Local Bus Market

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the members and staff of the Select Committee on Transport on securing this debate and on producing such a reasoned and timely report. I was especially pleased to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who has chaired the Committee expertly throughout the inquiry and speaks with great authority in support of buses, which are the Cinderella of public transport and, as she says, provide a lifeline for millions of people across the country.

The Transport Committee’s report provides a much-needed critical analysis of the Competition Commission’s investigation. The commission shone a light on the bus industry, exposing serious market distortions and raising helpful suggestions for reform, but the investigation itself inspires questions about the proper balance between competition and regulation and about the future structure of the bus industry. The commission’s report, notwithstanding its considerable strengths, is limited by an assumption that direct, head-to-head competition is beneficial to passengers. Of course, the commission was only following its remit, but perhaps that remit could have been applied a little more widely.

The reality is that sustainable competition on the same route is rare, and most areas settle into a pattern of single-operator dominance, occasionally interrupted by short, intense and disruptive clashes between rival companies. The roots of the problem can be dated to the deregulation regime established by the Transport Act 1985. The then Government’s ambition for widespread competition proved unsustainable. The new market did not achieve balance, as deregulation’s architects had hoped. After the frenzied bus wars of the 1980s and 1990s, a new pattern of dominant operators emerged.

There are exceptions, of course. Thanks to strong campaigning, London was protected from the 1985 Act and was therefore able to build a planned, integrated network, with competitive tendering for routes. With that provision, combined with other factors unique to the capital, bus use has risen dramatically, in contrast to the national decline in patronage. In 1985, one in five British bus journeys took place in London; today, the figure is one in two. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has said, that raises clear questions about how other towns and cities can make similar progress.

Where municipal operators have survived, they have proved that they can help to buck the national trend. Nottingham City Transport, which serves the city that I am proud to represent, was named operator of the year for 2012, and strong leadership from the local authority has helped to grow the local bus market. Some challenges are still being overcome, such as establishing an integrated multi-operator smartcard—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) explained clearly why products such as the Oyster card, which Londoners probably now take for granted, are so valuable to passengers—but the point has been proved in Nottingham: determined local vision can help to reverse the wider pattern of decline.

For most passengers a lack of quality and choice—or geographic market segregation—is the norm. Some companies have, in effect, established private monopolies, with unfeasible hurdles for smaller competitors seeking to enter the market and without challenge from the biggest operators, which now account for 69% of the market. That is not a market solution; it is a model that has failed. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West and for Blackley and Broughton both described the experience in north Manchester, which will be familiar to many.

It is hard to disagree with the Campaign for Better Transport, which states that the Competition Commission’s focus on direct competition prevented it from fully considering alternatives. The Select Committee’s attention to the remaining barriers to quality contracts was welcome, and Labour is working to remove the uncertainty that is holding back some transport authorities. A number of witnesses said that they would like quality contract schemes to be introduced, but there remains, as the report discusses, the problem of who would be first across the line. We would offer genuine support for authorities seeking to develop quality contracts, just as we would for those developing voluntary and statutory partnership agreements.

As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Each local market is different, and local authorities must have a genuine choice about what is right for their area. Specifically, Labour would introduce bus deregulation exemption zones as a mechanism to transfer the risk from local to national Government, giving transport authorities the certainty that they need to commit to quality contracts where that is right for their residents.

Far from seeking to remove the remaining barriers to tendering, the Government’s proposed changes to funding criteria will raise the hurdle still higher. Authorities that introduce a quality contract scheme will be disqualified from receiving better bus area funding. Transport authorities that want to develop future schemes will have the odds weighted against them. I hope that the Minister, who, when in opposition, put on record his support for quality contracts, will withdraw that proposal. Indeed, when the Local Transport Act 2008 was considered in Committee, he speculated that

“a future Government, perhaps of a different complexion,”

which was

“unsympathetic to the idea of quality contracts”

could

“seek to kill the measure slowly”.––[Official Report, Local Transport Bill Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2008; c. 205-6.]

That is precisely what is happening under this Government.

Although the withholding of better bus area funding is a proposal at this stage, it is undeniable that the threat is inhibiting the development of quality contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside described, that sends a strong signal to local authorities not to go down that route. When the South Yorkshire integrated transport authority decided not to pursue a quality contract scheme, it was made clear that the Government’s stance on funding had been a major factor in the decision.

I know that the Minister will be studying carefully the responses to his consultation. I ask that he also listens to the recommendations of the Transport Committee and withdraws the proposals that punitively target authorities that choose to pursue tendering. Of course, the proposal to stack the deck against quality contracts comes after a round of swingeing cuts to local transport, including buses. Overall funding for local transport has been cut by 28% and the bus service operators’ grant has been cut by 20%.

Early predictions, optimistically repeated by the Government, that cuts of this magnitude could be absorbed without a substantial rise in fares have been discredited. Fares rose by more than double the rate of inflation last year, and supported bus services, which are often relied on by some of the most vulnerable members of society, were cut by 9.3% outside London. As Passenger Transport stated last week,

“the bus industry is in danger of being forced into another great cycle of decline, in which cost rises, funding cuts and consequent fare increases each give another vicious downward twist to patronage levels.”

Passenger Focus has collected a great deal of evidence on the human cost of the cuts. In some areas, buses have been reduced to mere skeleton services. One passenger told researchers:

“You feel imprisoned in your local area.”

Indeed, the Campaign for Better Transport identified one estate—Burbank in Hartlepool—where bus services have been cut completely. It does not have to be this way. The Government should be striving to achieve something more than the slow subsidised decline of bus services outside London. Despite failings in local markets, buses are still the most used mode of public transport. Travelling across the country and Europe, I have seen the enormous potential that buses hold. But Britain has to grasp the challenge and not see buses as an easy target for cuts. That is why Labour has set out which cuts we would reluctantly support, to protect public transport services.

Thanks to the work of Greener Journeys and others, we know more now than ever before about the economic and social benefits of buses. Jobs and growth and tackling social exclusion are two sides of the same coin. That is why the present reduction in funding is cutting so acutely. Democratically accountable local authorities are best placed to provide leadership, deliver service improvements and promote integration with other modes, including rail. This is what communities need. Real, accountable devolution of spending and decision making can help address market failings when they occur, and Labour is committed to devolution and protecting bus services.

With your permission, Mr Walker, I would like to close by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who, unfortunately, has had to step down from his role in the shadow transport team following a serious injury. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish him a full and speedy recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have listened with great interest to what the Minister said about BUSFORUS and Bus for Jobs. Can he set out his assessment of how well those initiatives by the bus industry are meeting the needs of young and unemployed people, in particular given that Bus for Jobs only lasts for a single month?

[Norman Baker]

The Bus for Jobs initiative is being assessed by the bus companies, and I spoke about it to a leading member of the bus industry yesterday. I will be keeping in touch with the industry, to see what the initial response is and whether there is a case for extending the initiative. That would be a matter for the bus companies, but we want to see the response first—us from the Government point of view and them from a commercial point of view. If the initiative is successful in persuading people who have not considered the bus before to take the bus and then to stay with the bus, it might be a sensible commercial proposition for the bus companies.

However, I have made no secret of my belief that the bus companies need to do more to help young people, and that has formed a key part of my speech on major set-piece occasions when I have addressed the bus industry. The industry has responded sensibly and well to that challenge, and the companies know that I will continue to engage with them formally and informally. The subject is always on the agenda of the Bus Partnership Forum, which I hold with the industry six-monthly and in which young people also participate.

Overall, commercial services, which represent about 80% of bus mileage, are holding up quite well, which is good news that we should all welcome. I understand the challenges of being in opposition, but I encourage Opposition Members not to talk down the bus industry, which is easy to do—I have been in opposition myself. They should recognise what is going well, as well as not so well. Commercial services are holding up, and we should take some comfort from that.

Although there is good news on that front, I recognise—I am the first to do so—that in some areas of the country the garden is not quite so rosy. Recent statistics show that the supported service network—only 20% of overall bus mileage, but important for many people—is not as healthy as the commercial sector. The picture is not uniform, as it inevitably will not be in an era of localism, such as the one we are moving into, because the decisions are made locally by elected councillors. Some councils, such as East Riding, have prioritised bus services in setting their budgets, while others, such as Surrey, have reduced their spending but have done so creatively and carefully so as not to translate cuts into significant service reductions.

Other councils, I am sorry to say, have made what appear to be arbitrary and swingeing cuts that fail to consider properly the needs of their local residents—I refer to North Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire—which can lead to people in isolated communities, particularly in rural locations, having restricted access to education, training, work, health care and other important services. We have heard about how those who use the bus tend to be at either end of the age spectrum, so young people and elderly people are especially affected if such cuts are made, because they rely more on public transport to get around.

[Norman Baker]

The allocation of money to local councils and their predominant concerns are matters not for the Department for Transport, but for the Department for Communities and Local Government, which sets the allocation for local council funds. We do not control that, but allocate our own funds, which we are increasing through the green bus fund and the better bus areas and community transport. That is what our Department has been doing, but I am unable to answer the hon. Lady directly, because that is not my Department’s responsibility. I do not believe, however, that there is a direct correlation between the reductions in local funding from the DCLG and the cuts in bus funding.

Indeed, what is reflected—quite properly—is the exercise of local discretion. Some councils have decided to protect bus services and to make them a high priority, while others have not sought to do so, which is entirely up to them, because they consist of elected local people. I certainly encourage individual constituents in those areas where bus cuts have been significant to ask their local councils and councillors why they have decided to prioritise bus cuts, as opposed to anything else, while perhaps the councils next door have not done so. To be fair, I referred to non-Labour councils, North Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire, but I can also pick out Darlington, Stoke and such councils, which have reduced their budgets. Things are mixed throughout the country.

Overall, however, bus mileage remains broadly flat, with commercial services in many cases picking up the slack as bus companies continue to look for opportunities to grow their local markets.

[Lilian Greenwood]

May I take the Minister back to his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West? The Government are trying to have it both ways, taking credit for progress in the bus industry while blaming local authorities for cuts to services. He must take responsibility for inflicting front-loaded cuts, disproportionately hitting less affluent authorities and forcing councillors to make impossible decisions. The Government are using localism as a way to hide behind the effect of their own decisions.

[Norman Baker]

That is not fair, and I have already listed some of the extra money that the Department for Transport has made available to help buses. In a moment, I will go on to what we are doing. Moreover, many councils are not making cuts, which demonstrates that there is flexibility. Some have chosen not to make cuts, although there have been reductions across the patch, not only in local councils but in Departments. I do not wish to rehearse the Budget position, but there was a general recognition that reductions in Government expenditure were necessary. Indeed, the hon. Lady’s party was also committed to a large swathe of cuts had it been returned to power in 2010. In the Department for Transport, we are doing what we can to protect bus services, and I hope that local councils have the same objective—some appear to be discharging it well, others less so.

We are doing our bit to help, and we remain committed to supporting local bus markets through direct operator subsidy, through DCLG funding of local government and through our targeted investment packages. That includes £70 million on better bus areas, which was a bolt out of the blue and a windfall that the bus industry was not expecting, with more to come for those places that successfully apply for full devolution of bus subsidy. That also includes around £200 million in capital funding for major projects in Manchester, Rochdale, Bristol and elsewhere, and many of the 96 projects made possible by the £600 million local sustainable transport fund, which is a brand-new Government initiative and provides a major increase in spending on sustainable transport compared with that of the previous Administration.

Many of the 96 projects include improvements related to bus services. In addition, I recently announced a further £20 million for a new, fourth round of the green bus fund, on top of the three previous rounds worth £75 million. Many of those buses will be built in Britain, helping British manufacturing and jobs as well reducing our carbon impact from buses. Such funding, therefore, is not insubstantial and not a bad deal for the bus industry. It comes in spite of the tough financial climate and the need to reduce the structural deficit.

As I have made clear before, however, with such significant amounts of public expenditure invested in the bus market, it was only right for us to consider whether it has been delivering the best service for bus passengers and best value for the taxpayer. That is why we are engaged in a series of reforms to facilitate competition and to increase local accountability for spending on bus services. We are reforming how bus services are subsidised, providing guidance on ticketing and tendering for contracts, and making regulatory changes to encourage more on-the-road competition where the market supports it.

On bus subsidy and the reform of BSOG, I am considering the response to last year’s consultation and will have final proposals before Easter. That will include the treatment of areas where quality contract schemes are planned, which is clearly and understandably of interest to the Committee. Guidance for local authorities that wish to apply for better bus area status will be out later this month.

[Norman Baker]

That issue was raised at the Select Committee, to which I gave evidence, and it has been raised again today. Local councils want to understand the relationship between better bus areas and quality contracts; that is fully understood. I will not give a definitive answer today. The matter has been subject to consultation, as the hon. Lady knows. The responses to the consultation are being carefully considered, and I will discuss those matters with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport, but I accept the need for clarity, and I intend to provide that so that everyone knows where they stand.

I am pleased to note that, by and large, the Committee’s key findings and recommendations complement and support the coalition Government’s policies that were set out last year in “Green Light for Better Buses”. I have a lot of time for the Chair of the Committee, but I thought she was uncharacteristically unfair when she said that there needed to be more to our policy than funding cuts. That was a gross distortion, and failed to note the direction of travel that is clearly set out in “Green Light for Better Buses” and our proposed changes to funding arrangements. That constitutes a policy that we believe will help to deliver better arrangements for our buses. Combined with our response to the Competition Commission, it sets out a clear policy. The hon. Lady may disagree with it, but it is a clear policy. In fact, the Committee’s findings suggest that she does not disagree with much of it.

We have made it clear that partnership is a highly effective way of delivering quality, affordable bus services, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s endorsement of partnerships as a good way forward. Our better bus area proposals are indicative of that. The purpose of such areas is to ensure that councils and operators work together, because that is more successful than a council wanting to drive forward policies, perhaps for good reasons, when the bus industry is not interested. Similarly, if the bus industry has good ideas, but a council is unresponsive, those ideas will not be delivered. The proposal to financially incentivise two groups of people to come together is entirely sensible, and can only work to the benefit of the public.

We will support the integration of services when that is in the public interest, and we will encourage the roll-out of smart, multi-operator ticketing. We will monitor local authorities as they develop their partnership agreements, liaising with the Office of Fair Trading when necessary—the Chair of the Committee made this point—to ensure that competition law does not become an insurmountable barrier to sensible service improvements.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister share my concern that a false distinction is sometimes made between quality contracts and partnerships? We all want effective partnerships, and the Labour Government legislated to promote them. When I was in Copenhagen, I saw how tendering and partnerships between operators and transport authorities do not just co-exist; they are essential to policy success. It is artificial and misleading to present them as two completely different things. They can work together, and funding should follow.

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady is tempting me to respond to the consultation exercise, which I will do with clarity in due course. A point about quality contracts that I made to the Select Committee in response to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) was that they are there in law:

“They are there as part of the Local Transport Act 2008”—

I was a member of the Committee—

“They remain on the statute book.”

There is no intention of removing them from the statute book and I expect the law to be respected by all parties. I would take a dim view of any bus company or anyone else who sought to undermine the law of the land as it is on the statute book.

On resources for traffic commissioners, to which the Committee referred, the coalition Government has already given a commitment to review their role in the next financial year as part of a wider review of non-departmental public bodies. It is sensible to include a look at their public service vehicle work as part of that review.

I shall pick up individual points that hon. Members have raised this afternoon. The Chair of the Transport Committee referred to multi-operator ticketing and whether it would require new legislation. We have made it clear that we strongly support multi-operator ticketing. We believe it is important to deliver the sorts of outcomes that passengers want, and to avoid the situation to which the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) referred of passengers buying a ticket and then having to buy a further ticket to get home. That cannot be a sensible outcome for passengers, and cannot help public transport generally. We do not want that.

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

We have made it clear to bus companies that we want multi-operator ticketing. We have also made it clear that we reserve the right to introduce legislation if that does not occur. We hope that it will occur—there is some evidence of that—not least because in Oxford where it is occurring, the bus companies have discovered that it is in their financial interest. I am confident that the bus industry has bought the idea of multi-operator ticketing, and that it will become increasingly common throughout the country. However, we reserve the right to take that forward in legislation if necessary.

We also believe that transparency is important. I welcome any figures that can be produced to help passengers and to give a wider perspective of how the industry is performing, and indeed how the Government is performing. Anyone who knows about my role in Parliament will know that I have been hugely committed to transparency in all sorts of areas throughout my time here. We must avoid placing huge extra burdens on industry for not much return, so we cannot require endless figures to be produced if they are of little value, but in principle we are certainly open to any suggestions for extra information that is genuinely valuable. If the Committee has particular issues in mind, I will be happy to consider them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to door-to-door journeys. He called them end-to-end journeys. I have discussed with the rail and bus industry how to describe them, but I will not bore him with the nuances of that conversation. Suffice it to say that the general view was that we should call them door-to-door journeys, and that is what the Department is doing. It will shortly produce information on such journeys to aid the process. It will cover the bus and rail industries, and ensure that different modes of transport are joined up. In best practice they are, but sometimes they are not.

My hon. Friend was right to refer to the role of smart ticketing, which is key to delivering door-to-door journeys properly. He said that it is necessary for people to be confident that they will get the cheapest fare when they use a new ticket-purchasing method for their journey. I absolutely share that view. For the railways it is a key objective of the fare and ticketing review that people buy the ticket that is appropriate for their journey, and do not pay over the odds unnecessarily. Obtaining the best possible deal for rail and bus passengers, which also involves transparency, is to the fore of the Government’s thinking.

I always listen with interest to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton when he talks about transport, because for many years he has demonstrated a genuine commitment and great knowledge. He referred to London’s upside, but he will recognise that it also has its downside. There are pros and cons with the London arrangement, and I am familiar with both. In any assessment of what is best for one area it would be wise to consider the upside and downside in London when considering arrangements for buses.

The hon. Gentleman referred to concessionary fares. There will be no change in the arrangements during this Parliament. That is what the coalition Government has said, but what individual parties do in their manifestos will be a matter for them as we approach the next general election.

The hon. Member for Bolton West raised the interesting matter of—I suppose, though she did not frame it in this way—the purpose of bus travel. What is the objective that we, or local councils, are seeking to deliver and what are bus operators delivering by running buses? There are different reasons, it seems to me, why buses are run. One is to provide a regular means of transport at a high frequency along corridors such as Oxford road, which is effective, or can be effective, in securing modal shift from the motor car, and thereby, in theory, easing congestion, reducing carbon emissions, and providing a viable public transport alternative. As we have seen in London and elsewhere, there is no question but that when we have frequent services and people turn up without having to think about the timetable, it drives passenger numbers up, creating a virtuous circle where buses become more attractive and more buses can be run. We have that in many parts of our country—not all, but in many parts—including much of London. However, it could be argued—this is one of the downsides of London, I might say—that sometimes, and it is my view, there is an over-provision of buses, which run significantly empty on occasions, back to back all the way along the road. That is a particular problem on Oxford street, as opposed to Oxford road.

It seems to me that the second purpose of a bus is to provide a social function and a necessary connection between those who are without private transport but need a bus to get to a school, a hospital, or whatever it happens to be. The hon. Member for Bolton West suggested that the answer was route-bundling, which is a perfectly legitimate philosophical view. However, I would say that route-bundling may satisfy her need for buses that go round the houses, but what is the consequence for Oxford road, or buses along high-frequency corridors? I am not sure that we can have both—perhaps we can. If we reduce high-frequency corridors to provide buses round the houses, that may meet more social needs, but it may secure less modal shift from road. I raise that philosophically to point out that such things are not perhaps as straightforward as they are sometimes presented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to clarify that they were not my words but those of Passenger Transport. Just this week, it expressed its concern about the impact of a number of things, including cost rises and funding cuts. It is not just me who has real concern about the future of the bus industry—that view is widely held—and I just wish the Minister would respond to it.

[Norman Baker]

I have responded to it, and I have indicated that we are not into a great cycle of decline. I indicated that commercial services are holding up very well. The bus industry is responding with ingenuity and innovation. It is taking steps to take over some of the services that have been tendered and that were run by councils. Indeed, it is beginning to grow the market in places. The initiatives in Manchester and Sheffield, where fares have been cut, shows us a way to grow the market. I do not accept that we are into a great cycle of decline; nor do I think that it is helpful for anyone, whether the Opposition, Passenger Focus or anyone else—whoever the hon. Lady happens to be referring to —to talk about these matters in such apocalyptic terms.

The hon. Lady said that buses had been cut completely in Hartlepool and that it did not have to be that way. No, it does not. She should perhaps ask Hartlepool council why things are that way there, because they are not that way in other councils.

The hon. Lady said that local authorities are best placed to provide leadership, and we entirely agree, which is why we are pursuing a policy of localism. However, I hope she will accept, as we do, that that will produce a non-uniform picture across the country, as local authorities behave in different ways as a result of the freedom that they have been given.

The hon. Lady says that Labour is committed to devolution, and I am delighted to hear that, because I did not notice much of it in the 13 years of the previous Government. However, if she is now going along with our localism proposals, that is very welcome. That sends a message that there will, I hope, be no reversal of the localism that the Government has pursued, in the unlikely event that Labour forms the next Government. That will give local authorities some comfort that the direction of travel will not be changed.

On deregistration, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton will recognise that primary legislation would be required and is difficult to achieve slots for. Alongside every other Department, we have to make a case to be given spare time to pursue the matter, so we are not looking to legislate. We are exploring voluntary options, but, as with all things, we reserve the right to introduce legislation if necessary. I very much hope that it will not be, and we are certainly getting quite a long way down the track on a whole range of issues by taking a constructive, engaging, voluntary approach with local councils and the bus industry.

Let me end on a note of agreement. I share the views of the hon. Member for Nottingham South about the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I very much understand why he has taken his decision, and we all wish him a full recovery and a speedy return to the Front Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for his area. In my job as Secretary of State for Transport, I am learning a lot more about roads I have never travelled on. I will certainly look at his request—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I was misled by my opposite number. I was trying to listen to the hon. Lady as well as answer my hon. Friend. I assure him that I will certainly look into his representations.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

With regard to bus cuts, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) suggested to this House that

“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”——[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]

However, in July, Passenger Focus found that

“the majority of passenger impacts were below the water line,”—

and we now know that supported bus miles fell by 9.3% last year. Will the Minister therefore finally accept that the reduction in central Government funding has resulted in substantial cuts to socially valuable bus services?

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

No. The hon. Lady quoted a particular figure for mileage, but not the figure for mileage elsewhere in the country, which has been pretty stable, or the numbers of passenger journeys undertaken in non-metropolitan areas, which have held up well. Overall, there has been a marginal increase in the number of passenger journeys, according to the last figures.

Cycling Safety

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate, which comes at a time when cycle safety is so high on the public agenda, and on the compelling case that he made for improving cycling safety.

The work of campaigning organisations, coupled with high-profile accidents, has raised awareness and led to demands for better protection for cyclists. It is heartening to see Members on both sides of the House here today, and I hope that anyone watching the debate will be left in no doubt that MPs are taking cycling safety seriously. Politicians have a duty to promote cycling and to help create environments in which cycling can flourish. The health benefits of cycling are well known, and we now have a better understanding of how high levels of cycling can lead to cleaner and stronger communities. However, safety concerns are a serious barrier, especially for those people considering making the switch to cycling. It is imperative that those barriers be lifted. I pay tribute to the cyclists’ organisations that have lobbied for higher standards for many years, as well as to the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign by The Times.

Although cycling is generally a safe activity, there are still issues to be tackled. There are many areas where cyclists’ safety can be improved, but it is equally important that we do not undo the progress that has been made. Cycling casualties rose by 12% last year, with serious injuries rising by 16%, as we have heard. The Times reports today that fatalities are now set to outstrip last year’s toll, making this year the worst for cycling deaths since 2007. Although that tragic rise may not have a single cause, the abolition of national safety targets was condemned by many in the cycling community, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) was right to raise that issue today.

National targets had been in place in one form or another since 1987 and had enjoyed cross-party support. Although there is scope for reform of national targets, I wanted to highlight their importance early in this debate, because I hope that this is an area where a new cross-party consensus can be achieved. Indeed, the need for national safety standards is a theme that should be emphasised. Better training for both cyclists and drivers would cut accidents and fatalities, but local programmes are too often dependent on bids for central Government funding. Labour has called for long-term dedicated funding for cycling proficiency training under the Bikeability programme to be restored, along with the restoration of school travel plans to raise awareness of walking and cycling among children. Cycle safety should also become an integral part of the driving test.

Cyclists would also benefit from dedicated funding for improvements to existing infrastructure. That is why Labour has called for a portion of the roads budget to be ring-fenced—so that communities can build up networks of cycleways. Too many junctions are dangerous for cyclists and need to be redesigned. That approach has been highly successful in northern Europe, and we should seek to replicate that success. Those improvements can be delivered, but planners need to know that funding will be available.

We also back the call by The Times for cycling commissioners in every city, to encourage local initiatives. They would benefit from a cycle audit, which would help to map out danger spots, as well as a new planning toolkit that drew on the lessons of the successful cycling city and towns programme, which was axed by the current Government. A new test—a cycling safety assessment—should be met before new road and major transport schemes are granted planning approval. Our existing roads were not designed with the needs of cyclists in mind, but we can at least correct that historical imbalance in the future. The “Manual for Streets” guidelines, which placed pedestrians and cyclists at the top of the user hierarchy, represented a good start. We should look to build on that principle.

Everyone agrees that reducing speed will improve road safety and save lives. Real progress has been made on lowering speed limits in residential areas, with a city-wide 20-mph limit being introduced in Portsmouth and many additional schemes in other towns and cities. We are looking at ways to support more local authorities to make the switch to 20 mph, but the removal of funding for speed cameras and the possible raising of the motorway speed limit mean that we have had mixed signals on road safety from this Government.

We also need to see action on one of the major safety hazards for cyclists—heavy goods vehicles. They account for a disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads—a risk that was brought home to us last year when Mary Bowers, the young Times reporter, almost lost her life after being crushed by a lorry. A collaboration by Queen Mary, university of London and Barts and The London NHS Trust looked at the effect of heavy goods vehicles on cyclists’ safety. The conclusions that they reached are startling. Of patients brought to the Royal London hospital, cyclists hit by a car suffered a mortality rate of 6%. For those hit by HGVs, the rate was 21%. Of the most seriously injured cyclists, 82% had been hit by some form of motorised vehicle, but the overwhelming majority—73%—had been hit by a heavy goods vehicle. According to Transport for London, goods vehicles now account for half of all cyclist fatalities in the capital.

There is a clear need for action, and we have set out our support for reform. We would work with the industry to equip lorries with safety equipment, including blind-spot mirrors and side protection to help to stop cyclists falling under their wheels. Those upgrades could be funded through the proposed HGV road-charging scheme. We would invest in on-street infrastructure, including Trixi mirrors at junctions. More rigorous and comprehensive training is needed for lorry drivers, and we would work with the industry to achieve that as a priority.

According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, rail freight use would have gone up by 732% by 2025 if the decision had not been made to allow longer HGVs. Rail freight is now projected to go up by 262% instead. I hope that, in the interests of tackling congestion and improving road safety, the Government will look again at the issue, with a view to reversing that change.

All the measures that I have described would have safety benefits in their own right, but the overall impact is of vital importance as well. The wider effect would be to normalise cycling. I have seen for myself how cycling is a way of life for a striking number of people in Copenhagen and Malmö, where the long-standing determination of national and local politicians to deliver investment has reaped dividends. We need the same quality of leadership on cycling in the UK. We should not accept the Government’s retreat from promoting national standards.

That leads me to the issue of helmets and the case that some people have made for them to be compulsory. I have no doubt that helmets can effectively protect cyclists, particularly in low-impact collisions, and I would encourage their use, particularly by children, but I do not believe that compulsion is the answer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) explained, where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced, they have been associated with a decline in bicycle use, including by children. After helmets became mandatory in Australia in 1991, cycle use in Perth dropped by up to 40%. In New Zealand, cycling levels halved between 1994 and 2006. Compulsory helmet laws in both Israel and New Mexico were deemed to be unsuccessful, with cycling levels dropping to the point at which the viability of bicycle-sharing facilities was put at risk.

Any substantial drop in cycle usage can in itself have a serious impact on safety. The safety-in-numbers effect means that when cycling levels increase, so does driver awareness and demand for infrastructure investment; conversely, when levels fall, individual cyclists may be at greater risk. An example of the safety-in-numbers effect can be found in the Netherlands, where cycling levels are high and relatively few people wear helmets. British cyclists are three times more likely to be killed on the roads than their Dutch counterparts.

There is simply no quick fix for these issues. If we want more people to take up cycling, we need sustained investment and a more supportive attitude to cycling in general. British Cycling has said:

“Helmets can help save lives in many incidents and we recommend they are worn…What would contribute much, much more to making cycling safer is better road infrastructure.”

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) noted that there have been some unhelpful comments in the media about the causes of accidents, and I would like to deal with that point. Everyone on the roads has a duty to act responsibly. For cyclists, that of course includes using lights at night and cycling in a safe and law-abiding way. However, the truth is that cyclists are at fault only in a minority of collisions. That is why alongside training for cyclists, we urgently need better training for motorists and lorry drivers in particular. As I said, we need dedicated funding for infrastructure improvements. We need the Times Cities Fit for Cycling manifesto to be implemented in full and we need national standards to be upheld.

As a regular cyclist myself, I appreciate the importance of cycle safety standards. If we are serious about modal shift and tackling inactivity levels, we must make our roads safer and more attractive for cyclists and pedestrians. This debate has provided another vital opportunity to highlight the work that has been done and the work that we still need to do. Labour will continue to advance proposals to make our roads safer, and we will keep the pressure on the Government to strengthen their position on cycling safety.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Mr Hammond, would you like to give all those answers to Mr Bone’s 10-year-olds and on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Bill

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) on securing his place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills and on achieving such smooth and speedy progress for his Bill—certainly at least until today.

Clearly there is cross-party support for such legislation. We all recognise the vital role that the blue badge scheme plays in enabling disabled people to have better access to the places they want to go to and giving them greater independence. The need to reform the scheme to strengthen enforcement has long been recognised. The last Government published their independent strategic review as far back as 2007. The Select Committee on Transport published a report in 2008, and in 2009 the then Labour Government set out their timetable for implementing reforms. After the general election, it is good that the coalition Government have continued that work. The hon. Gentleman’s Bill, with its reference to improving enforcement of the scheme, is valuable, particularly in ensuring that the blue badge scheme’s public reputation is maintained.

I do not want to delay the House longer than is necessary; however, I want to place the Bill in its wider context and also seek clarification on one or two areas. First, the blue badge scheme is vital in promoting disabled people’s independence, and therefore continued Government support for it is welcome. Unfortunately, I am concerned that other Government transport policy is having the reverse effect. Under their comprehensive spending review, local transport budgets were cut by 28%, with support for bus services from the bus service operators grant reduced by 20%. As a result, one in five publicly supported bus services have been cut, with services removed, reduced or altered.

Those cuts have a disproportionate impact on passengers who cannot drive and for whom bus services are essential. They include the young, the old and, in particular, disabled people. Passenger Focus, the independent watchdog, produced a report in July on the impact on passengers of bus service reductions. One of those impacts was that “dependency on others increased”, which Passenger Focus found had led to

“a reduction in the quality of life.”

The report contained moving personal testimonies from older and disabled people illustrating how the loss of independence affected them. How will the Minister ensure consistency in Government policy on ensuring independence of travel for disabled people?

My second point about the wider context relates to my concern about how disabled people—of whom we know there are 10 million in the UK, a number that is set to rise as a result of our ageing population—will have a voice when it comes to decisions about transport, be it the blue badge scheme or other measures. The Government’s “bonfire of the quangos” recommended that the Department for Transport’s disabled persons transport advisory committee should close. However, it was not a very real bonfire, because at the same time the Government recognised that they needed a new group, so that they could still get advice on disabled people’s needs. It was a case of “one quango out, one quango in”. Two years on from that recommendation, we still do not know how the Department intends to ensure that disabled people have an effective voice to shape and influence Government policy. Perhaps the Minister can confirm when he expects to make further progress on that.

Finally, I want to return to the themes raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He sought reassurances that the Bill would not give rise to resourcing implications for local authorities, and also about the provisions for the right of appeal, which is effectively devolved from the Secretary of State. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—it was not the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on that occasion—stated that he did not believe there were any resourcing implications. However, I question whether that is still the case, when we consider the Bill in conjunction with the forthcoming changes to the arrangements for determining eligibility for a blue badge, which arise from the implementation of the personal independence payment.

The Government anticipate that fewer people will qualify for the personal independence payment than are currently in receipt of disability living allowance. I note that about 36% of blue badges are issued to people as a result of their receiving the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA. It is therefore possible that a proportion of those who are currently eligible for a blue badge might not be eligible under the new scheme, despite having no change in their condition. Will the Minister assure me that he has considered how that might impact on the implementation of the enforcement measures in the Bill, and the consequent level of appeals that might arise from that?

This is an excellent Bill. It will help to improve the acceptability of the blue badge scheme and ensure that disabled people are able to get where they need to go, as was intended when the Bill was introduced. Subject to the Minister’s responses to the points that I have just raised, I give the Bill my wholehearted support.

Transport Infrastructure (Essex)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for securing this debate, which comes at an important time when difficult decisions are being made on transport spending, both locally and nationally. She made a persuasive case for investment in Essex’s transport system, and it is important that all hon. Members make the call to support vital spending on infrastructure.

In July, we debated “Once in a generation—A rail prospectus for East Anglia”, and I, with several hon. Members here today, spoke in praise of that important document. It made a serious, positive case for investment in rail services in East Anglia, and I am glad that some of those issues have been revisited today. There is no doubt that Essex has complex transport needs, and a strong rail network is vital if they are to be met, not just to improve the experience for passengers—many hon. Members described why that is necessary—but to enable greater use of rail and to help relieve the pressure on roads, as hon. Members have so powerfully described.

Essex is a vibrant county, and it makes a vital contribution to the national economy, but that contribution is dependent on a transport system that is already under enormous pressure. Passengers face unsatisfactory services, with too much congestion on the roads, and trains at or above capacity during peak times. Passengers should not have to stand day in, day out when they are paying £4,000 or more for a season ticket. The county’s population is due to grow by 10% by 2018 and 20% by 2025, so investment is needed just to keep pace with that demographic change. However, still more investment is needed to enable regeneration and to help Essex to realise its full potential.

Some specific projects have been mentioned, and I will return to future investment. We must make sure that we do not lose what we already have. Under the Government’s plans, capital infrastructure spending on transport will fall by 11% over the course of this Parliament, and future infrastructure spending has been threatened by the uncertainty arising from the botched franchising of the west coast main line, throwing the future of the Essex Thameside franchise into doubt.

In a county that contains pronounced contrasts between rural and urban communities, as well as affluence alongside pockets of deprivation, bus services are particularly important. In Basildon, which is part of the Thames Gateway regeneration project, a quarter of households do not own a car. Essex county council’s own transport strategy acknowledges that bus services connecting Harlow and Basildon to other towns and cities are inadequate. The 28% cut to local transport funding and the 20% reduction to the bus service operators grant are putting the bus network under strain, with at least 18 services being reduced or withdrawn in Essex since 2010.

Although this is a debate on infrastructure, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) recognised, we must not lose sight of the importance of bus subsidy, which is vital for sustaining a true transport network. Bus services are under pressure, but commuters are also feeling the impact of fare rises. We have heard from the Government that rail fares are set to rise by up to 4.2% in January, but that is not the whole story. The decision to reintroduce flex could lead to fare increases of up to 9.2% at a time when household budgets are being squeezed on all sides.

Passengers reasonably ask when they will see service improvements, but under the guise of the McNulty report, the Department is pushing ahead with ticket office closures, which could lead to the withdrawal of staff from Alresford, Colchester Town, Dovercourt, Frinton-on-Sea, Great Bentley and Harwich International, among other Essex stations. Those closures will hit women and those on the wrong side of the digital divide, including many pensioners.

A spokesperson from Ontrack, a passenger group in Tendring, said:

“We've already had letters from some women who travel on their own, so we know it's a real concern not to have staff at the stations”

and

“in a coastal area like this there”

is

“a high proportion of elderly people who prefer to go to a ticket office and talk to someone rather than use a complicated machine. This will put people off using the trains.”

Those threats to public transport provision should not be allowed to threaten the good progress that has been made.

The hon. Member for Witham and other hon. Members have spoken about the vital role of Stansted airport, and we should celebrate the fact that 49% of Stansted passengers arrive by public transport—the highest proportion of any major UK airport. The East Anglia rail prospectus called for public transport links to Stansted to be strengthened, and I hope that that call is listened to as we enter cross-party talks on aviation capacity. Whatever the conclusion of those talks, I hope that the decline in passenger numbers at Stansted can be reversed, because both Stansted and the growing London Southend airport have an important role to play in alleviating pressure in the capital.

Improvements to infrastructure will play an important role. We need better integration between transport modes, especially between aviation and rail. The 45 minutes that it takes to travel 35 miles from Liverpool street to Stansted is, as the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) said, far from express. I hope that the means and the funding can be found to reduce that journey time.

In some respects, the problems encountered at Stansted are representative of those of the county as a whole. Existing transport links have enabled Essex to emerge as an important driver of national economic growth, yet those same transport links are clearly in need of improvement. To strengthen the transport network, we must look at both funding levels and the mechanisms through which that funding is delivered.

We want to devolve transport spending decisions but, unlike the Government, we would devolve that spending to democratically accountable regional transport partnerships based on elected local authorities. That would allow Essex or East Anglia to decide their own priorities, whether improvements to congested and dangerous roads or junctions, development of tram systems or better cycling infrastructure.

The current review of the franchising process should be allowed to consider alternative models for the rail industry, including the proposal to allow local transport authorities a greater say in how services are run. In Essex, where overcrowding is the norm and passenger satisfaction rates are low, that could allow the development of services that are more responsive to passengers’ needs. Above all, it would give local transport authorities the oversight they need to lead the integration of different modes of transport.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Is the hon. Lady saying that all the transport problems in Essex commenced in May 2010?

Lilian Greenwood: Of course I am not saying that all the problems commenced then. I am saying that many hon. Members have spoken about what the priorities should be. I believe that the people of Essex should have a greater say in deciding what those priorities are and how spending is directed to help to tackle them.

As the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, rail commuters in the region return substantial amounts to the Treasury, but see little return on the investment, while millions are lost each year due to the fragmentation of the industry. If the Government were serious about improving efficiency in the railways, they would look at alternative models for delivering services, instead of closing ticket offices in Essex.

The current uncertainty over the franchising model has been compounded by needless distractions that have beset the Department. It must be a source of frustration for Members here today that Government time is being taken up by the franchise fiasco, wrangles over High Speed 2 and fantasy islands in the middle of the Thames, when the time could be used to drive forward the improvements that their constituents require.

The need for improvements in Essex is acute, as today’s debate is proving. The answer is investment in transport infrastructure, both for commuter travel and to meet local transport needs. This debate is important and I am sure that the case for investment has been heard in the Department. I hope that a way forward can be found, so that Essex can develop the infrastructure it needs for the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

As my hon. Friend will know, consideration is being given to the general capacity of the crossing. We face a strategic choice whether to enhance the strategic road network at the existing crossing or to add a new link into the network, with a crossing further downstream, and I noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on that matter. That is why we are currently analysing the relative merits of the three potential locations for the new crossing, and the findings will inform public consultation in 2013. That is a way of saying that such issues will be wrapped up in consideration of the crossing in total, and it would be wrong to isolate one instance without looking at future plans for the crossing.

On rail and rail infrastructure, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham has campaigned hard for improvements in rail services in the region and for increased investment to reflect the level of fares paid, particularly by commuters. I am grateful for the recognition that the Government has taken steps to ensure that the possible increase in rail fares of RPI plus 3% has been averted. We have worked very hard on that in the Department for Transport and in the Government generally, and therefore rail fares will increase by RPI plus 1% for the rest of this Parliament. That was the formula put in place by the last Labour Government in 2004.

The issue of flex, which the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred to, was, I think, a little disingenuous, because flex was abolished for one year by the last Labour Transport Secretary. The intention, as shown by the paperwork in the Department for Transport, which I quoted in a previous debate, was to reinstate flex after the election. We are following the policy of the last Government in terms of both RPI plus 1% and the ability of companies to use flex while still maintaining the overall RPI plus 1% result.

[Lilian Greenwood]

To be clear and honest with the Essex constituents of the hon. Members here today, will the Minister confirm that the implication of the Government’s reintroducing flex is that some people could face increases in their rail fares of up to 9.2% in January 2013?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned, we have followed the intention of the last Government. It is also true that, with flex, some people can face an increase of zero, because flex, by definition, has fares above RPI plus 1% and below RPI plus 1%. That is the purpose of flex. By the way, I say to the Opposition spokesperson that trying to use scare tactics about the future of rail services and ticket offices does not help. We are trying to get more people on to the railways and to provide a better service, not to frighten people off the railways, as she seemed to be intending to do.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham will agree with me that there have been some service improvements in the region—for example, the cleaning of trains and the programme of refreshing of stations that is under way. Greater Anglia is investing in improvements to ticket retailing, additional car parking and cycle storage facilities across the franchise. A closer working relationship with Network Rail is seeing improvements in how access for engineering works is approached. That is something within my portfolio and something I have been pushing very hard, because when people want a train, they want a train, not a replacement bus service. It is expected to lead to better provision of services at weekends where large-scale closures have been the norm for a number of years. Frankly, that has to end.

I recognise the valuable work done in putting together the rail prospectus to which my hon. Friend and other colleagues refer. It makes the case very powerfully for investment in rail services in the Greater Anglia region. I can confirm that due consideration will be given to those aspirations when the Department is in a position to go to the market for a new franchise proposition.

The point about access to Stansted airport by rail was well made. It has been raised by a number of stakeholders and hon. Members and is very much on the Department’s radar as well.

The issue was raised of the link between Witham and Braintree—the branch line there. We are working with local stakeholders, who are currently developing a business case for the work. Consistent with our approach in other areas, we are happy to consider including such proposals in future franchises if a positive financial case can be made.

The good news, if my hon. Friend looks at what is happening elsewhere in the country, is that the largest rail building and investment programme since Victorian times is now being undertaken in this country. That includes passing loops and redoubling of lines in some cases, such as between Swindon and Kemble. It even includes lines being reopened, such as that from Oxford across to Bedford. There is heavy investment in rail, and it has a good economic return. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to argue in favour of investment in her area for such upgrades.

On aviation, it is pleasing to see Southend airport making great strides towards becoming a modern, 21st-century transport hub, with a new railway station and terminal, and the successful launch of commercial flights to a number of European destinations earlier this year.

Colleagues have referred to the future configuration of air capacity. Of course, that matter will be considered by the commission. We look forward to receiving its interim report at the Department for Transport. It is probably not sensible to spend very much time on aviation, speculating about the future. However, it is true, as I think one hon. Member said, that there is unused capacity at Stansted at the moment. That situation might be improved if there were an improved train service to the station, which I think was a case being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden.

Let me pick up some other points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester referred to the “Norwich in 90” campaign and asked for an assurance that that would not affect his constituency. I can say that we all share the desire to improve services north to Norwich and the intention would not be adversely to affect existing services. In an ideal world, we would look at improved rolling stock, improved line capacity and so on. That is how we would ideally look at delivering a better service. It certainly seems to me that if we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, there is not much of a gain to be had.

My hon. Friend also raised, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham South, the issue of bus services. I put it on the record that we regard bus services as very important. The bus is a primary means of getting to work for most people. There was a recent, very healthy publication called “Greener Journeys”, which I recommend to colleagues. It identified the key link between employment and bus services—how they are two sides of the same coin. The number of people on buses has marginally increased recently, the latest figures show, and the commercial sector is holding up very well. There is an issue about subsidised services from local councils, but that is a matter for local authorities to deal with.

We are seeing a mixed picture across the country. Whereas some areas are making very few or no cuts, other areas are making swingeing cuts, but the consequence of localism is that there will be a different response from different local authorities. Therefore, bus services in Essex are really a matter to pursue with Essex county council, rather than with the Department for Transport.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because points were raised by hon. Members that I want to cover.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester also raised the issue of cycleway provision, which was right. He will know, I hope, that the current Government has produced a brand-new sum of money, £600 million—the local sustainable transport fund—which, by encouraging match funding, has now produced more than £1 billion of funding for schemes on the ground, which are now being delivered. I have that rare pleasure as a Transport Minister of both approving the funding and still being there to open the schemes when they finally arrive. Many of those schemes involve cycleway provision. We are now seeing a commitment to cycling—a commitment right across England—that we did not see before. That is very good news. The number of people cycling is going up in this country.

My hon. Friend also mentioned light rail systems. I can assure him that we are doing a great deal to promote light rail. I refer him to the Department’s document “Green Light for Light Rail” and the fact that we have granted extensions to light rail systems in Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham, as well as authorising a tram-train project between Sheffield and Rotherham. The current Government is very supportive of light rail.

Of course, these sorts of scheme, whether they involve light rail, bus or cycle provision or, indeed, local roads, will be handled in future to a large degree by local people through the devolution proposals that the Department is bringing forward and through the creation of local transport boards, which are accountable through local authorities. Therefore, to a large degree, these sorts of discussion in the future, I hope, will be held in Essex, rather than necessarily in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I want all services to be good services and to serve hon. Members’ constituents, but of course we have lessons to learn—lessons from the way in which certain franchises were unable to continue under the previous Government. I made a statement to the House on Monday in which I said that we would learn those lessons. Two reviews are being undertaken, and I look forward to receiving their representations.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State continues to claim that privatising the east coast rail service is necessary to deliver new investment, but he knows full well that both the planned improvements for the line and the new generation of inter-city trains are being funded by the taxpayer. In the light of the west coast fiasco, will he rethink his opposition to allowing the east coast line to be run as a not-for-private-profit service, not least since, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, it returned £187 million to taxpayers last year—money that, from next year, will have to be split with shareholders?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady is rewriting history: the simple fact is that the previous Government were committed to franchising on the east coast main line—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) says he is not bothered about that any more; I shall remind him of things that he supported in the past but now attacks.

Rail Fares

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I join colleagues on both sides of the House in putting on the record my congratulations to the new Transport Secretary on his appointment. It is fitting that he should have made his debut in this debate. I know he is unable to be in the Chamber at the moment, but I am sure he will look carefully at all the arguments put forward by colleagues.

I listened very carefully to the Transport Secretary’s contribution, and was somewhat disappointed that he said very little about rail fare increases. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will say more about them, or perhaps the Secretary of State will return to fare increases in the coming days or weeks as he finds his way in his new brief and tell us exactly what he will do to protect passengers, what he thinks about the flex system, and whether he will lobby the Chancellor to keep rail fare rises to RPI plus 1%, as the Opposition propose. The Transport Secretary has an opportunity to push for the reintroduction of a real cap on fare rises, and I very much hope he takes it.

This debate has been about the general and the particular. There is a general crisis in the cost of living. Household budgets are under enormous pressure as living costs climb ever higher. The Opposition have called today for the Government to take a particular action—a further U-turn that would be welcomed by the constituents of all hon. Members in the Chamber. The Government could reverse their decision to allow the dramatic rise in rail fares, which, for many people, have come at the worst possible time.

The Government could resist the growing burden on hard-pressed passengers. The Labour Government put in place a strict cap on rail fare rises of 1% above inflation. It is a cause of great regret, both in the House and more importantly in the country, that the current Government chose to give the rail companies free rein over regulated fares. The removal of the cap, coupled with the restoration of flex, will lead to fare rises of up to 11%. That is a real blow at a time of pay freezes in both the public and the private sectors, higher-than-expected inflation and a contracting economy. The Campaign for Better Transport has warned that the cost of season tickets will go up three times faster than salaries. Without economic growth, the pain will only increase in intensity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who is not in her place, clearly explained how many people, particularly commuters, need to travel at particular times and cannot shop around for cheaper fares in the off-peak or super off-peak periods. They must simply pay up and see their disposable income hit. To give just one example, when one of my constituents needs to commute from Nottingham to Leicester to go to work, a season ticket currently costs £1,672 a year. Under the Government’s plans, it is estimated that that figure will rise to £1,937 by 2015, which would represent 7.38% of the average regional salary. Pity the commuter from Leeds to Hull whose season ticket will go up from £3,732 to £4,323, an eye-watering 16.5% of the average regional salary. In the most extreme cases, a season ticket could cost up to 25% of the average salary.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) noted—and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) agreed—commuters in the south-east are routinely spending 15% or more of their salary simply on getting to work, and many will be priced out of work altogether. The example given by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was helpful in that respect.

The issue is not just affecting commuters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, this also hurts businesses in his constituency whose staff need to travel to London to sustain and grow future business. Meanwhile infrastructure spending is being scaled back and the Government seem set on using the McNulty report as cover to withdraw staff from stations, despite many passengers relying on them to find the cheapest fares, which—as many hon. Members have pointed out—cannot easily be done using automated ticket machines, never mind the other concerns about unstaffed stations.

The fare rises will also have a particularly serious impact on those on low incomes, including pensioners and young people, who are already feeling the squeeze as the cost of living rises. When I speak to young people in my constituency the cost of transport is one of the key concerns that they raise, and I think the high cost of train travel comes as a real shock to many of those leaving home for the first time to go to university. For pensioners, the fare rises are compounded by cuts to alternative modes of transport. Bus services have been cut back and the withdrawal of support for long-distance coach travel is hitting pensioners hard.

Before the last election, someone said:

“The fares issue will not go away. It will be the biggest inhibitor of train travel in the years to come.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 166WH.]

Those are not my words, but those of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes. In fact, we have heard many warm words on fares. Scores of coalition MPs have been telling their local papers that they opposed the rise in fares, despite voting for them in this House. They will be glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight, and I trust that all those hon. Members will join us in the Lobby today.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Secretary of State also suggested on several occasions that we had voted for RPI plus 3%, but I do not recall doing so. Can the hon. Lady point to the dates of the Divisions in which any hon. Member specifically voted for RPI plus 3%?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman will find that we have had previous debates on transport and the cost of living when he had an opportunity to vote for our proposals, which would have reduced the increase in fares.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not at the moment.

We have heard many warm words on fares and coalition Members have been supportive of the Government’s position. We have been promised an end to “inflation busting fares” in a press release from the Department for Transport, and both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives promised “fair pricing for rail travel” in the coalition agreement. For all those fine words, what has been delivered? Fares will rise by 3% above inflation, flex will be reinstated, and there will be overall rises of up to 11%. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) likes to pretend that that is nothing to do with his party, but it is his Ministers, including the Under-Secretary, who are imposing these measures.

The new franchises also hand operators unprecedented license over the quantity and quality of the services that they run. Ministers must mind the gap between rhetoric and reality. For too many passengers the reality of rail travel is overcrowded carriages, repeated delays and needlessly complicated pricing structures. Instead of tackling the root causes of waste in the railways, the Government are merely handing the cost on to passengers. We are keen to see a more efficient rail industry, but passengers face unaffordable fare rises now. There have been enough empty pledges from this Government. Their words are cheap, but the fares are dear, and the rail companies count the profits. There has to be another way.

Less than a month ago, the former Transport Secretary, now Secretary of State for International Development, said that she wanted to find a means of bringing

“fares down to something affordable.”

This motion offers just such a means. I hope that the new Transport Secretary will be prepared to stand up against vested interests for the public good, and I hope that Members from all parties will support this motion to help ease the burden on rail passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am merely reading out the legalistic words that the previous Transport Secretary put in place stating that the policy was to be reversed on 1 January 2011. The facts speak for themselves. I have to ask, however, if the Opposition’s policy is now to end the flex, why the Welsh Assembly Government, run by the Labour party, continue to operate it. I have not heard any words from the Opposition condemning the Welsh Assembly Government. Or is it all right to have flex in Wales, where Labour is in control, but not in England, where we are determining policy for rail matters over here?

I am interested in a point that several Members made about the split of the responsibility for paying for the railways between passengers and taxpayers. The point about where that balance should lie is very important. The Opposition spokesman will know that Labour’s plan was for a 70% passenger and 30% taxpayer split. In 2010, the percentages were 64% passenger and 36% taxpayer, so one assumes that Labour wants to increase the percentage in order to reach its 70% figure. Our policy priority does not include worrying about the split per se, but is about getting efficiencies into the rail network—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) rightly made. I can assure him that we are taking great steps to improve the efficiency of the rail network, and by and large we have adopted the report from Roy McNulty, which was a helpful contribution to the debate on the rail network, in order to bring down our costs.

Roy McNulty indicated that costs were about 40% above what they should be, and we are determined to make those savings. We have identified savings of £1.2 billion in control period 4—the present control period—and up to £2.9 billion of further savings in control period 5. There are further savings to be made through genuine efficiencies—not cuts—in how the railway is run. One, for example, is the alliance project between Network Rail and South West Trains. I am not quite sure whether the Opposition support that trial, but it is delivering real savings and efficiencies, eliminating duplication, reducing the cost of the railway and providing a better service for the people who use South West Trains. That is an example of how efficiency savings can improve services. I am happy to say that it is now happening on South West Trains.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister has talked about the balance between taxpayers and fare payers. He will know that the National Audit Office said that higher rail fares might simply lead to higher profits for train operating companies. How will he ensure that taxpayers benefit, not the private companies?

[Norman Baker]

It is our intention, once the savings coming through from Network Rail are realised, to end the era of above-inflation rail fare increases introduced by the previous Government. There can be no doubt about our intention to do that.

Let me deal with the issue of ticket offices raised by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for whom I have much respect when it comes to railway matters, and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the shadow Minister. It is worth pointing out that in the last five years of the previous Government, Ministers approved cuts in opening hours at approximately 300 stations. The number since the coalition Government came to power is soon to be 34, so there were far more cuts to ticket office hours under the last Government than there have been under this Government. In fact, the shadow Secretary of State might want to know that ticketing hours have actually increased at a number of stations since this Government came to power. We do not hear much from the Opposition about that either.

I do not want to make my speech simply a matter of rebutting the Opposition’s motion. It is important to get rail fares down as soon as possible and this Government take that very seriously indeed. We are committed to reducing and abolishing above-inflation rises as soon as we can. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), I think both sides of the coalition are committed to buttercups, rainbows and daffodils. Both of us want to end the era of above-inflation increases as soon as we practically can, and the sooner we can make the savings that the Opposition are so reluctant to see—and which, by the way, they have no plan to deliver—we can end that above-inflation record, which I am sorry to say the Labour party introduced when it was in power.

Taxpayers and indeed passengers have been paying over the odds for the railway. The fiscal position demands that the high level of public subsidy for rail in recent years be reduced. As a Government, we have a duty, which we take seriously, to keep rail travel affordable for as many people as possible and to minimise the level of taxpayer support for rail by bringing forward sensible and workable efficiencies. Achieving that will depend on securing the efficiency savings that we have outlined in our rail Command Paper. That is why it is so important that the whole industry works together to a shared agenda to deliver for both passengers and taxpayers.

Opposition Members have referred to the coalition agreement. We stand by the words in the agreement about getting a fair deal for passengers, and we are determined to do so. The present Secretary of State has already indicated, in his first contribution in the House in that role, his concern about rail fares, and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), did likewise. Yes, there was pressure last year to ensure that we did not have RPI plus 3%. That pressure was successful and we have committed—once savings are found and the improvement in the wider economic situation permits—to reducing and then abolishing above-inflation rises in average regulated fares.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—I should know that, shouldn’t I?—referred to fares. I do not pretend that some fares are not excessive; some of them definitely discourage people from travelling by train. That is part of the reason why we are having the fares and ticketing review. She referred to trains being overcrowded, but to be fair and put the matter in context, she needs to recognise that one of the reasons why the trains from Brighton are overcrowded—I know them very well—is that Southern has introduced a large number of cheap fares, which local people are taking advantage of. There are now people standing off-peak all the way from Lewes or Brighton to London because fares have been reduced to an attractive level. In fact, we have a selection of fares. There is an issue about peak fares—that is part of the fares and ticketing review—but many off-peak fares are very cheap indeed.

I can assure the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that split ticketing will be covered in the fares and ticketing review. As for East Coast, which is currently run from the Department for Transport, as it were, through an arm’s length body, action has been taken on that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to talk about investment for the future, which I have already mentioned. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to complexity; that will be dealt with in the fares and ticketing review. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) talked about the inheritance in Kent. I recognise that there are particular issues in Kent that should be looked at, and I am happy for that to be part of the work of the Department for Transport. We want to see an end to above-inflation fare rises as soon as possible, and I want to assure the House that we in the Department are taking steps to achieve just that.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Rail (East Anglia)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am sorry that Mr Hollobone had to leave, because I know that we share a particular interest in rail investment.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing the debate and co-ordinating it so well with the publication of “Once in a generation—A rail prospectus for East Anglia”. She made an eloquent case on behalf of her constituents and the wider region. There may be competition for the title of the Cinderella of the railways—I am thinking of my midland main line—but the importance of improving Ely North junction has been put across strongly today.

The prospectus is a substantial document that presents strong arguments for future transport investment in East Anglia. I congratulate those involved in producing it. The east of England needs and deserves better transport links, particularly given the anticipated population growth, which hon. Members described. As a shadow Transport Minister, I welcome the prospectus’s publication, and I hope that it receives a sympathetic hearing within the Department for Transport. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

As many have said, the east of England is a net contributor to the Treasury, and better transport links could enhance that contribution. The prospectus reveals the patchwork of provision across East Anglia. Too many lines suffer restrictions on capacity, with passenger numbers on the west Anglia route alone expected to increase by 42% by 2021, leaving 59% of trains overcrowded. With the Government set to allow fares to increase by up to 11% next year, passengers expect and deserve better. As the hon. Members for Suffolk Coastal and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) rightly said, improving links to Felixstowe is vital for the expansion of rail freight, and to reduce congestion on the roads, cut carbon emissions and free up extra capacity for passenger services.

The proposals set out today would strengthen East Anglia’s vital economic links to London, but the document’s ambition does not stop there. The previous Government undertook improvements to lines and stations between Oxford and Cambridge, and the prospect of a reopened and revitalised varsity line is worth looking at in detail. The prospectus also presents a strong case for looking at modernisation of stock and track, including electrification, in East Anglia.

There is a compelling case for investment that meets local need and supports wider economic growth. The hon. Members for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made a strong case on behalf of Essex and its potential for generating jobs through inward investment and business expansion. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) set out clearly how Norfolk and East Anglia can contribute to sustainable growth if properly linked to key centres, including the City of London. Perhaps next time I am on a windy Norfolk beach, I will try to remember that East Anglia is the California of Europe. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) made an important point about the development of high-tech industries in that part of the country, particularly around Cambridge.

I agree that better infrastructure is needed to drive up passenger satisfaction rates, which are the lowest in the country. Unfortunately, I am concerned that Government policy may end up holding the proposals back. Labour Members have supported £528 million of efficiency savings in rail, but the Government have pushed ahead with a further £759 million cut to capital spending.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Lady briefly spell out all the improvements that the Labour Government made to the rail infrastructure in East Anglia in their 13 years in power?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Labour took action in government, and I am happy to say that transport spending in the eastern region increased in real terms during our time in power. In our last year in office, it stood at £1.494 billion, but I do not deny that a new approach is needed. That is why I will set out our proposals for a real devolution programme with transparent and fair regional funding. Unlike the Government’s proposals on devolution, ours include democratic accountability.

The prospectus makes a powerful case for investment in East Anglia’s rail network, but Government cuts have made it less likely that the funding will be found.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is simply not true that the Government are slashing spending on our railways. We have embarked on the biggest programme of capacity expansion in the rail network since the Victorian era. The hon. Lady should get her facts right.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sorry that the Minister felt the need to spell that out, because she is wrong. She is cutting money from planned rail investment, and there will be an impact when hon. Members seek investment. I look forward to hearing what she has to say on the high-level output specification and what it means for not only East Anglia, but other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has said that she was reassured that

“it is not on the Government’s Agenda to reduce passenger rail services.”

She will surely hope, therefore, that the Government do not follow the model they adopted when they issued the west coast invitation to tender. The document allowed bidders to reduce daily stops at stations by up to 10%. Any reduction in service would be compounded by the McNulty report’s ticket office closures in the counties represented here today. Colchester Town in Essex, Thetford in Norfolk, and Whittlesford Parkway in Cambridgeshire, to give just a few examples, all face having their staff withdrawn. I am sure that the hon. Lady, having secured the debate, will also put pressure on her Government to ensure that existing services in East Anglia are protected. [Interruption.]

Passengers are already feeling the pinch. Services are overcrowded, and the Government have decided to increase fares by 3% above the retail prices index for the remainder of the Parliament. They have also given train operating companies the freedom to average out the rise, leading to fare rises of up to 11% next January. When personal and family budgets are under great pressure, with some commuters paying as much as £4,000 or £5,000 for their annual travel, the Government should be on the side of East Anglia’s commuters, not vested interests in the rail industry. [Interruption.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. If Mr Shelbrooke wants to intervene, would he mind standing, rather than grunting from a sedentary position?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Mr Bone.

It is regrettable that the Government have added to the uncertainty about the future of East Anglia’s rail network. When National Express ceased to operate East Anglia rail earlier this year, the Government should have entrusted the franchise to public ownership through Directly Operated Railways, thereby providing stability in the run up to the Olympics. A two-year private tender with no long-term security or incentive for investment was not the solution East Anglia needed.

The Government’s tendering process in East Anglia also raises questions about their commitment to devolution. It is clear from the prospectus, and hon. Members’ contributions today, that there is local appetite for greater involvement in guiding infrastructure spending and delivery in East Anglia. We, in Labour, wish to promote that spirit by working more closely with local authorities to deliver a better transport system. The Government have already entered into negotiations with transport authorities in the north of England on potentially devolving responsibility for railway operations in that region. Why not do the same in East Anglia?

I urge the Government to listen to the calls in the prospectus to strengthen transport links to Stansted airport. Half of all passengers arrive at Stansted by public transport—the highest proportion for any major airport in the UK. Better transport links could help to relieve airport capacity constraints in Greater London without the environmental costs associated with other proposals. The Government are locked in distracting internal arguments on Heathrow expansion and fantasy islands in the middle of the Thames, but would it not be better to listen to those arguments instead?

In conclusion, I welcome the publication of the document and the spirit in which it was compiled. We want closer working between local authorities and other representatives, and we would back them with genuine devolved powers over transport spending. Discussions with the Department for Transport must now begin. There are many other worthy projects to consider at a time when capital budgets have been cut too far and too fast. Nevertheless, the report’s authors must be commended for the case that they have made on behalf of East Anglia, and I wish them all the best in their endeavours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that a long franchise can give many more opportunities for a train operator to innovate, and for us to draw private sector investment into the railways.

We will launch a public consultation on the next Greater Anglia franchise later this year. A detailed business case will be developed, and, drawing on the results of the consultation, we are likely to appraise a range of improvement options. As to what goes into the franchise, I emphasise that we have no plans to remove daytime passenger services from the Felixstowe branch line, which was a matter of importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Although Hutchison Ports has proposed the change, it has an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to fund the required infrastructure upgrades.

We have heard many other aspirations: there are the half-hourly services called for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, and the specific service changes called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). Decisions on those will be made only after the consultation has taken place, but I shall ensure that this debate is fed into the process.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am afraid I do not have time; I have only a couple of minutes left.

As for aspirations such as “Norwich in 90”—a campaign for that has been led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith)—it is too early to say what the franchise will specify for the train service between London and Norwich. However, in making such decisions we will need to take into account the interests of all the communities on the line, and those who live in intermediate destinations such as Chelmsford and Colchester. Whatever train service we adopt, we shall encourage bidders to put together affordable proposals for improved journey times and a better customer experience.

We did some work on options for Norwich to London before letting the short franchise, and that suggested that spending about £10 million to £15 million on new locomotives and refurbishing existing passenger vehicles would make it possible to save about seven minutes on most trains, and that could be funded in a 15-year franchise from additional revenue. However, that is just one option. We hope that franchise bidders will devise alternative plans that either cost less or produce greater benefits for passengers.

One factor, of course, that bidders will have to take into account is the requirement to make modifications to rolling stock by 2020, to provide proper access for people with reduced mobility. In response to all hon. Members who talked about the state of the rolling stock—some of it is fairly elderly—let me say that there will be changes over the next few years because of the deadline. The decision on whether that will involve targeted improvements, full refurbishment, new rolling stock or a combination of all three lies in the future, but change will have to be made. In the meantime, Abellio is pressing ahead with a deep clean of rolling stock.

In conclusion—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that we have recently announced the winners of the third round of the green bus fund. Because of our prudent financial management as a Department, we were able to increase it from £20 million to £31 million. We have also provided money to retrofit buses in London to deal with the air pollution problem there. That is a demonstration of the fact that we are committed to bus travel—both to help create growth and to cut carbon.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s new funding pots are like an attempt to use sticking plasters to cover a gaping wound—the wound inflicted by his decision to cut support for buses by half a billion pounds, which has resulted in not improved but disappearing services. “The picture is bleak.” Those are not my words, but the words of the boss of Arriva. Page after page reveals the effect of the Government’s cuts: “frequency reduced”, “evening and Sunday service withdrawn”, “cancelled owing to lack of funding”. Why does the Minister not admit that his policies have been a disaster for bus users?

[Norman Baker]

I will not admit it because it is entirely untrue. In fact, those policies have been a success. Recent figures from local authorities show that the average bus mileage is relatively unchanged, which suggests that there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up. The industry itself has congratulated the Government on their new bus policy, as, indeed, have local authorities. Perhaps the hon. Lady should pay more attention to what the industry and users say, which, by and large, is supportive of what the Government are doing.

Railway Stations

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

My constituency includes the rail stations of Stevenage and Knebworth, both operated by First Capital Connect. We have sought the debate today to illustrate some of our difficulties in achieving station improvements in small towns and cities throughout the country. I will focus predominantly on my constituency of Stevenage, but I know that other Members present wish to intervene.

Stevenage station opened on its new site back in 1973, which was a few years before I was born. That illustrates the age of the station. It is an important hub for Hertfordshire, with Stansted airport on one side and Luton airport on the other; many services to the north of the country run by East Coast trains leave Stevenage, and the station sees more than 4 million passenger movements a year, with Knebworth station seeing almost half a million a year. Stevenage is quite a large and important regional train service hub. Bearing that in mind, First Capital Connect will be operating a 100-day peak service before, during and just after the Olympics, as hundreds of thousands of people use stations in my constituency to travel to King’s Cross to get across London to the Olympics. I am also proud that we will welcome the Olympic torch to Stevenage on 8 July; I look forward to a large boost to our local economy as a result.

I take the opportunity to commend the present and the previous Government for the fantastic transformations to King’s Cross and St Pancras railway stations. Both are iconic. I commute into King’s Cross every single day, from Stevenage, which is less than 30 miles away. My personal experience is that the station has improved a great deal. A lot of scaffolding was up for many years, but it has now been cleared away and, once again, the sunlight can be seen. There are similarities with Gatwick airport, with its departure and arrival lounges, and the station is looking much better.

King’s Cross is a category A station, the gateway to London for my constituents and millions of others, and yet, of my stations, Stevenage is category C and Knebworth category E. The Minister might be anticipating a long moan about the lack of investment in local train stations by all Governments and expecting me to lament the challenges that my constituents face trying to travel less than 30 miles to London, negotiating their way through all the obstacles, but the journey experience for passengers from my area has improved over the past few years, mainly due to the thousands of extra seats available at peak times. Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate on behalf of passengers, including myself, how annoying the annual increase in rail fares is and that we resent it predominantly because we do not feel that we are getting value for money, especially with the local council earning millions of pounds out of exorbitant car parking charges. I am lucky enough to be able to walk to the train station from my home in Stevenage, but many of my constituents are not as fortunate and have to pay large car parking charges on top of the large rail fares. For a 30-mile journey from Stevenage to King’s Cross, an annual travelcard costs well in excess of £4,000.

I would like to remain as positive as possible, however, because I am proud of my local area, so I will set out some of the improvements we have seen over the past five years, to Stevenage station in particular. A gate-line installation massively improved security and revenue protection along the whole line. The overbridge at Stevenage has a new kiosk, the toilets have been refurbished, the ticket office now has induction loops, the station has been repainted and there are food and drink vending machines. The ticket office is compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, cycle parking has been improved twice—three or four years ago, and last year it was increased by another 55%, with a £36,000 investment—and the waiting rooms have been refurbished. We now have four CCTV cameras installed and one thin film transistor or TFT-enhanced LCD display screen, so that we can all see what time the train is coming and how long it will be delayed for. We have DDA-compliant handrails to stairways. The Cambridge capacity study has reviewed and launched installation of dispatch equipment to allow for 12-car trains, so if we can obtain the rolling stock, thousands more seats will be available for even more of us to have a seat on our commute to London.

Network Rail’s national station improvement programme has led to platform seating being renewed, and station signage has been replaced. A new customer information service screen has been installed in the waiting room on platform 1, so people can sit down and not get wet when looking to see what time their train will come. Meeting point signage systems have also been installed. There has been a host of further welcome improvements to security in conjunction with British Transport Police, and both my local stations—Stevenage and Knebworth— are now fully accredited as safer stations. That is all good news, and positive.

There are many more improvements to look forward to over the next few years, including plans to resurface platforms later this year. Network Rail plans to make minor extensions to the platforms so that we can have 12-car trains. Most important, access-for-all funding is allowing conversion of the goods lift to a fully automated passenger lift. That is costing £578,000, and disabled passengers will be able to use the lift, instead of waiting for a member of staff to unlock the goods lift, which is totally inappropriate. I welcome the additional funding, and that work is due to be completed in March 2014.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s description of the improvements at Stevenage station. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Knebworth station in his constituency. Does he share my concern that investment in stations to make them more accessible and modern will be completely wasted if the Government press ahead with plans to close ticket offices? Knebworth is mentioned in the McNulty report as a station that may have its ticket office closed. Many people rely on staff at stations to help them.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s intervention is too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I would like to make some progress and address the points raised by my hon. Friend, but if there is time at the end of the debate, I will give way to the hon. Lady. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Stevenage has already benefited from the national stations improvement programme, and almost £100,000 has been spent on new waiting shelters, seating and station signage. A further £150,000 is due to be spent on a full refurbishment of the concourse area, with work expected to commence later this year. Although Stevenage is already deemed to be accessible, as my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, we are ploughing in money from the Access for All programme to convert two of the goods lifts to passenger lifts, at a cost of £578,000. In addition, Access for All money has already been used to fund the installation of ticket office induction loops, a low-level, split-level ticket office counter, handrails to existing staircases and compliant “Meeting Point” signage.

Therefore, to pick up my hon. Friend’s point, I would not necessarily agree that the current system does not work. What I have outlined demonstrates that it does work. However, I would agree that transferring more responsibility to train companies is likely to improve matters even further. Network Rail, of course, has responsibility for some of the major stations in our country. It has done a fantastic job at King’s Cross and at St Pancras with Eurostar. We are now seeing the belief in railways restated. For a long time, stations were regarded as something to be embarrassed about by the railway industry. That was the case back in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. Now, there is a new confidence about the railways. The way King’s Cross has been re-engineered demonstrates that. However, it is right that we should have that benefit translated across the network and not simply at the big stations. My hon. Friend is right to make that point.

It is planned to spend £100,000 of money from the national stations improvement programme to improve the waiting shelters at Knebworth station. My hon. Friend will know that some Access for All money was used to fund smaller-scale improvements to the staircase and signage there as well.

The national stations improvement programme is a good example of the members of the industry working together to deliver benefits for passengers. It is the case that £150 million has been made available over five years to improve passenger facilities at busy stations in England and Wales that the public have identified as not up to scratch. The choice of schemes has been managed at local level, with Network Rail and train companies working together to agree the most efficient way to deliver the upgrades. About £101 million of that money has been spent so far on improving stations, and about 100 projects have been completed so far, benefiting more than 240 stations. In addition, many schemes have attracted third-party contributions, whether from local authorities or other funding bodies. The £26 million of additional money has allowed us to provide even more improvements.

NSIP is also helping to fund an information zoning initiative at stations in England. The aim is to make it easier for passengers to find appropriate information in different parts of stations, including information about local transport facilities for onward travel. We regard the end-to-end journey concept as very important if we are to make rail travel work as well as it can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle will know, I hope, that £450,000 of NSIP money has been spent on improving Carlisle station, including renovating the waiting room on the London-bound platform, refurbishing the existing waiting room and constructing a new seated waiting area and gateway to the historic Settle-Carlisle line. As I also hope he knows, we plan to spend a further £1.8 million of Access for All money on providing a new accessible route, with two new lifts, at Carlisle station. Works are currently scheduled to start on site in October 2013.

I should say that the Access for All programme is delivered with DFT money. Therefore, that is not in the gift of Network Rail. The coalition Government have made it a priority to try to improve disabled access at stations. That is why we have continued with that programme.

[Norman Baker]

Yes, indeed. We agree with that point, and in relation to all the transport funding that we have identified, whether for railways or elsewhere, we have tried as far as possible to drive down costs and get better value for money, but also to unlock match funding, whether from local authorities, transport operators or wherever. We have been successful at doing that. If people look at the development pool scheme and local authority schemes, for example, they will see that we have managed to proceed with a huge number of those that would not otherwise have gone ahead, because of those approaches, which have driven down costs and got extra funding from elsewhere. We entirely endorse that approach.

[Lilian Greenwood]

How can the Minister claim that this is a rail-friendly Government when fares are due to rise by RPI plus 3% for the rest of this Parliament and 675 category E stations face losing all their staff?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry that I let the hon. Lady intervene to disrupt what was a unified approach to improving the railways. Nevertheless, let me say for the record that the RPI plus 1% arrangement, which is the one in place this year, was introduced by the previous Labour Government for about 10 years. Indeed, they reversed RPI minus 1% and made it RPI plus 1%, so Labour Members are probably not in a good position to argue about rail fares. In addition, I will say that no decisions have been taken on closing ticket offices. There is a recommendation in the McNulty report about ticket offices. No decisions have been taken on that yet. It does not help the railway to talk down the railway and make up scare stories about ticket offices in front of constituents.

With regard to the Access for All programme, we are taking steps, as I mentioned, to allow better access for disabled people. The £370 million programme is designed to provide an obstacle-free route at 153 priority stations by 2015, and more than 70 of those projects have already been completed. To get the best value for money, that funding has been targeted at the busiest stations, although about one third of the stations were selected to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country.

To ensure that local or less busy stations are not forgotten—category 3, 4 or 5 stations are very important—we also offer train operators an annual fund to deliver smaller-scale access improvements. Since 2006, the Department for Transport has offered more than £25 million towards a total investment of more than £70 million for smaller-scale, locally focused access improvements at stations. More than 1,000 stations have benefited so far from a variety of new facilities, including accessible toilets, customer information systems, new ticket hall features and better signage and lighting. In the past year alone under this Government, 74 projects delivered improvements at 136 different stations.