expensive and disruptive sticking plasters to the west coast main line is not a viable option. We need to create a coherent vision for transport which extends 30 years into the future, as our European neighbours have done. Only then will we have a transport system that will deliver a dynamic economy. Everyone says we need to invest in infrastructure for growth. Let us not talk ourselves out of delivering it.

Vehicles: Insurance

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

I thank my noble friend for a very sensible suggestion. However, under the new system of continuous enforcement insurance the vehicle keeper will have to insure the vehicle or declare it to be off the road by means of a Statutory Off Road Notice. If the keeper does neither, a fixed-penalty notice for £100 will be issued. This will strip out the softer evader, leaving a smaller group of more persistent evaders for the police to target on the road. Another little difficulty with my noble friend’s suggestion is, of course, that the insurance may have been cancelled due to non-payment of the premiums.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, the number of young people who have been found to be driving without insurance has halved in the past three years, which is very welcome, but the very high cost of insurance for young people is proving very difficult for many of them. What discussions are the Government having with the insurance industry to make life a little easier for young drivers?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point. On 2 May, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport hosted a cross-government insurance summit with the insurance industry to take stock of the action taken since the Prime Minister’s summit in February to reduce the cost of motor insurance. We are working closely with the industry to outline further measures being taken to reduce premiums.

European Rail Market: EUC Report

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for so ably introducing today’s debate, and should like to say how much I look forward to being a member of EU Sub-Committee B as a refugee from my spiritual home of Sub-Committee G.

For much of its long history the Channel Tunnel was primarily thought of as an Anglo-French or Franco-English enterprise, and its construction pretty much entirely predates European Union rail policy. The report highlights very well how utterly that context has changed, and how poorly the single rail market functions across Europe because of what I would charitably describe as patchy compliance with the liberalisation agenda. It is interesting to speculate on whether the tunnel’s current operation itself is a hindrance to growth or a victim of the conformity of much of the rest of Europe to liberalisation.

Personally, although I have a scintilla of sympathy with the view of the Office of the Rail Regulator—which cautioned against revising the treaty of Canterbury on the understandable grounds that the protracted nature of the process would divert attention away from more immediate issues facing the railway—I believe that so much has changed in the quarter century since it was signed that a review is inevitable. The sub-committee has done a great service in highlighting some areas where the governance is working against passenger interests and those of freight. Of course an adverse EU ruling on the tunnel’s arrangements and whether they conform to rail legislation might force the matter, so perhaps I may gently suggest to the Government that they look at jumping before they are pushed.

The stated objective of the EU and, indeed, of the UK Government is to see a transfer from short-haul flights to rail. That is certainly understandable from a climate change point of view. However, setting that aside, it makes sense to make better use of the very limited capacity at our busy airports. Whatever we think about an extra runway at Heathrow or increasing capacity elsewhere—or even “Boris Island”—it will take years to get that sort of extra capacity. Therefore, making better use of rail is a sensible part of aviation strategy. The enthusiasm of Deutsche Bahn to develop routes between Amsterdam, Frankfurt and London is a good example. I hope that progress can be made on the scheme, which is currently mired in what look suspiciously like restrictive practices.

I was compelled by evidence given to the committee by The Man in Seat Sixty-One. It chimed with my personal experience that reducing carbon emissions is not a major incentive for people to switch to rail; they are deterred by the stress and time involved in airport checks, the delays to air travel and the extra charges that are often well hidden until you are a long way into the process. To that, I would add the time and expense of travelling to and from major airports. Heathrow Express is a lovely service but—my goodness—at £34 for a standard return fare, it is very expensive. The Man in Seat Sixty-One estimates that these factors account for 80% of the incentive to switch to rail, and climate change only 20%. What I conclude from that is that the desired modal shift will not just happen because people will have an attack of green consciousness but because it will be easier for them. We will have to work on that.

The good news is that clearly there is capacity in the tunnel. I was struck by that two years ago when the volcanic ash cloud halted air travel all over Europe. The Channel Tunnel provided a much needed and very valued way to move passengers at a difficult time. However, it was only able to do so because it was so underused. The initial forecasts of 17 million to 20 million passengers a year proved wildly optimistic, with today’s figure being in the region of 9 million to 10 million. As we have heard, the evidence is that less than 50% of passenger capacity is being used, and 10% of freight capacity. I am not aware of any capacity issues on the road network on either side of the tunnel that would prevent growth in usage, nor on the High Speed 1 side—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are issues in northern France. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government are addressing these with the French Government.

Competition is undoubtedly the best way to get a good deal for passengers, and I share many concerns expressed in the report about the potential for the current arrangements utterly to distort competition. Access charges are high, and make freight travel in particular simply not competitive with travel by sea—or even, as we have heard, with travel through the tunnel. The access charge alone for a passenger on Eurostar is £32. That will severely restrict its competitiveness against air travel

The decision-making process is riddled with conflicts of interest. One is the involvement of the UK and French Governments through the IGC. The bureaucratic nature of decision-making makes change very difficult. The report is right to call for a more transparent system to determine whether high access charges can be justified, taking into account the fact that Eurotunnel is solely reliant on access charges for its income, and to deal with its historic debt. Of course, it gets no public subsidy. A more transparent system would give clarity about how charges are allocated between users, which is crucial given Eurotunnel’s role as both an infrastructure provider and operator. It may be that independent regulation is the answer.

Yesterday’s press carried reports of the ruling by a French commercial tribunal that approved Eurotunnel’s purchase of three ferries from the liquidated Sea France ferry company. Eurotunnel will continue to employ the 560 former workers and run the services. This may be welcome for the workers, but it adds another layer of complexity to the nature of the charging and competition regime. I would not be surprised if the EU competition authorities did not take an interest.

Like the noble Baroness, I am very concerned about the insistence that the tunnel maintain its own safety standards rather than the EU-wide TSIs. This is being used as a barrier to new entrants to the market, and I would like to see more evidence that after all this time the tunnel requires bespoke standards. The comparison with tunnels elsewhere is valid. My noble friend Lord Fearn recently received a Written Answer that stated that there were 64 accidents in the Channel Tunnel last year. Will the Minister say how this compares with tunnels elsewhere, and what it says about the operation of separate standards?

I was persuaded by the evidence that the so-called juxtaposed border controls should be looked at again in terms of the time and cost of operating them to both passengers and rail operators. The feasibility of on-board passenger and passport checks is an advantage that rail has over air which ought not to be lost. I am pleased to see that the Home Office, at least, looks open to it.

I have looked at this issue from the point of view of modal shift—there are many dimensions to it— and I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords, although I can see that this will be one of those debates in which there is a huge amount of agreement.

Roads: Private Investment

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I regularly used to use the bit of road that my noble friend refers to. Particularly impressive was the rate at which the construction project went ahead. It had all the signs of an efficient process.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, given that the objective of government is to encourage the investment of private finance in the transport sector, do the alternatives include the slightly less risky idea of creating a fund into which private investors can put money to invest in a portfolio of transport projects both new and existing?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am not quite sure about the exact proposal that my noble friend puts forward, but we are looking at all options and I will be grateful for any input from noble Lords into possible models.

Railways: High-speed Rail

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that opposition to the scheme is waning in the light of the work done by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and her predecessor, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, might have done a little bit of work on the side as well. We must not forget that the duty of MPs is to represent their constituents.

The noble Lord asked about the important question of connectivity between HS2 and HS1. The North London line, to which he referred, will support at least three trains per hour in each direction while also maintaining the current service levels. Some gauge clearance will be necessary to accommodate the wider and taller HS2 trains on the North London line. We are confident that this can be achieved with minimal impacts on the local community and rail services.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and, more importantly, the commitment to go ahead with the project. Does the Minister agree that if we are going to spend this amount of public money in these difficult times, it is very important that the public should have a general sense that this is a good thing; and that rather than the argument being entirely hijacked by questions of shaving minutes off journey times between London and Birmingham, we need to keep referring to the line in the context of a very important scheme to link the whole country together and then on to Europe? I am sure the Minister would agree that had Brunel started the Great Western line by saying that he was building the Maidenhead link, nobody would have been very inspired.

[Earl Attlee]

I agree with my noble friend. It is a capacity problem that we are trying to address. If we do not do something, we will run out of capacity on the west coast main line.

Transport: London and the Regions

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for securing this evening’s short debate. Many noble Lords will know that I live in Suffolk. It is not far away; Ipswich is about an hour and 10 minutes from London Liverpool Street, and Norwich, at the far end of the mainline, is two hours away. It is only 120 miles, but it takes as long as it does to get to Brussels. Nevertheless, many people in the east of England commute into London to work, and many have organised their lives around having a good and reliable rail service between East Anglia and London.

Until 2004 we were certainly well served, with Anglia Railways running intercity services and First Great Eastern running commuter services. From Ipswich into London, the competition between the two meant that our service continued to improve. In 2004, the franchise was merged and won by National Express, which called the new service One. It was an inauspicious start. Passengers on the platform would hear an announcement for the seven 20 one train. Was it the train operated by One at 7.20, was it the only train going at 7.20, or was it a train going at 21 minutes past seven? Nobody knew; there was utter confusion and within just a few months there was a huge rebranding exercise. Sadly, things did not get any better.

Passenger satisfaction with the service is the second lowest in the UK at 79 per cent. I am not surprised that the figure is so low, because I have observed a steady decline in basics such as cleanliness, the presentation of the trains and the catering service. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that this particular part of the rich south-east does not get good rolling stock; it is very old, and when we get new train sets they are always hand-me-downs from other operators. The only redeeming feature is the cheerfulness and helpfulness of the staff who have to put up with all this and offer a good service.

The performance on the line stands at about 90 per cent, which is obviously a major concern for both passengers and the operator. The line is dogged by basic infrastructure problems such as track circuit failures, broken rails, faulty points and signal failures. When you add to those the usual problems such as weather, trespass, fatalities on the line and, most recently, cable theft, it makes travelling on the line highly unpredictable. For lengthy hold-ups, of course, we have the great Delay Repay system but, unlike all other train operators, National Express does not offer an automatic refund to its season ticket holders, who have to claim it. For the rest of the passengers, if they claim compensation, it comes in the form of vouchers, which can be used only in a ticket office. With fewer stations having staffed offices and passengers having to use machines and the internet, the compensation vouchers are useless. It is no wonder that passengers are fed up.

We were all pleased when National Express lost the franchise and we look forward to the new franchisee, Abellio, starting up on 5 February. It has the franchise for 25 months, until the results of the franchise review can be implemented. It is a good company, and most of us are pleased that it is taking over. The new 15-year franchise terms that come in after that are very welcome and will provide a much greater incentive for investment in the franchise.

I know that the DfT has announced that the new franchise will bring significant improvements to the cleanliness of the trains, passenger information, parking, cycling and public transport connections. However, unless there is serious investment in the infrastructure, Abellio and East Anglia commuters will face an uphill struggle. I wonder if the noble Earl can say anything about any work that Network Rail plans to improve the track and signalling on our line.

The contract for the new franchise was due to be signed today, and I guess it has already happened. So it was with some concern that I read an article in Modern Railways which suggested that Abellio are in discussions with the ROSCO, Angel Trains, to reduce the amount of rolling stock on the line. It is talking about reducing the capacity by 4,000 peak-hour seats. Can the noble Earl confirm whether this is correct? If so, how was the decision made and what assessment was made of current passenger numbers, future growth and the safety and comfort of passengers? In addition, I would be interested to hear whether the decision was made before or after the franchise was awarded to Abellio. If it was before, were the other two bidders in the process allowed to rebid on the basis of this reduced fleet?

This line is an essential part of the infrastructure of the east of England. It plays a hugely important role in the economic prosperity of our region and desperately needs long-term investment, both on the part of the rail operator and of Network Rail. In the short term, of course, it will be highly visible in next year’s Olympics.

Localism Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

That is all I ask. I know the Minister well enough to know that when she says this she means it. All I am asking is, please, put it clearly on the face of the Bill; and if there is a better way that the principle can be enshrined clearly in the legislation, I would be more than happy to be so guided and withdraw this amendment and what it entails. I ask the Minister to give this House a clear undertaking that this fundamental promise of fairness, not merely to local authorities but to everyone in this country, will be clearly enshrined.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, like many other noble Lords I share the concerns expressed about these provisions. I want to start by asking the Government to give us an absolute assurance that they are confident that legally an EU fine levied on a member state can then be passed on to a local authority. I am not entirely sure that that is the case and would appreciate being given some comfort that it is true. My personal preference would be to see these clauses deleted, because I am not sure that the Government entirely realise what a can of worms they are opening. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, talked about where it is clear who is to blame, but EU fines would be levied only for a huge infraction—for example, in connection with air quality. It is almost inconceivable that it would be easy to point a finger and say that a particular person or organisation was responsible.

In fact, a large number of organisations would be responsible. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Berkley, reminds me of the situation within the rail industry, where there are hundreds of people employed to do nothing but allocate blame. Every time a train is late, they go into a little huddle and work out whether it was the fault of Network Rail or the operator. When I am stuck on a train, I do not much care. This Bill is supposed to connect people with local politicians. We could have a situation where legal arguments drag on for years and cost millions of pounds while arbitrators try to sort out exactly who is responsible for the air quality of London. In that case, who will pay the fine? The public will look with bemusement while this goes on and they will rightly ask, “Why on earth did you not spend that money trying to deal with air quality rather than have this huge legal battle?”. I hope that the Government will think carefully about exactly what they are trying to do here.

Finally, it is a great pity that the whole dialogue and ethos of fining goes against everything we should be trying to do in terms of relationships between central and local government. It should be about looking at the best ways of resolving problems, not about allocating blame in this way and certainly not about allocating fines.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, a number of us mentioned this matter at Second Reading. One of the longest lists of noble Lords spoke in that debate and addressed the problem of these EU fines. I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but the most important factor we are dealing with is that the Secretary of State is an interested party, whether he or she likes it or not. Therefore, it cannot rest with the Secretary of State to decide how to deal with this EU fine if it emerges. It has never happened yet, but it may one day. It was my noble friend Lord Teverson, I think, who said the Secretary of State was not just judge and jury, but prosecutor and executioner. That puts it extremely well.

I have put my name to the amendments moved and spoken to most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and to the longer amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner. Both recognise, first, that there can be no allocation until there is responsibility, and, secondly, that it cannot be the Minister who does that; there has to be a process of arbitration. We are in the middle of a negotiation outside this House between local authorities, led to some extent by the Greater London Authority and the London boroughs and the department. What we hope to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench is exactly what is happening there; what stage have these negotiations reached? Are we in the process of getting some sort of reasonable settlement? Clearly in Committee like this we do not take a final decision when we are, as the Romans said, “in medias res”. We are in the middle of the affair, so we need to know what the Government have in mind and what negotiations have been going on, where they have got to and when they expect to reach a reasonable conclusion.

I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that the solution is not to delete the whole part of the Bill. I heard what my noble friend Lord Tope said on this, but the fact is, bluntly, if there is a serious infraction of a European directive, whether on air quality, water quality or whatever else, is it to fall solely upon taxpayers in general, even if it is perfectly possible to point the finger at the individual authority? At Second Reading, I quoted the example of a directive on waste and the position if a particular local authority was consistently failing to comply. Is it really being seriously suggested that the general body of taxpayers should contribute to the fine?

Of course, the purpose of all these things, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, is to encourage authorities and everybody else to comply with the regulations. That is what is intended but, as I asked in my Second Reading speech, as regards the problem of Heathrow, who is responsible for the air pollution? Noble Lords will have seen reports in the press today of the increase in stacking over Heathrow in the four stacking areas, which is materially adding to air pollution in London. They said it is because Heathrow has been forbidden to expand. I and I think most noble Lords actually support that. Successive Governments and parties have taken that decision, but who is going to pay if it leads to an EU fine? It seems unfair that the whole body of taxpayers should pay.

There has to be some reasonable, fair, proportionate solution and it is my understanding that that is what the discussions are trying to find. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench is going to be able to help us. I am sure I am not the only one who received a paper from the Greater London Authority with a document saying “possible policy statement text” with a summary and a number of key principles. It says:

“The use of these provisions must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. There will be an Independent Review Panel. There will be no surprises, and authorities will have opportunities to make representations. Decisions must be evidence-based and transparent”.

It goes on:

“Authorities will not be held responsible for breaches that were not within their power to avert and will only be fined if they have demonstrably caused or contributed to the fine and can afford to pay”.

I find it rather a difficult document to absorb but it sets out a substantial flow chart, which I am sure other noble Lords have seen, that shows the number of stages—opportunities for appeal, occasions when notice must be given and so on—whereby an authority might become liable. We need to know more about this. However, I am inclined to agree with those who say that it is not sufficient simply to send it all away. We must recognise that if there is a fine, there must be some mechanism for dealing with the matter.

I refer briefly to Amendment 117A in my name, which was suggested to me by one of the big water authorities. These are now private undertakings and have expressed concerns as to whether Clause 36 applies to them. It is a question of whether a water authority that was found, for instance, to have breached the urban waste water treatment directive—possibly as a result of the discharge of sewage into the Thames—would be liable to having a fine imposed on it. I understand that the Government are quite sympathetic to this and that it is not the intention that private undertakings should bear any part of this. Part of the reason for this, which was explained to me by the water companies, is that they are already subject to stringent regulatory controls by the Government. If they comply with those controls, they should be within the law. If they fail to comply, it is open to the regulators to take proceedings against them to make them comply.

Thames Water, for example, has long been concerned about the amount of sewage that can periodically overflow and run into the Thames, with discharges the whole way along. As a result, Thames Water is now planning—work is well under way—to establish a long sewage pipeline under the Thames, for most of its length, which will eventually discharge into the sewage treatment plant at Beckton. This is a huge project, which involves lengthy tunnelling and must avoid all the other tunnels that pass under the Thames. Thames Water is doing what it feels is justified. Therefore, it feels it would be a monstrous infraction to have to pay an EU fine because of a breach of the water directive. I hope my noble friend will be able to give me some comfort on that.