Local Bus Market

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is now more than 25 years since buses were deregulated outside London. I do not like to use extreme language, but deregulation has certainly had a very damaging effect on public transport, especially in the metropolitan areas, other urban areas and the shire areas. I have made many speeches in favour of some sort of re-regulation of the buses; the Minister has heard many of them over the years, and, on occasion, we have agreed. I suspect that we still do agree. I disagreed with some of my party’s bus policies when it was in power, and I still maintain those views. I am pleased that the shadow team now seems to have better policies than we had when we were in government.

The focus of my speech today is on the report of the Competition Commission, which was considered by the Transport Committee. Before getting on to the specific recommendations of both the Committee and the commission, however, it is worth taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) about the segregation of the bus industry. This is a simplification, but I think that it is essentially true that the bus system in London works extremely well. It has never been deregulated; it has received significant investment; and bus companies in London take less profit out of the system than they do in the metropolitan areas. So the bus system here in London is good.

However, if we look at the metropolitan areas, whether we look at the statistics for the last year, for the period from 2005 or even go back to deregulation, we see a steady progression of fare increases above inflation. In real terms, fares have doubled over all that time and passenger numbers have dropped by 45%. In London, the direction has been the opposite. That is an indication of where public money is better spent in the support of public services.

In the shire areas—I represent a very urban constituency, so I am not an expert on the shire areas—bus services often do not exist at all. It is not a question of their not being subsidised; they do not exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, when approximately £4 billion a year goes into the rail system—I am not against that—and parts of the country do not have any bus services, either commercial or subsidised, we need to take a serious look at the situation.

Parts of the bus system, in historic towns such as York, Oxford or Cambridge, are working. In those towns, the authorities have been able to restrict car access to the town centre and they have set up partnership schemes. Therefore, if one goes through the different areas, one sees that there are very poor services in many shire areas and limited amounts of competition on the road; declining bus services in metropolitan areas, with increasing fares; relatively good services in towns such as Lincoln, York and Oxford; and excellent services in London. For any Government who want to provide services to the whole country, it cannot be satisfactory to see that differentiation of service.

Before I move on to the reports by the Competition Commission and the Transport Committee, I will make one simple point about the Lib Dem “nearly policy” on concessionary fares. One of the reasons why the decline in passenger usage in metropolitan areas has not been more severe—in fact, it was even halted for a period—was the increased money that the last Labour Government put into concessionary fares. That meant that people over the age of 60 had free access to the buses and used them, which changed the usage of buses for the better.

At the moment, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, is considering whether to take concessionary passes away from people such as me, because we can afford to pay the bus fare or do other things. In a way, one cannot argue about that. However, the Liberal Democrats should also think about congestion. Most of the policy of most of the Governments during the past 30 or 40 years has been to try to get people to leave their car at home and use buses instead. The fact is that, if relatively affluent pensioners can afford buses, they will not pay the bus fare to Stagecoach or FirstGroup if their pass is removed. Instead, they will take their car out; that is what I would do if I did not use the bus or tram in the area where I live. That will lead to increased congestion. I suspect that the Minister sympathises with that view, but I ask him to say to people—within his own party and within Government—that they should think harder about the transport implications before they go too far in pulling concessionary fares.

I will move on now to the Competition Commission report itself. I think that any reading of both the written evidence and the oral evidence that was submitted to the Committee will show that the Competition Commission’s report was deeply flawed. Before I get on to that, however, I just want to say one or two words about competition. It is sometimes assumed—particularly by those from the Labour side who want to re-regulate buses and to introduce quality partnerships in parts of the country—that we are against competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where commercial businesses are involved, in order to ensure that we get the best-quality, most efficient and effective service, competition is a good thing. However, the fact is that in most of our big cities and in a lot of our shire areas competition does not exist. In fact, if we wanted to have competition in those areas, it would be necessary to introduce off-road competition, because the competition is not taking place on the road itself. There is no competition in many parts of this country.

If people look at the evidence that the Transport Committee received, they will see one indication of the lack of competition outside London; there is competition in London, although it is not on-road competition. That is the profit levels of companies. If people read the oral evidence that FirstGroup gave to the Committee, they will see that FirstGroup said that it is withdrawing from London because it could make twice the return on the capital outside London that it does inside London; those were not quite the words that FirstGroup used, but they are what FirstGroup meant. If competition were working, the situation would be the other way round: we would expect FirstGroup to be making less and to fight more for profits in other parts of the country. As I have said, nothing that I say in this debate should be taken as showing that I believe that, where there are commercial interests involved, there should not be competition. There certainly should be competition.

Turning to the Competition Commission report itself, I was disappointed by the quality of the evidence that the commission used. It published an interim report that hinted that it was considering pushing towards off-road competition—the quality partnership approach. However, that was changed in the final report. A couple of things happened. We know the figures for FirstGroup because its representatives told them to the Committee, and they also told the Committee that other bus companies had done the same. FirstGroup spent about £3 million lobbying, providing information and—I think that this is a direct quote from the Competition Commission—putting its case as strongly as it could. Undoubtedly, that affected the final recommendations of the report, which were that there should be more head-to-head competition on the roads, without any mechanism to produce such competition or any evidence that it was happening in all but a few places. In fact, I think the Competition Commission gave us three examples of areas where competition was happening, but they were fairly isolated places and not in our major conurbations. That was disappointing.

The Competition Commission officials said, when asked why they had shifted the emphasis in their report, that they thought that specifying the level of services would lead to less competition and higher costs. When we asked why they thought that, they cited the costs in London, but they could not really give any more information. I looked at the evidence that the Committee received before I came into Westminster Hall today. The Minister in his own oral evidence to the Committee—I think that it was in response to question 400, if he wants to look at it now—more or less demolished the commission’s argument, because he gave figures that showed the subsidy per passenger in London was 45p, whereas in the metropolitan areas it was 57p and in the shire areas it was 71p. The commission’s basis for rejecting quality partnerships—without taking evidence—was, therefore, deeply flawed. At the same time, however, the commission had evidence of huge collusion between the bus companies in the north-east. Rather than examining the real costs in London, where profits—albeit not excessive ones—were being made and there was a good service, it used a theoretical model that clashed with the London experience and with what was happening in the north-east. That was one of the flaws.

The commission identified anti-competitive practices in the north-east, and such practices clearly exist in other parts of the country as well, but it is difficult to prove that they do because, by and large, bus companies do not have written agreements not to compete with each other—they just do not do that. When the commission was asked about divestiture, which has happened in other anti-competitive areas, it said that only big bus companies would come in if, in an area such as my part of Manchester, it stopped FirstGroup. The company has been operating a near monopoly very badly in north Manchester, and the commission has said that it would just be another large company that would come in. FirstGroup has operated an appalling business when it comes to running buses in north Manchester and it is now selling its interest to Stagecoach, so there is no intermediate point at which there is on-road competition; there is just the selling of one almost monopoly to another monopolist. The fares have been high in north Manchester, and, although I do not know this for sure, I cannot imagine that Stagecoach will reduce the fares when it takes over the garages.

I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to helping with quality contracts. There is legislation, in the form of the Local Transport Act 2008, that enables such contracts to be put in place. There has, however, been no answer to the question posed by the Transport Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside today, about why the bus service operators grant cannot be used to help local authorities to introduce quality contracts. It will be difficult to bring in a first quality contract. I believe it will save money—I think that the detail of the Committee report is wrong in stating that it will be more costly—but it might be very difficult when we have Brian Souter of Stagecoach saying that he would rather drink poison than allow a quality contract to happen. He and his managers are threatening a scorched earth policy.

When the Minister came before the Committee, he made some helpful comments to the effect that bus companies should follow the law, and I am interested to know whether there is anything else he can do to support the company in west Yorkshire and Nexus, which, I understand, are both still going down the quality contracts route. I believe, as does the Minister I suspect, that the scheme will lead to a better bus service, so if there is a legal option to go down that route the Government really should provide as much support to the quality contract areas as they are prepared to provide to the better bus ones. I cannot see why the quality contract areas should be discriminated against.

This has been a long speech. The Transport Committee’s report is good, and I hope that the Government will move on and support the moves to balance up bus services. Without going through all the detailed arguments, it seems that there is much greater similarity between Greater Manchester, the west midlands and London in relation to introducing franchising operations and a regulated system, than between Greater Manchester, Oxford and Cornwall. I hope that the Government, recognising the success in London, will try to move within the 2008 Act to help the introduction of the schemes, not just in Manchester but in Leeds and Newcastle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Every minute.

[Julie Hilling]

I asked a student who lived there, “Do the buses stop in the night?” and she said, “Oh yes, they stop in the middle of the night.” I then asked, “How long do they stop for?” and she replied, “For 10 minutes, at 4 am.” There are buses every minute, 24 hours a day, apart from during those 10 minutes at 4 am.

A couple of years ago in Manchester, the situation was so bad that no other vehicles could get into the city centre. All the buses were queued far back because so many people were competing to run their buses along that corridor. We can compare that with the estate I live on. The service to Hag Fold stops in the evening, and on a Sunday it does not start until midday, so no one can use the bus to go to church on a Sunday morning, or for a day out. That is the reality of our buses, and I live in an urban area; I am not even talking about a rural district. We need, therefore, planning for services across an area that is not based just on whether a route is profitable. We need a service that goes as close to people’s doors as possible, otherwise those who can drive will.

Cost is incredibly important. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the excellent Chair of the Transport Committee, talked about the ever-increasing cost of bus travel, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

For the third time this week, I will talk about my neighbour, Leah, because she will be affected by the cuts to tax credits and other benefits. She is a mum of two who works 16 hours a week and earns £101. She pays £18 a week—£4.50 a day—for her travel card, which, of course, can be used only with one provider that stops serving the estate in the evening. Unless she gets home early enough, she has to pay another bus company to get her anywhere near home. Compare that with £2.80 a day in London for a service that can be used with any provider.

Travel cards are important for reducing costs and opening up integrated services. Look at the liberation of Oyster that we have had for nine years. Those of us who reside in London for a few days each week have been amazed by the Oyster card: people can go on any bus or tube by flashing the cost-effective card. Compare that with people in my area, who have to decide from which company they will buy a travel card on any given day, because a card can be used only on one service, such as First. They have to ask themselves whether the company will manage to take them on the whole of their journey, or whether they will have to buy separate fares because the company will take them on only part of the journey.

Transport for Greater Manchester is trying hard to get some sort of Oyster mark 2 for the conurbation, but there is no surprise that the operators are not co-operating. Fares in south Manchester are 15% to 20% cheaper than those in the north of the conurbation. Having different operators is the only answer, because it surely cannot be true that diesel costs more in Bolton than in Withington. Costs seem to be part of the reason why the operators are not co-operating. What will the Minister do to support areas such as Greater Manchester to introduce travel cards that will liberate services for so many people?

Running a big bus company is a licence to print money. Since deregulation, the companies are earning a profit of some 7% each year at no risk. If a service is uneconomic, the operators can cancel it and hope that the local authority will pay them to deliver it. Quality contracts would enable routes to be bundled so that operators would have to deliver all the routes in a bundle, both good and poor. They will still be able to make a profit, but they could not continue to hold transport authorities to ransom over the provision of a route.

People make choices about where they live and work, and about schools, based on public transport. What are they supposed to do when they lose the bus service that enables them to lead their life? We know of people who have had to give up their job because they have lost a bus service and can no longer get to their place of work. I have a group of women in Blackrod who can no longer go to their church, which they went to for many years, because the bus stopped running along that route. I ask the Government to use the better bus area fund to support all models of co-operation, including quality contracts. They should also do more to support passenger transport executives and local authorities that are considering quality contracts.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned earlier, we know operators have threatened a scorched earth effect by removing all buses if a transport authority wants to go the way of introducing quality contracts. Well, I do not think that a bus operator should be allowed to obstruct the implementation of Government legislation by making such threats. It would not be acceptable for other groups to threaten to thwart Government legislation, so why is it acceptable for a bus operator to do so?

Bus travel has zoomed up in London. Why has bus travel gone up so fast and so far? It is about cost, availability, the Oyster card and regulation, and it is very much about subsidy; it is about the state saying, “Public transport is a public service, not just a means to get around.” My constituents in Bolton West deserve the same sort of service as London residents, and I look to the Minister to address how he can help the Greater Manchester transport authority and my constituents get the service they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I thank all those who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate. I particularly thank the Committee and its Chairman for its report on competition in local bus markets. It is good to have time to debate the issue once again. The report was a welcome addition to the evidence base on this subject. It reminded us once again that, although competition is important, the ultimate prize is to improve bus services for the travelling public. That must be our primary aim. That was a key test for the Government when considering the Competition Commission’s recommendations—namely, would they result in more passengers travelling on the bus?

There is a point of uncommon purpose and agreement with my colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): Greener Journeys has made a welcome contribution to the debate on buses. We know from the work by Greener Journeys and others that bus services make a significant contribution to the economy. Sustainable growth relies in part on a good quality, affordable bus network to get people to jobs, training and education. I think that I have said so before, but if I have not, I can confirm that I am pursuing that matter and that welcome report with colleagues in different Departments across Government. Clearly, it is not simply a transport matter, but an employment and environment matter. Other benefits might flow from the recommendations being taken forward.

Although the overall picture is mixed, I am positive that we are headed in the right direction. There are many areas of the country where bus services flourish and where significant progress is being made in ticketing, infrastructure and integration. I have seen first hand in places such as Sheffield and Oxford the power of partnership working to make a real difference to bus services in city centres and beyond. There is significant investment going into new vehicles, new technology and new services by the better bus companies, both big and small. There is good innovation out there. I pay tribute to Trent Barton. It is always unfair to pick one company out, but I have been very impressed by the way that Trent Barton markets individual services, which is a testament to how a good bus network can be built through good management. We see a key example there.

I have been keen to build on investment by encouraging the bus industry to think about what more it can do to get people on to buses. That is why I am pleased that bus companies across the country have come together with two exciting offers in response to my suggestions. The first, BUSFORUS, is a website to collate information on bus services and tickets in one place for young people. The Passenger Focus survey, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred, showed a high level of satisfaction with bus use. Of course, it masked a slightly less high level of satisfaction among young people. That is helpful in persuading bus companies that they should perhaps give more consideration to young people in the way that they conduct their business. They are now doing so, and they have made a good start with the website.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister makes a fair point about the survey masking dissatisfaction among young people. An even bigger point, because the survey is of bus users, is that it completely masks the dissatisfaction of the people who have abandoned bus services because of poor quality or high fares. The figures of 88% and 92% satisfaction are misleading, because they exclude the people who no longer travel by bus.

[Norman Baker]

It is true that those no longer travelling would by definition be excluded, because they would not have been on the bus to be subject to questions. I suppose the same applies to rail services. However, if bus services were being abandoned because of poor quality, I would expect that to be highlighted by the people still on the bus, but who have not yet abandoned it, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point is necessarily true, if I may say so. It might be that bus passengers are no longer on the bus because they have decided to travel by a different mode—car or train—or because the bus is no longer there in the circumstances that suit their individual needs.

The second deal was Bus for Jobs, which helps jobseekers get back to work by offering free travel for the whole of this month of January. Those are exactly the sort of leadership examples that should be demonstrated by bus companies. I will continue to work with the companies, and cajole them if necessary, to ensure that they continue to put passengers’ long-term interests directly at the heart of their businesses. Of course it is in their commercial interest to do so, and therefore they ought to be doing that for themselves, as many of them are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Precisely. If it is working, and it appears to be, it would be wise commercially to see where else it might apply. Doubtless, the people at FirstGroup are listening to this debate very carefully, and they will have heard the hon. Lady’s pitch for a similar scheme for Bolton West and elsewhere, no doubt, in the conurbation.

The hon. Lady asked what we would do to roll out something like Oyster. I can assure her that we are doing a great deal of work on smart cards, or smart ticketing—it is becoming difficult to get the right form, because we talk about mobile phones and everything else, and there is no simple phrase these days to describe all that. As a Government, one of the first things that we did was give a big sum of money to the various passenger transport executives to help develop smart ticketing in their areas, and we are giving other help as well. That money is forthcoming for rail and bus.

The hon. Lady asked what we would do to help Greater Manchester. I hope that we will do a great deal. We continue to work productively with the integrated transport authority up there. I am always very happy to meet its representatives and hear any concerns that they have. We have, in fact, given a great deal of money to Manchester for transport in the past two and a half years, including the beginning of the delivery of the entire northern hub, so I hope that we are doing a good deal to help transport in that area.

I was asked about data on bus spend. I am advised that DCLG collects some of those data and they are published as part of its annual statistics—not just on supported services, but more generally. On best practice, I think it is something that has value, but it is predominantly for the local government family in this new era of localism to identify that themselves. Of course, we are interested in it, and talk regularly to our local government colleagues and to the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers, for example. However, it is broadly my view that the Local Government Association needs to do rather more to step up to the plate and identify best practice, rather than simply seeing itself as a body that lobbies Government for something. In the new era of localism, it has a different role to play, which I hope it will develop rather more than it has done. We are helping local government in many ways, including through providing guidance for local authorities on tendering.

[Graham Stringer]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I feel that he is coming to the end of his speech, and he is being very generous in giving way and covering all the issues. However, I have not heard him answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) about the deregistration of services, and whether he will legislate to ensure that, when services are registered, both ridership and fare information is made public.

[Norman Baker]

Let me muse on that matter for a moment—until I become inspired—and deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South as part of my closing remarks. I have noted with interest her support—increased support, I might say—for quality contracts, and her proposal for bus deregulation exemption zones. The Opposition is of course entitled to produce its own policy and I look forward, with interest, to that evolving. Therefore, perhaps it would be churlish of me to point out that for 13 years, some of us were making such arguments and they were batted back and we were told that what we were proposing, which may not be terribly different from what she is now suggesting, was a load of old nonsense. It would, however, be churlish to make that point.

I do not think that it is true to say we are in a great cycle of decline. I say to the Opposition that there are issues about the bus industry that I have been happy to accept, including what some councils have done in terms of bus cuts and the real impact that has on individuals in those areas. However, I encourage her not to exaggerate the position. That “great cycle of decline”, as I mentioned yesterday, shows an increase in passenger journeys of 0.6% over the last 12 months. Even if we take out London, a decline of only 0.8% is shown. It is not a great cycle of decline, and we must not talk down the bus industry and the opportunities for users.

Rising Cost of Transport

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reid]

I am certainly not going to apologise after the SNP has just increased ferry fares by 10%. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that the SNP Government in Scotland copied the Government here, so the rail fare increase in Scotland is also RPI plus 1%.

Liberal Democrats believe it is important to end the era of above-inflation rail price increases as soon as possible. However, that important aim has to be balanced with the need to raise cash for the investment that our railways so badly need. Our railways have suffered from decades of chronic under-investment, leading to a system which was increasingly inefficient, overcrowded and highly expensive to run. I am therefore pleased that the coalition Government have committed to invest about £16 billion in our railways up to 2019. That will support over £9 billion-worth of improvements, which will help to provide more services and greater capacity, particularly for commuters to our nation’s biggest cities.

The coalition Government are currently overseeing the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure since the Victorian era, and at the same time we are working hard to reform our railways and reduce unnecessary costs. The coalition plans for further rail electrification will also ultimately result in over 800 miles of track being electrified. Many speakers have contrasted that with the record of the previous Government. Our future plans include the important High Speed 2 project. It will create a direct high-speed link between London and Birmingham, which will eventually extend to Manchester and Leeds, and, I hope, Edinburgh and Glasgow as well. That will help enhance rail connections throughout the country and reduce journey times, and boost future opportunities for jobs and growth.

I will not support the Opposition motion, as it has fallen into the typical Opposition party trap of calling for fare cuts while saying nothing about where the money will come from for the investment our railway system so badly needs. Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are working together in government to put our railways on a sustainable footing, and we hope it will soon be possible to keep fare increases below inflation.

Although the country needs to reduce the deficit, I am pleased that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), has recently been able to announce more than £120 million of funding for buses, including £31 million for low-carbon buses. I also welcome his launch last year of the Government’s policy document, “Green Light for Better Buses”. It sets out a series of reforms that will attract more people on to the buses, ensure better value for the taxpayer and give local authorities more influence over their bus networks. Ultimately, it is for local authorities working in partnership with their communities to identify the right transport solutions for their areas.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that outside London there has been a continuing decline in the level of bus patronage and that the real answer to that is, as the shadow Secretary of State said, to have quality contracts or to re-regulate the buses? What are his Government going to do about that?

[Mr Reid]

The important thing is that the Government work together with local authorities and that power is devolved to them to find the correct solution; this Government are providing money and are working with local authorities.

Cycling has another important transport role to play, and I was pleased with the announcement in the autumn statement of a further £42 million investment in the sustainable transport fund for cycling infrastructure, including cycling safety. No matter how much effort is put into providing public transport and encouraging people to use it, in rural areas, particularly sparsely populated ones such as mine, the car will always be part of the transport solution. So I am pleased that the Government abandoned Labour’s fuel duty escalator and have reduced fuel duty by 1p a litre on the mainland and by 6p a litre on the islands. I hope that the Government will soon get the EU approval required to extend this scheme to remote parts of the mainland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

After half a century of inquiries and investigations into runway capacity in the south-east of England, there are almost no new facts to be learned. Is this not just a fig leaf before the Government do a U-turn and provide a third runway at Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that is the case, but it is not. In fact, we are trying to build a consensus across the parties on large infrastructure projects such as this, and to a degree that consensus has been achieved. The HS2 route that we have adopted is the route that the previous Government published.

Aviation

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, for what I think is the first time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on obtaining this important debate on the different issues relating to competition in the aviation industry. I agree with many of the points he made, and it is worth exploring further the points with which I disagree. He is serious about trying to find a solution to the country’s aviation policies, and that is worth discussing. Judging by the expressions of everyone taking part in the debate, there is agreement that Boris island is a complete non-starter. It is a decoy duck, Potemkin village, a red herring, or, as the previous Labour Secretary of State said, bonkers; it will not happen. But it is part of the illusions around aviation policy—which are the basis not of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying but of the Government’s policy—that somehow we do not know what has been happening in aviation, and there is more information to be found out. That simply is not true.

Going back to the Roskill commission in 1969 and a series of other White Papers and investigations, more is known about aviation policy in the south-east of England than about possibly any other area. If we want to be competitive, there must be more airport capacity in the south-east. Otherwise, the decline and damage that lack of aviation is causing to the economy will continue. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to suspend any discussion for the length of the Parliament. It might be right for the coalition agreement, but it is not right for the economy.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stringer]

I will in a moment, but I want to go through some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

I do not think the “Heathwick” proposal works in detail. When I give way to the hon. Gentleman I want him to tell me about any city in the world—Toronto, Washington, Glasgow—that has tried having two airports. There are examples all round the world of countries saying “We will have an intercontinental airport here and a domestic one there,” and finding that neither of those airports has worked. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a city with two competing hubs. The nature of hubs, and what makes them valuable—both for countries and airlines—is that airlines from all over the world go into them, with great interconnectivity. The idea of competing hubs is a contradiction in terms, and there is no real evidence that having two adjoining airports works.

[Mark Reckless]

I am delighted to have some discussion of the issue in the current Parliament, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what decisions may be made about how that discussion should happen. I just do not think we should build any new runways during this Parliament.

I disagree about dual hubs. Perhaps the idea has been tried in, say, Tokyo and one or two other places and has not been ideal, but we are not making a comparison with the ideal; we are making a comparison with the constrained capacity possibility that 14 million people might try to fly from Exeter. Expanding Gatwick, rather than restricting it, will not result in the perfect economic hub airport, but hubs give declining returns, to scale, to the extent that they get bigger and bigger. If we allow flights to new emerging markets and competing hubs operating in the competitive interest of the country, rather than one hub operating in the interest of the monopolist based there, that would be a significantly better airline policy than the one we have.

[Graham Stringer]

All I would say is that the proposition has not worked. We are in decline and we need extra runways in the south-east. Only one new runway has been built in this country since the second world war. Heathrow was, I think, originally planned to have 12 runways, albeit in a different configuration. The hon. Gentleman can look at the history books if he wants to.

The hon. Gentleman’s argument relies on two issues: first, that our connections to China, as the Minister of State said, mean that we are not really suffering; and secondly, that slots are too cheap at Heathrow, and if we freed up that market we would help the economy as a whole. Let me give some evidence.

The Frontier Economics report, “Connecting for Growth”, which was produced in 2011, showed that trade is 20 times higher where there are direct flights to cities in China. It estimates that the UK is missing out as trade goes to France, Germany and Holland, and quantifies the cost to the UK economy of a lack of connections as £1.2 billion a year. Taking that present value over 10 years, that amounts to £14 billion. Paris and Frankfurt boast 1,000 more annual flights to the three largest Chinese cities, Beijing, Chongqing and Guangzhou, than we get from this country. The Minister of State is right to say that we send a large number of flights to Hong Kong, and that there is hubbing in the Oneworld alliance at Hong Kong. The City of London is doing quite a lot of damage at the moment, but if we consider some of the effects, and the latest financial centres index, the Hong Kong index has gone up by 21 and London has gone down by three. There is a correlation, if not a direct one, between the hubbing that is going on there and the damage that is being done to the UK economy. Forbes Magazine has shifted the UK down from sixth best country in the world in which to do business to 10th best. One contributing factor is our connections with other countries.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the problems that he has just described result not from lack of capacity but from poor prioritisation? Hundreds of flights every day to and from Heathrow involve places that do not in any way contribute to Heathrow’s hub status. We have short-haul flights, flights to Malaga and 15 flights a day to Cyprus. Such point-to-point flights could happen at any other airport. We have masses of spare capacity, but it is not all at Heathrow. If that is the problem, surely the priority is to make better use of existing capacity and to get rid of some of those pointless flights that could easily happen elsewhere.

[Graham Stringer]

I always find that a particularly difficult argument to be put by Conservatives, who suddenly want to plan routes and move away from a completely deregulated market in Europe—apart from where it is constrained by slots. Having argued ideologically for that position, all of a sudden they want to tell aeroplanes that they can only go from Manchester and Leeds and not from London. I do not believe that that is the Conservative party’s position at all. Even if we put up the price of slots, which has been kept artificially low by how slots are regulated, we would not necessarily get the flights going to the right parts of the world that will benefit this economy. We would get even more flights going to New York and the west coast of the United States because those are the most profitable routes from this country in the short term. The two cheap slots would not solve the problem because the central issue is lack of capacity.

I have a few more facts from the London chambers of commerce that represent the views of 350 business leaders from the BRIC countries: 92% made the general point about the importance of direct flights; 67% said that they were more likely to do business in a place if there were direct flights to it; and 62% said that they would only invest in an area if there were direct flights between the city in the country in which they were operating and the city in which they were likely to invest. Such flights to Brazil, Russia and China are limited.

I wanted to talk about the damage that air passenger duty is doing to regional airports, but I do not think that there is time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute to this debate. None the less, such duty is doing damage and the Government really need to change their policy. Twenty-two of our competitor countries in the EU have no air passenger duty whatever, so imposing a duty is a ridiculous anti-competitive position for this country to take.

I want to talk a little about how we use capacity in the regional airports. It is not possible to, as the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) suggested, somehow move flights about, but there is no reason whatever why we could not have a completely open skies policy in the regional airports. There is 15 times more capacity in our regional airports than would be provided by one extra runway at Heathrow. It would be against the law to direct flights within Europe to that runway; that simply could not happen. At the moment, airlines are reluctant to make use of the partial open skies policy in relation to major regional airports with fifth freedom rights, but the Government must agree that, and sometimes there are difficulties. Airlines, which have a real interest in getting into Heathrow, are suspicious that if they use the facility of partially open skies in the regional airports they will be kept out in any future negotiations to get into Heathrow. Having a completely open skies policy in the regions, however, might shift out one or two intercontinental routes. It will not change the whole structure of aviation, but it will help.

Finally, the central point of the Government’s policy, especially the Liberal Democrat part, seems to be that constraining capacity in the south-east will help the environment and not damage the economy. I hope that I have shown that that constraint in the south-east is already damaging our economic competitiveness, and the answer to that is to build extra runways and not a new airport. It is worth saying, and it has been said before, that our policy is damaging not only our economy, as we are, in effect, helping other hubs in France, Germany, Denmark, Spain and Holland to do better, but our environment. When planes take off from the United Kingdom, taking passengers to airports such as Schiphol to pick up intercontinental flights, they are putting more nitrous oxide, sulphur oxides and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case. Although the whole aviation debate needs to be opened up, the solutions have been known for a long time, and the Government have had their head in the sand for their whole time in office.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. Six Members still wish to speak in this interesting and important debate, so they will have roughly four minutes each before those on the Front Bench respond

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises some of the very difficult issues we have already run up against with Heathrow as a hub airport. She also points out that these discussions and decisions matter massively to residents on the ground, and she is right that the question is not just about a third runway at Heathrow—about which we have been very clear—because expanding that airport further would pose significant challenges to local communities, which should be taken extremely seriously.

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

Airport capacity in the south-east has been studied in great detail for the last 50 years, and there is no further information to be found. Is not the reason we are not getting a third runway the deal done between the Prime Minister and Boris Johnson to try to secure votes in west London, as a result of which the entire economy of the United Kingdom is suffering? I believe the Prime Minister wants to do a U-turn on this, and that he will do a U-turn.

[Justine Greening]

I am not sure whether that was actually a question, Mr Speaker, but what I do know is that we need to approach this discussion with maturity and from a long-term perspective. Given how much this decision affects many people, not just in the industry, but on the ground, it is not good enough to have a headline-driven, pub-style debate. What I have called for now is a much longer-term debate to get some answers that are not just right in the next 10 to 15 years, but will be right for the next 50 or 60 years. I very much welcome the fact that companies such as BA and people such as Willie Walsh are now starting to step up to the plate and join that debate. I look forward to their response and those of many others to the call for evidence over the coming months.

Civil Aviation Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

My point probably applies more to Heathrow than it does to Gatwick, which is obviously the hon. Gentleman’s main interest, but does he agree that the decision of COMAC—the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China—to locate in Paris rather than in London, mainly for airport capacity reasons, shows that the Government’s aviation policy has failed because it is essentially an anti-aviation and anti-business policy?

[Henry Smith]

I would not accept that the Government’s aviation policy is either anti-aviation or anti-growth, as shown by the fact that we are now on Third Reading of a Bill that will produce greater flexibility in this sector—vital for a trading nation such as ourselves. I believe the Government should be congratulated by hon. Members on both sides of the House on that achievement.

Returning to my principal interest of Gatwick airport—I am the local Member of Parliament—I believe that it can grow by a further 11 million through-passengers than the current market share shows. The airport’s overall market share is only about a quarter of the total. Gatwick is not a monopoly, so it does not need to be economically regulated. The market should be allowed to work. Deregulation would allow Gatwick the flexibility to invest with pace in new infrastructure to accommodate developments such as the new A380 aircraft and undertake much-needed investment in areas such as the border zone. Through deregulation, Gatwick can emerge fully in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as an airport that can fairly compete with Heathrow and others. As an economically regulated airport, Gatwick cannot invest flexibly or price services according to what individual customers want or what the market will support.

The Bill outlines a series of tests that must be met for an airport to be regulated. These aim to determine whether an airport has substantial market power and, if so, whether there is a risk of abuse of that position, which existing competition law is insufficient to control. An airport that meets the market power test requires from the CAA a licence to operate, which may include a price cap on what can be charged to carry passengers.

With Gatwick being sold by BAA two and a half years ago and now separately owned and operated, I very much agree with the Transport Select Committee’s findings:

“Given the greater degree of competition that now exists between airports in the south east of England…the CAA should undertake its economic regulatory duties with a relatively light touch.”

Several members of the Public Bill Committee expressed a similar view. On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) said, correctly in my opinion:

“If Gatwick feels that it should invest significant sums of money in better terminal facilities in order to service the A380s and…allow the sorts of routes to high-growth markets in Asia that we so strongly support, I see no strong reason why it should be prevented from doing so and charging what the market will bear. I believe that that could be to the benefit of the consumer.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1031.]

Similarly, in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, noted that the CAA started

“from a position that… airports are regulated, and appears to want to keep them that way…. we should regulate airports only where there is a definite need to do so, and where there is a real advantage to the user, rather than looking to regulate unless we can find a way out of it.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 153.]

There is clear evidence that Gatwick is now competing with other London area airports. Airlines and passengers are moving between those competing airports in the south-east, and airlines are choosing Gatwick in preference to other airports to establish brand-new routes to countries that are key trading partners. Any legal test should reflect those trends, and there should be no risk of presumption towards regulation.

The correct threshold for economic regulation of any company, including an airport, involves the application of the legal concept of dominance, which is well established in both European Union and United Kingdom competition law. It is used, for example, to determine whether telecom network operators should be subject to economic regulation in all EU member countries. Any test for market power should also be one of dominance. That would ensure a consistent approach to assessing whether there is a need to regulate in line with the regulation of other industries.

I welcome this updating of legislation for the air industry. I believe that it gives us an opportunity to enhance our gift as an innovative aviation and trading nation, and to grow the economic prosperity and employment that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to speak. It is particularly expedient that I should do so after the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for reasons that I shall come to. First, let me address one of the issues at the heart of the Bill: passenger experience. We welcome the Bill, which we sought to amend and improve in Committee. I was proud to serve on the Committee with colleagues from the Opposition Benches, some of whom are present. When things go wrong for someone at an airport their first instinct is to blame the airline, but it is rarely the airline that is at fault. We have seen such experiences at several airports and some bubbling discontentment, particularly more recently as a result of immigration and other issues such as poor weather. That is why we sought to put welfare plans for passengers into the Bill and why we sought to help disabled passengers more explicitly by putting such measures in the licence conditions. The two Front-Bench teams have explained their differences on where the emphasis should be.

For me, the key issue is about holding airport operators to account. I served on the Select Committee on Transport, and I remember seeing the chief executive of BAA come before the Committee shortly after the December 2010 snow disruption and confess that, of the 80 different measures of Heathrow’s success that were taken in December 2010, only three or four had been breached and marked as red, whereas every other box had been ticked green. In a sense, that underlines why we need to be really explicit about what we want to measure. I am sure that the CAA will be good at that, although the Opposition would have preferred the Government to have a more active role at the legislation stage.

The second issue I want to address is environmental responsibilities. In Committee, we felt it would be extremely helpful and effective if the CAA had a clear duty on the environment, and at one stage it appeared that the Department for Transport believed that too. Certainly, as the Bill came through, we saw from its drafting that that would not be included. I am talking about giving environmental information to passengers so that they can make smarter choices and about making sure that the CAA, as an economic regulator, can do its job, balancing the needs of the economy alongside the needs of the environment.

I wanted to speak to this Bill not just because I represent an airport constituency—Luton airport, which many people will know and love—but because I am deeply concerned about growth. We know that there is limited growth in the economy, to put it mildly, and that we need a long-term strategy for growth. As the Minister has pointed out, if aviation is one of the routes for that growth, it is important to have continuity and consistency in the Government’s approach. That is why I am so concerned about the remarks that we heard in Committee, which the hon. Member for Cambridge spoke about.

A Liberal Democrat member of the Committee whom I shall not name—okay, I will, it was the hon. Member for Cambridge—said in Committee:

“I would very much like to see an environmental duty in the Bill. That is an important issue, and I raised it on Second Reading.”

He went on:

“I am confident that she”—

the Minister of State—

“will…find a way to deliver an environmental duty in this Bill…It is not a trivial issue.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 116-17.]

We wait to see whether the Minister is willing to give to her coalition colleague that assurance. We certainly felt that the point might have been more easily pressed home had the hon. Gentleman voted for it in the first place. I say that not to embarrass any particular Member on the Government side—honestly—but because I think the issue goes to the heart of aviation strategy more broadly under this Government. As with many issues under the coalition Government, we have one party on the accelerator and one party on the brake. Sometimes those flip around, but on aviation strategy the nature of the coalition becomes even more disparate. We have two people on the accelerator and one on the brake, or one on the accelerator and two on the brake at different times. There is no clarity for the industry about where this Government want to take aviation. That should be a big concern for us.

We know the issues in aviation; the big one that needs to be tackled is the requirement for greater capacity in the south-east. With reference to Luton airport, we know that the Minister is deeply interested in point to point and she is right. We should make more effective use of the capacity that we have. I hope the ministerial team will bring forward commitments on that in the coming months. We can go from 8 million passengers to a greater number without doing significant ground works or extending the runway.

We need resolution on whether there will be a genuine hub airport—one that does not fall over when it snows, when it rains, when there are small amounts of disruption. While that issue remains unresolved, perhaps because of the nature of coalition government, perhaps because of geographic requirements on Ministers or individual MPs, simply saying no is not a policy.

[Graham Stringer]

I wish Luton airport well; I have used it on a number of occasions. However, the recent report from BAA shows that if we do not have a third runway at Heathrow, which is the only solution to providing a hub airport, we will lose £100 billion in the economy. That is a non-trivial amount. Not having a third runway, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, is actually bad for the environment.

[Gavin Shuker]

I thank my hon. Friend. I want to make it clear that I think the right approach is to reach a cross-party consensus on the future for a hub airport. In that context, the moves by the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister of State to write to Ministers at the Department for Transport saying, “We will take the option of a third runway off the table,” acknowledging that it has been taken off the table by Ministers, is the right way to go. However, the issue does not go away. In the course of developing policy in both major parties, we cannot continue to dodge the bullet. We need a hub airport that is fit for purpose. That is why I believe it is so important, given the passage of the Bill through the House tonight, that we find a way to tackle the big issues in aviation.

Civil Aviation Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I could not agree more. I will discuss previous experience, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, recent experience underscores the expectation that the Government, the authorities or the airports will have to deal with the experience of passenger delays. The horror stories that are starting to come out about passengers experiencing delays of some hours because of shortages of immigration staff and the article in The Daily Telegraph on Monday or Tuesday of this week in which the previous chief executive of UKBA offered some analysis of the problem underscore the fact that there is an important matter to be addressed.

Amendment 9 is the generic proposal. It states:

“A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.”

That is an all-encompassing proposal that we think would cover all the matters that passengers would expect airports and airlines to deal with, including stranded passengers, resilience, delays and all manner of difficulties that passengers might experience. Amendment 10 looks specifically at the position of stranded passengers and suggests that something should be done for them.

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

As ever and as was the case in Committee, I am following the logic of my hon. Friend’s contribution. Will he expand a little on why it should be the owners of airports who provide provision for stranded passengers and not the airlines, as has previously been established in law?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This group of amendments draws attention to the importance of the passenger experience. The Transport Committee has looked at that theme a number of times over the years. Some improvements have been made, but there are still major questions, some of which are raised by the amendments.

Overriding the specific points made by the amendments is the general question of who speaks for passengers. The previous organisation, the Air Transport Users Council airport consultative committee, stopped being responsible for airing passengers’ views. It was suggested that Passenger Focus might take up that responsibility, but that did not materialise. When the Transport Committee questioned the CAA in our pre-legislative scrutiny, it told us that it was setting up a panel. When we asked what form the panel would take, how its members would be chosen and how it would operate, the answers were unclear. There is still a big question mark over whether there is effective representation for air passengers. Such representation does not seem to be enshrined in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about who represents passengers. Does she agree that a flaw in the Bill is that it does not state not only who represents passengers but what the interests of passengers are? If that major flaw is not corrected today, I hope it will be corrected in the other place.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to some important points. I agree that the matter needs further thought, and I hope that the Minister can respond on it.

The Select Committee’s work also drew attention to some problem areas in the allocation of responsibility for looking after passenger experiences. Key passenger concerns, particularly about passport and immigration issues, the time it takes people to get into the country and baggage handling, are not necessarily the responsibility of the airports, but they are, in reality, seen as responsible for them. We have heard examples recently of long queues, which are the responsibility of the UK Border Force, yet happen in the airport and are part of the air passenger’s experience. There do not seem to be any means of addressing that dual responsibility in the Bill, and that needs attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to the Select Committee’s earlier work on the implications of bad passenger experiences and the need for passenger welfare plans. The problems that air passengers experience at times of disruption during otherwise fairly normal periods are a long-running issue, and there has also been the near-breakdown of the service in situations such as very bad weather. We produced a report drawing attention to the matter and Ministers told us, or certainly implied, that the new licence conditions could contain requirements for passenger welfare plans to be put into practice, so that there would be clear responsibility for looking after passengers and giving them information in times of severe disruption. That does not seem to be happening in the Bill.

I know that the Civil Aviation Authority, in laying down what I think it calls its indicative licence conditions, has said that passenger welfare issues are part of the licensing process. However, it is extremely unclear whether the conditions will be enforceable, how clear they will be and whether there is to be a further consultation period before any such conditions are laid down. That is another area of concern.

All the points that I have made relate to the amendments, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The experience of passengers travelling by air is extremely important, and it is time that it became a focus of our attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

As I shall come on to explain, I do not believe that the licensing regime is an appropriate mechanism to address issues relating to border controls.

The CAA sought initial views from industry in drafting the indicative licence. However, Parliament has not yet concluded its consideration of the Bill, so the CAA has not yet begun to consult on proposed licence conditions for each airport that will be subject to regulation. Until consultations have taken place no final decisions will be taken about what goes into the licence. However, if the Bill is passed as drafted the CAA will consider the extent to which it is necessary to include conditions on resilience and passenger welfare in the licence. The CAA expects activities that may be part of the new licence regime to include taking into account other obligations on service quality standards, and the success of codes of conduct and voluntary arrangements adopted by the industry. As the body with the relevant operational expertise, the CAA is well placed to determine appropriate and effective licence conditions. The amendments could undermine our goal of giving the specialist regulator a flexible toolkit to protect the passenger, so I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As ever, she is generous with her time in answering questions. My question is slightly rhetorical. Does she accept it is much more difficult for such airports as Heathrow, which operates at 99% capacity, to be resilient?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I intend to touch on Europe shortly.

Carrying out such an approach presents a challenge to the industry. Directions from Europe, with which any UK regime will have to comply, usually mandate a blanket approach. As my hon. Friend says, that may well be changing. Through the new clause, we seek to require parliamentary scrutiny and approval before Ministers are permitted to undertake what would be one of the most significant reforms to aviation security in the past two decades.

In Committee, the Minister suggested that Labour Members have set our face against moving towards a risk-based approach. That is not the case. We simply believe that any such move is serious enough to require parliamentary scrutiny—at the point and in the circumstances where the Government seek to make it.

The Government’s impact assessment predicts significant reductions in regulation and costs. If they were to emerge in practice, they would, of course, be welcome—provided they did not result in security being compromised. There is support for such a reform from airlines and airport operators, and we have listened carefully to their opinions.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend accurately relates what the Government’s regulatory impact statement says. Will he acknowledge that, as we debated in Committee, Manchester and other airports strongly dispute those figures and believe that there will be a huge increase in the regulatory burden on airports?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend raises a good point and accurately reflects some of the concerns that cast doubt on the impact assessment, which I know will have been thoroughly engaged in and scrutinised by Ministers and others across the whole Department, as it is now in Whitehall. There was much debate in Committee over whether the assessment thus far made presents an accurate picture.

On an issue that is literally a matter of life and death, it would be deeply irresponsible to make such a major decision on the grounds of cost and regulatory burden alone. Ministers must make it clear how such a move would enhance Britain’s capacity to keep aviation secure.

In their impact assessment, Ministers have argued that a move to a risk-based regime is consistent with the principles of better regulation. The drive to improve and lessen regulatory burdens, where appropriate, is one that we pioneered in government and continue to support now. However, moving away from the current “direct and inspect” regime for aviation should not automatically follow from that. Requiring specific parliamentary approval for this reform would give Members the opportunity for more detailed probing of some of the claims made by Ministers for this change, and how they would fit with EU directions at the time the change is proposed.

In Committee, we did indeed question the reliability of the predicted costs of the reforms—supposedly £23.7 million over 10 years. Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the reliability of those figures in the light of consultation responses. Furthermore, adopting a risk-based approach will inevitably create variation within security procedures adopted at different airports—again a major step change from the present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I wish to make one general point and two specific ones. The Minister will know that although I accept the basic thrust of the Bill, I have never accepted the regulatory impact assessment and I believe that, throughout the Bill, extra burdens are being introduced for the aviation sector. I have been surprised and disappointed that she, as a Conservative Minister, has not explored more of the market-based solutions to some of these problems.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, any assessment of the security costs is unlikely to be accurate, because many of the security regulations will be made at the European level. Making any such assessment is always going to be difficult, but it is close to impossible in this case. I am not going to repeat the discussion that we had in Committee, but I will say that Manchester airport is very concerned that the very expensive scanners that it has put in place may be outlawed by the new European regulations. That is the background to my position; I am unconvinced by the Government’s figures.

The first of my two specific points relates to security and follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said. I am firmly of the school, particularly on security, that thinks, “If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?” There is no evidence to suggest that TRANSEC is not doing a good job. It is integrated with other security services and, more importantly, for transport matters it is integrated with other transport areas apart from aviation. In short, it is doing a good job, and it seems to me that the real motive—the real driver—for moving security on to airports is primarily cost. That is not a good reason, particularly given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, this will not have received the scrutiny that it deserves before the Bill goes through. Why take a risk? Why stand a chance of losing experienced and well-qualified members of TRANSEC, who may not want to move into airports? This proposal is unnecessary and the justification for it is weak.

I come to my second and final point. The Minister will recall that when I asked her in Committee whether other airports in the European Union had the costs of their security paid for by their Governments, she said that she thought they did. She then wrote to me and said something, and I followed it up with a parliamentary question, which she was good enough to answer fairly quickly. Her response showed that either she was not telling me—I do not believe that she would do that; I am sure that if she knew, she would tell me and other Members of the House—or, as I think, the Department did not know which countries and which airports paid for their security and which did not.

So not only are we being driven by cost, with a lack of scrutiny, to change a security system that works, but, as with other parts of the Bill, that is going to put a burden on UK airports that is not shared by some of their continental competitors. We know that the larger airports in this country—this does not apply to the tiny airports—such as Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, and possibly some others, are competing as hubs for traffic throughout Europe, particularly for incoming traffic. Yet the Minister is unable to tell us, after a long debate in Committee and after a parliamentary question, whether we are being put at a competitive disadvantage, because she does not know which of those airports have their security paid for by their Governments. So I would like her to answer as thoroughly as she can on this matter. I do not believe that the case has been fully made, and I do not believe that the impact on the competitiveness and success of our airports has been judged properly and accurately.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I want to say a few things in support of amendment 11 on security checks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, the amendment calls for maintaining the rigour of those security checks while carrying them out in a manner that preserves religious dignity. Obviously, we need strong security at our airports—of that there is no doubt. The terrorism threat is very real—we have had the shoe bomber and we have had the underpants bomber—and the travelling public expect the Government and the airport authorities to do all that they can to ensure their safety. It is therefore not a surprise that security is a high concern in the Bill and a strong concern at a European level.

I and a number of other MPs who have large numbers of Sikh constituents have had many representations about the matter over the past year or so. In particular, we received representations about the way in which new European rules were being implemented, a concern that focused on the question of the physical searching of the turban, or, as Sikhs call it, the dastaar. I believe that the Sikh community, like any other part of the UK, accepts the need for strong security and understands that there is a terrorist threat, but it wants security to be implemented in a way that maintains religious dignity, which is what amendment 11 calls for.

I thank the Minister for listening to the representations from MPs and organisations representing the Sikh community on this issue. As she said in her intervention a few moments ago, the Department for Transport, in response to those concerns when they were at their height, organised a trial using swab and wand technology at our airports. That trial is still in progress. I believe that it was due to finish this summer and I want to ask her a few questions. Following the transfer of responsibility for some of these matters from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority, how will MPs make representations on such issues in the future? It is important for us to have direct access to Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport; will we still be able to reflect the views of our constituents in the same way under the Bill?

Will the Minister also tell the House what will happen when the trial involving the swab and wand technology comes to an end? Will there be a formal report or a statement to the House in written or oral form about how that trial has gone? Importantly, do the UK Government intend to report the results to the European Commission, which drafted the new rules in the first place?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said a few moments ago that the United Kingdom had by far the largest Sikh community in the European Union. That is true. It also has the longest experience of having a Sikh community and we have been through these arguments, whether they are about the right of Sikhs to wear their turbans when riding a motorcycle, the right of bus drivers to wear them or the right of serving police officers to wear them. We have been through the arguments time and time again and different UK Governments have proven to be responsive to the concerns, which has enabled us to reach an accommodation. As my Sikh constituents often say to me, if wearing a turban was good enough to fight in the trenches, why is it not good enough to be worn in other walks of life?

The flexibility that the UK has shown through the trial is to be commended. I am not saying that the trial is perfect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, it has not been implemented everywhere. Has the Minister received representations about problems in airports that are not taking part in the trial? Importantly, the fact that the Minister has written to Transport Ministers in other EU member states to outline the British approach has been a good initiative, but problems remain, especially outside the UK. We have had a number of Sikh constituents reporting aggressive and highly distressing searches, particularly at Italian airports, which have shown little regard for religious dignity. Some of us have made representations to the Italian embassy about those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Amendments 2 and 1—that is the order in which they appear on the selection list—may be considered to be either relatively minor or the most important amendments to the Bill, depending on how they are interpreted.

This is the “minor” aspect. I asked in Committee why the word “effectiveness” was not included in clause 1(3)(c) and clause 2(4)(c), along with the words “economy” and “efficiency”. The Minister’s responses are always very courteous and comprehensive, but on this occasion, unusually, I was not satisfied that there was a good reason for the absence of the word “effectiveness”.

When I was more centrally involved in local government, we regularly spoke to the Audit Commission. It used to refer to the “three E’s”—effectiveness, efficiency and economy—and used to joke that “economy” was usually left out. That is not surprising in view of the dictionary definitions of all three words. “Effectiveness” apparently means

“to accomplish the purpose, producing expected results.”

The meaning of “efficiency” is self-evident:

“performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort”.

Those are clear and relatively objective terms. “Economic”, however, is defined as

“pertaining to the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities.”

It is a much more general term, and it is the one that the Audit Commission used to say was left out. Why on earth do clauses 1 and 2 not state that the holders of licences should be effective, which is surely very important? Although I consider that to be the relatively minor aspect of the amendments, it goes to the heart of the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, although the Bill gives the CAA new responsibilities to look after the interests of consumers, it does not tell us either how that is to be done or what the consumer’s interests are.

The Bill states that the CAA must oversee airports to ensure that there is continuity, and that air transport services have regard to

“the range, availability, cost and quality of airport operation services.”

That in itself is fair enough, but the Bill does not give the CAA the overarching purpose of improving aviation and ensuring that it continues to form a major part of the United Kingdom economy.

Our demand for the inclusion of the word “effectiveness” highlights the strong deficiency in the Bill that we debated in Committee. No real political controversy is involved in changing the nature of the functions of the CAA, whether we are talking about the regulation of air space or the ensuring of economy and safety. That is not a matter of great debate between the parties. There is a great debate between Members and parties, however, about how aviation should develop and whether we should continue to be a leading country in aviation, and about whether our economy, which depends on aviation, should be hindered by not having the aviation facilities we deserve. I could make a very long speech about these matters. I shall not do so, but I do want to make a few important points.

I believe that many Conservative Members, and many members of the Government, want to improve our aviation facilities, including by increasing the capacity of airports in south-east England. Unfortunately, however, they are caught in a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. Indeed, there are two tails. Dogs with two tails are usually known to be particularly happy, but not in this instance. There is the Lib Dem tail, as the Lib Dems have for historical—and, I think, mistaken—reasons always opposed increasing airport capacity in south-east England. The Government tail is also being wagged by Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London, who believes he can win the mayoral election only by opposing the expansion of airports within the London system, and by proposing instead an absurd island airport in far east London—in the Thames estuary, in fact. That may be good for his chances in the mayoral election, but it is extremely bad for the country.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s policy on airport capacity is not driven by tails or dogs or anything like that. It is driven by an understanding of the importance of ensuring that aviation has the space to grow, but also that it does so within parameters that address the local impacts of aviation, such as aircraft noise and air quality, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, can be corrosive. We also need aviation to play its part in our efforts to tackle climate change. Our approach is, and always will be, based on a sound and sensible assessment of the evidence on how best to have a growing aviation industry that also plays its part in addressing its environmental impacts.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister makes a consistent case on that, but she will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept it. The noise around airports is diminishing as planes get quieter, and air quality is regulated by European regulations, with most of the pollution around airports being caused by cars and other road traffic. That needs to be dealt with, but the levels are set by European regulations, and those levels cannot be surpassed.

Those arguing against increasing airport capacity often say that that will help in our commitments to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As we demonstrated in Committee however, that is not the case, because as a result passengers on intercontinental journeys often have to fly via other countries, so they have to take off twice, which produces extra pollution and extra carbon dioxide.

If the Government carry through their intention to put aviation into the European emissions trading scheme, as with the polluter on the ground, aviation will be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis, so we do not need an extra domestic policy to address the issue. The Government’s current policy is strangling the British economy.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

It is absolutely true that Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. I live in west London and represent a west London seat, and he is right to do so given the threat a third runway would pose to the health of west Londoners. Ken Livingstone, the Labour party candidate, has also always opposed expansion at Heathrow airport. Indeed, this is one of the few topics on which all three main parties in the London mayoral campaign agree.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Lady is right in what she says, but all three mayoral candidates are wrong on this matter.

It is completely legitimate for any constituency MP, including the Secretary of State, to oppose what they think their constituents do not want. However, it is also incumbent on any Government to consider the national interest, not just the interest of people representing west London. Exactly the same argument is used about High Speed 2, and the analogy is a good one. I chair the all-party group on high speed rail, but if somebody was driving High Speed 2 through my constituency, I would oppose it, because I would like to carry on being an MP and representing my constituents. That is a reasonable thing for an MP to do, but I also know that HS2 is good for the economy. Similarly, I know that constraining runway capacity in the south-east is extremely bad for the economy. It will do no good for the environment; it will just strangle the British economy.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman implies that there may be a tension between a constituency interest and the national interest, but the Government’s policy and the Conservative party’s policy of being against a third runway at Heathrow precedes the previous Secretary of State. It has really been this Minister, when in opposition and in her current role, who has taken on the vested interests and put forward a policy that protects the environment, as well as the national interest. I do not believe that there is any relevant constituency interest here.

[Graham Stringer]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on a number of policies, but he is in error in his understanding of the history of the development of the Conservative party’s policy. To be fair to the Lib Dems, they have always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. The Conservative party was in favour of it until Boris Johnson thought he had a chance of winning the previous mayoral election—that changed its national policy. The Labour party was in favour of a third runway. When the Conservatives became the Government, the shadow Secretary of State said that she would change the Labour party’s policy—I do not agree with this, but I can see why she did it—so that there could be a discussion about how to deal with the problem facing us.

That problem—this is the final point I wanted to make—is that Heathrow is losing destinations and business, and not just because of the capacity on runways. We face at least a double whammy: air passenger duty is having an effect, too. The situation is directing passengers to airports in Europe that have added extra runways, such as Madrid, to where British Airways has moved much of its operations, and Charles de Gaulle. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) was talking about integrators. The two main centres for freight in the aviation industry are Brussels and Charles de Gaulle; we have already lost out on those issues. Passengers are going to Madrid, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and, increasingly, to Copenhagen, at the expense of London. That is damaging not only the London economy, but the UK regions, because of the decreasing number of routes from the regional economies into Heathrow, in particular, and into the whole of the south-east system.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has hit on a very pertinent point. Four countries in the world are expanding their economies at the moment and doing well: Brazil, Russia, India and China. Is not the hon. Gentleman’s point that if we want to increase our trading with those four countries, we need better airport contacts? Is that not the very issue on which we seem to be losing out?

[Graham Stringer]

I could not agree more. Before the debate, I looked up on the internet how many cities in China have a population of more than 1 million—the size of Birmingham. There are 160 cities that are bigger than or the same size as Birmingham and five cities that are bigger than London, three of which are not very well known. The biggest, Chongqing, has a population of 31.4 million, but how many air routes do we have to Chongqing? There are routes to Shanghai from London but from nowhere else in the UK. The others are Beijing, Guangzhou—or Canton, as most people would know it—and Tianjin. Those cities are all bigger than London and there are very few routes to them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned India, Brazil, Russia and China. This country wants to be the centre of the financial world through the City of London and, as Europe gets itself into a mess with deflation, our future must increasingly rely on trading with the growing economies of the world. However, at the same time, we are cutting off our links.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that he should not necessarily believe all the propaganda he reads on the posters in Westminster tube station. If flights to Hong Kong are taken into account, Heathrow delivers more services to China than any of its continental rivals. London is one of the best connected cities in the world. We have five highly successful airports serving the south-east, six if we count Southend.

[Graham Stringer]

Since the second world war, as the Minister will know, Heathrow has been the largest international airport in the world. Soon it will no longer be that. It is still bigger than Frankfurt as regards its international destinations, but—I do not have the figures in front of me—the number of destinations served by Heathrow has gone from something like 220 to 180. Increasingly, the passenger numbers are going up because larger aeroplanes are going to fewer and fewer destinations.

I wanted to make both that small point about why the word “effective” is not in the first two clauses and the larger point that I would like not only the words to be in the Bill but there to be an effective aviation policy, which the Government do not have. On this issue, although not necessarily on others, the Government’s policies are anti-business and anti-growth. They are damaging the UK economy and they need to change them. Changing the wording of the Bill would help.

[Mark Reckless]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). First, let me respond to what he said about Heathrow and China. We all see the adverts in Westminster tube station, but there is a fundamental inconsistency in the line being pushed by BAA and the Mayor of London, among others, that Heathrow is essential as a hub but that we do not have enough point-to-point flights to different places in China. The model used by BA and its oneworld alliance relies not just on Heathrow as a hub but on Hong Kong, too. It is deciding that it is more effective to use Hong Kong as a hub, for all the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman and others, and to fly to all those Chinese cities with greater frequency and service out of Hong Kong. I do not accept the argument that a lack of point-to-point flights from Heathrow to cities in China makes the case that Heathrow needs a third runway to be a hub airport. The very economies of the hub and of the Heathrow and Hong Kong dual hub model for service for China lead to the system that we have.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible point about where hubs develop in the world. Hubs developing in the middle east are doing a similar job in serving parts of China and there are also hubs in south-east Asia. A better measure of the failure of Government policy is the number of airlines that want to get into Heathrow from all parts of the world but cannot do so. A number of those airlines, some from China and some from other developing countries with large growth rates, have applied but cannot get their aeroplanes into Heathrow. Does he not agree that that is a better measure?

[Mark Reckless]

The reason there is unsatisfied demand for Heathrow and people who would like to fly from there but cannot is that landing slots at Heathrow are still cheaper than those at other airports and certainly cheaper than they could be. BA uses most of those landing slots, has capitalised the value and does not sell many of them on, partly to ensure that there is only limited competition so it can maximise its profits. I will return to that point, but I have quite a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments that the regulator should look to ensure that licence holders—airports—are effective as well as economic and efficient.

I also have considerable sympathy with the shadow Minister’s new clauses on National Audit Office oversight. However, I understand that those are only intended to be probing. I hope that that will also be the case with his amendments, because ultimately I trust the Minister on this issue. I do so for the ultimate reason that, in so many areas of public policy one can pretty much know what the policy will be by looking at where the money is—where the vested interests lie—and at what the civil servants are pressing. Too often Ministers merely oversee that policy solution. In this area I believe that it is the personal, political intervention of the Minister, both as shadow Secretary of State in opposition and now as Minister responsible for aviation policy, that led to, and kept, the Conservative policy against a third runway at Heathrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I hear with interest what the hon. Lady says, although if that is already happening, I am not quite sure what her new clause would achieve. Perhaps a worked example to give some sense of the numbers and costs involved would make the case more persuasive for me. Perhaps there will be time later—at a future date, as the Bill progresses—to understand exactly what is proposed. I would personally be interested to understand that, but at the moment I do not feel I have enough of a handle on it to support the hon. Lady’s proposal.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman and I are likely to agree on this, but I would like to understand his position a little more thoroughly. Is it his contention that constraining capacity in the south-east will reduce the number of flights, or will it in fact increase the number of flights—as is my contention—as people fly to other European hubs?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will agree on very little in this area, other than on the fact that we will disagree quite strongly. At the moment, we have a number of people travelling to the south-east, by road and all sorts of other means, in order to fly out. We can use some of the capacity in other areas, in the north. My contention is that by not expanding capacity in the way the previous Government wanted to, we will see less environmental degradation and we will better be able to stay within our carbon budget, which we can afford for the good of the rest of the world as well as ourselves. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree on this one, however many times we discuss it.

Turning to the amendments that deal with environmental issues, let me be clear what I would like to see. I would like to see lower emissions at every airport in the country. Some of that can be done technologically. Planes are coming out that are more and more efficient, which I very much welcome. I have mentioned some of the excellent work being done by Rolls-Royce, and some research has been done in my constituency specifically to enable that, which I very much welcome. I would also like to see more public understanding of the effects of climate change, and of what aviation does and how it compares with other things. I would also like to see some certainty that airports will be able to reclaim when they implement environmental measures—a point that was made very clear to me by AirportWatch, along with others concerned about a lack of certainty.

We had a number of discussions in the Public Bill Committee about the exact nuances of the amendments and their technical aspects. It is important to get things right for the longer term, rather than jumping to agree to half-baked or 99%-baked amendments. Although I recognise the spirit in which the shadow Minister will, I presume, be pressing some of his amendments, I do not think we are quite there yet. I hope that he will accept that concern, and I am sure he will take a different line when we come round to it.

Amendment 3 is definitely much improved. I am much more persuaded by it, but there is still the problem that it would apply only to the regulated airports. I am sure that the shadow Minister would accept that that is a concern, and if we could do something that affected all airports, that would go further—I will return to that point later. The same thing applies to amendment 7. I find it an interesting amendment, and I would be supportive of it, were it not for the fact that clause 84 already requires the same information to be published—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. That information should be published, as clause 84 says, so we do not need to move it to clause 83 merely to solve a problem. In Committee, I praised the Minister’s environmental credentials. She turned her party towards the Liberal Democrat position of supporting high-speed rail and opposing a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted. She did a good job, and I again pay tribute to her. She made strong arguments that were more persuasive for Conservatives than those that we made.

It is not clear that the Opposition have made that leap, and I seek clarity as to why many Labour Back Benchers argued against the position adopted by shadow Ministers and why they are still hung up on providing more capacity and more runways across the south-east. When I raised that with the Minister she agreed to look further at what environmental benefits could be achieved. I am grateful to her for doing so, and for the time that she has spent with me discussing the matter. She understands quite well what I am trying to achieve.

My ideal is something that has not yet been included in the Bill, because there are some problems with the wording of my proposal, which was recommended by the Aviation Environment Federation. In paragraph 31 of its submission to the Bill Committee, it said that what it would most like to see was an

“amendment to section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to clarify that CAA has a duty to the general public, rather than only to the aviation industry or its consumers, and that environmental impacts are as important a determinant of aviation policy as consumer demand”.

That is something that I would love to see. I understand that there are some technical problems with the precise wording of the proposal, which is why I have not been able to table a detailed amendment that I could persuade the Government to accept. I should like to get these things right for the longer term, rather than put on a small show now. However, I hope that such a proposal would be considered, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether there is any prospect of her doing so.

A key issue made clear to me by AirportWatch and others was the need for certainty for airports. We all agree that we do not want any predatory airlines—I will not suggest any that might fall into that category—to exploit a lack of clarity to avoid paying what we all believe they should pay towards environmental improvements at airports. I believe that the Minister has received legal advice that the Bill provides such certainty, but I hope that she accepts the concern expressed by AirportWatch, the AEF, others and me that there is a lack of clarity. If there is a risk that the Bill is not absolutely water-tight legally, I hope that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to ensure that we do not encounter that problem, as we all agree that we do not want to have that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

How do we achieve the overall environmental progress that we would like? I believe that the Government will shortly publish a draft aviation policy framework. We expected them to publish it in March, but it has taken time to get it right. We welcome the fact that such work has been undertaken, and I hope that the framework looks at the possibility of environmental regulation across all airports. That would be the best solution, rather than fitting the measure into one particular route, and applying it only to regulated airports. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the aviation policy framework, which we all anticipate with great excitement, will deal with those environmental concerns.

There is a prospect of the Bill doing some very good things by improving the information flow and making the CAA more aware, and by making sure that we deal with risks to airports. I hope that the aviation policy framework will offer a visionary solution that ensures that we have a sustainable aviation future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The industry tells me that it is very concerned about what is happening in Scotland and Wales. It is concerned about the short notice given by the Scottish Government, and about the even shorter notice given by the Welsh Assembly Government. We, on the other hand, gave 18 months’ notice of changes in the bus service operators grant. Representatives of the industry said at the time that, in view of the notice given and the type of BSOG changes involved, they expected to be able to deal with those changes without affecting services markedly.

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

Statements made by the hon. Gentleman before he was a Minister suggest that he must have been constrained in his enthusiasm for quality contracts by his Conservative colleagues in Government. If he cannot help local authorities to pursue such contracts, will he consider introducing a new bus regulator to deal with market failure—an Ofbus?

[Norman Baker]

The option for councils to pursue quality contracts remains on the statute book, although I think that any pragmatic council would choose to try to deal with bus companies in a collaborative way before reaching for the nuclear option. Some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with by our responses to the Competition Commission’s recommendations, which pick up some of the unsatisfactory behaviour of bus companies.

Northern Rail Hub

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I will, like the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), curtail what I was going to say. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing the debate and agree with everything that he said. I will not attempt to repeat it, particularly when so many hon. Members want to speak.

It is worth having some context in our debate. There was roughly an 80-year decline in rail services between 1920 and 2000 and, unexpectedly, over the past 10 or 12 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of passengers using the railways. I am not sure that the Department for Transport has completely caught up with a system that is expanding, although I accept that it has done so in respect of HS2—I am talking about the rest of the system. The basic way to determine investment decisions during that long decline was to follow congestion, which meant simply putting money into the south-east of England.

When one justification for the huge investment that goes into rail is to close the north-south divide, one can no longer justify, if one ever could, spending 90%-odd of rail investment in London and the south-east. One way to change that is to ensure that the northern hub is completed in one go. I understand that the Treasury is assessing it over the next six to eight weeks. I should like to make the solid case for the whole northern hub going forward, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and other hon. Members have stated. Detailed points need to be made about why the hub will not be as effective if it does not all go together as one.

I welcomed the previous Secretary of State’s statement to go ahead with the Ordsall chord, which is part of the northern hub. But if the whole system does not go together, there will be a reduction in services to Huddersfield, because unless an extra line is put in at Diggle to take the trains past it—I am sure that northern Ministers in the Department will be familiar with the railway lines there—the extra trains on the Ordsall curve will mean a reduction in trains on that route. If such details, including whether the chord will be there if the size of station platforms is not increased, are not dealt with, we will not get the benefit from the investment in the Ordsall chord.

Both in detail and in general terms, now is the time for the Government to say, as they have said, “We are going to try and do something about the north-south divide”, and that means investing in the rail system. Half a billion pounds is never a trivial amount, but compared to the amount going into Crossrail it may seem to be. I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, because this is not the equivalent of Crossrail. We do not have such an equivalent. This is more the equivalent of Thameslink, which frees up capacity in the south-east, and even there it is still only 10% of the cost of Thameslink.

With a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1, the Government should be grabbing at the scheme. There are potentially 44 million passenger places on 700 trains. There will be enormous economic benefit to the whole of the north of England. I hope that the Minister assures us that she and her colleagues will press the Treasury and ensure that, in the next high level output specifications period, we get the full northern hub scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing this debate, and on his commitment in campaigning for the northern hub. It is wonderful to see so many hon. Members from across the north in the Chamber, and one or two additional supporters who are more than welcome in our fight. As chair of the all-party group on rail in the north, I am pleased to see so many members of the group here. Hon. Members across parties are united on the issue of the northern hub. We are divided only by the Pennines, which are another reason why the whole hub must be united—so that we do not have the perpetual Pennine divide.

The Minister can judge how important the issue is for all of us, and how crucial it is that the whole hub be funded. We will not have the full economic benefit across the whole north if there is a piecemeal approach. I was worried recently when the Secretary of State talked about the welcome electrification of the Manchester-York line as part of the northern hub. I do not want to split hairs, but electrification was always seen as an addition to the hub, and not as the hub itself. It is essential not to lose part of the hub to that electrification, welcome though it is. It is the hub that will hold us all together.

The hub is not glamorous like High Speed 2, but it is essential if we are to tackle overcrowding, increase line speed, reduce journey times and increase services. It is an integral part of High Speed 2. I speak from bitter experience. When Virgin high-frequency trains were introduced with three trains an hour from Manchester to London, services to my constituency diminished. The trains terminated at Manchester Victoria, and we lost services to the airport and elsewhere because inter-city trains took the paths that our trains had previously taken. The only way to prevent that in future is to ensure that the engineering works proposed for the hub are carried out.

We will have more trains through and to Manchester, and more trains will connect to the west coast main line. Eventually, trains will connect to High Speed 2. That unglamorous engineering work will provide passing places so that we continue to have slow, stopping services with fast services. It will improve signalling, the Ordsall chord route across Manchester city, and Manchester Victoria station. Any hon. Members who have spent time at that station will know that it is not the nicest in the world, and I as a woman do not feel particularly safe there. There will be improvements at the station, and two new platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

Such improvements are as important to the north as the shiny new 250 mph train, and will be to the whole economy. Services will not then stop completely at Manchester Piccadilly when the Huddersfield train leaves, because it crosses every train path coming into the station, with the result that nothing else can come in and out. Constituents in Bolton will have a better, faster service, and people at my home station, Atherton, will not have to play sardines on the train, or have long waits at another gruesome station, Salford Crescent. They will be able to join the inter-city lines.

The project will bring £4 of benefit for every pound spent, and will do something to redress the imbalance between spending in the north and south. I do not understand why Londoners should have three times as much taxpayers’ money spent on their public transport as our constituents in the north.

[Graham Stringer]

During the debate I have done some arithmetic, which I believe is right, and which my hon. Friend may be interested in. Three months’ expenditure on Crossrail would pay for the whole northern hub. Is that not extraordinary?

[Julie Hilling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is interesting. It has been interesting during the High Speed 2 debate that people have frowned about putting so much money into the north, and people in the south-west have rightly asked why they are not receiving expenditure. There never seems to be an outcry about expenditure in London. I spend part of my life in London and before becoming an MP, I wanted to come to our capital city. Investment is needed in London, but it is also needed in the regions.

High-speed Rail

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

There are always barriers and challenges in dealing with such significant infrastructure problems, not least money and ensuring that finance is in place. As we have seen with phase 1, we must be incredibly careful that the route minimises the impact on local communities while maximising the economic impact that communities can get out of it. There is a long process to go through as regards talking with the Scottish Government, but I am keen to engage with them on it.

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

The Secretary of State’s statement will be welcomed throughout the whole of the north of England, as the chief executive of Manchester city council said, but there will be a worry in the back of some people’s minds that we were promised trains through to Paris when the channel tunnel legislation was agreed but we did not get them and that the same thing will happen again. It is not just a matter of political will. People in the north would be reassured if the Secretary of State gave a commitment to align stations and resources to build the routes to Manchester and Leeds as soon as possible.

[Justine Greening]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I certainly am not going to take any longer than we need to take to progress the full Y network. One aspect of the first phase that I have not mentioned yet is that it will connect HS2 through to HS1, so there will be that link directly to the channel tunnel and the European high-speed rail network, which will be hugely beneficial.