Rail 2020

Debate between Louise Ellman and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

Addressing fares is an important matter, which I shall refer to later, although we have not specifically considered the report that the hon. Lady mentions.

An important aspect of our inquiry examined Government policy on franchising, particularly in relation to securing value for money. During our inquiry, franchising policy was thrown into disarray when the competition for the inter-city west coast franchise was cancelled as a result of major errors made by the Department for Transport. We published a report on that issue earlier in the year.

A number of serious mistakes were made by officials, but there were also policy failings for which past Ministers were ultimately responsible. The review of franchising that Richard Brown undertook at the request of the Department concluded that it was not sensible to let a 15-year contract for the west coast franchise without a break clause. He also drew attention to the difficulties caused by cutting back on resources while attempting to meet an ambitious timetable. The Department has now published a new timetable. The postponement in tendering for new franchises means a delay of 26 years, with consequential uncertainty for the industry and potential financial implications. I will return to that issue later.

Rail poses a number of policy challenges. Increasing numbers of passengers have led to overcrowding on some routes, and capacity constraints can rarely be resolved quickly or cheaply. It is also important to remember that rail investment is vital for regeneration as well as for relieving overcrowding. The provision of rolling stock is complicated and expensive. Fares are often too high and difficult to understand, and a wide variety of fares are often available for the same journey, from heavily discounted “advance purchase” tickets to very expensive “anytime” walk-on fares. The structure of the industry is complex, and there is suspicion that it creates opportunities for money to leak out of the system, some of it in the form of unjustified profits.

The rail subsidy peaked at £7 billion in 2007-08, and the previous Government asked Sir Roy McNulty to consider how to secure value for money. His report was published in 2011. His most striking conclusion was that there is a 40% efficiency gap between the UK railway and four European comparators: France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Reasons given for that disparity include the fragmentation of the rail industry, poor management, problems with franchising, and cultural factors. He made a wide range of recommendations aimed at achieving a 30% cost reduction in the industry by 2019.

Although the rail subsidy has fallen in recent years, it is higher now than in the years before privatisation. In real terms, the passenger railway costs 50% more than in the early 1990s, and there are a number of reasons for that. Increased demand has led to new capital projects and rolling stock.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend may be interested to remember a report by Catalyst which found that productivity under British Rail was, at that time, the highest in Europe. Since then, things have changed dramatically.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes a relevant comment.

As Network Rail’s debt has grown, more money is being spent on servicing that debt than ever before, and train operating costs have increased. Rail subsidy is necessary. Few rail lines would be profitable on a commercial basis, and even potentially profitable lines would lose passengers if the national network was cut back. There are good environmental and social reasons to subsidise the railway, and we were pleased to hear that the Government share that view.

Although the Government want to cut the subsidy, it is not clear what level of reduction they seek and under what time scale. Neither is it clear exactly where the subsidy goes at present. The Department should articulate more clearly why it subsidises rail and what taxpayers get for their money. We recommended that the Government consult on and publish a clear statement of what the rail subsidy is for and where it should be targeted. The Department’s reply was disappointing and focused on practical difficulties because of current funding arrangements. There is scope for much more work in that area.

This issue illustrates the lack of transparency in the rail industry. That has now started to change with recent work by the Office of Rail Regulation and the disclosure of wide variations in the financial performance of different routes and operators. Establishing why those variations occur will be crucial to ensuring that the rail subsidy is well spent.

Securing the efficiency savings indentified by McNulty will be challenging, particularly as they require different parts of the industry to work together in new ways. More than £1 billion is expected to be saved from train operating costs. I am concerned, however, that the savings have been put at risk by the Department’s problems with franchising. In many cases, existing franchisees will be awarded new contracts to run services for as long as four years. The Department will struggle to drive a hard bargain with existing operators without going to the market. I ask the Minister whether the Department’s decision to prioritise the re-tendering by 2015 of the east coast main line, currently operated by the Department’s company, Directly Operated Railways, will weaken the Department’s bargaining power as it seeks to extend franchises. It is clear that the Department does not want trains to be run by the public sector.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. The Minister was questioned in the Select Committee and it became apparent that the Government’s decision was to do with Government policy. I, for one, did not hear a compelling value-for-money reason for the decision.

There are a number of ways of assessing whether a franchise delivers value for money. The letter that the Minister sent to the Committee on 4 June stated that, over the three years 2009-10 to 2011-12, the inter-city east coast franchise produced a net return to the Department of £563 million. The letter also stated that, over the same period, the west coast main line made a net return of £290 million. The Minister certainly did not accept that that meant that the east coast franchise produced better value for money, but I am simply presenting the facts in the letter as a contribution to the debate. One consequence of the decision has been the postponing of the re-letting of the west coast franchise by 29 months, to April 2017. The previous timetable had been announced as recently as November. It is a matter of concern that such constant change is unsettling for the industry.

We have already seen two direct awards to current operators, and neither has demonstrated how the Government can secure a better deal for passengers or taxpayers. In the case of the west coast franchise, we were told that there might be new services to Blackpool and Shrewsbury, but they have not materialised. The old Essex Thameside franchise paid money into the Department. The new one, a directly awarded contract to run until September 2014, will cost the taxpayer money. Will the Minister acknowledge that there will be problems in achieving the McNulty savings in the light of the franchising fiasco and its aftermath?

The Committee recommended that the Department should strengthen its commercial capability in relation to assessing franchises, that it should consider franchises being let and managed by a Department agency or arm’s length body, and that it should consider spreading premium payments over the full length of the franchise. We suggested that franchise periods of seven to 10 years would be appropriate while the situation was being reviewed. Indeed, a review is now taking place, and we hope to hear the Government’s conclusions shortly.

During our inquiry, the rail unions argued that the privatised structure was the main cause of inefficiency in the industry, and that renationalisation would bring costs down. McNulty rejected that argument, saying that renationalisation would

“take years to complete, cause major diversion of effort, incur massive costs, and delay progress on improvements”

that were under way.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It has been said many times that all that is needed to solve the problem is for the franchises to be awarded to Network Rail.

[Mrs Ellman]

Having considered all the evidence before it, the Committee decided that McNulty’s proposed methods of achieving efficiencies should be given a chance, although some concerns were expressed. We felt that if the McNulty savings did not materialise, the arguments for more far-reaching structural changes would be compelling.

We have identified a number of issues that the Government must get right if the railway is to continue to grow and become more efficient. The McNulty recommendations include calls for ticket office hours to be reduced, for driver-only operating to be the norm, and for salary restraint. The Committee considers that any changes in staffing, terms and conditions and salaries should be made in the context of a wider programme of changes made throughout the industry and after full consultation with trades unions. Any changes in the numbers and duties of station staff should not be pursued solely to reduce costs, but should reflect changes in passenger ticket-buying behaviour, and should be designed to improve passengers’ experience at stations, including their perception of safety. We were very concerned about the possibility that reducing staffing at stations and on trains would make the railway less safe, particularly at night, and would deter women and vulnerable users from travelling by train.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Louise Ellman and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

Rail Investment

Debate between Louise Ellman and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and I agree with her sentiments. The delay is problematic in its own right, and it certainly has consequences for what is termed the cascading of rolling stock to the north, among other places. The major redevelopment of Birmingham New Street and Reading stations is proceeding.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I reinforce the strong point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). We must do everything that we can to maximise the possibility of keeping manufacturing in Britain. Bombardier, a British-based firm, should be considered for that if we are serious about rebuilding our manufacturing base.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He reinforces the important link between rail investment and jobs.

Electrification that was planned long before the comprehensive spending review is going ahead, but only in part. I am pleased that the Government have confirmed the electrification of the Manchester-Liverpool line and the line from Preston to Blackpool. However, there are still problems with the electrification of the Great Western main line.