High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I have been an MP for four years, and this is the fourth debate on HS2 in which I have participated. I have spoken in support of the project in all of them and I will do so again tonight, although it would be fair to say that if we were debating the current phase 2 route, which is out to consultation—I have high hopes of changes, particularly to the part north of Manchester, for which there is no business case—I would have difficulty supporting it, but I do support the Bill before us today.

Before I set out the reasons for my support, however, I will state four reasons why we should not go ahead with the project. We should not go ahead with it simply because it has been 120 years since we built a railway line north of Manchester. That, in itself, is a silly reason. We should not proceed with it simply because our infrastructure investment over the past two or three decades has been massively skewed towards London. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who talked about the diversion of resources away from other projects that HS2 could cause—an anxiety that did not appear to apply for Crossrail 1 or Crossrail 2, which together would cost about the same as HS2. In any event, we should not go ahead with the wrong project just because we previously spent too much in London. Nor should we do it because other countries done it more than we have: Turkey might have 1,500 miles, but perhaps the Turks and everyone else is wrong and perhaps our way is the right way.

We should proceed if and only if three things apply. The first is that the business case must be robust and solid.

[Andrew Bridgen]

It is not.

[David Mowat]

I have a sense of déjà vu. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and I have had this dialogue before. The cost-benefit ratio is 2.4, higher than it was for the Jubilee line when that project started and higher than it currently is for Crossrail. We should go ahead only if the cash flow can be afforded without diverting resources away from other activities. Roughly speaking, the cash flow for HS2 is £2 billion a year, and it kicks in as Crossrail comes to an end and HS2 picks it up. That is reasonable. There is no evidence that HS2 is starving other projects and activities of investment. I believe that HS2 involves something in the order of 20% of total rail investment over the next two decades.

The third condition is that there must be transformational benefits from the project. We do not have time to go into them in detail, but there is a great deal of evidence, from the councils and the chambers of commerce of the north, that the regions will be transformed. Whether we are talking about the Greengauge 21 report or the Peat Marwick report, 40,000 jobs at a minimum will be generated in the north-west, and my constituents will get many of them.

All in all, whether HS2 goes ahead boils down to whether we believe that there is a capacity crunch. If we do not think that there will be one because we will all miraculously be using video conferencing over the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, it would probably be wrong to go ahead with the project. The fact is, however, that over the last 15 years, the requirement for long-distance train journeys in the UK has increased by roughly 5% a year. The HS2 business case assumes that that will decrease to 1.6% a year—a conservative estimate in many ways. I believe that the capacity crunch is the main reason for proceeding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), who is not in his place, made a perfectly reasonable point about double-decker trains. My understanding is that the changes to the west coast main line to make that happen would be so restrictive as well as expensive that the line would not work in the meantime. We know how difficult it was during the last upgrade from Rugby to the north.

I want the Minister to give some thought to the reservation about phase 2 that I expressed earlier, which would have made it difficult—in fact, impossible—for me to support the Bill. I refer to the absurdity of building 40 miles of track north of Manchester apparently for no other reason than to get to a depot in Wigan. The cost is £1 billion without contingency, and I could find not one benefit in the business case that would contribute to that cost. I hope that people from HS2 are listening to me. There is a phrase, “value engineering”, which means that one engineers and designs where the value will come from. It has manifestly not occurred in respect of the Wigan link. I hope, believe and trust that that will be looked at.

Rolling Stock (North of England)

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will refer to the situation relating to the Pacer trains later. She is absolutely right that the leasing agreements for franchises such as Northern Rail and TransPennine Express end in 2015. TransPennine Express has been unable to secure leases for trains beyond then, because other operators can offer longer and more financially secure tenures to the rolling stock company, Porterbrook. That issue is at the heart of this debate.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is completely right in saying that the 10-month extension period is at the heart of the problem and the commercial issues that it creates for the leasers of trains. However, I do not quite follow in her logic flow how that is related to the east coast main line. Perhaps she could explain that.

[Angela Smith]

It is because the decision to prioritise the privatisation of the east coast main line has led to a delay in the refranchising process for TransPennine Express, which has put it on a short lease—a short-term life—and it cannot plan beyond 2015-16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the debate so far has shown, rail in the north has long-standing problems that affect constituencies across the whole region. The problems include the rolling stock: in the north, the average age is 24 years compared with London Overground, whose rolling stock is, on average, 2.8 years old, and with C2C—the London to Essex line—where the average is 12 years. Those figures tell quite a tale. As hon. Members have mentioned, another issue is the availability of appropriate rolling stock after the welcome electrification, on which there is still no clarity.

In the short time available I want to focus on the key issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), which is the totally unacceptable situation of First TransPennine Express, which serves people across the north with an already overcrowded service, being set to lose 13% of its fleet to Chiltern Railways. It is a consequence of the west coast main line debacle and the way that franchises were changed and decisions were made for directly negotiated extensions of existing franchises. It appears that the interests of the leasing company, Porterbrook, rests with moving the trains to Chiltern Railways, rather than leaving them for the 10-month extension that has been awarded to First TransPennine Express.

That issue has been raised at the Select Committee, which has already written to the Secretary of State to ask several important questions. I want to focus on two of them. First, did Ministers know what was happening? We understand that they did. If they did not, they should have known that something so important was going on. Secondly, what will Ministers do about the situation? It cannot be right that the interests of a leasing company are put above those of passengers. There are other, more general issues about how rolling stock and franchises are organised, but that is the nub of the problem. The interests of the leasing company appear to be in moving these much needed carriages from the north to the south, because it can get a better financial deal.

[David Mowat]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on mentioning Porterbrook, because its role is crucial. I will be interested to hear from the Minister why Porterbrook has taken this decision. I understand that it was offered only a 10-month extension, but it is and has been customary for leasers to give trains to the next company that takes over the lease. Porterbrook was not at risk had it persevered with the 10-month extension and it really does seem an odd decision. Has the Transport Committee had any sight of the commercial terms of the earlier deal with First TransPennine Express?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I want to start by saying that the moving of 13% of TransPennine Express trains is an unacceptable outcome. However, we need to understand why it has happened. It is still not clear to me whether it is an intended or unintended consequence—the tail-end result of a number of actions.

I want to respond to the north-south divide issue, on which the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) made an excellent speech. There are things that the Government have done that were not happening before, in relation to the northern hub and the electrification of the north; but that only partially rebalances the vast difference in spending per head mentioned just now by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). That is not something that happened under the present Government; it happened under the previous Government as well, and it is an endemic issue to do with the way the Department for Transport evaluates projects. That is what we need to think about in the next few years.

To return to the main issue, the 13% of TPE trains are being moved because a 10-month extension has been piled on. Porterbrook apparently takes the view that it can get more money by moving the trains to Chiltern Railways, away from TPE. The first question is whether the decision was predictable. I do not fully understand the reason for the 10-month extension, which is why I intervened earlier, to ask how that was related to the east coast main line. However, given the fact of the 10-month extension, perhaps Porterbrook is trying to protect its commercial interests by its actions. In that case, normally what happens, apparently, is that the owner of the trains leases them to the next winner of the franchise; so if TPE lost the franchise, the normal custom and practice would be for Porterbrook still to be protected, because the trains could remain in the north. I ask the Minister why that did not happen in this case, to what extent it was predictable by the Minister or officials, and whether it is only the officials who are accountable in that sense.

Is the contract that has now apparently been signed by Porterbrook and Chiltern Railways irrevocable? Can it be changed? If it cannot, another issue arises. I heard mention of powers under section 54 of the Railways Act 1993 earlier; would they allow the contract to be reopened and re-examined? As I said when I began, the outcome, whether intended or not, is unacceptable.

Porterbrook’s role needs a lot more examination. We shall not have time for that today, but I hope that the Select Committee will understand, when it investigates, what drove Porterbrook to make a decision that is not, on the face of it, rational, given the custom and practice that I mentioned—that whoever might win the future franchise, if there is a change, would in any event use the same trains. Finally, I want to ask whether the Department for Transport has sight of the full commercial terms of the Porterbrook and Chiltern Railways contract, vis-à-vis the Porterbrook TPE contract that is apparently being replaced.

Putting all that to one side, the outcome is unacceptable, and something needs to happen.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Gillan]

Yes, of course.

[David Mowat]

If it were true that better infrastructure for the north would suck the lifeblood out of the region, would it not be right to close the M6? Perhaps that strategy would make the north really prosperous.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am not going to dignify that intervention with an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed, that will increase choice for people who have the unfortunate experience in life of having to live in the south-east of England. It will give them more opportunities to visit the north and use airports up and down the country.

We need to ensure that we maximise the cumulative benefit of individual investments by ensuring they are all properly connected. I have to say that amendments 18 and 19 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) slightly confuse me. Amendment 19 seeks to limit expenditure to projects under phases 1 and 2 of the Bill, which finishes in Leeds and Manchester, but amendment 18 says that there should be more connectivity in Scotland. There is a degree of contradiction in those two amendments.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend has just said that phase 2 finishes in Manchester, which indeed it does as far as the business case and the benefits statement KPMG produced are concerned, yet under phase 2 we are building a 40 km spur north of Manchester. I wonder about the logic of that, since there is a £1 billion cost with no benefit. Is that an under-run that the Minister could book at this point?

Greener Road Transport Fuels

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Just to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), I think the United Nations has latterly described the use of wheat for petrol as a “crime against humanity”, which I think sums up where we are on that.

[John Pugh]

I think I might reserve the phrase “crime against humanity” for other things, but I recognise the impact. A number of third world charities believe that the net effect will further impoverish the third world and the areas that most need our help.

[John Pugh]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands hydrogen propulsion a lot better than I do; I hope he makes a contribution. I am betraying my ignorance here. I am just providing a preamble to what I hope will be a successful plea in favour of greater and more effective use of LPG. I do not in any way counter or dismiss the value of what the hon. Gentleman said.

[David Mowat]

I think hydrogen technology works extremely well, but the issue is that hydrogen infrastructure does not exist anywhere. Some countries have tried to develop hydrogen infrastructure; Iceland is an example. The difficulty is that infrastructure exists for petrol cars but not for hydrogen. That is what will stop the use of hydrogen.

[John Pugh]

I am certainly surrounded by people who are far more learned than myself in the field, but I shall have the temerity to continue.

Even if the biofuels issue has moved on to the discussion of what are called second generation biofuels, where people talk about not using virgin land or crops but municipal waste and algae, technical questions about the reliability of supply remain, particularly if whole-scale, mandatory use in other fuels is considered an option. I am simply pointing out that there are problems, and I think hon. Members’ interventions have helped me to illustrate precisely that point.

In some ways, electric cars seem a perfect solution, until one considers the production costs, which are currently high. There are issues with the battery, such as its weight, life and endurance, and with how the electricity itself is produced; the electricity might not have been produced in a carbon-neutral way. There is also the issue of flexibility of use, which I think is well understood by anyone who considers the topic for a second or two: what happens when battery life is exhausted?

I recognise that electric motors can be made to become more efficient; that battery technology can be increased; and that we can have charging points across the country—in fact, grants are, I believe, available at the moment and points are appearing—but there is still some way to go. One of my constituents, who died over the weekend, had been progressing with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills some new development that would make electric motors a lot more efficient and batteries a lot more effective. Developments will be made in that field, but my best guess—this is borne out by conversations that I have had with the motor industry—is that despite Government investment and considerable Government enthusiasm, from some Ministers at any rate, electric cars will probably remain a niche market, extending only as the use of hybrids becomes more popular.

Even were electric cars to take off for the motorist, we will not see electric buses, unless we call them trams, and to be fair, the electric lorry is some way off. Lorries necessarily travel long distances, and the cost of that and the weight of carrying batteries to enable them to do that would probably be wholly prohibitive for quite some time to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I recognise that the Minister has a special expertise, but I know that there is demand in the marketplace for the feeds, which form only part of the overall mix. Having enjoyed the product of a ruminant in my cup of tea earlier this afternoon, I know that they have a place in the final food chain.

[David Mowat]

I am not totally certain that I understood the thrust of what was said about rainforests. Was the point being made that it is good to convert rainforest into soya for use in transport?

[Ian Swales]

No, absolutely not. My point was that the high-grade, high-protein animal feed, which the by-product feed replaces, is typically grown in South America, so the by-product feed reduces the demand for soya-based proteins, mostly from South America. There is a green chain. The situation is not as simple as people say.

The Government have had a policy for putting biofuels into both diesel and petrol for years. Starting with diesel, they set the targets and people invested large amounts in chemical plant, but all the early investors went bust because the Government kept moving the goal posts—surprise, surprise, the same has happened with bioethanol. The £300 million that people invested in the plant in my constituency has largely gone and the plant recently changed hands for a lower price. Why? Because the Government have not delivered on the renewable transport fuel obligations they said they would when the investment case was originally made.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned an important point: we need certainty for green technologies. If we are asking people to invest large amounts of capital, we cannot keep changing our minds. Changing one’s mind leads to an industry heavily dependent on imports of green products. Unless we give investors certainty about the goal posts and the environment into which they invest, they will not invest anymore. Most of the early investors in such technologies have done badly and that is mostly due to Government policy.

For the same reasons, we need to ensure at EU level that targets for the proportions of biofuel in diesel and petrol are separate. If we allow an overall target and let oil companies play games over how much biofuel they put into each one on any given day, the people who have invested heavily in capital plant will have years of feast and years of famine, as the oil companies play their games, and will eventually exit the market. Again, traders will be left to pick up the pieces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

I will not go on for the sake of it. This is the second debate of the day for the new Minister and me in Westminster Hall, so we are starting as we mean to go on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate. We have heard important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and we have had important interventions from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Southport quoted from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” on getting from A to B. Given the importance of what we are talking about and the seriousness of the consequences if we do not effectively tackle climate change, I was put in mind of a different quote from that book:

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”

On the challenge of climate change, that makes a very good point.

Cutting emissions and tackling greenhouse gases is not simply a question of tackling the transport end of the equation, but transport is obviously central to the issue. We are talking about transport still accounting for more than a fifth of the UK’s CO₂ emissions, with 97% of that coming from cars alone. That is why the European Council of Ministers debate on achieving the EU target of 40% was important. I understand that the time scale has now slipped. Originally, the proposal was for 2020, and, as a result of the latest decision, it is now 2024. I understand the UK voted for that longer time scale. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case when he sums up the debate?

In the UK, we have ambitious targets to reach 1.7 million electric vehicles by 2020 and to ensure that all vehicles are ultra-low emission by 2050. Today we are not debating whether the transport sector needs to change, but what reforms are needed. I have had the privilege of chairing the all-party motor group for several years. It is a position I will have to give up now that I am in my current role. However, I know that great work has been pioneered in this country by the Automotive Council, in conjunction with organisations such as the Office for Low Emission Vehicles.

The hon. Member for Redcar might be right that we need five Ministers in a debate such as this, although the thought scares me a little, but one of the great things about OLEV is that it has started to bring together cross-departmental working. We could learn from that in other sectors. The Automotive Council and OLEV have both been important in ensuring that the UK is doing all that it can to promote innovation, development and the take-up of low-carbon transport. I am particularly proud of the Automotive Council, which was an initiative of the Labour Government. I am pleased that the success achieved by the council has meant that it has been continued by the current Government.

[David Mowat]

On the point about electric cars, does the hon. Gentleman accept the point that was made earlier? Given that 70% of our electricity is produced from fossil fuels—most of that from coal—electric cars are actually less carbon-friendly than petroleum cars at the moment, and will be for some considerable time.

[Richard Burden]

The point that we cannot simply measure emissions and the impact on the environment by looking at what comes out of the tailpipe is absolutely right. We do need to look at the whole-life question, and that includes questions of energy generation and where it comes from and so on. I would not go as far as the hon. Gentleman and conclude that electric cars are less environmentally friendly than petrol cars. It depends what we are talking about and what the circumstances are.

[David Mowat]

That is true, but in terms of carbon production, it is arithmetically inevitable that if we produce electricity from coal and then use that electricity to make a car go, with the losses that take place in each of those stages, we will use more carbon. I am not saying there are not other benefits, but the carbon is worse.

[Richard Burden]

There are all sorts of issues. The hon. Gentleman makes an assumption that the electricity is generated from coal. It is clearly the case that coal is an important part of the energy mix, but it is not the only one. The debate is about how we achieve the right kind of balance to ensure that, as far as our road transport is concerned, it contributes as best it can to combating carbon emissions; and not only carbon emissions, but some of the other emissions that the hon. Member for Southport talked about.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burden]

I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene one more time. I do not want this to become a dialogue.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I will make one final point. Of course it depends on where the electricity comes from, and sometime soon we might have more carbon-free nuclear at a scale that will enable electric cars to be carbon-friendly. However, at the moment, 75% of our electricity—this is broadly true of the rest of Europe as well—comes from fossil fuels. Until that changes, electric cars are a net worsener of the use of carbon. I will leave it at that.

[Richard Burden]

This is perhaps to be continued another time. I will simply repeat that, in fairness, the equation is not as simple as that. However, it is the case that we need to green our road transport in this country. As we do that and talk about the options, it is important that we all live in the real world, ensuring that the policies we adopt, whatever they might be, do not worsen the cost of living crisis that is hitting so many people at the moment. My constituents know that the Government might be patting themselves on the back in relation to fuel duty. The fact that VAT went up to 20% in 2011 has also been part of the mix as far as their cost of living is concerned, because that created a long-lasting impact on them as well. However, I do not want to dwell on that.

I want to ask the Minister to cover a few points in relation to alternative fuels and the action that is needed to promote lower emissions in different parts; issues to do with the recharging network; and other ways that the Government could promote behaviour change to cut transport emissions and protect the planet.

First, I want to address biofuels. The hon. Member for Southport raised important concerns. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian talked about the important work of the International Development Committee on this subject. I know it is important work. Not only was I chairing the all-party motor group until recently, but I was also a member of the International Development Committee as well. Important evidence was given to the Committee on the impact of agriculturally produced biofuels and the impact that they have on food prices and food security. That is why I am pleased that, as far as the European Union is concerned, there has been a recent vote to cut the number of food crops used to produce biofuels. However—perhaps the Minister can confirm whether I am right—we are now not talking about a 5% limit, but a 6% limit. The target was watered down. Sadly, the Conservative members of the European Parliament contributed to that watering down.

Will the Minister confirm whether I am right about the 5% or 6% target and the change there? What is the Government’s view? Would they have preferred a 5% target? Without wanting him to jump across too many departmental areas, what does the Minister think of the recommendation mentioned by my hon. Friend who sits on the International Development Committee, that the UK revise its domestic renewable transport fuel obligation to exclude agriculturally produced biofuels completely?

If the Government still want to be the greenest one ever, as I understand they are still saying, it is important that they set out their position on biofuels as regards not only how they affect food crops, which we have already discussed, but how in practice we can distinguish between different kinds of biofuels in relation to both their sourcing and how they are produced. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Redcar on some of the points he made, but different biofuels have different impacts, and it is important for Government policy that such distinctions are made.

The hon. Member for Southport rightly stated that we need to look at the issues of liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. I will not repeat what he said, other than to make two points. First, I recognise that LPG and CNG still need to be part of the mix, and will stay part of the mix for some considerable time, so the questions he asked deserve answers from the Minister. Secondly, to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said, although decisions have to be made on fiscal incentives or disincentives for particular fuels, we must be careful to respond to the important point made by the Automotive Council and everybody else, which is not to try to pick winners, but to try to be technology-neutral in principle and to see what works. I hope that the Minister will answer the important questions asked by the hon. Member for Southport.

The promotion of low-carbon transport goes much further than such questions; it is also about the development of low-carbon technologies to provide a context for the use of different fuels, and how the progress already being made on petrol and diesel engines—they will remain part of our car and commercial vehicle fleet for a long time yet—can be sustained. That is why I welcome the work of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, and its document, “Driving the Future Today: A strategy for ultra low emission vehicles in the UK”. I want the Minister to set out the Government’s thinking on some of the issues raised by that report.

On the demand side—assuming that electric vehicles will be an important part of the mix for the future—a recent Institute for Public Policy Research report showed that demand for those vehicles in the UK has recently fallen behind most other European countries and the United States, despite the innovation and leadership shown by the UK automotive industry. When Labour was in power, we took the important step of providing grant incentives for purchasers of low-emission vehicles, and I am pleased that this Government remain committed to that. However, the first bullet point in OLEV’s vision in its document is the need to develop a

“buoyant domestic fleet and private markets for ULEVs”—

ultra-low emission vehicles—which means demonstrating their economic benefits by tackling high up-front costs and dispelling misconceptions about their performance.

Are the Government committed to the continuation of plug-in car grants, and does the Minister accept that the Government could do more by leading by example? They could use their procurement processes more imaginatively to ensure that the switch to ULEVs spreads across the public sector, and they could consider how to maintain and provide aftercare for those vehicles to help promote local jobs and local industries, as well as the development of local skills. In a way, the Government car fleet could both buy British and support the ULEV agenda.

On infrastructure, the Government have now departed from what they originally said about having a national recharging network for electric vehicles, and instead favour what they describe as home and workplace recharging. However, OLEV has stated that that means supporting a network of charge points in homes, residential streets, railway stations and public sector car parks, which sounds a bit like a recharging network to me. OLEV has said that £37 million is available to help to roll out the infrastructure until 2015, which I welcome, but what does the Minister expect the £37 million to achieve, and how far short will it fall of what OLEV thinks is needed?

OLEV has emphasised the importance of the energy companies in delivering a step change towards having ULEVs, from providing a smarter electricity grid supported by new tariff structures through to using plug-in vehicles themselves as distributed energy stores that might even feed electricity back to the grid at peak times. Do the Government have any plans to achieve such innovative ideas in practice? Does not such a point suggest the need for a much more proactive regulatory framework for the energy companies?

I certainly welcome the UK H₂ Mobility project to stimulate the take-up of hydrogen-powered vehicles, which are a bit closer to reality than the hon. Member for Southport said. We still need to know the level of infrastructure that the Government think will be required for the scale shift of cars to hydrogen fuel cells, the time scales that are envisaged and the mechanism that will be put in place to achieve what the Government want.

In relation to automotive capability, the OLEV strategy rightly underlines the importance of the Automotive Council’s work, which I have already mentioned. Such developments as the recent announcement of an advanced propulsion centre are certainly welcome, as is the competition launched with a £10 million prize for the development of long-life battery production.

There are still questions, however, about whether UK companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, will benefit from the shift to ULEVs through the promotion of jobs and employment in the UK. Research for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders by KPMG recently underlined the barriers faced by companies that have the flair, but too seldom the opportunity, to development their ideas and bring them to market. All too often, there are still difficulties in accessing affordable finance. The report estimated that UK companies are not securing about £3 billion-worth of opportunities for the automotive supply chain in the UK.

The Minister knows that the industry, in the form of the Automotive Council, is demanding more assertive Government action, so what will he do to press his Treasury colleagues to respond more effectively? As the skills agenda is also important to achieving our objectives, what discussions does he intend to have with the Secretary of State for Education to bring an end to the rather toffee-nosed valuing of traditional academic achievement over vocational achievement in this country?

The shift towards ULEVs is not only an environmental necessity for the future of our planet. In “Driving the Future Today”, OLEV has stated that the transition to such vehicles

“represents a once in a lifetime industrial opportunity for the UK automotive sector if it successfully positions itself in the vanguard of this new technology—delivering jobs and growth for decades to come.”

That is why the industry and consumers look to the Government to match their words with actions on such issues.

Finally, in considering greener fuels, it is important to remember that while H₂ powers hydrogen vehicles, O₂ powers human vehicles. I therefore hope that the Minister will set out some of the practical actions that he and the Government intend to achieve to ensure that another part of the ultra-low carbon mix of transport in this country involves measures to encourage cycling and walking as part of that agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I have seen analysis of some of the bioethanol produced in the United States which indicates that that is the case. I will comment on the particular impact of fuels as I make progress in my speech.

The Government published a strategy on bioenergy, which concluded that by using bioenergy we could cut the cost of decarbonising the UK by £44 billion. Other reports have estimated that the biomass industry could provide 50,000 jobs. There are clear opportunities for the UK in the global race for growth driven by science and innovation, and it is an industry that we need to develop. However, the strategy also made it clear that bioenergy had its risks. If it is not managed properly, bioenergy can actually increase greenhouse gas emissions and put at risk key objectives such as food security. It is therefore essential that we proceed with care and develop systems that use bioenergy only where it is genuinely sustainable.

We have already taken important steps on the path to genuinely sustainable biofuels. In 2008, the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation was established. For the first time, biofuel was required to be blended into road transport fuel. In 2011, the UK introduced mandatory sustainability criteria to the RTFO. Those changes meant that biofuels could no longer be sourced from areas of high biodiversity, such as rainforests or wetlands. In 2011, we also saw the introduction of double rewards for advanced biofuels, also referred to in this debate as second generation biofuels, and biofuels made from waste. Such changes have led to encouraging trends in the fuels supplied under the RTFO. The average carbon savings of biofuel supplied under the RTFO when compared with fossil fuel have increased from 46% in 2008 to around 68% in the latest statistics.

One example of the feedstocks behind this trend is used cooking oil. The hon. Member for Southport may be aware of the Olleco biodiesel plant in Bootle, which is the country’s largest purpose-built plant dedicated to producing biodiesel from used cooking oil, and is not too far from his Merseyside constituency.

[David Mowat]

The Minister makes the point about how these things are alternatives to fossil fuels, but does he accept that not all fossil fuels have the same amount of carbon? If we were to replace petrol with gas or liquefied natural gas cars, as opposed to liquefied petroleum gas cars—there are 15 million LNG cars in the world and 3 million in Pakistan—we would halve the amount of carbon being produced from the transport sector. That technology exists already. I repeat the point that I made to the shadow Minister that electric cars are not a panacea for as long as we continue to produce the electricity from fossil fuels, particularly coal.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Methane, or biogas, is CH₄, so for every molecule of carbon dioxide produced there are four molecules of water, so it is a big improvement over fossil fuels such as LPG.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes, indeed. That is one of the points that will become very apparent with the investment programmes we have over the coming years and that Network Rail will be carrying out. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not a case of either/or; it is essential to invest in both areas.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I would like to add a thought on the capacity question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the past 15 years passenger numbers have increased by an average of 5% a year and that the business case for HS2 assumes an increase of 1.6% a year, which is quite a conservative estimate?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Basically, 15 years ago there were about 750 million passenger journeys, and the latest estimate is for 1.5 billion passenger journeys, which is a massive shift that I would have thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) would welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Godsiff]

I have. As my hon. Friend said earlier, there is a report that makes just that point—that such projects do not spread wealth, but quite the contrary.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point, as I understand it, that infrastructure spending does not spread wealth out. In that case, would he like to make the north really prosperous by closing the M1 and the M6?

[Mr Godsiff]

We are where we are. I do not wish to have an argument about whether the building of the M1 and M6 was folly. What is folly is the privatised section of the M6, which is uneconomic and will soon go bust. It was supported by the Conservatives—“Let’s bring private capital into our motorways”. It is part of the motorway that is never used and will soon either go bust or have to come to the Secretary of State and ask for a handout.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way a third time. I make the point again: the logic of his argument is that the north would be richer if the M1, the M6 and perhaps the existing west coast main line were all closed. That is ridiculous.

[Mr Godsiff]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not understand the point that he is trying to make.

As I said, we need to look at the economic case. The National Audit Office report and other reports have said that the project is already spiralling out of control. Already, figures that we were told about a year or so ago just do not stack up and people who have a vested interest in pushing the project ahead seem to be plucking figures out of the sky to suit whatever argument they are making. At the end of the day, the British taxpayer will have to pick up the tab if it goes wrong.

At this time of austerity and cutbacks across a range of services, the idea of reducing the time that business men take to travel from Birmingham or Manchester to London by 30 minutes and one hour respectively is absolutely farcical. It seems completely to disregard the fact that business men tend to work on trains nowadays. They use computers and mobile phones. Not one single, solitary business man in Birmingham has said to me, “Unless the project goes ahead and I can travel from Birmingham to London 30 minutes quicker, my business is going to suffer and be in danger.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and I shall deal with the issue of capacity later in my speech.

The cost-benefit ratios are questionable. As has already been pointed out, the assumption is that all time spent on trains is wasted time, so the figures are based on the extraordinary idea that when someone goes on a train they do not do any work. Anyone who travels on our railways will know that that is certainly not the case. It should also be noted that, compared to our European neighbours, journey times between first and second cities are considerably shorter in the UK. The journey time between Birmingham and London is already half that of high-speed rail travel in France and Spain.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend makes the point that others have made—that the business case does not properly reflect productive time, iPads and all the rest of it. Page 51 of the business case addresses that point explicitly, stating that if trains are overcrowded, people who are standing will not be able to work on PCs. The business case would be better if it took that into account.

[Andrew Bridgen]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I support the Bill, but before I say why I support it let me give a number of reasons for not building this railway. We should not build it just because we have less high-speed track than any other country in the world. We could be right and those countries could be wrong, so that is not a good reason. We should not build it because the business case for HS1 to move to St Pancras was predicated on access to the north. We should not build it on environmental and carbon-related grounds: I think that those are rather difficult to justify, at a time when most electricity continues to be produced from fossil fuels. We should not even build it to try to rebalance infrastructure spending, which over the last decade has been 10 times higher per head in London and the south-east than in the north-west, and more than 10 times higher than in the north-east.

We should proceed with this project if, and only if, three conditions exist: a robust business case, clear transformational benefits, and affordability in cash-flow terms, at about £2 billion a year. That £2 billion a year needs to kick in as Crossrail finishes, and I think that that is quite achievable. I cannot go into the business case in a great deal of detail, other than to say that the benefit-cost ratio remains higher than 2—about 2.5 for the full Y network—and is predicated principally on capacity arguments. The number of passengers on the west coast main line has been increasing at a rate of 5% a year for the last 15 years. This business case assumes an increase of only 1.6%, which is quite conservative.

As for transformational benefits, some Members have said today that the northern cities could do better if they just invested in broadband, while others have said that northern cities do not understand that HS2 will cause all the jobs to be sucked into London. All that I can say to that is that the northern chambers of commerce do not agree. They have estimated that in the north-west it will produce some 40,000 extra jobs and £8 billion of incremental benefits, while KMCG’s Green Gauge report estimates that there will be about 50,000 extra jobs.

I want to make a number of observations about the project. First, on the timing, 2032 is a long time ahead, and I am a little concerned that there is going to be a gap of over a decade before it goes to Birmingham and Manchester. That is a decade in which the northern cities will be put at a disadvantage—although prosperity will not, of course, stop in Manchester and Birmingham. I do not fully understand why we are not able to do more in the north earlier, in terms of the timing of the investment.

It is important that the northern cities are linked not only to London but to Brussels and Paris. I do not fully understand the issues around the linkage and all that goes with that, but to do this project and not allow that to happen would be wrong.

I also want to comment on a number of councils. We heard about Bradford no longer supporting the project, and I have heard Warrington council say it no longer supports it, because there is no station on its patch. Either this project has transformational benefits for the region and all of us in that region benefit, or it does not. My constituents in Warrington work in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere. What matters to them is that we go some way towards fixing the north-south divide and getting prosperity much more evenly spread across the entire country.

Finally, let me say that I commend this Bill and that I hope the House supports it tonight.

High Speed Rail

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I tried to address that in an earlier answer. Of course I want to look at how the connection works, and it will be possible to run some services from Old Oak Common direct to the continent if there is demand for that. We will certainly look at the issue, and at how the whole London interconnection works.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

This project is very important to the wider economy in the north and north-west. Given that the revised business case remains considerably better than, for example, the Crossrail business case, will the Secretary of State do what he can to deliver this project before 2033?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I take that as a request to get a move on and get building a lot quicker. We will see what progress we can make.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The current fare regime and price increases are exactly the same as those under the last Government, and I do not remember him complaining about them then.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T4. The new Mersey Gateway bridge will be tolled, with the risk of significant extra traffic through Warrington. The inspector at the planning inquiry stated the toll should be set no higher than that of the nearby Birkenhead tunnel. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in any evaluation of a change to the tunnel toll, he will also look at the situation of the bridge and of Warrington?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government have no plans to fund the reduction or abolition of tolls on the Mersey tunnels. Tolls on the new Mersey gateway bridge will be set by the Mersey gateway crossings board, an independent subsidiary of Halton borough council set up to manage the scheme. My hon. Friend knows that the indicative and maximum toll levels were agreed as part of the public inquiry, and were set out under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

West Coast Rail Franchise

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I had hoped that I had given the hon. Lady adequate time to read the report, but it seems that I did not. First, I will deal with her points about Ministers. I refer her to page 44, where paragraph 4.118.2 says that

“inaccurate statements were made to the then Minister of State in writing as to the manner in which the CAC”—

the contract award committee—

“had approached the SLF sizing process in respect of First’s bid at its meeting on 27 June”.

If inaccurate information was given to Ministers, a fact stated in the report, Ministers would have acted in good faith on the information they were given.

May I also make the point that is made on page 63 of the report? It states that

“in implementing substantial cost savings required by the Government’s spending review in 2010, the DfT significantly reduced its headcount, the number of contractors used and its use of external consultants.”

Mr Laidlaw goes on to say:

“That is not to say however that, with appropriate escalation…of the issues, sufficient resources could not or would not have been found.”

There was no significant escalation of the issue, so I think there is truth in that.

A number of parts of the report refer to the Minister of State, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), asking questions and I am afraid that there was a damning failure by the Department that must be put right. The hon. Lady says that I seek somehow to blame three civil servants. I have never, in any of the statements I have made in the House or privately, mentioned the names of any civil servants. That is a matter for the permanent secretary. We now have the HR report and the permanent secretary is considering that and what will happen in the future. I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

The hon. Lady talks about the position with First Great Western and its contract to run its railway line. May I remind her who negotiated that contract? It was inherited by the Government and was not our contract at all. If she feels that there are any problems with it, then excuse me but it is not the responsibility of the Government. She asked a specific question about the second year of the contract with Virgin Trains and I will write to her with the answer.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Secretary of State read two quotations from the report, which both implied to me a severe organisational failure. Did Laidlaw have anything to say about the position of the permanent secretary in all this?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I think I said to my hon. Friend when I made my first statement on this matter, there are obviously serious questions to answer. The present permanent secretary took his post in April, when many of the incidents to which we are referring had already taken place.

Warrington (Atlantic Gateway)

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Before I got to my feet, I was informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who is very strong on these topics, that I have until 7.30 pm for this debate. May I reassure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Minister that I should be able to complete it in advance of that?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the strategic road network around Warrington, but before I do so may I give some context to Warrington’s position over the past 100 years? According to the Centre for Cities, Warrington has been the fastest growing UK city, bar none. We have the sixth-highest earnings in the UK, and a large part of the town’s prosperity is driven by our transport infrastructure. The town sits between the M6, the M62 and the M56. More relevant to this debate is the fact that the town is bisected by two significant waterways: the River Mersey and the Manchester ship canal, which moves between Manchester and Liverpool.

I wish to talk a little about the ship canal, because it has some particular impacts on Warrington. There are four crossings in my constituency, three of which are A roads. Every crossing is a swing bridge, which means that each time a boat goes down the ship canal the bridge has to swing and the traffic is stopped for a period of up to 20 minutes. There have been a number of phases to the interaction between the ship canal and the road network. When the canal was first built, many boats used it and there were few cars around. At that time, the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885 was passed, giving the owners of the canal the right, in perpetuity, to swing the bridge whenever they needed to do so. That was a sensible move as there were few cars around at the time. In the intervening period to the present day there has been a great growth in the number of cars but a much reduced number of boats. Although the bridge still swings, causing quite a bit of disruption, it does so only once or twice a day. That is broadly manageable, even though there can be a 20-minute delay each time. In future, however, we will have more cars and more boats and the consequences are potentially quite severe for the residents of the south part of Warrington. I want to discuss the causes and ask the Minister to give some undertakings on how we can mitigate the problems.

Over the next decade, two strategic projects will affect the area. One is the Atlantic gateway project and the other is the Mersey gateway bridge. Both are very important for the north-west and I support them, as what brings prosperity to the north-west brings prosperity to Warrington, but I am very concerned that the combined effect of the projects will lead to the unintended consequence of a significant increase of traffic—as I said, to more boats and cars.

First, let me talk about the Mersey gateway bridge. This is a significant civil engineering project and will replace the Runcorn bridge, which was built in 1961 and badly needs to be replaced. As I said, the project is important for the north-west but the new bridge will be a toll bridge and although the toll has not been set, the consequence will be that the traffic will be diverted through my constituency and Warrington as people take a detour. A public inquiry into the bridge three years ago found that the level of traffic diverted through Warrington would be sensitive to the amount of the toll. The range of extra traffic movements per day cited in the public inquiry was between 14,000 and 6,000 if the toll was lower. I shall return to the subject of tolls and what I would like the Minister to help us with.

Let me note in passing that another very significant civil engineering project is going on in the UK at the moment: the Forth road bridge in Edinburgh. One issue that I have a great deal of difficulty explaining to my constituents is why the Forth road bridge has no toll and is funded entirely from taxpayers’ money whereas the Mersey gateway bridge in the north-west of England will have a toll, causing some of the problems I am talking about in Warrington. Perhaps the Minister can address that in his response.

The consequence of the Mersey gateway project will be more cars, but the consequence of the second strategic project over the next decade will be more boats on the canal: it is the Atlantic gateway project, a huge and very welcome private sector investment in the corridor between Manchester and Liverpool. Something in the order of £14 billion will be spent and estimates suggest that in excess of 100,000 jobs will be created over the next two or three decades. In broad terms, the container traffic that goes into Felixstowe and Southampton will, we hope, go to Liverpool and a great deal of it will come down the ship canal, partly to Port Warrington, and much of it to Salford and out on to the rail network. I am describing one part of the overall programme and it is hard not to welcome a shift in freight from road to rail and barge.

The problem for Warrington, however, is that the project will increase by an undetermined amount the traffic on the canal. As I said, the swing bridges currently move once or twice a day but they could move up to five times a day, or possibly more. Each movement causes 20 to 30 minutes of delay to traffic, with a significant impact on the south part of the town. I said that our prosperity was to a large extent built on traffic flows. The village of Stockton Heath is very affluent and has a large number of independent shops, but when the traffic stacks up they have to close their doors because of the fumes and everything that goes with that traffic. I worked in Bangkok for part of my life, and one never knew how long a road journey would be—it could be 5 minutes or 55 minutes—and the south of Warrington now has some of those traffic characteristics.

Prosperity and economic viability are not the only considerations. There are problems for the emergency services—fire engines and ambulances get stuck. Ambulances face a particular problem as the hospital in Warrington is north of the ship canal. There are large population centres south of the canal, and if ambulances cannot get through, public safety issues arise. The two large and important projects have unintended consequences, and I am very keen that they are mitigated.

So far Warrington borough council has developed memorandums of understanding with Peel Holdings on the canal movements, with some sensible measures in that regard, and with Halton borough council in respect of the bridge. However, we are tinkering at the boundaries and trying to mitigate what is unmitigable. I have a number of suggestions, to which I hope the Minister will respond. The problem will be with us over the next decade, it will need managing at various points, and I am keen to get it on to his radar screen this afternoon.

First, with reference to the bridge, I mentioned that my constituents do not understand why it is to be tolled, when the only other bridge in the UK to be part of a significant project—the Forth road bridge—will be free. Can the Minister give assurances on the level of toll that will be implemented by Halton borough council? There should be no ambiguity about the fact that the toll is intended only to pay for the bridge as quickly as possible, given the shortfall of funding provided, and that no moneys will flow to Halton or Warrington borough council for other schemes. As I said, the amount of traffic that will be diverted through Warrington is very sensitive to that toll, and £1 is much better than £2. I hope the Minister can give us that assurance.

Secondly, with reference to boat movements on the canal, we are looking to upgrade the bridge mechanisms and to have better sharing of information about those movements. Will the Minister give his backing to the request that has been made to Peel Holdings to group movements of boats and to move them at night, when there is obviously less traffic? That is a reasonable compromise. There is little justification for boats coming through in an ad hoc way during the day. Thus far there has been no agreement on that. One of the reasons is that, as I mentioned earlier, there is a statutory right in the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885 for the owner of the ship canal to swing those bridges whenever they wish. If we are not able to get the matter resolved in a way that works for the people of Warrington as well as the wider community in the north-west, will the Minister consider amending the Act, for example to give Warrington borough council, through the planning system or some other mechanism, some input into ship movements and some statutory control of the devastation that could potentially be caused in the south part of the town?

The third aspect that I would like the Minister to consider is the medium-term solution of a road upgrade bypassing the very constricted part of Warrington called the Bridge Foot area and joining the M56 to the western parts of Warrington without going through the Bridge Foot area. To do that, work would first be required to a piece of rail infrastructure called the Arpley Chord. There has been a dialogue between the Department for Transport and Warrington borough council on this. It was proposed as a potential project for the Chancellor’s statement last year but it failed to make the cut. I would like to put it on the record that we are lobbying hard for that. Any input or guidance the Minister can offer on that would be most welcome.

Finally, both schemes that are causing problems in my constituency, the Atlantic gateway and the Mersey gateway bridge, are good schemes that are necessary and should go forward. What I am asking is that collectively we do what we can to ensure that we do not undermine the prosperity and safety of the residents of Warrington as we pursue the schemes.

West Coast Main Line

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have read many figures, but I have not previously read that one. No doubt I am going to read a lot more in due course. I have already said that the estimated cost of refunding the franchises, which is the right thing to do, will be in the region of £40 million.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

This decision was one of the two or three major pieces of work done in the Department for Transport this year. If the permanent secretary will not hold himself accountable for this, what is he accountable for?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I have said, I have announced two major inquiries. The permanent secretary took a decision to suspend certain members of staff. This is a suspension—not any prejudging—while these inquiries continue.