Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Approximately 3% of accidents are a result of vehicle defects, and he is also right that many of the representations against the review have come from those whose businesses would be affected by it. I have been very clear, however, and as a new Secretary of State it is right that I consider all the points that have been made. I will make an announcement shortly.

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

Before the election, an Opposition MP wrote:

“I share your concern about the potential implications of moving to the European standard of roadworthiness testing. It seems to me that the road safety and environmental costs of moving from annual to biannual testing, and extending the initial period from three to four years, may far outweigh the predicted costs savings.”

Given that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Secretary of State hold discussions with him in order to avoid the Government making a fundamental mistake on changes to MOT testing?

[Justine Greening]

I do not think I can add anything further about my approach to looking at this area, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the portfolio of transport that I now look after, and I will continue to do so.

High-Speed Rail

John Leech Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

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

Members may wonder why we are having yet another debate on High Speed 2. In fact, we are not; we are having a debate on high-speed rail in the north. I requested this debate partly because when we discussed the issue in the main Chamber a couple of weeks ago, I felt that there were not enough contributions from the north, and I wanted to rebalance the equation. I do not want to debate the merits of HS2 today, and I do not really want to talk about anything south of Birmingham if I can help it. I want the debate to focus on the north, and I do not intend to stop at the Scottish border. I deliberately used the word “north” to encourage Scottish Members to participate in the debate.

I will try to make clear the terms of the debate, and also state what the debate is not. I used the phrase “high-speed rail in the north” to ensure that the debate was not about HS2—which to my mind is ultra high speed—but about high-speed rail as a concept. Equally, I make a plea for a slightly more consensual style, compared to previous debates. New infrastructure projects understandably excite high passions, but wandering into Prime Minister’s questions wearing a colourful badge that cannot be read by anyone watching TV, let alone other Members, does not benefit either set of arguments, and diminishes the dignity of the House. That does not mean, however, that we have to accept a mushy consensus on infrastructure projects. I accept that we will disagree, but I hope that we can do so in a polite and measured way.

If I were given billions of pounds to spend on transport in the north of England, would I immediately reach for high-speed rail links to London? Perhaps not. When “The Northern Way” transport compact first got going in 2006-07, it did not mention high-speed rail because that was simply not on the agenda. It focused on improved connectivity in the north of England, rather than between the north and the south, and it highlighted the importance of the trans-Pennine corridor. That importance was emphasised by the Government’s switch from the S-route to the Y-route, together with the issue of what to do with the Woodhead tunnels. I would also welcome a little reassurance from the Minister on the northern hub. Even if it is to be delivered in parts, will the sum of those parts still equal the whole of the vision? I trust that it will.

We must consider how we differ from our European counterparts. If I think of the Liverpool-Manchester metropolis, it rather reminds me of the Rhine-Ruhrgebiet in Germany, another heavily industrialised urban area. One difference, however, between this country and the Rhine-Ruhr area is the comparatively poor transport links found in our metropolises. We can learn a lot just by looking at Germany for a change.

I have no shortage of material for this debate, and although I could probably speak for an hour and a half without trying, I promise that I have no intention of doing so. I will try to take a step back and look at some of the more thematic policy issues and the effect that a decision to proceed with any form of high-speed rail north of Birmingham will have on Government policy making. I do not want to see half-baked solutions that run to other people’s political timetables.

Quality of policy making is crucial; it is what I came into politics to try to improve, and no matter what party is in power, I think that the quality and detail of public policy making in this country is bad. The quality of our understanding of transport in the north of England is, to my mind, entirely due to work by “The Northern Way” over the past five years, and I mourn its loss greatly. I do not blame the Government entirely for that loss, and it is a shame that many of the local actors who had the chance to fund “The Northern Way” after the closure of the regional development agencies did not take the opportunity to do so. The loss of “The Northern Way” has created a fundamental problem, because we have lost the pan-northern perspective and the ability to weigh up differing priorities in Yorkshire, the north-west and the north-east. We are seeing a retreat back to lists of regional priorities, with Manchester wanting one thing, Liverpool another, and Leeds something else, and there is no body that tries to pull those things together and says, “Your proposal is slightly better than that one.” We need some form of co-ordinating body that would allow such prioritisation.

I participated in the Transport Committee inquiry into high-speed rail—I assure hon. Members that it was a mammoth undertaking, and I do not think that my life will ever be the same—so I know how much controversy there has been not only over the detail of the route, but about which field the line will or will not go through, how noisy or quiet it will be, how big this will be and how small that will be. We have perhaps never seen such controversy over a single infrastructure project. The debate was based on the single premise—the single fallacy—that merely building infrastructure automatically promotes economic growth. It does not. It is not a case of “Build it and they will come”; we need look only at so-called Stratford International station to know that. Stratford International station in east London is remarkable in having no international train services—most impressive. It is a classic example of the sort of white elephant that those of us who are concerned about levels of public expenditure do not wish to see.

The Department for Transport’s promotion of high-speed rail has focused on the three Ls—Lille, Lyon and Lleida—as examples of how investment in high-speed rail in Europe has brought economic growth to the surrounding areas. However, for every city named by the DFT, the anti-high-speed rail campaign provides an alternative, and says that high-speed rail makes no difference at all, is a total waste of money and that we should not bother. At the end, it is rather like the Eurovision song contest on a city basis, with “nul points for Zaragoza,” and “dix points for Brussels.” That is not informative, and what matters is not so much the location, the name of the city or how good its PR effort is, but what the local government in the area chooses to do in response to hearing that it will get a high-speed rail link. That critical variable is often overlooked in the debate.

In evidence to the Transport Committee, Professor Tomaney from Newcastle university stated:

“The stations themselves do not, on their own, provide those development opportunities. What is required is much larger-scale economic development planning.”

Hon. Members may think that I, a Conservative, would hide my head under the desk at that statement—“How could he possibly suggest economic planning? What an appalling thing to do!”—but it is more subtle than that. If we know that a high-speed rail link will go to the centre of Manchester, we have to deal not only with issues of dispersal, an integrated transport system and whether the buses and suburban trains interlink, but wider policy issues about housing and jobs, and schools policy in particular, which is often overlooked in transport planning. We should look at the wider policy, not just at issues of transport, and as the Government move forward and consider how to progress with high-speed rail, they must look at more than just transport.

There are risks, and it is silly to pretend that high-speed rail will be only a good thing and that nothing bad could ever happen. Professor Roger Vickerman also gave evidence to the Transport Committee, and pointed out that although the arrival of the TGV in Lyon and Lille benefited those two cities, it also sucked in some of the economic activity from towns in their immediate peripheries. Unless the correct decisions are taken locally, high-speed rail could arrive in one city and cause a diminution in economic activity in a neighbouring city, suburb or minor area. That is a possibility, but certainly not a given. There are no givens in this debate because, as I say, the situation depends entirely on the decision making at local and regional level. Whether someone is a supporter or a detractor—a friend or foe—of high-speed rail, they have to agree that that must be part of the debate, and I argue strongly that it has been absent from the debate so far.

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

As a fellow member of the Transport Committee I, too, was on the visit to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Although we heard that argument made in Lille, in Frankfurt we heard a counter-argument: the Frankfurt to Cologne line had a significant impact in improving the whole region, not just the two places where there was a station. People argued strongly in Frankfurt that there was a benefit for the whole region between those two areas.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is correct and almost makes my point for me: it is horses for courses. We can all point to examples of high-speed rail achieving one thing in one area and a different thing in another. The most interesting aspect of the German example that he points to is that Frankfurt is at the confluence of about four different Länder. It is quite difficult for Frankfurt to have regional planning when, at the level at which that tends to occur, it has about four different bodies to try to liaise with. That again shows the difficulties, but also that if the will is there, the correct decisions can be made that lead to economic growth.

That is perhaps the challenge that we have to face: at what level do we seek to take the decisions? I am firmly of the view that local transport consortiums—or whichever range of acronyms we wish to append to the matter this week—are crucial for moving forward. I would welcome information from the Government on how that is progressing. We can point to Transport for Greater Manchester as a very good example of what can be done. It is interesting and welcome that the differing integrated transport authorities are all moving at what I suggest is a slightly different pace in their own particular direction. Standardisation is being lost, and there is, I think, more local sensibility. That can only be a good thing, but it still does not resolve the problem that I shall refer to, with apologies to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), as the Skelmersdale problem. I mean no disrespect to that fine town.

Skelmersdale is in the travel-to-work area of at least two major conurbations—Manchester and Liverpool—yet it is not in either the Greater Manchester or Merseyside city regions. It is in the district of West Lancashire. That poses a challenge for transport planning, because we seem to have in this country a culture that says, “You are where you are. You are defined by your boundaries, not by your economic patterns or what actually happens in an area.” We also seem to have an unwritten rule that says, “You can only be in one club at any one time. You can’t be in both the Greater Manchester area and the Merseyside area at the same time. Heaven forfend!” That has consequences, as I hope the hon. Lady would agree, for her constituents, in terms of improving transport links to both the main areas.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I shall be brief to allow others time to contribute. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), my colleague on the Transport Committee, on securing the debate.

It is good to see that the subject is the impact of high-speed rail in the north, rather than concerns about its impact on particular constituencies. I am conscious that the debate about high-speed rail has so far been dominated by MPs with understandable concerns about the effect of HS2 on their constituencies and the lives of their constituents. I would not decry any hon. Member for doing their job in representing the interests of their constituents. Any infrastructure project of this size will cause a significant amount of disruption and heartache for the people it affects.

I have personal experience of the issue in my constituency, because of the difficulties with the Metrolink extensions, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has mentioned. Constituents have understandable concerns about changes to the local infrastructure and the impact of those changes on their lives. I understand why some residents turn against schemes that they support in principle, because of incidents in their area. That is why it is vital that the decisions that are made about the local environment and how it will be protected are clear and transparent to the people most affected on the particular route. No doubt we will have the same issue to contend with when there is more clarity about the exact routes through to the north of England, once the decisions about those routes have been made.

The last time that I took part in a debate on high-speed rail, it was timely because the Transport Committee was about to embark on its inquiry into high-speed rail. By coincidence, this debate comes the day after the Committee took quite some time to discuss the draft report. After listening to all the arguments, both for and against, I am even more convinced of the need to press ahead with high-speed rail to the north and beyond. I have always been a strong supporter of creating a high-speed rail network that connects not only Birmingham and the west midlands but the northern cities of Manchester and Leeds, and Scotland. There is clear evidence that a new network is required to cope with capacity demands in the future, which is the principal argument for supporting high-speed rail to the north.

By pressing ahead with a high-speed rail network, we can ensure sufficient rail capacity for the foreseeable future. Some opponents of high-speed rail have argued that upgrading the existing main line networks would deal with any capacity constraints, but that would only address the problem in the short term. Ultimately, at some point a high-speed rail network will be necessary. For a change, we are considering long-term need rather than short-term necessity.

Some £10 billion has already been spent on upgrading the west coast main line, but on 1 March this year the new chief executive of Network Rail made it clear that the west coast main line would be at full capacity within six to 10 years. In answering my question, he said that

“the West Coast line, within 10 years at the absolute maximum, and probably six years, will be at capacity, and that is with additional carriages included in the area. We can look at other tactical interventions in that line to put more capacity in there, but in the end it comes down to capacity: we will, across a number of key parts of our network, run out of capacity.”

The chief executive of Network Rail is absolutely clear that, even with extra costly improvements, the west coast main line will not have enough capacity to deal with growth in rail travel. We need the high-speed rail network to accommodate future rail travel.

Competing services and franchises are already battling for space on the existing network. We in Manchester are lucky that we have three trains an hour to London—a train every 20 minutes. Due to the success of that franchise, Virgin wanted to extend the service to four trains an hour, but doing so would have adversely affected both local and regional services, and so Virgin’s plans were opposed locally. At every review of timetables, certain services lose out. As attempts are made to tweak the timetable to optimise capacity and services, local trains are always the losers. The creation of a high-speed rail network will release significant capacity on the existing network, allowing the expansion of those regional and local services that are completely constrained at the moment by the needs of longer-distance inter-city services.

High-speed rail is about not only improving capacity, but economic benefits. The HS2 business case concluded that phase one to the west midlands would generate £20 billion in economic benefits, and the total benefits for the Y network to Leeds and Manchester were estimated at £44 billion, including an estimated £6 billion in wider economic impacts. Geoffrey Piper, the chief executive of the North West Business Leadership Team, has argued that HS2 is

“vital for the long term prosperity of the region.”

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has rightly mentioned our visit as members of the Transport Committee to France and Germany, where there are clearly big differences in the economic benefits of high-speed rail between different areas. What is certain, however, is that high-speed rail brings economic benefits.

My only word of caution about high-speed rail relates to the potential impact on investment in the classic railway network. The north of England is crying out for investment in the rail network, and we are desperate to see the announcement of funding for the northern hub in the next control period. Opponents of high-speed rail sometimes argue that we should not proceed with the scheme because it will result in a lack of investment in the existing network as all the money is diverted into paying for the high-speed network. That must not happen, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will not happen.

The coalition Government have already shown a commitment to investing in rail infrastructure despite the difficult economic times. In Manchester, we all warmly welcomed the announcement in the Budget of funding for the Ordsall curve—or the Ordsall chord, or whatever people might want to call it. That project will have a dramatic impact on capacity and journey times. The investment in high-speed rail must not come at the expense of investment in the existing rail network. Instead the two must go hand-in-hand to ensure that Manchester and the rest of the north of England reap the full benefits of high-speed rail.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the impact of privatisation. More people currently travel by rail than at any time since the 1920s, and reliability levels are high. I acknowledge that reliability on the east coast line should be better, however, and both East Coast and Network Rail are focused on that, as is my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). We do think that reliability needs to improve on the east coast line, but we also believe that, overall, privatisation of the railways has brought some tremendous benefits, including increasing passenger numbers.

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

Will the Minister ensure that any changes to rail franchise specifications will not necessarily involve the loss of ticket offices at local stations?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Government will carefully consider the McNulty review recommendations, including in the context of the specifications we put in place for rail franchises. Many of the decisions about ticket offices are addressed in what is known as the ticketing settlement agreement, and we will also consider that. We need to get the balance right by modernising the system so that it reflects the fact that the many new ways of buying tickets—such as the increasing use of smarter ticketing and internet purchasing—will in future change what we require from ticket offices, while also ensuring that people have the right channels through which to buy tickets.

Coastguard Modernisation

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

If the hon. Lady had listened more carefully, she would have understood that there is no difference between Swansea and Milford Haven in terms of operational, technical or financial considerations. The professional advice we received was that either of those centres could provide the service required. Before the hon. Lady gets on her high horse about this, she should remember that the proposal my hon. Friend the shipping Minister inherited from the previous Administration when coming into office in May 2010 would have provided a single coastguard station in the whole of Wales. What we are proposing today gives Wales two coastguard stations and a very effective solution to protect the safety of Welsh coastal communities and seafarers.

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

The shipping Minister should be applauded for the fact that the consultation process has led to the remaining stations being a 24-hour operation. That was very important, but can the Secretary of State clarify how these stations will operate alongside the proposed single maritime operations centre and can he assure me that this will not lead to any scaling down of operations at the remaining centres?

[Mr Hammond]

We have already set out how the local stations will operate, with 23 full-time equivalent staff. They will be permanently networked with the marine operations centre, which will have 96 staff in total, so that each centre will deal with a core base load of work, but will easily be able to transfer overload work via the marine operations centre, either to be handled at that centre or to be transmitted on to another centre elsewhere in the UK that is experiencing low work load at the time. This will be a genuinely national networked solution.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is significant capacity in our regional airport runways. We have to recognise that the demand for aviation growth in the UK is not just an aggregate demand—it has a certain geographical distribution—but I am keen that the regional airports play a role in meeting that demand. I believe that the high-speed rail project will help them to do so.

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

As part of the review, will the Secretary of State discuss with the Treasury the viability of having an APD holiday for new long-haul routes from regional airports to improve their competitiveness with south-east airports and airports on the continent?

High-Speed Rail

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Walker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. As I am mindful of the time, I certainly will not take my six minutes.

This is a timely debate, given that the Transport Committee is about to embark on an inquiry into high-speed rail. I urge the many right hon. and hon. Members who show a keen interest in the issue to make their views known so that our inquiry can take them into consideration when reaching a decision on the strategic viability of high-speed rail.

To put my cards on the table, I have always been a big supporter of creating a high-speed rail network that not only connects Birmingham and the northern cities of Manchester and Leeds but goes all the way to Scotland and allows rail services from Scotland to compete with domestic flights. At the same time, I recognise that an infrastructure project of such size can create a great deal of controversy, and that it will have a terrible impact on some people who live along the line.

I certainly would not decry any hon. Member for doing their job in representing their constituents’ concerns. Any infrastructure project of such a size will cause significant disruption and heartache for the people whom it affects. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), given the impact that the project will have on his constituents.

In my constituency, the extension of the Metrolink is certainly causing a significant amount of heartache among many of my constituents who support the project on the whole but have problems with non-adherence to promises made before work was commenced. One can understand why some residents turn against schemes and have major concerns about their impact. That is why it is vital that clear and transparent decisions are made about the local environment and how it will be protected for the people most affected by the route, and that those decisions are stuck to. However, I certainly hope that high-speed rail will go ahead, and I will comment briefly on why I think it must.

By pressing ahead with a high-speed rail network, we can ensure sufficient rail capacity for the foreseeable future. Some opponents have argued that upgrading the existing main line networks would deal with any capacity constraints, but that would only address the problem in the short term. Ultimately, a high-speed rail network will inevitably be necessary. We must consider the next 100 years, not just the next 10. Some £10 billion has already been spent on upgrading the west coast main line, yet on 1 March, the new chief executive of Network Rail made it clear that the west coast main line would be at full capacity again within six to 10 years. In an answer to my question, he said that

“the West Coast line, within 10 years at the absolute maximum, and probably six years, will be at capacity, and that is with additional carriages included in the area. We can look at other tactical interventions in that line to put more capacity in there, but in the end it comes down to capacity: we will, across a number of key parts of our network, run out of capacity.”

The chief executive of Network Rail is absolutely clear that even with extra costly improvements, the west coast main line will not have enough capacity to deal with the growth in rail travel. We need the high-speed network to accommodate future rail travel.

Competing services and franchises are already battling for space on the network. We in Manchester are lucky to have a good service to London. I suppose that I should declare an interest as a regular user of that service, including the 9 o’clock train this evening. Due to the success of the franchise, Virgin is considering extending the service to four trains an hour rather than three, but doing so would adversely affect both local and regional services, so the local integrated transport authority understandably opposes any additional trains on the Manchester to London service. The creation of a high-speed network will release significant capacity on the existing network, allowing the expansion of regional and local services that are completely constrained at the moment by the needs of longer distance services.

To add a word of caution, I hope that the Minister can put hon. Members’ minds at rest about the impact of spending on high-speed rail. Many people have argued that we should not proceed with high-speed rail because it will result in a lack of investment in the existing network as all the money is diverted into paying for the high-speed network. It is worth pointing out that the coalition Government have already shown a commitment to investing in rail infrastructure, despite the difficult economic times. Again, I welcome the announcement in the Budget of funding for the Ordsall curve in Manchester, which will have a dramatic impact on capacity and journey times, but I hope that she can assure us that high-speed rail will not get the go-ahead at the expense of investment in the existing network. I hope that she will make that clear in her remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Before I was interrupted, I was about to say that it is clear that a project of this size and scale will not be without controversy, which I shall come on to later. However, I certainly recognise the importance of increasing capacity and connectivity in rail, particularly in respect of the west coast main line and the Chiltern line. The previous Labour Government rightly assessed that improved transport capacity would be needed from the 2020s between our major cities, starting with the route from London to the west midlands, two of Britain’s largest conurbations. The projections show that by then, the west coast main line will be at capacity. It is projected that, by 2033, the average long-distance west coast main line train will be 80% full, with routine severe overcrowding for much of the time.

Perhaps there will be benefits from some of the suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West and others, but I also understand the argument that the development of the 335-mile Y-shaped network would bring our major cities closer together and, as such, create the potential to boost investment and economic growth in the north. I would like to ask the Government how much extra capacity they anticipate high-speed rail will bring, and what estimates they have made of the modal shift from air travel that would result from the extension.

Labour remains committed to investing in a world-class rail system, and high-speed rail could have an important role to play in delivering it. That is why we began this process in government. As Members will know, Labour has just embarked on a fundamental review of all its policies, which is exactly what the Conservatives did after the Prime Minister became leader of that party. We will look at all areas of policy, and fundamental questions will be asked about how we can make transport more affordable and help to reduce inequality and increase social mobility.

[Mr Leech]

In the past, the hon. Gentleman has been supportive of the concept of high-speed rail to Manchester and beyond. Does he agree with the assessment of the new chief executive of Network Rail about capacity on the west coast main line?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. As I have said, capacity on the west coast main line is of fundamental importance, and the issue must be resolved. We have to look at future capacity on rail lines and how we will deal with such issues. Clearly, everything will be on the table as part of our policy review, and we encourage as many members of the public as possible to get involved in our ongoing discussions, including those on both High Speed 2 and Rail Package 2; we need to study alternatives for viability as well. It would be unwise for any future support for high-speed rail not to be at the heart of that policy review when it involves a £30-billion commitment for future Parliaments. Perhaps the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) will be interested in that. In the meantime, the Government will have our support as they move forward with the next stage of planning the route.

Clearly, there is concern about the hybrid Bill that the Government propose. The Opposition have real doubts about their commitment to taking the planned high-speed rail line beyond Birmingham, as Labour had planned. They have decided not to use the forthcoming legislation to do that. As I have said in previous debates, we will support the Government if they want to put powers in the Bill to extend the line to Leeds and Manchester.

I wish to turn briefly to interoperability. If we are to proceed with high-speed rail, we need to look now at ways to integrate it with the traditional rail network. We also need to look at how we can maximise the benefits for rail all over the country, including London-based projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink. How will we plan for the wider impacts of high-speed rail, to ensure that the benefits are shared in other parts of the network? For instance, can the Minister tell us how many more fast trains to London there will be from places such as Coventry, Liverpool and Sheffield as a result of released capacity from the HS2 line? In short, what will be the benefit to areas not directly connected by high-speed rail?

Rail Investment

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I do not totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will explain why in a moment. My concern is that it now appears to be a deliberate Government policy to drive people off rail by increasing fares. Indeed, it seems rather perverse. It is true that Government policy is to increase fares by an average of RPI plus 3% . I must stress, though, that that is not an actual increase; it is an average. The reality could be a rise of RPI plus 8% for individual fares, which is a very great increase indeed. For example, the annual season ticket between Bournemouth and London would increase by £211 at RPI plus 3%, but by £645 if RPI plus 8% was applied, which is possible under the Government’s formula.

Current forecasts for the third quarter of 2011 are that RPI could be 3.9%, the base against which RPI for the following year is assessed. That means fares could rise by an average of 6.9% in 2012, with individual fares increasing by up to 11.9%. Those are significant increases and a matter of great concern. We all recognise that there are economic and financial problems, but it is disturbing to think that there could now be a national policy to price people off rail. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that concern.

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

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. No one wants to see fares rising, but the economic reality is that if we are to continue investing in the railways, we must increase fares. Does the hon. Lady not think that if we are moving from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, fares should increase by CPI plus 3% rather than RPI plus 3%.?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We must all recognise economic constraints, but we have to consider seriously the implications of any policy that might price people off rail.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. I recognise the Government policy context in which these decisions are taken.

Let me now draw attention to the issue of rolling stock. If people are going to be asked to pay more for their fares, it is reasonable to ask whether the rolling stock will be adequate to ensure that people have a reasonable journey. The more people pay, the more concerned they will be if the rolling stock is not adequate. The situation is extremely confusing. The announcements made by the Department for Transport on what rolling stock is to be provided, where and when have been unclear.

When our Committee issued its report last year, we expressed deep concern at the postponement in issuing the rolling stock plan for 1,300 new carriages that were expected by 2014, and at the uncertainty and confusion the delay was causing within the industry, but we recognised that the commitment to electrification legitimised the pause in assessing exactly what rolling stock was required and when. However, since then, little real progress has been made in delivering new carriages. Instead, we recently received another announcement by the Department that 2,100 new carriages would be delivered by 2019, 1,850 of which will be net additional vehicles. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) said, many of these are for the Crossrail and Thameslink projects, which will then lead to electric carriages on the network being cascaded to other parts of the country, including the north. If and when that happens, I hope that it will not be a matter of the north getting the cast-offs from the south. I expect the stock to be in good condition and well suited to meet the needs of the people in the north.

Given that the completion dates for both Crossrail and Thameslink have been delayed to 2018, will the Minister tell us when these much-needed carriages that the industry has been waiting for, will finally be delivered? How many of those carriages expected by 2014 will actually be delivered by that date?

[Mr Leech]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the previous Government did not have a good record on delivering on promised rolling stock?

[Mrs Ellman]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman may recall that previous reports of the Transport Committee during the time of the previous Government were not slow to criticise the inadequacies of the Government where we felt it was appropriate to do so, and rolling stock was one of those areas. We also have the ongoing saga of the new generation of InterCity trains. In November, the Government announced that they had narrowed their options for the replacement of the old InterCity 125s down to two: a bid from Agility Trains for a mixture of electric and hybrid trains; and a proposal for a fleet of all-new electric trains that could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. I know that many of my colleagues in Wales are anxious for that decision to be made because of the impact that it will have on the Great Western main line to Swansea. Again, the Government have not been very clear about what is happening regarding that line and I would be grateful for any clarification.

During the next control period, which is between 2014 and 2019, and beyond, it is extremely important that we have continuing and substantial investment in the rail network, improving it to accommodate passenger growth and to alleviate unacceptable overcrowding. One of the priorities for the next control period must be investment in the rail infrastructure in the north of England. Our Committee’s report shows very clearly how the south, particularly London, has benefited from rail investment. We support that investment, but we noted in the report that when we examined the amount of transport investment per head we found that there was three times as much in London and the south-east as in other regions of the country. We support investment in London and the south-east, but similar interest should be shown in the needs of the north.

The particular project that we recommended in our report was the northern hub. That bottleneck in the Manchester area critically affects the operation of both passenger and freight services right across the north of England, including in Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle. The Northern Way study concluded that addressing the northern hub could provide economic benefits worth up to £16 billion for the economy of the north.

Investing in the northern hub remains as important as ever. However, there is particular concern about that issue, because of what has happened to the organisations that brought the project together. The combined work of the three northern regional development agencies was very significant in developing the project, costing it and working out its implications and benefits. Sadly, the project for the northern hub—the Northern Way project—may no longer be supported because the RDAs are being disbanded. Indeed, it is very unclear what will happen to the organisation that has developed and costed that project in such great detail. I would be very pleased if the Minister could confirm that she will support that project as a top-priority project for the north in the period ahead.

The longer-term investment priority is the development of a high-speed network. Our Committee welcomed the previous Government’s change of policy when they decided to support high-speed rail. However, we emphasised that investment in high-speed rail should not detract from investment in the existing classic network. Moreover, if high-speed rail is important for the route from London to Birmingham—as the current Government have stated, and I agree with them—it is equally important that it extends to the north.

The case for high-speed rail has been put forward, based largely on the need for additional capacity for both passengers and freight. That argument is very important, but it is also very important that the economic impact of high-speed rail is recognised. Indeed, the Government have said as much many times. They have said that their support for high-speed rail is based on the need to reduce the disparities between north and south. That means that if high-speed rail goes ahead, as I hope it will, it must go beyond Birmingham to the north.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the conditions that many passengers are forced to face on our inter-city trains are analogous to those experienced by animals, even if their end destination is perhaps more pleasant.

[Mr Leech]

My hon. Friend has mentioned that he uses the west coast main line regularly, as do I. The trouble is that if the number of west coast main line trains from Manchester to London were increased from three to four an hour, it would have a detrimental impact on local services. That is why high-speed rail is so important in ensuring that we can maintain local and inter-regional services as well as the inter-city ones.

[Paul Maynard]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next point. I take entirely the point that the network of high-speed rail that has been mapped out links areas with a high concentration of service industries, which is key to saying that the predictions for demand are more robust than they were, for instance, in Spain, where Madrid and Seville were linked. Seville had a high level of heavy industry but no service industry, so no demand occurred.

I want to make a number of other points before concluding and allowing as many hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate. May I make a plea to the Minister on open-access rail? We have just seen the sad failure of the Wrexham and Shrewsbury service, which was a good example of open access, but it failed to make money. There are other examples around the country, such as Grand Central, which have shown that open access can work. I urge the Minister unambiguously to state her support for open access in the forthcoming White Paper, and indeed today, because many open access companies are uncertain about their future. In Blackpool, open access is perhaps our only chance of getting a link to London. I urge her, therefore, to make some positive noises on open access.

In conclusion, whenever we write reports, there is always the temptation to come up with a wish list, and I have fallen into the trap myself today by highlighting the northern hub. Wish lists are easy to make, but it is far harder to have a discussion and come to a view on how to prioritise policy making. How do we reconcile all the different competing local priorities that we each have in our constituencies with the apportioning of public money? That is not easy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed, and that is true not just of north-south routes, but other routes, too.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of ancient equipment on the railways. It was worthy in British Rail’s time, but we have moved on. One problem with privatisation is that companies have no great incentive to improve investment in such things when they are trying to run as profitably as possible with existing equipment. Some people, including Eddington, suggest that capacity on main lines could be doubled with modern signalling and more frequent running. We could have trains every 180 seconds on those routes if we get the modern signalling.

We have heard a lot about extra rolling stock. In the short term, there are more than 100 unused carriages in Ireland. They are essentially Mark IIIs, and they could be immediately imported, re-bogied and used on main lines in Britain. Actually, they are more modern than our Mark IIIs because they have automatic doors, rather than slam doors. They could be bought cheaply now and installed quickly on our routes. That is a short-term fix—obviously, we want more investment and more rolling stock to be built, particularly by Bombardier—but we can make such changes.

On the west coast main line, the maximum operating speed will be 130 mph because there are tighter curves than on the east coast main line. However, 130 mph operation with modern signalling and high-frequency trains would still be sufficient, particularly if we got freight off the lines. That brings me to my next proposal, which is to get freight off the lines. Those who know me well will know that I have been proposing for a long time that we have a dedicated freight route from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, which would link all of Britain’s main conurbations. Why do we need a dedicated freight line? When it comes to existing freight routes, passengers and freight do not mix. They have different operating speeds and so on. Time and again, when there is a bit of a problem with a passenger train, the freight trains will be parked on one side while the passengers are given priority—people get much more upset than freight when they are delayed. Of course, freight operators get upset, but they have to suffer. However, if we have a dedicated freight line with no passengers, we would overcome those problems.

[Mr Leech]

The hon. Gentleman has been a long-time supporter of a dedicated freight route, but is it not possible, with the onset of a High Speed 2 line, that the extra capacity on the existing network would be enough to provide extra routes for freight movement? I totally agree that we need to move more freight from road to rail, but with the onset of an additional, high-speed line there would surely be enough capacity on the existing mainline networks to provide the necessary service.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman raises the point that I want to address now. The problem with putting more freight on such routes is that it would be impossible to fund the provision of sufficient gauge. It would be prohibitively expensive to make all the tunnels, bridges, platforms and so on able to take freight. We must have trains these days that are capable of taking full-scale containers—that is W10—and I suggest a scheme that could take full-scale lorry trailers on trains. Hauliers would put their trailers on the trains and they would be taken straight through from Glasgow to Rome, or Rome to Glasgow. I have spoken to the logistics managers of big companies and asked whether they would like to bring their water, wine or whatever from Bordeaux, which is a favourite town of mine, to Birmingham. They say it would be wonderful—fabulous—to send it all the way on the train. What they do now is train it to the coast of the continent and then put it on lorries. That transit would become unnecessary. They could roll a trailer on in Rome or Bordeaux and roll it off in Birmingham or Glasgow.

The problem with trying to upgrade all the existing routes for freight is that there would have to be a through-operation for continental freight trains. They are larger gauge and cannot get through our platforms, because they are wider, or through our tunnels or under our bridges, because they are taller. Certainly we could never have lorry trailers or double stack containers, as we are suggesting. To get serious volumes of freight through, a dedicated freight route is needed, and that is what our scheme is about. As I have said, I have no pecuniary interest in it. I have been passionate about it ever since I heard about it some years ago, and I have spoken on many platforms. I took a team of people to see Geoff Hoon when he was Secretary of State for Transport; they included representatives of supermarkets, Eurotunnel, the rail constructors and AXA—the insurance giant that funds terminals. There were 15 of us. I think that we answered every question put to us adequately. We could not persuade the Secretary of State then, but I hope that the present Government may listen sympathetically, at least.

What I propose could be done very cheaply. We have a precise route, which would involve only 14 miles of new route, nine of which would be in tunnels. The route would, as I have mentioned, use the Woodhead tunnel. The rest would be on existing under-utilised routes and old track bed. Initially we put a cost of £4 billion on it. One of the rail constructors said it could do it for £3 billion. We are now being generous and suggesting £6 billion; but that is still one third of what we propose to spend on Crossrail—which I also support. Nevertheless, our whole scheme, with its 400-mile route, would cost a third of what we are to spend on Crossrail, and would be commercially viable, because of the amount of traffic on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman says he is talking about villages. One thing I have asked David Quarmby to do is to consider the response of local authorities, whether they have uniformly implemented the recommendations in his review, which reported earlier this year, and what lessons have to be learned. I shall make public David Quarmby’s findings, which we expect to receive in a couple of weeks’ time.

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

May I urge the Secretary of State to ignore today’s report from the Select Committee on Transport on the North review in the same way as the report ignored conclusive evidence that reducing the drink-drive limit would save lives? Instead, will he bring forward proposals to reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg?

[Mr Hammond]

I have not seen the conclusive evidence that the hon. Gentleman speaks of, but I have seen various opinions in this area. I have not yet read the Transport Committee’s report but I have to say to him that I am a little surprised to hear him, as a member of that Committee, urging me to ignore its report and findings. Part of our democratic process is to have our debates in the Committees and to get behind their findings and reports when they are published.

Transport (CSR)

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

The purpose of today’s debate is to focus on transport and the implications of the comprehensive spending review for transport services. Indeed, that is the remit of the Transport Committee, so I am concentrating on transport today.

According to the Passenger Transport Executive Group, capital funding for local transport outside London was cut by 19% in 2010-11. It is true that the outcome could have been worse, and comparisons have been drawn with other Departments, but that does not hide the severity of the cuts that will be put in place. There are to be new funds from which transport projects could be supported. The regional growth fund, which started off as a business fund to replace the budgets of the regional development agencies, has been expanded to include transport and some housing projects, and there is to be a local sustainable transport fund. There is no way in which those two funds can even start to replace some of the major cuts that are contained in the comprehensive spending review figures.

At the moment, my Committee is considering the relationship between spending on transport and economic growth. One issue it is considering is the distribution of transport investment around the country. Three times as much transport investment per head is made in London and the south-east as in the northern regions and the midlands. How will the comprehensive spending review impact on the distribution of that transport investment? Will such disparity be reduced or increased? I am very interested to know the answer and whether such an assessment is thought to be important. In relation to budgets, it is extremely important to consider the impact on places around the country as well as nationally.

Many transport schemes are strategic rather than local in nature. In the past, business-led regional development agencies, working with Government offices for the regions, have enabled local government, working with business, to decide on regional priorities and to make representations to Government. That will end. The Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the proposed local economic partnerships will not be sufficient on their own to replace those arrangements. He told the Transport Committee only yesterday that he thought that local economic partnerships—I do not know whether he knew exactly how they would be put together—would need to work together, or some other arrangement might be required to look at those very same projects. To my concern, he also said that he did not think that that would be achieved until the end of the Parliament. If those alternative arrangements happen and they do not take place until the end of the Parliament, will the Minister tell us how regional rather than local priorities will be determined? Will the decisions on such projects become centralised? What are the arrangements to be? We cannot wait until the end of the Parliament to know the answers.

Let me turn to roads investment. There are some big questions to raise on the implications of the Budget on roads. The budget for road maintenance is to be reduced by 20%, which is a big reduction. We are told that that will be achieved by efficiency savings rather than by cutting back on important maintenance. We all know that if routine maintenance is not done when it is required, a lot more will be required to be spent at a later date. What kind of mechanisms are in place to monitor how that reduction is to be met? Will it be through efficiency savings or will it mean that important maintenance on our roads is simply not done?

The Highways Agency’s capital budget is to be cut by around 50%. That is also a matter of great concern. Seven schemes have been cancelled and the much needed upgrade of the A14 has been sent back to the drawing board. Does that mean the end of major new road-building in Great Britain? It would be helpful to know whether the major cutbacks in that sector are to do with the problems of our times—the Government’s wish to move very quickly to remove the deficit—or a basic change in transport policy.

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

Does the hon. Lady accept that, at a time when money is tight, it is better to invest in public transport than in roads?

[Mrs Ellman]

It is important to keep a balance in spending. I certainly support continued and, indeed, increased investment in public transport. However, there may be particular road schemes that are very significant to particular areas or that are important to strategies to support economic development in certain parts of the country. Therefore, I would not rule out any particular type of investment, but I am certainly a supporter of investment in public transport.

The Secretary of State announced that 66 major local authority road schemes, which are due to cost £1.7 billion, are competing for more than £900 million-worth of funding. Will the Minister tell us what kind of result she expects to come from that great reduction in funding? Will priority be given to strategic schemes? If so, how will that be assessed and monitored?

Rail is a great success story. During the last decade, rail patronage has increased in a very dramatic way. More and more people want to use rail. Unfortunately, rail’s popularity has not been matched by the provision of sufficient or adequate rolling stock to meet that increased need. Therefore, while we have more and more people using rail, we also have more and more overcrowding and I think that we have seen the development of a rather complacent attitude to the health and safety issues related to that overcrowding.

This week, discussion has focused on the concerns raised about the proposed increase in train fares. The coalition agreement spoke about the need for

“fair pricing for rail travel.”

It now seems that that “fair pricing” means that regulated fares will be increased in the future not on the basis of the retail prices index plus 1% but on the basis of RPI plus 3% from 2012 onwards. The Government tell us that that is in order to fund much needed investment in rail.

The Association of Train Operating Companies presented such increases as average increases. However, average figures are meaningless to the individual wishing to embark on a rail journey. Already, increases of 13.8% and 9.3% have been reported as planned increases when the new policy comes into force. A lot more should be done also to provide much greater clarity about rail fares, with much greater openness about how cheaper fares can be obtained without the complexities and difficulties of interpreting the rules of different train companies on what constitutes peak-hour travel, so that travel can be made easier for more people.

There is a consequence to increasing rail fares beyond the difficulties it causes individuals, for example in getting to work. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that fares could be 31% higher by 2015 than they are today. One result of what may well be pricing people off the rail network is that more people may go back to their cars, at a time when we are trying to encourage people to leave their cars and make use of public transport. Indeed, the Government estimate that there will be 4% fewer trips by rail than there would otherwise have been as a direct consequence of the planned fare increases.

Our concern is partly about the economic impact on individuals, including the specific difficulties that individuals may experience in getting to work, but we also have growing environmental concerns. The Climate Change Act 2008 has targets to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2009, the transport sector accounted for a quarter of domestic carbon dioxide emissions, with 90% of those emissions coming from road transport and 55% from domestic cars alone.

Why, at a time when we are so concerned about environmental issues and when we now have the Climate Change Act, would we deliberately want to price people off rail and encourage them to get back into their cars? Furthermore, are we really so certain that the Government’s claim that those increased fares will lead to better investment and improved facilities on the rail network will actually become a reality? The rail structure is very complex and there are big questions to be asked about whether all of us—the traveller and the taxpayer—are getting good value for money from the investment put into rail.

Sir Roy McNulty’s report on the rail system and value for money issues will be very important, as will the decisions about rail franchises for the future. If we are to get value for money for the essential funding that goes into rail, it is extremely important that we look carefully at what emerges from Sir Roy McNulty’s study. Although I know at this stage that some preliminary conclusions have been drawn, there is no full report yet. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister her understanding of what Sir Roy McNulty might say and what she thinks might be the policy implications of his report.

I welcome this morning’s announcement about rail investment, particularly the commitment to electrification of the line between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, and the electrification of the Great Western line. However, I want to be quite sure that that electrification will go together with increased provision of rolling stock and carriages on those lines, and indeed on other overcrowded lines. I would also like to know what kind of monitoring will take place of the promises that we heard this morning—promises about other schemes, as well as the two I have mentioned—to ensure that the investment goes ahead as planned and that we have more capacity, more efficient and environmentally friendly rail travel and better value for money at the same time.

I also welcome the Government’s statement on their commitment to High Speed 2 and the funding for it. However, it is very important that the benefits of HS2 are maximised and that there is no neglect of investment in the classic network.

Rail freight is also very important. Freight moved by rail accounts for about 9% of all goods moved in the UK and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving investment in rail freight links, specifically those between Southampton and Felixstowe. When the Transport Committee visited Hull recently, to take evidence as part of our inquiry into transport and the economy, we were told about the importance of relatively minor improvements that could enhance access to the Humber port. I hope that those improvements can go ahead and indeed I hope that similar improvements can be made in the Merseyside area. When we talk about rail investment, that debate is often dominated by discussions about passenger rail. We should always remember the importance of freight on rail, too, and the importance of investing in it.

It is also important to look at investment in buses. Indeed, more people travel on buses than on any other mode of public transport. In 2009-10—the last year for which we have figures—5.2 billion passenger journeys were taken on local bus services in Great Britain. That compares with 1.3 billion passenger journeys on rail.

I am extremely concerned about the implications of the comprehensive spending review for funding local bus services. The bus service operator grant will be cut by 20%, local authority revenue for bus services will be cut and we do not yet know how effectively the Local Transport Act 2008 will work to ensure good value for money. We are awaiting the results of the Competition Commission inquiry into the setting of bus fares.

The Government say that they believe that the cuts in the bus service operator grant and other local authority funding, which could have an impact on support for local buses, will have a low impact on services. I am mystified by that and would like to know how the Government arrived at their figures. It seems to me that a 20% reduction in the bus service operator grant, a 28% reduction in local transport revenue funding and the removal of ring-fencing puts a big question mark over how many services that are essential to local people but not necessarily profitable for individual bus operators will be able to continue. I would be grateful for a response.

It is welcome that this Government are honouring their commitment to maintain the national concessionary fares scheme introduced by the previous Government, but the administration of the scheme has changed, and there are now queries about whether the funding for that scheme will go directly to the transport services. Again, I would be grateful for a response on that from the Minister.

Road safety is an important issue that is perhaps not discussed enough—it has not been discussed sufficiently in relation to the comprehensive spending review—but one of the successes of the past decade or so is the reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. In 2009, some 2,222 people were killed on our roads and more than 24,000 were seriously injured. Behind every one of those numbers lies a tragedy, and often a broken family, yet the figures represent an improvement on previous years: 38% fewer people were killed on our roads than in the late 1990s. More progress must be made. I am concerned that the reduction in local funding, combined with the abolition of ring-fenced grants for road safety, will halt the progress made and the decline of deaths and injuries on our roads.

Rail Investment

John Leech Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I thought that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) was referring to Thameslink services that will run out to the south-east. If I have misunderstood that, I shall look carefully at the question that he asked, and will write to both him and the hon. Lady.

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

I too welcome the news on new carriages, particularly given the broken promises of the previous Government. The Secretary of State has recognised the need for additional carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, but I remind him of the need to deliver those sooner rather than later.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the broken promises of the previous Government. He will know that they promised 182 new carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, ordered 18, and delivered none. I hope that we will be able to do better than that for him.