Future of Rail

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

There are a lot of colleagues present. Some are on the speaking list and others are not. If you are hoping to get on the speaking list, I do not think you will have much success, but if Members keep their interventions short, there might be extra space. There will be three votes in about 10 to 15 minutes, and I shall suspend the sitting for 35 minutes to account for them.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of rail.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Charles. On 27 September 1825, as Stephenson’s Locomotion powered its way up out of Shildon towards Stockton, the eyes of the world marvelled at the height of British engineering. As we prepare for rail’s bicentenary against the backdrop of a different set of challenges, the excellence of British engineering can once again capture the imagination of what can be achieved and ignite a new transport revolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. There will be a four-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman is falling into the Tory trope of union bashing. I am a proud trade unionist, and the unions are there to better the conditions of their members. We do not want exploitation, do we? Is he going to be shoving kids up chimneys next? I fear the track he is going down. This issue is a bit of a smoke screen. We need long-term funding and a dependable model for London, which we used to have. Every other London Mayor had that, but in 2016 George Osborne suddenly cut the support grant. I think that had something to do with the complexion of City Hall, but—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way, because I do not get any extra time.

With covid giving way to a cost of living crisis, what did we see from the Chancellor? A cut in fuel duty and a 3.8% rise in fares, and I am not counting that gimmicky video—that thing, whatever it was—about the 1% of journeys where someone can get a cheap fare, going to the right place on the right day. That is not going to affect any of my constituents.

Meanwhile, we can only marvel at what they are doing outre-Manche in the rest of Europe. Look at Austria’s climate ticket. In Germany, there is a €9 a month regional transport ticket. In this country, no one between 25 and 65, which is probably most of the people here, is eligible for a national railcard, which is available elsewhere. I urge the Minister to look at something like that.

In conclusion, the future of rail should include projects that complete vaguely on time. I have an Oyster card holder that says, “Crossrail—new for 2018”. Ha! The future of rail would have considerate construction. HS2 goes through my seat and has made life a misery for the residents of Wells House Road, NW10. The future of rail would also have a visionary Government that could think long term, rather than say, “It’s all Sadiq Khan’s fault,” any time a London MP stands up to say anything, when we know that our London Mayor is doing a fantastic job against the odds. The country cannot be levelled up by levelling down London. The new Piccadilly line trains, due in 2025, are being built in Yorkshire. Level up London and the whole country benefits. Let us get Ealing, Acton and Chiswick back on the rails. Now that’s what I really call levelling up.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Chris Loder, with three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, I am trying to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing this important debate.

The climate emergency really does require that we change the way we travel. Radical and urgent action is needed, as well as a transformative plan to switch to more sustainable forms of transport and at the same time create new and innovative jobs for our workforce. As in other parts of the country, rail plays a pivotal role in Wales as a public transport network, with millions of passengers dependent on rail for commuting and leisure. It is a critical asset and must have a greater role in Wales if it is to achieve an integrated, intersectional, accessible, affordable, efficient and sustainable transport system that meets the needs of the present while protecting the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Welsh Government have set out an ambitious vision for transport in Wales, as set out in their strategy, Llwybr Newydd.

As in other parts of the country, Wales faces many challenges—similar challenges to the rest of the United Kingdom. When he was Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates, Member of the Senedd, said that rail delivery in Wales was “complex, fragmented and underfunded.” In Wales, the rail service continues to suffer from infrequent services, unreliable infrastructure and indirect routes. Only last year the Welsh Affairs Committee, on which I sit, published a report on rail in Wales that exposed a raft of issues: performance issues, poor service experience, inadequate stations, the cost, infrequency, accessibility and low standards. There is an urgent need for the network in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, to be upgraded.

I want to focus on three priorities for Wales. Again, these apply to the rest of the UK. First is bringing rail back into public ownership. In 2020, the Welsh Government decided to take the Wales and Borders rail franchise into public ownership in order to protect services, safeguard jobs and deliver infrastructure improvements, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges associated with covid. Second is fully devolved rail in Wales. In the words of the Welsh Government:

“Rail devolution is essential for us to deliver the comprehensive, integrated, and efficient transport network needed across Wales”.

Finally, we need a fair funding settlement to improve rail networks in Wales. HS2 should be reclassified as an England-only project. That would provide Wales, through the Barnett formula, with around £5 billion—not million—to spend on rail infrastructure in Wales. We are taking a llwybr newydd—a new path. We have set out a new way of thinking that places people and climate at the centre of our transport system so that we can deliver a transport system for the whole of Wales, but we need action by Westminster as well, and action needs to happen now. Diolch yn fawr.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Gavin Newlands, you have 10 minutes. You do not have to take it all, but we will put you on a countdown clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

Oh, it’s coming—only 900 days late, severely hindering industry players’ investment in their skills and technology and making future infrastructure programmes even more expensive and slower to deliver. Given the unheeded warnings regarding the enhancement pipeline, including a plethora of my own written parliamentary questions on this subject, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us today as to when the updated document will finally appear.

Then, of course, there is the distinct lack of accessibility, as ably highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I appreciate that the Minister has only recently taken on the rail brief, but considering the Government’s decade of rail mismanagement, what prospects are there for a promising future in rail under this Government? No doubt, the Ministers today will extol the virtues of Great British Railways as their innovative solution to revolutionise the railways and herald a bright future, but despite consisting of 113 pages, last year’s Williams-Schapps plan for rail lacked the detail necessary for the industry to understand its day-to-day operations.

As the barrister and legal commentator Max Hardy recently tweeted:

“A car journey costs the same if it’s planned 6 minutes ahead or 6 months ahead”.

If trains are not competing on price, comfort or convenience, what is the point of them? We need devolution and integration of our public transport, as was ably highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer)—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who explained why the fragmentation and privatisation of the rail industry has ensured that there is such a disastrous impact on our railways. I hope that the Government will look back into taking the railways back into public ownership, so that we put people before profit.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Well done. Minister, you have 10 minutes and then Rachel Maskell has 90 seconds to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. Let me continue, because he does make some very important points on the private sector. GBR will harness the very best of the private sector—innovation, an unrelenting focus on quality, and outstanding customer service—and fuse it with a single guiding mind, empowered to drive benefits and efficiencies across the system as a whole.

I will quickly touch on some of the points raised by hon. Members. A number spoke of reform; I want to be absolutely clear that we are committed to workforce reform, which will make the railways financially and operationally sustainable for the future, to deliver in the ways that passengers want, and provide greater opportunities and more flexible roles for employees.

We talked about GBR; we also have the GBR transition team in place. While transformation on this scale cannot happen overnight, the Government and the sector are committed to ensuring that benefits for passengers and freight customers are brought forward as quickly as possible. Since our plan for rail, we have set up the GBR transition team, fulfilling the plan for rail’s commitment to start interim arrangements immediately.

The hon. Member for York Central referenced her bid for York to be the GBR HQ, as did others—my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). GBRTT is currently overseeing the competition to select the national HQ for GBR, which is to be based outside of London, ensuring that skilled jobs, investment and economic benefits are delivered nationwide and in line with this Government’s historic commitment to levelling up across the nation.

I am pleased to say that we have received an amazing 42 applications—an incredibly positive response to the recent expression of interest phase. Obviously, there was one for York, and six others were mentioned by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I am conscious of time, and I know that there have been other debates on GBR’s possible HQ locations, but I do commend the hon. Member for York Central for her tireless advocacy of York in the past.

I want to quickly touch on other points in the time that I have. On RNEP, please be patient; we will be coming forward with that in due course. There were very specific requests from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) around services, new franchising, and a request for a meeting. I am happy to pick that up after the debate.

Various points were raised around accessibility and tactiles by a number of colleagues. That is something that I feel is very important, and we are absolutely committed to increasing the tactiles to 100%, and Network Rail has received an initial £10 million to install tactiles.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Rachel Maskell, you have one minute and 20 seconds.

[Rachael Maskell]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I thank all hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate. We truly have debated the future of rail. It has been outstanding, with all of the contributions mentioning safety, stations, staffing and local services, as we try to grapple with the real challenges ahead of us around connectivity and the climate. Of course, centred in that is the opportunity that Great British Railways will bring to our network, to our country and to our future.

I trust that, in today’s debate, not only was the case for York made so strongly, but also the plea to look to the next 200 years of our railways, using the bicentenary for real investment in our rail cluster, to ensure that we truly can be global Britain once more on our railways.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, colleagues; you performed magnificently—a team effort.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Future of the Coach Industry

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Golden Boy Coaches in my constituency is a family business. It has been run not for decades but for generations. The owners have never darkened my door before. They have got on with their lives and grown their business. They have provided services to generations of my constituents. Such businesses are part of our communities, as we have heard so eloquently from many other speakers. Now they face a lifetime’s work—generations’ work—going under because high maintenance levels, high debt levels and the high costs of compliance do not sit easily with no customers. No business sits easily with high fixed costs.

We have to get the economy moving again. Coach providers do the school run in the morning and in the evening, and the only reason that those two activities paid was because the providers did things in between. After the school run in the morning, they did trips to matinees and racecourses, and after the evening school run they went to the theatres and restaurants. These companies are absolutely on their knees. Golden Boy has a future, but that future does not look rosy. It could be a very small future without more Government intervention.

We in this place are excellent at spending money—we are brilliant at it. We are great at borrowing it; the Chancellor is fantastic at borrowing it, and we are really good at spending it for him, but we do not want to spend money that has already been spent. Money was spent on giving rate relief to the supermarkets, but well over £1 billion of it has come back. As far as the Chancellor was concerned, it had gone out of the door. He has got it back, but he did not expect to see it back, so I say to the Minister: can we not use some of that money—that £1 billion—to throw a lifeline to coach companies?

As I said at the start of my very brief speech, coach operators are the people we never heard from, who got on with their businesses, built their businesses and employed our constituents. They never troubled us, and now they need us, so we need to be there for them.

UK Maritime Industry

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Since so many colleagues want to speak, I shall impose a limit of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I was expecting to sum up as the Front-Bench spokesman.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

You are allowed to have 10 minutes, Mr Hendry.

[Drew Hendry]

That is fine. I am happy to speak now, so thank you very much, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I agree with the praise that he has given to seafarers and to the contribution that they make not only to island communities, but to coastal communities in Scotland and around the UK.

The Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman’s comments struck a chord. I hope some of mine will strike a chord as well, and I hope my questions will be answered, although I must give warning that I have many questions, so perhaps saving them might be the best thing to do. This is about the future of the UK maritime industry, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said it was about leadership. He is right: the future needs a vision and a plan—for employment, fair conditions, business and safety, as well as to attract young people and, especially, correct the lack of young women in the industry.

To begin with employment and fair conditions, I join the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in being delighted that there is now an agreement in principle to end the long-running issue about the freight vessel serving the Northern Isles. The new charter basis will allow the wage issue to be resolved and crew members will be paid the minimum wage. The new arrangements come into effect next month, which is to be welcomed. I shall not go through the details, which he covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I will indeed.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I will give everyone five minutes, but Members have to be mindful of interventions—particularly those who have already spoken.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Lady talked about women crew members on merchant ships. Will she join me in paying tribute to the RNLI for the increasing number of women who are on our lifeboats, saving lives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for initiating the debate. I confess that before my election, I had little real knowledge of the modern industry, but I have been steadily learning from my contacts and visits to Forth Ports Grangemouth. I have also attended trips on to ships with the local seafarers mission, which I cannot praise enough for doing such a fantastic job in supporting workers, and I have had talks with and briefings from the RMT and Nautilus, as well as haulage contractors in my area. I am grateful to all those bodies for assisting me during the past 18 months.

Grangemouth is of course Scotland’s largest container port. It is also Scotland’s largest port, with the site covering 386 acres. Grangemouth lies at the centre of Scotland’s industrial heartland. It is situated midway between the main Scottish cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh and is served by the M9 motorway, with links to the national motorway network, and is also well rail-linked.

Approximately 9 million tonnes of cargo are handled through the dock facilities each year. With about 150,000 containers and as much as 30% of Scotland’s GDP going through the port, it is the UK’s largest feeder port and the only one that exports more than it imports. Locally, Forth Ports employs some 200 people within the port and supports a further 1,000 jobs within the port estate. Therefore, the industry’s significance to my constituency cannot be overstated, although it may often be overlooked by those driving past the gates.

Almost no topic can be debated nowadays without some reference to the issues surrounding Brexit, and this debate is no exception. The maritime industry plays a major role in helping to facilitate the wider freedom of trade in goods. Given the volumes and patterns of freight, leaving the EU will have implications for the shipping sector. One specific concern is about UK flag ships losing their right to operate in the domestic trades of those EU member states that maintain flag-based cabotage restrictions. The economists Oxera have said that changes to the costs of trade with the EU are

“likely to affect the volumes and patterns of freight activity at ports, while the need for new customs checks on imports and exports is likely to cause considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports.”

Given the nature of the work at Grangemouth, that is a real concern, although any negative impact could clearly be mitigated through European economic area membership or free trade agreements. The industry’s importance to our countries’ ability to trade worldwide and not just with Europe is key, especially with more than 90% of all trade being handled through our ports. Given that we are an island nation, that is not likely to change, but it leads to questions about how it is done and the role of seafarers, without whom that trade just would not be possible.

The role of seafarers is perhaps the most concerning aspect of the maritime industry. Since 2011, the number of UK ratings has declined by 25%, while the number of UK seafarers has decreased by some 13%. That portends a very serious risk of loss of skills and may even threaten the viability of our home-grown industry, unless training and employment rates improve significantly. That skills deficit is set to be compounded further by future retirals of an increasingly ageing workforce. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of the RMT and its SOS 2020 campaign to highlight that threat to the UK seafarers skills base.

While we face that decline in skilled seafarers, there is in fact a global surplus of ratings, with many of the ratings in the international shipping industry coming from cheaper-wage economies. That is compounded by exploitative practices by some operators, which abuse the complexities of the national minimum wage regulations and pay scandalous rates of pay to some seafarers. That has been much commented on today, so I will just add my disappointment that many seafarers are not receiving a fair wage. Confusion and complexity surrounding the NMW needs to be addressed by the Government. In particular, the meaning of the term “ordinarily working in the UK” needs to be made crystal clear. I would welcome hearing from the Minister how that can best be achieved and how the situation whereby there are current cases of two people working on the same ship and doing the same job but being paid different amounts based largely on nationality can be addressed.

My trade union contacts have flagged up with me the following issue, which highlights the point succinctly and demonstrates the international dimension. The Norwegian international flag register is the second register for Norway. It is not allowed to cabotage in Norway and does not pay tax there. I am told that these ships are among the worst offenders. The majority of these ships operating from Aberdeen stay in the UK permanently, with some not having left for more than 10 years. They have on board Norwegian nationals who receive Norwegian rates of pay, but non-Norwegians are employed on what has been described to me as “peanuts”. The fact that such issues can be so clearly identified must mean that solutions are not beyond conception. I look forward to the Minister’s summing-up.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, colleagues, for your conciseness and your co-operation. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) could have had two minutes, but she would prefer to ask the Minister a question. It will obviously be up to the Minister to decide whether to take that intervention, but I know that the hon. Lady would like to ask a question as opposed to making a speech. The Front Benchers will have 11 minutes each, which will allow the mover of the motion to have two minutes at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I am simply pointing out that the company is operating in our waters and that we need collectively to do something about it.

We are an island nation, a net importer, and we are now leaving the European Union. We have the largest port sector in Europe in terms of tonnage handled and, as has been said, we have millions of ferry passengers every year. Our economic, social and security interests will depend more than at any time since the second world war on seafarers and a resilient UK maritime skills base. It is probably worth putting this in context. At the time of the Falklands war in 1982, the UK had a strong merchant naval sector; we employed 58,000 UK seafarers. That figure has now shrunk by almost 60% to 23,000. That is the context in which we are working.

Sub-national minimum wages continue to blight the lives of seafarers working on UK domestic and short sea journeys. I have seen figures alleging that at least eight operators along 11 short sea routes to and from the UK are underpaying more than 800 crew. In my own area, on ships crossing from Newcastle to Amsterdam, DFDS pays its staff £2.93 an hour—less than £3. I took a recent weekend trip to Amsterdam, which I really enjoyed, but quite honestly, if I had known that—well, I feel really uncomfortable about it. As a result of this debate, I will be writing to DFDS and other companies to say that it is simply not acceptable.

At present, passengers and businesses are travelling on Condor Ferries to the Channel Islands on vessels crewed by seafarers earning as little as £2.40 an hour. On freight-only ships, the pay is as low as £1.64 an hour. That is not acceptable. Prior to the national living wage increase for over-24s last April, it was estimated that 8,300 ratings were working the UK shipping industry for rates of pay below the national minimum wage. That was in April last year; the figure is now considerably higher than 8,300. Increasingly, companies are recruiting outside the UK to crew their ships with non-UK seafarers, particularly ratings, in order to profit from these sub-national minimum wage rates.

This is not a new problem. It has to be said that this goes well beyond the current Government. Beyond the simple injustices, we can see the cost of not having acted in the past. This legalised exploitation has systematically undermined maritime jobs in the UK, damaged the skill base and driven up unemployment rates in seafarer communities across the UK. Since 2011 alone, the number of UK ratings has fallen by 25%. If we end the pay exploitation in shipping, we can help to reverse the decline of our merchant navy. This need not be a party political issue, but one of sense, fairness and humanity.

There are three points that I would like the Minister to take forward from this debate. First, he has already committed to review the application of pay legislation across the shipping industry imminently. However, as we have already heard, that has already happened—the Carter review did it—so this is just a case of setting a timeframe and getting it implemented. Secondly, can the Minister give a date for when we can expect publication of updated guidance to HMRC on enforcement of the national minimum wage for seafarers? Thirdly, when will he publish the outcomes of the review of the existing protections in part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 against nationality-based pay discrimination for seafarers? That work was completed in April last year, yet 10 months later it has still not been published.

However, as we have heard, pay is only part of the problem and part of the solution. More than 70% of deck and 74% of engine ratings are now aged over 40. We are heading for a shortfall in trained and skilled seafarers. If we take no action, that will be filled by non-UK staff. The Select Committee on Transport warned over two years ago that the Government needed to act on funding, on approved standards for maritime apprenticeships, on the take-up of apprenticeships in the industry, on setting annual statutory targets for seafarer training and on including the number of trainee ratings in annual seafarer statistics. We would like to know from the Minister when we will get some action on that.

One area of maritime growth where the Government have not dragged their feet is on the recommendations to make the UK shipping register more commercially responsive, in the form of a Government corporation. I would gently point out to the Minister some other areas where this and former Governments have rushed to privatise—the rail industry, the energy industry and the water industry come to mind. Recent attitude polls among the electorate now show that the majority of our constituents—in some cases over 90%—want to see those decisions reversed, because they see formerly Government-owned, privatised industries making massive profits, but customers paying massive bills and getting a poor service. I would gently ask the Minister whether he will properly and carefully consider the costs and benefits of transforming the UK shipping register, fully consider all the options and also promise that this House will be given time to scrutinise those options?

Before closing, I wish to press the Minister on leaving the EU. At the moment we know nothing about the Government’s wider maritime priorities, at a time when we need a clear direction on maritime issues that would inform the Brexit negotiations. How will any changes to the single market affect shipping and seafarers? Will there be customs checks? Will there be tariffs? Is his Department feeding into the Brexit negotiations on these matters? If it is, will he tell us how?

In closing, I hope the Minister can elaborate on his Government’s plans for Brexit, or at least recognise that maritime is an exceptional issue that needs to take precedence. He must also assure the House about the future of the shipping register, along with the timeframe and process for any reforms. Will he outline his priorities for seafarer training and skills, and say whether he will set targets for recruitment? Finally, I look forward to him addressing the key point to come out of this debate about seafarer pay and conditions.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We have a lot to get through. Will the Minister be mindful to leave a minute or so at the end for Mr Carmichael to wind up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

We have had a truly excellent debate. Although we have had contributions from 15 right hon. and hon. Members, including the Minister, we have managed to cover the full range of areas, instead of each of us standing up and piece by piece repeating what has already been said. I hope that we will see the debate as not just an event in itself, but the start of a process, and that the Minister will make good on his undertakings this afternoon, both on the prioritisation of policy work and on his continuing engagement with parliamentarians. It is clear that there is a common and shared interest in all parts of the House. For me, it is a matter of some satisfaction and relief that the debate has been as well attended and productive as it has been.

I confess that this is the first time I have sponsored a Back-Bench business debate. When I was last a Back Bencher, there was no such thing as the Backbench Business Committee. I got a bit of a telling-off from the Committee because apparently I did not fill in the form very well. Those things are important; I took its criticisms to heart. When the opportunity arises for a reprise of this debate, I will be able to pray in aid our excellent proceedings this afternoon to ensure that we can keep the issue on the Floor of the House and at the front of public attention, because that is where it belongs.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank all colleagues for their co-operation on time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the UK maritime industry.

West Anglia Taskforce Report

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

Yes. I do not think there is any inconsistency. I will refer to those other improvements that can be made in the short term, but ultimately it is as plain as a pikestaff that if one wants to have fast services on this railway to stations such as Bishop’s Stortford, Audley End, Whittlesford Parkway and Cambridge, let alone to the airport, they have to be able to overtake the trains that are stopping at Ponders End, Brimsdown and so on. Anything that can be done to improve the service in the meantime we shall certainly be commending.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that too many of our commuters are paying a premium rate for a second-rate service, due to the way that the franchises are structured and the fees are taken by Government from those franchisees? What we need is the Government to invest in providing a premium service.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I agree and I shall add to my hon. Friend’s comments later. It is asking a lot to expect people to pay more money each year for a service that has actually been getting worse, not better. That needs addressing.

There is a challenge and an opportunity, and we tried to deal with them succinctly and powerfully in the taskforce report. The Minister probably knows it backwards by now; he was good enough to attend the launch and we were delighted by that. Today he has probably had to quickly refocus on this part of the railway network after dealing with the issue of Cardiff Central station.

Demand has increased on this railway over the years. More houses and more businesses will add to the number of people travelling on the railway. With all the houses that we know are due to be built over the next 15 years, not only in the district of Uttlesford, but in east Hertfordshire, Braintree, south Cambridgeshire and so on, commuters need a railway that offers reliability, comfort and speed. None of that can be guaranteed at present with the state of the railway. Journeys have got longer and more expensive, in older trains on rickety infrastructure. I commend the fact that, having won the new franchise, Abellio Greater Anglia is putting money aside to refurbish—I think the term used is “refresh”—some of the railway carriages with which it has been saddled, but as ageing actresses are inclined to say, there is only so much that make-up can do.

It goes without saying that what commuters from our increased population want is also required by the world-class businesses that we have along the Lea valley and north all the way to Cambridge. World-class businesses need a first-class railway. We also have to consider the travel needs of those in inner London. Transport for London has great ambition for a metro service with frequent trains and, clearly, population build-up in north-east London, through which this line runs, will add pressure.

The other point to address is that the jobs being created further out of London will not be filled by people already living in those areas. The unemployment rate in the Saffron Walden constituency is 0.7%. Stansted Airport alone is scheduled to create 10,000 jobs over the next 15 years, never mind other businesses large and small. They will have to find workers from elsewhere and the railway is the key. People could travel from east and north London. If their railway line were reliable and swift, they could travel that way to work, which would ease the pressures on the social communities in which the businesses exist.

There is also the matter of freight. It is generally accepted that getting freight off the road and on to the rail as far as possible is a good thing. We should think of accommodating extra train paths that would enable more freight trains to run without interfering with the passenger traffic during the day.

Then, of course, there is Stansted airport, which is designated London’s third airport. It is there; it is a fact. Many of my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies did not want a third London airport at an inland site, but it is there. It has got the legal right to increase its capacity from 24 million to 35 million passengers per annum, and there is no doubt that, as Gatwick has shown, more than that can be done on a single runway. A decision has only now been taken about building another runway in London—the Government have chosen Heathrow—but the most optimistic date for it to be operational is 2025. Many of us think that even that is optimistic. Given that Gatwick and Heathrow are virtually full, where in the meantime is extra traffic to London going to go? It seems that the only realistic spare capacity that could be employed is at Stansted, so how many more people will want to use that railway line? They will press it to breaking point if we are not careful.

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend’s point is correct. Even if there is no further growth in the next 10 years, the service our constituents currently receive is inadequate. Our line is not fit for purpose. There is no more capacity on it that can be utilised comfortably.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

That is right, and I thank my hon. Friend for underlining that point. If we consider the airport alone—and leave aside business growth and the houses that will yield more future commuters—it is hard to see how the railway can bear the strain unless we take action along the lines of the taskforce’s recommendations.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I very much take the right hon. Lady’s point. The history of the past few years shows that, in the end, everybody suffers. The Stansted Express started as a service that was non-stop, apart from Tottenham Hale, and did the journey in 41 minutes. It now takes 47 minutes, and some of the trains take longer than that, because everybody has had to compromise and the misery has been shared. It is an utterly ridiculous situation.

It is possible that we could get earlier and later trains for the airport service. That seems sensible. Improved connectivity is needed with Stratford, which is, of course, a major centre of activity in our capital city. Four-tracking would pave the way for the Crossrail 2 project, which will be of enormous benefit to Greater London and will bring a lot of investment into a sector that has been relatively starved, compared with other parts of the city. That vital new railway, which was originally based on the idea of the Chelsea-Hackney underground line, will be an important link between the gateway to east Anglia and south-west London. I do not want to get into an argument about which stations will be served if the project goes ahead. The way Crossrail 2 is conceived at the moment, it cannot go ahead unless there is four-tracking along the west Anglia line.

I have used the word “need” a great deal, because it has to be stressed. Right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken pointed to their constituents’ needs. The growing pressures simply cannot be met on a two-track railway. The fact that we can think of extra track capacity being installed only by 2026 is a cause of deep worry, because the pressures are going to get much bigger before that. In every year in which nothing is done, the problems get worse for all our constituents. Last Wednesday, a train failed, and there was an 87-minute delay on a journey that was supposed to take 47 minutes from the airport. If the situation gets worse, I would advise Abellio Greater Anglia to adjust its order to Bombardier for new trains to include sleeping cars.

We do not have the luxury of an easy alternative to four-tracking. Incremental improvements will help but, in the view of the taskforce, they alone will not get us to Cambridge in 60 minutes and Stansted in 40, which is our aim. If the Government are minded to see this problem as one that has to be resolved, committing to an early start will fuel, not frustrate, the economic growth on which we vitally depend. I am conscious of the fact that the Minister and the Government are beset by other claims for further improvements to our railway network. I do not want to detract from the big strides that have been made over recent years, but there is still a lot to be done. A document seeking a comprehensive metro service for our capital city has been published, and it is right and proper that that is accommodated. There is also the report of the Great Eastern Main Line Taskforce, which is headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I declare an interest in those recommendations, too, because a number of my constituents use Chelmsford station, in particular. The metro aims, the great eastern main line and the west Anglia main line are all jostling, trying to get the Minister’s attention and perhaps that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One has to be realistic: I do not think that all those ambitions can be met at exactly the same time, but it is not possible to do 12 trains an hour on a two-track system while maintaining fast services to the outer London destinations. There will have to be some give and take as improvements begin. Understandably, I am today concentrating on the west Anglia component.

The Government have accepted a bid from Abellio Greater Anglia to run the greater Anglia franchise with—astonishingly—new trains across the piece. Every single carriage is going to be replaced. They understand that Stansted airport will expand its passenger throughput and create more jobs in the next few years, and they have given a benevolent nod in the direction of the Crossrail 2 project. I say to the Government: therefore join the dots. Why have new trains with improved acceleration capacity if they do not have the track on which to use it? All those things logically point to the fact that the infrastructure has got to be improved.

I turn again to the challenge. I defy any train operator possessing a collaborative workforce and equipped with new trains to provide an acceptable, let alone an enhanced, level of service on a railway that has defective points, signals and overhead wires, too many crossings, and a gross lack of track capacity. That sentence is a summary of the taskforce’s assessment, in respect of which it has offered a staged remedy.

Apart from the challenge, there is the opportunity. There is some hope. In the taskforce report, we refer to the fact that new, better performing trains for inner London services are on order and will be delivered in 2018-19. The STAR project, with a third track between Stratford and Angel Road, will be delivered in 2018. Network Rail is reviewing the crossings, of which there are 82 between London Liverpool Street and Cambridge, to see what potential there is to contribute to line speed and reliability improvements.

The train operator, confirmed as Abellio Greater Anglia, will examine the scope for timetable adjustments within existing constraints, including the introduction of earlier trains to serve the airport. There is a commitment, to which I have referred, to introduce a complete set of new trains by 2020. Four-tracking the railway, therefore, between Coppermill junction and Broxbourne junction by 2026—if that is the earliest it can be done—will be a major contribution towards the development of Crossrail 2, which will be an enormous bonus for passengers, benefiting people travelling to and from outer London destinations as well as supporting metro services and housing growth.

Four-tracking, which is the principal, and admittedly most expensive, recommendation of the taskforce, is the essential precursor to Crossrail 2. It will supercharge connectivity between Surrey, London and Hertfordshire, and provide an important gateway to the Anglian region.

[Mr Charles Walker]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Before he concludes his speech, will he cover the support he has received, as we all have, from the local authorities along the track? Their contribution has also been important.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps I had rather glossed over that in reference to the composition of the taskforce, but we have had full representation from local authority people from different points along the line as part of the taskforce. They have bought into this plan completely, and we have also had the support of the local enterprise partnerships. What has been stressed is that local authorities and business can assist in bringing forward as early as possible the infrastructure improvements, if they can be prioritised, and therefore ensure that any money going, to which they can contribute, will help the project to come to the top of the pile.

We ended up by believing that the goal should be Cambridge in 60 and Stansted in 40. I say to the Minister: let us get on with it.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing the debate and on the report that we are debating. As chair of the West Anglia Taskforce, he has helped to make the strongest possible case for investment in rail to support growth. I pay tribute all members of the taskforce, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their hard work. They have produced a comprehensive and timely report that I have no problem wholeheartedly endorsing. I would like to give a special mention to my friend and fellow Enfieldian, Doug Taylor, the leader of Enfield Council and one of the taskforce’s 16 members. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden pay tribute to the council leaders and councils who are supportive of the taskforce’s work.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I pay tribute to Mark Mills-Bishop? He is the leader of Broxbourne Council, which has also been entirely engaged in the process.

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely. The taskforce is a fine example of Members of Parliament and their local authorities working closely together on something that is so important to their local areas’ development and economic development.

In championing the development of the west Anglia main line corridor, our council leader, Doug Taylor, has played an important role in making Enfield’s case for why the upgrade of the line is so vital for local residents and the economic development of our borough. I am sure the same is true for Broxbourne.

The primary focus of my speech will be on the potential benefits to be unlocked in Enfield, from transport to growth and productivity, employment and housing, by four-tracking the west Anglia main line in advance of Crossrail 2. Many of my constituents will agree with the taskforce’s analysis that rail services along the west Anglia main line are “relatively slow” and “infrequent” and that “the line lacks resilience.” In fact, I would be willing to bet that a fair few would say that is putting it mildly. I receive many emails from constituents frustrated with the service who do not put it quite so mildly, and understandably so.

[Mr Walker]

I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Lady also gets many representations from constituents about the appalling performance of the Hertford loop line and Great Northern. We have twin problems that we need to deal with.

[Joan Ryan]

Indeed I do. In fact, I travel on Govia’s service on the Hertford loop almost every day, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, so I can give testimony to that. I also have experience of turning up at Liverpool Street to get the Stansted Express only to find a huge number of very frustrated passengers—they would be passengers if they could get on a train—many of whom are frantic that they will miss their flight. That cannot be good for Stansted or any of the development in business that we wish to see up the Lea valley corridor and in the Cambridge-Stansted corridor. It is most serious. In Enfield we are trapped between these two train lines, and it seems we have been talking about four-tracking for a long time.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have bulging case files in my constituency office from local commuters who have contacted me time and time again to complain about last-minute cancellations on the line. The only thing that surprises me—I am pleased that it is the case—is that they will not give up. They are not going to get used to this. It has to be addressed.

As the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said in the foreword to the taskforce’s report,

“people travelling to work require reliability”.

Their jobs and livelihoods depend on that. I met with the managing director of Abellio Greater Anglia, Jamie Burles, recently and raised the concerns of passengers facing cancellations, delays and poor service every day on the west Anglia main line. With a new franchise agreement secured, Abellio has ambitious plans to improve the customer experience.

While we need urgent improvements in the short term, Abellio’s promise to replace its current rolling stock with faster, more reliable trains by September 2020 is welcome. I fear that many of my constituents will stand back with horror at the idea of another four years of where we are now, but I also recognise what the right hon. Gentleman said about the refresh of the trains. No matter what improvements Abellio may make, services for my constituents will continue to be severely hampered unless we are able to upgrade the current twin-tracking of the line from Coppermill junction through Enfield and towards Broxbourne junction.

The limited space on the tracks affects journey times, reliability and capacity, as we have heard. I was not surprised to learn that a Network Rail assessment indicated that four-tracking this section of the line could reduce delays by half. Greater capacity, however, would not only mean greater reliability; it would also mean faster and more frequent trains, with 12 more trains per hour in each direction from Crossrail 2. Frankly, that would transform the lives of commuters and rail users in Enfield, and the improvements might also result in another huge benefit for residents—a better quality of life.

The borough of Enfield is bounded to the north by the M25 and to the south by the North circular, the A406. Other major arterial roads cut through Enfield, such as the Great Cambridge Road or A10, the Hertford Road, Bullsmoor Lane and Mollison Avenue. They are all heavily congested. My constituents living on or around those roads have had their lives blighted for too many years by pollution and poor air quality. Furthermore, now we know what we know about NOx—oxides of nitrogen—and what a poisonous form of pollution they are, that is even more worrying.

I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden about freight, because that is a major issue for us. Bullsmoor Lane, for example, is pretty much an extension of the M25, with huge lorries coming down it all day long, on to Mollison, to come down into London, or going back the other way. All that freight should be on the railways, but how can we persuade people of that, given the state of the service? The lorries are pumping out NOx just at the level of pushchairs with children in, or little ones going to school, and they are sucking everything in. We know they will be affected for the rest of their lives. The situation is very serious.

Investment in transport infrastructure is so important to help tackle such problems. As the report states:

“Rail improvements can encourage more people to travel by train instead of car, helping to reduce the number of cars on the road and reducing harmful CO2 and particulate emissions.”

That is exactly what Enfield residents need, what they want to hear and what they want to see.

On growth and productivity, Enfield Council, through initiatives such as the north-east Enfield area action plan, is seeking to bring more inward investment, development and regeneration opportunities to that part of the borough. The north-east Enfield area stretches from the M25 southwards to Ponders End and includes the communities of Enfield Lock, Enfield Highway, Turkey Street and Southbury in my constituency, as well as Ponders End in Edmonton. The area sits at the heart of the Lea valley corridor, along the route of the west Anglia main line. It is home to the second largest industrial estate in the capital, at Brimsdown.

We are fortunate to have some world-leading technology companies with factories or depots in the area, such as Siemens, Johnson Matthey and the defence contractors Kelvin Hughes and ChartCo. Also, over the past few years, in that part of the borough and elsewhere we have seen a growth in scientific and technical microbusinesses. Enfield has a well-deserved reputation for innovation and enterprise.

Securing further investment, however, is crucial to maximising Enfield’s potential. The upgrading of the west Anglia main line, with its more reliable and frequent rail service, will widen the labour catchment areas for business; it will help to attract new businesses to north-east Enfield; and it will ensure that businesses that are already there will want to stay and grow. Russell Gould from Kelvin Hughes says on page 19 of the report:

“It is critically important that Kelvin Hughes and ChartCo have efficient, fast and reliable commuting connections in and out of London. Kelvin Hughes supports any initiative that enables us to maintain and expand our competitiveness.”

Anyone who wants to see Enfield’s incredible potential only has to look at the Meridian Water development—the 85 hectare, £3.5 billion investment that will provide 10,000 new homes, new leisure facilities, schools, jobs and a new train station over the next 20 years. Given that the borough of Enfield is already the fifth most populous in the capital and is, according to the latest Greater London Authority figures, due to become the fourth most populous by 2026, those new homes are very important to the future development of the borough, as well as to the quality of life I mentioned.

Ensuring the success of new housing developments, however, is contingent upon significant improvements first being made to Enfield’s transport infrastructure. Enfield Council has already made good progress in co-ordinating the essential infrastructure to ensure that the Meridian Water scheme is a success, securing an investment of £122 million for essential rail infrastructure and station improvements. In addition, the advent of four-tracking, as a precursor to Crossrail 2, will help spur much-needed redevelopment in north-east Enfield and beyond. As Doug Taylor, the leader of Enfield Council, said:

“The council fully supports the transformational potential of Crossrail 2. We are confident the scheme will unlock tens of thousands of homes and jobs along the wider Upper Lee Valley.”

Should all that come to pass, Enfield certainly has a bright future. The compelling case for investment made in the taskforce’s report would, if implemented, play a crucial role in enabling my borough to succeed. I join my colleagues from across the House, in particular those with constituencies running up the west Anglia main line, in calling on the Government to give the green light to this vital investment as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to learning more about how the Government will deliver the taskforce’s recommendations. I also assure the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden that I have written to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commend the report and the four-tracking project as an early phase of Crossrail 2.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing the debate and on the hard graft he has put in over many years on this issue. I suspect that we are all present today not only because he secured the debate but because he has put sustained and long-term pressure on the Government. It is also probably down to him that the West Anglia Taskforce was established in the first place.

Several of us in the Chamber today joined others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), at the recent launch event in Bishop’s Stortford, where the Minister gave us considerable cause for optimism. I remember him describing the pile of glossy brochures on his office floor in Blackpool. He assured us that this particular glossy brochure, the report, is one that is well worth reading closely.

I also pay tribute to the work of the London Stansted Cambridge Consortium and the associated all-party parliamentary group on the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor, especially my right hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham and for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and Lord Harris of Haringey. The consortium has made a compelling case generally for investment in the corridor, and specifically in the west Anglia rail route which serves the corridor. The onus is now on the Government to act accordingly.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the idea of four-tracking is not new. I have been campaigning for it, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends for the past 11 years, since I entered Parliament. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who first entered Parliament in 1997, has been campaigning for it since then, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) who moved the motion today has been campaigning for it for at least 25 years. The time has come to end the campaign and to ask the Government to start the building.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I could not agree more. We will await the Minister’s comments with interest.

I strongly endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North about the composition of the West Anglia Taskforce and the very good work done by a range of representatives from local authorities, including some from Cambridgeshire and Essex, of course, and beyond the local authorities—Transport for London, the Department for Transport and the airport at Stansted. It is a really good example of people coming together and making a very strong case. I also commend my right hon. Friend’s comments about the need to improve our air quality not only in her constituency, but in many places. Such issues are pressing.

The West Anglia Taskforce report sets out the case for investment in the west Anglia main line, and that case builds on the excellent foundations laid down by the London Stansted Cambridge Consortium. The need for change is clear, as we have heard. Demand on the west Anglia railway is forecast by Network Rail to increase by 39% by 2043. There is limited space on the tracks and limited space at the terminus stations. This combination hampers journey times and service frequency and reduces the railway’s reliability and resilience. As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and the hon. Member for Broxbourne, the problems that passengers face on a daily basis are very real and urgent.

We also know that the corridor the west Anglia main line serves is economically significant. It is described in the report as a “vital region” for the UK’s economy, and by the London Stansted Cambridge Consortium as a strongly entrepreneurial hub of national innovation and knowledge,

“driving UK growth and economic dynamism.”

While pointing to the significant development and regeneration potential of both London and Cambridge, the consortium also suggests there are major development sites along the corridor in Broxbourne, Harlow, Peterborough, South Cambridgeshire and Stevenage. But, put simply, the region’s potential is significantly undermined by its poor transport links. As the consortium summarises in its report on the strategic case for investment in the west Anglia rail route,

“The risk is that if transport investment fails to keep pace with the phenomenal growth potential of the Corridor, then it will become a brake on that growth. Transport constraints will fragment labour markets, restrict integration of business clusters, and thereby reduce productivity growth and inward investment.”

[Mr Walker]

Broxbourne Council is running an initiative called Ambition Broxbourne to bring higher value jobs to the borough. What will limit the council’s ability to do that is a rail service that does not match its ambition.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed, that is absolutely the case. I am sure the Minister is listening closely to the strong case that is being built.

I want to turn to my own constituency of Cambridge, if I may. Although I am here as a Front-Bench spokesman in this debate, Cambridge is a key feature of the corridor. It is the top city for innovation in the UK. We out-perform the next seven best performing cities put together, and Cambridge is a magnet for leading technology and life science companies. Yet, as the West Anglia Taskforce report finds, the city’s transport links are restricted by problems related to the west Anglia main line. Irregular, unreliable links between Cambridge and London are described in the report as,

“the greatest potential obstacle to future growth.”

Cambridge Ahead, an important business-led local organisation that speaks for a wide range of businesses and stakeholders, has stated that although Cambridge is poised for the next wave of growth, it is held back by a need for infrastructure investment. I commend its report, “The Case for Cambridge”, to the Minister. Within it he will find a clear ask for a new rail station south of the city on the Biomedical Campus, serving Addenbrooke’s Hospital and close to where AstraZeneca has relocated. The report is clear that without such transport improvements, future relocations of major companies risk being made not to the UK but to elsewhere in the world. Both reports urge that this new station be progressed rapidly, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on likely timeframes.

Returning to the West Anglia Taskforce, the report argues that investing in the west Anglia main line and consequently improving the public transport network would unlock a larger labour market and relieve congestion. It would also spur the development of thousands of homes, tackling Cambridge’s chronic housing shortage and supporting high-skilled employees in the area.

London Black Cabs

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Jones]

Indeed, I can. A few Members have mentioned the number of licences, and there is currently no legislation in London, or anywhere else in England and Wales, to allow the number of private hire vehicles to be limited. Equally, officials are working closely with TfL on whether legislation needs to change—we need to consider that issue and develop the required evidence. The situation is changing rapidly due to the numbers, as Members have highlighted today, and I will return to that later. As things stand, there is no legislation in place.

The traditional London taxi or black cab is, as hon. Members have said, an icon of this city. For many years the taxi industry has played a key role in keeping London moving, and the industry has a history and reputation of which drivers are rightly proud. The black cab is the gold standard across the world, and its quality is internationally recognised. All the vehicles are of a high standard, fully wheelchair-accessible and driven by skilled and knowledgeable drivers. I admire the time and dedication that prospective drivers put into learning the world-famous knowledge of London. It is an enormous commitment, involving up to four years of work on top of a day-to-day job. The drop-out rate is high, between 70% and 80%, meaning that those who complete training in the knowledge are the most committed. From a customer’s perspective, their knowledge brings a sense of utter reliability and security. As a visitor to London—my home is 200-plus miles away—I rely on it. Learning the knowledge rewards taxi drivers with the unique right to ply for hire on the streets of our capital.

In the 1960s, minicabs began to appear in London, and the private hire vehicle industry, as it came to be known, was finally regulated following the introduction of legislation in 1998. Licensing and regulation have ensured that the public have the same assurance of safety as when using a taxi and have raised standards throughout the private hire sector. Transport for London now licenses more than 22,000 taxis and 69,000 private hire vehicles. Between them, those vehicles make 300,000 trips every day, making a vital contribution to London’s economy and helping to keep the city moving 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The availability of both taxis and private hire vehicles offers the travelling public choice. They can instantly hire a taxi in the street or at a taxi rank; alternatively, they can pre-book a taxi or a private hire vehicle. When pre-booking, passengers can make an informed choice based on factors such as price, availability and quality. The combination of taxi and private hire ensures that the needs of as many Londoners as possible can be met.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park recognises and as Members from different parties have highlighted, the market is changing. New technology is providing new ways of engaging taxis and private hire vehicles. Smartphone booking apps are now available for both taxis and private hire vehicles, offering passengers easy access to services, more choices, faster pick-ups and options for sharing that can reduce the cost for travellers.

It is encouraging that the London taxi trade has been at the forefront of those technological changes. There are now numerous apps through which one can book a taxi, and more and more drivers are embracing cashless payment options, a customer benefit highlighted earlier in this debate. However, such new technology is challenging traditional operating boundaries between the taxi and private hire trades. I understand that it is straining the relationship between Transport for London and the industry, but I hope that by working in partnership, they can deliver a modern industry that continues to provide both choice and high standards.

The evolution of the private hire sector has helped to ensure that that form of transport is available to all in a cost-effective manner, particularly supporting those who cannot rely on other public transport services. The importance of local minicab firms, often small local businesses, was well outlined by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Such companies are often established in their communities and have served them well for many years, providing a valuable service that needs to be maintained. That point was clear.

Uber and other new entrants to the market present major challenges to established business models, and I can understand the concern of London’s taxi drivers. Uber London Ltd has been licensed by TFL as a private hire vehicle operator in London since 2012. The company has now applied for and been granted licences in 25 other licensing authority areas in England. In order to be granted a licence, Uber must meet the same standards as any other private hire vehicle operator in the local authority area. Therefore, 26 different authorities have decided that Uber is a fit and proper company, that its operating model meets the requirements of private hire legislation and that it keeps such records as the law requires.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I apologise to colleagues for being late to this debate. There is something slightly sinister about Uber’s business practices. My hon. Friend might be aware that in America, the board of Uber met to discuss how to discredit and destroy the career of an IT journalist concerned about its business practices. I hope that he is aware of such conduct by Uber and will take it into consideration when developing his thoughts on the company.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have absolutely no sympathy for any company that behaves in such a way as to discredit others. Other colleagues in the House have highlighted poor practice, such as on taxes. I have no sympathy for any company that dodges its responsibilities, including on taxes.

[Mr Walker]

Basically, the company bullies local authorities and national Governments. It will not and should not be allowed to bully the Government of the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Jones]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. This Government will not be bullied by any individual company. We must keep in mind the qualities of the taxi and private hire sectors and what they have delivered over many years—in some cases, over centuries—for our city. Both are strong, important players and need a protected future.

I know that the London taxi trade fundamentally disagrees with TfL’s views on how Uber calculates a fare. Many members of the taxi trade consider Uber’s smartphone app to be essentially a taximeter. Taximeters are, of course, forbidden in London’s private hire vehicles. Transport for London has recognised that the law in respect of the issue is unclear and has applied to the High Court for a declaration. Members have asked when that case will be determined. It is due to be heard in the High Court next month, so we should let the court make its decision.

Transport for London’s vision and strategy for the taxi industry is designed to maintain and enhance the high standard of service on which customers have come to rely. It will include development of the next generation of taxis, which will be environmentally clean and modern and suitable for passenger needs, particularly those of disabled people, a point consistently made by Members in this debate. The taxis will retain or enhance accessibility features to ensure a safe, smooth and comfortable ride.

The Mayor of London has announced plans to improve air quality in London, including by increasing the number of ultra-low-emission taxis. In April this year, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles announced the launch of a £45 million fund to support the roll-out of ultra-low-emission taxis across the United Kingdom. It includes £25 million set aside specifically for the Greater London area to help taxi drivers cover the costs of upgrading to a greener vehicle. The Mayor of London has pledged an additional £40 million, creating a £65 million fund to encourage the cleanest and greenest taxi fleet in the world.

At the same time, Geely, which owns the iconic London Taxi Company, announced plans for a new £250 million state-of-the-art facility to produce the next generation of low-emission London taxis in Ansty, near Coventry. Geely was awarded £17 million from the Government’s regional growth fund to build the facility, which will create 1,000 new jobs and ensure that the London taxi continues to be designed, developed and made in the United Kingdom. This shows the Government’s support for the taxi trade throughout the country and will mean that the London taxi trade will play a leading role in improving the capital’s air quality and meeting our climate change obligations.

Hon. Members may be aware that last year, the London Assembly’s transport committee began an investigation into taxi and private hire services in London. As a result of that scrutiny, the committee made a number of recommendations to the Mayor and Transport for London on steps that they could take to improve taxi and private hire services in the city. In some cases, the committee was critical of the role of the taxi and private hire section of TfL, and I understand that members of both London’s taxi and private hire vehicle trades gave evidence to the committee as to their dissatisfaction with TfL’s actions as the licensing authority. The committee is responsible for questioning and scrutinising the actions of the Mayor, so it is not for the Government to comment on local licensing matters or the committee’s actions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will be aware that the Department for Transport asked the Law Commission in 2012 to conduct a review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation throughout England and Wales, including London. That was against the backdrop of the Government’s red tape challenge and legislation that dates back to the first half of the 19th century and the age of the horse-drawn hackney carriage. Despite more recent legislation to allow for the regulation of private hire vehicles, the recent innovations that I and colleagues have described this morning have demonstrated that the legislation used to regulate both the taxi and private hire trades is becoming increasingly outdated. Licensing authorities throughout England and Wales are now faced with the challenge of accommodating 21st century technology in 19th century legislation.

The Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review, its final report containing recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The report not only provided crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law, but provided solutions designed to make a difference to both the travelling public and people in the industry. Updated and simplified legislation will provide a modern and simple framework, ensuring public safety and providing the trade with certainty, making growth and competition easier. I cannot yet give the House a date for the Government response to the review, but the Law Commission’s work has been powerful and important.

London’s Licensed Taxi Trade

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a great honour to have secured this debate. I am also delighted to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that in your capacity as Member of Parliament for Epping Forest you have done a great deal for the licensed taxi trade, and particularly the black cab licensed taxi trade. Indeed, you and I have worked closely together on this matter over a number of years, and we will continue to do so.

The much-loved London black cab is not an overnight sensation. Hackney coaches first appeared in London during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and Captain John Baily, a veteran of Sir Walter Raleigh’s expeditions, is thought to have established the first Hackney rank by the Maypole on the Strand—a site from which four coaches worked. The first laws governing what is now known as the taxi trade were introduced nearly four centuries ago, with London’s cab trade being continuously licensed since 1694. Control is now in the hands of Transport for London. The practice of displaying an identification number goes back to 1654 and despite a number of modifications, the principle of that practice remains consistent to this day—isn’t tradition a wonderful thing?

At the age of 45, James Howe, an experienced cabbie, was chosen to drive London’s first motor taxicab. He enjoyed a long association with both horse-drawn and motor cabs and, in 1933, at the age of 75, he was awarded a special badge commemorating a career that began when he earned his licence in 1884. You and I love the concept of hands across history, Madam Deputy Speaker, and at least two Members of this House were alive at the time that James Howe received his long-service medal. Is that not a wonderful thought?

The fitting of taximeters was made compulsory in 1907 and the inventor of these meters was a German noble called Baron von Thurn und Taxis. A taximeter is by definition what makes a cab a taxicab, and taximeters in London calculate the fare payable as a combination of time and distance. I thought that it would be useful in my opening remarks to set the scene for the House.

Transport for London licenses taxis and their drivers under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and the London Cab Order 1934, so there is not a lot of modernity there. The minicab trade in London is licensed by regulations made under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, which is very recent history. I thank Addison Lee for the useful briefing it provided me on the regulation of its private hire business and those of its competitors.

As we know in this place, all licensed London black cab drivers are required to do the knowledge. We see those amazing men, and now women, beetling around London on their scooters with a clipboard in front of them, learning all these wonderful routes around our wonderful capital city. That is a gruelling three, four or five-year exercise undertaken by aspirant black cab drivers, most of them while holding down a full-time job. They show extreme dedication. It is an extremely gruelling process, with drop-out rates between 70% and 75% on average, and those that pass the test have covered approximately 20,000 miles worth of routes. These men and women are the best of the very best that London has to offer. Having passed the knowledge, a newly qualified driver needs to buy or lease a cab. The cost of new taxis is quite high, often in excess of £42,000, so that is a major investment.

No vehicle over 15 years of age is licensed and the Mayor is keen to see that number reduced to 10 years, as he wants to promote a clean air environment in our capital city. The Mayor has a duty to ensure that he only grants licences to those people who are “fit and proper” to drive a taxi. Drivers are required to be insured and CRB checked and to have a financial standing check. How many of us in this place could cope with the level of scrutiny needed for a financial standing check? My word!

All London taxis—this is very important—are wheelchair accessible and have been required to be so since January 2000. That 100% accessibility compares with only 3% of private hire vehicles. Importantly, licensed black cabs are the only taxi service permitted to pick up passengers without advance booking and the only service permitted to use a meter, with Transport for London setting the level of fares that can be charged. Of course, there are problems. If there were not, we would not be here this evening. This is not a totally good news story.

In its recent review of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing, the Law Commission called for the retention of the two-tier licensing system, and I strongly endorse that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I sought his permission to intervene before the debate. My introduction to the London taxi was when I became a Member. Taxi drivers in London—I am sure that they are the same across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—have an opinion on all the things that are happening in the world. It is obvious to me from conversations with the London taxi drivers that they are very concerned about the changes to licensing. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns on their behalf and agree that a full consultation must take place with the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association to find a way forward that can bring them on board?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a precise intervention. The Law Commission also called for significant changes to the legal distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles on the grounds that the current system relies too heavily on an imprecise concept of “plying for hire”, which is not defined in statute and has become the subject of a body of case law that is not wholly consistent. In that lies a multitude of problems.

[Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)]

I declare a slight interest, as my husband was running the company that made the taxis when they became fully accessible to the disabled. I have spoken before about my concern for the disabled, so may I ask first whether my hon. Friend agrees that only fully accessible taxis should be allowed to ply for hire on the streets of London? Does he also agree that all vehicles should be subject to the same stringent standards and regulations as our gold standard taxi fleet?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Disability access is fundamental to the licensed taxi trade and marks it out, which is to be celebrated and promoted.

The Law Commission recommends a single consolidated legislative framework throughout England and Wales, including London. As I have said, many of the regulations governing the licensed taxi trade—the black cab trade—are well over 100 years old, and even the most recent regulations covering private hire vehicles are 17 years old.

The Law Commission is pressing—this goes to the heart of my hon. Friend’s intervention—for the introduction of common national minimum standards for vehicles, drivers and dispatchers, and those standards would be determined by the Secretary of State. In essence, the shorthand of the Law Commission’s report is that the current system is a mess and is being abused.

This debate is underpinned by an absolute and inescapable truth, namely that if we want a regulated black cab and private hire vehicle trade that is both sustainable and commercially viable, we have got to enforce the regulations we create. If we do not enforce them, we create a virtual free-for-all where the unregulated and the unscrupulous prosper at the expense of those whose professional livelihood depends on them following the rules. London is an example of what that free-for-all looks like, with illegal taxi ranks, unlicensed vehicles, unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers and illegal touting for business. That does not reflect well on our great city.

The Mayor is trying to do something about it. He deals with 1,200 new minicab licences a month. I spoke to him this evening and he told me that there were 450 just last week. This is an overwhelming challenge. His Transport for London compliance team and the Metropolitan Police Service cab enforcement unit have few of the powers they need to make a real difference, such as powers of arrest and the power to seize and destroy vehicles.

Throughout the first 21 days of TfL’s ongoing crackdown, it has advised 2,625 private hire vehicle drivers to move on and keep the roads clear; reported 151 for not having a badge; reported a further 999 for not wearing their badge; issued 439 parking tickets; reported 15 private hire vehicle drivers for plying for hire; and reported 210 for parking on taxi ranks.

Those are impressive numbers, but I am afraid they are not backed up by impressive sanctions. For example, the 151 drivers reported for not having a badge were prevented from working for the remainder of the evening. Did they stop? I doubt it. Are the sanctions I have just listed a deterrent to illegality? Of course not. In New York just a few weeks ago, they seized 500 Uber vehicles for breaking the law, but that does not happen in London.

Into this maelstrom of collective regulatory failure rides Uber. Of course, a lot of PR nonsense is being talked about Uber and its “disruptive” technology changing the face of travel in London. Disruptive technology sounds glamorous and exciting, and if I had a choice I would always prefer to have my activities identified as being disruptive, as opposed to borderline illegal. In reality, all Uber is doing is equipping another fleet of barely regulated and unqualified drivers to ply their trade in the capital, with little or no thought given to how the drivers it enables conduct themselves.

To be fair, who can blame Uber’s savvy business leaders for recognising lax to non-existent regulatory enforcement and then exploiting it? What is the downside? There is none, because the rules are not enforced, but they should be because they say that only licensed black cabs can operate a meter. “To hell with that,” says Uber: “We’ll operate a meter but cunningly, like Baldrick, not call it a meter.” The rules say that private hire firms must have physical premises. “We’ll ignore that rule, too,” says Uber. The rules say cars for private hire must be pre-booked via an office. “No, that’s one not for us either,” says Uber. The rules say that private hire firms must have systems in place to protect customer and driver data. “So what?” says Uber, “Who’s going to check up on that?”

I want to be clear. I want to derive reassurance from a licensed and regulated black cab taxi trade. Of course it is not a perfect trade, but it is a very good one. I want to know that when my children are out in London they will always have the option of easily finding a black cab to take them home or back to the place they are staying. I want to know that they will pay the price on the meter, not a meter price artificially inflated through surge pricing, as Uber drivers did during the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis and in London by 300% during last week’s Tube strike—thank you, Uber, thank you for nothing.

I want to know that my children are being driven by a professional with four years of training, because my children’s safety is important to me. I want to know that my children are being driven by someone who is CRB checked and insured. I want to know that London will become, and remain, increasingly disability friendly, so that people in wheelchairs are not left on street corners waiting for the 3% or less of private hire vehicles that can take a wheelchair.

I accept that there may be others who do not hold to these values. So let me be clear: if they want a free-for-all, let us have a genuine free-for-all. Let us release black cab drivers and Addison Lee drivers, for example, from the cost and burden of regulation. Let us allow them to drive any cheap piece of rubbish they can lay their hands on. Who cares if London is no longer home to a fleet of disability-enabled taxis? Surely that is a small price to pay for the benefit of Uber’s “disruptive” technology? Let us scale back CRB checks and any other safety requirements. It is the passenger’s tough luck if things go wrong—my children, perhaps, should have made a wiser choice. Why should fares not be left to the discretion of the driver? Only the fools will pay the higher rates and that is their punishment for being stupid, weak, old or frail. What does it matter if London’s reputation starts to suffer internationally? There are plenty of suckers out there who will not be deterred. Let me be clear: that is not the London I want to live in, but unless we take regulatory enforcement seriously, I fear it is the one we are going to get.

Finally, I say this: if we want a regulated environment that creates costs to entry and considerable costs of operation, but with the benefit of significant safeguards and high levels of service, we have to allow those that we regulate the space in which to make a return on their investment of time and capital. For 400 years, London has recognised the need to have properly regulated and licensed taxi services. I suggest that our illustrious predecessors were not fools in this matter. London cannot have it both ways. It can try, but it will end in tears.

First Capital Connect (Hertford Loop)

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Dr McCrea. I am delighted to see so many colleagues here. I think that we have all linked up on the First Capital Connect line, which shows how integrated we are, and how integrated we would like our transport to be.

Many of us in this place often focus, understandably, on the important political policy shifts that often divide us, despite the fact that sometimes we have common goals and desired outcomes. Those political policy shifts understandably dominate the political agenda, and of course have a significant impact on our constituents, but although they may capture our imaginations and dominate most of our time, this debate is, I suggest, on one of the most pressing issues facing hard-working constituents who commute to work.

It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that a typical commuter from Gordon Hill in my constituency to Moorgate will spend approximately 230 hours a year on a First Capital Connect train, if all runs well.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

If the trains are not running well, as is often the case, they will spend another 230 hours waiting for the train to arrive.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend anticipates me neatly. That 230 hours a year is equivalent to about 10 days—or, if we are more realistic, 20 daylight days—which, over a working life of 40 years, is a year spent on a train. A commuter from my constituency will pay £1,560 annually for the privilege. Is it any wonder that our constituents rightly consider it a major issue? After all, it is a question not of how much of their time is spent travelling to and from work, but of their quality of life. If the daily commute does not go well, it can affect the whole working day—our punctuality, our reputation at work and, let us face it, our mood and our whole working environment for the day.

The odds are not good of having a pleasant experience, even if punctuality is not an issue. At average peak times, commuters on most suburban lines face tired rolling stock with precarious heating systems or, in summer, carriages that feel like mobile greenhouses. They have a one in three, possibly a one in four, chance of getting a seat, yet they pay the same fare as their luckier neighbours. Often, to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), my constituents are undertaking only the first part of a two-part journey, as they will then embark on the tube.

That year of our lives spent commuting is probably, in reality, more like two, which is why the quality and reliability of our franchise operators, and Network Rail’s maintenance of, and investment in, infrastructure, is one of the big issues facing my constituents. That is reflected to me on Twitter and Facebook in characteristically blunt terms.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the brief put out by First Capital Connect, which is almost beyond parody. It includes 10 tweets from customers congratulating the rail service on its wonderful performance. I know that FCC has many fabulous staff members—Sue and Jim in the ticket office in Cuffley are two of the most fabulous public servants I know of—but frankly, my inbox for the past six months has been full of complaint after complaint about service that has been substandard too often, for too long.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend’s point would be well backed up if we added up the number of tweets that are, shall we say, less generous. In fairness—I will come to this later—FCC does at least try to confront some of the issues raised on Twitter during some peak times.

Let me set out for the Minister what the problem is, the responses from FCC and Network Rail, and my analysis and that of some of my constituents. I will not be able to cover all the issues, but I know that colleagues will mention problems common to all of us, and certainly to my constituents. I will conclude by sharing views on how the future franchise should secure commitments from operators, and why public satisfaction should be a consideration when awarding or extending franchises—a measure for which my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) was an early champion.

For clarity, what is the Hertford loop? It is a line that leaves the east coast main line at Langley South junction, just south of Stevenage—why it is called the Langley junction baffles me—and passes through the stations of Watton-at-Stone and Hertford North, represented here by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk); Cuffley, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne; Crews Hill, Gordon Hill and Enfield Chase in my constituency; and Grange Park, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park in the constituency of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). However, what is most significant in this debate and draws wider interest, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, is the fact that the Hertford loop is also a diversion route for the main line when necessary. Thereby hangs a tale.

Turning to the operational shortcomings, my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, and I have had considerable representations from constituents served by FCC; he will, I am sure, speak for his constituents and their experiences further down the line. There has been a severe and sudden drop in service levels, most noticeably since late August 2013. The situation remains unchanged. In particular, the pre- and post-Christmas periods proved utterly unacceptable. At that point, I pressed FCC for a meeting to represent my constituents’ views and to try to learn what plans were afoot to mitigate the operational failings. Unfortunately, it took until 6 January to get a meeting with FCC, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage and for Enfield, Southgate. I am pleased to say that Network Rail also attended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois]

I would have faced the prospect of going out of business. My hon. Friend touches on accountability, which I will discuss. One cannot miss targets of such gravity and expect no consequences. In the case of business, it is quite likely that those consequences would be lasting and permanent.

After the meeting with FCC, the level of service degenerated to a point when on a particularly wet and windy day, constituents were faced with a choice between walking to Enfield Town station or, as some let me know, returning home to grab bicycles to get to work, because the prospect of the FCC service getting them there was nil. The Minister might appreciate the situation better if I record the fact that between 2 December and 21 December 2013, the following peak-time issues arose.

On 2 December, there was an 85-minute delay between Enfield Chase and Essex Road as a result of signalling problems. On 5 and 6 December—two consecutive days—tracks contaminated by leaves, which I accept is a serious problem, and signalling faults left the track unusable for considerable amounts of time during peak hours while FCC tried to clean the tracks. On 12 December, there were no trains whatever during the morning rush hour due to a power supply problem. The very next day, 13 December, urgent track repairs at Finsbury Park caused evening peak-time delays and cancellations, followed by late arrivals on 16 December.

On the very next day, 17 December, signal failure on the east coast main line resulted in diversions through the Hertford loop, resulting in cancelled trains for my constituents, period. That is when they resorted to bicycles. On 21 December, staff shortages meant that there were cancellations and delays, because with the Christmas holidays approaching, there was insufficient cover available to maintain the train service.

The passenger headline surveys show one story, but if we dig into the responses on commuter services in the Passenger Focus survey, they show that for punctuality and reliability the figure once peaked at 80% and then reached a new low of 58%, with a rise in autumn 2013 to 68%—still a one in three failure rate.

On top of all that, there is evidence of poor communication with passengers at a time when information is the most valuable currency to a commuter. One constituent summed up what many felt when he wrote to FCC after abandoning any attempts to get to central London:

“Another FCC communications disaster

I have just returned home after an abortive attempt to travel by train from Gordon Hill to central London. Apparently a signal failure had disrupted services, but why, oh why”,

he pleaded to First Capital Connect,

“is no information forthcoming? What I want to know is: why, in this age of technology, do the computerised departure boards on the platform state that trains are ‘on time’ when it is patently not the case?”

Can hon. Members think of anything more irritating as people are going to work? My constituent continues:

“Station staff have to resort to bits of paper sellotaped to the Oyster card reader to let people know that there are delays.

Why”,

he pleaded,

“do announcements over the public address system stating that the signal failure is ‘now fixed’ give no indication of when there might be a train?

Why was the booking office clerk, who was as frustrated as the would-be passengers, unable to obtain any service information despite numerous ’phone calls to the operations dept?”

[Mr Charles Walker]

One of the great frustrations at Cuffley is that the train timetable board will say that the train is delayed by two minutes, four minutes, six minutes, 10 minutes, 12 minutes, back to 10 minutes, and then up to 14 minutes, and finally it will say that it is cancelled. It is absolute nonsense if the company cannot even indicate to passengers when their train will arrive, and how late it will be.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend strikes the right tone and makes a good point. Even in dire circumstances, passengers accept that things go wrong, but not knowing what is happening and what can be expected drives the frustration that they feel. Is it any wonder that the Passenger Focus survey reports said that only 43% were happy with how the company dealt with delays? That, incidentally, was an increase from a new low the previous year of 33%. It is not acceptable. Tragically—that is overstating it; poignantly, perhaps—the gentleman who wrote that e-mail of complaint is still waiting for a reply.

I hope that the record will show that the patience and good humour of my constituents was tested beyond all reasonable limits. As a regular commuter, I share their frustration, but I have the privilege of being able to come to the House to express that deep sense of frustration to both First Capital Connect and Network Rail on their behalf. I also promised many of them that I would share their experience with Ministers at the highest possible level.

What do these fare-paying passengers want? Above all, they want a service operator that is fit for purpose, that represents reliability and safety. Passengers do understand that problems arise and that sometimes delays and even cancellations are unavoidable, but delays and cancellations at this level and over a long and sustained period rightly prompt the question: are FCC and its parent company fit for purpose and deserving of a new franchise?

In fairness to FCC, in its letter to me of 24 January, it acknowledges the following:

“Over the past year the performance has dropped significantly and is far below what we aim to achieve for our customers on this route.”

FCC rightly points to the combined responsibility for the service failures between FCC and Network Rail, citing a split of 23% and 64% respectively. Other operators on the route are responsible for the remainder of the delays.

I am sure that my constituents will be pleased to learn the following:

“Major programmes of track, power supply, signalling and overhead line works are underway”

to address the majority of problems. In addition, extensive vegetation removal is taking place near the tracks to mitigate the effects of leaf falls and prevent them bringing the system to a halt again. However, passengers feel that there is a distinct lack of accountability to passengers for FCC. It accepts that it is accountable to passengers, but in its letter to me, it confuses accountability with communication of service difficulties, citing its Twitter service as an example of accountability. It is true that passengers are quick to let FCC know what they think of the service on social media, and in fairness I pay tribute to FCC’s Twitter team, who always seem responsive and provide information when they have it, but that is no replacement for accountability.

I am a free marketeer. I believe that my record will bear testimony to that and will stand scrutiny. I believe that choice lies at the heart of successful free market principles. My constituents’ belief that there is a lack of accountability for First Capital Connect’s service is underpinned by the lack of real choice in how to get to work, and their lack of real influence over, or say in, who should be awarded the franchise. Is it not time to introduce an obligation for passenger satisfaction to be included in any new franchise agreements, so that the passenger experience becomes a priority and not an afterthought?

[Nick de Bois]

I am hopeful that that is exactly the sort of point that we will be able to explore with the Minister in this debate.

Is it not fair that, as in any commercial arrangement, if standards fall during the lifetime of what will ultimately be a very long franchise, passenger power should allow a review of the franchise, with the possibility of notice being given if service levels fall to a predetermined unacceptable level? I have signed many contracts in a lifetime of business and I know fundamentally that all those contracts will survive only if we maintain the right level of service for the customer for whom we are fulfilling the contract. The length of a contract should never be seen as an opportunity to have a blank cheque, but the only way to ensure that is to introduce greater accountability.

In all this, where is the voice of the customer? The voice of the customer does not seem to register significantly on the train operator’s radar. That is why we are here today acting on behalf of—giving voice to—the customer.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Will my hon. Friend give way one last time?

[Nick de Bois]

I will.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend has been very generous. When a train is delayed at Cuffley, customers can fill out forms and get their money back. I think that is nonsense, because people are busy. What should happen is that if people have a season ticket or a monthly travelcard, when they renew it at the end of the month or the end of the year, they should receive a discount for the following month or the following year—perhaps a 5% or 10% discount. That is true accountability and recognition that the rail company is a service provider to our constituents.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend again makes a point brilliantly and superbly. Let us face it: technology should not bar that. I have often seen, much to my surprise, a refund on my Oyster card. I am often not sure why the Mayor of London is being so generous in giving me that money back, but I have seen it. It is a technology transfer; it works. With thousands of commuters travelling every day, the introduction of a system like that would, for the first time, truly represent the value of the considerable buying power that these passengers should have. It is interesting to note that on every pound spent by the fare-paying passenger, FCC sees a net return of 3%—a 3% net profit. That would not be unreasonable if service standards were maintained at the highest level. Fares have increased substantially, but customers are not benefiting from real choice. Let us at least give them real influence.

The question of accountability is not only one for FCC and its customers. What of the relationship between FCC and Network Rail, from which FCC purchases track access? That accounts for 48p in every pound that the customer spends. Network Rail does not have accountability to passengers, but it acts as a supplier to rail operating companies such as FCC. What compensation do operators receive from Network Rail for service failure, and if such an arrangement exists, what are the criteria for receiving such compensation, and how is it accounted for? If such an arrangement does not exist, surely it should. Without such a system, I suggest that there is no accountability—perhaps not even commercial accountability—between the provider and the customer. Why should not compensation be passed down to passengers through the excellent system that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has advocated?

Today has been about not politics but fairness to long-suffering commuters. The previous Government had a record of failing to invest in our local rail infrastructure, and we are having to catch up quickly. The patience of my constituents is being sorely tested, and notwithstanding the work that is taking place, I see no immediate relief to the problems that my constituents face this winter and spring. Will the Minister impress on FCC and Network Rail that the service must improve, and quickly? Will he respond to the idea, set out earlier in this Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, that new franchise agreements should include passenger satisfaction, so that passenger experience might finally become the priority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend is welcome to top the misery, because in the most recent Eureka timetable, I was lucky enough to secure an extra 58 East Coast train stops for Stevenage station, so my constituents are often the ones sailing past his. It is also interesting to see how my constituents use the Hertford loop. We often get a fast train at Stevenage, so that we do not have to go on the Hertford loop line, and then we change at Finsbury Park and continue on the Hertford loop line to Liverpool Street. My constituents often get off the train at Finsbury Park only to be told that there are problems, so they have to wait for the next east coast main line or FCC main line service to take them to King’s Cross, where they take the tube to Liverpool Street. That adds a huge amount of time, frustration, anger, bicycles—you name it—to my constituents’ journeys.

There is a real lack of communication. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have said that some station staff do an amazing job of keeping constituents informed, but sometimes things simply collapse. When my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I attended a meeting with National Rail and FCC, I raised the issue of ticket inspectors. The fastest journey from Stevenage to King’s Cross takes 26 minutes, so a delay of 35 or 40 minutes is considerable.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The situation can often be terribly unfair on staff. For example, on the third day of delays to services, station staff still have to face angry commuters and bear the full brunt of their anger and frustration in as good a humour as possible. The higher-ups—the suits —remain squirreled away in the train company’s headquarters, rather than coming out to meet their disappointed customers. We need to see greater leadership from the directors of the company; they must not leave it to the poor staff to bear the brunt of commuters’ frustrations.

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and my hon. Friends and I made the same point in the meeting that I have just mentioned. I was pleased that both companies apologised for the service that our constituents received and tried to explain some of the reasons for it. In fairness to FCC staff, many of them do a very good job. I understand that during the recent delays, some of the higher-ups went out to stations—they could not get to work either—and tried to placate customers. We need to see more of that. I often tweet about how good some of the FCC staff are on my journey to work.

One thing that particularly irritates my constituents is when their train is delayed and they ask the ticket inspector what is causing the delay, but the inspector—or payment protection officer, as they are called—does not know. That poor member of staff may get grief along the 12 carriages of the train as he checks tickets. That creates dysfunctionality and reduces the quality of the passenger experience a great deal. FCC needs to do a lot more work on getting information down to staff, to ensure that those on the front line can communicate with passengers.

I commute to Parliament every day, so I use the FCC service at all hours of the day. On a Monday evening, I am often using it at half-past 11, and if I see bus replacement services I begin to cry, because I know that that will add about two hours to my journey home. These issues affect a huge variety of people, including shift workers.

[Mr Walker]

I do not want to be left out of this. I, too, travel in from Cuffley, which is down the line from Stevenage, and I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. Before we are too mean to our rail provider, however, let us remember that Network Rail is responsible for many of the delays. I do not think that Network Rail has been entirely up front in its communications with my constituents. I endorse the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) that Network Rail should pay some compensation to our rail companies, so that they in turn can compensate our constituents.

[Stephen McPartland]

I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne and for Enfield North. I believe that Network Rail is responsible for about 67% of the delays on the line, while other train operating companies are responsible for some 9%, and FCC about 24%. That is right—they add up to 100%. It is important that Network Rail takes a huge amount of the responsibility.

I know about repayments from my own experience. I buy what is called a carnet that allows travel from Stevenage to King’s Cross via a variety of routes. I could be reimbursed for my journey today, but I will be perfectly honest: I cannot be bothered to fill in the paperwork on a daily basis. I know that thousands of people in Stevenage will not even bother to try to reclaim the cost for today from their season ticket, because it is pointless. It is a waste of a huge amount of energy and time; it would cost more than it is worth. Repayments should be automatic. During some of the worst of the winter storms, First Capital Connect said that tickets would be valid for use the following day. That was a great improvement for some in my constituency, but not for the majority who have season tickets.

The railway system is broken. The previous Government did not invest and co-ordinate in the way we would have hoped, but some problems that we have seen on the line are actually the result of new investment. We understand that one huge delay was the result of a new signalling system being installed and the circuit breaker burning out. The company is trying to improve the signalling system, which must be fully replaced in 18 months, but the amalgamation of the two systems is causing great problems. I raise that issue because the whole line is 40 years old and must be replaced completely in the next five years. One can imagine the horror felt by MPs and constituents who live along the line at the thought of what is coming down the track towards us, or possibly not coming down the track at all. There are huge concerns.

When I met Network Rail and First Capital Connect with my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate, and for Enfield North, we asked them what the root causes of the problems were. What really depressed the three of us was the simple fact that there did not seem to be a root cause. There was a variety of problems, one after the other. As they fixed one, they moved on to another. I do not want to bore Members too much, but on the Hertford loop line, they use class 313 carriages, which are old-fashioned London Underground and Overground carriages. As a result, the Hertford loop line is turned off of an evening. One morning, when they tried to turn the electricity on the line back on, it did not work. Perhaps someone had not paid the energy bill. No service was available on the line.

I would like to move on to some of the positives regarding First Capital Connect, because I feel that it is getting a bit of a kicking from Members, even though a lot of the problems—at least two thirds—are the responsibility of Network Rail and are due to how it integrates with First Capital Connect. During the First Capital Connect franchise, more trains have been stopping at Stevenage, so we have gained thousands more seats, many of which I have secured over my past two or three years as an MP. We have had huge improvements to bicycle racks, which have almost doubled in number. That is a big issue in Stevenage. We are the only town in the country with an integrated cycle network. Tens of thousands of us cycle everywhere in town. We have had the platforms resurfaced and we now have 12-carriage trains stopping at the town; the station is secure and we have better waiting rooms; and both the signage and the customer information system have improved.

In another transport debate earlier in this Parliament, I was very pleased to secure more than £578,000 from the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), so if the current Minister is listening, there are a number of things that I would like. That money is being used to upgrade the goods lifts to fully automated passenger lifts. The station has 4.2 million passenger movements, but it was built in the ’60s—we still do not have fully automated passenger lifts, and it is 2014. Thankfully, the work on that is now ongoing. First Capital Connect is doing a good job—its mobility teams help passengers with mobility difficulties up and down the stairs—but the lifts will be a lifeline for the disabled and the most vulnerable in our community. The station is also being refurbished, and bits of it will, I hope, open in the next few months.

There has been a huge range of improvements, but one of the main concerns of my constituents remains the simple fact that we pay only for our journeys. No matter how long the journey takes, the ticket does not entitle us to a seat on the train. It just entitles us to go from Stevenage to London, or to Hertford, Watton-at-Stone, Cuffley or Enfield. We pay for the journey only. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North said, it feels like there are very few ways in which constituents and passengers can get their points heard by the train operating companies because the franchises last for so long. The debate is opportune because the franchise is due for renewal in September this year. Like my hon. Friend, I would dearly love to see a Minister introduce to the franchise a passenger satisfaction obligation to ensure that passengers’ voices are heard, so that if there are problems, they can take direct action.

I am the chairman and co-founder of the Stevenage and Knebworth rail user group, which is why I know so much about class 365 and 313 carriages. I must add that that is not through choice, but because I have had to learn about what happens in our area. Only a week or so ago, First Capital Connect put 40 newly refurbished class 365 trains on our line. The trains are cleaner and have improved. There is a balance between the passenger experience and what happens going forward.

[Stephen McPartland]

I do spare a thought for my hon. Friend’s constituents. Many of my constituents travel to Hertford and use those carriages when they get to Finsbury Park and other places. The point I was trying to make is that there has been some progress. I think that First Capital Connect is doing a relatively sound job.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I promise that this will be my final intervention. As my hon. Friend knows, First Capital Connect is full of civilised, approachable people. That is why I am so disappointed that it has tolerated a failing train service for too long. Its people are better than that. I hope that this debate is a call to arms to our rail company to up its game and deliver to its potential.

[Stephen McPartland]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Since just before Christmas, the service has become intolerable. Although it improves on some days, on others it does not. I would like First Capital Connect to see the meetings that we have had and this debate as a means of moving forward, getting to grips with Network Rail and delivering on some of the improvements that it has told Members it will deliver. The way to move the issue forward is to insert into the franchise a passenger satisfaction obligation. That would allow us all to hold train operating companies and Network Rail to account.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

I welcome to the Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). This is his first outing and it is good to see him in his place. I welcome the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) to her place on the Opposition Front Bench. It is good to have some authentic northern voices speaking on this subject, albeit from the Front Bench, so we probably know exactly what they are going to say. May I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank him for the courtesy he showed towards me during his time in office? This is a difficult subject for me and, I think, it has proved a difficult subject, from time to time, for him.

Amendments 18, 12 and 13 relate to the Government’s commitment to Scotland. I tabled them in Committee, because I felt it was important to have something in the Bill that registered the verbal intentions, expressed by Ministers and others, eventually to take High Speed 2, if it is ever built, through to Scotland. It is ironic, and slightly odd, that clause 3(1) extends the scope of the Bill to England, Wales and Scotland, given that there is no mention of HS2 going to Scotland.

If we have time, we will get on to the Barnett formula. Undoubtedly, there is precedent for the Government ensuring that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland get their fair share of the infrastructure spend that is being spent exclusively in England, and I believe there is already such a precedent regarding the money for HS2, but will the Minister confirm that?

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

In drafting her amendments, did my right hon. Friend consider how to deliver extra passenger capacity to the east and west coast lines, but without the vast costs?

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am afraid that I do not have the resources to table an extensive list of amendments, and although I considered that, I dismissed it fairly rapidly. I just do not have the back-up and resource, on a project this large and complex, to keep up with the machinations of the Government, as they bring out 400 or 500 pages of information a couple of days before any crucial stage of the Bill—I am expecting the £50,000 environmental statement to arrive on our desks shortly.

High-Speed Rail

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

There are plenty of hon. Members who want to speak.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have made my main points. I have made them before in this Chamber, and I shall continue to make them, because they are rational. A lot of people in the industry also support my view, which is not based on nimbyism but on what Britain really needs. Britain does not need HS2; it needs more investment in conventional rail and, indeed, in rail freight.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Walker. For several months, the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I have attempted to secure this debate via the Backbench Business Committee. We have been preparing for this incredibly important debate for a long time, and I was assured only yesterday by the Table Office that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) would make a few brief comments, and then I would be the first speaker.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

It is always helpful if the Table Office conveys to the Chair the discussions it has had with Members’ researchers. If there has been confusion, I will get to the bottom of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

On the first point, the ratio of 2 is for the London to Birmingham link. As my hon. Friend will know, the ratio is 2.6 for the link to Manchester and to Leeds. Including the wider economic benefits, it is 2.6. I have the business case for Crossrail, which my hon. Friend may have had the chance to have a look at. The business case in that is 1.87. The final point that my hon. Friend might wish to consider is the idle time point, which is very important.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We have had too many questions.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am struggling to follow some of my hon. Friend’s numbers, because I think that he might be looking at the numbers from the original business case, not from the current one. I do not want to address his points specifically because those numbers do not quite register with me. I apologise for that.

Passenger forecasts are another major assumption in the business case, relying on a 216% rise in demand for train travel. That figure remains wildly optimistic, in spite of being downgraded from the original business case, in which growth of 267% was forecast. The Department for Transport’s own national travel survey shows that overall transport demand is no longer growing with GDP. Eurostar’s passenger numbers in 2009 had reached only 37% of the level that was forecast, as a result of building the HS1 link. The Public Accounts Committee took evidence from the Department for Transport on that point and was reassured by it that lessons had been learned and that any future major project would factor in more severe downside assumptions—that has clearly not been the case. The only comparable forecasts for long distance rail travel by 2036 are from Network Rail, which predicts a range of growth of 45% to 89%, versus that forecast by HS2 Ltd in its original business case of 133% growth by 2033. I urge the Department for Transport to look closely again at that assumption.

Of course, in cash terms HS2 will never pay for itself. Once built, only one third of the total claimed benefits will be captured through fares. The value of the net revenues once it has been built—with a presumption of fares of £14 billion, less operating costs of £6 billion over a 60-year project life—will cover only less than half of the capital costs. At a time when families up and down the country are feeling the pinch, we must make sure that infrastructure projects offer value for money. Many people would argue that not a penny will be spent until 2015 anyway, but between 2009 and 2015 the Department for Transport expects to spend around £1 billion just on preparing the way for high-speed rail.

Secondly, on the environmental impact, HS2 Ltd itself says that the project is, at best, carbon neutral. It predicts that 65% of passengers will either transfer from existing rail services, where faster trains inevitably increase carbon emissions, or are additional new journeys as a result of the faster trains, which will also increase emissions. The shorter journeys by air that will transfer to HS2, will ironically, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) said, provide more capacity at our regional airports for cheaper long-haul flights. It is estimated that the modal shift from car to high-speed train will be approximately 7%. In fact, HS2 Ltd forecasts that the traffic volumes on the M1 will be reduced by only 2% as a result of HS2. So, it is not green. There will also be a significant environmental impact during construction, as well as permanently, to the English countryside, wildlife and historic sites.

Thirdly and fourthly, on the prospects for job creation and regeneration, the Department for Transport claims that HS2 will create 30,000 new jobs. Some 9,000 will be construction jobs and are likely to be temporary. The rest are skewed towards property development and retail near stations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s core argument that high-speed rail may suck economic growth from the regions, because that seems to run contrary to what most people lobbied for—greater speed of connection to the capital. Most places in the regions that have travel times to London of one hour or less market themselves heavily on the basis of the shorter journey time. They see it as a positive advantage, and that seems to run contrary to what the academics in Barcelona are saying.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not want to impede debate, but a huge number of hon. Members want to speak this afternoon.

[Dan Byles]

I will sum up with a quote from the conclusion of the report from the university of Barcelona, which looked at five high-speed rail systems around the world. It states;

“Finally, the economic impacts of HSR are somewhat limited. The largest cities in the network might receive limited gains, but this is not the case for intermediate cities, which might see economic activities being drained away and suffer an overall negative impact.”

The report is not definitive, but before we spend £17 billion of taxpayers’ money, the issues raised in it should be addressed. I will be delighted if the Transport Committee looks at that, and I shall certainly send it a copy. We must thoroughly understand what we are doing, because we could do untold damage to our country at very great cost if we do not get it right.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. It is not within my powers to impose a time limit on debates, but hon. Members could look at the huge number of colleagues who want to speak and do the mathematics themselves—it is about six minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angie Bray]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We are now in the 11th minute of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. If hon. Members wish to speak they should stop intervening. If they do not want to speak, they can continue to intervene.

[Angie Bray]

I will be very brief. The right hon. Gentleman’s case seems to be that we should never do anything on the basis that we might not be absolutely certain about it. Sometimes projects have to be started. If we never start a project, we will never get any progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I can only say that if I could end all my speeches with a quote from Perivale I would be a much greater orator.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Colleagues seem to have a fairly elastic idea of six minutes, but six minutes is a good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) suggested that when both Front-Bench teams are in agreement, we should count the spoons. Given that I broadly agree with him, I am not sure what we should be counting. Hopefully, as a member of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and a former Network Rail employee who worked on a number of civil engineering and major projects, I will bring something to this debate.

The past 30 years of rail infrastructure projects in the UK have been somewhat chequered. There are some great successes: we have reopened a number of rail lines; reconnected communities; and brought social and economic benefits to large parts of the United Kingdom, and a permanent link to mainland Europe. Those are, I hope, benefits in everyone’s eyes. However, we have had some significant failures in those rail projects. Each one has been over budget, if we look at what the politicians claimed originally and the actual bill the taxpayer received. Many require ongoing subsidy and many communities have been blighted, including one in my area, thanks to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway.

The hon. Gentleman was right to make a point about budgets. This is not a party political point. The channel tunnel came in desperately over budget, and there has been talk about ongoing problems with High Speed 1. To look at a small-scale project, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, which only involved the reopening of seven miles of track, went from being £20 million originally to £77 million when it was finally delivered, and compensation cases are still to be resolved. The Airdrie Bathgate project, which I helped to deliver, was £40 million when it was first mooted and £300 million when it was actually delivered. For that reason alone, I do not believe a single figure that has been bandied around for the cost of any section of HS2 and its successor projects.

If the line reaches Edinburgh, a whole new station would have to be constructed, because Edinburgh cannot take high-speed rail. The current station is right in the city centre and there is no capacity left for any more track or platforms. That means that a whole new set of connecting track would need to be laid from the parkway station that would be required to the network, and those costs have not been worked out.

The question is: who benefits from high-speed rail? It only works if it travels great distances between stops. It needs to get up to high speed to make the time savings. This is a blindingly obvious thing to say, but every time we add a stop, it adds several minutes to the journey. That is not just because the train has to slow down and pick up speed again, but because passengers have to get off and on the train.

I hope that the Minister will learn from successive Ministers, both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, that leadership is required. When a route is set out, she must not give in to the very eloquent lobbying that she will get from many Members who will say, “Of course I support it, but you need to add my local area to it.” The line can only work if it is genuinely high-speed and connects only the great conurbations. I doubt that either Warrington or even Carlisle will qualify on those grounds, despite the eloquent cases that will be made for them.

The Minister must recognise that we need to have rolling stock in place before we start to build. One of the great reasons for the failure of the Edinburgh airport rail link was that Ministers in Scotland tried to build a rail link under a live airport without any clear sense of what the rolling stock would actually look like. For instance, for safety reasons, it is impossible to send a diesel train underground, and a whole network would need to be electrified. That project floundered because it was impossible to find suitable rolling stock that worked anywhere in the world. One of my great concerns about High Speed 2 and its successors is that I have not heard a clear articulation of what the required rolling stock is. Perhaps when the Minister responds to the debate she can say whether the Government have identified suitable rolling stock that actually exists somewhere on track, rather than on paper.

I sound a final note of caution about the independence of the business case. The Minister is fully aware of the ongoing dispute between the TSSA and Network Rail, which she has been helping to mediate. That dispute is about the past leadership of Iain Coucher, the former chief executive of Network Rail. I do not wish to detain the House, but there are some very serious concerns about Mr Coucher’s financial practices and about why he has spent so much taxpayers’ money lobbying for a high-speed rail project. I hope that the Minister will give a cast-iron guarantee that Mr Coucher and his associates will play no part in the delivery of high-speed rail, if and when it goes ahead.

In conclusion—I am trying to stick to your six-minute limit, Mr Walker—there are five key things that the Minister must demonstrate for this project to go ahead. First, there must be robust and independent analysis of the business case and the time savings. Secondly, clear leadership must be given on delivery. Thirdly, there must be no compromises on stations once the route is set out. Fourthly, there must be rolling stock that actually exists on track somewhere, rather than in someone’s head. Fifthly, there must be honesty about ongoing costs for the subsidy of the line of route and the rolling stock.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Graham Evans. Six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

Well, I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend. [Laughter.] I can only go on what business men in the north of England are saying and it is true that markets in the south-east of England should be open to the whole of the UK. That is why many high-profile business leaders have backed high-speed rail and why it will help to reduce the north-south divide. My colleague from Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), is no longer in his place but he made that point earlier.

There are many reasons why the south is more prosperous than the north, but one of the most obvious is the south’s proximity to our major trading markets in Europe. High-speed rail allows us to close that gap between north and south, and to bring our country closer together. I am therefore very proud to support the Government’s high-speed rail plans and I also praise the previous Labour Government and Lord Adonis in particular for the important steps that they took.

Having said that, I am increasingly concerned about the current Labour party and its position on HS2. The shadow Transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), has indicated that HS2 has been dumped by Labour, along with every other policy now that Labour has started again with “a blank piece of paper”. Last week the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said that most of Labour’s cuts would come from holding back on capital investment. Some clarification is urgently required. If Labour were to oppose this once-in-a-lifetime investment in the north, I know that my constituents would never forgive them.

Let me conclude by saying that railways have always been a crucial part of Britain’s economic prosperity. They drove the massive growth in living standards during the 19th century and created new opportunities for people from every corner of our country, but even then small-minded obstructionists stood in the way of progress who were not too dissimilar to those we have today. The ladies of Cranford eventually came round to the idea of the railway. I hope that the opponents of high-speed rail will also see the light some day, as our future economic competitiveness depends on high-speed rail.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

It is very polite of you, colleagues, to take interventions, but if you continue to do so, you will deny other colleagues the opportunity to speak.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I shall adhere to your injunction to be brief, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for securing the debate, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—who is not in his place—for leading the charge to secure an inquiry from the Transport Committee into HS2.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) that I shall not invite him to any of my supper clubs in the near future. My constituents are not nimbys. I have spoken to several hundred of them over the past months, and I saw about 80 last Saturday. They tell me that if it can be demonstrably proven that the business case stacks up, if there are proper mitigations in place in their vicinity, and if they get fair and reasonable compensation for the loss they suffer, they will, through gritted teeth, accept the proposal. The trouble, as we have heard today, is that the business case has not been proven, mitigations are not yet known—the route was announced last December but in the Tamworth area we are still waiting for a roadshow, which we will not get until June—and, although we have had hints about compensation for blight, we still do not know anything about what we might get. People are understandably very concerned.

I will not dwell on the value side of the business case and the holes that have been found in it during the debate, because my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has already done that very eloquently, as have other Members. However, let me say this about it: the net value ratio, which has been significantly reduced by HS2 Ltd—so it accepts that it is wrong—still uses as its basis for generating demand the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook, version 4.1, which Sir Rod Eddington has said is out of date, uses incorrect views on saturation of demand, future technological advances and competition that might affect demand, and that we should be using version 5.0. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister’s making it clear in her remarks that that particular handbook will be used to generate demand, and that HS2 Ltd will be directed to do its sums again.

I want to focus on the cost side of the business case. Other Members have pointed out that one should never believe a Government when they talk about how much they will spend on capital infrastructure projects. Phase 1 of HS2 has been identified as costing £17.1 billion, but phase 2, the Y-shaped link, adds a further £13 billion or so, taking the total cost to more than £30 billion. We have heard that those figures might be right—they might be wrong—but the fact of the matter is that some figures that do not appear in the cost side should be included.

One of those key figures is the cost of blight. From Eversholt Street down by Euston all the way up to Whittington, businesses and properties are blighted by the proposed railway. They are blighted now, because if people in those places manage to sell their properties, they will lose 30%, 40% or even 50% of the value, and stamp duty accruing to the Treasury will fall. That is not costed in the business case, but it means that estate agents and solicitors will do less business, and vendors’ buying power will be reduced. None of that is in the cost side of the business case, and it ought to be.

Then we come to compensation. We have heard, and I have it in a letter—which I do not have in front of me, so I will not put words into his mouth—that the Secretary of State has indicated that the Government will look at innovative ways of providing some form of compensation. That needs to go into the business case, so that we know the true cost of the proposition, which I think could run into several hundred million pounds, further reducing the proposed net benefit ratio and further undermining HS2 Ltd’s case for building the railway.

I shall end here, as I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. I call upon the Minister to look again at the business case proposed by HS2 Ltd, and again, and more carefully, at Rail Package 2. There is still time for her to change her mind, and I hope that she considers doing so.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We have 30 minutes before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople and we have eight colleagues who want to speak, so do the mathematics.

Private Car Parks

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this crucial matter to the House’s attention. I suspect that every Member present has received complaints from constituents on the subject. He is absolutely right that a vehicle need be only a millimetre over a white line for the enforcement to be draconian and rapid. My point, which reinforces what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said, is that the fines are pursued very aggressively. The time limits and the rates at which the fines increase are such that the average householder is unable to work out whether the claim is justified and then sort out payment. More interestingly, once a fine is hiked up to the top figure—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an intervention.

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) makes a good point. I have found that there is zero compassion from the car park company in my constituency. In local authority car parks, justifiable reasons, such as a ticket falling off a windscreen, are at least usually heard fairly in an appeal, but no discretion is allowed by the private car park firms that I have been dealing with. I have never come across a case in which they have cancelled a ticket. They are simply interested in seeking the “fine” from the person they wish to charge.

Not only is that worrying for elderly residents and those concerned about their credit records, but it is starting to damage town centre businesses. Such rogue parking firms are bad corporate citizens, and their practices start to have negative effects on other town centre businesses. I have plenty of evidence for that. I was talking to a constituent the other day who told me that he simply would not go into the town centre again because he feared that he would be slapped with a fine, despite doing nothing wrong. The problem is starting to damage business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

We will do our best to publicise what is available and to ensure that good, sensible, straightforward language is used so that people can understand it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order.