Railways

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I think I am in a better position than the hon. Lady to know what my hon. Friends say, as I probably mix with them more frequently than she does. They are impressed that since privatisation the number of passengers using the rail network has doubled, the number of rail journeys has doubled and the amount of freight on rail, and off our congested roads, has increased by 60%. They want continued investment in infrastructure to improve the quality of journeys and to improve rolling stock and track electrification so that people can travel around this country by rail far better than under British Rail. As someone who, sadly, is old enough to remember British Rail, I find it incredible that so many—almost dinosaurs—on the Opposition Benches seem to have a rose-tinted view of how fabulous it was. It was not.

I turn to the safety aspects of the package, which are important and are of major interest to the various sectors in the UK rail transport chain. In consultation with stakeholders, we are giving full consideration to their implications. The proposal to move from a two-part safety certificate to a single-part certificate is welcome as a simplification of the existing process. We expect it to lead to a significant reduction in the costs and regulatory burdens for railway undertakings. It will especially benefit those who operate cross-border services.

However, we need to look carefully at the justification for the extension of powers for the European rail agency to issue the single safety certificate, and we need to understand how it supports market opening objectives. Enhancement of the agency’s powers for audit and inspection of national safety authorities will change its current role. It is a fundamental shift away from a partnership role to a policing function. We are not convinced that those powers are necessary given the high level of co-operation already achieved between the majority of national safety authorities. We will ask the European Commission for further clarity about how any issues exposed will be resolved.

The communication includes proposals for a recast of the interoperability directive for railways. The Commission believes that there are problems with the authorisation process for rail vehicles, especially when the vehicle is intended for use in more than one member state. It refers to delays and costs reported by operators to the Commission owing to vehicles sitting idle in sidings awaiting authorisation from national safety authorities. To solve the problem, the Commission proposes a recast of the directive and changes to the authorisation process. A key change would be that the applicant applied to the European rail agency instead of the national safety authorities for authorisation of their vehicle.

Removal of powers from national safety authorities to the agency will change their role. The three safety authorities in the UK—the Office of Rail Regulation, the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland—will no longer be able to issue those authorisations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does that not indicate the heart of the problem? The European Union is once again seeking to extend its powers in an area where it already has competence. In the review of competences, will my right hon. Friend consider returning the whole area to the authority of the United Kingdom and our democratic control, as we are an island and our connection with the continent by rail is limited to the channel tunnel?

[Mr Burns]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, to which I will respond in two parts. His second point is, I am afraid, above my pay grade. I hear what he says, and I understand what he is getting at, but I cannot give him an assurance. The transport field is a bit more complicated because so much is done on a Europe-wide basis, but I can give him the somewhat glib assurance that no doubt his concerns and his point will be heard and considered in other places. On the narrower issue, I beg his patience because he may be more reassured when I reach our proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but my concern is to protect the interests of passengers and taxpayers. That prompts the reasons for our response to the Government’s proposals today.

Rather than reading the Commission’s non-paper, Members could watch the accompanying video—I wonder how much taxpayers’ money was spent producing it—which is very amusing. They could be forgiven for thinking that there is no real dispute at all, but buried in the impact assessment for compulsory tendering is the giveaway sentence:

“There is a certain degree of uncertainty in the assessment of impacts of some options, as evidence is sometimes fairly recent (e.g. competition in the market) or ambiguous (evidence provided only by specific stakeholders). The choice to move forward with the aforementioned combination remains thus a political choice.”

There we have it. The decision to impose one particular model on European states is a political choice, just as the Government’s decision to re-privatise the east coast main line was ideologically driven.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will make a little progress.

Countries should be free to choose the models that best suit national and local needs. We had just such a need in 2009, after two franchisees walked away from the east coast main line. As a not-for-dividend operator, East Coast has gone from strength to strength. Overall passenger satisfaction has risen and the operator has won a national award for how it manages disruptions to services, with a 12% improvement in satisfaction ratings in the past year. It has provided a public sector comparator at a time when the Government’s franchising policy has collapsed, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £55 million. By the end of this year, it will have returned £800 million to the taxpayer and invested profits in the service.

The not-for-dividend east coast main line is working, and with a five-year business plan in place the operator could deliver more, if it had the Government’s backing. However, by prioritising the privatisation of the east coast main line, the Government seem to be saying that the service works in practice, but not in theory. We need to proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and build on success stories such as the east coast main line, Merseyrail and London Overground.

I am sure that the Minister will have listened closely to Transport for London’s concerns about the fourth railway package, particularly the definition of a competent authority. Interpreted literally, the definition of an authority that serves

“the transport needs of an urban agglomeration or a rural district”

could force TfL to divest itself of some services at a time when it is looking to take on additional responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister could offer reassurances on this issue, which may impact on other bodies, including the proposed rail in the north executive. The devolution agenda must not be put at risk by these proposals.