Stansted Airport

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lammy]

I agree that that is one direction of travel. It has been interesting to see Newcastle airport recently open up huge new routes with huge new carriers, including flights to Dubai. That supports the hon. Gentleman’s point on regional airports.

The new owners have already signed up new airlines at Stansted, announced an £80 million redevelopment of the airport, launched a campaign to attract long-haul carriers to Stansted and signed deals that will add more than 11 million passengers in the next 10 years. That underlines all that has already been said. With ever increasing use and committed and forward-looking new owners, the future of Stansted looks bright.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There is no doubt that Stansted is doing well, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the Davies report has not given Stansted a fair analysis, because the analysis stops at 2030? If the Davies report had looked at runway capacity and airport capacity in the south-east until 2050, as we wanted, it might have given a different view on Stansted’s future, which is thriving.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend cuts to the chase. Long-term aviation strategy has been handed to the Davies commission, but it will not report until after 2015, so I do not want to stray too far into second-guessing what it might say. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend said, because I was somewhat surprised that the new runway at Stansted was not even included in the Davies report’s preliminary shortlist. Given the scope for development there, the predicted increases in passenger numbers and the airport’s ever-evolving success, it is surprising that that runway did not warrant further consideration as an option. I understand that that was in part due to Davies not taking into account the full passenger forecasts or the recent deals that have been signed under the new ownership at Stansted.

I am pleased that the commission, in highlighting the possible need for a new runway at Stansted by 2050, indicates that it at least accepts that the airport has long-term value. Either way, Davies has concluded that the choice over a new runway by 2030 is effectively between Heathrow and Gatwick. My priority for this debate is not what happens in 2030 or 2050, but what happens now. Regardless of what Davies eventually recommends, we have an immediate problem, which is that London urgently needs more air capacity. The prospect of any new runway is at best 15 years away, and those are 15 years that we do not have. London cannot afford to wait and should not sit by as the likes of Frankfurt, Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle surpass us and steal the benefits that accompany better connectivity.

Transport Infrastructure

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand the passion that she and other Members feel about this issue. It is right for us to try to look at and address these issues. We have to see what is happening with aviation noise and how it should be judged. That is why I am very interested in some of the commission’s interim proposals. It will take longer to take a view on that, but I hope to be able to come back in the spring to announce the way forward. This is a very difficult job because these issues have been around for some time. It is right to conduct a proper investigation and, I hope, come up with the right alternative at the end of the day.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

As Government after Government have ducked this issue, our main European competitors have built many runways, while our new competitors in the middle east have built even more of them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to break this logjam is for both the major political parties represented in this Chamber to give a commitment to accept the conclusions of the Davies report?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who served for a long time on the Transport Select Committee. I certainly agree with him that it would be good if we could reach a consensus on this matter. Whatever option we come up with will impact on people’s lives and communities. We need to try to do everything we can to address and relieve it, but we also need to look at the options for the longer-term future offered by quieter aeroplanes, for example. An overall consensus would indeed be the best way to move forward on big infrastructure projects.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

Again, I think it is for the Minister to answer those questions. This specific amendment deals with networks. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about the costs and the contingencies and how they will be put together, but that is a matter for the Minister and for broader debate than for discussion on this specific amendment.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

When the Transport Select Committee went to France to look at the economic impact of high-speed rail, we found that there was a huge economic benefit in Lille and most other cities. The fact is that the Department for Transport assessments do not capture that economic benefit. Talking about people working on trains really misses the point about the economic impact and the economic benefit that will come from high-speed rail. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mrs Ellman]

I do agree. When the members of the Select Committee went to France and elsewhere in Europe to look at high-speed rail there, we were struck by the success of the system and by the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by people living in the areas that it served. Indeed, what struck us was they wanted more: more stops, more stations, more access to high-speed rail. That made a considerable impact on us.

Aviation Strategy

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the extremely erudite and knowledgeable speech by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I learned most of what I know about aviation and Stansted during the air inquiry in the run-up to the 1985 White Paper on aviation. At that time, as leader of Manchester city council, I was a director of Manchester airport. We put together solid arguments against the expansion of Stansted airport, which we believed would contribute to a continuing imbalance in the country’s economy. I should tell him that I have not shifted far from those views, although some of my then colleagues, who could not have envisaged that Manchester airport would end up owning Stansted, have shifted quite a long way from their views. That is for a more detailed future debate.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I shall put it in slightly different words—that this country has been hopeless, not only in aviation infrastructure, but all infrastructure. We have the lowest motorway density in what used to be called western Europe; we have one small high-speed line, which, symbolically, goes out of the country; we have built one new runway—at Manchester airport—in the whole UK since the second world war; and we have poor broadband speeds. We have been very poor indeed at infrastructure.

I believe that the recession was caused by bankers and the euro—Government Members might have a different perspective—but, nevertheless, productivity has fallen, and if we are to earn our living in the world, it must increase. One way in which the Government can support industry and jobs, and the country’s competitiveness, is by ensuring that we have good infrastructure.

That brings me to the main point in the Transport Committee’s aviation strategy report. We have been through some of the arguments, but there is no shortage of runway capacity in this country. Figures in the written submissions to the report show that, at the main airports, only a third of runway capacity is used, and that, throughout the UK, we have 21 times the runway capacity we need. However, we are extraordinarily short of hub capacity. Heathrow is full, and what happens there cannot easily be replicated directly at Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham or, unfortunately, Manchester.

The example given by Heathrow—we are not falling for its public relations—was the Seattle service. There are insufficient passengers in London to provide a daily service to Seattle from London. The British Airways Seattle service flies daily because of transfer passengers. Approximately a third of passengers at Heathrow are transfer passengers. I have chosen the Seattle example, but there are many others. Heathrow enables routes to connect London and the UK to the rest of the world.

The constraints on the hub capacity come in because, when we consider the number of serious destinations served, we realise that it is not just a numbers game. At the time of the report, Heathrow served 128 destinations, although there might be fewer now because it is declining all the time. At the same time, Amsterdam served 131 destinations; Frankfurt served 149; and Paris served 155. It is not good for the business of this country if our European competitors are connected to more parts of the world.

In the emerging economies, it is not the cities to which London and the UK are connected that stands out, but the fact that we are not connected to places such as Jakarta and Manila. We are not connected to huge mega-cities in China, such as Nanjing, Hangzhou, Chengdu, Guangzhou and Xiamen. One thousand more flights go from Frankfurt to China per year than from this country, excluding flights to Hong Kong. That cannot be good for the business of the UK.

On the alternatives, I think “mad” was the word that some professionals used to describe spending £30 billion on an airport in east London, with all the environmental problems that that would cause. It is said that fewer people would be affected by noise, and that would be true to start with. However, once an airport is built out there with all the jobs that would be created, people would, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said, go to live near where they work and be affected by the noise. An estuarial airport costing at least £30 billion is therefore not an alternative.

Another alternative, which I think has been dealt with, is joining up airports. That has been tried in Toronto, Tokyo and Glasgow and it simply has not worked—people want to transfer within one airport.

There is no alternative but to expand Heathrow, otherwise this country will lose out. When the Roskill commission sat the figures would have been different, but all the arguments about having a major hub airport in London were before them. We are now in the commission’s future and we still have not dealt with the problem. We need to deal with it as quickly as possible.

Yesterday, there was a debate—I do not intend to repeat it—on air passenger duty. The Economic Secretary said that she did not accept the figures in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which indicated that if air passenger duty was abolished completely the Treasury would collect more finance and 60,000 extra jobs would be created. I accept that in any report consultants know who they are working for and include assumptions that are often helpful to the conclusion. The Minister said that she did not accept the assumptions, which is fair, but she needs to explain why, and that was not part of the debate. I hope that the Minister responding to this debate will explain why the assumptions are not acceptable, because it is difficult to understand why a report that states that more jobs could be created with less tax—an attractive proposition to Conservatives—is being rejected.

A report by York Aviation has also been mentioned, and I would be interested in a response from the Minister. The report did not look into the current situation, but it did study how many more passengers could be attracted to airline travel in long-haul, interregional, non-congested airports if there was an APD holiday. For Manchester—there are similar cases for other regional airports, such as Birmingham and Bristol—routes to Bangkok, Hong Kong, Delhi, Mumbai and Beijing would become viable if there was an APD holiday for two or three years. There would be no loss to the Treasury, just gain when people arrived in this country and spent money, because the routes do not currently exist. Will the Minister respond to the detail of that report, either now or at a future meeting, because that should also be an attractive proposition for a Conservative Government.

During the passage of the Civil Aviation Act 2012, I regularly questioned the then Transport Minister, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), about why so many extra costs and regulations—in terms of security and extra red tape—were being imposed on airports. She said that they were not being imposed, but when the Civil Aviation Authority came before the Select Committee, it admitted that the costs had gone up, and now we find they have risen again. Will the Minister look at why these costs and burdens on airports have almost quadrupled since the Bill became an Act, contrary to the assurances from the then Minister?

Finally, many people make an environmental argument against aviation. We have heard about the perverse situation of air passenger duty, which is huge for people travelling from China and for those on other long intercontinental routes, forcing people into Paris and thus losing us business, but it also forces people to multi-ticket. For a long journey, it is much cheaper for someone to take a plane from Stansted, Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester or Birmingham to a major European hub and then to fly on. By doing that, a family can save hundreds of pounds, but it leads to a 5% to 16% increase in carbon dioxide output and an increase in NOx gases, most of which are produced on take-off and landing. If someone changes in the middle east—increasingly a major competitor to Heathrow, alongside the European hubs—on their way to the far east, the result is a 37% increase in fuel usage. The case, therefore, for constraining airport capacity to improve the environment is actually having a perverse effect.

I should, at the beginning of my speech, have congratulated the Minister on his appointment. We worked together on the Transport Select Committee at one time, and I wish him well and look forward to his responses. I know he cares about aviation, which is not a well-understood part of the transport industry, but I genuinely believe that the Government’s policies are severely restricting what could be a genuine growth industry that could create many jobs in the country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Greener Road Transport Fuels

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rather skated over the issue of hydrogen-fuelled cars. I drove in such a car 10 years ago in Detroit. The technology is perfectly good. Does he agree that hydrogen suffers from exactly the same problem as biofuels, which is the source material, in that we must have land to grow source material from which to extract hydrogen?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I have learnt a lot from it. Is not the fundamental point of what he is saying that in asking the Government to pick one technology over another, we are asking them to pick winners? History shows us that the Government are much better at picking losers than winners.

Rather than the Government’s picking winners and choosing where to put subsidies, would it not be better for them to switch some of the subsidies currently going into the energy industry—there is a huge debate about that at the moment—into research, so that we can move on to the next generation of renewable technologies, which the market will support?

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have told many potential investors in the industry that we cannot expect the Government to make winners. As at a roulette table, they will put their chips on lots of different numbers, but having made policy on, for example, the proportion of petrol that should come from bio-sources, they cannot change it when people are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds. By the way, those biofuels do not get a subsidy; all they need is a market that is understood and left to prosper. I agree with his point, but at some stage we must not so much pick winners, as set the environment for particular sectors of the market to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, the Government is investing heavily across all modes in the north-west of England, which is one of the areas to benefit most from the Government’s investment in the forward period. That includes investment in the road network, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a specific road, I will be very happy to discuss it with him.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

For maximum economic benefit, the high-speed link needs to go to Manchester airport, yet it is left out of the otherwise excellent KPMG report, which brings a serious dimension to this debate. When will it be included?

[Norman Baker]

We fully appreciate the importance of Manchester airport, which meets a very important regional need. The issue of HS2 and Manchester airport is under consideration, so the hon. Gentleman should not be unduly pessimistic about that.

Rail 2020

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes a relevant comment.

As Network Rail’s debt has grown, more money is being spent on servicing that debt than ever before, and train operating costs have increased. Rail subsidy is necessary. Few rail lines would be profitable on a commercial basis, and even potentially profitable lines would lose passengers if the national network was cut back. There are good environmental and social reasons to subsidise the railway, and we were pleased to hear that the Government share that view.

Although the Government want to cut the subsidy, it is not clear what level of reduction they seek and under what time scale. Neither is it clear exactly where the subsidy goes at present. The Department should articulate more clearly why it subsidises rail and what taxpayers get for their money. We recommended that the Government consult on and publish a clear statement of what the rail subsidy is for and where it should be targeted. The Department’s reply was disappointing and focused on practical difficulties because of current funding arrangements. There is scope for much more work in that area.

This issue illustrates the lack of transparency in the rail industry. That has now started to change with recent work by the Office of Rail Regulation and the disclosure of wide variations in the financial performance of different routes and operators. Establishing why those variations occur will be crucial to ensuring that the rail subsidy is well spent.

Securing the efficiency savings indentified by McNulty will be challenging, particularly as they require different parts of the industry to work together in new ways. More than £1 billion is expected to be saved from train operating costs. I am concerned, however, that the savings have been put at risk by the Department’s problems with franchising. In many cases, existing franchisees will be awarded new contracts to run services for as long as four years. The Department will struggle to drive a hard bargain with existing operators without going to the market. I ask the Minister whether the Department’s decision to prioritise the re-tendering by 2015 of the east coast main line, currently operated by the Department’s company, Directly Operated Railways, will weaken the Department’s bargaining power as it seeks to extend franchises. It is clear that the Department does not want trains to be run by the public sector.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that the Government are trying to privatise the east coast main line for completely ideological reasons, and not for reasons of financial benefit? The east coast main line gives £563.4 million back to the Exchequer, which is almost twice as much as Virgin gave back over a two-year period. It also gets only one seventh of the subsidy per passenger mile, so there can be no other reason than ideology. The plan is undermining the Government’s negotiating position as they extend the other franchises by nearly 26 years.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. The Minister was questioned in the Select Committee and it became apparent that the Government’s decision was to do with Government policy. I, for one, did not hear a compelling value-for-money reason for the decision.

There are a number of ways of assessing whether a franchise delivers value for money. The letter that the Minister sent to the Committee on 4 June stated that, over the three years 2009-10 to 2011-12, the inter-city east coast franchise produced a net return to the Department of £563 million. The letter also stated that, over the same period, the west coast main line made a net return of £290 million. The Minister certainly did not accept that that meant that the east coast franchise produced better value for money, but I am simply presenting the facts in the letter as a contribution to the debate. One consequence of the decision has been the postponing of the re-letting of the west coast franchise by 29 months, to April 2017. The previous timetable had been announced as recently as November. It is a matter of concern that such constant change is unsettling for the industry.

We have already seen two direct awards to current operators, and neither has demonstrated how the Government can secure a better deal for passengers or taxpayers. In the case of the west coast franchise, we were told that there might be new services to Blackpool and Shrewsbury, but they have not materialised. The old Essex Thameside franchise paid money into the Department. The new one, a directly awarded contract to run until September 2014, will cost the taxpayer money. Will the Minister acknowledge that there will be problems in achieving the McNulty savings in the light of the franchising fiasco and its aftermath?

The Committee recommended that the Department should strengthen its commercial capability in relation to assessing franchises, that it should consider franchises being let and managed by a Department agency or arm’s length body, and that it should consider spreading premium payments over the full length of the franchise. We suggested that franchise periods of seven to 10 years would be appropriate while the situation was being reviewed. Indeed, a review is now taking place, and we hope to hear the Government’s conclusions shortly.

During our inquiry, the rail unions argued that the privatised structure was the main cause of inefficiency in the industry, and that renationalisation would bring costs down. McNulty rejected that argument, saying that renationalisation would

“take years to complete, cause major diversion of effort, incur massive costs, and delay progress on improvements”

that were under way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to endorse the point that my hon. Friend eloquently makes. I have travelled on that line and seen at first hand many of the improvements that have been made.

The point has been made that the rail network requires subsidy to operate, and I agree with that. Many lines would not be profitable in themselves, but for social and environmental reasons they require subsidy. We need to take into account not just the operating profit and loss of an individual rail service, but the opportunity cost: the cost to the country if that rail line did not exist and people had to travel by car or another mode of transport. We can only imagine the congestion on the roads around our major cities if we did not have commuter rail lines. They might not, in themselves, be profitable, but the environmental and financial cost of having those passengers travelling by car or another mode of transport would just be too much to bear.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue to subsidise large parts of our rail network, but we cannot escape the conclusion that Sir Roy McNulty and others reached in their report, which was that we should be looking to make our network as efficient as possible, in order to achieve his aim of a 30% reduction in the unit cost. Our network is comparatively expensive to run compared with others. I believe that that is a product of history, not just of one approach, be it the franchise model or the nationalised model. It is a cost that has been built into the system over many decades, particularly because until relatively recently we have had a period of managed decline of our network and what investment there has been has been made on a “make do and mend” basis. Additional costs are hard-wired into our system, but the system we now have is sensibly evolving.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is a serious student of the rail system in this country. There is not a lot in what he has said with which I disagree. He is trying to put the issue into its historical perspective, so let me put it into real historical perspective. When John Major’s Conservative Government privatised the railways in the 1990s, they came to this Chamber and told right hon. and hon. Members that there would be no subsidy. That was used as justification for selling the railways off at a lower price. Network Rail now carries a debt of £30 billion on its balance sheet, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the false prospectus that the Conservatives gave this House in the 1990s.

[Iain Stewart]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from my fellow Select Committee member. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not rehash the debates of the 1990s as I am more interested in what happens from here on. In an earlier intervention, he made the point that the Government are seeking to return the east coast main line to private hands as a matter of ideology. Equally, I could argue that it is because of ideology that the Opposition want to renationalise it. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the conclusion of Richard Brown’s report on franchising, which concluded that the franchising model was not fundamentally flawed and that although the detail could sensibly be changed, the investment in and success of the railways could not have happened if the franchising was fundamentally flawed.

Let me turn to a number of initiatives that, I believe, can deliver a more efficient railway. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned the development of alliances between Network Rail and train operating companies. That is a very helpful and sensible development. The one large-scale alliance, between Network Rail and South West Trains, has not been in operation long enough for us to make any sensible assessment of what savings it can deliver, but as the real expert, Nigel Harris, said in evidence to the Select Committee, it

“is the only game in town”

at the moment and requires a fair wind to achieve the savings that it hopes to.

Such alliances are not the only form of alliance available. One or two other examples provide evidence that such an arrangement can deliver useful savings and efficiencies in the railway. The project in Scotland to electrify the branch line to Paisley Canal on the Greater Glasgow network was an alliance between Network Rail, First ScotRail and Babcock engineering. They were able to electrify the branch line at a substantially lower than expected cost and two years ahead of the planned development because the power was devolved down to that level, meaning that the various experts and operators could get together and deliver the project very efficiently.

I am doing a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust on the rail industry and I have spent a good number of days going around parts of the railway system. I have seen two separate examples of an alliance between a train operating company and the rolling stock manufacturer, which enables a much more efficient system of maintenance and refurbishment of the rolling stock. I visited the Kings Heath depot, jointly operated by London Midland and Siemens on the London Midland franchise, and—this will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)—the Hitachi depot where the Javelin trains are maintained with Southeastern. Those depots are delivering a much faster and more efficient turnaround in train maintenance. They are not “grands projets” or exciting stuff, but they deliver a much better service for rail users at a much lower cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

No, because I am running out of time.

Those arrangements could involve joint working to improve performance and planning for engineering works or to reducing delays and disruption for passengers. Integrated control centres can deliver smoother and more efficient network operations.

The Rail Delivery Group brings together Network Rail, freight operators and passenger train operators. It provides leadership for the industry, and offers a coherent and focused response to the investment and operational challenges laid down by the Government. Network Rail is enhancing its accountability with a new transparency scheme to publish more information and data that are of interest to the public.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

I will not.

[Graham Stringer]

There is plenty of time.

[Mr Burns]

There is not plenty of time. I am not speaking until 7 o’clock because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside would like to make a brief winding-up speech.

Network Rail has appointed a public interest director to articulate taxpayers’ views at the highest levels in the company.

Responding to the Government’s rail Command Paper, the Transport Committee published its report on “Rail 2020” in January this year. As I said earlier, we have welcomed that report and the Select Committee’s support for our strategy, which is focused on making the existing structures and responsibilities in rail work better. We are not throwing everything up in the air and starting again, given the cost and disruption that that would be likely to entail.

We are confident that our strategy can bring rail to the cutting edge of efficiency by 2019. To do so, the industry must take advantage of new technologies by looking to introduce smart ticketing and making ticket machines easier to use. The hon. Member for Nottingham South asked when that will happen. I reaffirm that it will be during the summer. Passengers will continue to be able to get help and advice from a member of staff about buying a ticket when they can currently do so. Train operators must also look at driver-only operations for trains. This is already standard practice on 30% of existing franchise services, including many commuter services in London and Glasgow.

Crucial to the debate about rail is the Department’s role in letting and managing franchises for passenger rail services. This was discussed at length by several hon. Members during the debate. The Government’s firm belief is that franchising gives us the best possible basis for doing what we want to do with rail. The most liberalised railways in Europe have seen the highest growth in the last 15 years, with the UK and Sweden first and second respectively.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to have private sector innovation and experience in our railways. As hon. Members will be aware, in March we announced a new rail franchising programme, covering every rail franchise for the next eight years. It builds on much of the authoritative work undertaken by Richard Brown, as I have said. Supporting our franchising relaunch, we have now published a new guide about how franchising competitions are run. This is information that we want to be generally available and accessible to all. It will give certainty to the market and to suppliers throughout the industry and support major investment in our rail network.

To grow a railway that will support passengers and our economy, we need that railway to be financially sustainable. Our rail strategy aims to achieve that, while putting passengers at its heart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The arrangements for train and for bus are slightly different in the sense that the railway arrangements for the discount card were set in place at privatisation and are funded by the train operating companies, whereas the bus arrangements are of course funded from the public purse. If the hon. Lady has particular concerns about the operation of the travel concessionary scheme in her area, I will be very happy to meet her and talk about them.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

When the Minister sat on the Bill Committee for the Local Transport Act 2008, he was not satisfied with what the Government were then proposing because he knew, as do other hon. Members, that the current deregulated system allows bus companies to game the public purse to the detriment of the travelling public. Can he not persuade his hard-hearted Tory colleagues to help authorities that want to re-regulate the system to the benefit of the travelling public?

[Norman Baker]

As far as the landscape is concerned, following the recommendations of the Competition Commission, we have of course taken steps to improve it. The options available under the Local Transport Act—the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Public Bill Committee—are still available. I encourage local authorities to explore the best possible options. What we are seeing across the country in places such as Brighton, for example, is a good arrangement between local authorities and bus companies, which is driving up passenger numbers.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will look at the detail of that. I am certainly determined that Parliament should be kept well informed and, of course, the company will be open to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office reporting to the PAC. There is a way in which the House can keep an eye on the matter.

My third point is about funding. We can today welcome the allocation made by the Chancellor in infrastructure investment. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will say more about our plans. I know that in the context of the Bill, the House will want to be updated on the cost of HS2. I can therefore tell the House that tomorrow I will be writing to the chairman of HS2 Ltd to set a target price for delivering phase 1 of the project. That amount is £17 billion at 2011 prices. That takes account of the design and environmental changes to improve the scheme. Those changes include a tunnel from Old Oak Common to Northolt, design changes at Euston station, and a tunnel under the M6 near Birmingham.

As a responsible Government, we must be prudent, which means allowing the right level of contingency. In addition, therefore, we have set an overall indicative amount for the budget for phase 1 of £21.4 billion. For phase 2, it is £21.2 billion, so the total is £42.6 billion at 2011 prices. That includes £12.7 billion of contingency.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, I asked the Prime Minister why the Government were opposing the continuation of the trans-European network north of London. The Prime Minister clearly did not have an answer, and I will understand if the Secretary of State does not. However, will the Secretary of State find out why we are opposing the extension of that network? While we are in the European Union, that could be cutting off a source of funding.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I heard the hon. Gentleman’s question to the Prime Minister. Those debates on that whole process are ongoing and still at an early stage. I have some worries and I would want to get clarification before we changed the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment:

That this House declines to give a second reading to a Bill which authorises preparatory expenditure on a railway without specifying further detail of the route and a limit on expenditure.

Let me begin by paying tribute to all the constituents and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to protect our interests in the Chilterns. HS2 Action Alliance, 51m, Stop HS2, our Conservative councillors and all the conservation groups have worked very hard and deserve all our thanks and congratulations.

There is no doubt that if HS2 goes ahead, Chesham and Amersham and the Chilterns will be badly affected. Indeed, I think that my constituents will be paying twice: once through their taxes, and once through the disruption and blight that they are suffering.

We have heard that this project was dreamt up under the last Labour Government, and I am glad that the shadow Secretary of State took responsibility for it. The mistake we made was adopting it without asking the proper questions, and now, after three Secretaries of State in as many years, we have a £50 billion project—so we heard today—not connected to any airport or other transport system such as HS1, and divided into two phases with no guarantee that the northern route will be built even in my lifetime.

[Graham Stringer]

The right hon. Lady is an excellent constituency MP and the route north of Birmingham includes Manchester airport, so, as she was once a candidate who aspired to represent Manchester, does she think she would have a different position on this matter now if she had won that election?

[Mrs Gillan]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I will not detain the House long. I speak as the joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group for high-speed rail. I am therefore highly supportive of High Speed 2. I will make four simple points.

First, this country has a shocking and disgraceful record on infrastructure, under Governments of all political persuasions. The costs of not keeping our infrastructure up to date are much greater than the costs of High Speed 2. We have built one new runway since the second world war, we have the lowest motorway density in what used to be called western Europe, the Dibden port proposal was turned down, we have only a few kilometres of high-speed rail between the south coast and London, and we have a much smaller rail system than we had 40 or 50 years ago. Our competitors are investing in all those areas of infrastructure, to our economic disbenefit.

Secondly, the justification for High Speed 2 is not the speed, as has been said, but the capacity. Having high-speed rail will cost only 10% more than the alternative of building a brand new route and will bring the speed benefits as well as the extra capacity. The alternatives that are put forward by the opponents of High Speed 2 would provide only half the benefit, while costing a great amount of time, money and disruption, as we learned from the west coast main line build. If people are worried about the projections that are used to justify the investment in High Speed 2, they should consider the fact that train passenger numbers are already at the level projected for 2021.

On the economic benefits, I am enormously sceptical of almost all economic models. There may be disbenefit to some towns and cities. The Transport Committee found that some towns in Europe that were joined to the TGV or other high-speed routes had benefited enormously, whereas others had disbenefited.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is making a convincing argument in favour of HS2. He raises the important point that one of the perceived benefits is that economic activity will be drawn up the track. However, there is a risk that economic activity will actually be drawn down the track, away from the regions to London. Does he agree that, to mitigate that risk, it is important that we look to build a hub airport up the track as part of the infrastructure development of this country? A hub airport in Birmingham would be a good alternative to what is being suggested at the moment.

[Graham Stringer]

I will not be drawn into a discussion about hub airports.

On the benefits and disbenefits, it is up to the people who run our towns and cities to ensure that people go in their direction and invest in their area. There is no doubt that such people want the high-speed line. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said earlier that she wants the high-speed route to go to Liverpool. I do not blame her, given the potential benefit.

I am sure that some of the arguments made against HS2 were made when railways began. The vested interests of stagecoach owners and bargees almost certainly led to their using similar arguments about how railways would not catch on. I know of no economic analysis that captures the likely benefits, but what we do know, from looking around the world, is that countries that invest in their transport infrastructure almost always do better economically. We should therefore invest.

[Frank Dobson]

As the proud MP who has King’s Cross, St Pancras and Euston stations in his constituency, I am rather in favour of the railways. For that matter, I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. However, I think my hon. Friend is falling into the sort of syllogism that something must be done, this is something, and therefore this must be done. There are better ways of spending this money on improving the railway system.

[Graham Stringer]

I hope I am not falling into that trap. I think that a high-speed system that will eventually join Edinburgh and Glasgow, through Manchester and Leeds, to Birmingham and London will be of enormous benefit to the country. I do not believe it is a perfect system and I do not believe it is being constructed in the best way, but it has all-party support and it can be improved. I personally believe that we should be building north to south, as well as south to north. I believe, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, that we should be building a link directly through to High Speed 1. However, I do not believe that any of those problems are sufficient to stop us investing in infrastructure that will help the whole of the country.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stringer]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have already given way twice.

My last point comes from the experience of being responsible for building the second runway at Manchester airport. Paying compensation on the basis of free market value at the time is an extremely costly way of building infrastructure. Giving free market value plus 10%, 20% or 30%—whatever is appropriate—will speed up the process and save money. I hope the Government will give consideration to that, and to serious mitigation. If people take legal action because they think they are being treated unfairly, and if there is blight for a long time, that will hinder the project. It is estimated that delays in tunnelling on some high-speed routes have cost as much as the actual tunnelling. I therefore hope that on compensation the Government will not be short-sighted. I hope they will deal with the problems outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and be generous in looking at the problems and pain caused. That will benefit the high-speed system in the end.

High Speed Rail

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and, indeed, for his work on the Transport Committee. I agree entirely with his point. Setting out our plans now and confirming them, I hope, by early next year will enable us to look at connectivity between stations in the period between our plans being outlined and the actual development.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There is tremendous support for this project in Manchester and the north of England, but, having heard from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that, surprisingly, she supports building HS2 from the north of England, will the Secretary of State reconsider what he said earlier and put both phases of HS2 into one hybrid Bill and consider building them from the north of England? In doing so, he would unite the House in an even bigger way than it is united at present.

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman says that that would unite the House in a more cohesive way, but it is fairly united for such a controversial subject, as has been clear from the exchanges so far. As I have said, the proposals to go from north to south would mean further delay, and I point out that the first part of the route was actually published by the previous Government, who also thought that the right way to go was from London to Birmingham in the first instance.