Rail Investment

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of her statement, most of which, of course, we read in the newspapers over the weekend and this morning.

What we have just heard is a list of rail investment projects that were announced by the last Government—[Interruption.] It is true. They were announced by the last Government, but they will have to be delivered by the next one. We were promised £9 billion of new investment, but, as we have heard today, the reality is a plan for just £4.2 billion of new rail schemes over five years—less than half the amount that was spun to the media in advance of today’s statement to the House. Of the rest—the other £5.2 billion—more than half is simply confirmation that schemes already under way will not be cancelled halfway through, including Crossrail, Thameslink, the electrification of the Great Western main line, and the electrification in the north-west and across the Pennines, all schemes announced by my noble Friend Lord Adonis as Secretary of State for Transport in 2009.

Even many of the supposedly new projects which make up the remaining £4.2 billion are not so new after all, such as electrification of the midland main line, for which development of the economic case was announced by Lord Adonis, and to which we committed at the last election. Today’s U-turn on the Great Western main line is an acceptance that we were right to commit to completing electrification all the way to Swansea, a decision the Secretary of State and her predecessor have spent two years saying had no business case or economic benefit, when it plainly did. I welcome that U-turn; it is a victory for the Labour Government in Wales.

It is right for the Government to commit to completing the northern hub. That is vital to improve connectivity and capacity between our northern cities. However, instead of that being promised for after the next election, we could have made further progress with the scheme in this Parliament. However, the Government chose to cut investment in this spending period by £1.2 billion, according to Network Rail’s latest delivery plan update for the current control period, CP 4. It says that that has led to deferrals to CP 5, the period covered by today’s announcement. So we have cuts in this Parliament replaced by promises for the next. As the Select Committee on Transport has discovered, the entire northern hub could have been funded this year just from the Department’s underspend, but the Secretary of State instead chose to hand that money back to the Treasury.

We have also had confirmation today that the Government are determined to press ahead with hiking rail fares by up to 11% in each of the next two years, on top of January’s fare rises of up to 13%. The misery for passengers is not to stop there: we discover from the tender documents for the new franchises that bidders are being assured they can then go on imposing eye-watering fare rises of up to 8% every year. That means more than a decade to come of investment-busting fare rises.

Will the Secretary of State confirm how much lower investment in enhancement schemes, greater capacity and electrification will be in control period 5 than in control period 4? Can she confirm when work will begin on the ground, actually delivering jobs from each of the schemes that have yet to get under way? Will she update the House on the significant delays in completing the contractual negotiations for Thameslink rolling stock and the intercity express programme? Will she confirm that she has approved a cut in the planned order of new intercity trains from 1,400, as planned by Labour, to fewer than 600?

When will we see the results of the review into train procurement that was promised following the fiasco of awarding the Thameslink contract to a company that will build the trains in Germany? With long-term youth unemployment having trebled in the last year, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that young people benefit from the investment through apprenticeships and jobs? Will the Secretary of State confirm that Network Rail’s debt, now standing at £27 billion, is set to increase to £33 billion by the end of this control period? How much will that have risen to by the end of 2019, as a result of today’s announcement?

On Network Rail, will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the decision to again propose a bonus scheme that will see senior managers handed £300,000 each, apparently because they have said they will walk away if they do not get it, and then a wider bonus scheme that could cost taxpayers £11.7 million? Can she confirm that, as she threatened last time, she will turn up to this Thursday’s annual general meeting and vote against that package, and if not, why not?

In the light of the commitments made to improve rail links to Heathrow, when will the aviation industry actually be allowed to submit evidence to the Department on the country’s medium-term and long-term aviation capacity needs, or do we have this lack of joined-up policy making because we are awaiting the next Government reshuffle?

Finally—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, but she has now well and truly had her time. I have been watching the clock very closely, the Secretary of State was within time and we must now move on. The Secretary of State will respond and then we will take Back Benchers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged to keep the free bus pass. We know the Deputy Prime Minister and his Lib Dem colleagues did not agree, and now we learn that the Work and Pensions Secretary wants it scrapped as well. Can pensioners be sure they will not face a means test in order to receive their bus pass, or is this going to be another U-turn the Chancellor has not told the Transport Secretary about?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady clearly does not want to take yes for an answer. I do not know how many times we have to say from the Dispatch Box that the concessionary fares arrangements will not change over the lifetime of this Parliament: end of story.

[Maria Eagle]

After the shambles of the last week, I am not sure that pensioners will be reassured by that commitment. After all, the Transport Secretary began the week by ruling out a U-turn on fuel duty. The fact is that pensioners are being hit now by cuts to bus services, which Age UK and the National Pensioners Convention warn are leading to concessionary bus pass holders having no buses to get on. The Government were right to respond to our call to do something for motorists, but as the Department for Transport has now admitted to under-spending its budget by £500,000—the amount needed to restore bus funding—is it not time to show a similar commitment to public transport and restore the bus cuts?

[Norman Baker]

If I may say so, Mr Speaker, that question strays a long way from the tabled question about concessionary bus passes, and if I were the hon. Lady I would not have asked it, because the latest figures, out this week, show that bus passenger journeys in England increased by 0.6% between 2010-11 and 2011-12. They also show that bus fares outside London fell by 4% in real terms between March 2009 and March 2011. I think that, on this occasion, the Eagle has crash-landed.

Cost of Living

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

Let us consider the railways, as the Minister suggests. We know about the cuts. The length of our railway network has halved since 1950, but ever since 1980 the number of people using the network has doubled, resulting in a crippling downward spiral in which fare rises have been used to prop up a creaking system while services have declined. British railways are now 30% less efficient and 30% more expensive than their European counterparts. Under Labour, fares rose significantly above inflation year on year. The shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change did not seem to know the figures when I challenged her on this earlier, so let me give them to the shadow Secretary of State for Transport. Rail fares during Labour’s 13 years in government went up by 66%—inflation over that period was 17% in real terms—which is a huge increase. Even now their policy has not changed; it is still to have rail fares going up above inflation. Even the amendment to the motion calls for rail fares to go up 1% above inflation.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I would be delighted to hear the shadow Secretary of State say that Labour accepts that fares are too high but, if she will not, will she confirm that her policy is still to have rail fares going up above inflation?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman fought the last general election on a promise to cut rail fares. His party and the Government whom he supports now support rail fare rises of 3% above the retail prices index. He voted for that. He is being just a tad hypocritical.

[Dr Huppert]

I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is not prepared to defend her party’s record in government or the fact that it is still calling for fares to rise above inflation. I would like them to go below inflation—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady listened more and spoke less, she would hear what I am going to say. I think that rail fares need to come down, but we do not have a majority Government. As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Gainsborough, this is not a pure Conservative Government, but it is not a pure Liberal Democrat Government either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, as he so often is on rail matters. The Labour Government failed on trains and, rather than trying to patch it up now, are looking for short-term political advantage.

Let me move on from trains to buses. We talk a lot about trains, but buses are used hugely. What is Labour’s record on buses? Bus fares during Labour’s years in government went up by 76%—24% in real terms—which is a huge amount, and that affects the cost of living for people who try to travel by bus. We know that there is a different socio-economic distribution for people who take buses, compared with those who take trains, so this is very tough.

In 2008, Dr Iain Docherty of Glasgow university and Professor Jon Shaw of the university of Plymouth reviewed Labour’s 10-year transport strategy and said that it was a failure. Bus services were described as “poor” compared with the rest of Europe. They said that the Government had pursued the

“wrong kinds of transport policies”.

To their credit, we saw some success in London, but that was the only part of the country that saw the sort of devolution and innovation that we would like to see across the country. Outside London, from 1997 to 2008, when the report was written, the number of bus trips fell by 10%, which is not exactly a resounding victory for Labour’s centralising 10-year plan, and something that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is taking steps to change.

We all know that our roads are utterly unsustainable. We have not yet managed to decarbonise our cars adequately. We failed to support the basic principle that road users should have to pay to use the roads, and the tax system has problems. Treasury Ministers are already nervous about how they will fund road infrastructure in future as we manage to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

I am proud of much of what the Government are doing on transport, although not absolutely everything, and pleased about the work being done by the Under-Secretary on issues such as cycling and bus use, which I will say more about later. I am also proud of the work being done by the other Transport Ministers. However, we need more radical and liberal thinking to heal our sclerotic transport network. What we need are bold reforms, but I am sad to say that what we have from the Opposition is short-term politicking, not long-term and evidence-based public policy making.

Let me give an example. The shadow Secretary of State made an interesting series of comments to The Guardian recently. She said that she accepted two thirds of the coalition’s transport spending cuts. I think we all agree with her when she said:

“Labour will not be elected unless it has credibility on the deficit and recognises the new economic reality.”

She said that she was committed to two thirds of the cuts. The interesting question is this: which two thirds? It is a nice game to keep whichever third of things seems politically sensible and cut the things that are not popular. I have been trying to find out from the hon. Lady—

[Maria Eagle]

I have replied to the hon. Gentleman’s letter, but I can tell him that Labour supported the entire £1.7 billion of efficiencies that Ministers have required across the transport expenditure. We have not opposed cuts beyond those efficiency savings in the Highways Agency totalling £3 billion or in Transport for London totalling £1.7 billion, a total of £4.7 billion, so we have not opposed £6.4 billion of cuts, which is more than two thirds of the efficiencies and cuts that the Government are making. But we would not have made the other £3 billion of cuts, which would have given us extra money so that we could cap annual fare rises, protect local bus services and deliver additional investment. Our plan is quite clear.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. I wrote to her in February asking for the figures and it took her over a month to respond—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It took the hon. Lady over a month to direct me to a speech in which a shadow Minister outlined some of those figures. I do not know how much was made in the London election about the fact that Labour proposed taking £1.73 billion out of the TfL budget, which is interesting, but the key point is that she is yet to reply to a letter I wrote to her a month ago asking, of the £3.36 billion that she would take out of the Highways Agency’s budget, as opposed to the half a billion she would leave in, which—

[Maria Eagle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will if the hon. Lady lets me finish my sentence. Which half a billion pounds would she leave in, and which £3.36 billion would she take out? She has not responded to the letter, but she can respond now.

[Maria Eagle]

I promise to respond in great detail to the hon. Gentleman when he gets his ministerial team to reply to letters from me and to answer parliamentary questions properly.

[Dr Huppert]

I am flattered by the shadow Secretary of State’s faith that I have the power to control the ministerial team. She can certainly control when she responds to letters, and I think that a delay of over a month is rather poor. I am sure that she thinks she has better things to do, but I would still love to hear how Labour would fund the rest of its budget on this area.

If the Opposition are truly concerned about the cost of living, surely one way of addressing that is to let people keep more of the money they earn. Raising the income tax threshold puts money back into people’s pockets and lets them spend it on whatever they want: rail fares, fuel for their car, a new bike, bus tickets, training, or whatever it is that they would like to do with that money. Of course, that is something that Liberal Democrats campaigned for and it was on the first page of our manifesto, and it is exactly what Liberal Democrats in government are doing and which, for reasons I simply do not understand, the Opposition voted against. I simply fail to understand why they are against giving money back to people who earn £10,000 a year. It makes no sense to me. I assume it was some sort of error, like the fact that they failed to vote on various aspects of the Budget which they said they would vote on.

In my view, this tax cut, combined with the uprating of unemployment benefits and the triple lock in pensions so that pensioners get a better deal than the 75p that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) offered them, is exactly the right mix of measures. It allows people to keep their money and spend it as they please when times are tight. It is a responsible, liberal approach, and one that we need to take further, as I am sure we will do during the rest of the Parliament, but it is there—[Interruption]—and it has been supported by the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) reminds me.

But let me return to rail fares. I passionately believe that rail fares are too high and need to be lower, and, unlike Labour and the Conservatives, both of which have argued for above-inflation increases, we in the Liberal Democrats believe that they are too high and should not be made any higher. I am delighted that we managed to persuade our coalition colleagues to reduce the most recent rise by 2%, and I have to say that Conservative Transport Ministers supported it.

I hope that we can do the same or better in the years to come, but it cannot be a one-off measure; it has to be part of the kind of serious structural reform that the McNulty review will bring. If it is true that the McNulty changes will save £1 billion a year, half of it should be used to reduce rail fares and half to invest further in rail infrastructure, although this Government are already investing massively in our railways—more than any Government since Victorian times.

We have committed to electrifying more than 800 miles of track. How much did Labour manage? The answer is less than 10 miles, in 13 years: less than 1 mile per year. The Victorians would not have been impressed by that rate. The Liberal Democrats in government are firmly committed to getting people and freight on to our railways so that they do not take up space on our roads, and that applies to my local road, the A14, where we have to ensure that as much freight as possible is put on to railways in order to avoid the congestion that we see. We need to invest in services to make them cheaper, more affordable and more attractive. That is the right thing to do.

What about buses? We believe firmly that the way forward is devolution, community involvement and more effective funding. Services have to be local for them to be popular and effective, and communities must have their say in the governance of local buses. I believe, from what the shadow Secretary of State says, that the Labour party is finally looking at ways of devolving bus services. We have argued for that measure for decades, so I am delighted that Labour agrees, and I hope that we will be able to deliver it. We have had less than two years with very little money to spend; Labour had 13 years, so I am delighted that it is finally coming around to the idea and I hope that we will be able to deliver it. Indeed, I hope that Labour supports the reforms that we are implementing, such as the local sustainable transport fund, which is delivering £500 million to local communities. Just before the Queen’s Speech my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced new funds for better bus areas and green buses: a £120 million boost for buses which will enable people to take affordable buses more easily.

By trusting communities to do what is best for themselves, we are revolutionising bus travel. Already since 2010 we have seen bus patronage rise outside London and throughout the country, and seen funding for 439 low-carbon buses, helping us to be a much greener Government. That is a fantastic achievement after a decade of decline and without spare money to slosh around.

Of course, if we really want to reduce the cost of living, we will find that there are even cheaper forms of transport. A huge number of journeys could be taken on foot or by bike, and that really would save people money. More people should do that. This Government have invested millions of pounds in promoting cycling, from the local sustainable transport fund, to Sustrans funding for new routes, bikeability training and new cycle-rail links, and they have also taken other steps to promote safe cycling by, for example, making it easier to introduce 20 mph zones.

We have heard much from the Opposition about the lack of a Bill in the Queen’s Speech to deal specifically with the cost of living, but we have heard also from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about the steps being taken with the Bills that are in the Queen’s Speech, and in any case the Opposition should know that it is not necessary to announce a Bill in a Queen’s Speech in order to help with the cost of living. Not everything needs legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is good that the Transport Secretary has made it here for the debate—indeed, she made it from the beginning. We have all enjoyed her attempt to revive the 1970s-style public information films, with her call to the public to re-route, re-mode and re-time their travel. The Opposition were worried that “re-moding” would mean she might have still be en route from Putney, but she was here right from the beginning—so congratulations to her. I am even more pleased that she is closing the debate, because had it been the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), he would probably have sent a DVD, as he now frequently chooses to do—presumably to avoid having to face the outside world. That probably explains why he is still using expressions such as, “Get into the groove”, as he does in this now infamous film.

The debate has focused on the cost of living crisis. We have managed to get 23 Back-Bench contributions into the debate, which is a decent number. It has been a wide-ranging and excellent debate, and we have heard good and powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, but particularly from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches—especially from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who declared himself a devout Keynesian before uncompromisingly demolishing the record and credentials of both parties in government. I particularly enjoyed that speech.

We have heard excellent contributions, including on social care from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), on consumer issues and in particular payday lending, from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). On transport issues, I enjoyed hearing from my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). We heard interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). We heard interesting contributions on fuel costs from across the House.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) set out so well at the start of the debate, the Government’s legislative programme for the year ahead contains not a single measure to address the rising cost of living. Just as the Government have shown that they have no practical answers to address the rising energy bills facing households, nor do they have any solutions to tackle rising rail and bus fares or to reduce the pressure on motorists. The truth is that this is a Government completely out of touch with the impact that rising transport costs are having—on household budgets; on families struggling to make ends meet; on those who want to work or stay on in education or training; and on pensioners who want to stay active rather than becoming isolated.

The rise in transport costs is happening not in isolation from the decisions that have been made by this Government, but as a result of them. Cutting investment in the rail network too far and too fast, creating a black hole that has to be filled with inflation-busting fare rises; cutting funding for local transport too far and too fast, forcing local authorities to reduce their support for bus services, with one in five supported services already lost and with fares rising too; increasing VAT, which has contributed to prices at the pump reaching record levels—these are choices that have been made by the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary because they are out of touch with the pressures that families face and with the consequences of their decisions. It simply is not good enough for Ministers to use the deficit as a catch-all excuse for rising costs—as they seek to do all the time—because the decisions they have taken will make it harder to reduce the deficit. Indeed, they have already led to the Government having to borrow £150 billion more than they had planned.

There is no joined-up government, and making the wrong choice comes at a price. For example, the Government are telling young people to stay on in education post-16, yet many young people are no longer able to take up college courses because the bus into town has been cut or the concessionary fare scheme has been axed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a superb case in respect of the bus services to college. Let me give her an example from my constituency of a barmy outcome of bus deregulation. We now have different bus companies operating the buses going to the schools from those operating the buses coming back, which means that parents are having to pay twice for their children’s bus fares.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct, of course. The Government have said that those who are out of work should be willing to travel for up to 90 minutes to take up a reasonable job offer or lose their jobseeker’s allowance. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said:

“The truth is there are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town you are living in. They may be in a neighbouring town…We need to recognise the jobs often don’t come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs.”

Not only is he out of touch about the extent to which there are actually jobs, but he seems to have no concept of the cost of travel under his Government. Those on the minimum wage will have take-home pay of just over £10,000 a year, but a season ticket for the 90-minute journey between Newark Northgate and King’s Cross would cost more than £8,000. Under the Government’s policy, therefore, they expect someone to spend up to 77% of their take-home pay just to get to work. Coming into London from Braintree would cost someone in a minimum wage job 46% of their take-home pay. There are other examples. The cost of transport is making it harder for people to take up jobs or to stay in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made clear in the examples that he gave.

Of course we need to bring down the deficit, but we need the right balance between a plan for reducing spending and a plan for jobs and growth. That is why I have supported more than two thirds of the Government’s cuts to transport spending—difficult cuts, which we would have had to make in government as well, to the Highways Agency, Transport for London and major transport schemes. However, £6 billion is two thirds of the reductions in expenditure planned across this Parliament. We would not have cut support for rail and local transport services so far or so fast. We could then have relentlessly focused on keeping down the cost of transport, helping households through tough times and not adding needlessly to the pressures that they face. We would have held fare rises at 1% above inflation during this Parliament, and without the need to cut one penny from the investment in the network that the Government are rightly taking forward. We could also have protected local bus services and kept fares down.

Of course, Ministers are so out of touch that they claim that those fare rises and cuts to services are not actually happening. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor claimed that he had succeeded in keeping increases in rail fares at just 1% above inflation. He said:

“RPI plus 3% is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1%...It will help the millions of people who use our trains.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

Why did fares rise in January by as much as 11% on some commuter routes? What the Chancellor perhaps forgot to mention was that the Transport Secretary—not this one, but her predecessor—had given back to the train companies the right to add up to a further 5% increase on top of that cap. [Interruption.] That was banned when we were in government once times were getting tough. By not cutting the rail budget so far and so fast, we would set the minimum—[Interruption.] If the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) wants to intervene, perhaps she would like to do so properly instead of chuntering from a sedentary position. By not cutting the rail budget so far and so fast, we would not only set the maximum fare rise at 1%—

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

The point I was making is that if the hon. Lady has such a problem with fares basket flexibility, why are her Labour colleagues in Cardiff still applying it in Wales?

[Mr MacNeil]

A good man.

[Maria Eagle]

He is a controversial man. Anyway, he told me,

“we do not believe we could fund this as BSOG is being cut by 20% next year”.

Let us be clear about the fact that it is the policies of the two parties on the Government Benches that are preventing us from reaching agreement with the bus companies on such a scheme.

Ministers should consider the impact on school transport. They should listen to the Campaign for Better Transport, which has demonstrated that almost three quarters of local education authorities have made cuts in school transport. As a result, parents are struggling to afford the fuel costs of the school run, or to juggle their jobs with getting the kids to school. The Government’s actions are adding to the burden on families. They should also take account of the impact on older people, and listen to Age UK and the National Pensioners Convention, which have said in a letter to the Prime Minister:

“Cuts to bus services will hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest—contrary to the Government’s message that the cuts will be socially fair”.

They are not fair. The Prime Minister may think that he has stuck to his election pledge to protect free bus passes, but up and down the country pensioners are asking, “What is the point of a free bus pass if there is no bus?”

For motorists, too, the Government have created higher costs. Despite all the pre-election promises, they have failed to tackle the cost of fuel. Those on average incomes have seen the cost of running their cars reach 13% of household expenditure, and it now accounts for a quarter of the monthly budgets of those in the lowest income group. That is before we consider the huge rises in insurance premiums in the past year—up 74% for a small family car. Yet all the Government’s claims to have cut fuel duty have been wiped out by a VAT hike that has pushed up the price at the pump by more than 3p a litre: the wrong tax at the wrong time, hitting families and businesses hard, and all because Ministers stubbornly refuse to stand up to the banks and repeat the bank bonus tax that we imposed in government.

So on rail fares, on bus fares, on fuel costs, this is a Government out of touch with the impact of the rising costs of transport. Fare increases are outstripping wage increases several times over—if people are fortunate enough to see a wage rise at all. There are families now paying more on commuting than on the mortgage or rent. That is the cost of living crisis facing households up and down the country—families feeling squeezed across the board, energy and water bills rising, the cost of transport rising, nothing in the Budget to help, and nothing in the Queen’s Speech to help. Whether it is the energy companies or the train companies, this is a Government unwilling to stand up to vested interests. We will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that many people who are out of work do not have easy access to the internet and rely on the help and advice of staff to ensure they get the cheapest fare, which is not always clearly advertised or available at ticket machines? Can the Minister confirm whether it is Ministers or train companies who are responsible for the decision to close many of these vital ticket offices?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady should give me an example of these closures, because I have to say they are not happening. No decisions have been made on possible changes to the way that ticket offices are regulated and we are going to be looking at this issue as part of our efforts to drive efficiency in the railways, but before any decisions are taken we will think very carefully about the impact on all rail users, including the disabled, those who are jobless and those with visual impairments. This is a very important issue to get right and part of the way we will deal with it is by expanding the smart ticketing and alternative ticket-buying opportunities we have discussed this morning.

[Maria Eagle]

That is an interesting answer. The Minister seems to be out of touch with what is happening in her own Department. I have here a leaked e-mail, dated just two weeks ago, from the civil servant responsible for the rail fares and ticketing review. It says that

“the Minister has already decided to approve some ticket office closures (it’s just not been announced yet…)…there will be more of those in future.”

What is worse, she then admits that Ministers plan to pin the blame for the closures on the train companies, saying,

“your way of slipping in there that the initiative comes from TOCs not us is very neat”.

Will the Minister now own up and admit that she has already given the green light to these closures, which passengers will find not “very neat” but very inconvenient and very expensive?

[Mrs Villiers]

The shadow Secretary of State refers to the proposal from London Midland, which is being considered but on which no final decision has been made.

Rail Reform

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and repeat our thanks to Sir Roy McNulty and his team for their work. We did not agree with all his conclusions and, if we had been in government, we would not have accepted all his recommendations. It was a valuable piece of work, however, that is helping to drive a number of reforms in the industry that we welcome.

Passengers have every reason to be concerned about the direction that the Secretary of State has just set for the rail industry, with year after year of inflation-busting fare rises, ticket offices closed, fewer staff on trains and at stations and cuts in investment in the rail network. In each case, the interests of private train companies are being put before those of passengers and the principle that we established in government of a clear separation of infrastructure and maintenance from private profit is being abandoned, for the first time giving private train companies the whip hand over Network Rail. That is a dangerous experiment that takes the industry on the road to breaking up and selling off Britain’s railway infrastructure, all because this is a Government who are simply unwilling or unable to stand up to vested interests on behalf of passengers. [Interruption.] The question that the Government have yet to answer is this: if we are all in this together, why is the burden yet again to fall on the fare payer and not on those who are already making huge profits—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The Secretary of State was listened to politely without Front-Bench heckling and I expect the shadow Secretary of State to be heard without heckling from those on the Front Bench or anywhere else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The question that the Government have yet to answer is this: if we are all in this together, why is the burden yet again to fall on the fare payer and not on those who are already making huge profits that are lost to the industry and that help to drive up the cost to the taxpayer of running our railway?

We cannot support these reforms. In the coming weeks we will set out our own alternative approach to reforming the rail industry, but for today I would be grateful if the Secretary of State answered a number of specific questions of concern to passengers and commuters about her proposals.

On fares, the National Audit Office has warned that the Government’s fare rises, which are adding to the cost of living crises facing households, are just as likely to increase the profits of train operators as reduce costs for the taxpayer. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the entire cost of holding fare rises at just 1% above inflation for the rest of this Parliament and strictly enforcing that cap would be less than the £543 million her Department handed back to the Treasury as a result of an underspend last year? Will she therefore abandon plans to increase fares by 3% above inflation in 2013 and 2014?

The Secretary of State said today that the days of above-inflation fare rises are coming to an end, so will she explain why the tender documents for the new franchises assure bidders that they can increase fares by up to 6% above inflation every single year of those 15-year franchises? Will she confirm that, under the plans she has set out today, train companies will be given even more freedoms on fares, including the right to introduce a super-peak ticket, which will hit hard-pressed commuters in particular?

I welcome the commitment to extend smart integrated ticketing that can be used on trains and buses, enabling the rest of the country to catch up with London. The fact that that will enable part-time workers to benefit from new flexible season tickets is particularly welcome, but will the Secretary of State explain how that will work outside London if she remains unwilling to take steps to regulate the bus network outside the capital as we proposed?

On the level of services, will the Secretary of State explain why the inter-city west coast franchise tender document allows daily service reductions of up to 10%? Will that not lead to even greater overcrowding than passengers already face? Will she explain why the final tender documents for the new franchises have also watered down the performance obligations since the earlier draft? The requirement to improve performance over the life of the franchise has been replaced by a requirement to do so unless

“good evidence can be provided as to why this is not achievable.”

Surely passengers expect the Government to insist on improvements, not simply to police the excuses that the train operating companies come up with.

Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns about the train companies’ new freedoms to close ticket offices and cut the number of staff on trains and platforms? Will she explain why the new franchises ask bidders only to consider maintaining the same level of CCTV on trains?

The structural reforms to the industry are also deeply worrying. Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns that the restructuring she proposes has a massive accountability gap at its heart? Genuine backing for devolution, which the Government have ducked today, would see transport authorities deciding the best way to deliver rail services in each region. Should that not permit alternatives to the existing franchise model to be explored, including not-for-profit and mutual options? Does she agree that for devolution to work those authorities need a fair deal on costs, subsidies and risks? This cannot be—as is suspected—about devolving responsibility for cuts.

Will the Secretary of State explain how the decision to allow deep alliances between train companies and Network Rail, with private train companies having the whip hand, fits with the need for democratic accountability? I know the Conservative party is determined to complete the job it started with its botched rail privatisation, but does she not accept that the decision we took to create Network Rail as a not-for-dividend body has served the industry well? Why is she willing to turn back the clock and take us back to the bad old days by creating what are effectively a series of mini-Railtracks? Where is the accountability to passengers, taxpayers and Parliament? How can there possibly be a level playing field in future franchise competitions if the incumbent is part of a single management team? Does she not see the clear conflicts of interest that are evident throughout her proposals?

How will Network Rail continue to support the interests of freight operators and their need to access the network in a system where private train operators manage the network in each region? Will the Secretary of State explain why long-term concessions will not simply add to the costly fragmentation of the industry? Why does she believe that breaking up and selling track piece by piece will improve performance and safety?

This long-awaited rail strategy is a wasted opportunity to address the structural issues left from the botched rail privatisation. Instead of tackling the fragmented structure of the industry that was the legacy of privatisation, the Government are instead creating an even more fragmented and costly structure with more interfaces, more need for lawyers and consultants, less accountability, and, at the same time, more freedoms for train companies to hike fares and cut services, booking offices and front-line staff. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and instead seek to build consensus on the future of the rail industry, based on devolution and genuine local control with communities and passengers in the driving seat, stand up to private companies, not cave in to vested interests, and put passengers before profits. It is not too late for her to do that. I hope that she will think about it.

[Justine Greening]

Obviously, I listened with interest to what the hon. Lady said and I hope that she will at least accept that the current situation, with a rail industry that Roy McNulty says costs £3.5 billion more than it needs to owing to inefficiency, is something that we should tackle. I note that she says she is going to come forward with an alternative and it is important that she does that because if she is turning her face against this approach, she is saying that it is okay for fare payers and taxpayers to pay that £3.5 billion in perpetuity. I think that is broadly what she was saying, but I shall await with interest her alternative proposal, which she needs now to provide.

The hon. Lady talks about the burden falling on the fare payer, but that is exactly what happens now. That is one reason why there has been so much pressure for fares to go up year on year. Let me remind her that her party also recognised that problem, which is why it commissioned Sir Roy McNulty to do that work and why it struggled with the issue too, itself overseeing years of above-inflation rail fare rises. What all of us in the House should be looking towards, with the strategy we have produced, is how to tackle these issues. We want fares to remain affordable. I have stressed on a number of occasions and at several points in the documents we have released today that it is absolutely key that we make sure that fares remain affordable. The underlying objective we are trying to achieve is the end of inflation-busting fares. We also want to cut down on the level of public subsidy, as we would prefer that money to go towards reducing the deficit or into investment in other areas.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes the flexible season tickets. If we are able to push forward on smart ticketing across the country, people will be able to use that sort of ticketing not only on the railways but potentially on buses too. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who has responsibility for buses, will be producing a strategy that includes all those opportunities in the coming weeks.

The hon. Lady mentioned ticket offices. I understand that many passengers strongly value the face-to-face channel that a ticket office provides, as can be seen in the documents. However, I remind her that when her party was in office there were large-scale reductions in ticket office opening hours. In 2009, Labour Ministers approved cuts to opening hours at 70% of South West Trains ticket offices. The Command Paper has a section on how we want stations to improve, including by having crèches at stations where that is a sensible idea. Face-to-face channels are important for people buying tickets, which is why one of the ideas in the paper is to investigate whether people could buy tickets at their local post office, library or shop, as people can with Oyster in London. All those things should mean that people have more, rather than fewer, opportunities to buy tickets face to face.

In the rest of the fares and ticketing consultation—and I stress that it is a consultation—there are some really good ideas for moving ticketing into the 21st century, including on how we can make sure that the approach to ticketing reflects working practices today and the fact that people work flexibly and part-time, rather than expecting them to fit into a ticketing approach that would be better placed in the 1980s.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady asked about devolution and decentralisation because that is possibly one of the most exciting parts of all this in the long term for local communities. It opens up an important debate about how franchises might be more spec’d up in the long term and controlled by local communities. I assure her that this is about giving local communities opportunities, not about passing on some underlying problem. Indeed, the Government are absolutely clear that we need to tackle the underlying problem of inefficiency in our railways. That is what the document is all about.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about alliancing. I think that getting the industry to work together is a common-sense approach to tackling some of the inefficiencies that exist, which are directly funded in the end by fare payers and taxpayers. Today, when asked, she was not able to rule out her party wanting to renationalise the railways, but I think that we need to make the pieces of the jigsaw fit together better. Simply throwing them up in the air again would only waste time and make it harder for the industry to take the responsibility that we want it to, and I do not think that that would be the right way forward.

Finally, I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about freight and we are absolutely committed to making sure it is a core part of the network going forward. One of the underlying reasons for high-speed rail is to make sure we have capacity on the core network for freight. We need to make sure there are safeguards in place regarding any of these changes so that the freight industry can continue to do what we want it to, which is to re-mode on to trains.

Cycling

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. It is entirely appropriate that a well-known and regular parliamentary cyclist such as yourself should be in the Chair for part of our debate at least.

It has been an excellent debate. There is a simple reason why we are holding this debate today—the awful day last November when a young news reporter, Mary Bowers, was critically injured just yards from her workplace. Other Members have described the experience of their constituents’ lives being similarly affected. Mary Bowers was crushed by a lorry while cycling. I have been to see the junction in Wapping. It is little short of a miracle that she is still with us, and of course she has an unimaginably tough and lengthy recovery ahead of her.

To the immense credit of The Times, it has not just accepted this appalling tragedy. It has recognised that collisions involving cyclists are not simply accidents, but have a cause and therefore can be prevented. They are ultimately the consequence of our collective failure to do enough to make our cities fit for cyclists—the apt title of the campaign that The Times has launched as a result.

This is campaigning journalism at its best and, despite the progress made, I know that all those involved at The Times will continue to work hard on their campaign to gather more and more support. I know that MPs from all parties have been impressed by the personal commitment that the editor of The Times, James Harding, has given to this issue. He contacted all MPs personally in advance of this debate, and he is here to listen to it.

It is entirely appropriate that the all-party group on cycling secured the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing the debate and on his own work to support cycling, as co-chair of the all-party group. I also congratulate the other members of that group—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—on their work, some of which we have heard about today.

Something that has had an impact on me and our thinking on the issue comes from the moving piece by Times journalist Kaya Burgess, who has been a driving force behind the campaign. Writing about his friend, he said:

“Mary, a news reporter, would be first to ask why it is not mandatory for lorries driving on city streets to be fitted with sensors and mirrors to pick up cyclists in their blind spots. Or why training for cyclists and drivers on how to share the road responsibly is so poor. Or why some junctions are so dangerous that jumping a red light can actually be a safer option than lining up alongside HGVs at the lights like a racetrack starting grid. Or why London trails so far behind cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen in terms of the infrastructure and legislation to protect vulnerable cyclists and to help the drivers who are trying to avoid them.”

What struck me was just how obvious the changes that we need to see are. The issue is not one that needs a major ideological debate between us all to be won; some common sense and a renewed commitment to cycling safety would do. None of those things need be impossible or even difficult to deliver. It is about will as much as money.

I am also aware that there has been a tendency, however well meaning, to give the impression that the responsibility to prevent collisions rests simply with cyclists. Despite the importance of cycling proficiency and awareness, we must never believe that they can be a substitute for measures to improve road junctions, create alternative cycle routes and improve safety equipment on HGVs. That is the real lesson of the campaign, and it should be the focus of our response.

In responding to the challenge that has been put to us as parliamentarians, it is important for us to be careful not to give the wrong impression about the safety of cycling and risk discouraging people from getting out on their bikes. We need to make it clear that cycling casualties are down 17% across the last decade, at a time when increased numbers of people were taking to their bikes. Cycling becomes safer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and others have said, the more people there are on bikes out on our roads. Therefore, it is important that as we address safety issues, we do not put people off.

Cycling is one of Britain’s success stories in recent years, and it is important that we talk it up—there are 20% more people cycling than a decade ago. Yet, if we go to the Netherlands, as I did as part of our policy review, it is apparent how much further ahead parts of the continent are. In Holland, a third of all trips to and from rail stations are by bike, compared with 2% here. I have seen for myself the fantastic facilities for cyclists at stations in Holland—not just bike spaces, but covered staffed storage with people on hand to repair and maintain bikes while their owners are off at work during the day. The matter is about spending—10 times more per person is spent on cycling there than in the UK—but it is also about attitude and commitment.

I am proud of the steps forward that we took when we were in office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter set out in his remarks. Those increases in cycling numbers and reductions in cycling casualties did not happen by chance, but through some of the decisions that were taken. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I am glad that he has been able to join us. I know that he was respected across the whole House as a Minister in the Department for Transport for his passionate and energetic advocacy of improving road safety, which delivered policies that saved lives.

I particularly want to recognise what was achieved through Cycling England and the national funding of the “Cycling city and towns” programme between 2005 and 2010. For the first time, we saw proper, dedicated investment in measures to boost cycling numbers. The reports from each of those towns and cities are on the DFT website and worth a read. Progress was made up and down the country, including a 36% rise in the availability of cycle parking in Aylesbury; the quadrupling of the number of children cycling in the schools targeted in Colchester; the introduction of bike swap, recycle and resale schemes and new cycle spaces at schools; and the establishment of school bike clubs. There were also new dedicated cycle lanes and controlled crossings.

I regret that, instead of rolling out the success of those projects across the country, the Government chose to abolish Cycling England, along with its £60 million annual funding, and end the “Cycling city and towns” scheme. That was a mistake. While I recognise and welcome the local sustainable transport fund, it is not a great deal of money spread over the whole Parliament, and cycling is just one area among many that the fund has to cover. While the £15 million of additional targeted funding announced a few days ago by the Minister is also welcome, that comes nowhere close to replicating the levels of support that went before, let alone increasing them, as we clearly need to do.

I would like briefly to set out a few conclusions that the Opposition have already reached in the policy review that we, as a party, have been carrying out. They have been reached as a result of listening to cyclists and of The Times’s campaign.

First, we have heard that our roads have simply not been designed with cyclists in mind, which has been the case over many decades. We will need to spend significant sums of money to address the deficiencies. Therefore, as a first commitment, let us at least agree that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past, and let us start taking into account the impact of road design on cyclists. I propose that we subject all future road and other major transport schemes to a cycling safety assessment before approval, in the same way that all Government policies and spending are subject to an economic impact assessment and an equality impact assessment. That might enable us to avoid some of the mistakes that we have made over the past decades.

Secondly, we have heard why we have to move faster at improving safety on existing roads, in addition to ensuring that new road and transport schemes consider the cyclist. We have heard how that is especially the case at junctions—almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at junctions.

It is time to agree that a specific proportion of the roads budget should be set aside for improving our existing roads. As part of our responsible approach to public spending, where we have backed two thirds of the Government’s spending cuts, we have made it clear how we would fund £100 million each year to begin that work. Let us recognise that simply painting a thin section at the side of the road a different colour does not create an adequate safe cycle route. We need to look at proper separation, as is common on the continent, and at other measures, such as traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start.

Thirdly, we have heard calls to do more to encourage and enable our local authorities to promote cycling. At the least, let us create a best practice toolkit based on what we have learned from the “Cycling city and towns” programme. Let us also back local authorities that want to extend their 20 mph zones in residential areas.

We have listened to the concerns regarding the Government’s decision to end ring-fenced road safety grants to local authorities and all support for speed cameras, including removing 100% of the funding available for road safety capital. By removing ring-fencing of what remained, cash-strapped councils were faced with raiding road safety money to fill the gap caused by other cuts that they face. It is worrying that Ministers have said in parliamentary answers:

“No assessment has been made about the effect on road accidents that may result from changes to road safety grants.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 948.]

As part of the costed approach to spending we have set out, we would not have made that cut, and the Government ought to look at it again.

Fourthly, while it is vital that we never give the impression that responsibility for safety rests solely with cyclists, we have heard how important cycling proficiency for children and young people is. The Government should therefore look at restoring cycling proficiency’s position as an ongoing dedicated funding stream, rather than relying on bids to the local sustainable transport fund. I also worry about the impact of the decision to cut funding for the “Think!” road safety campaign. The Government should also look again at their decision to abandon the need for schools to develop school travel plans and encourage working between local authorities and schools to encourage cycling and promote safer routes.

Fifthly, we have heard concerns about the decision to give the green light to longer heavy goods vehicles. We should take steps to switch freight from road to rail, not make it more attractive to do the reverse. The Department for Transport projects that rail freight will increase by 262% by 2025, following the approval of longer HGVs. Yet, if it had not gone ahead with that change, it says the projected growth of rail freight would be 732%. Heavy goods vehicles are three times as likely to be involved in fatal accidents compared with all other vehicles, and the dangers for cyclists are significant. I hope that that Government will think again about that and abandon the plan. I also hope that Ministers will consider our suggestion for an HGV road charging scheme, with an estimated annual income of £23 million. Let us hypothecate that new income to work with the road haulage industry on equipping lorries with safety equipment, such as side under-run protection to avoid cyclists falling under the wheels, and blind spot mirrors. We also need to improve driver training and awareness.

Finally, I have previously made a commitment to restoring the national targets on reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I worry that the Government’s decision to axe those targets risks our collectively taking our eye off the ball, and that we will see as a result a reversal of the incredible progress that was made over the past decade. I hope that the Minister will take those things into account in his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman raises very important issues, and the concerns that he expresses are one reason the Chancellor secured the funding to ensure that the 2012 increase would be just RPI plus 1%. We recognise, however, that it is vital that we get the cost of running the railways down, because that is the long-term, sustainable way to respond to passengers’ concerns about the level of fares.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady back to her place.

Last month The Daily Telegraph was briefed that future fare rises are “not set in stone” and are “under constant review.” Will the Minister of State therefore tell the House whether she still intends to allow train companies to hike fares by as much as 8% above inflation in 2013 and in 2014, and has she taken any decisions about fare rises in the years after that?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said in my opening answer on this question, the current assumption is based on RPI plus 3%, but we will keep those matters under review, as we did in relation to 2012, to see whether further funding can be secured to opt for a different approach. In reality, however, it is crucial that we get the costs of running the railways down—costs that spiralled during the Labour Government. They failed to respond to the problem and were severely criticised by their own Labour-dominated Select Committee at the time for not doing anything serious about rail fares. We are going to get the cost of the railways down so that we get better value for money for passengers.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister seems to be saying one thing to the train companies and another to passengers. I have with me the invitation to tender for the west coast main line, which promises bidders that they can increase fares by up to 8% above inflation next year, by up to 8% above inflation the year after that and, then, by up to 6% above inflation every year for the rest of the entire 15-year franchise. So it seems that the decision has been taken. When is the Minister of State going to stand up to those vested interests and stand up for passengers?

[Mrs Villiers]

The shadow Secretary of State has resorted to the same old stuff about the fares basket flexibility that the leader of her party got completely wrong at Prime Minister’s questions. It was a fares basket flexibility that Labour suspended for one year and we introduced, and the Labour Administration in Cardiff are still using that flexibility. It is entirely disingenuous for the shadow Secretary of State to get up and talk about—

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

It is fair to say that the previous Government’s research showed that only one in 10 young people receiving EMA said that it was the deciding factor—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

That is rubbish.

[Norman Baker]

I do not know that it is rubbish; it is Labour’s research that I am referring to.

On the issue of moving forward on concessionary fares, I do not know whether the Labour party is pledging a new spending commitment, but its own research shows that £740 million would be required for the concession that it is advocating—a few days after the shadow Secretary of State announced that she would have a more responsible attitude to finance. [Interruption.]

Civil Aviation Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We have considered that very closely and it is one reason why these changes will not happen overnight. They will take place over the next two to three years so that we can ensure we get the right staff transferred with the right expertise. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a wealth of security expertise within the Department and across Government and that will still be there for us to draw on within the Department for Transport. I am assured of that.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. Lady at all concerned that the division of responsibilities will create new interfaces that might cause delay and problems in the swift implementation of policy?

[Justine Greening]

That is a very fair question and it is one that I have considered carefully, too. I do not believe that it will cause a problem at all; in fact, it will enhance the security approach that we are able to take. It will mean a far more ongoing and rigorous approach to security that will manage to combine the highest standards of security and safety at airports while delivering a more streamlined approach for passengers on the ground. That is better for everybody.

Clause 82 makes provision for the transfer to the Civil Aviation Authority of rights, powers, duties and liabilities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That will allow us to transfer to the CAA the experienced staff who carry out the regulatory compliance and vetting functions currently carried out by civil servants in my Department. That will not only devolve more responsibility to the CAA but will have the further advantage of bringing the “user pays” principle to aviation security. It is not right or fair that the taxpayer currently subsidises the cost of aviation by paying for its regulation. At a time when our overriding priority is to reduce the inherited debt and when difficult choices are being made about funding priorities it is right that the cost of regulatory compliance should be met by the industry that benefits from it and not by the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Let me begin by wishing the aviation Minister, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), well. Opposition Members were very sorry to hear of her accident and we wish her a speedy recovery from her injuries and from the surgery she is undergoing.

The Civil Aviation Bill started its life under the previous Administration and we were pleased, as was the industry, to see it included in the Queen’s Speech after the election. We will vote for the Bill’s Second Reading today and the Government will, in principle, have our continued support, subject to the scrutiny that this Bill should rightly receive as it progresses through its parliamentary stages and subject to the making of appropriate reassurances and necessary amendments.

The proposals that the Government inherited to reform the framework for airport economic regulation and modernise the CAA’s governance and operations are broadly correct. In a number of areas, we share the view of the Select Committee on Transport that the Bill could be improved, particularly in relation to passengers’ welfare and the sector’s environmental obligations. Should the Government not introduce their own proposals to do so we shall seek to improve the Bill in Committee.

We support the Government’s decision to use the legislation as a vehicle to reform and extend the ATOL scheme to provide greater protection for consumers, reflecting changes to the way in which holidays are sold today, as the Secretary of State set out. The Government have also decided to use the legislation to go beyond the economic regulatory purpose that was originally envisaged in the transfer of responsibilities relating to aviation security, which has emerged since the election or, more specifically, since the Government spending review. However, there are serious concerns about whether it is a desire to cut costs, rather than improve security, that is driving the changes. The Opposition will therefore require much greater assurance from the Government about how the changes will work in practice if we are not to seek to make amendments to the provisions or even to remove them during the Bill’s passage through the House.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that passengers, as well as needing security, are worried about convenience and, indeed, their dignity?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and proper security is always a balance between managing to make sure that the efforts of those who wish to commit terrorist offences on planes are foiled while, at the same time, not wishing to subject consumers and passengers to indignity or extensive delay. It is correct that the Department should have a full understanding of the extent of any threats so that it can make appropriate policy. It is just in those areas that we want to probe a little more in Committee precisely to assess the practical impact of the proposals.

It is unfortunate that the introduction of the Bill and its Second Reading should come so soon after the publication of the draft Bill. Considering that this package of reforms has been in preparation for many years, and given that it was widely believed that its introduction had slipped to the next Session, it is unfortunate that there has been a sudden rush of last-minute enthusiasm to bring it before the House. Consequently, the planned pre-legislative scrutiny, which we supported, has been curtailed. The Transport Committee has done its usual impressive job, but it had just three weeks to take evidence and produce recommendations on the proposals, many of which have been in gestation for six years or more. That meant that the Government have not been able to consider those recommendations in detail and improve the Bill before its introduction. Consequently, we are debating a Bill—and I hope that this is the case—that will doubtless be amended by the Government in Committee, which is a remarkable state of affairs for a measure so long in preparation.

The industry itself has rightly expressed concern about the limited opportunity it was given to engage with officials before the Bill’s introduction in Parliament. BAA, it is fair to say, may be affected more than other player in the industry by the measure, yet it says that it could secure only a single one-hour meeting with the Department for Transport in the past three months, which falls short of what might be expected for a regulatory Bill of this nature. There will be, at the very least, a suspicion that the hasty introduction of the Bill has less to do with the industry’s needs and more to do with the needs of business managers, who doubtless begged the Secretary of State to let them have something for the Commons to do, because the Government’s legislative programme is bogged down in chaos in the other place.

[Justine Greening]

I have met BAA on a number of occasions since taking on my present role, so I can assure the hon. Lady that there has been plenty of opportunity for BAA to raise any concerns with me.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I was just quoting what BAA said, and I hear what she says about her own efforts, which I commend.

There are three key reforms in the Bill—to economic regulation, to the Civil Aviation Authority itself, and to the transfer of security functions. I want to turn briefly to the wider aviation context within which the reforms will sit. We agree that the current framework for airport economic regulation is outdated and needs reform. It has been clear for some time that the CAA does not have the powers to apply the regulatory regime in a way that best benefits passengers and reduces costs for the industry. We are also dealing with a very different aviation landscape since the introduction of the existing regime, not least because of a major increase in passenger numbers, low-cost airlines, growth in regional airports and changes to ownership required by the Competition Commission. The proposed licensing regime, together with a more flexible and targeted set of regulatory tools, will better enable the CAA to carry out its work, while making its decisions more accountable, and reduce unnecessary regulation.

It is also right that the regulatory regime governing airports be reformed to put passengers at its core. The CAA’s primary duty should be to promote the interests of passengers. That was our intention in developing the reforms, and we are pleased that that approach has been accepted and adopted by the Government. We hope that in Committee the Minister will look carefully at the arguments that have been made and be clearer about how the CAA is to weigh the often differing interests of current versus future air transport users and, as the Select Committee has urged, explain in more convincing detail how the proposed aviation consumer advocacy panel will work in practice and, in particular, how it will identify, represent and promote the interests of passengers and relate to the regulatory process.

The lack of a specific requirement to publish passenger welfare plans is a major omission and should be addressed. It was a key recommendation from the Select Committee following its inquiry into the failure of both Government and industry to prepare and respond adequately to the severe winter weather in December 2010. The appalling experience faced by many passengers, particularly at Heathrow, demonstrated the need for the sector significantly to up its game in relation to passenger welfare. I welcome the new powers that the legislation will give the CAA and the Government and hope that the Secretary of State will issue clear and robust guidance to airport operators on winter resilience. However, we would like to see a specific obligation on the CAA to include in any licence issued a requirement that airports provide support to stranded passengers.

The Government must also ensure that each recommendation of the Quarmby report on the resilience of England’s transport systems in winter is implemented, particularly those relating to the need for early decisive action on whether to cancel services; the supply of de-icing and anti-icing products or road salt; better liaison between airports and local highway authorities over the treatment of appropriate public road networks; and improved access to performance statistics on the management of disruption by airlines and airports.

The former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), stood in the snow at Heathrow just over a year ago and pledged to learn the lessons of the chaos passengers faced. I know that because I was standing in the snow freezing alongside him and, more importantly, alongside thousands of stranded passengers. At the time he blamed Heathrow for seriously underestimating the amount of de-icer required and raised the prospect of establishing a central reserve for emergencies, much as exists for road salt. The Government should provide an update on this—they have gone quiet lately—and on the other promises made at the time. As well as the powers that this Bill rightly gives the CAA, the current Secretary of State must ensure that the Government do not take the view that this is all the responsibility of the industry. There is a strategic and economic need, as well as a UK reputational requirement, for the Government to get a grip on winter preparedness. I recall the Minister responsible for aviation telling the media on Boxing day 2010 that the Bill would do just that, but it is not obvious to me that it does it sufficiently well, so we will explore that further.

The CAA should also be required to focus licences on the specific experience of passengers in airports. That means, as the Transport Committee has urged, specifically structuring licences to address key areas of passenger satisfaction, including immigration and baggage handling. We all know that the failures that most give rise to frustration and anger, not to mention ruining business trips and holidays, are delays caused by inadequate management of immigration and poor baggage handling. Of course, although airports should rightly have obligations in this respect, the Government must also recognise that their decisions have an impact that is out of the hands of airport operators, not least the way they resource and manage the UK Border Agency. The speed and scale of the Government’s cuts is putting pressure on the agency. People across the country fear that corners are being cut and border security is being put at risk by the scale of the Government’s border cuts. Some 6,500 staff are going from the agency, with 1,500 going from the UK border force, including more than 800 this year alone. In the past year, we have already had the situation whereby the Home Secretary did not know what changes to border controls she had agreed to, how they were being implemented or how great the security risks were, and relaxing controls was a direct consequence of those staffing reductions.

It is incredible that the Government have overseen a reduction in checks at border control. The public expect proper immigration controls, and passengers expect there to be sufficient staff to prevent massive delays at airports, which damage our image and can impact on investment and business competitiveness. We agree that the passenger must be placed at the heart of the regulatory regime, but the Government must do the same as they carry out their responsibilities.

The Government should also consider the airlines’ case that, in the context of airport regulation, they too are customers. Although we agree with the Government that the law should be absolutely clear that the CAA’s primary duty is to passengers, we agree also that there is a case for a secondary duty to airlines, so the Minister should look again at the decision not to include such a duty.

Although it is right that we set out a primary duty on passengers to send a clear signal to the CAA about how it should manage competing interests, it is right also that we set out further duties. In doing so, however, the Government have chosen to omit the reference to environmental obligations that we intended the Bill to include. That is a mistake, so I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on it and think again.

Back in March 2009, the consultation document on economic regulation that the then Secretary of State published proposed that

“the CAA should have an environmental duty with respect to its economic regulatory functions.”

The final report of the Cave review recommended

“a duty on the CAA to protect the environment, subject to guidance on specified environmental matters by the Secretary of State.”

In December 2009, the previous Government published their decision document on economic regulation and concluded that one of the supplementary statutory duties should be

“to have regard to the airport operator’s legal obligations to comply with applicable environmental and planning law.”

When one considers the secondary duties that have been set out, one finds the absence of any environmental obligation to be a clear omission—and a late one: it was included in the press release accompanying the publication of the Bill, just not in the Bill. The CAA will be obliged

“to ensure that licence holders can finance the activities which are subject to the relevant licence obligations; to secure that all reasonable demands for airport services are met; to promote economy and efficiency on the part of licence holders in its provisions of airport services at regulated airports; to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State; to have regard to any international obligation of the UK; to have regard to principles of better regulation.”

All those obligations are of course right, and we support them, but there seems to be no justifiable reason for removing the proposed additional requirement on the CAA in terms of economic regulation: to have regard to airport operators’ compliance with environmental and planning law. Without that, airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance, be it noise, vibration, visual disturbance or emissions.

It is not good enough for the Government to say it is obvious that airports must comply with statutory obligations and it does not need re-stating in the Bill. The issue is whether airports feel that they can recover the cost in charges to airlines. The consequence, as the Transport Committee has warned, is:

“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance.”

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is the situation not worse than that? Is there not a danger that specifically removing the reference to environmental planning concern might be taken by some airport operators as a coded message that the Government do not take such issues seriously now?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are plenty of people who seek to read coded messages in what the Government do, or do not do, and in how they change their proposals, so in that respect there is a concern that the Government need to address.

If the Government’s green credentials had not already worn so thin, no ulterior motive might have been seen in their decision, but there will be considerable suspicion that it is yet another example of giving in to vested interests, coming on top of the Government’s failure to reassert the aviation emissions targets that we set in government, let alone to listen to the calls to look seriously at the UK’s share of international emissions and to include both in the UK’s carbon budgets. When the obligation on other sectors is to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, the aviation industry has agreed to work towards achieving the lower target of the same reduction but compared with 2005 levels. However, the industry believes that it can achieve the same reduction compared with 2000 levels. On that basis, we believe that the Committee on Climate Change should advise on the case for a tougher target. It is clear that the Bill sends out completely the wrong signal to industry.

The CAA, airport operators, airlines and National Air Traffic Services have a shared responsibility to achieve those goals. In addition to the original proposed duty on environmental and planning law, which has been deleted, there is surely a case for considering the practicality of using this Bill to reaffirm the shared responsibility on meeting emissions targets that have been agreed. That should be explored during the passage of the Bill.

The public should certainly be better informed about the environmental effects, including through emissions and noise, of civil aviation in the UK and about the measures that are being taken to limit the adverse environmental effects. I want to take this opportunity to welcome the CAA’s decision to open a three-month consultation on its environmental role and performance. The chief executive, Andrew Haines, has said that he is determined to work with the sector to help it manage its environmental footprint and realise its potential growth. He is clear that

“unless the sector faces its environmental impact head-on, it will not be allowed to grow.”

He is right to have set the goals to

“contribute to a cleaner and quieter aviation industry, improve airspace design through new operational measures, influence the environment debate and enhance consumer understanding of the environmental impact of flying.”

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady not concede that airport operators, such as the operator of Gatwick airport in my constituency, have for many years done an awful lot to ensure that there are environmental enhancements, such as through the Gatwick area conservation committee, which has made a positive difference locally?

[Maria Eagle]

I do concede that. I do not think that the aviation industry has anything to fear from closer scrutiny of the way in which it deals with these issues. I just want to ensure that this Bill does not send the wrong signals to industry and make it more difficult to do what many operators are starting to do in any event.

In addition to the revision of the statutory purpose of the CAA and its secondary duties, it is right that the Bill aligns the powers of the CAA with those of the Office of Fair Trading. That provides consistency with the approach taken for other regulated industries, including energy, water, telecoms and rail. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are concerns about the impact on competition of the sale of airlines and the slots that transfer ownership as a result. The recently agreed sale of British Midland International by Lufthansa to International Airlines Group has raised considerable worries, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, about the impact on short-haul domestic routes and the price implications for passengers. The Government have to date refused to take those concerns seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have referred the sale of BMI to the OFT.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue again, because it is extremely serious. I have concerns not only about the flights into Heathrow but about the onward connectivity of those flights to the rest of the world. Aberdeenshire has a big energy sector and people are travelling onwards. She is right to highlight this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

There are precedents within the EU of a single company controlling a larger percentage of slots at one airport, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will appreciate that the situation at Heathrow is different because of the capacity issues that significantly restrict the potential for competition. I fully understand and respect BA’s wish to expand its operations, not least to pursue the new long-haul markets from Heathrow that are needed for our economic competitiveness. However, many years before a high-speed rail service becomes a reality between Scotland and London, and Heathrow in particular, we must balance that with the need to maintain the domestic air links on which the Scottish economy depends.

I have two final points on the economic regulatory aspects of the Bill. First, there are concerns that there is no requirement on the CAA to consult on how it intends to prioritise and balance its new duties and discretion. Secondly, the Government must clarify who does and does not have a right of appeal on a decision by the CAA in respect of licence conditions, and how they intend to prevent repeated and unfounded appeals.

On the second major purpose of the Bill, which is to modernise the CAA’s governance, we agree that reform is needed and we support most of the proposed changes. Of course, there are changes that have been made without the need for legislation, such as the creation of a separate chair and chief executive. We do, however, question the decision to remove the requirement for the Treasury to approve the levels of remuneration for non-executive members of the board. Are we not seeing right now the need for greater, not less oversight of remuneration? I suppose that the experience of the past few days has shown that it is doubtful whether the Government would exercise their powers over excessive bonuses even if they retained them, but it might be a good idea to hang on to them.

It is also wrong that the CAA remains outside the remit of the National Audit Office, unlike all other industry regulators. That should be addressed, and there should be an explicit efficiency duty as recommended by the Transport Committee. I hope the Government will agree that it should be relatively straightforward to reach agreement on those issues in Committee. We agree on the outcomes that we want to see achieved through the modernisation, and I look forward to working with Ministers to improve the Bill further in the areas that I have mentioned.

We have much greater concern about the third major area with which the Bill deals, which is the Government’s proposals for a major change in how aviation security in ensured. They have not made the case for the change. It was included in the draft Bill at the last minute and has not been subjected to adequate scrutiny, and enough people across the industry have concerns about the proposals to require the Government to look again at whether they have got them right. We are open to being persuaded, but Ministers have more to do if they wish us to support the proposed changes.

I appreciate that under the Government’s proposals, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for aviation security policy and for making aviation security directions under the Aviation Security Act 1982. That is well and good and correct, but by enabling the transfer of a potentially very wide range of security functions to the CAA, the Government risk fragmenting an approach that has served us well. Let us not forget that the current arrangements, including the now abolished specialist unit Transec, arose from the tragedy of Lockerbie. We should not move lightly away from an approach that had such a tragic loss of life as its reason for existing, particularly not when the clearly stated purpose of the proposals is, to quote the Department’s impact assessment, to

“Reduce the costs to the taxpayer in line with SR”—

spending review—

“commitments by introducing the user pays principle.”

The changes that the Government propose are not minor. For example, they want to pass to the CAA the obligation to make arrangements for carrying out vetting, including those for renewing and withdrawing clearance. The CAA, rather than the Secretary of State, will maintain the list of persons approved for the provision of a particular aviation security service.

There are also concerns about the ability to retain staff. The Bill will allow for the transfer from the Department for Transport to the CAA of about 85 aviation security posts currently responsible for the review and upkeep of aviation security regulations, and for the monitoring and enforcement of the industry’s compliance with security requirements. The Transport Committee’s recommendations on that matter should be considered carefully, including the permitting of secondments rather than transfers to avoid the loss of experienced staff and expertise.

The Committee’s recommendation to delay the change, to bring it in line with the introduction of the outcomes-focused risk-based security regime, also makes sense. The airlines are concerned about the lack of transparency of the likely costs of the changes, and therefore about the impact on passengers, on to whom costs will be passed. There is real concern that although the costs of the transfer will materialise, the supposed reduction in obligations as a result of the move to the outcomes-focused regime will not.

Those concerns are particularly acute for smaller regional airports, which play a vital role in their local economies and will not easily sustain major additional cost burdens. The Government need to reassure the sector that they will retain an active engagement in operational matters, enabling airports to take the lead in the knowledge that they will have ministerial backing.

It is clear that there are growing tensions between the UK Government and the EU over security issues such as the permitting of full-body scanners without a right to select an alternative form of search. We have strongly supported the Government’s stance on that, although it is now important that Ministers work closely with their European partners to ensure a common, and preferably similarly robust, approach to security across the EU. The approach taken in the Bill risks leaving the industry without a clear lead or protection from Government on the decisions that it takes, be they on trials of new forms of security screening or other matters.

According to the explanatory notes, the Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee estimates that

“the impact on public expenditure gives expected savings in the order of £5.4m per annum.”

It is far from clear how the cost savings to the Department from the abolition of the security function can be secured without putting at risk high levels of aviation security or imposing a burden that will ultimately fall on passengers.

The Regulatory Policy Committee also identified transitional costs of transferring the security function of approximately £1.5 million, as well as ongoing costs beyond the transition, not least because

“the CAA will be responsible for upgrading systems in perpetuity”.

It is therefore

“likely that the CAA may borrow from the National Loans Fund to fund IT improvements.”

I appreciate that the Secretary of State inherited her predecessor’s plans to meet the 15% cut in the Department for Transport budget. She has shown a willingness to look again at some of his rasher decisions, and I hope that she does so in respect of that major change to aviation security, for which the case has not yet been made.

I urge the Government to think again about one other aspect of their aviation policy. An announcement is expected in the Budget—if not before—on the sale of their remaining stake in NATS. Recent media reports have suggested that DFS, Germany’s state-owned air traffic service, has been in talks with the Government. Yet again, just as with our rail industry, the Government’s ideological obsession turns out to be not so much opposition to a public stake in delivering transport services as an opposition to a British public stake in doing so. Just as the Dutch national railway will this week begin to operate the East Anglia franchise, with Deutsche Bahn and SNCF snapping at its heals on other parts of the network, our airspace might be controlled, in effect, by the German Government.

There are several very serious reasons why the Government would be wrong to withdraw completely from NATS. The current shared-ownership model between Government and airlines works well. The airline group has opposed an outright sale of the Government’s stake and raised the prospect of the industry walking away. The airlines are best placed to ensure the success that NATS has become, not least because of their healthy self-interest in safety and industrial relations. There are concerns about the impact of a foreign power taking a stake in NATS on the integration of civilian and military operations, which would put at risk the operational benefits of that integrated approach. There are also questions about the Government’s ability to play a leading role in air traffic policy at EU level if they become the only Government to have given up their stake in their air traffic service.

[Justine Greening]

It is probably wise for me to remind the hon. Lady that the Labour Government part-privatised NATS in the first place.

[Maria Eagle]

I am well aware that the Labour Government sold a stake in NATS. I am talking about the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s proposal to sell all of it. It is a question of the Government retaining a stake. If she is willing to confirm that the Government will retain a stake, I will be happy to give way to her. She shakes her head.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Ownership is currently entirely within British hands. It is possible that that will no longer be the case if privatisation goes ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

That is indeed the worry. NATS does not cost the taxpayer a penny to run—in fact, it pays a dividend to the Government. In June last year, NATS paid a dividend of £42.5 million, and in November announced a further £8.2 million. The Government received a significant share of that as the majority shareholder. Their decision to sell all of NATS would therefore be a short-term, quick-buck decision. Like their approach to aviation security in the Bill, they are placing a narrow focus on deficit reduction ahead of the wider economic and security impact. I hope the Secretary of State ensures that she puts proper pressure on the Chancellor, whom she knows very well, to make a good decision and to retain a stake in NATS.

Finally, although the measures in the Bill are important —they are all concerns for the aviation industry—there is an elephant in the room, because the Bill does not and cannot address the capacity issues facing the industry, particularly in the south-east and the future of our hub status. The Government’s failure to set out a strategy for aviation and the lack of any plan to do so until late in this Parliament is putting jobs and growth at risk. Their call for airports to be “better not bigger” has always been a slogan, not a policy, but even they seem to be waking up to the fact that a blanket ban on growth and new capacity in the south-east makes no sense.

In government, Labour supported the industry’s proposal for a third runway at Heathrow—as the UK’s only hub airport—as the best way to add additional capacity. However, the Opposition have accepted the Government’s decision to cancel the third runway, and it is time to move on and seek an alternative way forward. Our decision can ensure that we do not waste another five years wrangling over that proposal while the industry risks falling behind our EU competitors, and while major airlines simply move more of their operations abroad, where there are no capacity constraints.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady’s party has come to its senses and ruled out the third runway. I hope that she will tell us what her suggestion is, because she has a long track record—such as on high-speed rail—of suggesting things but never quite pinning down an actual idea.

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman would wait just a moment, he might hear my suggestion.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was apparently persuaded of the case for a new airport in the Thames estuary, a position that lasted a full 24 hours before the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) slapped him down. Then the papers were briefed that new runways at Gatwick or Stansted were back on the agenda, despite the coalition agreement seemingly ruling that out. British business cannot afford this chaos and confusion continuing until or even beyond the next election. That is why I have made a clear offer to the Secretary of State for us to work together and put aside our differences for the good of the country to see whether we can agree a joint position on how we can meet the capacity issues in light of the decision on Heathrow. We have been disappointed that, three months on, the Government have not responded to that offer.

I was, however, encouraged by the constructive response from the Conservative party chair, Baroness Warsi, on last week’s BBC “Question Time”, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). She said:

“Some serious discussions—cross-party discussions—have to take place, because I don’t think anyone in this country wants us to be a republic which is left behind and really nobody wants to trade with.”

Leaving aside why the chair of the Conservative party believes that we are a republic, she is right to agree with us that we need a cross-party approach, and about the consequences of not agreeing a way forward. If the Transport Secretary would like to confirm that she does accept our offer and is willing to begin talks on how we can move forward on this issue together, then I am happy to give way.

[Justine Greening]

Part of the challenge is that the hon. Lady’s party has so many different policies on so many different days, it is difficult to know whom we would be talking with.

[Maria Eagle]

Coming from a party that last week had a different policy every day, none of which was in accordance with the majority party’s manifesto or the coalition agreement, it is a bit of a cheek for the Secretary of State to put that point to us.

A successful, thriving aviation sector is crucial for our economic competitiveness. It is vital that industry can plan for the future with certainty, not least to deliver the investment needed to provide the additional capacity required if we are not to fall further behind our EU competitors. I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward this Bill and take forward the reforms that we began—

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am coming to a conclusion now, so the hon. Gentleman should wait for his own speech—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I have given way to him once.

The regulatory regime governing the aviation sector is outdated and inflexible and this Bill will be an important modernisation, enabling the CAA to fulfil its functions in a way that better reflects the industry today, and in a way that can respond to the individual circumstances of our major airports. Putting the passenger at the heart of aviation economic regulation is overdue. I urge the Government to look again at those areas where there is considerable consensus that the Bill could be improved to provide even greater protection to passengers through clearer obligations on airports in respect of their welfare, not least during severe weather.

The Government should also live up to their increasingly hollow claim to be the “greenest Government ever” and place an environmental duty back on the face of the Bill, and give a much clearer steer to the industry by giving their firm backing to—at the very least—the emissions targets we set in government. In addition, Ministers should reflect very carefully on the concerns that have been raised over the proposed transfer of security functions from the Department and ministerial control.

It is one thing for us to agree on a credible regulatory regime for the aviation industry—and I believe that over the course of the passage of this Bill we will be able to agree these issues—but what the industry desperately needs is for us all to agree a credible long-term strategy for the sector, which will last across Parliaments and will not become a political football again at the next general election as it was at the last. So let us work together on the right way, consistent with the need to tackle emissions and the threat of climate change, to provide the capacity that the industry needs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To accommodate as many Members as possible, a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions has been introduced, but the usual rules apply to interventions, in that injury time will be added on. However, the usual rules will also apply to any maiden speeches that might be made during this Second Reading, which means that no interventions should be allowed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The Home Office is the lead Department for legislation, but all Government Departments are fully seized of the need to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency. Discussions are taking place about options. This issue affects not only railways but the highway network and the coastguard service, for example. Most despicably, the theft of cable in the Vale of Glamorgan recently forced the cancellation of 80 operations.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

As passengers up and down the country could tell the hon. Gentleman, performance on Britain’s rail network is getting worse and metal theft is a major factor. On the basis of the Department’s own figures, metal theft is set to cause up to 7,000 hours of delay this year. When are the Government going to act?

[Norman Baker]

The Government have already acted with the measures announced by the Chancellor in his recent statement to appoint the special taskforce to which I referred. As I have mentioned, there are also ministerial discussions taking place across Departments. I assure the hon. Lady that discussions are taking place. Particular proposals are being considered and evaluated and there will be an announcement quite shortly, I hope.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of this issue, but passengers want to see action, not just discussion and a taskforce. With passengers facing rail fare rises of up to 11% and given that the Department calculates that this issue is costing Network Rail more than £16 million every year and a further loss of £10 million in economic cost to passengers and the economy, when will the Government listen to Network Rail, agree to legislate to tackle the illegal market in scrap, and ban cashless transactions?

[Norman Baker]

Under the 13 years of the hon. Lady’s Government nothing much was done to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and we are now taking action on that front. The issue of cashless payment was referred to by my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), at Home Office questions on 12 December. He said that he was looking at dealing with a situation where cashless payments ought to be removed. As I mentioned a moment ago, discussions are very active—very live—and I hope there will be an announcement in the near future.

Rail Fares

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the scale of increases to rail and bus fares and the high cost of fuel are significantly increasing the transport sector’s contribution to the cost of living crisis facing households up and down the UK; notes that, despite the Chancellor’s announcement in his Autumn Statement that rail fares would rise this month by 1 per cent. above inflation, many commuters have found their tickets have gone up by as much as 11 per cent.; recognises that this is a direct result of the decision to give back to train companies the right to add a further increase of up to 5 per cent., resulting in the cost of getting to work rising to more than the cost of monthly mortgage or rent payments for many families; notes with concern the National Audit Office’s warning to the Department for Transport that higher rail fares are likely to lead to higher profits for train operating companies; deplores the Government’s decision to levy even higher increases of 3 per cent. above inflation for 2013 and 2014; and calls on the Government to end the right of train companies to increase regulated tickets by more than the cap set by Ministers, so as to prevent fare increases of up to 13 per cent. that could otherwise hit passengers in each of the next two years.

This has not been a happy new year for many commuters. Having been promised by the Chancellor in his autumn statement that he was keeping increases in rail fares at just 1% above inflation, many had a nasty shock as they returned to work last week—not fare rises of 1% above inflation, but increases of up to almost 11%. Season tickets between Chester and Crewe are up by 10.6% on a year ago, and tickets between Llandudno and Bangor hiked by the same double-digit increase, 10.6%. Return tickets are also up—Exeter to London, for example, up by 9.6%, Cardiff to London by 9.7% and Plymouth to London by 9.7%.

But what did the Chancellor tell the House in November? He said:

“RPI plus 3% is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1%. This will apply across national rail regulated fares, across the London tube and on London buses. It will help the millions of people who use our trains.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

He was right—it would have done, except that the Chancellor forgot to say that his Government had quietly given back to train companies the right to add up to another 5% on fares, provided the increases averaged out at the cap that he had set, giving the train companies back the right to fiddle the fares.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that we all would like lower rail fares, does the hon. Lady think that there should be a bigger Treasury subsidy out of taxpayers’ pockets in order to achieve that?

[Maria Eagle]

Our position is that we would have continued in this Parliament, as we did in 2009, to put a stop to the power train operating companies have to fiddle the fares—

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish answering the last intervention, I might get around to giving way to him. As the previous Labour Transport Secretary made clear, we would not have given back to train operating companies the power to fiddle the fares by hiking them by more than the cap on the most profitable routes and getting away with it by introducing much lower increases on the routes that do not rake in the cash. That is something we put a stop to in government once times got tough.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the Minister, who I expect will be winding up the debate, and then to my hon. Friend.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady claims that Lord Adonis, a previous Transport Minister, would have continued the suspension of the fares basket, but the reality is that he did not renegotiate that with the train operators; he negotiated for a one-year contractual suspension. If he had intended to carry on with that, he would have negotiated the period into the franchises, but he chose not to.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is wrong to say that there was no intention to continue with that. She can try to rewrite our policy as much as she wishes, but my noble Friend Lord Adonis made it perfectly clear in oral and written evidence to the Transport Committee that the ban on flex would continue into subsequent years, and that remains our policy.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that it was the previous Labour Government who got rid of train operating companies’ ability to fiddle the fares. Was she as astounded as I was at the lack of knowledge displayed earlier by the Prime Minister, who did not even know that it was his Government who had reinstated the right for those companies to clobber hard-working commuters?

[Maria Eagle]

I must say that I was quite surprised that the Prime Minister did not seem to have that information. It was only after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had asked him three times that the Prime Minister managed to claw his way towards an accurate answer, but that is what we have come to expect from him.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

While we are discussing the rewriting of policies, what message would the hon. Lady give to a previous Transport Secretary who in 2007 allowed Stagecoach South West to raise fares by 20%, or indeed to the Transport Secretaries who allowed that to happen in the 10 years before that? Does she agree that that was a huge mistake and that fares went too high?

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I will move on to say a little more about our current policy thinking later in my speech.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way, but then I must make some progress, because the debate already has to be shorter than we had hoped.

[Mr Evennett]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady and am listening to her with great interest, but she is attempting to rewrite history. Does she feel any guilt about the huge fare increases that took place under the Labour Government, because commuters in my constituency had a really rough time?

[Maria Eagle]

The reality is that when the previous Government saw what train operating companies were doing with the power that flex gave them to game the system and clobber some commuters far more than others, we banned it. This Government have reintroduced it. Times are still tough and the Government should not have caved in to pressure from train companies, but they seem to be unwilling, or perhaps incapable, of standing up to vested interests on behalf of commuters, who are now paying the price. I have made it clear that we would have strictly enforced the 1% above inflation cap and not allowed the increases of up to 11% that commuters have faced at ticket offices since the new year.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to finish the other part of her phrase, which is that she would not have allowed rises of above RPI plus 1%, just as she would not have allowed below RPI plus 1% flexibility. Will she confirm that that is the position and that many commuters would face fare increases under her proposals?

[Maria Eagle]

What we are not seeing from train operating companies or the Government are proposals to reduce fares. The technical position is of course that if an average cap is applied to each fare, the fare rise will apply to each fare. The Secretary of State is right about that, technically speaking.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

On the commitment to reduce fares, is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour candidate to be Mayor of London intends to bring forward a package to reduce fares, given that Boris Johnson’s increase in the cost of a zones 1 to 4 travelcard equals a 21% rise, despite the fact that Transport for London has a £729 million operating surplus? The Labour party has a commitment to cut fares.

[Maria Eagle]

I am aware of that and thank my hon. Friend for making that point. At least Labour’s candidate understands how hard it is for ordinary, hard-pressed commuters to afford the kind of fare rises that the Government are not only allowing, but promoting. It is no good Ministers hiding behind the deficit, because this is not a simple case of bringing additional money into the Treasury; it is also about bringing additional money into the profits of private train companies. The National Audit Office report on the Department for Transport’s spending settlement warned:

“There is a risk that the benefit of the resulting increase in passenger revenues will not be passed on to taxpayers fully, but will also result in increased train operating company profits.”

High fares equal increased profits in an industry that relies on subsidies of more than £4 billion of taxpayers’ money every year. It is no wonder passengers in Britain are paying three and a half times more for their rail tickets than those in France, Germany and Holland, all countries that do not have the costly and fragmented rail industry structure that is the legacy of the Tories’ botched privatisation of our railway industry. The French, German and Dutch state railways are so successful that they are now bidding for and winning franchises to run rail services in Britain. The Government are step by step nationalising our rail services—it is just that it is not our nation. The profits will be helping to keep down fares in France, Germany and Holland for their own domestic passengers. It is no wonder that fares are so high under our broken system.

Therefore, we would enforce a strict cap on fare rises, but I believe that we need to go further and make fares fairer. Because the system has lost all credibility, passengers feel ripped off and know that they are being ripped off. They feel that the system does not work in their interests and that it is designed to catch them out. That is what I have been told by passengers as I have travelled across the country over the past year. In addition to getting spiralling rail fares under control, here are five other ideas that passengers have said would make a real difference. First, why is there no single national definition of peak time? Why are train companies allowed to set different rules so that passengers have to know precisely which company they are travelling with or risk facing a fine for travelling on the right ticket at the wrong time? Why are the companies allowed to chop and change peak time, stretching it out simply to hike their profits?

[Mrs Villiers]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I have already given way to the right hon. Lady and to the hon. Gentleman, so I will make some progress in my speech. At the very least, rail passengers would like tickets to state clearly the precise time restrictions that apply instead of simply being referred to some obscure part of a website that they do not have access to when purchasing a ticket.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I want to make a few points about what I have heard from passengers and will try to give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

Secondly, passengers want a legal right to be offered the cheapest ticket for the journey they wish to make, and they do not think that it is too much to ask that the cheapest fare must be clearly advertised. Should passengers not be entitled to a refund if they have not been sold the cheapest ticket?

Under this Government, it is to become harder to buy the cheapest ticket if plans to replace staff with machines and close all 675 category E station ticket offices are implemented, yet that is what Ministers are considering, along with cutting the opening hours of 302 category D station ticket offices. All the evidence suggests that many people are not sold the cheapest ticket when they buy a ticket online or from a machine.

Thirdly, passengers have told us that they want the cheapest fares to be available wherever tickets are sold, yet the cheapest fares often appear to be available only online. Should not the same fare structure apply to tickets purchased at train stations and other outlets as applies to those bought online, ending the digital divide that is arising and increasing costs for older passengers, in particular?

Fourthly, what really annoys rail users is when they make a genuine mistake or are forced to change their travel plans but find themselves treated as a common criminal in front of other passengers and required to get out their cheque book and cough up. Of course we have to protect revenue, but we also have to have some common sense. Within the same period of the day, there has to be greater flexibility to vary plans, even on pre-booked tickets. Trains are not airlines, and we do not wish to go down the road of airline-style ticketing, with no cheap walk-on option.

Finally, passengers told us—

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman will just let me get to the end of my points, I may give way to him.

Finally, passengers told us that they understand that sometimes a track has to close, such as for essential work, to keep our railways safe, but when a rail replacement service makes their journey longer, often adding considerable inconvenience, they want to know why their ticket costs the same. They can apply for a discount if their train is delayed, but not if it turns out not even to be a train and ends up being a bus.

Those are all ideas that we are looking at seriously, because for too long Governments have let the train companies get away with treating passengers in a way that would not be permitted in other industries.

[Paul Maynard]

Is the hon. Lady seriously arguing that peak hours on the west coast main line should be the same as those on Merseytravel lines?

[Maria Eagle]

I am arguing that it is important to have a national understanding of peak hours, so that passengers are not clobbered and do not have to wait until what seems like a long time after normal peak hours in order to get on a train home. That would be an improvement, and it would clarify the system. People would not be caught out as they frequently are, and they would not be inconvenienced by having to wait for hours after their meeting has finished in order to get on a train home.

If this Government are not going to stand up to the train companies and take on vested interests, we will. Those are all ideas that we are looking at seriously.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No, I am going to make some progress.

[Alok Sharma]

On that point?

[Maria Eagle]

I said that I am going to make some progress.

For too long, Governments have let the train companies get away with treating passengers in a way that would not be permitted in other industries. The previous Transport Secretary described rail fares as eye-watering and rail services in Britain as a “rich man’s toy”, yet he failed to understand that the policies of his own Government are making the situation worse.

[Alok Sharma]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No.

Next year’s fare increases are set to be even higher—not 1% but 3% above inflation, with the same again in 2014. Unless the Government are willing to stand up to the train companies, and unless they are willing to take on the vested interests and remove the right to add another increase of up to another 5% on top of this year’s so-called cap, commuters next year will face fare rises of up to 13%, with another 13% the year after. That is happening at a time when average incomes are plummeting. Over three years, some tickets will rise by almost one third as people’s real incomes fall by 7.5%, yet the Government seem completely out of touch with the impact of that on households.

Season tickets are heading rapidly towards £10,000 a year on some routes into London once underground travel is included; families are now paying more on commuting costs than on the mortgage or rent; and ticket price rises are outstripping wage increases several times over, if people are fortunate to see a wage increase at all. That is the cost-of-living-crisis facing households throughout the country. Rent levels are going up; energy and water bills are rising relentlessly; bank charges are extortionate, as the cost of living means overdraft limits are breached; and the cost of transport is rising.

[Justine Greening]

I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady, who is raising what we all recognise as important issues, but I want to double check something, because earlier in her speech she talked about getting more money into Government coffers through the RPI plus 5% flexible policy. Does she recognise that the policy she is announcing today is a spending commitment? If so, how does she set it against what her shadow Chancellor said yesterday, when he stated:

“I can say to you unequivocally we can make no commitments to reverse any of the Government’s tax rises or spending cuts”?

[Maria Eagle]

I do not know the spending commitment to which the Secretary of State says I have referred, because there is no spending commitment, and it is complete nonsense for her to say that there is —[Interruption.] I understand her point, but if she wishes to try again I will give way.

[Justine Greening]

Clearly, the money for that policy has to come from somewhere, and it is from the taxpayer. The hon. Lady obviously accepts that point, so the policy is a spending commitment. Will she simply confirm the reality of that?

[Maria Eagle]

What I have said is that we would stop the operation of the flex system, as the Secretary of State’s Labour predecessor did. We said before the election that we would do so, but the Government have reversed that policy, and commuters are being clobbered as a result. That is quite clear.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No. This is a shortened debate, and I want to give people time to make their speeches, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make some progress. I have already spoken for a little longer than I would have hoped, and that is partly because I have taken interventions.

The Government need to be tougher not just on train companies, but on private bus operators. While train fares grab the headlines, most people’s experience of transport is in fact the local bus. For many, the bus is a lifeline: for those without a car; for older people who no longer drive or may never have done so; and for our young people, for whom the bus is their only way to get around, especially if mum or dad do not have a car or work all hours. Yet quietly, and without much fanfare, throughout the country there is a catastrophe facing bus services, with services being cut and fares rising. Again, that is thanks to decisions made by the Government. Their unwillingness to take on the vested interests in our transport industry is holding back the reform that is required.

In the spending review, the Government have made three decisions that have hit bus services. First, they have cut councils’ local transport funding by 28%—and front-loaded it. that has meant the end of support for many subsidised routes, and the end of ring-fencing has placed further pressure on councils—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. It really is not necessary for the Secretary of State to keep shouting across the Dispatch Box. She is about to address the House, and I am sure that she expects everybody to listen to her as well.

While I am on my feet, I must say that increasingly in the Chamber there is the behaviour whereby Members shout and heckle constantly when somebody else is speaking, and it is not really acceptable, so I hope that Members will stop it.

[Maria Eagle]

The end of ring-fencing has placed further pressure on councils to divert funds from bus services in order to protect other front-line services such as Sure Start or social care budgets.

The Government’s second decision has been to cut the funding available to bus companies in order to reclaim some of their fuel costs, particularly in rural areas where otherwise they would simply not run the service. Thirdly, the Government have changed the formula by which local authorities are reimbursed for the cost of delivering the concessionary fares scheme for older people, leaving councils with a funding shortfall that has led to new restrictions on when passes can be used, and to cuts in services.

On the impact, the Campaign for Better Transport calculates that one fifth of supported bus services throughout England now face the axe; more than 1,000 bus services have already been lost; and many surviving routes have seen fares hiked significantly.

The Public Transport Executive Group, which represents all the passenger transport executives, serving 11 million people throughout the metropolitan areas of England, calculates that as a result of the Government’s policies bus usage and patronage will decline by 20%, fares will increase by 24% above the rate of inflation and the added congestion alone will cost £68 million.

Ministers fail to understand that, when they cut a bus route, they cut an opportunity for young people to stay on in education, for people to travel further afield to take up employment, and for older people to remain connected to family and friends, with all the quality of life and, even, mental health benefits that that can bring. That impacts not only on those who rely on their local bus services, but on our ability to reduce the deficit. When those who want to travel further to take up work find that they cannot afford to do so or that the bus service is no longer there, those opportunities simply cannot be taken up. Young people who get the grades that they need to give them a chance in life and to find a good job will find that they simply cannot get to where they want to go for work or to continue their education.

The Government have said that those who are out of work should be willing to travel for up to 90 minutes to take up a reasonable job offer or else lose their jobseeker’s allowance. However, they are also taking away the only affordable means for people to do so. That is a total failure of joined-up government.

The Government are telling young people to stay on in education post-16, yet they have not only axed the education maintenance allowance, but failed to protect the local bus services that enable young people to get to college. The scale of the cuts faced by councils is leading to restrictions on concessionary fare schemes for young people. Some councils are telling us that they may have to axe schemes altogether. It is no wonder that the UK Youth Parliament chose to debate the need for cheaper fares and more accessible public transport for all young people during its annual sitting in this Chamber, following a vote by 65,000 people across the country.

The Association of Colleges has warned of a drop in further education enrolment and 60% of colleges have reported a drop in transport spending by their local authority. On average, students travel between 9 and 35 miles to get to college, with 72% of them relying on the bus to get there. That is another total failure of joined-up government. The consequence will be added pressures on family budgets or young people simply being unable to take up the opportunities that they need to reach their potential. That is a tragic waste for those young people. It is an idiotic policy because it will lead to higher welfare costs and less tax take in the future. It is a knee-jerk cut that will make it harder to reduce the deficit.

Cuts to school transport support for younger pupils are adding to the burden on families, with parents struggling to afford the fuel costs of the school run or having to juggle getting children to school with getting to work. Figures obtained by the Campaign for Better Transport show that council spending cuts have led to almost three quarters of local education authorities making cuts to school transport.

The loss of bus services has also had a devastating impact on older people. Despite the Prime Minister’s election pledge on the free bus pass that we introduced in government, he has axed £223 million from the scheme in this year alone. That has an impact on the viability of many bus services. Do not take my word for it; Tory-controlled Norfolk county council is leading the campaign for fair funding from the Government for concessionary fares. It has support from councils in Cumbria, Somerset and Devon, all of which have Tory leaders. Norfolk alone has calculated a £4.5 million shortfall in funding for the concessionary bus scheme. Up and down the country, pensioners are asking what is the point of a free bus pass if there is no bus. The Prime Minister has failed to honour the spirit of his election pledge and has left many older people isolated.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way to him once and I need to conclude.

The issue is not only about the level of spending; we need the proper regulation of bus services, not least when they rely on public subsidy. Having made these cuts, the Government are powerless to influence bus fares or to protect bus services because they are unwilling to stand up to the private bus operators and to take on the failure of bus deregulation outside London. In London, we have control over fare levels and we can regulate bus routes, or we could if we had a Mayor of London who was not choosing to let bus fares spiral out of control. It is time to consider the right way to reverse bus deregulation across England. We should give new powers to local communities to deliver bus services in the way that best suits them.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am coming to a conclusion so I will not.

Whether it is the increase in rail and bus fares or the rise in the cost of fuel, this Government are allowing the costs of transport to spiral, adding to the cost-of-living pressures faced by families. The Government have failed to tackle those increases not because of the deficit, but because they are unwilling to stand up to vested interests. They are failing to stand up to the train companies, letting train fares rocket by up to 11%. They are failing to stand up to the bus companies and to look at the best way to re-regulate the industry outside London. They are failing to stand up to the banks and impose a bonus tax, adding to the high cost of fuel. As a result there are rising transport costs, which are adding to the pressure on households up and down the country. This Government are too out of touch to do anything about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Given that the Secretary of State has said that she is interested in reducing the costs of the railway industry, does she accept that she needs to examine its structure? One of the big causes of excess cost in the industry is the fragmentation that was left to us after the botched privatisation that the previous Tory Government carried out.

[Justine Greening]

I think many people watching the debate will wonder why the hon. Lady’s party did nothing in 13 years. I will shortly publish a Command Paper setting out our approach to tackling a number of the broad challenges that exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to set out the very difficult balance that we have to strike. On one hand we have to ensure that we keep rail fares affordable, and I am determined to do what I can to do that in spite of the fiscal straitjacket within which the Government are having to operate. On the other hand, we have to ensure that we can balance investment in the short term. I am sure that many Members were delighted to see Bombardier agree the contract with Southern for more carriages, and we are putting unprecedented investment into the existing railway lines. We have to strike a balance between working out who pays for the hard work that is going on today and ensuring that we have a railway network that is fit for service in the future.

I know that some passengers on particular routes have faced higher increases than others, and I listened to what the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said about the 5% flex in rail fares. I am bound to point out, however, that it was the last Labour Government who introduced that flex in 2004.

[Maria Eagle]

I accept that it was introduced by the Labour Government, but it was then stopped by the Labour Government and reintroduced by the current Government.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

It was stopped for one year.

[Maria Eagle]

No, permanently.

[Justine Greening]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady has made that intervention, because I have with me an exact extract from the franchise agreement that the last Labour Transport Secretary put in place. I shall quote from it, to remove any uncertainty, and then maybe the hon. Lady would like to intervene on me again. It states:

“With effect from 1 January 2010, Schedule 5 of the Franchise Agreement will be amended as set out in the Appendix to this notice.”

That is the change that she has talked about. However, it continues:

“On and from 1 January 2011, the amendment to the Franchise Agreement set out in this notice of amendment shall be reversed.”

Does she want to intervene to correct the record?

[Maria Eagle]

I am very happy to intervene. Of course I will not contradict what the legal agreement states, but the last Labour Transport Secretary made it perfectly clear to the Transport Select Committee in 2009, in oral and written evidence, that the policy was to continue. It had not been negotiated, but that is different from the policy having been changed. Negotiations go on all the time in government, as the Secretary of State will be finding out. I do not think that quotation makes the point that she thinks it does.

[Justine Greening]

I really suggest that the hon. Lady stops digging the last Labour Transport Secretary into a deeper hole than he is already in. The contract is absolutely clear-cut, stating categorically in black and white that the flexibility levels introduced by her party’s Government would be reintroduced the year after their abolition.