High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fifth sitting)
David Anderson Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Simon Burns
The hon. Gentleman nods his head in a negative way, but he is wrong. The investment of £38 billion in CP5 is not 100% taxpayers’ money. As I said, part of it is rent accrued from the rail operators, which pay to use the track.
Since privatisation, there has been a will and determination to invest, as well as the actual delivery of investment, to bring our railways up to scratch. The process is time-consuming, sadly, because of the problems arising from the earlier lack of investment. The other sad thing for rail users is that a lot of the investment that is badly needed to improve journey times and the reliability of the service is not seen immediately by them. New rolling stock is immediately seen by commuters and travellers, obviously, and they benefit from it, but when we improve and upgrade the track or the overhead cables on that part of the railway that is being electrified, users do not see the outcome of the investment in the same way. However, such investment is still critical to improving the performance of our railways. I am confident that that will continue.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned the east coast main line. I would be the first to accept that it was a well-run part of the network, but it was run under Directly Operated Railways because the last Labour Government rightly withdrew the franchise from the franchisee because there was dissatisfaction with the way it was operating the line. DOR is an emergency mechanism that was introduced in the legislation on privatising the railways because there is a legal requirement for the railways to provide a service all the time. To avoid a hiatus if there is a problem with the franchise, DOR will, for a fixed period of time only, step in to ensure continuity of service.
The hon. Gentleman kept talking about a state-run service. I suppose that DOR could, by definition, be called state-run, but it was not meant to run the line for ever. Even the Labour Transport Secretary who took the action made it plain at the time that there was not going to be a never-ending provision of service by DOR.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the background, but DOR ran the line successfully. The Labour party recognises that and has learned from that experience. We now say that it is something that should be used in the future, which is why we opposed the refranchising last year.
Sir Simon Burns
I am sadly well aware of the Labour party’s proposals for that provider to continue to provide the service. Frankly, I have every confidence that the conglomerate, which includes Virgin, that has taken it over will provide a first-class service. Based on passenger satisfaction, Virgin does so on the west coast main line. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers the fiasco of the refranchising of the west coast main line in the summer and early autumn of 2012. The passengers—for want of a better expression, it was people power—were amazed that Virgin’s franchise was not renewed. Ultimately, because of the problems that emerged, Virgin continued to run it, and I have every confidence that it will run a first-class service on the east coast main line.
Let me give the Committee an example of the way that franchisers can innovate to respond to the needs of local people. I am sure Committee members are aware—if they are not, the Minister will be more than aware—that there has never been a direct service between Scarborough and London in the lifetime of the railways. Why should Scarborough, where there is a demand for such a service, be so deprived? Virgin is responding to the marketplace and the wishes of customers, and from 2018 it will run a direct service from Scarborough to London. That is how franchisers can respond to changing circumstances and demands.
Similarly, Opposition Members will be aware that High Speed 1 is currently run by a private company. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough looks perplexed and is consulting his colleagues, but I chose my words very carefully: High Speed 1 is currently operated by a private operator. I see no reason why it should be returned to the public sector. I fundamentally do not believe that politicians and Governments are best equipped to run services and industries such as the railways. Our experience of their doing so was poor. Notwithstanding the problems and the need to improve our infrastructure, on balance, investment has been provided and work is being carried out to improve our rail services to make them into a first-class service in the private sector. I believe that that is where they should remain.
It would be a mistake if High Speed 2 were to be shackled before the first train had run on the tracks by being run, in effect, by the Government as a nationalised industry. If there is a Division on this contentious issue, I urge my colleagues to reject this opportunistic new clause. It is very much in keeping with the new politics of the Corbynista regime which, as in many other areas, is totally divorced from the best interests of the British people.
Mr Anderson
It is a great pleasure to be here, Mr Chope. I hope to see you at the weekend in the Orkney islands, with any luck. I would like to clarify a few points raised by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. For the record, he praised Virgin’s role on west coast. Virgin is the brand name of the east coast main line at the moment, but Virgin has only 10% of the franchise. The other 90% is owned by Stagecoach, which they are trying to keep a very closely held secret because of Stagecoach’s horrendous record when it comes to transport in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that British Rail in various guises had failed. Nobody doubts that. No one on the Opposition Benches is saying that it was a success, but what has to be understood is that of the 46 years that it was in public ownership, 32 of those years were under a Tory Government. One of the main reasons why the trains were never improved was that we as a nation inherited very poor quality stock and a poor system of stations, and the truth is that Governments chose to dip in and dip out of supporting the railways, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said. He is right that they were not run very well. However, I would argue that whatever the successes or failures of the past 20 years of privatisation have been, people have learned lessons. The east coast main line is an example of how people took some of the good of what they had learned from privatisation and put it into service on the east coast, which became the best service in the whole of Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman misquoted when he said that neither Blair nor Brown supported reprivatisation. What he meant was that they did not support renationalisation, and that is actually correct. They were opposed to going backwards, quite apart from the fact that they thought it would be a diversion of money that could be spent elsewhere on putting right a lot of things that failed under 18 years of Tory government. They chose not to do it, and they did not want to do it. The truth about Railtrack is that the Government were forced to do it, and I will tell the Committee why. On 19 September 1997 the Southall rail crash took place. A friend of mine was in that crash. He was given the last rites twice, but thankfully he survived. On 5 October 1999 the Paddington rail crash occurred. Another friend of mine was involved and, sadly, he was one of 31 people who died. On 17 September 2000 the Hatfield rail crash took place, and on 10 May 2002 the Potters Bar rail crash occurred. A common theme through all of them was the failure of Railtrack to maintain the tracks properly.
I work with people who worked with me in the coal mines in the ’70 and ’80s. They went on to be contractors and subcontractors repairing rails. They told me some nightmare stories of the work they were involved in. We used to have railways underground. I was a mechanic looking after trains underground, so I have some experience of how to look after railways properly. Some of the things they were telling me were nightmares. There used to be a standard in this country that every length of rail had to be changed once every 40 years, regardless of its condition. That was the maximum length of time a rail could be left in place. One thing which happened almost immediately after privatisation was that that was changed to rails being replaced once every 80 years. That was the mental attitude of the people to whom we gave away our railway system, and who we allowed to run our trains. Is it any wonder that things went wrong? Railtrack had to be brought back into public ownership to protect the travelling public from the shortcomings that were clearly occurring.
The east coast franchise went first to GNER, which ran it for some time. It was a reasonable service, but its parent company, Sea Containers, was going belly-up. Overnight, GNER pulled out of the franchise. Who had to come in? The Government had to step in. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was right and proper to pick up the pieces and keep it running. They kept it running and it was franchised out again to National Express, but the National Express experience was appalling. They ran the trains the same way as they ran the buses. The hygiene, punctuality—every part went backwards, and again the public sector had to walk in. When National Express walked away—they were not thrown out; they walked away because they were failing—Directly Operated Railways became the most successful train line in the country.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Sixth sitting)
David Anderson Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This is just a quick intervention to support the new clause. The Minister may already have been to Newcastle College’s rail academy, which is actually in Gateshead. Like all good things, it is south of the River Tyne rather than north, and well north of parmos. The £5 million facility was opened specifically to develop skills to give young people up to a level 3 diploma in rail engineering. The academy develops rail engineering apprenticeships and gives young people access to higher education so they can go on to be fully-fledged degree-level engineers.
The whole idea is that we develop a skilled jobbing workforce right across the industry. The academy has six teaching rooms, a mechanical workshop, an electronics hub, and a signals and telecommunications workshop. It cost £5 million, and has indoor and outside facilities so people can work in real-life situations. Compare that with the development of Newcastle railway station, which cost £22 million—£5 million is a very small amount of money for a very positive thing.
Our part of the world has a long history in railways. Indeed, the Bowes railway, which dates back to 1826, is within five miles of the academy. It was developed by George Stephenson and is the only operating standard gauge, cable-operated railway anywhere in the world. We have a long history of engineering in the north-east, as hon. Members have mentioned, and we are a role model for what could happen in and around Euston.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Third sitting)
David Anderson Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Goodwill
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Clapham omnibus. I had the great pleasure last week of visiting the Wrightbus factory in Northern Ireland, which builds the Boris buses that ply their trade so successfully around this city, although I must add that other double-decker manufacturers are available, including, dare I say, one based in my constituency.
May I allay some of the hon. Gentleman’s fears about the reasonableness of what we intend and the proportionality of what we are doing? It is reasonable for him to raise these issues, but I hope that I can allay his fears. Clause 40, to which the amendments apply, deals with the disapplication of statutory closure provisions and provides that the Secretary of State may, before phase 1 of HS2 is ready for commercial use, disapply the closure provisions of the Railways Act 2005 in the case of closures that are necessary or expedient due to the construction or operation of phase 1 of HS2.
London TravelWatch, the passenger representative body for the capital, asked for an explanation of the power and its expected use. We have already responded, stating that there are no station closures planned as part of the construction and operation of phase 1of HS2, and that the only line that would close is the eastern end of the Northolt and Acton line, known as the Wycombe Single, between Old Oak Common and Park Royal, which currently carries one weekday passenger service from London to West Ruislip.
The disapplied closure provisions set out what must be done in terms of notice, consultation and provision of information in the event of a proposal to close existing services, stations or parts of the rail network. There are services that may run with a reduced frequency as they are replaced by alternative services in phase 1 of HS2. The power in the clause does not apply to such services, as the Secretary of State may not exercise the power after he has notified Parliament that phase 1 of HS2 is ready for commercial use. Once it is commercially open, the Railways Act 2005 procedures come back into force.
The clause ensures that phase 1 of HS2 can be built efficiently, as the decision to construct phase 1 of HS2 will have been approved by Parliament. We believe it is reasonable to disapply the closure procedures during construction. The proposed closure of the “Wycombe single” and its impact were set out in the environmental statement, on which the public were consulted. The issue of the Wycombe single was also raised in petitions, meaning that Parliament had full opportunity to consider it. All of that means that going through the full closure procedures would be an unnecessary duplication. Phase 1 of HS2, of course, is about adding capacity to the rail network, not reducing it. The power can be used only for closures that are necessary for the construction and operation of phase 1 of HS2, and currently we have identified only one that is necessary.
Turning specifically to the amendment, as I said, clause 40 is essential if phase 1 of HS2 is to be delivered efficiently and effectively. However, I understand the importance of getting the clause right to ensure balance. As I mentioned, London TravelWatch asked for an explanation of the power, and I responded separately. It is important to remember that clause 40 as proposed would apply only during construction. When the line is operational, it will not apply.
As I said previously, we have sought not to legislate unless necessary. I do not believe that it is necessary to insert the word “reasonable” into the clause, as in amendment 17; it is inherent. Inserting “reasonable” in that context would cast doubt on other provisions of the Bill. Similarly, I do not feel it necessary to remove the word “expedient” as amendment 18 would do. We would still behave reasonably. As to amendment 20, the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that any closure was appropriate, having worked closely with the relevant railway operators, so I do not think any such closures require a parliamentary process.
Amendments 18 and 19 would, in relation to the line and the stations respectively, limit the power to the closure of the eastern line end of the Northolt and Acton line—known as the “Wycombe single”—which currently carries one weekday passenger service, and remove the ability to close stations. I repeat that at present there are no station closures for the delivery of HS2, and the Wycombe single is the only line that we expect will need to close. That was outlined in the environmental statement. However, I must stress that the design of HS2 is at an outline stage, so we cannot guarantee that other closures will not be necessary. Therefore a level of flexibility is involved. Currently there are no stations that have been earmarked, or are being contemplated, for closure. The provision is purely about allowing some flexibility, should unexpected situations occur.
I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the amendments are not needed, and that in some cases they could not be passed if we are to deliver HS2, and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
To take the Minister back to what he said about flexibility, which I understand, if it were decided that some stations needed to go, what degree or level of consultation would take place?
Mr Goodwill
As I say, we are not proposing that. There would certainly be wide consultation. In this theoretical case that we cannot actually identify, there would need to be provision for the passengers who used that station. Indeed, if there were plans to build a new station, of course that would mean closing the old station that it was to replace.
As I have said, the provision is purely another example of braces and belt, in case we should find ourselves in the unexpected situation of needing to close additional lines or a station. The clause would allow us to do that, but I have not heard even a hint that we might need to close stations. Indeed, HS2 is about increasing capacity on the line, and people’s opportunity to travel. That is why it has been welcomed across the political divides in the House.
I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will withdraw his amendment and accept at face value my assurances—“reasonably” is my middle name, for goodness’ sake—that we certainly do not have a hidden agenda that the clause is intended to facilitate.
Andy McDonald
I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is content.
The amendment is about working in the best interests of taxpayers and to ensure that they are not sold short. The taxpayer is our concern, not the private entity that might have transferred to it property and/or property rights which of themselves had been the product of the taxpayer’s significant investment—the sum of £55 billion, or thereabouts. Calls upon the nation’s tax receipts are onerous and to be used wisely, so it is essential that we ensure that those moneys that have created such valuable assets—money that could have served other urgent and serious demands in our communities—are not simply siphoned off into the private sector.
Our concerns are not idle ones, but are extremely well founded. We are dealing with a potential asset sale as I speak, namely the announcement by Network Rail of its intention to sell some 18 railway stations on the existing network. It is of immense concern that, should any such sales go ahead, the receipts will be those of a fair market valuation and not simply from a fire sale to reduce Network Rail’s debts. In advance of the Nicola Shaw review, we hear that Network Rail is to sell off 18 major stations, including Waterloo, Reading and Leeds, in an effort to cut its £50 billion debt. If memory serves me right, Reading has benefited from public investment of some £897 million. I am sure that the public will be watching carefully what happens to the ownerships of those and other named stations.
The same concerns apply to HS2. I am afraid that the Government have form and that we have less than good experience, to say the least, of sell-offs of publicly owned assets that failed to secure fair or market value for the taxpayer. We need cast our minds back no further than the disastrous sell-off of the Royal Mail, which is still fresh in the minds of millions of voters. The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills found that taxpayers may have lost out on about £l billion from the undervaluing of Royal Mail. Apparently, the Government feared failure and acted on bad advice over the Royal Mail stock market flotation. As we know, the shares fluctuated widely with an initial price of 330p which jumped as high as 618p and now stands somewhat lower than that. The then Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said:
“They”—
presumably meaning the BIS Committee—
“now have the benefit of hindsight, which we didn’t have at the time. We sold at a price that was regarded as the best that could be achieved in the context in which we sold it.”
But the Chair of the BIS Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), said:
“It’s very important that when the government does sell off a government asset, it does so through a process that quite clearly demonstrates that nobody selling it, nobody advising it, has a conflict of interest”.
We do not want a repeat of the conduct of the likes of Lazards who were working on the inside on the sale of Royal Mail as Government advisers and then, because of the erection of an invisible virtual Chinese wall, were able to fill their boots on the acquisition of Royal Mail shares from the profits they achieved in a few short hours after launch. A number of individuals, some with high-profile political associations, also personally cashed in. We simply do not want HS2 to be turned into a profiteering exercise at the public’s expense.
You will recall the evidence unearthed by the Public Accounts Committee under the expert chairing of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). It revealed that Lazards advised the Government not to increase the price of Royal Mail shares, despite widespread fears they were hugely undervalued, and made a profit of more than £8 million by immediately selling the company’s stock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said that Lazards
“made a killing at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer that lost £750 million in one day”.
A subsequent report by the National Audit Office found that the Government decided against increasing the flotation price of Royal Mail beyond 330p a share because of warnings from Lazard & Co. Government advisers were asked point blank at the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking how they could get it so wrong that it cost the taxpayer £750 million on that one day.
Vince Cable, the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said that the postal service should,
“start its new life with a core of high-quality investors who would be there in good times and bad”.
So much for that hope, Mr Hanson. As you and I both know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Mr Anderson
Will my hon. Friend also recall the fact that it is not only the Royal Mail? The coal industry was privatised in 1994. One of the arguments for privatisation was that it would transfer the risks from the public sector to the private sector. We had the situation where a company was importing coal from places like Colombia, which uses child and slave labour to dig coal out of the ground. The Government presided over the closure of the last deep mine colliery in Kellingley at the end of 2015, but the people who bought the coal industry have used assets in land and estates which have multiplied massively from what was paid for them in 1994.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is absolutely imperative that we learn lessons from previous experiences, and that is what the amendment is intended to address. We do not want to keep repeating these errors and finding the taxpayer short-changed. Certainly, when there is something so prestigious and ambitious and it has widespread support, we do not want its reputation tarnished in any way. We want it to be sustained.
Mr Goodwill
If I may, I will turn to an example more closely allied to the matter before us today, which is the case of HS1. We sold a 30-year concession on HS1 to operate and maintain the infrastructure for £2.1 billion. The Ontario Teachers’ pension fund took that concession for a 30-year licence. After the 30 years, the HS1 line returns to the Government, and we will have the opportunity to sell another concession; to keep it, possibly within Network Rail; or to give it to another operator such as, as I have said, Network Rail. The sale of the HS1 concession involved a rigorous bidding process to ensure best value. No decisions have been taken on the commercial model for HS2. It should also be noted that if any transfer of assets, rights or liabilities occur, the Secretary of State can impose conditions such as restrictions on the sale of assets, which will protect assets if that is thought appropriate.
We would always seek to get best value in the sale of the concession, and the value of the concession will take into account the value of the assets being transferred as well as the liabilities and revenue, and this would therefore be priced in. I hope that that clarifies the position so that the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of the amendment, but, given the political differences between us on this issue, I suspect that I will not be able to satisfy him and he will press his amendment to a Division.
Mr Anderson
The Minister talked about the issue of privatisation and how successful the businesses have been, but consumers might have a slightly different view about the prices charged by companies such as British Gas and British Airways and whether they are doing a great job. They might also have a different view on the fantastic performance of the Government. Figures released today say that the national debt is now £1,580 billion, having increased by 50% on his and his Government’s watch.
We can have the political debate later on about ownership, and I am sure we will, but what I am trying to get my head around is what the problem is with the amendment. What the Minister is saying is what we are asking for: automatic best value and so on. Is that not exactly what the words on the amendment paper say? I cannot get my head around why on earth we cannot just say that if and when it happens, the Government will get best value for the customer, the taxpayer.
If we leave the clause as it is, it more or less says that the Secretary of State has the power to give away parts of the system, or all of the system, to anybody, without any price whatever. I know—I hope—that that is not the intention, but the clause at the minute says exactly that, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough would prevent that from happening.
Mr Goodwill
I will respond briefly to that point. This Government always seek to get best value for the taxpayer. There is an important debate to be had, although maybe not at this stage, about how the railway will be delivered—whether we operate a traditional franchising process, run the line directly for a while to demonstrate its ability to raise revenue for a future operator or let a concession, as we have done with HS1, to allow an investor to come in and benefit from the income from the operator. There are a number of issues that we should consider to ensure that we get best value, but those decisions need to be made at the start of the next decade, so I think we would be rushing our fences to do it now.
Once again, I underline that this Government will always seek to get best value for the taxpayer. The previous coalition Government’s record of doing so was a major contributor to the results we achieved last year in May, when the British people had confidence that a Conservative Government could be a sound custodian of the public finances and come to grips with the economic mess that we inherited in 2010. That is a debate for another day, but I assure the Committee that we will always seek to get best value, and the clause—without the amendment, which is superfluous—will do precisely that.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fourth sitting)
David Anderson Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald
The point is that the man with the red flag was there to slow down the train because it was not known what impact the speeds would have had on the human form. If we do not get rid of the Pacers quickly, I think that man might have a job again. We need to move on.
Andy McDonald
Indeed. The point is that the Victorian railway has been around for a very considerable time. We have benefited enormously from Victorian innovation and taken it forward into the next generation of high-speed rail travel. Once completed, phase 1 will surely be in operation for hundreds of years—we all agree that it will be operational for two centuries. That is a wonderful prospect.
However, under the current drafting a Secretary of State will be able to enjoy compulsory purchase powers over the land for the entire duration of phase 1. That is a hugely significant power and I trust that the Minister can see the merit in qualifying that wide-ranging power. The amendment will not inhibit in any way the development or operations of phase 1. It will simply introduce some degree of reasonable objectivity into the Bill, so that in years ahead—we could be talking 50, 75 or 100 years—landowners can be assured that their land and property, left intact until then, is not unfairly or unexpectedly drawn into the operation of compulsory acquisition under the Act.
Thus far, there has been no such qualification. I trust that the Minister will agree with the logic of our position and accept the amendment.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Second sitting)
David Anderson Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald
I hope the workers will not be charged for working on the site. That would be over the top. I hope they will be able to turn up for work and not think about paying car-parking fees.
Andy McDonald
Health workers do but, hopefully, it will not happen on this occasion. Perhaps we can have better practice for HS2. There will undoubtedly be a very large area where they can park their vehicles, so perhaps the Minister could reflect on that.
I understand what the Minister is saying and his clarification is helpful. If I were being unkind I would say that his telling us that we should not insert this provision about short-term car parking in the Bill now prompts the question why the Bill specifies 7,500 car spaces and five spaces for coaches, but I think he has addressed that. I am also grateful that he has made it clear that he contemplates the five parking spaces for coaches for dropping off passengers and not for long-term parking.
As he said, all of that will come out in the wash, but the basic principle of the amendment is to encourage people to use trains and not make unnecessary journeys. He is also right about the 12 hours. People may be able to travel to London, do their business and get back for dinner before they have even set off, it will be so quick; so we look forward to those developments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, having been satisfied with the Minister’s clarification.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Development consent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
David Anderson Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is essential that the HSE can do its job well. We have had conversations with it and there is no suggestion that it cannot do its job well, but we will keep that under review.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
In the Minister’s assessment prior to coming to the House, did she look at whether the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive need additional staff? If not, will she do so before she pushes the Bill further? We do not know what it costs to do that job properly.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is essential that the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive have sufficient staff. They have not raised that with me and have accepted the fact that they will have the responsibility, but we will keep conversations with them open to ensure they can do their job correctly.
Road Investment Strategy
David Anderson Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
Can we get junction 7 sorted out before we move on to junction 7a? I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about improving the road structure, because although this may—something that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said—help certain constituencies, it actually helps motorists in general who come from every kind of constituency.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This morning, when the Chancellor talked about the opening of the A1 north, he mentioned improvements in Northumbria, a kingdom that has not existed for centuries. Perhaps someone should have a word with him about the geography of this country. Last week, the Chief Whip said that the opening of the A1 was all down to the Tory candidate in Berwick. This morning, the Business Secretary said that it was all down to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The truth is that both those people have done sterling work, as have lots of Members on the Opposition Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). May I ask the Secretary of State why he has come to the House hours after he spoke on the radio? Does that not show contempt for this House and for the rules that you, Mr Speaker, have made?
Mr McLoughlin
It is true that Anne-Marie Trevelyan has made many representations about the road, but so, too, has the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pointing to himself and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). They doubtlessly made representations, but what I say is that we are not making representations, but taking action. There are many more Members making representations than delivering. The hon. Gentleman chastised me for giving an interview, but I gave no interviews until after I had laid a written ministerial statement this morning.
Railways
David Anderson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burns
It is fascinating to hear that from one of Lord Adonis’s colleagues. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman—there seems to be a problem with Luton today—meant that in a derogatory way, but I thought that Lord Adonis was not a Tory, but the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport. I also thought that he was working with the present leader of the Labour party on formulating Labour’s policies.
Mr Burns
No, I am going to make progress—[Interruption.] I do not want to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have listened to many of his interventions and it is not often that they can be put in the category of making progress—they usually hark back to an era that most of us do not remember.
Mr Burns
I will make progress in my way, not the hon. Gentleman’s.
The subject of franchising has aroused considerable interest among Labour Members, so let me briefly set out something that I have said before. Since privatisation, rail numbers have doubled and passenger satisfaction is at an all-time high. Recent European research has shown that the countries with the greatest growth in rail travel are those with the most liberalised markets.
As with the proposals I have already discussed, we will need to ensure that we continue to engage on the detail, including by ensuring that any changes to public passenger transport services regulation are compatible with the specific needs of our network and give us the flexibility to deliver a sustainable franchise programme. I know that the Transport Committee’s report is concerned that our arrangements for letting train franchises should not be challenged, and I assure hon. Members that the Government share that view and are looking closely at the issue.
On transport plans, we are concerned that the requirements are over-prescriptive and will therefore impose a significant regulatory burden.
In relation to the channel tunnel, the focus of the Commission’s proposal is on achieving effective competition and further market opening for domestic passenger services, thereby increasing the quantity and improving the quality of passenger services. It is still too early to assess whether this will lead to more cross-border rail services through the channel tunnel.
I will summarise our initial findings on the impacts of the package on the UK. The package may present significant market opportunities for UK firms wishing to expand their operations into the EU. However, the benefits for domestic rail transport are less obvious. We cannot see how a substantial proportion of the additional demand and cost savings identified by the European Commission in its impact assessment will translate to the domestic rail sector in the UK. This is because significant parts of the Commission proposal, including the competitive tendering aspects of the package, are already in place, and because in the UK we already have the benefits of vertical separation which avoids discrimination.
I remain concerned about the Commission moving powers from national safety authorities to the European Railway Agency. The Government will need to be convinced that these powers are necessary, given the high level of co-operation already achieved between national safety authorities. We also do not want anything that interferes with the current UK rail structure or adds bureaucracy and costs, or any proposals that are not compatible with our plans for rail reform.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has said exactly what needs to be said on the matter.
The European Commission’s case for extending competition in that way can be found in a recently published non-paper, or document for discussion, on the UK railways. Actually, the term “non-paper” covers it rather well. It implies that privatisation was responsible for improving safety, but in fact the infrastructure sell-off had the opposite effect and subsequent investment in safety was taxpayer-funded. It also claims that privatisation itself was responsible for increasing passenger numbers, but other countries that did not fragment their systems also experienced comparable levels of passenger growth, as the Transport Committee acknowledged this week.
Most remarkably, the non-paper suggests that privatisation has reduced subsidy. At the time, we were promised a more efficient railway, but subsidy rocketed. As the Office of Rail Regulation’s financial report last week confirmed, in 2011-12 train operating companies received more public funding than they paid back. They were paid £51 million more than they gave back in premium payments, while the Government paid almost £4 billion towards the cost of infrastructure.
Mr Anderson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the subsidy has gone up by 300% since privatisation and, on top of that, fares have gone up by 22% in real terms, so the public are paying for the costs of privatisation? The really perverse thing is that a lot of the subsidy from British taxpayers and fare payers is actually going to the German, Dutch and French national Governments, because they own more than half the railways in this country.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why the Opposition have been prepared to look at reforming the railways.
In total, the train operating companies were left with £305 million before tax at a time when, as my hon. Friend has just said, some fares and season tickets have been allowed to rise by well above the rate of inflation. Those are the headline figures but, as the McNulty report, the Transport Committee and many others have pointed out, there is a basic lack of transparency in railway finances, as commercial confidentiality serves to obscure waste in the system.
The waste is huge. The McNulty report identified an efficiency gap of 40%, compared with the railways of four other European countries. The fragmentation of the industry has led to massive interface costs between Network Rail, the operating companies and the supply chain. Taxpayers and fare payers are supporting replica bureaucracies and unnecessary legal challenges. That money could be better invested in the industry. The great railway sell-off was a botched, rushed job. Labour took action to reverse some of the most damaging legacies of privatisation, including the disaster that was Railtrack, but the Railways Act 1993 was hurried through Parliament for political reasons, creating inefficiencies that are still with us today.
High Speed Rail
David Anderson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
I very much hope so. My hon. Friend makes a point about the important need for greater capacity, and I will look in great detail at how the issue may affect his constituents.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Without any three-lane motorway north of north Yorkshire, and with a dual carriageway that ends just north of Newcastle, the north-east has the worst road system in the country. We are now being told that we will also have a second-rate railway system. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best we are going to get in the north-east is HS1.5?
Mr McLoughlin
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way. We have just announced a major investment in dualling the A1 up to Newcastle, and I will look at other schemes in due course.
West Coast Main Line
David Anderson Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I can confirm that the Prime Minister announced a cap of RPI plus 1 for not only this year, but next year and the year after.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
In this House, we have become used to the Government’s incompetence. They could not privatise the forests properly and they made a mess of the NHS; with this, they have shown that they cannot even privatise what is already out there. The job is too big for them. Why do they not just give up—and give up now?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure, Mr Speaker, whether that was a question or a statement.