Rail Reform

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I believe that the performance on that line is starting to improve, but the document we are issuing today is all about making sure that train operating companies are in a position to deliver, and are working with Network Rail to deliver, better services for passengers in a more efficient way.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s willingness to look at the rail sector overall, but how much funding do the Government intend to remove from supporting the rail service? Will she explain exactly how the spiralling cost of rail fares will be addressed, overcrowding will be reduced and extra capacity can be produced where it is required, such as across the north?

[Justine Greening]

We recognise that we need to tackle the underlying inefficiencies in the railways, which Sir Roy McNulty identified as totalling around £3.5 billion. I also recognise that some of the network provides a broader public good and that there will therefore be a need for public subsidy. However, we need to make sure that that represents good value for taxpayer money. We are concerned about overcrowding. That is why we are investing in 2,700 new carriages, which will provide extra capacity. That is why the overall £18 billion of investment going into the industry is so crucial; that is one way in which we can improve performance. Of course, making sure the industry is financially sustainable is absolutely critical too.

Transport and the Economy

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to launch a debate on two reports from the Transport Committee about expenditure by the Department for Transport. The first, “Transport and the economy”, considered how spending on transport could boost economic growth, and was published last March. The second, “Counting the cost”, was published only last week. That report follows up important aspects of our earlier work and comments on changes to departmental expenditure plans, particularly the new transport projects announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn.

I should begin by putting the Department’s expenditure into context. In 2010-11 the Department’s budget was £12.8 billion, which was split between capital projects and ongoing resources spending. As a result of the spending review, that budget was due to decrease by 15% in real terms by 2015. Resource spending, covering items such as local authority grants and the bus service operators’ grant bus subsidy scheme, was cut by 21%.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend. During the last two or three months, I have observed an increasing number of complaints from constituents whose bus services are being cut in Runcorn and Widnes. Has the Committee made any assessment of the wider impact on bus services throughout the country?

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee investigated the impact of spending cuts on bus services, and found that cuts had been made in more than 70% of transport authorities. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that it is currently re-examining the issue.

The cut in the bus subsidy scheme was larger than the 11% cut in capital spending. The situation has changed a little following the autumn statement, with some extra money provided for capital projects

The fact that most of the Department’s budget is spent by external agencies, specifically Network Rail, Transport for London and local authorities, makes it more difficult for the Department to have detailed control over those areas. However, the Department was generally regarded as having emerged relatively well from the spending review, despite the significant cut in its budget. I welcome the Government’s statement that they believe that spending on transport infrastructure can help to boost the economy.

It is important to recognise that congestion on the road, rail and air networks remains a major constraint on connectivity and growth. There is clear evidence that relieving congestion by providing new capacity helps to increase productivity and promotes economic development. It is also important to note that congestion is not the only indication of the need for transport investment, particularly where regeneration is required and disparities are evident.

The last major Government study of the relationship between transport and economic growth was the Eddington report, commissioned by the previous Administration. It showed that transport is necessary for economic growth, but of itself is not sufficient. To be effective, transport and economic development must go hand in hand. Building transport links to Canary Wharf regenerated the area because that was linked with an economic strategy. It is not clear that the Government appreciate the significance of this point made strongly in our report.

Our report expressed concern that the abolition of regional structures may lead to the absence of economic development strategies required to maximise the potential of transport investment across local authority boundaries as well as making it more difficult to prioritise transport projects of wider significance. The Department has encouraged the local enterprise partnerships to fill that gap and it is now suggesting that transport funding could be devolved to groups of local authorities and LEPs. How will this work in practice, however? This new approach to regional planning might work well in some areas but could struggle to take off in others, and there will be parts of the country which lack a strong voice or which fall between two strong regional centres and are overlooked by both.

The Department did not identify the issues it is seeking to tackle through its spending on transport. For example, the Government state that they want to “rebalance the economy”. That can mean a number of different policies, perhaps including more private sector employment, reducing disparities between regions, or reducing reliance on the banking sector and encouraging manufacturing. How are the decisions on transport spending related to these objectives and what assessment takes place to identify which transport modes are most appropriate to deliver them? How is the balance of spending between road and rail determined? Has any assessment been made of the significance of the absence of an aviation policy on economic activity generated by international connectivity? The answers to those questions are not clear. That is because the Department does not have an explicit transport strategy and lacks a coherent framework for deciding which transport schemes to prioritise.

I must note, however, that some progress is being made. Rail and aviation policy papers are due very soon and the Committee is looking forward to scrutinising them. There has been an important review of the Highways Agency, a national policy statement regarding ports has been agreed, and a policy statement for national networks is awaited. Will the Minister assure us that we will soon see a Government strategy for transport? That is greatly needed and has been long awaited.

The Committee considered the appraisal that is undertaken of transport projects. There is sometimes too much focus on cost-benefit analysis: not all the costs and benefits of a project can be monetised. For example, the wider economic benefits of a project or its environmental impacts are often excluded. It is also often forgotten that the economic appraisal is just one aspect of a more complex appraisal process based on five areas, including strategic fit and project affordability. Unless an overall strategy is identified, it is not possible to assess the strategic fit of any individual investment. Greater transparency in decision making is important. No doubt we will debate High Speed 2 in more detail on another occasion, but it is notable that although a huge amount of material about the project has been published, no information about how it is to be financed has been made public.

In respect of smaller schemes, there is often very little published information about the strategic fit or how they are to be funded. The new projects announced in the autumn statement seem to have been funded on the basis that they were ready to proceed. It is unclear whether they are necessarily the investments that offer the best value for money or that will meet transport objectives. The Department contributes significantly to two cross-departmental funds—the regional growth fund and the growing places fund—but no information is available on where the Department’s financial contributions have been invested or to what effect.

Strategic fit should include consideration of how a scheme contributes to rebalancing the economy. The major investment that has taken place in transport infrastructure in London and the south-east is clearly necessary, but transport investment across the UK is required. Interestingly, £15 billion will be invested in Crossrail, about £5 billion of it directly from Government funds, and £5.5 billion will be invested in Thameslink, while a reappraisal is taking place on whether half a billion pounds should be invested in The Northern Way, improving rail services right across the north.

The new transport spending announced in the autumn statement is welcome, but the analysis of the regional breakdown published by the Institute for Public Policy Research North raises concerns. It found that 84% of planned new infrastructure spending would be in London and the south-east, compared with just 6% in northern England. That works out at an average spend per head of £2,731 in London compared with just £5 in the north-east. The Passenger Transport Executive Group has produced similar information showing that transport spending is more than twice as much per head in London and the south-east than it is in Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands and the north-east. That imbalance is a matter of concern.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the discrepancy in the level of spend in London and the south-east, which occurred under the previous Government, as the Select Committee report made clear, and is apparently continuing under this Government, as the IPPR figures that she cited made clear. Did she and her Committee consider why the methodology by which transportation schemes are assessed continues to drive an answer that skews the cash so much towards one small part of our country?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The imbalance to which he refers dates back many years and decades, spanning many Governments. The Committee did examine the issue and has stated, in recognition of it, that congestion should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding where investment should be made. The importance of economic development and the potential of transport investment in relation to that should be recognised too. The Committee made a specific recommendation on this in its most recent report, stating that the Department should publish an annual analysis of its “regional spend” and publish information about the “regional impact” of its announcements.

More clarity is required on the information published generally by the Department about its spending decisions. When the Department’s budget was cut after the 2010 election, details of which specific items of expenditure were reduced were not published until a parliamentary question was tabled requesting that information. The Transport Committee also discovered that the Department had underspent on its 2010-11 budget to the tune of £1 billion and had returned £500 million to the Treasury. The underspend was far greater than the budget cut made during the year and it was larger than the cuts to bus subsidies, which have caused so many difficulties to bus users across the country. Funding made available for transport should be used for transport and should not be returned to the Treasury. I hope that we will all be able to have more confidence in the Department’s budgeting in the future.

Most rail projects are agreed as part of a five-yearly control period process. We are currently waiting for the Government to set out schemes they would like Network Rail to take forward during the 2014 to 2019 period, and to identify the funds that will be available. This approach has helped to protect rail from indiscriminate budget cuts at the time of the spending review. The Chancellor’s autumn statement included support for some rail schemes, such as the new Oxford to Bedford line. The Committee has asked the Minister to make it clear whether those schemes are additional to the projects that will be announced as part of the normal funding process or are simply being brought forward for slightly earlier implementation. There is a need for much more clarity when announcements are made on whether the schemes are genuinely additional to those that have already been agreed or whether they are agreed schemes being brought forward at an earlier date.

The National Audit Office has recently suggested that the Government should have a mechanism to reopen control period settlements in order to have more flexibility to make cuts, if necessary. I oppose that suggestion. The arrangements for rail have helped to provide a relatively transparent and stable way of investing, which is necessarily medium and long-term, but would be undermined if the Department could reopen earlier settlements.

The recent strategic review of the Highways Authority has recommended that a similar five-yearly funding settlement for road projects should be introduced, and it has been suggested that that could lead to a more efficient procurement and supply chain, delivering significant savings. That is an interesting suggestion that I am sure my Committee will want to examine in due course.

Government expenditure is essential to political decisions, particularly during a time of austerity. The Transport Committee will continue to focus on financial issues and has specific plans to examine the cost of the railway when the Government’s response to the McNulty report is finally published. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views today and urge the Minister to support our key recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed I do, and I thank the hon. Lady for making that point because it helps me to make my next point. One thing that this Government have recognised is that, although there was some mix of RDAs, the reality is that a differing of approach in different areas will be the solution.

I also think it is quite clear that the report has prejudged the efficacy of local enterprise partnerships. It seems to me that all the initial evidence, anecdotal though it is because they have been in place for so short a time, shows that they are taking their responsibilities towards transport seriously.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The report reflected the evidence that was given to the Committee. In taking this further, the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State recognised the potential gap that would be caused by the removal of the previous regional structures. Indeed, efforts are being made to replace them through other means, but the comprehensive picture and the total results of the changes are as yet unclear.

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed, but the previous solution was a template solution, a one-size-fits-all solution, a “this is the way we must do it” solution, which did not necessarily reflect the economic realities. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, in the north of England it was not one regional development agency, but a collaboration of three. As I observed earlier, in certain parts of the country structures well below the regional level developed and delivered more efficient transport solutions.

I hope that in reading the report the Minister will not be deflected from the idea that solutions of differing sizes will fit different parts of the country, and that LEPs have been in place for a relatively short time. Just as regional development agencies were able to collaborate and co-operate, there is little doubt that LEPs will be able to do the same. It is also true that in certain parts of the country integrated transport authorities and passenger transport authorities will provide the lead in regional structures. The clear message must be that there are differing appropriate sizes and structures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am delighted to hear that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has written to the hon. Lady’s boss, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Transport Secretary, asking for details of the £6 billion of cuts, and so far no answer has been forthcoming.

Our growth review package will deliver £1 billion of new investment by Network Rail, more than £1 billion to the strategic road network and £500 million for local schemes and, in particular, for schemes that can make the earliest possible contribution to economic recovery.

We recognise that spending is one thing but that spending wisely is something else, so we are determined to ensure that every pound of public money invested in our transport system is made to count. That is why, although our rail investment programme is the largest and most ambitious since the Victorian era, we are committed to reforming the rail industry in order to reduce costs significantly and to improve efficiency. Members have today welcomed the electrification of the north trans-Pennine rail route between Manchester, York and Leeds, which is part of the northern hub project, as well as other major investment processes.

The Chair of the Transport Committee referred in her opening remarks to her view that an explicit transport strategy was missing, but with respect I do not accept that point. She made it to the Secretary of State for Transport on 19 October 2011, when my right hon. Friend gave evidence, and I refer the hon. Lady to her own question, Q16, from that session. The Transport Secretary said:

“To all intents and purposes, …what you will end up with…the aviation framework…the rail reform… the work being undertaken by Alan Cook to look at the Highways Agency”

is what will produce, certainly for the medium term, a strategy. When the Committee looks at the rail reform and aviation papers, which will both be out shortly, the Chair will see that. If she is making the point that we need to look over the longer term, say over 40 or 50 years, she is making a fair point, which the Government will take on board.

[Mrs Ellman]

The fact is that currently there is neither a rail strategy paper nor an aviation paper. They are both awaited.

[Norman Baker]

I agree, and we inherited that position from the previous Government, but I have already said that the rail reform and aviation papers are both due very shortly, and I hope that the Committee will do its usual good job of examining the documents and making comments to the Government following its analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was concerned about the transport business case, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is no longer in his place, made the point that we have refreshed the transport business case, and we also have the departmental plan for transport, which sets out our priorities in the short term. The transport business case does include wider aspects of economic development, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was concerned about, so the Government have now put in place a wide -ranging formula to ensure that those essential points are captured in our assessment of individual transport projects.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to declining rural bus services, a point that he had made before, but 78% of bus services are commercially run by commercial operators and are therefore not under the Government’s control, as he will appreciate. They have been affected only by the BSOG reduction, of which we gave 18 months’ notice, unlike what happened in Wales and Scotland, where bus companies were given almost no notice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The Government have a major programme of improving the capacity of our rail network to take freight, particularly the 9 feet 6 inches high cube containers that are such an important a part of international trade. That is why the railway control period up to 2014 will see about £350 million spent on upgrading the network. A crucial part of that is improving links to ports, for example between Southampton and the west coast line and on the Felixstowe-Nuneaton line. That will provide major benefits on carbon emissions, road safety and relieving congestion on our roads.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

What actions is the Minister taking to improve access to ports outside the south-east?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady will have heard of the proposals being taken forward to improve gauge clearance to Teesport, and we are working on a number of other schemes and projects to improve rail freight connectivity with our major ports. Despite the deficit and the pressing need to reduce spending, our work on the strategic freight network has continued, and we propose to continue it in future.

Network Rail

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate. She raises some extremely important issues. I know that the points that she has made will be repeated by other hon. Members who have similar experiences.

This debate takes place at an interesting time. Although we are focused on Network Rail, we are awaiting the Government’s proposals on the future of the whole rail system. Network Rail is an intrinsic part of that system; it has to enable the train operating companies to work and ensure that there is safety on the line and that trains are punctual. None the less, it cannot be considered entirely in isolation from the whole rail system. We must therefore look at how the train operating companies operate and at the role of the Department for Transport.

We must not forget that, over the past decade, rail has been a success story. More and more people use rail, which brings its own problems of overcrowding and how to address increased capacity. We want to encourage more freight on to rail. Again, that leads to discussions about how more capacity can be provided and whether that can be done without crowding out much-needed passenger services as well.

There can be no dispute over the fact that the rail system costs a lot more than it should. The McNulty report is the latest one to draw attention to that. It says that our rail system as a whole costs around 30% more than comparable European rail systems. Much—not all—of that can be attributed to Network Rail.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to expand that point. Not only is access more expensive, but the licences are more expensive for the train operating companies and they pass on the cost to the travelling public. Network Rail’s high costs mean that passengers are paying too much.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is correct. However the service is organised, it is a public service and it has to be so run. Whatever money is in the system ends up costing the taxpayer or the fare payer. Over recent years, there has been a shift in who pays for using the train. I am talking about the shift from the taxpayer to the passenger. Whatever money is in that system eventually comes out in the cost of the ticket, which is causing so much concern at the moment.

Network Rail says that it is addressing the McNulty recommendations, looking at being more competitive and reorganising itself. It is far too soon to say whether that will be sufficient, or indeed whether it will address the most important issues that have been raised. Some action has been taken in relation to the train operating companies. There will be longer franchises. For example, the franchise for the west coast main line will be for a much longer period. That could be part of the solution, but we need to see the Government’s proposals and vision for the whole rail system before it can be considered.

The hon. Lady referred to this week’s court case when Network Rail admitted its liability for two tragic deaths in 2005, when Olivia Bazlinton, aged 14, and Charlotte Thompson, aged 13, were killed on a level crossing. It emerged only last year that Network Rail had had a risk report in 2002 recommending the installation of new gates that would lock automatically when a train approached. That in itself is bad enough, but it seems that the documents had been suppressed and not made available to the police previously. Network Rail has now admitted liability. It is being charged, and it has admitted guilt. Those tragic deaths should not have happened. They were terrible, as was the cover-up afterwards. I hope that in its statement now Network Rail is more open and that it will change to a new approach.

The Office of Rail Regulation strongly criticised Network Rail and is considering whether lack of punctuality and more late trains have been a breach of its licence. It has already raised safety issues, particularly the lack of adequate reporting of safety incidents on lines. Network Rail points to cable theft as a reason for delays, and that is a factor, but it is not the only one. Only last week, the Transport Committee published its report on cable theft on the railways, and said that Network Rail could do more to make such thefts more difficult, so it has some responsibility there.

The hon. Lady made many valid points about Network Rail’s accountability. However, I recall how Network Rail came to be set up. I remember clearly that it was preceded by the conventional private sector company, Railtrack, which went into administration. It collapsed after absorbing endless amounts of taxpayer’s money and paying out bonuses to its private shareholders while letting the nation down. Structure and ownership are relevant, and we must remember that the wholly private sector company did not deliver. We must consider how the present company operates and how it could operate better.

There has been much criticism about lack of accountability in Network Rail. It has a board of around 100 members, which is not a good way to secure accountability. Efforts have been made to change how it is organised to introduce more accountability. For example, the Co-operative party’s people’s rail campaign is trying to involve more members of the public and users of the service with a much smaller board to which Network Rail would have to answer. That is one option. Certainly, the way in which it operates now is not satisfactory and must be re-examined.

The next spending period is 2014 to 2019, and we will know in July what rail projects have been proposed or agreed for investment. There are long lists of necessary investment projects from different parts of the country, including the northern hub, which is badly needed, the electrification programme and many others. If we do not secure value for money from investment, we will not receive the maximum investment in rail. That is extremely important.

The Transport Committee invited the new chief executive of Network Rail, David Higgins, to the Committee when he was first appointed, and we asked him questions about value for money, accountability, safety and other matters. We intend to repeat that, and to recall him in the near future, when we will raise issues of accountability, value for money and how Network Rail invests in the public interest. We will certainly take note of the points made today by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members.

[Mrs Main]

I am extremely pleased that the Select Committee will call David Higgins back. During his “Panorama” interview last month, he said that he would release more figures and data by the summer to show Network Rail’s transparency. Is she aware of that, and will she be recalling him before or after that?

[Mrs Ellman]

A date has not yet been fixed, but all the issues will be taken into consideration. It is important that hon. Members recognise that, whatever an organisation’s structure, Select Committees perform an important role in trying to bring accountability to people who are in charge of public services. We have stated that we think that Network Rail should be subject to freedom of information requests. We will pursue matters of public concern and matters that hon. Members raise today and on other occasions, and we will do so to the best of our ability.

Civil Aviation Bill

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is an important Bill. Civil aviation is a vital part of our economy. Regulation must support the industry to operate in the public interest. The call for a new look at regulation has been long standing. Indeed, the Select Committee on Transport in the last Parliament called for a review of the Civil Aviation Authority in November 2006. It has taken a long time to bring this Bill forward.

I am pleased that the Committee had the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, but it was disappointing that the time for consultation was so severely curtailed. Indeed, our response to the draft Bill was published on the morning of the publication of the Bill itself. It is important that the Government should give an assurance that they will consider the points of concern that our report identifies. Our consideration was helped by the evidence of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers). I regret that she is not able to be here today and wish her a speedy recovery.

I should make it clear at the outset that there was general support for the regulatory aspects of the Bill, in particular the flexible licensing system and the focus on passengers. However, we have concerns, including in areas where there was little or no consultation before the Bill was published. First, there is a need for clarity on the definition of the key part of the Bill, the focus on the passenger’s interest. There needs to be a clearer definition of “users of air transport services”. We recommend that this be clarified to read: “passengers and shippers of cargo, both present and future”. We considered the representations made by airlines, and recommend that the position of airlines should be recognised as a secondary duty.

There was support for light-touch regulation. Licensing conditions and their associated costs must be proportionate to the benefits gained, which means that impact assessments are required. We were told in evidence from the aviation industry that the impact of the Bill on an airport handling 10 million passengers a year could be £200,000 a year, a significant amount in these difficult economic times. The emphasis in the Bill on the needs of passengers is welcome. This requirement must be reflected in the licences and the conditions imposed by the CAA. It is important that the requirement for information on the passenger experience, together with the environmental implications, should be clear, relevant and useable. Costs should relate to benefits.

There are two areas of concern and possible omission. First, passport control and immigration are identified by passengers as areas of key concern, yet they are handled by the UK Border Agency, not the Department for Transport. A way must be found to include those aspects when considering the passenger experience under the Bill. Baggage handling was another area of concern identified by passengers, yet it is often provided by private companies on behalf of airlines. A way must be found to include that, too. We were also concerned about an omission in relation to passenger welfare—in particular, in relation to plans to deal with disruption, such as when adverse weather caused major disruption at Heathrow. Although the CAA has spoken about the need to insist on plans to deal with passenger disruption and look after passengers when disruption occurs, there does not seem to be a requirement for that in the Bill. It is important that that, too, should be looked at. We also questioned witnesses about the aviation consumer advocacy panel, which is due to replace the Air Transport Users Council. It was unclear how that panel, representing the interests of passengers, would work or whether its interests would cover cargo as well as passengers. We need much more clarification on that.

There are two areas where powers were introduced after we were able to consider the Bill in draft form. We have questions about both. First, the ATOL––air travel organisers’ licence—scheme, first introduced in the 1970s, deals with financial protection for consumers who have purchased air package holidays in the event of a company going into insolvency. The Transport Committee has looked at the operation of ATOL, and at its inadequacies, and we have called for greater clarity in the information available to travellers, so that they can be sure whether they are covered by such insurance, and in the extent of the scheme, so that it is clear which passengers are covered. A power to address this is included in the Bill, but we have not yet looked in detail at the Government’s proposals. We hope to remedy that tomorrow, when the Committee will look specifically at the Government’s plans for ATOL and at the industry’s view of them.

[Mr Donohoe]

I commend the work of the Transport Committee on the Bill. One area of concern is the effect that the changes will have on the industry and on the economy. Will the Committee investigate that element of the proposals? It seems that only the Minister has shown any optimism about economic growth, and I hope that the Select Committee will look again at that subject when it revisits the Bill.

[Mrs Ellman]

Economic growth is indeed an important area and, while the Minister stated that it was an objective, it was not made clear how the changes would actually operate. So, yes, we would certainly like to look into that matter further.

Another area of concern relates to the proposed changes to responsibility for security in aviation. Transec was set up in 1991, following the Lockerbie disaster. Aviation security is a matter of prime importance, and aviation terrorism remains a magnet for terrorists who wish to inflict mass loss of life as well as economic disruption. It is a matter of concern that changes are being proposed in the area of responsibility for aviation security without a full consultation on how they will work.

It is proposed that the Secretary of State remain responsible for aviation security policy, with the CAA adopting new responsibilities that would include conducting a review of the aviation security directive, giving advice and assistance to the industry on security measures, monitoring and enforcing compliance with EU and domestic requirements, and carrying out national security vetting on individuals. The changes are linked with a change of approach from “direct and inspect” to an outcome-focused, risk-based approach.

These are major, substantial issues. The changes will involve a £5 million a year transfer of payments from the taxpayer to the aviation industry and passengers. Of greater importance, however, is the fact that they will result in divided responsibilities for aviation security. That is a matter of prime concern, and we call on the Department to be more explicit about exactly how the new system will operate, and to reassure passengers that their safety will still be a matter of supreme importance.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for missing the first part of her speech. Airport security has suffered from an ongoing problem of a division of funding, with local authorities having to fund their security. Does she accept that airport security should be funded not only adequately but nationally, as it is a national concern? It should not place a burden on local police forces.

[Mrs Ellman]

As the bill for security mounts, it is important to give full consideration to how it is to be footed. Passenger security is a matter of prime importance, and it needs to be assessed in an international context as well as in national and regional contexts.

The Transport Committee gives its general support to the Bill, but the areas of concern that we have identified are important ones, and I seek an assurance that the Minister will consider them as the Bill proceeds, so that civil aviation can be promoted to benefit the economy and to enhance the passenger experience.

Northern Rail Hub

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jason McCartney]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, which was also made after the statement on High Speed 2. As well as investing in HS2, it is important that we invest in local rail infrastructure, which is exactly what the northern hub can do.

In March 2011, the Chancellor announced that £85 million of Government funding was available for developing the Ordsall chord, which is a new link between Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly stations that will provide a new route enabling passengers to get across the city. Importantly, there will be no need to change trains in Manchester. Network Rail is working to gain necessary planning consents to build the new link.

Last autumn, the Chancellor announced funding for electrification on the north trans-Pennine route between Manchester and York via Leeds. That was not originally part of the hub plans, but it brings huge benefits, such as increased reliability and more room on trains. It is better for the environment and helps reduce the cost of running the railway. In fact, yesterday evening, our all-party group received a briefing on electrification in the north-west, during which we heard all about the benefits. Electrification of the trans-Pennine route between Leeds and Manchester will allow six fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester—there are just four at present—and journey times could be reduced by up to 10 minutes. However, the plan has implications, which I will address in a moment.

Some aspects of the northern rail hub project still have to be funded. As has been mentioned, we will only get all the hub’s economic benefits if all of it is funded. Two new platforms are needed at Manchester Piccadilly to allow more trains to run through rather than terminate in Manchester. That would provide more direct train services across the north. Moreover and crucially, new tracks are needed on the lines between Leeds and Liverpool and between Sheffield and Manchester, to allow fast trains between the major towns and cities of the north to overtake slower trains.

This is a live issue in my Colne Valley constituency, and many of my constituents have legitimate worries about it. In fact, I received an e-mail in the past hour from SMART—Slaithwaite and Marsden Action on Rail Transport—which is, as am I, very concerned about the effect that the proposals for faster services will have on local stopping services. Fast trains are great, but they must not exist at the expense of local stopping services. We have to ensure that there is an integrated transport system in the northern corridor, not just the fast services between Leeds and Manchester. I will keep a very close eye on that and campaign fully to keep all the localised stopping services, because it is important that major funding projects keep an integrated local transport system.

Contrary to reports, no decision has been made on which is the optimum pattern for Marsden, Slaithwaite and Lockwood on my patch. The decision will be made through the franchising process and involve consultation with local representatives through the passenger transport executives. Network Rail is in regular discussions with representatives from the Department for Transport, Metro, Transport for Greater Manchester and Northern Rail. They will all work together to establish which pattern best suits residents in the area, mindful of infrastructure capability, commercial demand and improved connectivity. That is why we need the northern hub investment—this really is an important part of it—to provide more tracks and more overtaking opportunities.

I am sure that hon. Members would like to know who supports the hub. Network Rail welcomes recognition by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has responsibility for rail, that the hub has a case and that the Government have funded both the Ordsall chord and the electrification of the trans-Pennine route. The northern hub is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, local authorities and passenger transport executives, such as Metro in West Yorkshire and Transport for Greater Manchester. Business in the north supports it, and it enjoys cross-party, pan-northern political support, as the number of Members present clearly demonstrates.

The Transport Committee endorsed the hub in a report on transport and the economy in March 2011. I welcome that support. We must remember that the project has the potential to create 20,000 to 30,000 extra jobs for the north, which will help the Government reduce the welfare bill. We would all support that.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Committee’s recent report on high-speed rail makes specific reference to the northern hub? It is supported by the cross-party Select Committee.

[Jason McCartney]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning that issue, which we were talking about at the all-party group meeting last night. She brings much expertise and knowledge on the Select Committee area. I am sure that the matter that she raises will be examined and explored during the debate.

I note that many other issues surround rail travel, not just in the north but across the rest of the country. I hope that concerns such as connectivity with HS2, rail fares, cross-boundary fares and the non-collection of fares—the conductor’s ticket machine keeps breaking down on some of my train services, so halfway through the service, he stops issuing tickets—capacity, Northern Rail carriage demands and many more matters will be the subject of future debates. However, this debate is on the northern hub.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing the debate, which comes at an important time. Network Rail is looking in detail at the northern hub proposals. The Government have asked Network Rail to revisit the proposals before any final decisions are taken to ensure that the scheme will bring value for money. It is extremely important that we are able not only to talk about the importance of the northern hub, but to show the degree of cross-party support and the spread of geographical support for this major scheme.

I emphasise the importance of the northern hub as a strategic investment in the north. The proposals came from big, strategic thinking. The three northern regional development agencies came together and thought about how the regional economies could be improved, which led to the setting up of the Northern Way and the development of the schemes for the northern hub. Today we are looking at the detail and reaching the final stages of approval.

The northern hub is about individual projects and individual areas. It is about additional platforms and tracks, and it is hopefully about new trains. It will affect a wide variety of places—Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle and Hull, to name but a few—and it will improve access to Manchester airport. In my constituency, people will be able to get from Liverpool to Manchester in half an hour, and trains to Leeds will take 80 minutes. In addition, there will be more of them. Those are great improvements, which will be of great assistance in developing Liverpool’s potential.

The northern hub is about more than simply individual areas, however, important though it is for each area named. It involves investment of half a billion pounds, which will lead to a £4 billion boost for the northern economies, with the potential for the creation of 20,000 to 30,000 jobs. That massive investment of half a billion pounds will have a significant outcome. As hon. Members have mentioned, it lies beside the £14.8 billion investment in Crossrail, just under £5 billion of which comes directly from the Government. A recent study of the regional pattern of investment in transport showed that about three times as much was invested on a per-head basis in transport in the south and south-east as in the north.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On the point about the difference in spend between the north and the south, the hon. Lady may have seen in the Transport Committee the report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which evaluates the projects that the Government brought forward in the spending review in the autumn. Infrastructure spending amounted to £30 billion, and the spend per head was £2,700 in London, £134 in the north-west, £200 in Leeds and Humberside, and £5 in the north-east.

[Mrs Ellman]

I have seen that report. It is significant that we register such great disparities, but it is even more important that we try to do something about them, and the northern hub represents a major opportunity to do that. The Transport Committee has taken a particular interest in the northern hub, which we refer to as an important proposal in our report on transport and the economy and our report on high-speed rail.

The Committee supports high-speed rail, but we registered a number of concerns, including about the importance of ensuring that investment in necessary high-speed rail did not take place at the expense of investment in the existing, classic line. We cited the importance of investing in the northern hub and invited the Government to demonstrate their commitment to investing in the existing line by investing in both the northern hub and high-speed rail. Perhaps they will soon be asked to show their position on the matter and to demonstrate their commitment to investing in the existing line.

[Julian Sturdy]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful case for HS2, and if we are to make high-speed rail a success, we need investment in the northern hub. If we are to bring passengers up to the north more quickly, do we not also have to ensure that we invest in connectivity so that the system that high-speed rail passengers continue their journey on is not antiquated? Otherwise, the system will not work.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We want modern, new rail, not only on the new High Speed 2 line but on existing lines and connections, and investing in the northern hub as a separate project is one way to achieve that.

At the moment, Network Rail is assessing the detail of the northern hub proposals and looking at value for money. That needs to be done, but it is absolutely essential to recognise the strategic importance of this investment in rail in the north. The Government’s commitment to rail electrification in the north is much appreciated, but it is not an alternative to proceeding with the northern hub. I await with interest their final decision on the northern hub, and I ask the Minister to assure us that she recognises the strategic importance of investing in the north and to commit to the investment in the northern hub.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I will be calling the Opposition spokesman no later than 5 minutes to 4 pm The debate will now finish at 4.15 pm, as opposed to 4 o’clock.

[Mrs Ellman]

Thank you, Mr Hood.

I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance today that she recognises the importance of the northern hub as a strategic transport investment to improve connectivity and economy. I hope that she can give us an additional assurance that, after due consideration, the scheme will be approved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I do not need to allow the Scottish Government to do that; they already have the ability to get on with starting the preparatory work for a Scottish high-speed line if they want to do so.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The real benefits of high-speed rail will come from taking the line beyond Birmingham. What commitment can the Secretary of State give to extending the line to Leeds, to Manchester and then, possibly, to Scotland?

High-speed Rail

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I think that is such a good idea, which is precisely why it is part of the plan.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is essential that the UK has a high-speed rail network, and I welcome today’s statement as it helps to achieve that. The Secretary of State said that she was considering how to include in the hybrid Bill a commitment to the whole of the Y network. Will she tell us more about that? Will she assure us that the money that goes to funding the very important high-speed rail network will not be at the expense of essential investment in the existing classic line to develop both passenger and freight services?

[Justine Greening]

I am actively examining how we can provide more legal assurance in relation to the full Y network. However, we ultimately have to recognise that if this high-speed rail line is going to happen, it will need political will above all else. What I am saying is that the Government have the political will to go ahead with this Y network and that is the thing that matters most. I can assure the hon. Lady that I intend to make sure that we continue to see that level of investment that our current railways so badly need.

Transport Disruption (Winter 2010)

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

A year ago today, the UK was in the midst of a very cold spell of weather. North-easterly winds had swept snow in from the Arctic and it fell throughout the country, adding to substantial falls during the last week of November. The temperature barely rose above freezing and was below minus 10° C all day in parts of Scotland.

There were two periods of intense cold weather last winter, from 30 November to 3 December, and from 16 to 22 December. The temperature in December 2010 was 5° C below the average for the month, and there were nine significant snow “events” bringing the most widespread snow in the UK for 30 years. Winter 2010-11 was the third cold winter in succession. We are still waiting to find out whether this winter will be another severe one or whether there will be a return to the milder conditions we had become used to.

The severe weather last December affected aviation severely. Heathrow airport was closed shortly before Christmas and other airports were also disrupted, as were our trains, particularly in Kent and Sussex. Eurostar services were disrupted, with long queues in the cold outside St Pancras station as people tried to get to Paris or Brussels just before Christmas. There were also problems on major and local roads, as well as complaints about pavements and minor roads being left under snow and ice for weeks at a time. The Transport Committee’s inquiry looked at all of these issues and we published our report in May. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the Government’s reply to our report just as winter 2011-12 begins.

First, I pay tribute to David Quarmby, who led a small review team during 2010 that looked at winter resilience in the transport sector. He also audited how transport coped with the first spell of adverse weather a year ago. His analysis has been extremely important: it was comprehensive, and his recommendations were accepted by the Government. Can the Minister confirm that all of the Quarmby recommendations have now been implemented in full? If we have further transport disruption this winter, will he commission an independent review, so that we can continue to learn lessons and improve transport’s resilience to bad weather?

Bad weather causes disruption to businesses and individuals and affects normal activities. Mr Quarmby tried to estimate how much the transport disruption due to bad weather last winter cost the UK, and concluded that increased spending on winter resilience by highways authorities could be cost-effective. Since then, the Office for National Statistics has estimated that the adverse weather last December knocked 0.5% off UK GDP during the third quarter of 2010-11, which reduced growth from 0.6% to 0.1% and cost about £1.6 billion, and the Secretary of State for Transport told us that transport disruption cost the nation £280 million per day.

Those are very big figures and they show why there are sound economic reasons for addressing the situation, as well as the inconvenience that transport breakdown in bad weather causes to daily life for most people. A day at home because of heavy snow might be seen by some as fun, but the implications for businesses can be substantial, and many people can be left isolated by bad weather when they cannot get out, cannot get basic provisions and cannot receive their usual visits from friends and relations. In addition to those implications, there are further social consequences: schools can be shut, and vulnerable people can be trapped in their homes, with higher heating bills as a result. Preparing our transport systems for winter is therefore absolutely essential.

One of the issues that our report examined was the importance of long-range weather forecasting. Although it is true to say that short-term forecasts are generally accurate, long-term forecasting is poor—indeed, it is discredited, particularly since the Met Office made its “barbecue summer” predictions a few years ago. The previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), suggested that for an investment of £10 million, the Met Office could achieve a big step forward in forecasting capability. We took up that suggestion and recommended that that investment be made. The Government’s reply to our report makes no specific comment on that issue, so I ask the Minister to set out the Government’s position on that today. Do they agree that there should be further investment in the Met Office or other appropriate organisations? If so, what do they think that investment should be and when will it be made? The Department for Transport told us that it is working across Government to review evidence on winter weather patterns and to test whether current levels of investment in winter resilience are optimised. Again, we would be interested to know the outcome of that work.

Aviation bore the brunt of the transport disruption last winter. Gatwick airport closed for 46 hours from 1 to 3 December, and Heathrow airport closed from 18 to 20 December after 7 cm of snow fell in one hour. At the height of the disruption, 10,000 passengers spent the night in the Heathrow terminals. Not only were the airports closed for a time and flights postponed or cancelled, but there was also the very important question of how passengers’ needs were dealt with when that situation arose.

I accept that heavy snow will close any airport in the world for a short period. I also accept that Heathrow is in a particularly difficult position because it operates at virtually full capacity; other airports can recover from disruption more quickly because they are neither as busy nor as full. However, there were problems with how the disruption was handled, which involved the airlines as well as the airports. There was ambiguity about whether or not the airport was closed. Passengers did not know whether to come to the airport or stay at home, and far too many ended up staying for long periods in terminals, worried that they might miss a flight if they left.

BAA was criticised for not implementing its snow plan, for inadequate communications with passengers and airlines and for not having adequate snow and ice-clearing equipment. To BAA’s credit, it appointed David Begg to review its winter resilience plans and their operation. He produced a strong report and did not pull any punches. He recommended that Heathrow should adopt

“an improved resilience target that the airport never closes as a result of circumstances beyond its control.”

He also recommended improvements to planning and communications. BAA accepted his report’s recommendations, which was a very positive move.

We must recognise that, as our hub airport, Heathrow plays a crucial role in maintaining the UK’s competitiveness. Is the Minister satisfied that the changes made at Heathrow will make the airport better prepared for winter weather this year? That question relates to its dealing with the initial impact of bad weather, the process and the speed of recovery from disruption, and how passengers’ needs are met during that time.

The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State for Transport should designate a senior official to have oversight of the snow plans of major airports. We proposed that idea because we thought that Parliament and the public needed reassurance that the plans put together by the airports were adequate, but the Government rejected that recommendation in its response. I would like the Minister to tell us why today.

One of the ironies was that the very severe airport disruption was not reflected in airport performance measures—indeed, they suggested that business had continued as normal. The Committee recommended that airport regulation should include a measure to assess air travel disruption. I am pleased that a draft airport regulation Bill, the Civil Aviation Bill, has now been published; the Transport Committee will start to scrutinise it next week and will look at the proposed new regulatory regime. We are told that winter resilience will be reflected in the Bill, and I would like to hear more from the Minister, hopefully today, about how that will be achieved. The Committee will pursue the issue in more detail in its pre-legislative scrutiny.

Airports and airlines must do more to look after passengers. It is striking that there seems to be no organisation that represents air passengers’ welfare. There was an organisation that dealt with air passengers’ needs, but the Government have abandoned their own proposal to move that responsibility to Passenger Focus and it is unclear exactly who is responsible for considering passengers’ needs. The responsibility does not lie solely with airports, although they do have very serious responsibilities; airlines, too, should help passengers during periods of disruption. Our Committee recommended that airports should do more to look after passengers at times of disruption, but should be able to reclaim the cost of doing that from the airlines. I am pleased that the Civil Aviation Authority is taking that proposal forward and I look forward to seeing how the idea develops. I am also pleased that, in the draft Bill, the CAA’s primary duty will be to passengers, but we need to see how that would operate in practice.

A problem with airport recovery after disruption is in managing flight landings and departures. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, appeared before our Committee and was asked a lot of questions about this. He suggested that airports might be enabled to impose emergency timetables, with oversight by the Civil Aviation Authority. The Select Committee thought that that was a good idea, but the Government no longer seem as keen as they were to go ahead with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views and the Government’s current thinking on that proposal.

Gatwick airport brought to our attention another issue: the importance of maintaining surface access to airports to keep them running. Although its runway was clear, staff and passengers struggled to reach Gatwick airport by rail or road. A more co-ordinated approach to managing the response to adverse weather is needed to ensure that such problems are avoided. The Committee felt that, if necessary, the Government should step in to resolve conflicting priorities, but that that should not be necessary and the matter should be dealt with locally. Whether it is passengers or staff who are affected, not being able to get to airports by road can be a serious impediment.

There were also problems with rail services last winter, particularly south of the Thames where the third-rail system was again unable to cope with the snow and ice. Network Rail was caught out by the early start to the winter, with its snow-clearing trains still in depots being converted from their autumn leaf-clearing role. That mistake was not repeated this year and Network Rail has invested £40 million in new snow equipment. A conference of network operators in the south-east was held in November to discuss what further action was taken, and there were a number of detailed discussions about actions taken by various operators. Is the Minister monitoring the outcome of that conference and staying abreast of the practical, preventive steps being taken by Network Rail and the train operating companies to deal with the problems?

The Chancellor announced in his autumn statement that there would be further investment in winter resilience equipment, but we do not have any detail about exactly what that means. Can the Minister explain what the resilience equipment is, how much will be spent and when, and what will happen to make a real difference? It has been accepted, I think, that the long-term answer to the specific problems in the south-east is the replacement of the third-rail system with a safer, more robust form of electrification. It will be expensive, which is perhaps why it has not yet been done, but surely it could be phased in, even if over a longer period. I understand that options are being studied, and I would like to hear more from the Minister about what is happening with the programme for the electrification of the third-rail system.

Passengers across all modes of transport were let down by inadequate information. At times of severe disruption transport delays and breakdowns are inevitable, but information systems must be ready to inform passengers and potential passengers about the situation. Although some breakdowns might occur without notice, others are known about and indeed can be predicted. Online timetables were not updated quickly enough to take cancellations into account, and many people ended up buying tickets for non-existent trains. Real-time information for passengers on trains and in stations was very poor. When we raised the issue with industry representatives in the Select Committee we were told that there were numerous information systems across the railway, that some of them were very old, and that pulling them together was one of the legacies of privatisation. We did not accept that argument: many years have passed since privatisation, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to have updated systems and not to deal with problems.

We agree with Passenger Focus that a culture of looking after passengers when things go wrong is not yet second nature across the rail industry. That needs to change. The Office of Rail Regulation has published proposals to clarify responsibilities for the provision of information, but in a very recent publication it is unclear whether ORR is talking about a consultation—if so, I would like to know how long it will take—or about making specific proposals. I am interested to hear what knowledge the Minister has of that and what he can do to progress it. The rail industry’s national taskforce has also been working on improving real-time information provision ahead of this winter, so is the Minister confident that we are in a better situation than we were last year?

There was major disruption on some motorways, but traffic on the UK’s main roads was generally kept moving during the bad weather. Credit should go to the Highways Agency and the local highways authorities, which rose to the challenge and worked hard to keep roads open, in co-ordination with the agency.

During the year before last, there was a great deal of concern about problems in providing sufficient salt to put on the roads to prevent ice from forming. As a result of David Quarmby’s review, many changes were made. The arrangements had considerable success and resulted in great improvement. We felt that the Government’s strategic salt arrangements worked well, generally speaking, although some local authorities did complain about transparency, distribution and the cost of the salt. However, improvement was made. Had last year’s bad weather continued for longer than it did, further issues might have been raised about the adequacy of salt provision. What are the Minister’s views on the salt situation for the current year and next year? Does he think that there is enough salt to deal with a long bad winter? Are we in a better position than last year? I repeat that last year was dealt with much better than the year before. Salt provision and co-ordination arrangements among the Government, regional organisations, local authorities and salt suppliers worked far better.

Public support is widespread for more action to clear pavements and minor roads during periods of disruption, particularly to maintain access to facilities such as schools and health centres. Often when we discuss disruption to transport networks in bad weather, there is a perhaps inevitable focus on major roads and major transport networks. They are clearly of economic importance and they matter for the country as a whole, but it is also a problem if somebody living in a local road cannot get out, is worried about falling or cannot get access to goods, services, basic amenities or friends. Sometimes, by concentrating on the big questions and challenges, we do not give sufficient attention to the local issues that matter so much to individuals. In particular, it is vital to maintain access to facilities such as schools and health centres.

Voluntary effort has a role to play. Some local authorities have been involved in organising it, some have taken steps such as providing grit bins at the ends of roads and some are considering what else they can do locally this year. Our Committee asked that the Government make available online more practical information about what people can do voluntarily, such as helping clear pavements outside their own premises, after the publication last year of the snow code, which provided reassurances about potential legal liabilities. Local problems such as side roads and access to local homes need addressing. Do the Government have any comments on that? I know that local authorities are considering it. Given their financial problems, they are restricted in what they can do, but it is important and should not be neglected.

Our report reflected our concern about how many drivers appear unprepared for winter weather. According to an AA survey, nearly half are unprepared. Has the Department done anything to encourage drivers to be better prepared this year? Last year, drivers were warned that they should make only essential journeys in bad weather. It is often difficult to define what essential journeys are. Many people think that their journey is essential if they want to go out, but there is no further clarity about what that means. We thought that the police and the Department should develop a set of travel warnings to provide clearer guidance to the public about what sorts of journey they should not undertake during particular types of bad weather. The Highways Agency agreed to consider that recommendation. It would be helpful to know whether any progress has been made.

At our inquiry, we heard from the Freight Transport Association, which asked for specific snow and ice warnings for HGVs, similar to current warnings about high winds. I understand that that recommendation has been accepted. Will the Minister confirm that? If that has been done, it will be helpful. Parts of the major road network, such as certain hills or junctions in exposed areas, are particularly prone to disruption in severe winter weather. We suggested that the Highways Agency should deploy its traffic officers in such areas during bad weather to help clear blockages and deal with problems as quickly as possible. Some of the public reaction during the bad weather came from people trapped in vehicles behind blockages on the road. They were concerned that the blockages had not been removed and felt that more warnings should have been given or more urgent action taken. The Government agreed with our concern, but it would be helpful to know whether specific action is being taken to address the problem.

Our report covered a great deal of ground. I have referred to most of the areas involved, but there were many concerns involving all modes of transport. It was also essential to consider the needs of the non-travelling public. Our report asked for better information at all levels and more co-ordination to secure effective action, as well as more investment targeted at the most appropriate places. With more accurate information about weather and road conditions, train services and flights, people can make better informed judgments about whether to travel, and transport providers can plan better.

I hope that our work has helped the Government respond to the policy challenges highlighted by last December’s bad weather, and I hope that it has shown our main transport providers that they should be doing more to put passenger welfare first. Our report considered how effective co-ordination of information and action—including preventive action, action to deal with problems and recovery—can mitigate the impact of bad weather in an ongoing process. I hope that our report contributes to enabling transportation links to operate in the interests of the public despite bad weather.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

With the leave of the House, I will conclude the debate. We have had an interesting and helpful discussion. Individual hon. Members have raised key points, and I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, which indicates that the subject is being treated seriously and action is being taken. It is an ongoing issue to which we may well return, but I have been encouraged to hear how the Government are dealing with it.

Bus Services

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Buses are the most popular form of public transport in this country. There were 4.6 billion bus passenger journeys in England in 2009-10, compared with 1.3 billion rail journeys, yet buses rarely attract high-profile attention. In part that is because central Government do not take as close an interest in buses as they do in rail travel, but I suspect another reason. Outside London, buses are disproportionately used by older and less well-off people who, regrettably, do not attract the same attention as rail travellers. However, buses are vital, connecting people with town centres, jobs, colleges, shopping, family and friends, and when bus services are cut, people’s lives are badly affected.

Last year’s spending review included three decisions with significant implications for bus services in England; nearly half of bus operating revenue comes from public sources, so any reductions from such sources are highly relevant. First, support for local authorities overall was cut by 28% and funding for local buses was no longer ring-fenced. That affects those services paid for by local authorities for social reasons, or about 20% of services overall, although that figure varies from place to place. The TAS Partnership estimated that that will eventually reduce the subsidies available to bus services by £125 million. By February, local authorities had confirmed an overall reduction of £44 million for 2011-12.

Secondly, changes in the formula for concessionary travel reimbursement have taken about £100 million away from local authorities. Concessionary travel reimbursement is claimed to be provided on a “no better off, no worse off” basis, and the formula changes are intended to iron out teething problems found during the introduction of the scheme under the previous Government.

Thirdly, the Government announced a 20% reduction in the bus service operators grant, a form of fuel duty rebate, to take effect from April 2012. That will affect all bus services, commercial as well as subsidised, and is estimated to remove around £60 million from the industry. I should add that the increased cost of diesel has also put up bus operators’ costs and, inevitably, will have put pressure on services.

The total reduction in revenue for the English bus industry, outside London which has rather different arrangements and which we did not consider in our investigation, is likely to be between £200 million and £300 million per annum. By June 2011, 70% of English local authorities had decided to reduce funding for supported bus services, which affected some urban as well as rural services. Some authorities, such as those of Hartlepool and Cambridgeshire announced that they would cut some of their subsidised services altogether.

Our inquiry took place in the first half of this year, and we published our report in August. We wanted to find out what the effect of the spending review changes was likely to be and to consider how it could be ameliorated. We were particularly keen to hear the views of bus users and took specific measures to find out exactly what was happening to them. Working with the excellent parliamentary outreach service, we distributed leaflets about our inquiry in libraries and citizens advice bureaux in areas that we knew to be most affected by cuts in services. We used parliamentary petitions to identify bus service campaigners in particular areas. We also took oral evidence from a panel of bus users, and that evidence brought home to the Committee and to the public the practical implications of cuts in essential services. We received a great deal of correspondence and evidence about the impact of bus cuts on people’s lives, from all sources, including letters from disabled people and senior citizens, telling us about their experiences and how cuts in services meant that they could no longer socialise with friends and families. We heard from students who had had to leave their college courses because they could no longer get to college on time and, after we had published our report, I met members of the Liverpool Schools’ Parliament who reinforced that point. They spoke about the impact of cuts in local bus services on the accessibility of school and college to them. Time and again, the letters and all the correspondence, petitions and personal representations showed why bus services matter and should not be left to market forces.

Our main conclusion was that the combined impact of the three spending review changes to bus funding posed the greatest financial challenge to the industry for a generation. We were not convinced that the Government had a full understanding of the impact of the funding changes on subsidised and commercial services, and we recommended that they should co-ordinate the collation of information about changes to subsidised services. I am pleased that the Government agreed with that recommendation, and they are now working on it with the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), tell us when that information will be ready, so that we can monitor how the provision of subsidised bus services is changing throughout the country? Has the Minister been in touch with local authorities about their plans for subsidised services in 2012-13? It is not solely about local authorities, however; how is the commercial sector responding? What information has been received about the likelihood of further cuts? Many hon. Members know from their constituency work that local bus services, commercial as well as subsidised, are being reduced.

The Government have stated that they hope that communities, operators and local authorities can work together to improve local bus services. I certainly agree with that aim, but will it actually happen? The Committee recommended that the Government should identify the barriers to co-ordinating different types of transport services. Does the Minister agree that the Department should do so, and report on what progress has been made?

We looked at the possibility of community transport schemes playing a greater role in delivering local bus services. The Government are considering ways of making such services more commercially viable, but it is unclear how that consideration is progressing. I was disappointed that one option for expanding community transport, by allowing people to use their concessionary fare passes on community transport, was rejected. The Government clearly want to see community transport expand, and the Committee welcomed their new fund in support of that, in particular in rural areas, but they do not seem to be resolving what is a mounting problem. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the Government strategy.

I am also worried that the changes to the bus service operators grant, which are due to be introduced next spring, will hit both subsidised and commercial bus services hard. At the time of our inquiry, the Minister’s view was that operators would be able to absorb most of the changes. The bus industry has challenged that view, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s assessment of the impact of reducing BSOG to bus services next year.

[Mr Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

The Government are reviewing BSOG to see whether it can be delivered in a different way—for example, by paying it to local authorities instead of to bus operators. I would be interested to hear the Government’s thinking on that. It is important that the money provided by the Government is earmarked for local bus services. That must be achieved, whatever means are adopted.

One theme that emerged from the public’s evidence was that consultation on changes to bus services is often inadequate. There were examples of good practice, but passengers were sometimes not asked about changes, or were consulted on only one option. That is not good enough, especially when considering how important bus services are to their users. The Committee recommended that Passenger Focus should develop a consultation toolkit for local authorities to use when proposing changes to subsidised services, and the Government agreed. What progress has been made? Is the toolkit ready, and will the Department monitor how it is used, and encourage local authorities to follow best practice?

The need for proper consultation does not rest solely with local authorities and the integrated transport authorities. Private bus operators also have responsibilities, and they should encourage customer feedback about services, and consult on changes before they are registered with the traffic commissioners. Hon. Members will know from their constituency work how worried people become about abrupt changes to service provision, including those from commercial operators. We need better notice, better consultation, and more involvement from bus users. If there are financial difficulties—the public are certainly aware that there are financial difficulties in almost every public service—the users of the service often have ideas for how to make best use of available resources. It would be good to see more consultation with local people before decisions are made.

In their response to our report, the Government seemed to be sympathetic to that argument, but said that they wanted to reflect on the Competition Commission’s proposals before reaching a view. The commission’s role in looking at the future pattern of bus services will be extremely important. It has been examining the competitiveness of the bus market since the beginning of last year. Consequently, we did not examine that issue, or consider in depth how legislation on quality partnerships and contracts has been used. However, we recommended that local authorities and integrated transport authorities should use the provisions in the Local Transport Act 2008 to achieve better partnership working, and I am pleased that the Government agreed.

The Competition Commission’s findings are due to be published this month, but there has already been a lot of discussion about whether they will make a significant difference to the transport market, and specifically the bus market. Some of the information published about bus companies’ strategies in places such as the north-east does not suggest that competition is working effectively. There seems to be a reluctance to tackle that by using quality contracts, or franchising. I note that Tyne and Wear transport authority is actively considering a quality contract approach. It would be helpful to know whether the Government are taking an interest in that, and examining barriers in authorities that want to agree quality contracts. If there are barriers, they should be addressed, and I hope that the Government are taking an interest in that. The Select Committee will consider the Competition Commission’s report when it is published, and I expect that we will return to this issue in the new year.

I want to finish by referring to the concessionary fare scheme, which enables free local transport throughout the country. It was one of the biggest successes of the previous Government’s transport policy. I congratulate the Minister on ensuring that it was not a victim of the spending review, which was significant. Passenger Focus found that 39% of older bus pass holders made a greater number of local journeys by bus than before they obtained their passes. That resulted in more social inclusion, and enabled them to be more active than would otherwise have been the case. The importance of transport includes health implications, and one area that health authorities have identified is that it is important for older people to maintain an active life for good health. The concessionary free pass is a major factor in achieving that.

When we examined how the concessionary pass scheme was working, we concluded that to inform development of future policy, data are required on how it is working, who uses it most, and who finds it most beneficial. In their response, the Government did not seem to accept that, and perhaps the Minister will reconsider. The scheme is highly valued, and we think there may be scope for smart ticketing to reduce its cost.

Our inquiry shone a light on how the spending review is affecting a crucial but often under-appreciated and under-reported part of our transport network. We engaged with the public in innovative ways to publicise why buses matter, and to ensure that we have the best possible information from people who are dependent on buses. We are worried about the impact of the cuts that have taken place and those to come. The outcome of the Competition Commission’s work, and how the Government respond to it, will be crucial to development of the bus industry—bus services for passengers—over the next few years. The Committee will continue to pay close attention to bus services, and I anticipate questioning the Minister on that in the Committee in the not-too-distant future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank Members for their constructive contributions, which I hope will help us to improve bus services. I also thank the members of my Committee, who today displayed the enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge that has helped to make this report effective. It will be even more effective if it changes the situation, as I hope it will. Buses matter and my Committee intends to continue to attach to them the importance that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.