Railways

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

This is an important package of proposals and we must consider their consequences carefully. As the Minister acknowledged when he appeared before the Transport Committee and today, the Government are still considering their position on several matters of detail.

A number of issues need to be looked at in the context of the UK rail industry. Given the recent success of the east coast main line and the collapse of the franchising system, we do not believe that it is necessary to move towards compulsory tendering of all passenger contracts. Within the wider package there are several proposals that we can support in principle, but reassurances are needed on a number of points.

We broadly welcome moves towards standardisation which have the potential to deliver savings to UK companies. Part of that process is the move towards uniform European safety standards, and we need to look closely at how those changes would impact on the UK. We need to look at how the proposals would affect our cross-border links with France. The channel tunnel has not yet fulfilled its potential in either passenger or freight traffic, and the proposals in the package for greater co-operation between infrastructure managers, combined with a single certification authority, may improve services between Britain and the continent. It is therefore right to pursue standardisation which could reduce costs, and it is also important that where countries have chosen to put contracts out to tender, British companies should be able to compete on a level playing field.

Previous packages have done much to remove the cross-border restrictions which hold rail back compared with other modes of transport, although as the Select Committee noted this week, some outstanding issues remain. There is still much to be done and the possibility of single certificates across the EU will be a boon to purchasers and manufacturers, who currently have to obtain approval from individual national regulators. However, there are also concerns, and we must make sure that any final agreement is in the national as well as the European interest.

Crucially, the UK’s recent exemplary safety record must not be put at risk in a rush to achieve uniformity. Since Labour ended the failed Railtrack experiment and tackled the decades of under-investment in our infrastructure, the UK has established one of the best safety records in Europe. Much of the credit must go to the work of the Office of Rail Regulation, which since 2004 has helped to deliver a significant improvement in safety standards. Fatalities on the railways are now at an historic low, but under the fourth railway package the ORR’s safety and certification responsibilities will be transferred to the European Railway Agency. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that safety standards in the UK will not be weakened if the ORR’s responsibilities are transferred to the ERA? What discussions has he held with the Commission on this point? Will he give the House a full report on them today?

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it not fair to say that the British railways system is one of the safest in the world? We are on the right track with health and safety. If the package goes ahead, that could be in doubt.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Since Network Rail took over, overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, safety has improved enormously. That is precisely why I am asking the Government to give us the assurances that we seek.

As the Transport Committee noted, there is a

“lack of clarity about how they”—

the new standards—

“would work in practice.”

Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be a clear and simple division of responsibilities between the ORR and the ERA? What assessment has he made of whether there will have to be an increase in bureaucracy in order to enforce common standards across very different networks? The UK is currently leading Europe on safety, and our high standards must not be levelled down in order to reach a quick agreement.

There is also a difficult balance to strike on competition. Of course, where countries have decided to put routes out to tender, British companies should be able to bid without fear or favour, but the fourth railway package would force competitive tendering on all passenger services. This has already provoked opposition in Europe, and we believe that there are good reasons for opposing it in the UK too. If approved, it could deny the UK the right to maintain a public sector comparator or intervene in cases of market failure, as happened on the east coast. Since 2009, the award-winning not-for-dividend operator has returned £640 million to the taxpayer, so it is worrying to see the Commission base its proposals explicitly on the UK experience.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is making an exceptional case. The Minister talked about competition on the railways. Does my hon. Friend surmise that if a private operator returned £640 million to the Exchequer, the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box to say that it was an exemplary operator that should be encouraged?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Government’s claims—

[Mr Simon Burns]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will respond to the previous intervention first.

The Government’s claims about the east coast main line’s performance have been blown out of the water by the Office of Rail Regulation’s recent financial report. East Coast has seen rising passenger satisfaction and been given a national award. It receives virtually no subsidy and makes the second highest contribution to the Treasury. The Government’s case for re-privatisation just does not stack up.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady might want to reassure her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that the west coast main line has paid back even more money to the Treasury. In the light of what she has just said, perhaps she would like to explain her view of the comments of her right hon. and noble Friend Lord Adonis and her right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the east coast main line going back to franchising and out of public ownership.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The west coast main line, of course, enjoys the advantage of having had a major infrastructure and rolling stock upgrade, all funded by the taxpayer, and the east coast main line is due to have a large investment in infrastructure and rolling stock, also paid for by the taxpayer. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on the comments Lord Adonis made in last year’s “Rebuilding Rail” report. Some years after taking the east coast main line back into a not-for-dividend operator, he acknowledged that the current arrangements hold back our state operator.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that when the Government seek to put the east coast main line out for a new franchise, as they inevitably will, she will hold the Minister to account to ensure that whatever premium is paid by the new private operator will be at least the same as that which we are now receiving from the state-owned company, because anything less will surely be absolutely unacceptable to the taxpayer?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, it is not just about the premium payments. At the moment, because the east coast main line is run by a not-for-dividend operator, not only is it making the premium payments to the Treasury, but the £40 million surplus has not been shared with private shareholders; every single penny has been reinvested in improving services. I think that is what UK taxpayers and passengers want.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has just said, will my hon. Friend hold the Minister to account so that the Government ensure not only that the franchise delivers more to the Treasury than the Directly Operated Railways are currently delivering, but that the franchise can afford to do so, because we remember the National Express fiasco?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has said exactly what needs to be said on the matter.

The European Commission’s case for extending competition in that way can be found in a recently published non-paper, or document for discussion, on the UK railways. Actually, the term “non-paper” covers it rather well. It implies that privatisation was responsible for improving safety, but in fact the infrastructure sell-off had the opposite effect and subsequent investment in safety was taxpayer-funded. It also claims that privatisation itself was responsible for increasing passenger numbers, but other countries that did not fragment their systems also experienced comparable levels of passenger growth, as the Transport Committee acknowledged this week.

Most remarkably, the non-paper suggests that privatisation has reduced subsidy. At the time, we were promised a more efficient railway, but subsidy rocketed. As the Office of Rail Regulation’s financial report last week confirmed, in 2011-12 train operating companies received more public funding than they paid back. They were paid £51 million more than they gave back in premium payments, while the Government paid almost £4 billion towards the cost of infrastructure.

[Mr Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the subsidy has gone up by 300% since privatisation and, on top of that, fares have gone up by 22% in real terms, so the public are paying for the costs of privatisation? The really perverse thing is that a lot of the subsidy from British taxpayers and fare payers is actually going to the German, Dutch and French national Governments, because they own more than half the railways in this country.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why the Opposition have been prepared to look at reforming the railways.

In total, the train operating companies were left with £305 million before tax at a time when, as my hon. Friend has just said, some fares and season tickets have been allowed to rise by well above the rate of inflation. Those are the headline figures but, as the McNulty report, the Transport Committee and many others have pointed out, there is a basic lack of transparency in railway finances, as commercial confidentiality serves to obscure waste in the system.

The waste is huge. The McNulty report identified an efficiency gap of 40%, compared with the railways of four other European countries. The fragmentation of the industry has led to massive interface costs between Network Rail, the operating companies and the supply chain. Taxpayers and fare payers are supporting replica bureaucracies and unnecessary legal challenges. That money could be better invested in the industry. The great railway sell-off was a botched, rushed job. Labour took action to reverse some of the most damaging legacies of privatisation, including the disaster that was Railtrack, but the Railways Act 1993 was hurried through Parliament for political reasons, creating inefficiencies that are still with us today.

[Mr Cash]

With regard to the interesting dialogue between the question of Europeanisation, nationalisation and privatisation, does the hon. Lady agree that the consequences of adopting a positive policy towards the underlying desire to Europeanise the system of railways are alien to what I assume to be the interests of the trade unions, whether in this country or elsewhere, because Europeanisation and the bureaucracy she has just referred to will ensure that it is inefficient?

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

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

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

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

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will make a little progress.

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the current consultation on changing the rail network in London by extending the London Overground network to take in some of the suburban services run by other agencies. I am unclear about the effect that this European proposal will have on that. London Overground, after all, is one of the most popular and successful rail networks in the country and its expansion would certainly be welcomed by many people in London.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend, and that is the precise concern that I am raising on behalf of TfL. As he says, London Overground is a successful operation and we would not want to see this package stand in the way of TfL continuing to develop services for the benefit of passengers and taxpayers.

There are a number of concerns, therefore, about a number of points in the fourth railway package. We need to reach a deal that works for the British railway industry—a deal that removes the uncertainty over safety and devolution, while allowing us the option of replicating the success of the east coast main line, which should not be re-privatised, as the Government plan. The fourth railway package is not there yet, and that is why we cannot support this motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—