Rail Fares

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

Many questions have arisen from the announcement in the recess about the west coast main line. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that the winning bidder—we must remember that legal action is ongoing, so we are restricted in what we can say—has made that commitment, but issues have been raised over the deliverability and reality of the assumptions behind the winning bid. Those issues have been raised not only by some of the losing bidders but by other experts in the industry.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given what my hon. Friend has said, does she understand my concern and that of many of my constituents about what might happen to the east coast main line franchise when it comes up for reconsideration? Does she agree that there is a strong case at least for considering keeping the east coast main line in the public sector, so that there is not this pressure on requiring payback in profits and payback for the Government, which was clearly one of the issues in the west coast franchise?

[Maria Eagle]

I agree that there is a strong case for having a public sector comparator, at least when looking at franchising. That is how the current system operates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend to come to that point later in my speech, as he can well imagine.

It is a great privilege to serve as a Secretary of State in this Government, and it is a task that I am incredibly proud to perform. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the diligence and skill of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). She gave the go-ahead for the high-speed rail link—a new national rail network that will be crucial for keeping Britain moving and vital for growing our economy.

As a regular rail user myself, I know how concerned people are about rail fares. That is a fact that I fully understand and take seriously, but to do justice to this debate, it is vital to grasp the wider challenges that the Government face if we are to make our railways more efficient, more effective and more affordable. From day one in office, our priority has been to tackle the fiscal deficit that we inherited, and to put in place measures to rebalance our economy, get people back to work and boost growth.

The railways have, and will continue to have, a crucial role to play in that process. Not only do they provide the arteries through which the lifeblood of commerce flows, connecting key cities and markets, and linking communities with jobs but they receive a significant amount of funding from the state—more than £3 billion a year. It was absolutely clear when the coalition came to power in 2010 that the level of taxpayer and fare payer support for the railways had soared under the last Government, yet passengers had seen little reward for that investment. In short, the railways were providing poor value for money. We did not inherit just a budget deficit; we also inherited an infrastructure deficit—one that, left unaddressed, would mean a long-term drag on our economy. This infrastructure deficit was particularly acute on the railways.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Secretary of State mentioned that he was a regular rail user—I presume on the west coast main line, with which he will be familiar in any event. He said that the money invested by the last Labour Government did not lead to any obvious benefits for passengers. How does he think the investment in the west coast main line was paid for?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am talking about the overall structure. My train service is East Midlands Trains, not the west coast main line. I look forward to gaining more knowledge of many more railway lines in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I know that the High Speed 2 line is already causing uncertainty for many individuals, communities and businesses that will be affected along the route. We have introduced the exceptional hardship scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, I am about to have a meeting later today to talk to some of the key stakeholders, including herself, about their concerns. Having listened to many concerns and looked at the effectiveness of the exceptional hardship scheme, we are drawing up long-term proposals for compensation, and we will be consulting on those very shortly.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of ending the uncertainty is to reach a quick decision? Will she confirm that the Government will introduce legislation on HS2 in the coming Parliament, and that she continues to have the full support of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in taking forward HS2, which is so vital not just for England, but for Scotland?

[Justine Greening]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. We are planning to introduce the hybrid Bill. HS2 is vital for the long-term success of this country.

Civil Aviation Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to some important points. I agree that the matter needs further thought, and I hope that the Minister can respond on it.

The Select Committee’s work also drew attention to some problem areas in the allocation of responsibility for looking after passenger experiences. Key passenger concerns, particularly about passport and immigration issues, the time it takes people to get into the country and baggage handling, are not necessarily the responsibility of the airports, but they are, in reality, seen as responsible for them. We have heard examples recently of long queues, which are the responsibility of the UK Border Force, yet happen in the airport and are part of the air passenger’s experience. There do not seem to be any means of addressing that dual responsibility in the Bill, and that needs attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to the Select Committee’s earlier work on the implications of bad passenger experiences and the need for passenger welfare plans. The problems that air passengers experience at times of disruption during otherwise fairly normal periods are a long-running issue, and there has also been the near-breakdown of the service in situations such as very bad weather. We produced a report drawing attention to the matter and Ministers told us, or certainly implied, that the new licence conditions could contain requirements for passenger welfare plans to be put into practice, so that there would be clear responsibility for looking after passengers and giving them information in times of severe disruption. That does not seem to be happening in the Bill.

I know that the Civil Aviation Authority, in laying down what I think it calls its indicative licence conditions, has said that passenger welfare issues are part of the licensing process. However, it is extremely unclear whether the conditions will be enforceable, how clear they will be and whether there is to be a further consultation period before any such conditions are laid down. That is another area of concern.

All the points that I have made relate to the amendments, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The experience of passengers travelling by air is extremely important, and it is time that it became a focus of our attention.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish to make a few comments, mainly about Edinburgh airport, which is obviously of particular interest to the residents of my constituency and has recently been purchased by a new operator following the earlier competition decisions. It has been taken over by the operator of Gatwick and London City airports among others.

By and large, the passenger experience at Edinburgh airport is good. Most of the time, people can move fairly smoothly through the airport. Nevertheless, the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made apply at certain times of the day. My constituents frequently enter the UK at Heathrow or other airports in the south and then travel up to Edinburgh, and I know from personal experience about difficulties such as long queues at immigration and at security. Sometimes only one or two search points seem to be open even though eight or nine are available. We all experience that, and if the Bill can make the situation better, I will certainly welcome it.

Such problems are not generally the experience at Edinburgh airport, but two aspects of passenger welfare standards need to be addressed there and elsewhere. The first is the issue of international flights in particular arriving late in the evening, when either the UKBA facility or the airport handling facility is apparently unable to cope with arrivals, particularly if planes are slightly delayed. As a result, I have had many complaints about people having had to wait for long periods before they could get off the plane or get past a locked door into the terminal building. I hope that the Bill will lead to an improved service for passengers, both in general and through the new standards that it will bring into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to say that these huge infrastructure projects take time to come to fruition, and we are cracking on as fast as we can. We are also committed to making sure that we get this one right, which means taking a very structured approach to how we develop our proposals. In the meantime, I assure him that I take great care over his local services. He came to see me recently about Northampton station, and he made a compelling case.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

When High Speed 2 eventually reaches Edinburgh, passengers getting off there will have a difficulty because under Network Rail’s current plans the taxi rank is to be moved outside the station. Will the Secretary of State ensure that passengers will still be able to switch to taxis with ease at Edinburgh Waverley station?

[Justine Greening]

Obviously, security issues are also involved, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already met representatives of the Scottish Government to discuss the longer-term plans that we have for improving the journey times between Scotland and the rest of the country. There are some exciting proposals that we can bring forward. I am very much looking forward to continuing those discussions over the coming weeks and months, and I very much hope that he will be involved in those discussions and thoughts, as they develop.

High Speed 2 (Scotland)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this short debate, Mr Havard. I thank hon. Members for their attendance this afternoon and for their possible participation but, given the short time, I hope there will be only a few interventions.

To assist, I will briefly set out what I plan to cover. First, I will make a short reference to progress made in other countries, but principally I will put forward a case for the extension of High Speed 2 to Scotland, highlight some of the underpinning issues and, finally, pose some fundamental questions to the Minister.

High-speed rail is almost 50 years old, having been initiated in Japan in 1964, from Tokyo to Osaka. In its first year it carried 23 million passengers. Thirty years ago, France, Spain and Germany followed suit with HSR connections between and within those countries. There has been a quantum modal shift from aviation to rail, which has brought economic and environmental benefits. In those countries, passenger percentage to rail has increased dramatically and overall numbers have mushroomed. In addition to addressing capacity shortages successfully, new HSR demonstrated what can be achieved with economic growth and regeneration. In France, for example, HSR not only supported growth in already highly competitive cities such as Lyons, but improved the economic potential of previously declining urban centres such as Lille. There has been a big dividend to those cities and to Paris itself, and expanded tourist travel to Mediterranean countries.

Throughout that period, sadly, the UK seems to have existed in some kind of time warp, which beggars belief. The UK seems to have suffered from a condition called simultanagnosia, more commonly referred to as vision blindness or, as we say in Scotland, “cannae see the wood for the trees”. Despite the undoubted success of HSR in many countries over the past 30 years, successive UK Governments have been reluctant—indeed, remarkably resistant—to grasp the opportunities and undoubted dividends that HSR can bring. The only UK investment in HSR is the 69 miles from London to the channel tunnel.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The fact that the UK has been so slow to adopt more high-speed rail is surely a strong argument for starting to plan work for HS2 to Scotland. If it is left somewhere down the line for planning to start in 15 years, it will be the end of the century before HS2 goes to Scotland.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I could not agree more with his sentiments. There is huge potential in opening up the gateway to continental Europe, but we have failed so far to fulfil that potential.

It was refreshing to read in the coalition’s programme for government in May 2010:

“We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain.”

I emphasise the words “truly national network”. I welcome the belated commitment by the Government, and not just the present Government, to the programme, but the current programme seems to lack ambition in both the extent of the network and the time scale for implementation. As my hon. Friend said, now is the time to be bold, decisive and determined to deliver a high-speed rail service that meets the needs of the whole UK, not just south and middle England. Vision without action is sometimes described as daydreaming, so let us be clear that the vision is of an inclusive, first-class, high-speed rail service for the UK as a whole and in a much tighter time scale than has been proposed.

Cycling

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

I should like to move on from the Bow roundabout. Members will have the chance to speak later. I do not want to take up too much of anyone else’s time.

There is rightly intense media interest when cyclists are killed or seriously injured. Such stories are vital and often harrowing. The Times campaign is partly based on the awful injuries suffered by Mary Bowers, who is a journalist and a former student from my constituency. The stories highlight the need for improved safety. One of the problems is that Government policy has tended to be largely reactionary and that has put people off cycling, which is a real problem. The evidence is clear that the more people who cycle, the safer that it gets. There is a strong group effect in that regard.

One study showed that if the number of cyclists is doubled, the accident risk is reduced by more than a third. The Dutch have a lower accident rate because of, not in spite of, the number of cyclists. Anything that deters people from cycling is very damaging and risks increasing the dangers for all.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

As most of the items concerning cycling in my constituency are devolved matters, I will not take up time speaking about them. On this very point of the increase in numbers, I represent a constituency and a city that have a good record in increasing the number of cyclists, and that has happened over many years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key factors in getting a change in attitude and increasing the numbers is consistent support from local authorities and active organisations? That is the key to getting the long-term change that we all want.

[Dr Huppert]

Local activity is absolutely critical. In my own area, Cambridge city council has long prioritised this matter. When I was a councillor, I chaired the traffic management committee. Local activity in other areas is also important, so the Cambridge cycling campaign and the London cycling campaign do a lot of excellent work to keep up the pressure.

I am not going to list every cycling campaign in the country; I am sure that they are all excellent. Today, I hope that all Members will have a chance to speak and to focus on how cycling in this country can be further improved and encouraged. Both The Times campaign and the all-party parliamentary group take a holistic view about promoting cycling as a whole. That is what I hope that we can discuss today. The debate is long overdue and the need for change is pressing.

Let me talk briefly about the positives of cycling in case some Members are not aware of them. Cycling is the most efficient form of transport in the world. Many studies have highlighted its energy efficiency compared with cars, trains, buses, planes and even walking. A 2009 study by Professor David MacKay found that an average cyclist will use less than a third of the amount of energy required to walk, a sixth of the energy needed to travel by coach and an eightieth of the energy a car would use. When we consider that efficiency and the average distances that people travel, cycling becomes almost a no-brainer. Three-quarters of our journeys in this country are five miles or less. Most cyclists could travel such a distance fairly quickly. Of course cycling is not the answer to each of those journeys, but more cycling could be done. Cycling is efficient; we can use it for our basic transport needs. In the UK, cycling accounts for just 2% of all trips. That number should be far higher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. It is important for drivers to have training; for cyclists it is crucial.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Sustrans and other national cycling groups are important and we all welcome them. However, it is also important to recognise what can be done, particularly in urban areas, with small, but crucial, minor engineering works. We all know of examples where cycle routes suddenly come to a dead end, and sometimes it is more difficult and dangerous to get off the cycle route and back on to normal traffic. That could be addressed by councils quite simply and easily. That is as important in its own way as having national routes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The door is always open to talking with the Opposition on issues of national interest.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. How her Department will calculate the level of rail fares for services between Scotland and England in January (a) 2013 and (b) 2014.

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

The cap on regulated fares is calculated according to the formulae in franchise agreements. The current planning assumption, as set out in the 2010 spending review, is that the cap will increase by RPI plus 3% in January 2013 and in January 2014 for operators franchised by the Department for Transport. However, no final decision has been made.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

It is good to see the Minister in her place today, and I am sure that the whole House wishes her a speedy and full recovery from her accident.

As well as the RPI plus 3% increase proposed by the Government here, the Scottish Government are proposing RPI plus 3% increases in rail fares in Scotland and the potential removal of sleeper services and of cross-border services north of Edinburgh, so my constituents and many people in Scotland face a double whammy. How can we expect people to continue to move on to the railways when we are putting such obstacles in their way?

[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.

Civil Aviation Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I do not think we need to go that far. As I have said, the Bill’s key purpose is to provide clarity on what the CAA must focus on primarily, which is consumers. It is important to provide that clarity.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State rightly points out that consumers’ interests can be protected by promoting competition and thereby giving passengers greater choice, but how does the Bill address situations that cannot be dealt with by more competition, such as passengers facing long queues to get on and off planes? In the short term, that will not be addressed by competition, so how might the Bill help in such respects?

[Justine Greening]

The Bill cannot deliver absolutely everything in respect of the aviation industry. It will, however, deliver a key element of the regulatory framework that will sit alongside how the industry operates. Competition is working. We need only consider the investment that both Heathrow and Gatwick are putting into winter resilience to see that passengers will make a choice between those two airports based on which one they believe they can rely on. As a result, we are seeing competition lead to far more investment on that side of airport operations. I have seen that development for myself, and I greatly welcome it. Providing the CAA with these new powers will promote effective competition by enabling the CAA to make use of its specialist knowledge and to co-ordinate its use of economic regulation and general competition powers.

Turning to modernising the regulators’ wider role, part 2 of the Bill includes changes to how the CAA operates by improving transparency and accountability, removing unnecessary Government funding and involvement and cutting red tape. Transparent information is of huge benefit to the public. It gives all of us as consumers the means, if we want to use them, to compare different services on offer to us and to judge for ourselves which we want to buy. In keeping with this approach, clauses 83 and 84 introduce two new information duties for the aviation regulator, to serve the interests both of consumers and those affected by air travel.

The CAA would arrange for consumer information to be published to help passengers and freight users make more informed choices about what is on offer, while having regard to the principle that the benefits of information should outweigh the cost. Similarly, the CAA would publish information for the public about the environmental effects of civil aviation in the UK, and the measures taken to limit environmental harm. What is more, it would be able to use both those powers to issue advice and guidance to the industry so that it can improve standards of service and operate more sustainably. As we modernise the legislative framework, we are taking the opportunity to give the CAA new freedoms to appoint its own executive directors and to carry out criminal proceedings without recourse to Government. As criminal proceedings can be both slow and costly, the Bill would also enable the Secretary of State to give the CAA powers to enforce existing offences through civil sanctions where they are more proportionate.

The Bill also includes some other measures enabling the disclosure of anonymised medical data about aviation workers who are subject to health checks by the CAA. That would pave the way for valuable medical research into the particular health risks for specialist workers such as flight crew and air traffic controllers.

Let me move on to our proposals to improve the regulation of aviation security. This section of the Bill is relatively short, amounting to just five clauses and two schedules, but I know the House will rightly consider it carefully. Above everything else, passengers expect the highest levels of safety and security.

For me, keeping people safe and secure when they travel is and will continue to be of key importance. At present, aviation safety is regulated by the CAA while security regulation is carried out by officials in the Department. The CAA has an excellent track record as a safety regulator, as good as any in the world, and it has empowered our airlines and airports to develop safety management systems that keep safety at the heart of their operations, striving for ever safer and more efficient systems. That is why I believe there would be real benefits to bringing the CAA’s impressive specialist expertise to the regulation of aviation security.

In the past, security regulation has been criticised for being too process-driven, too often relying on a tick-box approach. Although those arrangements have kept people safe, too often their inflexibility has caused frustration on the ground at airports. There would be attractive benefits for passengers if we could empower the experts to find the best and most efficient way of maintaining the highest levels of security for air travel. That means more involvement from the experts in aviation operations, which can bring real benefits. Of course, it is essential that the Secretary of State should stay responsible for aviation security policy and for giving security directions, although it also makes sense for the specialist expert regulator to have a role in maintaining and improving aviation security. Consequently, the Bill includes provisions for the CAA to keep under review security directions made by the Secretary of State and for it to provide advice and assistance to the industry and Government. With its track record in handling safety, I believe the CAA will approach those new responsibilities with the rigour they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I would never suggest that any Minister should do anything other than what I did when I was a Minister.

Too often in these environmentally conscious days, those in the airline industry are seen as the bad guys. I see a parallel with the car industry and car ownership. Although I do not consider myself to be a class warrior, I observe some class consciousness in the debate. Car ownership was initially seen as a good thing that improved the quality of the lives of those who could afford it, but as cars became cheaper and more ordinary working people could afford to own one, they suddenly became a threat to the environment. I see the same happening with air travel. It was a wonderful thing that made every corner of the globe accessible; but then ordinary people had the damned cheek to afford to use it regularly. Fares were reduced, and suddenly it too was a threat to the environment—what a surprise—rather than the opportunity that it used to be. My own view, which I hope is shared throughout the House, is that a healthy, expanding airline industry is essential to any successful nation, and if the Bill contributes to that end, I welcome it.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important for the aircraft industry to try to produce more environmentally friendly and environmentally efficient aeroplanes, and that the absence of measures to encourage that is regrettable?

[Mr Harris]

I entirely agree, and that is precisely what is happening in the airline industry. It is acutely aware of its responsibilities in this respect, which is why I do not see it as the enemy of the environment.

I note that my party’s Front-Bench team has accepted the Government’s decision not to go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow; indeed, the shadow Secretary of State said that in today’s debate. I trust that that acceptance is based on the parliamentary arithmetic—on the fact that the Members who support the third runway are outnumbered by those who do not—rather than on agreement with the Government’s arguments. The real reason the Conservative party opposed the third runway when in opposition was votes. It was concerned about seats to the west of London, not the health of the UK economy and the airline industry on which we depend. It was seats that were uppermost in the Conservative party’s mind when it chose to oppose the previous Government’s support for Heathrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I am grateful to see the hon. Gentleman nodding, and I hope that some of the information the Committee produces can be taken into account in the Bill.

There are some welcome provisions in the Bill that will open up Government data concerning airports. Having open public data is a key aim of the Liberal Democrats and of the coalition’s programme for Government. The CAA will be given the power to enable airports to publish data to assist passengers or potential passengers in making informed choices. The best way in which the Government can drive up standards is by empowering individuals to make informed choices, and that is what these measures will achieve. The new power for the CAA to publish information about the environmental impact of aviation is also welcome. The real costs of airplane emissions are often hidden, and the Government have a duty to make them known as a first step towards making sure that something can be done to reduce them.

Most of the changes in the Bill have been subject to extensive consultation over the many years of its gestation. Papers from the previous Administration and the coalition Government have generally had positive feedback and the recent draft Bill was broadly welcomed by the industry. However, there are some aspects of the Bill that I hope will be considered in more detail in Committee. First, it seems slightly odd that there are new powers for information regarding the environmental impact of aviation to be published but that there is no commensurate duty for the CAA to do anything about the issue after publishing that information. The CAA will have a new power to publish information to benefit passengers and a duty to work in their interests. I therefore think that the power to publish information about the environment should be matched by a duty to act on that information.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not more serious than that? The Bill will allow licensed conditions to be imposed, based on certain criteria, but those conditions will not include environmental ones, so it seems that the CAA will not be able to include environmental considerations in the licences it grants.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I am sure that this issue will form a significant part of our discussions in Committee.

Clause 84(2) says that the CAA

“may publish guidance and advice with a view to reducing, controlling or mitigating the adverse environmental effects of civil aviation in the UK.”

I think the wording could be stronger and say that it “must” do so and, hopefully, take that further. Aviation accounts for a significant and growing proportion of our carbon emissions and it also has a significant noise impact, which we must take into account. The body that regulates aviation must have regard to these facts and bear some responsibility.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed, it has, and I have had discussions with Rolls-Royce, which makes a number of new engines that perform significantly better in that regard, but there is still a long way to go. It is certainly true that emissions per passenger have declined, but the number of passengers has gone up and there is a complex factor relating the two. We need to go further in making sure that planes are fully utilised. We have had discussions in the Chamber about trying to change from a per passenger duty to a per plane duty, and I hope we will be able to go further and resolve the anomalies regarding the Chicago convention that prevent that change.

The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to ensure that information is published but does not go as far as requiring the CAA and airports to do so. It could go slightly further in that direction to ensure that passengers are provided with the information to which they are entitled rather than leaving it to the whim of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in charge. I am not suggesting that any Secretary of State in the current Government would be so foolish as not to go the full way in that regard, but one can never know what a future Government or Secretary of State might do. Of course, environmental information should be provided as a matter of course, and I hope, for clarity, that clause 84(2) will explicitly include carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.

I should also like to understand a little more about how the penalties in the Bill were arrived at. Obviously, we hope never to have to use any of the penalties for failure to comply or to provide information, but they are somewhat complex. Clauses 44 and 45 have a complex formula based on turnover, clause 51 has fixed amounts, clause 52 has unlimited ones, clause 86 has very low penalties and clause 87 goes back to unlimited ones. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity as to exactly how those penalties were decided.

Clause 104 deals with the disclosure of medical information, which requires proper scrutiny and some clarification. The clause allows the CAA to disclose medical information relating to flight crew and air traffic controllers in an anonymised form for the purposes of medical research. I can absolutely see how that would be beneficial and why we should want to introduce it, but I am concerned that in a small airline it might be possible to identify an individual using a combination of the information provided and data that are publicly available on the internet. That could pose a serious threat to privacy. This clause requires close scrutiny to ensure that de-anonymisation of data is not possible. I am aware of academic work that has been done on data that were about to be released by the Ministry of Justice. A group was challenged with trying to de-anonymise information from anonymised data and it turned out to be worryingly easy to do in a number of cases. I hope that Ministers will look at that issue.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

A number of people still wish to speak, so I shall not give way again.

The Select Committee on Transport made some sensible recommendations to the Government, which I am sure will be given due consideration. For example, it noted that the aviation industry has concerns about the way in which the CAA will implement the new provisions, given the difficult business conditions that many regional airports face. It also noted, as have many hon. Members today, that the CAA is the only economic regulator that does not fall under the remit of the National Audit Office, and it recommended that an explicit efficiency duty for the CAA be inserted in the Bill or, indeed, we could make the NAO responsible for supervising the operation of the CAA. The Government have not yet provided a full response to the Committee’s recommendations, but I hope that they will do so as soon as possible and look at those sensible ideas.

Overall, the Bill offers crucial modernisation for civil aviation regulation, and it will help to promote success and competition in aviation. The Liberal Democrats welcome the focus on passengers, the reform of ATOL, the sensible framework for economic regulation and the opening up of public data. I hope that in Committee we can ensure that the Bill properly delivers the Government’s aims and creates a sustainable future for civil aviation in this country based on open data, proper regulation, sustainable transport and passenger-led reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

Indeed, but I am not qualified to make that assessment.

My hon. Friend does, however, make the point that no options should be off the table. We have said, despite the fact that we made a manifesto commitment to a third runway at Heathrow, that we are willing to take that off the table if it enables us to enter into cross-party talks. These are long-term decisions taken for the country’s future, and that is a statesmanlike approach by our Front-Bench transport team. Failure to do anything is not an option. The capacity challenge in the south-east can be tackled if Luton airport increases its capacity from 10 million passengers to 18 million over a period. That is part of the answer, but it does not answer the broader question of how we establish a serious hub airport that can compete with other airports, particularly in Europe, on level ground.

In Luton, we can achieve 18 million passengers without significant ground works, and without extending the runway or building a second runway, which is welcome. We are 25 minutes from St Pancras—practically zone 3 on the London underground. We are one of the big four airports that, I believe, we are seeking to expand. Luton ultimately can absorb only a small amount of the additional capacity that is required, and we have heard different suggestions from different people in recent weeks. The expansion of Heathrow is not on the table, and we understand why the Secretary of State holds her personal convictions. An additional runway at Stansted has been ruled out. We have heard about the plans for “Heathwick”, linking Heathrow and Gatwick, although I am not sure exactly what those proposals would achieve. In the past fortnight, we have heard about “Boris island”, but whatever option we choose, we must find a long-term solution to the problem of capacity. If the Government are unwilling to do so while they are in power, we will have to face up to those problems when we are in government.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the drawbacks of “Boris island” or, indeed, any other plan for the Thames estuary is that it would set at naught all the ideas about linking high-speed rail to Heathrow airport if, at the end of the day, that airport moved somewhere 30 miles east?

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about high-speed rail, which is not a substitute for additional air passenger transport movements. It may be excellent at linking, for example, Birmingham and Heathrow, and our Front-Bench team has suggested proposals about how better to do so. This is a real issue of capacity that affects our economy. We cannot leave it to future generations to solve the long-term problems that we must face up to ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and propose to speak chiefly to clause 94, which amends section 71 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and improves ATOL protection for consumers, as I believe that these are the provisions that are of most interest to my constituents. To clarify why the proposals are so welcome, I will briefly outline the current ATOL scheme’s inadequacies that require remedying in order to meet the requirements of passengers in the 21st century.

The ATOL scheme, which was introduced in the ’70s, provides financial protection for consumers who purchase air package holidays in the event of a travel company going into insolvency. Affected passengers are entitled to a full refund if they are yet to travel or repatriation after completing their holiday if they have already reached their destination. However, the current ATOL scheme does not apply to airlines that are specifically excluded under legislation or to airline agents where airline tickets or a similar airline booking confirmation has been issued, which means that a booking made directly with an airline just for a flight on an aircraft they operate, for example by using their website, is not covered by ATOL. Airlines can sell flights and flight plus without providing financial protection, flight plus being a booking for a flight that is sold together with accommodation and/or car hire at the same time or within a day of each other. Many consumers are totally unaware that they have no financial protection for such bookings.

However, confusingly for consumers, under the 1990 EU package travel directive airlines are now required to provide financial protection for the sale of package holidays. In practice, some airlines sell package holidays with ATOL protection, but other airlines sell only flight plus without any statutory financial protection at all. Even more confusingly for the consumer, although the ATOL logo on websites and in brochures signifies that the business in question holds an ATOL licence and thus meets the CAA’s financial fitness criteria, that does not mean that every holiday the business sells is ATOL protected. The ATOL licence holder may sell holidays and travel arrangements that are not ATOL protected since they fall outside the legal scope of the current scheme. In effect, it is left to the consumer to check whether their holiday arrangements are covered by ATOL, but how many would know how to do that?

The last decade has seen important changes in the UK market for holidays and flights, particularly a move away from traditional package holidays in favour of independent travel. This has been facilitated by the emergence of low-cost, no-frills airlines and the use of the internet. Holidays are often created by consumers buying the various components from a range of flight, accommodation and other options. This might involve purchasing from a single provider or, in many instances, from linked websites. For instance, an airline website might contain a link to an accommodation provider’s site. Holidays created and sold in this way are often referred to as dynamic packaging, mix-and-match holidays, DIY packages or tailor-made holidays. This development could not have been foreseen when the ATOL scheme was introduced 40 years ago or when the package travel directive was agreed more than 20 years ago. Indeed, the proportion of ATOL protected holidays has dropped from 97% of all leisure flights in 1997 to less than 50% in 2010 and, if action is not taken, will undoubtedly decrease further.

There is therefore a strong case for reforming the ATOL scheme to reflect better today’s holiday market and so that consumers can be clear when their holiday is protected. The CAA agrees and has stated that

“ATOL needs reform… to remove the risk of increasing financial detriment to consumers.”

This is particularly so in the current economic climate, when significant sums from a household’s annual budget are spent on such transactions.

In addition, holidays purchased on an “agent for the consumer” basis are also in many respects outside the current ATOL scheme. Traditionally, travel agents act as agents for the supplier and sell holidays to customers on behalf of travel trade suppliers, but they can also sometimes act as agents for the customer and technically buy the holiday on their behalf. This is an important distinction. Agents for the consumer are not legally making flight accommodation available and so are currently not required to have an ATOL licence or to provide any other form of financial protection for holidays.

However, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to know in what capacity a travel agent is acting, which can create considerable detriment and uncertainty. In practical terms, the distinction is completely irrelevant for a consumer until they need to claim for cover and might find cover non-existent. Then it becomes very relevant indeed. Even some travel companies are not fully aware of what acting as “agent for the consumer” entails or their obligations to explain to consumers the implications for ATOL protection. In short, the current ATOL scheme no longer fulfils its intended purpose.

Clause 94, by greatly broadening consumer protection and bringing airlines and “agent for the consumer” transactions into the scope of the ATOL scheme, effectively brings the scheme into the 21st century. Following appropriate consultation, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring airlines to hold and act in accordance with an ATOL licence when making available flight accommodation, except where they are doing so on a flight-only basis on aircraft that they operate. For the purposes of the clause, flight accommodation is taken to mean accommodation for the transport of persons on flights in any part of the world. In effect, all airline package holiday and flight-plus sales are to be ATOL protected. Having said that, some exceptions remain, and I welcome the discussions, which have been referred to, between ATOL and representatives from the Transport Committee on the possibility of ATOL cover being widened even further. I very much welcome the Bill and the effect it will have in providing additional consumer protection.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to touch on another point relating to passenger protection: pilot fatigue. Although perhaps peripheral to the Bill’s main aims, this issue is vital to the many pilots in my constituency who work out of Manchester airport and, in turn, to their passengers’ welfare. I have spoken with a number of pilots about the matter and attended briefings, in the House and elsewhere, where it has been raised with great concern. Pilots in my constituency are extremely concerned that any relaxation of this country’s current restrictions on permitted crew flight hours could push pilot fatigue to intolerable levels and seriously affect passenger safety. The issue was raised in the other place only last week by the noble Lord Monks, who is president of the British Airline Pilots Association.

Pressure on crew and aircraft for turnarounds is increasing as demand for air travel rises, and this is reflected in the requirements that airlines are putting on pilots. The European Aviation Safety Agency has made proposals that would reduce the current UK standards on flight time limitations. The Government spokesperson in the other place replied to the noble Lord Monks that the Government would support the proposed requirements only if the CAA determines that they provide an appropriate level of protection against crew fatigue. That was a welcome comment pointing in the right direction.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I have been contacted by many of my constituents who work in the aviation industry, including pilots, and who are extremely concerned about the proposals. I am sure that the whole House is with the hon. Lady in wanting to see the Government and the European authorities ensure that no danger to safety is brought about by the proposed changes.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

In responding to the debate, will the Minister clarify how in practice such an important determination will be made in light of the delegated powers that are going to be passed to the CAA under the revised regulatory regime and the fact that when introducing the debate the Secretary of State said that CAA decisions should be “guided by the needs of customers” and that the safety of customers was of “key importance”, and, finally, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State remains ultimately responsible for aviation safety and security?

I welcome the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Those of us who emphasise the importance of ensuring that the environmental consequences of aviation are at the heart of our policy are in no sense anti-aviation. We recognise the importance of the industry to the UK and to our economy but simply want to emphasise the fact that unchecked and uncontrolled, the growth in aviation will lead to increasing CO₂ emissions in the UK and internationally. It is therefore important to encourage the kind of measures that will ensure that that growth can be controlled. That means encouraging more environmentally friendly forms of travel where possible and encouraging the industry to be environmentally efficient in the development of new aircraft and in the way that airports operate.

The way to achieve that direction of policy is to put in place measures that will encourage it. It is right to say that there should be tough emissions controls at European and international level to encourage more efficient aircraft. A lot has happened in that area—I recognise and welcome that. Without those measures in place, we will not get the changes that we want. That is why, as the shadow Secretary of State said, we need to put environmental and planning considerations in the Bill.

I made the point in my intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the Bill allows the CAA to put conditions in licences on a number of grounds, but only if they come within the specifications in clause 1. Clause 1 does not allow environmental and planning considerations to be taken into account, so the CAA will not be able to put conditions on such matters in the licences of particular airports. I hope that the Bill is improved in Committee so that it takes account of environmental and planning concerns over airport developments and aviation more generally.

[Bob Stewart]

Environmental considerations include noise pollution. As more and more aeroplanes circulate around London, the noise gets greater, even in my leafy constituency in Kent. I hope that environmental considerations will be taken into account and that the noise made by Rolls-Royce engines, for example, will be reduced even more.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I understand it, the Bill does not specifically encourage such measures, but it could be changed to allow them. I hope that he will support such a change.

My second point is about the consumer interest. It can certainly be promoted by encouraging competition, which I welcome, but the Secretary of State referred to the possibility of passengers choosing between Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports. People in the south-east of England can do that, as they have four, five or six airports to choose from, but in other parts of the UK there is not that option. That is why it is important that the Bill should put in place not just competition measures but other provisions to recognise the consumer interest. If people have a long wait at an airport and are queuing for a plane, they want something to be done pretty quickly rather than having to wait until a new franchise or licence is granted some years hence. The Bill needs to be strengthened to provide for the consumer interest in that way as well.

I want to say something about the proposed sale of British Midland International to International Airlines Group. Like every MP from Scotland, I am very concerned about the effect of that sale not just on competition on routes between Scotland and Heathrow but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, on people’s ability to change flights at Heathrow and access all parts of Scotland. That will affect Scotland’s ability to attract tourism and business. The sale of BMI would also have consequences for its other routes—for example those to Brussels, Copenhagen, Zurich and so on, which are important for business and tourism in Scotland. Although that matter does not specifically fall within the terms of the Bill’s competition provisions, it certainly concerns us now that the future of BMI and its routes is up for grabs.

Another point that concerns many people in Scotland, and which my hon. Friend mentioned, is the cuts to the UK Border Agency. They are concerned that delays in entry to the UK could be made worse. At Edinburgh airport there are fairly regular complaints about the difficulties of passengers arriving late at night, who have to queue to get through the border formalities and even to get into the terminal. They have to wait behind locked doors for the appropriate staff to arrive. That is not a criticism of the staff, who of course do an excellent job, but they are already under pressure and if there are cuts to the UKBA there will no doubt be still further pressures on them and delays for passengers. It would certainly not be a good advert for people coming to Scotland or elsewhere in the UK if we had unnecessary delays because of cuts to border authority staff.

At a time when some Members propose the idea of independence for Scotland and the separation of Scotland and England, today’s debate emphasises the fact that there are many areas in which co-operation between England, Scotland and the rest of the UK is by far the best way of arranging things. I certainly cannot see how having a separate Scottish CAA, presumably with extra costs and extra demands on its resources, would improve airports and airlines in Scotland.

Earlier we had the somewhat amusing spectacle of Scottish National party Members, who I am sorry are not in the Chamber at the moment, demanding that the UK Government intervene to ensure that there is proper competition between the different airlines and other modes of transport in England and Scotland. Surely it cannot escape most people’s notice that without a UK Government to operate in such a way, there would be no reason for such competition to be encouraged. In the absence of SNP Members, I will not pursue that point. Clearly we may be able to do so at a later stage.

My final point is that the airline industry is important to many of our constituents and requires people to be confident in its safety. That was why I was glad to be able to intervene on the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to mention concerns about extra pressure on pilots due to the proposed changes to regulations. Once again, I hope that the Government will ensure that no such changes are made, as they would jeopardise both the perception and, I fear, the reality of passenger safety. I am glad that there has so far been unanimity throughout the House about that, and I hope that the Minister will say something about it in his closing remarks as it is concerning people who work in the industry and passengers.

Rail Services from and to Scotland

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I welcome Members to our debate this afternoon.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today. I take this opportunity to extend the compliments of the season to you and other Members, and to members of our staff in the room today.

I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise a number of issues concerning rail services in Scotland. For the most part, rail services within Scotland are a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Government, and I certainly do not wish—and would not be allowed by you, Chair—to deal with matters under that devolved responsibility. However, there are some important aspects of rail in Scotland for which policy or legislation is made at UK level, and I wish to raise those today.

The first issue is the future of cross-border rail services, and perhaps today is a very appropriate time to raise it, given that over the Christmas and new year period many passengers will be using the services to visit family and friends both north and south of the border. At present, the cross-border services fall under the franchise arrangements controlled by the Department for Transport, with its responsibility for services throughout Great Britain. However, those arrangements are now under threat, as a result of proposals put forward by the Scottish Government’s transport agency, Transport Scotland. As part of options for the future of rail services in Scotland, Transport Scotland is

“considering whether services north of Edinburgh should be provided by the Scottish franchisee, with Edinburgh becoming an interchange hub for cross-border services in the east of the country. In this scenario cross-border services would terminate at Edinburgh Waverley, with onward connections being provided by ScotRail.”

As a result of the cross-border services stopping at Edinburgh and Glasgow, there would be no through trains from England to destinations further north, such as Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness to name just a few. For that to happen, I understand that the Scottish Government would have to get the agreement of the UK Government to change the franchise arrangements, so today I want to raise my concerns about that possibility, in the hope that the Minister of State will listen to Members and will herself express reservations about the proposal. I also express my concerns today in the hope that Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government will listen.

At present, there are seven trains a day from England to destinations north of Edinburgh and Glasgow—plus the sleeper services, about which I will speak later—which provide through links, not just on the east coast line to London but on the west coast line to the English midlands and the south and south-west of England. Seven trains does not sound like many, but that is perhaps 2,000 plus seats a day, and is equal to perhaps 20 planes or 500 cars. I, and many others in Scotland, and indeed in England, believe that if the proposals result in the termination of cross-border services at Edinburgh and Glasgow, they are a serious mistake.

The option suggests that there would be an “interchange hub” at Edinburgh, but that is not a good idea. Edinburgh Waverley, as anyone who uses it will know, is a large station with about 20 platforms at the last count, and one could well imagine passengers, particularly the more frail, taking at least 15 minutes to change trains, allowing for time to go through the ticket barriers of the different operators. There is also considerable building and renovation work going on, which is likely to cause extra disruption for years to come. For passengers travelling long distances, who are more likely to have more luggage, having to change trains in Edinburgh would be extremely inconvenient and add to journey times.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important topic. Does he not agree that, given that 26% of the Scottish economy is based in the Aberdeen area, as a result of the oil and gas industry, it would be incredibly short-sighted in terms of not only general social traffic but economic traffic to stop cross-border trains going up to Aberdeen and beyond?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. As a regular user of east coast trains, sometimes using the services that go through to Aberdeen, I know that they are very well used. I have had feedback from the business community in Edinburgh, speaking not just for Edinburgh but more widely, about the potentially very damaging consequences for Scotland’s economic interests, because of the effect both on business travel and on the wider travel services between important parts of the Scottish and UK economies.

Another feature of Transport Scotland’s proposals that concerns me is the suggestion that having all journeys in Scotland north of the central belt run by one operator—ScotRail—would in some way be an advantage because it would remove other operators. I am not sure that it would be an advantage, because apart from the difficultly of having to change trains, passengers travelling north of Edinburgh would not have the option of using alternative operators if they so wished. Having said that, it is interesting that these Transport Scotland proposals seem to some extent to contradict others it puts forward in the same document. Elsewhere, it suggests that the Scottish franchise could be broken up into two or three franchisees, including one that would run the “economic” day services, presumably the profit-making ones, and another that would run the social services, presumably the loss-making ones. In my view, that would be a retrograde step, but it is probably not an issue to be discussed at length today.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In the rural location I represent, there is a deep concern that we will see a central belt locality with lots of passengers and rail services, offering, to all intents and purposes, a first class service, alongside the potential for second class services—I hate to use that term—being offered just on and off in rural localities, and not really meeting the genuine needs of people living there.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is a genuine concern. I obviously do not know the detailed financial arrangements inside ScotRail and its franchise, but there is currently some cost subsidy between the different sections of the route, and we could well see a situation in which the economic franchise took all the good routes, with the profits going to the shareholders or the Scottish Government, and the social services suffered, as very much the poor relations. That would certainly be a consequence if that line was followed by Transport Scotland. To be fair, it is only an option, and I do not want to misrepresent it as the preferred option.

The outcome of the changes to cross-border services is pretty clear. Instead of having one through ticket on one through train, passengers could have to change services, wait sometimes in the cold—Edinburgh Waverley is not the warmest station in the world, I regret to say—and have the hassle of negotiating various pricing deals offered by different rail companies as they change trains. More passengers would therefore stop using rail. They would fly or add to traffic on already busy roads, and some tourists might not come at all. They would certainly be less likely to travel north of the central belt to areas where tourism is so important to the local economy. The proposals would not only affect passengers on long-distance cross-border services; there would also be a loss of choice for passengers from places such as Edinburgh to destinations further north, including Dundee and Inverness on the east coast services, and, dare I say it, there would be a loss of competition as well.

The operational arguments for maintaining cross-border services seem overwhelming, and the benefits to passengers are certainly clear. I am concerned that it appears that one of the motivations for the proposed termination of cross-border services at Edinburgh and Glasgow is what can only be described as a narrow financial interest. I quote again from the Transport Scotland report:

“The provision of these services, whilst providing additional capacity, also takes potential passengers and revenue from ScotRail services, and thereby affects the levels of subsidy required from the Scottish Government.”

The first priority should not be whether a few pounds, euros or even Scottish dollars should be saved for the Scottish Government; it should be the needs of passengers. I hope that the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland will recognise that, and the other concerns that I am raising. I urge Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to keep our cross-border services, and I hope that the UK Department for Transport will make those views known to the Scottish Government.

Many of the arguments against cutting cross-border services also apply to Transport Scotland’s proposals for sleeper services between Scotland and England. In its report, Transport Scotland suggests that all or at least some services be removed from the requirement to operate under the ScotRail franchise and allowed to operate under a separate franchise. The report gives various suggestions about whether that franchise should be supported financially or run commercially only. It also suggests that only services to and from Edinburgh be franchised, leaving other services to be operated on a commercial basis only. Effectively, that would almost certainly mean that they would not be operated.

Leaving aside the fact that removing sleeper services from the ScotRail franchise, thereby jeopardising their future, would be an extremely odd move at a time when the UK and Scottish Governments are considering financing new sleeper stock, if such a cut were made or sleeper services were totally withdrawn, it would be bad news for passengers, and particularly bad news for the business and tourist sectors. I spoke last week to people from the Edinburgh business sector who expressed concern that a threat to the Edinburgh sleeper service would damage the business and tourism connectivity of Edinburgh and of Scotland as a whole.

I hope that the Minister shares my concern about both those issues, and I hope that her Government will reflect to the Scottish Government the concerns shown by many in Scotland in business, leisure and local communities, as well as workers in the rail industry. I certainly hope that Transport Scotland will think again.

I emphasise that I am not against change in the ScotRail arrangements or anywhere else, but I am against change so damaging to the travelling public. I would like some imagination from both Governments and from the rail industry in general about how existing service patterns might be improved to provide better connections between Scotland and England and better cross-border services, rather than making it more inconvenient to travel across the border. For example, at a time of big increases in rail travel on day services, could we not consider providing more sleeper services in the UK rather than fewer, perhaps reinstating some of the services cut a few years ago, or even overnight services from Scotland and the north of England to the continent of Europe?

On day travel, is it not time to consider how to improve cross-border services rather than cutting them? On my recent visit to Liverpool for the Labour party conference, due to the non-existence of through services, I was reminded again of the number of changes involved and the difficulty of connections from Edinburgh and Glasgow to that major city. There are also other places in England where through services to Scotland are not what they could be. In my view, we should be considering improving the service rather than cutting it in the way proposed by Transport Scotland. I hope that Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport will consider those thoughts for the future, as they will have to work together on the issues due to their cross-border implications.

I have spent some time referring to and criticising some of the proposals for rail services made by Transport Scotland. There are many others on which I have a view, but I will not mention those that are primarily of devolved concern. There are obvious overlaps between both devolved and reserved responsibilities. I know, for example, that people in Scotland are angry at the increase in fares announced for Scotland, as for the rest of the UK, but that is obviously the responsibility of the Scottish Government and Parliament, so I will not go into it in more detail, although I emphasise that views on the issue are extremely strongly held.

I will comment on one area of future policy that concerns both Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport: high-speed rail. Having so far been critical of Transport Scotland’s proposals, I will now be more positive about some of its recent ones. Indeed, I warmly welcome its recent report, “Fast Track Scotland: Making the Case for High Speed Rail Connections with Scotland”. The report was published earlier this month and resulted in numerous conclusions with broad or all-party support. The first is:

“Scotland stands united in support of high-speed rail. It is vital that a high-speed rail network be established across the UK to secure its future competitiveness and economic prosperity”,

as well as the competitiveness and economic prosperity of the entire UK.

The report continues:

“The investment case for high-speed rail is strong, but is stronger when Scotland is included.

Scotland supports a high-speed rail strategy which brings Edinburgh and Glasgow closer to London and the UK’s great cities, and which preserves and enhances aviation links with London’s airports for the north of Scotland.

A new high-speed line must be built to Scotland to realise the fullest economic and environmental benefits for the UK.”

I endorse those comments completely. I believe that high-speed rail is important to improve journey times, for environmental reasons and to improve capacity on the rail network as a whole. Transport Scotland’s report presents a powerful case for connecting Scotland with the high-speed rail network. Equally, the report highlights how a failure to connect high-speed routes to services on other lines could damage Scotland’s interests by placing it and cities in the north of England in a relatively worse position, in terms of journey times and rail capacity, than cities linked to the network.

As I have said, it is in the interests of the UK’s high-speed rail network as a whole that Scotland should be part of the network, because of the benefits that it would bring to the business case for the whole network. Business leaders throughout the UK support Scotland’s inclusion in a high-speed rail link.

[Ann McKechin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach taken by HS2 Action Alliance has been disappointing? It wrote to Members earlier today expressing that an alternative that would save a mere 20 minutes of journey time should be satisfactory. I represent a Glasgow constituency, and he represents an Edinburgh one. Given that the joint economic force of Glasgow and Edinburgh makes them the second largest economy outside London, does he agree that the strength of the case is overwhelming? It is time for those who oppose HS2 to consider properly the economic interests of all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the exact route of High Speed 2 is being debated, as are issues such as the right route and speed for a line, at what speed trains could run and whether changes could be made to reflect the environment. I accept all those concerns—I am not saying that one should not—but ultimately, it is not just a question of taking 20 minutes off the time to reach Glasgow and Edinburgh. In any configuration, we are talking about major time savings. By definition, those time savings increase the longer the distance travelled, which is why it is so important to the business case of the whole line that Scotland should be included at an early stage in the planning.

Support for Scotland’s inclusion in the high-speed rail link comes from business leaders throughout the UK. The London chamber of commerce and industry says that

“for HS2 to improve the country’s connectivity and infrastructure capacity, it must reach the whole of the UK. Only then will the expected business and transport benefits be enjoyed by the entire country… Consequently, the line should also be planned and thought of in its totality, rather than as independent and isolated sections.”

I absolutely agree.

The Greater Manchester chamber of commerce says:

“Glasgow and Greater Manchester are two of the UK’s largest economies and the third and fourth biggest population centres in the country. Strong economic development within these cities will be essential for countering the economic dominance of London and providing the driver for growth within their respective regions. As such, high-quality links between these centres is essential for developing trade, tourism and expanding the knowledge, opportunities and labour catchment areas for these conurbations… Significantly, though, the benefits of high-speed rail are greater over longer distances, and therefore the time savings between Manchester and Glasgow would be significant enough to help deliver a shift in mode of travel and generate passenger demand on the new rail network.”

That is why I, along with opinion across the political and social spectrums in Scotland and beyond, am extremely concerned by the possibility that serious planning for high-speed rail to Scotland will not even start for many years. If planning for high-speed rail to Scotland is left until later, it could be the 2040s at the earliest before high-speed rail reaches Scotland. Such a long delay after the routes reach the midlands and the north of England would be extremely damaging to the economic interests of Scotland and those parts of the north of England not linked to the route.

To secure the funding to allow high-speed rail to reach Scotland requires choices, and I accept that they may be choices about routes, speeds or the location of sections of routes. Putting together the funding package is still many years off, but I want to emphasise that we do not want to be in a situation where not even the planning has been started. We must ensure that we plan now for Scotland to be part of that high-speed line. Detailed planning of HS2 must be done at this stage, as the report from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government calls for, and I fully endorse it.

Let me emphasise again that it is in no one’s interest for Scotland to be left at the end of a high-speed line. The Scottish Government have said that they will pay for the Scottish section of such a line. Although their commitment looks a little shaky under closer analysis, I am sure that a future Scottish Government of any political shade would recognise the value contributing to a project of such importance for Scotland. I understand that Scottish Ministers hoped to meet the Minister or her colleagues to discuss the issue. Was any progress made in those discussions? Is there potential for an agreement with the Scottish Government?

I could say much more, and although there is time to do so, it is right to allow the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesman plenty of time to respond to the concerns that I have raised. There are certainly many other rail policy issues at UK level that concern Scotland, including a number of the implications of the McNulty report and some of the proposals in the Transport Scotland report on transferring some of the responsibilities that Network Rail supervises at a British level to a devolved level. They are significant matters, but they are perhaps too technical and lengthy and would require me to divert to another subject at great length.

Maintaining the sleeper and cross-border services and planning for future and better connectivity are important and concern all Scotland. I hope that the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesman will say something that recognises the importance of those issues, assures us of a way forward and, as I have indicated, sends a clear message from the House to Transport Scotland that some of its proposals would be extremely damaging to transport interests throughout Scotland.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Front-Bench speakers, may I say, after that excellent start, that this is a slow debate? We are taking the scenic route with plenty of time to admire the view. The Opposition spokesman need not trouble himself to rush to the end of his remarks. I call John Woodcock.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for that sound advice, Mr Hollobone. May I say at length what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech about a critical issue for, of course, Scotland, but also for the economy of the whole United Kingdom. Throughout the debate, it is important that we keep that in mind.

In recent weeks, we have heard concerning noises from the Scottish Government on the future of not only rail services in Scotland, but cross-border services, as my hon. Friend described. Given the franchise renewal timetable—two of the three major cross-border operations are due to be re-let in the next 24 months—this is a timely moment to discuss Government policy on cross-border rail services. He expressed the importance of the subject well.

On a personal level, as a twice-weekly user of the Euston to Glasgow service to return to my constituency, I am very aware of how well used and often overcrowded such services are. Although the train may be overcrowded this evening and a little late, the journey back home to my constituency for Christmas will be made all the sweeter for having had the chance to take part in the debate today, so, again, I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on securing this debate on the last afternoon before the Christmas recess.

It is important to talk about the improvements made to both lines into Scotland over the past decade. They were often made at a greater cost than should have been the case, but were improvements nevertheless. Despite the overruns and pain for passengers arising from the west coast main line upgrade, the end product was reduced journey times to Glasgow, with a more reliable service, operated by modern trains. One hundred and six extra Pendolino coaches, which were ordered under the previous Government, will arrive in the UK to provide extra seats on the route, and Lord knows they are needed at peak times.

The number of trains has steadily increased on the east coast route, with a half-hourly service to Edinburgh, which my hon. Friend mentioned, running for much of the day. The major timetable change, announced by the Labour Government last year, cut journey times and reintroduced a Flying Scotsman service, which takes just four hours between the capitals. The CrossCountry and TransPennine Express services into Scotland have benefitted from new rolling stock and increased frequency. Nevertheless, significant shortcomings in cross-border services remain, which is why the Scottish National party Government’s policy to cut Scotland off from the rest of the UK is so worrying. As an aside, it is also worrying that no SNP Members are here for a debate that affects the links between Scotland and the rest of the UK and that is directed at the alarming decision their colleagues in Government in Holyrood have brought forward and seem set to plough ahead with.

Even now, overcrowding on some trains limits the capacity for the modal shift that we would like from domestic air travel to rail. Walk-on fares are high and the cheapest deals sell out quickly. Passengers have to endure periods of very poor reliability, leading this week to the Office of Rail Regulation taking enforcement action against Network Rail due to poor performance on those routes. Ministers need to address those concerns when they make decisions on the future of the west and east coast franchises.

The proposals for a 14-year franchise on the west coast do not require extra capacity to be provided before 2026 and Ministers have scaled back the size of the inter-city express programme, designed to provide new trains and extra seats on the east coast. I am afraid that all that points to lack of clarity and ambition for cross-border services over the next couple of decades.

As ever, my hon. Friend led the charge on high-speed rail to Scotland. He made his case strongly, as he always does. It is important that we are clear that Scotland will benefit if we secure the scheme that is on the table, but still, unfortunately, remains in doubt—that is, a new high-speed line right the way through to Manchester and Leeds. With through-running on to the existing network, that will reduce journey times from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow by at least an hour. By bypassing the most congested parts of the east and west coast main lines, HS2 can allow for a step change in the frequency of cross-border services, which I am sure everyone in today’s debate would want to see. That is why we are continuing to urge the Government to introduce a single Bill on the full route to the north of England, rather than simply for the route to Birmingham, as is currently planned.

I know that the Minister will be particularly grateful for potentially having considerable time to wind up today and deal with where she is on that issue at length. She can perhaps give us a preview of the forthcoming announcement on HS2, which we all expect and hope will be made early in January. Ministers claim to be committed to the fully shaped network, but we need more than words. As mentioned on the issue of going all the way up to Scotland—it is the same for going up to the north of England—the principle remains that the business case for high-speed rail is far stronger if it extends to Manchester and Leeds. The benefits that that would bring to Scotland are a key part of that case.

However, it is understandable that my hon. Friend has focused his concern today on the “Rail 2014” document produced by Transport Scotland. As he said, obviously, the bulk of its contents deals with internal Scottish services. The threat of having fewer trains calling at fewer stations is certainly worrying for the constituents of my hon. Friends here today.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I wanted to intervene on my hon. Friend before he moved off the subject of high-speed rail. Will he consider again the fact that it is of absolute importance that detailed planning for HS2 going to Scotland takes place at this stage, rather than waiting until the second hybrid Bill is going through the House? If we do that, bluntly, the chances are that high-speed rail will not go to Scotland for two or three decades. That would not be good enough.

[John Woodcock]

I hear—as do all hon. Members—the case that my hon. Friend has consistently made on that. The Government’s commitment to take the line only up to Birmingham and to legislate for that is alarming. Certainly, there is an opportunity here. Without delaying the building work and the commencement of construction by a single day, the Minister could easily create a single hybrid Bill that would legislate to take high-speed rail all the way up to Manchester and Leeds. She may want to say what the timetable implications are for the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made.

The cross-border services set out in the consultation document are remarkable. It is astonishing that a Scottish Government who claim to represent the whole of Scotland are suggesting the removal of through-services from London and other parts of England to towns and cities north of Edinburgh. That will force passengers to change at Edinburgh Waverley, with all the particular difficulties that my hon. Friend has laid out so well.

Under those plans, the roll-call of Scottish places that would lose their direct London trains is damning: Inverness, Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Falkirk, Kirkcaldy, Montrose, Arbroath, Aviemore, Pitlochry and Stonehaven. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) has rightly raised concerns about the possible loss of the Glasgow to Carlisle through-service. That concern would be felt in my county of Cumbria to the same extent as it would in his constituency and beyond. By my count, under the proposals that the Scottish SNP Government have introduced, just five locations in Scotland would retain long-distance services into England.

As has been mentioned, those services are important to businesses across the north of Scotland—as much to the oil industry in Aberdeen as, for example, to bed and breakfasts in the Cairngorms. The direct service is appreciated by older people, by those with limited mobility and, indeed, by families with young children or heavy luggage. I recognise that this is outside the confines of the debate, but if we could have a direct service through to my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the prospect of being able to negotiate the buggy and a week’s worth of luggage would be greatly improved for many more people than me.

Returning to Scotland, obviously the content of the consultation is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, who seem dangerously relaxed about restricting key transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. UK Ministers also have a responsibility. We welcome the Chancellor’s decision announced in the autumn statement to offer match funding to the Scottish Government to fund a replacement fleet of vehicles for the threatened sleeper services. In winding up, I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the Scottish Government have responded to that offer, whether she has made any direct representations on that issue and how the matter is progressing. Beyond that, can she let hon. Members know whether the UK Government will be responding to the Transport Scotland consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Would it not be an irony if new sleeper stock were purchased but there were no sleeper services to operate as a result of a change in the franchise? My hon. Friend might recall—although possibly not—that, a few years ago, trains were going to provide direct services from Scotland and the English regions through to the continent of Europe. Those trains were never used for that purpose and, for a while, they ended up on the London to Leeds services. I do not know what has happened to them now, but would it not be an irony if money were spent—£100 million—on new sleeper rolling stock that was not actually used for that purpose?

[John Woodcock]

It would be more than an irony; it would be a travesty. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the continued importance of sleeper services. Although airports have expanded and capacity has increased, the sleeper service remains a hugely important way of connecting London with Edinburgh, Glasgow and beyond. We need to find a way to retain it, and it is alarming that the proposals will potentially withdraw it. Will the Minister therefore answer our questions about the sleeper services? Will she also tell us whether the through-trains to Aberdeen and Inverness will be protected when Ministers publish the requirements for the east coast franchise? Will she reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the bi-mode part of the inter-city express programme, which is key to allowing through-running to continue?

Ultimately, Scots and citizens in all parts of the UK will lose out if the SNP’s great railway robbery goes ahead. Over the years, SNP Members, who are not here today, have often been known as the Tories’ little helpers. It is now time for the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends in the Government to show that they will not let themselves be the SNP’s little helpers as it pursues its agenda of cutting Scotland off from the rest of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I always have been, and continue to be, strongly supportive of a connection between HS2 and Heathrow. I am also strongly supportive of a thorough, evidence-based consideration of all the options on routes, which is exactly what the Secretary of State is undertaking. I imagine that, as we debate, she is probably poring over the detailed submissions summarising the consultation, which provide her with all the information that she needs to take a decision on whether to go ahead with the project as a whole, and, if so, on the best route. I am confident that she will take the right decision. As I have said, the shadow Minister will have to wait just a little longer to hear that. He well knows that the coalition’s plans and proposals include a direct link to Heathrow in phase 2.

On the hybrid Bill, again, as we have had many opportunities to debate, the Government have concluded that the best way to take HS2 forward as efficiently and rapidly as possible is by two separate hybrid Bills—one for the first phase in the west midlands and one for the second phase to Manchester and Leeds. There are pros and cons about the procedures either way, but changing course now and suddenly deciding on a hybrid Bill to accommodate both phases might slow down the project. I think it would be risky. What is important is that once the Secretary of State has made a decision we should take whatever steps are needed to press ahead promptly with implementing it. I hope that the cross-party consensus that the shadow Minister has mentioned repeatedly will prove useful in proceeding with high-speed rail if that is the outcome of the Secretary of State’s deliberations.

Of course, the goal set out in the coalition agreement is to deliver a genuinely national high-speed rail network. It is therefore a timely moment to consider the impact on Scotland. Although the Y network that we propose would bring important benefits to Scottish passengers and the Scottish economy, because of the journey time savings that we have talked about and the relief of capacity pressure that the shadow Minister referred to, we still recognise the strong support for extending the proposed new high-speed line north to Scotland in the future.

The Government share the aspiration of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for high-speed rail one day to extend north of the border all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. He will appreciate that, constitutionally, the Scottish Government have responsibility for the rail infrastructure north of the border, including funding it. However, if we go ahead with HS2, phases 1 and 2, we will certainly expect to work with the Scottish Government on identifying and considering options for expanding the proposed high-speed network in the future. I assure him that there is no need to wait for completion of either phase before serious work is started in relation to potential further expansion of the network.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I welcome the broad commitment that the right hon. Lady has given, but she will understand that although the Y-shaped route will clearly bring benefits to Scotland, because of the effect on rail speeds and capacity further south, it will by definition not help with capacity once the end of the Y line is reached and the journey continues on existing lines to Edinburgh and Glasgow. If anything, there might be capacity problems, because of extra trains on those lines. Can the right hon. Lady give any indication of the type of discussions that are going on with the Scottish Government? I get the impression that they are something that may happen one day, as she said; but we want more of a commitment than that. We want an indication of what work is going on now, and a commitment that preparation should start now.

[Mrs Villiers]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that officials from HS2 and the Department for Transport have regular discussions with Transport Scotland about high-speed rail. I have discussed it with Scottish Ministers on several occasions. The Secretary of State for Defence also discussed it, when he was Transport Secretary, with Scottish Ministers. Indeed, HS2 is already considering options further to reduce journey times to Edinburgh and Glasgow. We recognise the enthusiasm for further work on expanding the proposed high-speed rail network. As I have said, we share the aspiration of establishing a genuinely national network, which must of course include Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I think that that would be unwise, because the Government take devolution very seriously. We are talking about rail services provided in Scotland. It is certainly not at all unreasonable for the Scottish Government to wish to have an input in how those services are run. At this stage, it would be inappropriate for the coalition to start dictating the outcome of a consultation on the ScotRail franchise. I will therefore confine my remarks to saying that we would have reservations about a route down which we did not chose to go in relation to the IEP, but we will listen to the Scottish Government if they choose to pursue that further.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am not asking the Minister to veto the Scottish Government’s proposals, if they go along the line of a Scottish franchise that takes on board the services north of Edinburgh, because I accept that devolution exists and that the Scottish Government have the right to put forward their views. My point is that we are discussing UK services as well, and I ask her to take that on board. If the Scottish Government decide on such proposals, I hope that she will ask them to ensure that the new franchisee will still be required to maintain cross-border services.

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly take those points on board, but closing down the debate at this stage would not be appropriate, because it would be undermining, and we respect the devolution settlement and want to pursue an agenda of mutual respect. We would consider such proposals from the Scottish Government if they chose to go ahead. As I said, we need to weigh carefully all the appropriate evidence. If the proposal were indeed motivated by some political separatist agenda, that would be a real concern. A final decision will need to be made in time for the publication of the invitation to tender for the next east coast franchise in the autumn next year.

The shadow Minister mentioned performance on the east coast line. It has certainly been disappointing; the performance of both the train operator and Network Rail has been below the levels expected. Cable theft has had a major effect, and we are discussing co-ordinated action throughout the Government, with a view possibly to increase the punishment for cable thieves and to clamp down on rogue elements of the scrap-metal industry.

The west coast main line, meanwhile, has also experienced a performance dip in recent months, mainly owing to track faults and other infrastructure delays. I am afraid that performance on the two routes has contributed to the Office of Rail Regulation’s recent warning to Network Rail, set out in a letter of 19 December, that the company is in danger of breaching its licence conditions for the long-distance sector and will miss its regulatory targets for the sector this year. The ORR made it clear that it expects Network Rail to submit robust plans for improving performance on key routes such as those on the east and west coasts. The Government, too, believe that performance needs to improve, and we are fully supportive of the action that the ORR has taken.

Concerns about fares have been expressed. The fares that people pay are of course making an essential contribution to the massive rail upgrade programme that is being delivered and to which I referred at the start of my remarks. Some cheap fares for cross-border services are available to those who can book ahead and commit to a specific service, but we recognise that it is not always possible to do that. We understand the concern about rail fares and the pressure that they put on family budgets. That is why, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, he announced that funding had been secured to cancel the proposed increase of the retail prices index plus 3% planned for next year and to revert to an RPI plus 1% increase for the fares coming into effect in January. That covers cross-border services on the east and west coast main lines, as well as others in England.

If we are to provide a lasting solution to passenger concern about fares, however, it is vital to get the cost of running the railways down. Sir Roy McNulty’s report, referred to briefly in the debate, set out a path that he believed would achieve significant savings without cuts in service provision. At the heart of his recommendations are measures to align incentives between Network Rail and the train operators. Put simply, we need to ensure that the two sides of the rail industry, track and train, work better together, with a strong shared incentive to get costs down and to improve outcomes for passengers. We are determined to deliver effective savings on the railway, so that we can deliver the improvements that passengers want and respond to their concerns on value for money.

I am grateful to hon. Members for listening with such patience to my remarks on cross-border rail services this afternoon.

High-Speed Rail

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that this should be about people’s lives. Let us imagine that high-speed rail is coming to Liverpool. That will have an impact on the lives of people outside the former Merseyside as well as inside it, whether they are in Cheshire, Halton, Skelmersdale or wherever, and we have to respond to that.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would like to turn the focus slightly away from Lancashire and Merseyside for a second. The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful argument for the importance of local networks and making the most of high-speed rail. That applies in Scotland as well. Does he agree that it is important that a decision and commitment is made at an early stage that the routes will run to Glasgow and Edinburgh, not just because that will benefit our areas but because it will bring particular added value to communities further south, which will gain from the extra business that the extension to Edinburgh and Glasgow will bring to communities all along the line?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is precisely why I used the phrase “high-speed rail in the north”—because I did mean north as far as Scotland, and not just to the Scottish border. As I said, we seem to spend a lot of time trading cases of where high-speed rail has worked and where it has not. I have tried to ban the word “transformative” from my lexicon, because I have got so bored of hearing people tell me that high-speed rail will be transformative. I am not quite sure in what way or with what evidence—they just like to say it because it sounds good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

There is a fear. There are genuine worries in Stoke, and potentially Coventry and south Wales, that there could be a negative impact. I would ask those areas please not to have a dog-in-a-manger attitude and say, “Let us not have this excellent new piece of transport infrastructure.” Let us work out how we can get investment in those areas, using either high-speed rail or something else. If people end up just opposing the project, they will damage the economic and transport base of the whole country.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Does not the point that was semi-raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) underline the need for some form of regional transport planning? We do not want to build stations with no connections to the wider community and area; we want Stoke and other similar cities that are not on but near the line to have good links. We can see that in the best European systems, which is why the benefits are more widely spread there.

[Graham Stringer]

Absolutely. It makes sense that people can connect to other places if a high-speed line is built. I know that the timetables of the rail system in the north, which I know better than that in the midlands and Scotland, are slower than they were in 1880s—I say that in nearly every debate in which I speak. Taking out congestion points and improving the northern system and that in the rest of the country must be the best way to use the investment that is going into the project.

I want to finish on some points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and by the Action Alliance, which opposes high-speed rail, in the document that it sent out today. First, if someone had £33 billion to spend in the north or the whole of England, they would not necessarily sit down and say, “This is it”; they would probably sit down for a long time and not agree to spend anything. However, the project is out of the starting blocks, and there are many benefits to be had from it. If someone were to ask, “Should the country have motorways?” the answer would be, “Yes, we should have motorways.” In the same way, we should have high-speed rail. That, together with all-party support, is the real justification for the £33 billion.