West Coast Main Line

John Leech Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart]

Without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think, from our questioning in Committee of Tim O’Toole of FirstGroup, that he would reflect whatever changes the Government make to the definition of the peak period. The ambition is indeed to try to get a more equitable spread of rail demand across the day so that trains are not packed at certain times while others run comparatively empty. That is a sensible ambition. However, the long-term answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is a step change in rail capacity, which will come with High Speed 2. In the mean time, the question is how to make best use of the capacity that we have.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I thank my fellow Select Committee member for giving way. I felt that one problem with the questions to Tim O’Toole was that he seemed to argue that First would be able to get people on to those peak-time trains that are under-utilised at the moment with a 15% discount on rail fares. However, that still seems significantly more expensive than the off-peak saver returns or first advance tickets. There is a danger that the ambition to fill those trains will not be realised without increasing the cost of some first advance tickets, so that people cannot get them on off-peak trains.

[Iain Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Select Committee member for that point. There will still be a peak period and an off-peak period. My perspective is that we should be able to manage a more effective distribution. However, Mr O’Toole also made the point that he will not realise his ambition to fill the trains if fares are so high that people will not use them. His ambition is to achieve a modal shift from car and air to train.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing this unique debate and for the interest that she has taken for many years in transport issues, rail and the west coast line.

I was a bit worried earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) was criticising the Department for Transport for getting decisions wrong all the time. He mentioned rail. As a former rail Minister, I thought, “Does he mean me?” He has since popped over and said that he did not.

I was rail Minister for 18 months, and it was a fascinating period. We discussed franchising; I am certainly sceptical about it. I had to appear before the Transport Committee, then chaired by Gwyneth Dunwoody, the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich, a formidable individual who is, sadly, no longer with us. We always used to look forward to appearing before her in Committee to answer her questions. It was an experience. I remember asking the officials what franchising adds and what it brought to the party to improve things. I found it difficult to get an answer. The best that they could come up with was that it improves customer service, is more innovative and has brought improvements in service, but their answer was not overwhelming.

We had various problems with franchises. Southern was one that was sort of operated by the Department; now we have East Coast as well. There are alternatives to be considered. Franchising creates many problems, some of which we have heard outlined during this debate.

I welcome the Minister to his new job. I am sure that he will be helpful in answering our questions, and I am sure that he is finding out that the matter is not at all straightforward and has many difficulties and pressures.

I wanted to speak in this debate primarily because I believe that all politics is local. My constituents have contacted me asking me to put forward their views, both on behalf of passengers and because Runcorn station, one of the best-used stations on the west coast main line, is in my constituency, and numerous staff there are my constituents. I worry about their employment and their future. Surprisingly, a lot of people who have contacted me have said that they are disappointed that Virgin lost, because they think Virgin made a difference. Even one long-standing critic of Virgin has come to accept that in the circumstances of franchising Virgin has made a difference, but I will come to that shortly.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) has kept intervening to say that the risk to shareholders and taxpayers is crucial. That has not been made clear at all. Maybe the Minister will make it clear. It is a key issue, because the arrangements must be a good deal for both the fare payer and the taxpayer. We have no idea at the moment whether they are. I am sure that he will want to explore that.

The franchise decision was announced during the summer recess, denying Members of Parliament, many of whom have a close interest in the matter, recourse to questions to the Minister about the ramifications, the process and how the franchise award was arrived at. The decision to award the franchise to FirstGroup has created a lot of concern—I cannot recall a recent franchise award that has been so much criticised—so it is clear that this debate is important.

We are all well aware of the findings of the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on previous franchise fiscal failures. To dwell on Virgin for a bit, I will not pretend that things have been trouble-free under Virgin—there were certainly a lot of difficulties in the early days—but it had and continues to have fantastic staff, whether at my station at Runcorn, which has won award after award for customer care and service, or on the trains. If I have any criticisms of Virgin, one is that it changed a good thing. Passengers travelling on a line got to know the train crews, and Virgin decided to change them and swap them around the country. A lot of people thought that that added to the drop in service. It was not popular, and it led to a drop in morale.

The prices that Virgin charges for walk-on fares are frankly scandalous; I think that we all know what sort of prices I am talking about. However, it had many innovative ideas about advanced ticketing. Gating along the line could have been done better, as has been discussed in relation to the franchise. Parking charges have been a problem. If I had not stepped in to confront Virgin about parking charges at Runcorn, they would be much higher than they are now, adding to the massive parking problems around the station faced by my constituents.

To return to the franchise, the Department for Transport still has questions to be answered regarding its failure on the relative bid risk assessment; FirstGroup’s bid posed a risk not properly mitigated through adequate risk insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has asked many questions that are in the public domain, so I will not repeat them. The Minister has heard them, and I hope that he will answer them.

[Mr Leech]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as part of that risk, FirstGroup should have to risk losing all its other franchises if it is unable to deliver this one?

[Derek Twigg]

We would have to explore the consequences to the rest of the rail users on the system, but it should certainly be explored.

I return to a key issue that several hon. Members have pointed out. A cloud of controversy has surrounded the back-loading of the premium payments to the Government in the final few years of the franchise, whereas Virgin pledged more cumulative premiums to the Government for the first nine years of the franchise. I know the west coast line well, not just from travelling it but from my experiences as the rail Minister, and there were major problems on the west coast line during the early 2000s, for various reasons. At one stage, it was almost in a state of collapse, and the train services provided were pretty awful. Income dropped massively during those early years, for obvious reasons: people were not using the service. Because of the problems, they were using alternative transport such as cars, planes and so on. Income jumped in 2004 or 2005, and the timetable came out and so on. As the Minister will be aware, in 2009, a new timetable was introduced with weekend running and faster trains, which I mentioned. Did the bid take account of, or did Ministers ask questions about, that unusual situation at the beginning at the 2000s and its impact on longer-term predictions of income?

I assume that High Speed 2 will have a major impact on Euston, unless the Minister can tell me something different. Has any care been taken about that and the possible impact on the west coast?

The other question for the Minister relates to the GDP forecast on which the bids were based. Will the Minister confirm whether the bidders went along with the Government’s forecasts—a major failing in recent years—or a lower forecast? That will have an important impact on the bids. Projections are guess work, but I am not sure—we have not seen all the details, because we keep being told that they are confidential—whether the details actually add up. There is no doubt that the line has the potential for a great amount of growth. A point was made earlier about capacity and future investment. I am slightly sceptical about High Speed 2, because it has the potential to have an impact on necessary investment in the west coast main line.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

The issues of international agreements and the decision-making powers of the aviation sector itself are highly relevant to our inquiry.

I have referred to environmental concerns, and the inquiry will address environmental issues. The aviation industry has a number of environmental impacts. The issue of noise can be particularly important to local residents, and we want to know whether this is being regulated appropriately. We will also consider the wider environmental impact of aviation and how the industry can reduce carbon emissions so that further growth can be sustainable. We want to consider the full range of options. We will, for instance, consider whether a new airport should be built in the Thames estuary, whether Heathrow should have a third runway, and, indeed, whether there are other options. We will approach those issues with an open mind, and will consider the evidence submitted to us.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

What is interesting about the inquiry is that, in allowing for the possibility of a Thames estuary airport, it seems to be accepting that it is not a given that the only place where we can have a hub airport is Heathrow. On that basis, we should surely consider the possibility of expanding our regional airports, such as Manchester and Birmingham, and creating a further hub in one of the northern airports rather than always concentrating on the south of England.

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee will consider the points made by the hon. Gentleman. We should be interested to hear evidence along those lines.

Rail Fares

John Leech Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I am seeking to make some progress. If there is time, I will give way a little later.

I know that some hon. Members may think, “All well and good: these private companies should be able to make these very large profits for running our rail services.” However, I wonder whether Government Members have been keeping track of who has actually run our rail services since privatisation. For example, the Chiltern and CrossCountry franchises are run by subsidiaries of Deutsche Bahn, the German state railway. Southeastern, London Midland, TransPennine and Southern are all run in partnership with subsidiaries of SNCF, the French state railway, while Greater Anglia and Northern rail services are run by a subsidiary of Ned Rail, the Dutch state railway. Let us be clear: the ability of so-called private train companies to hike fares beyond the cap does not just mean additional profit, as the National Audit Office has warned; it means additional dividends from those profits going back to the state railways of France, Germany and the Netherlands. The consequence is that fares on their domestic rail networks are, on average, a third lower than those on ours.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way again in due course, but not at present.

I know that Government Members—those who are not serial rebels, and the Secretary of State knows who they are—may still want to ensure that they are in line with their Chancellor’s position on this issue. Let me therefore remind the House what the Chancellor himself said on the level of fare rises in last year’s autumn statement, when he performed one of his many post-Budget U-turns and bowed to pressure, not just from this side of the House, but from his own MPs, as well as rail passengers up and down the country. He said:

“RPI plus 3% is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1%. This will apply across national rail regulated fares, across the London tube and on London buses. It will help the millions of people who use our trains.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

The real question today is: what has changed? Why is a 3% above inflation increase acceptable this year, when it was, in the Chancellor’s words, “too much” last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are all now hearing from constituents who are paying out significant parts of their salary in the mere effort to get to and from work. There comes a point when, with other pressures, it is not acceptable for fares to rise at the level that the Government are contemplating.

[Mr Leech]

If the hon. Lady is so concerned about the profits and extra money going into the pockets of foreign rail companies, why does the motion not suggest no increase above inflation?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a choice to be made about where to pitch the figure for RPI plus or minus whatever it is. Today’s motion is based on our current policy as it is—something I think the Government could agree with—which retains credibility in terms of deficit reduction, but which would also bring significant relief—[Laughter.] I do not know why Liberal Democrat Members are laughing. Despite their alleged policy to cut rail fares, they have voted repeatedly in this Parliament for Budgets, autumn statements and comprehensive spending review measures that increase rail fares by RPI plus 3%, so we are not going to take any lessons from them about how to implement policy on rail fares.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Time and again, when rail franchises have collapsed, they have been brought under public ownership and control. We saw that with the First Capital Connect franchise in the south-east. When that service was in public ownership, it was one of the most efficient and cost-effective services. Unfortunately, the previous Government—this Government pursued this as well—put it out to the private sector again.

The Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks to the investment in electrification and high-speed rail. I wholeheartedly welcome that investment, but I have concerns about the High Speed 2 route. I am particularly concerned about how it has been consulted on. The two-stage approach and the development of the line—the two stages being those that link London to the midlands and to the north—were consulted on separately from the publication of the route to Heathrow, which will affect my constituency. Nevertheless, I welcome the concept of investment in high-speed rail for the future.

Great play has been made in this debate of the issue of reform and its impact on costs and fares. I think that all the rail unions will be willing to meet to discuss the reform of the current system of franchising and of the operation of the railways. I met Roy McNulty on a regular basis. He is a nice old buffer and I do not in any way disparage his commitment or the genuineness of his approach to the review of the railway network, but I have to say that, even under the previous Government, the terms of reference of the McNulty review were specifically limited and that his horizons were, therefore, limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has made the point that the comparisons with Europe were hardly straightforward. The comparison was between a franchising system and systems that were largely in the public sector, publicly owned and publicly managed. He was not allowed to look at what public ownership and public control could mean in this country compared with elsewhere. As I have said, the only time that such ownership has occurred here in recent years is when private sector franchises have collapsed and the public sector has taken them over and managed them efficiently and effectively.

The problem with the McNulty review—this has been touched on—is that he envisages, at the most recent estimate, a cut of 20,000 jobs. That will have consequences for services, and many of our constituents have expressed concerns about that.

[Mr Leech]

The unions mentioned the figure of 20,000 job losses to our Transport Committee, but that figure was rejected by others in the industry, who said that the actual numbers were far lower.

[John McDonnell]

The range cited is anything between 5,000 and 20,000. Even if the figure is 5,000, a significant number of jobs will go. In those areas where the general proposals have been translated into concrete ones at the local level, passengers and communities have expressed consternation. For example, the west midlands is trying to translate some of the reductions in staffing into the service itself and faces 80 ticket office closures. That will result in a reduction of staff in the station, so there are concerns about losing the service and about security on platforms and at stations. As a result, a new campaign was launched in August and 40 main stations across the country were picketed by community groups and unions. The campaign was joined by the TUC, the Campaign for Better Transport, Climate Rush and a number of other groups. I issue a warning—perhaps I will send the Secretary of State a note about this—that the campaign was also joined by the women’s institute. Any Minister who takes on the 210,000 members of the women’s institute does so at his or her peril.

This point has been touched on by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but there needs to be a discussion about why the fares have increased and why the travelling public have been burdened by those increases over the years. We need to have a debate—I hope that this will happen under the new Secretary of State—about how we should organise our railways. We cannot ignore the understanding and appreciation that now exists of the impact of privatisation. I would welcome a more open debate in which people took a more agnostic approach to privatisation, rather than an ideologically committed one, as has been the case in the past.

I refer Members to the “Rebuilding Rail” report, which came out a couple of months ago. It looked at the value-for-money arguments of the existing franchising mechanism and compared the public subsidy that was put into British Rail with the current subsidy. That independent report found that public subsidy had doubled under the franchising system from £2.4 billion to more than £5.4 billion. From 2005-06 to 2009-10, the average subsidy going into the privatised system was £1.2 billion a year. The total subsidy under privatisation is now nearly £12 billion.

When we have had this argument in the past, a number of Members from all parts of the House have argued that the private companies that operate the franchises are paying a premium and putting money back into the system. I pay tribute to the detailed work of John Stittle, the senior lecturer in accounting at the university of Essex, in the “Rebuilding Rail” report. He looked at how the money has, in effect, been laundered through Network Rail. We have increased the public subsidies to Network Rail, resulting in a reduction in the track operational costs for private companies, which has enabled them to pay the premiums. Under privatisation, there has been a straightforward subsidy from the taxpayer to the private companies to run the system, the passengers have been hit by high fares, and the premiums that the companies pay back to the state, which they extol the virtues of, have actually been paid for by subsidies laundered through Network Rail. That is why we need a re-examination of the whole structure. I hope that we will now have that open debate.

The “Rebuilding Rail” report shows—this is partly reflected by McNulty—that the high costs that are resulting in high fares are a result of the complex structure of the franchising system. It highlights other issues such as the higher interest payments that were paid to keep Network Rail’s debts off the Government balance sheet; the debt write-offs that have occurred under privatisation; and the costs arising from the fragmentation of the system between numerous organisations and subcontractors, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out. The profit margins of the complex tiers of contractors and subcontractors are forcing rail fares up, because of their high costs. The level of the dividend payments to private investors is unacceptable to the travelling public when fares are increasing. As I said, there is an average subsidy of £1.2 billion a year and more than £11 billion of public funds have been paid out so far.

I hope that we will have some new thinking. I hope that we will again look at public ownership as an option. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion demonstrated, although it was dismissed by the Liberal spokesperson, that independent examination of the matter has shown that public ownership could be reintroduced in the railway system at virtually zero cost. As the franchises end, they can be brought back into public ownership, as has happened with two franchises, at no additional cost. Even if the Government are not willing to go as far as the full renationalisation of the railway system, as I would wish, it is open to them to keep at least one franchise in the public sector to be the benchmark against which other franchises are judged. That would enable the system to be evaluated properly and for pressure to be placed on the private sector element of the system.

I hope that with a new Secretary of State and a new Transport team, we can have a constructive dialogue. However, I cannot see a constructive dialogue coming from passengers if they are hit in successive years by fare increases. Although I will vote for the Opposition motion, my view is not just that fares should be frozen or capped, but that the travelling public deserve a cut in fares. Many passengers feel that they are being fleeced, both through increased fares and because they have to pay through their taxes for increased public subsidies while a number of the private companies make unacceptable levels of profit.

Two weeks ago, when the franchising issue broke, Branson, the head of Virgin, expressed his concerns about losing the franchise. One article repeated the quotation from his finance director when the privatisation of the railways first happened: that it was their opportunity literally to print money. That is what many of the private companies have done as a result of the franchising system. I believe that that is obscene, as will many passengers when they face further price increases in their fares. As the hon. Member for Northampton South said, that puts people’s ability to maintain their employment in jeopardy.

I welcome the new Secretary of State. I support the motion and hope that we can go further at a later date. I hope that with the new rail team, we can have a wider debate that is unfettered by the ideological commitment to privatisation that there has been in the past.

Rail Investment

John Leech Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The improvements will take place over the 2014 to 2019 period, as the project is developed and rolled out. I have worked hard to ensure that Sheffield has a good transport package from the Department. Another thing that I managed to get sorted out, which the right hon. Gentleman’s Government never did, was £3 million for a footpath bridge over the railway line, which will mean that his community and others around that area can get into Sheffield from the other side of the railway track. I believe that that, alongside the midland main line scheme and the capacity changes, means that by 2019 he will see a much better service.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The Labour chairman of Transport for Greater Manchester said of today’s announcement:

“Taken together, these investments will change the face of rail services in the North of England in a manner that has not been seen for several generations.

The Northern Hub and electrification programmes will be a catalyst to help drive economic growth across the north”.

I could not agree more. Does that not prove the commitment of the coalition Government to rebalancing the economy and bringing investment and jobs to the north of England?

[Justine Greening]

Absolutely it does. It is this Government who have brought forward the investment plans for the northern hub and been prepared to finance them and it is this Government who have gone on with High Speed 2, which is critical in the longer term for improving connectivity across the whole country. It will particularly benefit the great northern cities, one of which the hon. Gentleman represents.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

Sir David Higgins has come up with some great ideas exactly along the lines the hon. Lady mentions, which could considerably reduce the cost of delivering electrification. However, it is still expensive and still has to be affordable, so we will have to look at priorities.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Has the Secretary of State now calculated the cost associated with increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph and the increased number of casualties expected as a result of such a measure?

[Justine Greening]

We would quantify the pros and cons of any move to 80 mph as part of the consultation we would publish, and obviously an impact statement would also be needed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to reach an informed conclusion on this policy area and will announce our next steps shortly.

Transport and the Economy

John Leech Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I want to take this opportunity to raise the issue of declining rural bus services, especially in County Durham and in Sedgefield.

County Durham is a rural area and home to many villages, most of which had a colliery at one time. When the collieries were open, people did not have very far to travel, but now that the collieries have closed many people find that they have to travel a long way, and many miles, to get to work, so a reliable public bus service is a necessity.

The bus service is required not only for work, but by young people who want to go to college; by the elderly, who might want to go to hospital or to a medical appointment; by the same groups of people to see friends and family; especially by young people just starting out on their career, who may not have the money to buy a car and need the bus to get to work; and by people on low incomes. We need to think also of the unemployed, who might see a job in the newspaper or in the jobcentre that they would love to do, but who know that they cannot apply for it because there is no bus service to take them to the factory or the office.

Concerns about local bus services have risen up the political agenda not only in areas such as Sedgefield over the past couple of years, but in the rest of County Durham. I have a steady flow of complaints from constituents who are incensed at the cuts to services, especially by Arriva, which pulls services at the last moment, without any notification or consultation. Any cancellation of a route is not well advertised. On more than one occasion, whole villages have been left without any services whatsoever. When I compare the services that Arriva has in County Durham with those that it has in London, I think, yes, we should have an excellent public transport service in the capital city, but we need something equivalent in our rural areas as well, with regulation to ensure that there is a social obligation on privatised bus companies to ensure that people can get to work.

Bus services are being cut in our rural areas as part of the expenditure cuts to address the deficit. There has been a 28% fall in funding for councils, combined with the ending of ring-fencing of grants for bus services, a 20% cut in the bus service operators grant paid to bus companies, and a shake-up of the free travel scheme for pensioners. Pensioners now often say, “What is the point of a bus pass if there are no buses to catch because they have been cancelled?” As a consequence of all these cuts, Durham county council has withdrawn £322,000 in funding from subsidised public transport routes, leaving many villages with few or no services in the evening or at the weekend. My postbag has been full of letters and petitions about the repercussions of the changes brought about by spending cuts originating in Whitehall.

Let me explain what this has meant in practice for people needing these services in the rural communities of Sedgefield—villages such Bishop Middleham and Fishburn, as well as Middleton St George, which is in the south of the constituency. One local constituent can no longer get to work without the help of friends, and others can no longer catch a bus and so have to use a taxi, which obviously inflates the cost of getting to work.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who face a problem with bus services, but does he accept that this is not a new phenomenon? Rural bus services have been poor in many areas for a long time, and the previous Labour Government did nothing about reintroducing any sort of regulation in areas such as County Durham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of our Select Committee, on securing this debate and opening it this afternoon. The contributions so far have been varied, covering a wide range of transport issues from up and down the country. I want to concentrate on the specific elements of the Committee’s “Transport and the economy” report that deal with the role of transport in rebalancing the economy.

During this time of economic uncertainty, transport must be a key factor in stimulating growth. To their credit, the coalition Government have learned from the mistakes made by previous Governments during economic downturns and prioritised investment in transport infrastructure. While other Departments saw an average reduction in capital expenditure of 29%, the transport capital programme was reduced by only 11%, with Treasury forecasts that by 2014-15 capital investment would be higher in real terms than it was in 2005-06. This has meant that a number of capital schemes have been able to go ahead that would almost certainly have faced the axe in previous economic downturns.

As a northern MP representing south Manchester, I welcome the Government’s commitment to economic rebalancing and reducing the north-south divide. This received a cautious welcome, I would say, in the Select Committee report. Transport funding has consistently favoured London and the south-east to the detriment of areas of the north and the south-west. If we are to see a rebalancing of the economy, this needs to be reflected in current and future transport funding.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

On that issue, I share the view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that some projects in the south are essential to UK inward investment. More specifically, I would say that Heathrow is the only hub airport in Europe that does not have a rail link to its immediate hinterland. It has one to London, but nothing to the Thames valley, which is the most productive area for inward investment in the UK and is obviously essential to get growth in Britain.

[Mr Leech]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is fair to say that the Government have prioritised some schemes in London and the south-east—the Crossrail project, for instance, which has received an enormous amount of money. Other parts of the country have certainly received significantly less funding over a long period.

There are some encouraging signs, however. In Manchester, rail capacity and journey times will benefit greatly from the additional electrification work, including that of the TransPennine Express, and the funding for the Ordsall chord. Congestion will be eased with the completion of the airport link road—a scheme for which my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) have been campaigning for many years. Metrolink extensions have also been given the green light and are under construction, including within my constituency.

From a Manchester perspective, two projects hold the key to whether the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy will be followed through to its conclusion. The first is high-speed rail, and the second and more urgent is the funding for the northern hub, which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be sick of me raising with him on so many occasions.

The debate about high-speed rail will drag on, with supporters and opponents making arguments and counter-arguments about whether the real economic benefits are predominantly for London and the south-east. However, what cannot be disputed is the fact that the north will see the greatest possible level of benefit only once high-speed rail reaches Manchester and Leeds. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the next phase of the high-speed rail network, but I want to know what the Government are doing about bringing forward the timetable, so that we do not have to wait another 20 years before we reap the full benefits.

I recognise that for once the Government are looking towards our transport needs for the next 100 years rather than for the next 10 years, but we need to do more to bring forward the time scale so that the regions can benefit as soon as humanly possible.

From Manchester’s perspective, however, the real test for the Government will be whether or not funding will be forthcoming for the northern hub. With £80 million already secured for the Ordsall chord, the complete hub scheme will cost only £560 million in total—and possibly less, given that some elements of the project are already included in other committed individual schemes. We should compare this to the billions of pounds that the Government have committed for Crossrail.

In a Westminster Hall debate in January, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is not in his place this afternoon, calculated that three months of Crossrail payments would pay for the whole of the northern hub. I am not sure how accurate the hon. Gentleman’s maths is, but it certainly puts into perspective the difference in funding levels for the two schemes. At a cost-benefit ratio of 4:1, with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs and a £4 billion boost to the economy, the northern hub is the opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to rebalancing the economy.

I questioned the Minister of State, Department for Transport during the Select Committee inquiry, and she said that the northern hub

“must be a really strong contender for support in the next railway funding settlement control period.”

She went on to confirm the Government’s intention to try to close the prosperity gap between the regions, saying:

“One of the ways in which we could do that is by targeting our transport spending on projects which will generate growth in different regions.”

Well, I could not agree more. If the Government are serious about economic rebalancing, they need to confirm the funding for the northern hub, and not just in a piecemeal way. The Government need to come up with all the cash in control period 5.

In the short time left, I should like briefly to raise two other issues mentioned in our report. The first relates to the dependence of transport priorities on local circumstances. A one-size-fits-all or a Government-know-best approach will not work. In line with the coalition Government’s localism agenda, there needs to be more local determination of what works in each local area. National Government is not well placed to decide what is best for an individual area and what will best support economic growth. Metrolink has been a massive success in Manchester, driving economic growth and stimulating regeneration to areas such as Salford Quays and Eccles, as well as encouraging modal shift in areas such as my constituency.

The need for local decision making was reflected in the report’s conclusions—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Select Committee’s report on transport and the economy. It has given many hon. Members the chance to raise constituency concerns, which I hope the Minister will respond to when he sums up.

I was going to say that it was noticeable that almost all the speakers in the debate were MPs representing towns, cities and rural areas in the north, but then we had contributions from the hon. Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), which broke the flow somewhat. None the less, I am sure the Minister will want to reflect on the implications for Government policy of the concerns expressed by northern MPs and the fact that good transport links are demanded by the north.

The Select Committee report looks at the big picture and asks some searching questions of the Government, which the Minister must answer. At the heart of the report is the Committee’s conclusion that Ministers have failed to explain how their decisions on investment in transport will deliver the economic growth and rebalancing they say are needed. Of course that could be a failure of communication, but I think it is a failure arising from the absence of any strategy or joined-up thinking from this Government.

People throughout the country know that the biggest and most pressing problem we face is the lack of jobs and growth. There are 2.7 million people on the dole—the highest number for 17 years—representing a huge cost to the economy in benefit payments and lost tax, a huge cost to the individuals affected and their families, and a cost to their local communities, many of which, especially in the north, are all too aware of the long-term scarring effects of unemployment. The Government should have a laser-like focus on using every aspect of policy to turn things around by creating jobs, supporting industry and getting our economy moving.

Transport should have a key role to play, but time and again we have seen this Government take decisions that send us in the opposite direction. It is not just that they have cut spending too far and too fast, but that they have made the wrong choices. Labour has not opposed £6 billion of difficult and painful cuts to the transport budget—two thirds of the cuts proposed by Ministers—but we would have made different decisions about how to spend the remaining money to protect passengers and deliver the maximum benefit to our economy. Labour would have protected additional investment in the rail and road network as part of a five-point plan for growth and jobs.

[Mr Leech]

From what the hon. Lady has said, a Labour Government would have been forced to cut capital spending even further.

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. As I said, we have not opposed £6 billion of difficult cuts to the transport budget, whether that is capital or revenue funding, but we would have maintained a further £3 billion and we would have spent it in different ways, as I will set out.

We would have protected £500 million for road schemes vital to economic growth, providing a much-needed boost to our construction industry. We would have made sure the £435 million needed for essential road maintenance went ahead, saving the taxpayer money in the long term, according to the National Audit Office. Labour would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget; we would have put passengers first and tackled affordability. We would not have allowed the private train operating companies to boost their profits with eye-watering fare rises of up to 11% this January, 5% more than the RPI plus 1% that the Government told passengers they could expect, which means that some people are spending more on their fare to work than they do on their mortgage or rent. That is not helping to make work pay; it is just adding to the cost-of-living crisis that households are already facing.

Labour would put working people first by taking on the vested interests. We would not have given back to train companies the right to fiddle the fare cap, so that when we said that fare rises would be limited to inflation plus 1%, the public would know that that was the maximum rise they would face at the ticket office. We would also have been able to bring forward the much-needed electrification of the midland main line that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, pointed out, is so important to improving connectivity between London, Northamptonshire and four of the largest cities in the country: Derby, Leicester, Sheffield and, of course, my own city of Nottingham. We would have started the electrification of the great western main line, but we would have gone right through to Swansea, rather than stop at Cardiff.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

Leicester and the communities around it have been running a very good campaign on this issue. The Government have made it clear that we see the progressive electrification of the rail network as an important part of our transport and environmental policy. The electrification of the midland main line has been prioritised by the industry in its initial industry plan, which will form an important part of the decisions that we have to make on what will be funded in the next railway control period. We will give further details in our HLOS statement in July.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Given the recent disappointing Christmas drink-drive statistics, is it now time to revisit the decision not to accept the North review’s recommendation to reduce the drink-drive limit?

[Mike Penning]

I was not as disappointed by the Christmas drink-drive campaign as the hon. Gentleman was. Any drink-driving is wrong, and it should not happen, but we targeted specific areas—namely, those who drink excessively and younger drivers—and that campaign was successful. We will continue to push to ensure that people understand that they should not drink and drive, and that if they do they will be prosecuted.

Cycling

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate. I also congratulate The Times on its campaign. This debate is happening in Back-Bench time. It is an illustration of how Back-Bench time has enabled the House to be topical. Perhaps that flexibility was not there before. One reason why the Backbench Business Committee awarded time today was because the hon. Member for Cambridge made the case that it would be topical to hold this debate at a time when our constituents are so engaged with the issue. I will also say, for the record, that debates that have been this well subscribed in Westminster Hall have on occasion bid successfully for more time.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The hon. Lady may not be aware that I presented a ten-minute rule Bill on Tuesday, which incorporates many aspects of The Times cycling campaign. If the Minister could persuade the Leader of the House to find time for a Second Reading of my Bill, we would be able to further debate the merits of this campaign and bring it into legislation.

Civil Aviation Bill

John Leech Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The Bill cannot deliver absolutely everything in respect of the aviation industry. It will, however, deliver a key element of the regulatory framework that will sit alongside how the industry operates. Competition is working. We need only consider the investment that both Heathrow and Gatwick are putting into winter resilience to see that passengers will make a choice between those two airports based on which one they believe they can rely on. As a result, we are seeing competition lead to far more investment on that side of airport operations. I have seen that development for myself, and I greatly welcome it. Providing the CAA with these new powers will promote effective competition by enabling the CAA to make use of its specialist knowledge and to co-ordinate its use of economic regulation and general competition powers.

Turning to modernising the regulators’ wider role, part 2 of the Bill includes changes to how the CAA operates by improving transparency and accountability, removing unnecessary Government funding and involvement and cutting red tape. Transparent information is of huge benefit to the public. It gives all of us as consumers the means, if we want to use them, to compare different services on offer to us and to judge for ourselves which we want to buy. In keeping with this approach, clauses 83 and 84 introduce two new information duties for the aviation regulator, to serve the interests both of consumers and those affected by air travel.

The CAA would arrange for consumer information to be published to help passengers and freight users make more informed choices about what is on offer, while having regard to the principle that the benefits of information should outweigh the cost. Similarly, the CAA would publish information for the public about the environmental effects of civil aviation in the UK, and the measures taken to limit environmental harm. What is more, it would be able to use both those powers to issue advice and guidance to the industry so that it can improve standards of service and operate more sustainably. As we modernise the legislative framework, we are taking the opportunity to give the CAA new freedoms to appoint its own executive directors and to carry out criminal proceedings without recourse to Government. As criminal proceedings can be both slow and costly, the Bill would also enable the Secretary of State to give the CAA powers to enforce existing offences through civil sanctions where they are more proportionate.

The Bill also includes some other measures enabling the disclosure of anonymised medical data about aviation workers who are subject to health checks by the CAA. That would pave the way for valuable medical research into the particular health risks for specialist workers such as flight crew and air traffic controllers.

Let me move on to our proposals to improve the regulation of aviation security. This section of the Bill is relatively short, amounting to just five clauses and two schedules, but I know the House will rightly consider it carefully. Above everything else, passengers expect the highest levels of safety and security.

For me, keeping people safe and secure when they travel is and will continue to be of key importance. At present, aviation safety is regulated by the CAA while security regulation is carried out by officials in the Department. The CAA has an excellent track record as a safety regulator, as good as any in the world, and it has empowered our airlines and airports to develop safety management systems that keep safety at the heart of their operations, striving for ever safer and more efficient systems. That is why I believe there would be real benefits to bringing the CAA’s impressive specialist expertise to the regulation of aviation security.

In the past, security regulation has been criticised for being too process-driven, too often relying on a tick-box approach. Although those arrangements have kept people safe, too often their inflexibility has caused frustration on the ground at airports. There would be attractive benefits for passengers if we could empower the experts to find the best and most efficient way of maintaining the highest levels of security for air travel. That means more involvement from the experts in aviation operations, which can bring real benefits. Of course, it is essential that the Secretary of State should stay responsible for aviation security policy and for giving security directions, although it also makes sense for the specialist expert regulator to have a role in maintaining and improving aviation security. Consequently, the Bill includes provisions for the CAA to keep under review security directions made by the Secretary of State and for it to provide advice and assistance to the industry and Government. With its track record in handling safety, I believe the CAA will approach those new responsibilities with the rigour they deserve.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Can we be assured that the transfer of staff from the Department to the CAA will not result in a loss of expertise in the security sector within the Department for Transport?

[Justine Greening]

We have considered that very closely and it is one reason why these changes will not happen overnight. They will take place over the next two to three years so that we can ensure we get the right staff transferred with the right expertise. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a wealth of security expertise within the Department and across Government and that will still be there for us to draw on within the Department for Transport. I am assured of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is completely naive in his approach to Ken Livingstone’s proposals on fares. Livingstone’s numbers simply do not add up, and his track record shows that he promises fare reductions and ends up delivering fare hikes.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that no station operator should be allowed to close ticket offices where there are any real concerns about security and safety as a result of creating an unmanned station?

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly, if we were to change the way ticket offices operate, we would need to look carefully at all safety and security consequences, as well as taking into account the concerns of the disabled community and pensioners. However, we do need to look at ticket offices as part of the process of reducing costs on the railways, in order to deliver the better value for money that passengers want. We need to do that because the way passengers are buying tickets is changing. Oyster in London demonstrates that there are some high-quality alternatives to the ticket queue. If we can roll those out more widely, which we plan to do with ITSO smart ticketing, that will make a difference to our approach to future decisions on ticket offices.