Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Brian Binley Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

My right hon. Friend is an astute parliamentarian and he takes every opportunity to raise the dualling of the A1 in his constituency. The Government have already made significant investments on that road, and I am sure that the next Government will see what more can be done to speed up travel through his beautiful constituency.

However, we have serious reservations about the model proposed by the Labour party today. As I have said, the Armitt review was clearly a genuine effort, from a well-respected source, to find a solution to the long-term infrastructure challenges that our country faces. None the less, its recommendations appear to establish a rigid, process-driven and bureaucratic body. There is a danger that this type of bureaucracy would stifle the innovative process needed to resolve the challenges facing UK infrastructure.

Establishing such a commission would also present significant complexities. For example, the commission’s assessment would be debated in the House and if the majority disagree with one aspect of the assessment and vote against it, the whole process, as we understand it, would have to start all over again. This kind of to-and-fro is clearly not what is intended by the proposals, and the uncertainty that would follow could be detrimental to the environment for infrastructure investment. There are other areas of the proposed commission about which we have real misgivings—not least the new powers that would enable the Government to give directions and guidance to independent economic regulators. This could severely threaten the trust investors have in the stability of the UK’s regulatory regime.

In conclusion on new clause 3, the Government have already begun to tackle some of the barriers to delivery, and this has led to £460 billion-worth of public and private investment planned over the course of the next Parliament and beyond. While the Government welcome public discussion and ideas for infrastructure strategy, changing the way we oversee and set UK infrastructure strategy must not be something we rush into without due care and thought. The concept of a national infrastructure commission proposed by the Opposition remains an unproven and untested idea.

Let me deal now with new clause 16, about protection for pubs, which I know has aroused a good deal of interest around the House. The Government are certainly aware of this strength of feeling, and as a constituency MP, I deeply understand people’s concerns that pubs that are valued by the community could be lost to them because of the regulatory environment in the planning system and elsewhere, which has not supported the community in the past. Several years ago, I campaigned in my constituency to save a pub called the Ashley Court hotel in St Andrew’s in Bristol, and there was nothing we could do about it as planning law stood at that time—back in 2008. We could not stop the pub’s owner from selling it to a housing developer, which demolished the pub, one of the best viewing platforms in the whole of the city of Bristol.

Now, however, there is protection in the national planning policy framework and in the Localism Act 2011, enabling people to list an asset as one of community value. The most popular use of this asset of community value legislation is for public houses, and we propose to go even further today.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is not the argument that the Minister has just made the perfect argument for new clause 16?

[Stephen Williams]

It is not, because the planning use class orders deal with the totality of asset use classes right across the country. What most of us would be concerned about—whether in Northampton or Bristol—is whether the assets of real value to our constituents, such as the pubs that are truly popular and provide a wide community benefit, whether or not they have a community hall, are at risk. That is more important than dealing with every single pub, whatever the circumstances. If my hon. Friend listens to what I have to say, I hope he will be reassured.

I draw attention to the written ministerial statement laid today by me and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is responsible for community pubs, on the introduction of secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity to build on the existing protections to help communities preserve those pubs that benefit the community the most.

As part of our steps to strengthen community rights, we have already given local people the opportunity to nominate assets to be placed on a local register of assets of community value—those assets that are most important to them. More than 1,800 sites have been listed in this way, over 600 of which have been pubs, making them by far the most popular type of asset to be listed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

Precisely for the reasons just outlined in an intervention from the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who has a very good record of campaigning in this area. A blanket protection for every single public house in the country, which is what the new clause envisages, would protect pubs that for various reasons are no longer enjoying the patronage of the community. In my constituency, lots of pubs have closed, but it is usually because of demographic change. Some parts of my constituency, which had a “white working-class community” 20 or 30 years ago, are now populated primarily by recently arrived Somalis and other people. Obviously the pubs in those areas have closed, and some have been converted to other uses, but some of them are still derelict. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that in all those circumstances, whatever they might be, full planning permission should be required simply to change the use of a former pub to something that may be of benefit to the community?

The Government are proposing to look at the public houses that are genuinely popular and valued by the community now, giving them the protection that is already allowed under the Localism Act, and further enhancing that protection under the planning laws, saying, “You cannot convert this pub into another use or demolish it without planning permission.” That should address all the worries that people rightly have about the pubs that really are important to them.

[Mr Binley]

Does my hon. Friend not realise that if a pub is boarded up and the issue goes to the local authority, the local authority will want to move pretty quickly to stop a building becoming derelict? That is not a problem, but does he also recognise that the owner of the building is often not the owner of the business that operates inside that building? Does he therefore share my concern that in certain cases pubcos in particular have sold out even though there was a need locally for the pub to exist?

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Brian Binley Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The head of the British Ceramic Confederation, Laura Cohen, and a group of its members, who employ thousands of people in this country in important industries, wrote to the Prime Minister last year to highlight just that point. They said that there was much greater volatility in prices for industry in the United Kingdom than elsewhere and that that volatility was unacceptably high. They said that the solution was more gas storage and that a public service obligation on gas storage was required.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I have battled on the same side on this issue for a number of years. In fact, I have been battling on this issue for most of the time I have been in this place. Does he, like me, hope that we will hear something more positive from the Government this evening than we have heard to date? The Labour Government and this Government have prevaricated consistently on the issue of storage. We want to hear something definite about it—tonight, hopefully.

[Charles Hendry]

I seek, on most issues, to be on the same side as my hon. Friend; we do not always manage that, but we often do. The Government introduced a new market mechanism, which we hoped would introduce more gas storage, but it has delivered only a small amount more. There are projects that have essentially been abandoned for the time being because, if they are to be funded on market principles, there has to be a bigger difference between the summer price and the winter price. That does not exist at the moment in a way that would enable those facilities to go ahead.

The Government have rightly looked at market mechanisms, but my conclusion is that we need to look more fundamentally at what is necessary to move this matter on, especially given the time it takes to build such facilities. It will be five years before a big facility can be brought on stream. Some have planning permission and could start very quickly. Billions of pounds of investment are ready to go into them, but a public service obligation on gas storage is needed to make that happen. I hope that the Government are prepared to look at an amendment along those lines in Committee or on Report. I will happily work with them on that.

In conclusion, we are right to explore market options. Normally, in most winters, that will be enough. However, too much of our energy policy in this area in recent years has depended on luck. We have always been on the right side so far, but one day our luck will run out. Taking steps now, with the support of the energy industry and the major companies that use gas, would be a fitting amendment to a Bill on infrastructure. It would help us to go forward with an even more robust infrastructure in the years ahead.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Brian Binley Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

We will have to see what the Committee delivers as the Bill goes through the Committee process. There are clearly issues to do with the High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 link, which has now been taken out of the Bill. Some of the issues that the Committee will consider will be debated more fully tomorrow.

A Bill of this size and importance will be controversial, and we must debate it properly. A project of this size will affect very many individuals and communities, and the environment. We must minimise the negative impacts wherever possible and deal with the utmost sensitivity with the people whose homes are affected.

On the capacity crunch, HS2 will deal with some of these constraints on our railways. Already, thousands of commuters are standing on packed rush hour trains into Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Euston. Last week’s figures from the Office of Rail Regulation showed that the number of rail journeys has more than doubled since 1996. This number will continue to rise, and by 2026 peak demand will be two and a half times the capacity at Euston, twice the capacity at Birmingham New Street, and nearly twice the capacity at Manchester Piccadilly. There is already more demand for train services than there are train paths available on the west coast main line, and by 2024 it will be running at full capacity.

This congestion will have a significant impact on the freight industry and its customers. The west coast main line is the key artery in the Rugby, Daventry and Northampton golden triangle for freight. Over the next decade, passenger constraints will become more serious on the east coast main line and the midland main line. Network Rail’s £38 billion investment programme for the next five years will deliver signalling improvements, platform extensions and some additional services, but those incremental changes will not deal with the looming capacity problem.

Labour Members know from our time in government that major infrastructure takes years to plan and to construct. Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember the Crossrail Bill, which Labour introduced in 2005 and which received Royal Assent in 2008. That railway will open in 2018. Labour in government identified the need for more capacity on London’s railways by the end of this decade, and we acted to deliver it. We must do the same now to build the infrastructure we need to mitigate the looming capacity crunch on our railways.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is the shadow Minister aware that we need 20 paths to take care of increased freight over the next 10 to 15 years, and that our current network cannot supply even one of those paths? Is not that a major reason for arguing for this Bill?

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, absolutely. Freight has been a Cinderella subject; the focus tends to be on passengers, and that is absolutely right. If we are to achieve the modal shift by getting HGVs off our roads and freight on to trains—that is key in the hon. Gentleman’s area—we have to make sure that freight is able to go on the west coast main line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on her very forceful speech. I am sure that her constituents will be delighted.

It might help if we first look at the problems that HS2 resolves in order to place the project in its full perspective. We already have an overcrowded network that is literally full to capacity on our most significant transport corridor. We have record traffic levels, with passenger growth at 5% per annum. Rail freight will double over the next 20 years. Yet an aged existing permanent way is decaying to the point of redundancy.

The Higgins review concluded that a make and mend upgrade of the west coast main line on its own simply will not meet future demand, no matter what we do with it. The capacity does not exist. Make and mend on its own would be futile, and would mean 20 years of major disruption, at a cost of more than £20 billion—virtually the same cost as phase 1 of HS2—and a further 14 years of weak and disruptive bus substitutions and longer journeys on a far greater scale than during the route modernisation completed a few years ago. I can tell the House that my constituents know what that means: they would be immensely frustrated for a length of time that they will simply not put up with.

Increasing capacity remains the sole answer. It will deliver 13,000 additional peak-hour seats to west coast destinations, compared with just 3,000 by conventional alternatives. None of the proposed alternatives would provide a single increase in freight paths, despite a projected doubling of demand, but HS2 will deliver another 20 paths by freeing up capacity. None of the range of economic returns cited takes into account the released capacity for towns such as Northampton, which feed into the west coast main line, and I can tell the House that those returns will be considerable.

Indeed, many of those who complain about disruption in their green and pleasant constituencies rarely think about major housing growth areas such as Northampton, which is expected to increase its population by 50% over the next 25 years to provide for the housing needs of the south-east and, in so doing, help to alleviate demand that might be placed on other constituencies. With respect, it is no wonder that some of my constituents think that that view is perhaps a little uncaring, to say the least. Furthermore, critics of HS2 must be clear about whether they prefer to forgo growth—that growth would be hampered by the maintenance of the status quo—and they must define their alternatives while remembering that none of those so far proposed would meet the increased projected demands to which I have referred.

Let me return to the important conclusions of the Higgins report. We need to integrate HS2 into the conventional network more effectively, as the hon. Member for West Ham and other hon. Members have said. We also need to accelerate the project’s timetable, especially in the north. Every business man will tell us that the sooner we get on with something, the more cost-effective it is, and Front Benchers ought to accept that message.

Finally, the Bill’s provisions are about the construction of a railway line in the 21st century, but our deliberations should more significantly reflect the ambitions for our country. The issue is wider than just a set of railway lines; it is about what we feel about competing in the world to come and what we are willing to leave both our children and our grandchildren. Had the Victorian railway entrepreneurs not taken the decisions they did when they did, we would be in a sorry state now. We need to emulate them, and I therefore commend the Bill, which I will support wholeheartedly this evening.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Brian Binley Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I always thought that was my suggestion, but never mind. I do not know how the engineering will be done—I assume it will start in many different points and I agree with my right hon. Friend. One of my earliest interventions in a debate on this issue—two years ago, I think—was to suggest that we start construction now in Glasgow and Edinburgh, while the southern counties make up their minds which back garden HS2 is going to go through.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is not the fact of the matter that the real bottleneck is Birmingham? If we follow the suggestion that we start the project from the north, Birmingham will become an absolute nonsense in terms of railway transport.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Brian Binley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I agree with him.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is not the truth of the matter that High Speed 2 will release capacity on the west coast main line? Has the debate not recognised the importance of freight, which is growing at more than 10% per year on rail? Does that not come into the discussions we are having today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

Ah, but fortunately I was elected to represent Chesham and Amersham, so I do not have to answer that hypothetical question.

This project is also almost 30 years out of date. Thirty years ago I might have been supporting it, but people are now looking to save costs in business by using teleconferencing and superfast broadband, and they are trying to reduce the amount of travelling their employees do. If we are in a global race, I would be much happier if we were in fact connecting effectively to Heathrow and HS1, because at the moment we do not even seem to be able to repair our existing roads and railways, and we cannot use the M25 without being stuck in a traffic jam. Surely we should be looking at our infrastructure and maximising its potential before building a bright, new, shiny railway?

Last week the New Economics Foundation did an excellent piece of work: it published a report examining a variety of projects across the country that could be procured for the same sum of £33 billion. They included some very valuable improvements for northern cities, active transport systems and much more superfast fibre-optic broadband, which we need to deliver competitiveness for this country.

I may have been a nimby—when I started off, I was a nimby—but I have studied this project and I am convinced that it is the wrong project. I am not alone in questioning HS2. We have heard what the National Audit Office has said. Its report was damning. It highlighted that the Department had failed to outline clear strategic objectives, had made errors in calculating the cost-benefit ratio and is not sufficiently engaged with stakeholders, and it casts serious doubt over the capability of HS2 Ltd even to deliver this programme alongside the other demands on the Department.

The judicial review has resulted in a judgment that was shaming for the Department, finding that its consultation on compensation was so unfair as to be unlawful. The Major Projects Authority’s report—which the Government continue to refuse to publish in detail, even though the Information Commissioner says it is in the public interest for them to do so—indicates that this project is in the red/amber category, denoting a very high risk of its failing to be delivered on time or on budget.

[Mr Binley]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Gillan]

Yes, as I think I get extra time if I do.

[Mr Binley]

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that while the NAO report did, indeed, make those criticisms, it also said that at the end of the day there would be a return of 2.5:1 on this project, and does she not recognise the importance of that to the well-being of future generations?

[Mrs Gillan]

That is a nice try, but the cost of this project is going up minute-by-minute, so I doubt that that ratio is accurate even as I stand here today.

I also have to say that the Department and HS2 Ltd have already failed on other bases: engineering calculations have been wrong, and the costs of alterations to Euston were inaccurate. That, along with public failures such as the west coast main line franchise debacle, must prompt this question: do the Department or HS2 have the leadership capability or competence to deliver the largest infrastructure project in the UK in living memory?

If the project gets the green light, however—as I fear it will, judging by the number of Members present—I want to make two particular points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the current consultation—I use that term loosely—by HS2 Ltd on the draft environmental statement, whatever the failings of the process, at the moment one thing is clear: the area of outstanding natural beauty, which belongs to everybody in this country, is going to be irreversibly damaged. My first request to the Secretary of State is that if this project does go ahead, can we have the best possible mitigation in the Chilterns in order to protect our precious, and highly endangered, environment to the utmost level? A fully bored tunnel under the whole of the AONB would offer that protection, and I urge the Secretary of State to adopt that option.

My second request has I think been answered partly, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted in his opening speech that he will look more seriously at, and perhaps even deliver, the property bond. The compensation scheme has been totally inadequate to date, and the engagement of officials and Ministers often the dialogue of the deaf, frankly. The Bill does not include specific undertakings on compensation that would fulfil the Prime Minister’s assurance to me that it would be timely and generous to those people adversely affected. So I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at the property bond put forward by my constituent Hilary Wharf who is to be commended for her work in this area, and that the compensation system introduced is rapid, fair and does not make my constituents feel that the Government are wriggling to avoid paying them a proper price for their properties.

As you know, Mr Speaker, there are several Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected by HS2 who are unable to speak today, so I want to say a few words on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who has worked tirelessly to put forward the interests of his constituents. He asked me to point out today that places such as Wendover Dean and the Hawkslade and Walton Court areas of Aylesbury are among the worst affected of any along the phase 1 route. He also asked me to highlight the need for better mitigation—a request that fits in with my own request for a fully bored tunnel. I know that you, Mr Speaker, have regularly communicated your constituents’ overwhelming opposition to this project and, like me, have received thousands of letters and have similar experiences of the failure of the exceptional hardship fund to offer adequate compensation to constituents. Likewise, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is very worried about the Denham viaduct and the Colne Valley site of special scientific interest.

Why do we need a paving Bill? There was no paving Bill for the channel tunnel rail link, Crossrail or the Olympics. We could continue to spend money as we have already, without this Bill. Once it is passed, as it undoubtedly will be, the Government can claim that HS2 is backed by the will of Parliament. Frankly, all colleagues should be concerned about proceeding with this project. The Bill is a blank cheque, handed over before Parliament is in full possession of the facts, and to a Department that is having a hard job convincing people that the project is fit for purpose. On that basis, and because this is the first time we have even had a vote on HS2, it is with a very heavy heart that I say I cannot support the Government. I hope that colleagues in the House today will support my reasoned amendment and vote against the Bill. At this stage, I have no intention of calling votes on any other part of the proceedings, but I will on the amendment and on Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but similar points could be made about every item of Government expenditure. Ultimately, the increased capacity will benefit the more provincial towns and peripheral areas of our country. The network is operating to capacity. We heard from the Secretary of State that the west coast main line would be at capacity in the early 2020s, and similarly the east coast main line, which has an impact on my constituency, will soon be full.

People have talked about blight, but speed is essential. Yes, there can be blight on individual properties and so on, but if that is to be the case, the sooner we get a decision on routes, compensation and so on, the better. Speed is also essential for the economy. We have heard, quite understandably, that connectivity is important to the development of our towns and cities, and that has been proved by countless reports over time. If Hudson and the other Victorian rail moguls had had to operate to timetables as stretched as that for HS2, I doubt whether the network would have developed to anything like the extent it did and from which this country benefited in the late-19th and 20th centuries.

The Minister has just scuttled out of the Chamber. Perhaps he suspected that I was about to mention that increased capacity would allow additional services to Cleethorpes and elsewhere—but that is for the future. If we are to rebalance the economy to the benefit of the north of England, it is important that we have this increased capacity and connectivity. I can understand the arguments against it. The cost is phenomenal, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) pointed out, my constituents will have to bear some of that cost. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) wish to intervene?

[Mr Binley]

indicated dissent.

[Martin Vickers]

No. Sorry, he looked, er—[Hon. Members: “Keep going!”] I’ll keep going, right. I think what he, er—I’ve lost my track now, I should say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I shall deal with the issue of capacity later in my speech and hope to address it then.

When it comes to saving time—this point has been made several times today—I have never met a business person in my career who has said that the reason why their business is not thriving is that they cannot get to London quickly enough.

Another argument cited is that HS2 will rebalance our economy. I agree with that argument, as I believe that it will rebalance our economy, but further in favour of the London and south-east. Indeed, no serious academics support the view that HS2 will reduce the north-south divide. For weekend and leisure travel, for instance, which is the more likely scenario—that more families will travel from London to spend an evening in Birmingham or Manchester, or that families from Birmingham and Manchester will use the route to spend time and money in London? I suggest to hon. and right hon. Members that the latter is the more likely scenario, and that HS2 will simply suck more money from the regions into London and the south-east.

I therefore appeal to all Members to think very carefully about whether they are acting in the best interests of their constituents in supporting the signing of a blank cheque for this white elephant of a project, which is already forecast to cost every constituency in the country £75 million, and which, given the expected further overruns, could easily end up costing each constituency more than £100 million. Are Members prepared to support a scheme that will inevitably suck money away from transport schemes that could benefit their own constituencies? As for the issue of capacity, figures show that the west coast main line has the capacity for the 100% increase in passenger numbers that was proposed by FirstGroup when it submitted its franchise bid.

[Mr Brian Binley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Bridgen]

With pleasure, and some trepidation.

[Mr Binley]

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that it has been stated categorically that capacity will be reached by 2026, although other people think that it will be reached earlier? Has he travelled on a London Midland train to London on which he could not get a seat and could hardly get through the door?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I put it to my hon. Friend that anyone predicting what capacity, or the demand for any commodity or product, will be in 20 years is living in dreamland. The capacity on the railway was driven by punitive taxes on company cars in the 1990s, and that will level out.

HS2 is a huge project that will take a lot of stopping, but I suggest to Members that they would not eat an elephant in one sitting, even if it were a white one, and that today’s debate is merely the first serving of many. I do not believe that this project represents the best use of taxpayers’ money, and I therefore urge Members to support the amendment and vote against the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am not denying that any railway line or other infrastructure will bring growth. I am saying that the critical differentiator is whether the line brings more growth and jobs than something else, and that is where the case for HS2 is not proven.

[Mr Binley]

I welcome the point about making more use of the high-speed track. Why, then, is my hon. Friend not campaigning vigorously for a station in Brackley, which would be of enormous benefit to her constituents?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend intervened, and that would be a possibility. The bottom line is that we are all here to represent our constituents. There is a case for making that argument, and if I made it, it would undermine the view of many of my constituents that this project is just wrong. Winning that argument would almost certainly cast the line in stone. My hon. Friend will understand that I could not do that, against the very clear wishes of my constituents.

If this is about the value for money of this project versus that of any other project—not the absolute but the relative level of growth and jobs generated by this project, compared with a different one—we need to ask ourselves, first, is this the best value for money for taxpayers? HS2 does mean little curvature of the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that a high-speed track is not much more expensive than a regular train track. That is not what HS2 engineers have told me. They said that it is very engineering-intensive. Because it has to go in a straight line, because there are lots of flood plains, hills and other inconveniences, and because of the speed of the trains, the line has to go through, under and over those obstacles. Therefore, it is much more expensive.

Secondly, high-speed rail has an exponentially higher carbon footprint, so in that sense it is not environmentally friendly compared with a classic line. HS2 has a massive impact on valuable open countryside and sites of special scientific interest, battlefield sites, grade I listed homes and so on.

Thirdly, if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, this is about capacity, why not go slightly slower but along an existing travel corridor, so that costs and the impact can be reduced? Fourthly, is the project going to deliver soon enough? We will have no use of it until 2026, yet people say all the time that rail capacity is needed now. Fifthly, does it create the maximum number of jobs? Would another, less engineering-intensive project along an easier route, which we could easily find if speed were not the only goal, generate more jobs? Finally, what about both ends? Does it really make sense to decide where the traveller ends up before we have decided on our strategy for airports?

Having said all that, I note the commitment of the Government and the Opposition, who are determined to see this project built. Although I remain optimistic that during the Bill’s progress substantial changes may be achieved, it is important for me to be realistic. If HS2 is to go ahead, I want to achieve fair compensation and mitigation for the hundreds of my constituents who will be so devastatingly affected.

On mitigation, I urge the Government to ensure that HS2 is much more transparent and that they engage with communities much better than they currently are. Communities’ ideas on mitigation must be given full and proper consideration. The Department for Transport must prioritise the consultation on a full compensation scheme as a matter of urgency. It is shocking that a judicial review had to determine that the original consultation was unfair and in fact unlawful. The exceptional hardship scheme, to my constituents’ bitter experience, has been nothing short of a disaster. Residents up and down the proposed line of route and in the surrounding communities find themselves trapped in their own homes, unable to move either home or business. I strongly urge the Minister urgently to help with this situation.

I hope that, as well as a full compensation scheme that is more generous than the statutory requirement, the Government will agree to a property bond, and that the Secretary of State will meet with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the National Association of Estate Agents, among others, in order properly to explore the options for a property bond. If banks will not give mortgages on properties because they are blighted by HS2, people cannot get on with their lives, at least until 2026. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Finally, I really regret the position that many Members have been placed in by the Bill. We have been told that this is a vote on the principle of HS2, yet we are also told it is an opportunity for a meaningful compensation scheme to be put in place for those affected. That makes me very schizophrenic, and it places all Members who have strong feelings about this project in a difficult position. I do not want to vote in favour of HS2 but I also do not want to do anything that delays my constituents’ receiving the compensation they deserve. As this is the first opportunity in the Chamber to vote on the principle of HS2, I shall, with a heavy heart, have to vote for the reasoned amendment and against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I urge colleagues to do likewise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Life can deal some heavy blows, but not usually from so kind a Deputy Speaker. I will discard most of what I was going to say about capacity to meet your requirements, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will simply say that connectivity is vital. Capacity is highly limited, and one need only talk to my constituents in Northampton to know how much capacity impacts on performance. They are pretty sick of it.

I was going to discuss whether it was worth the money or not but, again, that argument goes out the window. I would only say that any business man would willingly accept a benefit ratio of 2.5:1, and would grasp at it. To say that that is not good enough for a national project of this kind is crazy. I was going to discuss the benefits of the project for my good constituents, but that is out of the window too. I shall merely say that we are driving ahead with a project called Northampton Alive. We are expected to build 56,000 houses to help ease the problems of the south-east and London, and we need a better rail link to service those people. The only way we are going to get it is by having additional capacity.

Now let me talk about the one thing that most speakers have not talked about, other than my good friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—an honourable friend, too. Freight is a major player in the whole of our rail network. It has grown sizeably, to the point where it is now delivering 90 million tonnes of goods each year. That rate is growing by more than 10% a year. We cannot accommodate that growth on the west coast main line. We need another line to enhance the corridor. That is why high-speed rail is so important, why it impacts upon the national interest, and why it is massively important to Britain’s prosperity and to the future well-being of my children and grandchildren.

Do not forget the freight issue. It is vital to the debate. The second issue that is vital is connectivity, as I indicated earlier. If we do not have a high-speed rail link to Europe and beyond, we will miss out massively. I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is thinking, “Rarely do you do this as a little Englander.” In the long-term future we will have high-speed rail links to south-east Asia and to the middle east, provided people there can settle down and settle their differences. That future is what we are thinking about when we talk about High Speed 2.

So what are my conclusions? High Speed 2 is vital to the nation’s future economic well-being. It will improve rail connections between economically important parts of our country and with our markets in Europe and beyond. It will stop heavy lorries from Prague, Warsaw and Bratislava messing up our road network. I want to see a more effective rail network and High Speed 2 is a vital part of that. I pray that this House has the courage to make that decision and make it now.

West Coast Main Line

Brian Binley Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not sure who wrote “How to be a Minister”, but the right hon. Gentleman might like to inform me privately afterwards. I refer him to Sam Laidlaw’s letter, which I mentioned earlier. The fact is that this is an interim report and nowhere does it criticise Ministers.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s willingness to update us on the continuity of service on the west coast main line once the current franchise expires on 9 December. Has he noted recent reports suggesting that capacity could be reached well before 2026, undermining continuity of service? Consequently, will he bring forward plans for HS2, even though he said he would not talk about them today?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am interested in the representation my hon. Friend has made, but perhaps we could leave it at that.

West Coast Main Line

Brian Binley Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not sure, Mr Speaker, whether that was a question or a statement.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give a firm undertaking that none of the costs involved in this incident will be passed on to hard-pressed consumers on the west coast main line? Furthermore, will he reassure the siren voices calling for the scrapping of HS2 that that line is absolutely necessary because the west coast main line is under such pressure that it reaches capacity in a very short period?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I would like to say to my hon. Friend is yes and yes.

Rail Fares

Brian Binley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who delivered a sensible speech and made some very sensible points. I had sympathy with many of them. While we are in a congratulatory mood, I also congratulate the Secretary of State. He is held in very high regard and with great affection in the House and people will be delighted to see him emerge from the Whips Office into slightly greater glory in the months to come. I hope that he might be kind enough to pass on my good wishes to his Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who is no longer in his place. They make a good team. I am not sure who will look after whom, but we will see as the months unfold. Finally, will the Secretary of State pass on my good wishes to his predecessor, who was especially kind to Northampton? As he will know, she helped to provide the money for a much-needed new station and we remain deeply appreciative.

The debate is a missed opportunity. I understand and have some sympathy with the need for more regulated rail fares. I understand the need to see such regulation as an attempt to put a brake on the sizeable increase in rail fares that started during the Opposition’s period in government and, sadly, continues under this Government, but the truth is that trying to ban train operators from increasing fares beyond a certain point is an unnecessary diversion. The real issue is why the rail industry has not done more to get to grips with cost. Under the previous Government and so far under this Government, it seems to have been accepted that the taxpayer or consumer should finance the rail sector when no attempt has been made to increase efficiency and production and to lower costs. Every business in this country has had to deal with such challenges over the past five years, many of them to great effect, yet the rail industry seems not to be a part of that process.

We have one of the most expensive rail systems in Europe. Why is the rail sector the only privatised sector not to have made progress with cost reduction since its inception as a privatised operation?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman said that we have one of the most expensive rail systems in Europe. Is he talking about the cost per journey? We have much more frequent and dense services than other countries in Europe, but did he take that into account?

[Mr Binley]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I am referring to the McNulty report, which her party’s Government put into effect. McNulty made it quite clear that the British rail sector was 28% more expensive than like-for-like rail sectors throughout Europe. If our costs are that high, I hope that the hon. Lady will be as concerned as I am. The alternative is to keep pulling money out of the pockets of the taxpayer or consumer and I want a more productive and efficient rail industry—[Interruption.]

[Katy Clark]

I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman sat down because he had finished speaking or because he was letting me intervene, and I am grateful that it was the latter. He is making the point that that comparison is like for like, but surely the key point is that Britain has a very different railway system that is based on the private sector, whereas the cheaper train operating systems to which he is comparing it are predominantly in the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Binley]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. She served with great distinction on the Crossrail Bill—two and a quarter years of toil and effort—and she is clearly knowledgeable on rail matters, as I know from that time. My point is that the comparisons are not mine, but McNulty’s. The report was instigated by her Government. If one does not believe what McNulty said, that is a different matter, but it is the most authoritative report we have had on this subject. Rather than bickering about an area on which I am not overly clear, I am willing to accept McNulty as an authoritative response on this issue. The previous Government did too, so we do not need to get too involved in that sort of thing. I want to ask, therefore, why the previous Government—

[Katy Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Mr Binley]

Just for you.

[Katy Clark]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a good friend. We have sat on many Committees together. My point is that the comparison is not like for like because the train system in Europe is predominantly public sector. That is why it is cheaper.

[Mr Binley]

Some of the comparisons are with companies that are much more privatised, which is perhaps not the impression that the hon. Lady is trying to give, but that is not the point. The point is that I see McNulty as authoritative and so did her own Government. Therefore, we need not to argue about the review, but to use it to the benefit of our consumers and constituents. We need to put pressure on the rail sector to become more efficient and more productive, and to cut costs. It should not be only the taxpayer and the consumer who have to dip their hand in their pocket.

Let us move on, because I want to ask why the Government have not done more to respond positively to the conclusions of the McNulty review, although I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said, which intimated that he would be responding to that review, because Labour in government did not. The Labour Government were pleased to tuck it away in a corner of the office of the Secretary of State for Transport and forget it. That was a missed opportunity, which is rather sad.

The Opposition devised an industry structure that created many of the inefficiencies and costs to which McNulty referred. Let me remind Opposition Members that the spirit of the Railways Act 1993 envisaged a far more flexible franchising arrangement, as well as a less complicated intra-industry interface. Under the original arrangements, fares regulation involved a cap below inflation, not above it. If we want to squeeze inefficiency out of a sector, we should not give it price increases above the rate of inflation. That is crazy.

In office, Labour created an additional, unnecessary bureaucracy in the industry and made empty gestures towards a proper strategy. Today’s motion does the same—Labour is continuing in the same vein, which I find rather sad, because I have great respect for the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the Opposition spokesman. She has a great deal to offer in this area, and some of her remarks suggest that she is willing to make that contribution. I see some connection between those on the two Front Benches, to the benefit of our consumers, and I welcome her comments.

The question is, who should pay for our railways and what can we do to handle the costs? The Government policy that, progressively, passengers should pay a larger share of the cost and taxpayers less, is understandable. I do not want a subsidised, nationalised railway in another form. That is not what I seek, so I understand that view, but I want a Government who ensure that the industry’s unit costs should decline year by year over time. Cost increases below the rate of inflation will do more to impact on that than simply saying again, “You can have more than our consumers and our constituents have year by year in their pay packets.” That will result in costs rising inexorably and people being driven off the railways. None of us wants that.

The McNulty review demonstrated beyond doubt that our railway system is one of the most expensive around and that the competitiveness of the railways as against other transport modes is weak. A recent survey in The Daily Telegraph found that travelling by rail on some routes can cost more than catching a flight. That is cloud cuckoo land. According to the research, it was more expensive to take a train on 50% of popular routes than to fly, including travelling from London to Scotland. That does not make sense.

It has been a thrust of Government policy to encourage more people to use railways. I welcome that, as do many of my constituents, yet the laws of economics dictate that an increase in relative prices will depress demand. That is not a difficult formula to grasp, work out and understand, but the impact on those who use the railways to get to work is particularly bad and particularly expensive.

The situation facing my commuters in Northampton is especially enlightening and in line with many of the comments made during this welcome debate. Northampton is set to expand by more than 56,000 houses by 2026. We shall see whether that happens, because we all know that the construction industry is depressed, but that was the target of the previous Government and it remains, to all intents and purposes, the target of this Government. It really means that we are trying to get out of the south-east and London people who work in that area but cannot afford housing in it, yet what are we doing? The price of an annual season ticket from Northampton to London is £4,756 without the new increase, which will rise to £5,628 for those who need to use the underground. Add an annual season ticket for parking of £815 and we reach more than £6,000. For somebody on £30,000 with a disposable income of £24,000, that is 25% of their disposable income. It just does not make sense.

If we want to move people who work in London and the south-east to areas with less-high-cost housing, we must understand that we need a more competitive rail industry with lower pricing, not higher pricing above the rate of inflation. That is the point that I really want to make.

The regeneration and growth strategies in places such as Northampton risk being derailed, if I might use that term, unless we get this sorted. I make a plea. The Secretary of State understands that point well and knows that commuters from Northampton have already been forced to pay out a quarter of their disposable income, but that price is going up. I know that he understands the problem, which is not only about Northampton. It is about Brighton, Nottingham and other areas that are suffering from the same difficulties.

My constituents have a right to ask what the rail industry is doing to get to grips with its cost base. There are efficiencies that the industry could and should make to bring unit costs down. Staffing levels are unnecessarily high, ticketing and retail arrangements impose operational costs and inefficient deployment of staff, and industrial relations remain problematic and expensive for franchise operators. Therefore, why is the industry not doing more to grasp the challenges of McNulty and why are we not pressurising it to do exactly that? The message from the debate, and from Opposition Front Benchers and Ministers, should be that we have an inefficient rail industry, proved beyond doubt, whose costs have forced up rail prices to the point where they are becoming exclusive to people who can afford to pay and deter many who find it difficult to pay. That is not what we want from our national rail industry.

The industry, the previous Government and this Government have found it too easy to pass on ever more costs to consumers. Neither taxpayers nor hard-pressed rail users should be prepared to tolerate that, and nor should we, but what is needed is not regulation, but a proper focus on efficiency so that the industry takes responsibility for its costs, which every other sector in this country has had to do over the past five years.

I will make one final point. Rail costs are an integral part of business costs because—this point has been made and is relevant—London is the hub of British business, no matter how much we might want to change that, and businesses must travel again and again to London in any given period to sustain and hopefully grow their business. Growth is clearly the only game in town, as we learnt yesterday, and I pray that the Government take on board some of the criticisms that have been made about their growth policies over the past two and a half years. The truth is that unless other Departments see a role in this respect, we will not get the growth we need because costs will keep rising, and the railway costs are an important part of that formula. I know that the Secretary of State understands that and I look forward to him having a massive impact in that regard.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to what has been an informative debate so far. As a precursor to the few brief points I wish to make, I feel that I should make an admission: I come from a long line of railway people, beginning with my great grandfather and including me, as I have previously worked in the rail industry. I make this confession—that my great grandfather, grandfather and father all worked in the rail industry—not to own up to some kind of strange rail geekery, but rather to explain that I understand some of the practicalities of our rail system and know that changes that seem obvious from the outside can actually be quite complicated and difficult to deliver.

Not least among those considerations is the important fact that the UK rail system was the first in the world. We invented railways, and the impact of that is still with us. The system that we have was designed many years ago, and that brings with it some of the costs. We cannot easily make a like-for-like comparison between our system and those of France or Germany; I am afraid that the UK rail system is just different. We must of course look at ways of reducing costs, but it is not all that straightforward.

[Mr Binley]

Surely the hon. Lady is not rejecting what McNulty said. Surely she accepts the report, authorised by her Front Benchers, which makes a massive contribution to the debate. I hope she does.

[Alison McGovern]

I rarely reject out of hand anybody’s contribution to a debate on so important a subject as the rail industry. I merely make these points as a precursor to what I am about to say. I always feel that we should be cautious in what we say, because I have seen at first hand the complexity of some of the problems we face in running efficiently the kind of extensive rail system we have in Britain.

I want to speak about two things: first, the question of the average fare rise across the fares basket and the restrictions on rises; and secondly, some of the other ticketing issues that rail industry consumers face and what the Government’s ticketing review could consider in order to assist consumers. On the question of the average fare rise versus the cost to travellers of individual fare rises, I have a problem with the Government’s apparent position. The Secretary of State spoke at length only a moment ago about the importance of allowing train companies to raise fares in a way that allows them to maximise yield, but the problem is that that potentially allows significant unfairness. Those whose travel is absolutely necessary for their employment face potentially significant rises, whereas those who have a choice about how they travel are less likely to face those rises. To use an economist’s term, those with an inelastic demand curve—I apologise for my use of jargon, but it may be helpful—are stuck paying ever higher season ticket prices, while those who make up the elastic part of demand can pick and choose, so train companies maximise those yields on what tend to be leisure fares, for journeys that people can choose whether to make. That is the point that many Members across the House are making in different ways.

The problem with allowing average fare rises is that people who cannot choose whether or not to travel by train because they have no practical alternative can be faced with steep rises. The flexibility to do that cannot be allowed. In my view it is not fair. Of course, that is a decision that the Government must make based on the facts. Back in 2009 the then Transport Secretary took a decision, and I support it, because it was about ensuring not only that the train companies were able to do the business they had been contracted to do, but that there was a level of fairness for the travelling passenger.

The Government must think hard about this matter. If consumers who have no practical alternative to travelling by rail are faced with steep fare rises year after year, they will think that it is a significant unfairness to them. Members on both sides of the House have made that point. We need to be clear that this is about different groups of passengers and train companies effectively negotiating their way through to maximise benefits, in some cases for them rather than passengers.

In Merseyside we have quite a specific situation. Travel around the Mersey travel network tends to be more reasonable. However, one of the things we are desperately trying to do is increase job opportunities for people in Merseyside who are perhaps a little further afield. Earlier I cheekily mentioned to the Secretary of State my campaign to improve the Wrexham to Bidston line. It is all about helping people to travel from places in the Wirral and the rest of Merseyside across our city region and further afield, to Manchester or north Wales, to find work wherever it may be.

That is the Government’s stated policy, and they tell us they believe in it. However, with rail fares continuing to increase—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made this point eloquently—those on the lowest incomes will not have an option. They will be unable to take a decision to make what is currently a 90-minute journey from Bebington, Birkenhead, other parts of the Wirral, Southport or the wider Merseyside area to Manchester and other cities, because once they have made that further journey it will be just too expensive. That runs absolutely counter to everything we are trying to achieve to drive up the economic performance of our northern cities. The Government must think carefully about whether their approach to rail fares is not actually against the drive of what they are trying to do across Government.

Secondly, we need to think carefully, perhaps as part of the Government’s ticketing review, about how to ensure that the sale of train tickets and rail travel in general works for the customers, who pay significant amounts. I am particularly interested in how the current set-up harms people working for businesses and organisations who do not use the railways frequently enough to be considered regular or daily users, or even commuters, but do use them frequently enough for there to be a significant impact on their business.

The Government need to pay attention to a couple of aspects. The first is what a peak time is. When I was growing up, it seemed as if we always knew what the peak times were and that they stayed the same year after year. That may be the effect of the rose-tinted glasses of hindsight; perhaps things were different in reality. However, now peak times seem to change all the time.

If a person is travelling on different parts of the network, things can get difficult. For example, if their business, like many businesses in Liverpool and the Merseyside city region area, requires them to go to London one week and Leeds the next, it will be difficult for that person to find out whether the peak times are the same everywhere. The member of staff at Eastham station in my constituency may or may not have in their head the relevant peak times for the ticket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

People in my constituency have simply had enough of the rising cost of public transport, and the latest above-inflation rail fare increase is just about the last straw. Worried Brighton residents repeatedly tell me that they are already suffering from below-average earnings and simply cannot afford the proposed increases. As I mentioned earlier, one man told me how he had to give in his notice at his job in London because he simply cannot afford to get there. Now he is unemployed because he could not afford his rail fare.

Much has been said today about the impact of spiralling ticket prices on cash-strapped commuters, who are rightly furious that trains continue to be overcrowded and unreliable as well as overpriced; that public transport options are not fully integrated; that smart ticketing is not the norm; that trains are still too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter; and that the toilets do not work, or are simply non-existent on some train services from Brighton. That is a serious equalities issue. I have been contacted by many Brighton residents who want to be able to use the train but have health problems or are elderly. The fact that there are not toilets on the trains means that they can no longer use them. As a daily commuter between London and Brighton, I know only too well how accurate many of those complaints are. When we urgently need rail to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the transport sector and contributing to improved air quality, the system should be better.

Fares should be managed as part of an overall strategy of making public transport more integrated, more comprehensive and more affordable, helping people to leave their cars at home and providing an attractive alternative to flying for longer journeys within the UK. Yet, since privatisation, the cost of train travel has risen by 17% in real terms compared with a 7% drop in the cost of motoring. Those higher fares mean that that gap will now widen. Moreover, the rail fare increases announced a few weeks ago represent an unacceptable tax on rail commuters, given that the percentage increase above the 1% written into the franchise agreements flows directly to the Treasury.

I welcome today’s motion as a step in the right direction, but I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that fares should not be allowed to rise at all—if anything, they should come down. I regret that there is no Liberal Democrat amendment on the Order Paper to that end. However, we need to go much further. The controversy over the west coast main line franchise shows that what people want most is some kind of stability on the railways. They are not impressed by one unaccountable company snatching control from another with promises that they may never deliver. Nor are people happy that the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by a factor of between 2 and 3 times since privatisation.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has already mentioned the report “Rebuilding Rail”, which I warmly commend to the House. It makes cogent arguments explaining why, under privatisation, there are much higher costs to the public. As the hon. Gentleman said, they include higher interest payments to keep Network Rail’s debts off the Government balance sheet; costs arising as a result of the fragmentation of the rail system into many organisations; profit margins of complex tiers of contractors and subcontractors; and dividends to private investors.

[Mr Binley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not, simply because of time.

The only way to sort out the mess and waste, the rising fares and overcrowding is to take back control of the railways. I am not afraid to call that nationalisation.

It is time to make public transport a public service again, and to nail the myth that buying back assets that have been sold off would be too expensive. A step-by-step approach would allow the railway’s assets to be reacquired for the public at minimal cost and with substantial ongoing savings over time.

[Mr Binley]

On the basis that the hon. Lady will get an extra minute, will she give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I have just remembered that, so I am delighted to let the hon. Gentleman speak.

[Mr Binley]

I am most grateful. Is the hon. Lady really saying that she wants to return to a nationalised British Rail? Is she also saying that privatisation is bad and that all the other privatised sectors have not cut costs? Or is the rail sector the only one that has not? How does she explain that?

[Caroline Lucas]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to Deutsche Bahn, SNCF and several railways in Europe that run perfectly good public sector railways with much lower fares than ours. I am not necessarily saying that we should go back to British Rail; I am saying that we should learn from that experience. We might in future have much greater democratic control, with passengers involved in the decision making. Far more of running the railways might be delegated to regional level. We do not have to go back to something—we can go forward to something and learn from the best of what is happening in many European countries and in the rest of the world.

The proposal that “Rebuilding Rail” and others are considering is a more or less cost-free process, whereby when the franchises expire or companies fail to meet the criteria, they could be acquired on a case-by-case basis. New rolling stock could be directly procured, making the process far cheaper than the current leasing arrangements, and fair price regulation could be introduced to bring down the cost of leasing existing rolling stock from its private sector owners.

We also need to bring Network Rail’s debt back on to the Government’s balance sheet. I appreciate that the Government will blanche at the very thought, but doing that would reflect the reality of the situation and result in much lower interest payments.

According to calculations from “Rebuilding Rail”, reuniting the railways under public ownership could save more than £1 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. To put that figure in context, the money that we would have saved if rail had not been privatised could have been used to cut fares by up to 18%. The matter needs to be properly examined, and I am deeply upset that the Conservative ideological position means that the proposal is dismissed simply because it contains the words “nationalisation” or “public ownership.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Binley Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her brave decision on HS2. May I remind her, however, that the west coast main line will, perhaps, reach full capacity by 2022, and therefore urge her to bring forward the start of HS2 in order to ensure an earlier completion date?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to say that these huge infrastructure projects take time to come to fruition, and we are cracking on as fast as we can. We are also committed to making sure that we get this one right, which means taking a very structured approach to how we develop our proposals. In the meantime, I assure him that I take great care over his local services. He came to see me recently about Northampton station, and he made a compelling case.

Network Rail

Brian Binley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course that includes paying for the bloated, self-interested mass of people at the heart of Network Rail.

I like to think that David Higgins is possibly the right man for the job in the appalling organisation we have, but he has a difficult job at the moment. During the time in question there have been the accidents at Grayrigg, Potters Bar and Hatfield. There has been pressure for prosecutions, but Network Rail has constantly said “Not our fault.” It has tried to escape and avoid blame. As to the recent accidents on level crossings, it is interesting that just in the past couple of weeks David Higgins personally apologised to the parents of the two girls who were killed. That is a different attitude from that of previous Network Rail management.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I do not quite have the same memories as the hon. Gentleman of British Rail, but I shall let that go and take up a more positive point, about the role of the regulator. We have got that totally wrong. It is ineffective. Is not that where we need action to help David Higgins?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

That is another point I was going to make: regulation. At the time when Tom Winsor left the Office of the Rail Regulator, there was talk in Government circles, which leaked out, that the Government—the Treasury and, indeed, the Department for Transport—wanted light-touch regulation. They did not want the ORR to regulate too hard, because that might damage profits. It might make privatisation less popular. If a regulator of any kind is told “Light-touch regulation”, they will either go along with it and take the money, or say “I am not going to be blamed for things that go wrong,” and stand down and do something else. I suspect that that might have been the case with Tom Winsor, but there we are.

The Government must take hold of the matter. The speech today by the hon. Member for St Albans has started, I hope, to move the tectonic plates. Governments and Network Rail management have refused for years to face the problems, and the costs have been massive. If the Government want to save money, one way to do it would be by sorting out Network Rail. I suggest that they should first make it a proper public corporation again: one that is transparent and accountable—ultimately to Parliament through the Secretary of State—and subject to freedom of information inspection. There are inherent problems of cost, but those are caused by the contracting culture. Track maintenance was taken in-house when it became incredibly costly. Time and again I raised with the Secretary of State, under the previous Government, the question why track maintenance costs are four or five times higher than they were in British Rail’s day. The simple answer was that it was about contracting. There was contracting, subcontracting and sub-subcontracting. There were costs at every level whenever the work was contracted out, and of course there were project managers and lawyers negotiating contracts at every level. People were filling their pockets with public money.

British Rail directly employed its own staff at every level, from the engineers who designed and controlled the work to the track layers at the grassroots level. They were all employed in particular areas, so that they had possession and ownership of their own area of track. If things went wrong, it was the engineer’s fault. He was permanently employed and he was accountable. He knew that his life was in the railway industry being employed by British Rail and he had to get it right. In the case of subcontracted staff, perhaps from overseas—they might have signed on as subcontracted staff or contract staff from elsewhere—they disappear after the work is done. Nobody knows who has done the work, and of course there is no sense of accountability and no sense of loyalty. They are just doing a job for the money. That is quite different from the type of attitude that British Rail engineers had. They believed in railways and they were passionate about their work.

There are still many of those BR engineers about today, but they are being abused and rubbished by this appalling organisation called Network Rail, where they are employed as consultants. Network Rail has to depend on them, because they are the only people who know how to do the job, but Network Rail does not inspire loyalty and commitment to the industry. People love railways—I love railways—and when they work inside the industry, they devote their lives to it. It is like loving a work of art. They have those attitudes, which is exactly what we want. We want people back in the industry who are permanently employed, who are responsible for sections of track—their track, and if it goes wrong, it is their fault and they feel totally responsible.

We have an expensive operation. Some years ago, the Department of Transport held an internal seminar on project management and its costs. It invited Don Heath, the manager who had been the guiding light and chief engineer in charge of the east coast main line modernisation and electrification, and it called in the west coast main line privateers. Don Heath was asked how much of his total budget was spent on project management, and he said 1%. The privateers were asked how much of their budget was spent on project management, and they said 50%. It was 50 times more. Direct employment by a dedicated engineer working for BR compared with a mass of private companies and subcontractors speaks for itself.

We want the direct employment of engineers; engineers in charge; engineers who care about the railways; and engineers who are permanently employed and have a life in the railway industry and believe in it. We want committed and responsible people in charge, not fly-by-night subcontractors.

I must not take too long, but I want to raise a few more issues before I finish. I put down an early-day motion a year ago to register my opposition to the use of agency and subcontracted labour. My EDM is quoted in our debate papers. It stated:

“further notes research undertaken by the RMT union and academics demonstrating that the complex network of contractors and subcontractors means there are tens of thousands of rail workers employed by a multitude of companies undertaking renewals and that substantial savings could be achieved if renewals were instead carried out in-house as was the case before railway privatisation”.

I made that point a year ago, and it is still true today.

The Office of Rail Regulation has recently found that Network Rail is in breach of its licence and that

“major asset failures, congested routes and poor management of track condition”

contributed to poor performance of the rail network in 2011.

Standardisation has collapsed as a result of the fragmentation of the railway industry. We have chaotic technical standards imposing massive costs and building up problems for the future. We have trackside land reserves being sold off—asset-stripped for profit—so track is no longer accessible for essential repair work, because the land alongside the track has been sold off. We have blue-sky contracts being issued whereby contractors are paid according to emerging costs. In other words, they can charge what they like; we will just pay the bill at the end of the day. All this needs fundamental change. With the right people at every level in the industry, we can do that, but it depends on Ministers, on Government and on the Department for Transport taking hold of Network Rail and transforming it into something that is fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, newly come as you are. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on obtaining the debate and on her speech. As many contributors have said, this is a vital debate. I hope that many of her comments will be recognised by the Minister and acted upon, because action is needed.

I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. By the nature of their contributions, I know that they take the subject seriously. I want especially to congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has a long interest, massive enthusiasm and great knowledge of the subject. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, because he always speaks in such a friendly and good manner, which is a lesson to us all. I welcome this opportunity to discuss Network Rail, which is vital to the nation’s economy and well-being. That underlines the importance of the debate.

I declare an interest as chairman of the Northampton rail users group. Consequently, I will contain my remarks to issues specifically affecting my constituency. On that basis, I wish to explore three themes: the factors that make rail travel from Northampton increasingly unbearable, the urgency with which the rail industry must get a grip on its cost base—a matter that has been mentioned on a number of occasions—and the pressing issue of capacity and the need to face up to what must be done to relieve that pressure, especially for my constituents in Northampton South.

That leads me to the west coast main line, which is the nation’s most important rail artery and has the ability, given supplementation, to add enormously to our economic well-being, especially in Manchester, Leeds and the areas north of Birmingham. The current daily capacity crunch is intolerable for the west coast main line’s users and will become increasingly so as the months and years go by. Network Rail’s most recent assessment is that the line will be full to capacity by 2024. Some expert railwaymen—a number of whom sit on my rail users group, I am pleased to say—would argue that that capacity might be reached quite a bit earlier. So we are talking about an important matter.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is again making a very effective speech. Two possibilities could alleviate the problem of capacity on the west coast main line fairly quickly: we could develop and improve the line from Paddington to Birmingham Snow Hill to make it an express route, and we could develop a dedicated freight line to free up the west coast main line for more passenger traffic.

[Mr Binley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which I am sure the Minister has noted. My particular favourite is to ensure that High Speed 2 comes into being and is taken further, to Manchester and Leeds, because there is no doubt that transport systems cannot operate efficiently under the current pressures. That is one reason why we have the problems that we do, and it is one reason why the track is constantly in need of maintenance and repair, which makes the hold-ups even worse. We simply have to relieve that pressure. That is why I am a major supporter of High Speed 2. I argue that we should do our best to bring it forward as quickly as possible. I do not want to see High Speed 2 up and operating in 2030; I would much rather hear the Minister say, “We can make a target of 2024.” If the Chinese can put up a hotel in 14 days, we can do a little better than 2030.

I pay tribute to London Midland, because it has achieved a modicum of success, but that needs to be seen alongside the pressure. I feel for London Midland. I think it has many faults, but it is battling against a difficult situation. I make the point again that Rugby has been a problem in recent months. Rail travellers hate to get off at Northampton to circumvent Rugby by bus or, equally, to circumvent Milton Keynes going the other way.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I am distressed to hear my hon. Friend describe Rugby in such terms. We have a brilliant rail service and a fast-growing town, so I hope that he would look a little more kindly upon my constituency.

[Mr Binley]

We are on the other end of your line, mate, and I can tell you that the service is not as good as you argue. Otherwise, all my constituents would not be as up in arms and as dissatisfied as they are. My hon. Friend knows very well that we use quite a bit of the same line, and I do not believe that two towns so close together can have such differing views on the quality of rail transport in their area.

I turn to the problems specific to Northampton. The Government wish Northampton to be a growth area and have said that they want Northampton to build 56,000 extra houses by 2026, which will mean a population increase of 120,000—a 50% growth—yet where those people will work is a major question. Many of them will come from the south-east, especially London, thus alleviating the housing problems of that area. Consequently, commuting will become even more important. My guess is that there will be at least another 12,000 to 14,000 regular commuters on the link from Northampton through Milton Keynes down to Euston.

Commuting is becoming prohibitively expensive for the people of Northampton. As I have said, we will have 120,000 additional residents, at least 12,000 of whom will commute to London for work, yet the cost of an annual season ticket from Northampton to London is now £4,756, and a staggering £5,628 for those who need to go further on the underground. That does not take into account £815 in parking charges. All that is more than a quarter of the disposable income of a person on a £30,000 salary.

Many people will ask whether they can really afford to look to London to continue to provide them with employment. Many of them might even decide that it is not worth being employed at all, given the cost of commuting to a job in London. The major reason why people are moving to Northampton to fill the houses that I have talked about is that they cannot afford houses in London and the south-east. These people are the service workers of our great city. They provide vital services, but they are not highly paid. They do not work in the City, making millions on small money transactions—by small, I do not refer to volume, but to the difference between buying and selling. They are not those sort of people; they work in our restaurants, retail outlets and offices. Although £30,000 is a reasonably good salary in Northampton, if people have to pay a quarter of that to travel to their job, that is a pretty bad deal that needs to be looked at seriously.

Let me turn to the problem of the McNulty review. It seems that the Government for ever think that rail increases are a battle between the taxpayer and the consumer, but there is a third element: the service provider. McNulty was open about his concerns about the cost base of the rail providers and talked about prices being 30% more expensive per passenger kilometre than other rail systems in a comparative group. They ought to be out of business, for God’s sake! No business can operate effectively at a 30% higher cost base and expect its consumers to continue to support it. Usually, they would simply go to another supplier, but therein lies the problem.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the real conundrum? How can it be regarded as a private company when no private company could possibly operate in such circumstances?

[Mr Binley]

Of course, that is right, but because Network Rail is a monopoly in some respects, it needs the Government and the regulator to be its friend and ensure that it operates competitively, but we know from McNulty that it does not. McNulty has also said that there is a subsidy of 31p per passenger kilometre at present, so there is 30% more cost and 31% subsidy. What would happen if those costs were reduced? In addition to the taxpayer and the consumer, there is a third factor in cost setting and cost payment—the train operators. Let a message go out loud and clear that they have a duty and a responsibility to care for their customers in a much more efficient way than at present.

I am concerned about Network Rail’s supply chains and the way in which it bids for jobs. When I was a managing director and wanted to get work done for my business, I would talk to a number of suppliers and ask, “What’s the best way of doing this? How do I achieve the most efficient answer for this job at the most efficient cost?” Are Members aware that Network Rail does not do that? It decides internally what it wants done and then goes to people to tender on the basis of its own decisions about how best to undertake the job. We have talked about the quality of middle management in Network Rail. No wonder that costs are so high when middle management is poor and does not even look for ways to be more efficient by talking to suppliers who know what they are doing in relation to a given task.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is making yet another strong point. One of the problems in Network Rail is that contractors are required to work rigidly to specifications, even when those specifications are wrong. In British Rail’s day, the engineers locally would find out whether things were wrong and correct them as they went along.

[Mr Binley]

The hon. Gentleman talks some truth. I have never known a business man say that he wants an end product, only to ignore the supplier and say, “I’m not bothered about what you tell me is the efficient way to do it. This is how we are going to do it, because we know best.” But we do not know best—that is the reason why I would get a supplier in the first place.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is the blame culture that has developed at various points in Network Rail’s history?

[Mr Binley]

I do not know about that, but I have been interested in running efficient businesses all my life and I know that this is not efficient. That is what I am bothered about, and that is why I say to the Government that it is their job to make sure that it is efficient. If there are bad practices of this kind, it is the Government’s job to change things. The Minister represents all the consumers. They look to him as a kindly father who looks after their interests, and I am sure that he will do so.

I restate my full and enthusiastic support for high-speed rail. It is not about speed, and the nonsense about getting to Birmingham 20 minutes sooner is not the reason why it is important either. Of course, if we are to build a new railway, it must be the best that it can possibly be. Therefore, it must be the quickest and most efficient that it can possibly be. The real reason why high-speed rail is important, however, is capacity. My good friend the hon. Member for Luton North will tell us that we can only get so many trains on a line in a given hour. High-speed rail is about slots on the line and capacity. Rail will be oversubscribed by 2024—some people believe sooner—which is why high-speed rail is so vital.

Let us not have facile arguments about whether it is worth paying more to get to Birmingham sooner. That is not the point. The point is whether we get to Birmingham at all. Let that be a lesson to those who oppose High Speed 2. I know people who live in Manchester, Leeds and other such areas who know that there is a blockage in Birmingham. They know that it is increasingly difficult to go by rail through Birmingham and down to London and the south-east and then to the continent. They are looking to this Government to ensure that their part of HS2 is completed. I repeat that it is a massively important investment for the country in economic and social terms, and in ensuring that our children and grandchildren are employed on a good salary. I recommend that the Minister bring it forward to 2024. That is a target to set and, if he accomplishes that task, he will deserve a knighthood.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing the debate, because, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), the activities of whichever body is responsible for the management of our railway network have a significant impact on many of my constituents in Rugby, not only those who are commuters, travellers and users of the network, but those who live close to the railway. I shall talk about issues affecting that latter group in a moment.

The railway is important to the town of Rugby and its surrounding villages. The west coast main line runs through it. Our 50-minute service to Euston is operated by Virgin, and other trains, which take slightly longer and stop more regularly, are operated by London Midland. I do not have as much experience in the House as many other Members present, so I cannot outline history in the same way, but I intend to address three matters that affect the railway in Rugby that have been drawn to my attention in the 18 or so months since I became a Member of Parliament, two of which relate to the upgrade of the west coast main line that started in 2003 and was completed in 2008. Many of my constituents have told me about the massive disruption that they have experienced throughout that period.

I want to talk first about one of the major projects that Network Rail ran: the improvements at Rugby station that took place between 2006 and 2008. After listening to the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), it seems that his constituents are going through much of the disruption and uncertainty that my constituents went through over a period of two years. The improvements that have taken place are highly welcome. Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, the first impressions of Rugby have been transformed. It no longer seems to be an ugly, unattractive town where arrivals have to pass down a dark and dingy tunnel. People now arrive at a modern and vibrant building that exemplifies all that is good about the town of Rugby as a go-ahead and positive location for business.

[Mr Binley]

May I confirm that Northampton is on a loop line? Although the main line from Rugby works very well indeed, the loop line from Rugby through Northampton and down to Milton Keynes does not. If my hon. Friend could pay a little heed to that, I would be very grateful.

[Mark Pawsey]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend will expect me to stand up for my constituents who receive a good service. It is very important that we maintain that service, whether or not high-speed eventually takes place.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred to the accountability of Network Rail in the costing and management of its projects. Although we have a great new station at Rugby, there are very serious questions about how much it cost to deliver. Some of those questions were aired on the BBC “Panorama” programme on 16 January, when reporters were advised by the Office of Rail Regulation that soaring costs were an oversight, but that it was not possible to determine by how much the project had overspent. Our local newspaper, the Rugby and Lutterworth Observer, spoke to a member of the Rugby rail users group who talked about setbacks in the construction process leading to train services being stopped simply because Network Rail was unable to complete its work on time. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) drew attention to that issue.

We have got a new station, but the second matter regarding the changes at Rugby is the noise nuisance from the new track that has arisen since the works upgrade on the west coast main line. I have met Network Rail staff and approximately 25 residents to try to resolve that matter. In most cases, we are talking about residents who have lived in the area for many years. They had got used to living with the railway before the upgrade and were familiar and comfortable with the noise.

Many of the works that took place in Rugby were intended to enable trains to pass faster through Rugby station. Of course, the faster that trains travel—the higher the speed that they run at—the more noise is generated. In the district of Hillmorton, there are two separate noises: first, the absolute noise that the trains make; and secondly, a distinctive one-off thud is heard each time a train passes. I will come to that in a moment.

On major noise levels, my constituent Peter Bayliss invited me into his garden to listen to the noise. He showed me hand-held sound meter readings of between 89 and 90 dB for trains passing through at great speed. That was not previously a problem because, under the old alignment, trains slowed down to pass through the station. There appears to be no resolution to the issues faced by Mr Bayliss and his neighbours.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

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

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

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

[Mr Binley]

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

[John Woodcock]

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

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