Inter-city Express Programme

Edward Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Villiers]

Before the interval for voting, I was congratulating the hon. Member for Sedgefield on his passionate support for the IEP. I thank him for the correspondence that he has sent to the Department, setting out a number of the points that he has raised, and for the report that I received today on the case that he has prepared for the IEP project. I am grateful for all of those. My colleagues at the Department and I will be giving serious consideration to all the points raised in the report and in today’s debate.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, alongside a delegation from his constituency and around the north-east, is due to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to put these points to him directly. The coalition Government have made it clear that rail has a key part to play in our transport strategy. Although our priority has to be tackling the deficit that we inherited, the Government fully recognise the significant economic benefits generated by investment in transport infrastructure—a point that has been explicitly acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, we must apply a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to all our planned infrastructure projects, targeting investment where it makes the most difference and where it will generate the greatest economic benefit.

That is the background against which we need to assess the future of the IEP. There can be no doubt that the project has encountered a degree of controversy since the previous Government embarked on it over half a decade ago. The objective was, as we have heard, to replace Britain’s fleet of InterCity 125 trains, and to invest in capacity and passenger journey improvements on the east coast and Great Western lines. The procurement process began early in 2007, and two years later, Agility Trains was announced as the preferred bidder. An important component of Agility is Hitachi, the manufacturers of the Japanese bullet train.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield, Hitachi simultaneously announced its plans to build the new train order in the UK. This summer, the company announced that its preferred site for a new manufacturing facility is Newton Aycliffe in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As he has explained, that town has historic ties with the railways. As we heard today, Hitachi has said that it proposes to use the site in County Durham to bid for orders abroad, and has aspirations to export British-built trains to Europe. The parallel with the successful model used by many Japanese car manufacturers is obvious; it is a very positive example of what can be achieved. As the hon. Gentleman explained, the facility has the potential to create hundreds of new jobs, and potentially many more in supplier industries. He has put the case articulately and strongly for the economic benefit that will accrue to his constituents and the wider north-east.

Of course, such inward investment would be very welcome and entirely consistent with the Government’s stated goal of rebalancing the economy and promoting manufacturing industry. I take on board the strong points that the hon. Gentleman made about the skills base in the north-east, and how appropriate it would be to support a facility of the kind that Hitachi has announced the intention to build.

However, the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that the decision on the IEP needs to focus on objective and established procurement principles—namely, on whether the project provides the right solution for passengers and the railways; whether it delivers value for money, compared to the alternatives; and whether it is affordable for the taxpayer.

In its original form, the order would have been the single largest procurement of rolling stock ever, and one of the biggest private finance initiative transactions in British history. During the later part of 2008 and 2009, the capacity of the debt market contracted and the previous Government decided that it would be better to split the transaction into smaller parts.

The deteriorating state of the debt market was just one of the challenges that faced the project. A further issue arose when the previous Administration changed their mind on electrification. Having published in 2007 a long-term plan for the railways that had a limited role for electrification, the Government put out the tender for a fleet, with a significant proportion of diesel trains as part of the IEP proposal. Two years later, at the height of the contractual negotiations, the Government announced they had changed their views and proposed to electrify. That meant that the order had to be changed to an electric and bi-mode mix, which led to an increase in costs. By the time Labour left office in May, £26 million had been spent on consultancy and preparation costs, without the contractual close stage even having been reached. That has caused a degree of concern.

The project was in some difficulty when the previous Secretary of State, the noble Lord Adonis, decided to commission an independent review by Sir Andrew Foster. When it was published in July, the Foster report presented a measured and thoughtful analysis of the relevant issues. As the hon. Gentleman has correctly pointed out, Sir Andrew had some very positive things to say about the IEP. He described the proposition as “positive and attractive” in a number of ways. He described the PFI-style funding arrangements as

“novel and well-aligned in terms of financial incentives”.

He concluded that faster acceleration and longer carriages would have a positive impact on network and passenger capacity. He acknowledged that the specification had also taken network sustainability and environmental imperatives seriously. Unfortunately, he also had some concerns about the project. He concluded that the previous Administration had made a number of mistakes on the programme. In particular, they did not engage the railway industry well enough and had sought to micro-manage the process. Importantly, the Foster report also highlighted that although the project has always exceeded the Department for Transport’s economic thresholds, its value for money has seen a decline over time, while its costs have increased.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Although I acknowledge and am extremely sympathetic to the case made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on behalf of his constituents and the north-east, is the Minister considering carefully Sir Andrew Foster’s conclusion that he is not convinced that all credible alternatives to IEP have been identified? He sets out the case in his report for a short-term IC125 refurbishment, which would be both cost-effective and technically feasible. The skills, buildings and infrastructure enabling that work to be done already exist in places such as my constituency of Crewe, where Bombardier can already carry out that work.