High Speed 2

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The purpose of asking yet again for a debate in the Chamber on high-speed rail was that, having had two very successful earlier debates in Westminster Hall, we knew that there was a great deal of interest throughout the House among Members representing virtually all the constituencies that have an interest in it. I am very pleased to see the remarkable attendance we have this afternoon, and to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has just opened the debate.

Those who attended the demonstration in Old Palace Yard this morning will have seen that there was a good turnout and a lively response from lorry drivers and others in relation to what we still call HS2. I am pleased to say that one lot from your constituency, Mr Speaker, remarked that they were anxious to speak to your good self about it, and I carry their best wishes and thanks to you. I said that you would almost certainly be in the Chair for the debate today, so I am pleased to see that you are indeed there.

The various points that have consistently been made against this project remain, but they have not been answered in debate or by the Government. The hon. Lady covered virtually all those points in her opening remarks. I am limited for time, and I intend to stay well within the 10 minutes because I know that a lot of Members wish to speak, but let me say that although the point about people being local or nimbyish about this issue is fair, I do not think that any MP who sticks up for his constituency should be at all apologetic about it. That is what we are sent here for, and if we do not do it, why are we here?

We have to take into account the national dimension, but I am prepared to say that I, and my Labour colleagues from Stoke and Coventry, certainly will not benefit from this project at all. I can see the arguments for Manchester, York, Leeds and other areas, which are well represented on the Opposition side, but it seems to me that we are doing things the wrong way around. I can see some benefits—although not the regional benefits that the Government claim—for Manchester, Leeds in particular, and York of being connected to a high-speed link to Birmingham and from there to London, but I think we should start the whole “Y” the other way around. We should start the line where it is most needed and most appreciated—from the north to the south. What is very clear, if we are honest about this, is that we do not desperately need the line from London to Birmingham. We are well served with trains every 20 minutes, and we are only going to get 30 minutes off the journey at best.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I will in a moment if my hon. Friend will hang on just a tick. I have only got 10 minutes, and time taken now will shorten someone else’s time.

We really do not need this project. What we need is for the pinch points to be relieved and some of the capacity bottlenecks to be relieved, and we could get the whole capacity increase we need on that line. Centro, which is responsible for the west midlands portion of the line, has said that it desperately needs that to be done now. That is the way to do it, not to wait until—

[Mr Robinson]

I will give way in a moment, but I know what my hon. Friend is going to say because he represents a Birmingham constituency. I take those points too, but on the argument about this being a regional policy, let me say that any remotely sensible study that has been done on it says that 75% of the jobs are going to be created in the south-east, so we should forget the idea that it is a regional policy: that does not stack up. It is a convenience for certain metropolitan centres in the north, and the idea is that if ever it gets up to Edinburgh and Glasgow it could be a spinal cord that unites the country despite the tensions we feel at present—so why not start it up there? Why not start it from Leeds or York? That is what needs doing—and urgently—but of course they will not do that, because everyone knows that the subsidy for that area would be enormous and could not be justified. It can be justified only for the small London-Birmingham stretch where the subsidy will be highest, and it will not benefit ordinary travellers in any sense. It will be subsidised to a massive extent by the taxpayer and, by those businessmen, and others—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I know that my hon. Friend has been trying to get in, so I will give way just this once and then I will make progress.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Some of his points about where the benefits would flow with high-speed rail are important, but surely what he is assuming is that people would just build the line and there would be stations but nothing else would happen. The whole point is that high-speed rail offers opportunity for much more comprehensive economic planning built around a high-speed rail network. It is not just a high-speed railway and stations on their own; it is part of a much wider approach that is required.

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend talk about economic planning. I think that, sadly, that went out in 1966, when the Labour Government ditched the national plan. Let us be hard-headed and realistic about this. HS2 will have some benefits, and certainly it will help businesses to travel more quickly to London, but that is about all we can say. If I were a Manchester MP I am sure I would be supporting it, but below there it does not make any sense at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Many people are using public transport more these days, particularly the railways, despite the extortionate fares that train operating companies extract from customers for the cheap but not very cheerful service they usually get, particularly on commuter lines. I very much welcome the increased use of public transport, because it reduces carbon emissions and is generally better for the environment.

Two acts of monumental folly have affected the railway industry in the past 50 years. The first was the decision in the early 1960s by the Conservative Government of the day to let Dr Beeching butcher Britain’s network of branch lines, which had linked communities across the country. The second was the decision by another Conservative Government to privatise the railways in the early ’90s, a decision that even the arch-privatiser, Mrs Thatcher, had the good sense not to pursue. Of course, this has meant that the taxpayer has been paying vastly more in subsidy to train operating companies and to the network than was ever paid pro rata to British Rail. I hope that the coalition and the Minister will not, over this decision, make it three monumental follies in a row.

The coalition proposes that we spend £32 billion by 2026 on a new rail project from London to Birmingham, which then goes on to Leeds and Manchester by 2032, allegedly saving 30 minutes’ travelling time from Birmingham and 50 minutes from Manchester. The fact that business people invariably travel first class and can use their computers and communications networks while travelling, while others will remain in Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester and hold meetings using video conferencing facilities, is dismissed by the vested interest groups, which see a massive tranche of public money that they would like to access.

At a time when ordinary people are facing massive reductions in their living standards, living under threat of losing their jobs and watching their community services such as libraries, Sure Start centres and centres for elderly people being axed, we are prepared to commit £17 billion, the estimated cost of the line from London to Birmingham, in order to get business people from Birmingham to London 30 minutes sooner—always assuming that there are no high-speed leaves on the line and the high-speed signalling equipment actually works.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Godsiff]

Time is limited, so my hon. Friend must forgive me.

No wonder an online survey by the Birmingham Post showed that 75% of respondents were against the project.

What other inflated claims are made for the project? It is said that it will help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth, but there is no evidence of that. If we look at what has happened in Japan, Spain and France, we find that the high-speed connections there have benefited the hub much more than the outer communities.

What about the effect of the project on towns and cities that High Speed 2 will bypass? The deputy leader of Coventry city council says that the plans for High Speed 2 send a clear message that

“Coventry is not a place to stop.”

Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said about Birmingham, I suggest that that might not be a bad idea.

Where high-speed trains do work is in countries with large land mass, but in other, smaller countries they take resources from humbler but more needed schemes, such as the upgrading of existing networks, signalling and infrastructure. Unfortunately, however, we all know as politicians that unveiling a new signal box tends to appeal less than inaugurating a futuristic new service. The project’s other exaggerated claims have already been dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We have neighbouring constituencies and share the rail route that runs through our towns.

In the end, the problem comes down to the west coast main line, which needs the signalling to be upgraded to the most modern standard, more train paths, and to get the freight off the line. Freight and passengers do not mix. Freight trains move more slowly, and they damage the track more than the lighter passenger trains, so we need to invest in a dedicated freight line running up the backbone of Britain, from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations. I have supported that scheme for a long time, and it would take 5 million lorries a year off the roads, as well as removing all the freight traffic from the east and west coast main lines. The passenger routes need to be separated from the freight routes and upgraded to improve capacity. I believe that that is what we need, and that is why I am sceptical about the HS2 scheme.

That freight route could be built in four years for as little as £6 billion, and it would cause no environmental difficulty because it could use existing under-utilised routes and old track bed could be brought back into use. That, and a couple of tunnels, would make the whole thing work. I have made this case time and again in the Chamber over the past 14 years, and I have mentioned it to the Minister of State. I have presented a paper on it to the Transport Select Committee. I also know engineers who have worked on the scheme and worked the details out. It just needs to be done. Fifteen of us had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Government to put our case for the scheme, but the Department was so hostile because a small section of our proposed route overlapped the route it wanted to use for HS2. Even if HS2 is built, the lines could be paralleled at that point. There would not be a problem.

We need a freight route that is capable of taking full-scale lorry trailers on trains. That could never be done on existing routes without incurring the prohibitive cost of raising all the tunnels and bridges throughout the network. We need a track that has the capacity to take double-stack containers. Most of our existing routes cannot even take standard 9 feet 6 inch containers. We also need a track that has the capacity to take continental trains, which currently cannot get through our platforms because they are too wide, the gauge is too big. We need to be able to accommodate trains travelling from, say, Rome to Birmingham carrying San Pellegrino water.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument for a major extension of the rail network. Given that one of his reasons for opposing HS2 is its cost, will he give us an estimate of the cost of all the various improvements and new lines that he has just described?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Some two or three years ago, we had lunch with some people from Bechtel, one of the train manufacturing companies. We were talking about a cost of £4 billion or £5 billion at that time. We talked about an outside figure of £6 billion, but the Bechtel representative looked at the scheme and said he could do it for £3 billion. That would be a fraction of the cost even of Crossrail, which I support. This is not about cost, however; it is about whether HS2 is necessary. I think that we could achieve the desired result by doing it differently. We could upgrade existing routes to serve all the intervening towns, and we could provide the necessary capacity by getting all the freight off those lines and on to a new freight route. I ask the Department for Transport to take our scheme seriously, because that is what we need for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We in the Liberal Democrats have long supported high-speed rail, and we are delighted that the Government of whom we are part are going to deliver on that commitment. A sustainable transport system fit for the 21st century was at the heart of our 2008 policy paper, “Fast track Britain”, our 2010 election manifesto and now the coalition agreement. We need increased capacity on our railways. Over the past 50 years, the length of our rail network has roughly halved, but since 1980 the number of passenger journeys has doubled. Quite predictably, that has fuelled overcrowding and led to eye-watering price hikes.

The extra capacity that the HS2 project will provide is not a luxury; it is a cold, hard necessity that we cannot afford to ignore. Network Rail estimates that by 2024 the existing line to Birmingham and the north-west will be full. Serious congestion on commuter services at the southern end of the line is already harming passenger welfare. Unfortunately, the key issue of capacity crisis has been obscured by an obsession with journey times. Yes, speed is important, but capacity and the number of trains is as important, if not more so.

High-speed rail will release huge amounts of capacity on existing lines: demand will no longer outstrip supply on parallel train routes. We need that capacity. The only alternative to building the high-speed railway line would be to build the same line, but for trains to run at slow speed. That would save us a small amount—about 9% of the construction costs—but we would not get the benefits of high speed.

We have heard that there is no need for a new line, that the few shortfalls can be tweaked and that we can cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. That is simply not the case. These proposals do not take proper account of the decades of upgrade work that would be required, with no alternative train line that could be fully used, or of the huge impact on reliability. If every possible train path is used on a line, there will be no capacity to cope if a single train is delayed: it throws everything out of whack. We need that capacity. Having massive infrastructure works on an already overcrowded line is not an option. It is not even a quick fix; it is completely unrealistic.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Would not the undoubtedly massive disruption be a major negative economic factor to be included in the business case on the consequences of a high-speed line or of trying to upgrade existing lines?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point; indeed, those consequences should be taken into account.

Hon. Members who oppose High Speed 2 should be aware that they are arguing for increased overcrowding on the west coast main line, increasing the chances of delayed commuter services, committing themselves to a disruptive and ineffective infrastructure programme, and delaying by only a matter of years the inevitable construction of a second line through the country.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I support the extension of high-speed rail north of London, not just because I believe that it is in the best interests of my constituency and of Scotland but because I believe that it will benefit the whole United Kingdom in economic, transport and environmental terms. It makes sense for many reasons, including the need to increase capacity, which other Members have mentioned. Incidentally, the idea that the only people who use long-distance trains are rich businessmen will come as something of a shock to those who regularly use east-coast and west-coast lines. The development will, in fact, benefit many people throughout the country.

The existing network needs to be modernised in various ways, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it is possible to solve the capacity problem throughout Britain simply by modernising and upgrading it. As I said in an intervention, trying to replicate high-speed lines on the routes of existing lines would lead to decades of disruption and economic disbenefits. It is cheaper to build new lines, and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, if new lines are to be built anyway, they might as well be high-speed lines if possible.

I do not support high-speed rail just for the sake of it—just because I want trains to travel as fast as they can. I accept that, in some localities, lower speeds may be acceptable for environmental reasons on the wider network. The fact remains, however, that reducing travel time between parts of the United Kingdom will create a number of benefits. Moreover, extending the line not just to Birmingham, Manchester and other parts of what, to me, constitutes southern England, but further north to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will produce the maximum economic and environmental benefits. The longer the journeys involved, the greater the possibility that passengers will travel by rail rather than air, and the more will be saved through high-speed rail. It will be possible to make significant cuts in air travel from Scotland to London if journey times can be reduced to less than three hours, and the same applies to road travel between Scotland and the north of England.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In 1992, having freed up the line, British Rail ran a test train from King’s Cross to Edinburgh at 140 mph, and did it in the same time as HS2 is proposing for its trains.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I think that that makes my point about capacity. Obviously, the line could not operate like that every day, because a fair number of trains would be running at the same time.

Many of the business cases for the extension of the line to the midlands and the north of England do not take account of the economic benefits in business and tourist travel that would result if it were extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The increase in passengers would generate economic benefits, and the best business and economic case will be produced if there is agreement that the line should extend to Scotland, ensuring that we are not excluded from the system.

My only worry about the current proposal is that we in Scotland, and indeed those in the north of England, would be at risk if the line extended no further than Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. Trains cannot start at every part of the country at the same time, but we certainly do not want them to arrive at Birmingham at 2026, at Manchester or Leeds at 2033, and then—if we are lucky—at Edinburgh or Glasgow at 2050. That would be extremely damaging to our relative economic prosperity in the UK.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would it not be useful if Transport Scotland conducted a feasibility study on a third phase of HS2, working from north to south?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I see no reason for not doing that. The Scottish Government have already expressed their willingness to make some contribution to such work. I think it would be sensible to start the planning now and to include in the development phase the idea that the line should start from Scotland as well as from the south of England. High-speed rail is not a panacea for all our ills, but it does provide opportunities to create economic and environmental boosts. It will also provide jobs, not in the next five or so years, but nevertheless for a long period, and it will provide a major boost to our economy. In the long run, it will help the economies of many parts of the UK.

If this high-speed rail line is built but nothing is done around the stations—if there is no integrated transport or planning development around these rail hubs—we will not get the full benefits from the project. However, if local and central Government, and regions and cities, plan, they can make sure that high-speed rail brings major economic benefits, especially if it extends beyond Birmingham to the north of England and beyond. I support this project, therefore, and hope that we move ahead as quickly as possible, but Scotland must not be left at the end of the line.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, I was visited by a group of my constituents in Wigan who were from Hunter Lodge, a facility for people with disabilities in the borough. They told me about the endless difficulties they faced in trying to do some of the simplest things that most of us take for granted—shopping, visiting friends or getting to work. They tried to go by train to a nearby town, but had been forced to travel by relay because there was only one wheelchair space available on the train. When the train arrived, the space was already taken. They were told that instead of travelling in the carriage with other people, they would have to go in the guard’s van alongside the bags, parcels, bikes and other goods.

I am angry that, in 2011, that is still considered by some people an acceptable way to treat fellow human beings. Astonishingly, when I looked into this matter, I found that they were the fortunate ones. Half of all train stations do not have level access, so it turns out that they were actually lucky to even be able to get on to the train platform in the first place. Despite some real improvements—not just under the previous Government, but under the Government before that—we are not moving fast enough. The Association of Train Operating Companies said earlier this year that progress on making train station platforms accessible to people with physical immobility is far too slow, and that Network Rail and the Department for Transport need to get a grip of this situation.

I am also concerned about the closure of ticket offices, an issue that many people have raised with me. Without a ticket office, it is nigh on impossible for many people—particularly those who have sight problems, are in wheelchairs, or have learning difficulties—to even buy a ticket to get on the train. In many instances, ticket office staff are the only people available to assist people physically to get on to the train. The McNulty review recommended closing 675 ticket offices around the country. I am aware of the economic realities, but I would like to see a commitment today from the Minister to assure us that he will not sanction proposals that would leave ticket offices entirely unmanned. That is not just because ticket office staff are often the only people available to help people on to the train. Many people contacted me in advance of this debate to say that so much of the staffing issue is about feeling safe on public transport—having the security of being able to get to where they are going without being stranded, which had happened to them in too many cases.

When I secured this debate, I was contacted by young people from across the country, who described to me, in a compelling way, how they had been unable to even get on and off trains because there were no ramps available, the ramps that were available were too short or too long, or nobody was there to help them use those ramps. More than anything else, I was struck by the indignity and humiliation that ran like a thread through all those stories. They need electronic ramps on every train so that they do not have to suffer both the indignity and the anxiety of hoping desperately that somebody will be available to help them, having to make a fuss as they stand on a train simply to get off it, and, in some cases, being stranded on a train because there is no one available to help them.

Although some train companies have made adjustments that already meet the demands of the law, the situation is still not good enough. For example, Virgin Trains has three spaces for wheelchairs on its “Pendolino” service. Although that is welcome, it makes it extremely difficult for people to travel together. Is it seriously too much to ask to adapt trains so that young people, such as those in the Chamber today who are listening so intently to the debate, can go out with their friends? Is that seriously, in 2011, too much to ask? Early next year, the franchise for the west coast main line will be put out to tender. Will the Minister give me a commitment today that one of the criteria for interested companies will be the progress they make on this issue?

I am also deeply concerned that the rhetoric flying around at the moment, about people on incapacity benefit, is making an already dreadful situation much worse. In an independent survey for the charity Scope, 15% said they had suffered high-level abuse on public transport. It is a damning indictment of the current situation that the campaigning organisation Trailblazers struggled to find young people who would even take part in a recent report on the issue, because they found the prospect of engaging with public transport too distressing to contemplate. People with concessionary railcards tell me that they have been questioned to a humiliating degree on public transport about the nature of their disability, particularly when that disability is not physically obvious. Will the Minister agree to take this up with the rail companies to ensure that the practice stops urgently?

The difficulty is not just restricted to trains, although that was one of the key issues raised with me by my constituents. I have also been sent stories about people trying to travel on airlines who have been asked to pay extra charges to carry medical supplies—even oxygen canisters—which were classed as excess baggage.

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

On air travel, my hon. Friend might want to comment on the practice of some airlines. Even when an air bridge is available at an airport to take passengers off without the need for stepped access, airlines use the access stairways to reach aircraft for what I suspect are financial reasons. In such situations, a person in a wheelchair often has to wait until a winch or lifting vehicle is brought out from the terminal. Apart from the delay that that involves, it is very embarrassing to be picked out in such a way when the facilities are available in the airport to avoid that. That should also be addressed as part of the joined-up approach that is needed.

[Lisa Nandy]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The example he gives highlights exactly the indignity and humiliation that far too many people must face when they try to do something that the rest of us take for granted. I am grateful to him for raising that point.

On the buses, people seem to fare little better. Half of all disabled people say that buses are a concern for them. Even something as simple as boarding the bus presents a problem. Many buses still do not have ramps and, even when they do, a common story emerges from all the reports that I have been sent from across the country of drivers refusing to stop because it would take too long to allow somebody to board, or because the space allocated for a wheelchair is taken up by a pushchair. I want to be absolutely clear on this point: I am not advocating that there should not be space for pushchairs; it is simply unacceptable that there is not room for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on the way she introduced this important subject. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I have spoken about the issue in several debates, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few further points.

The starting point must be that measures to make it easier for disabled people to use mainstream public transport are simply part of a wider objective of ensuring equality for disabled people in society overall. Public transport should be accessible and affordable, so that disabled people can travel when and where they like. That is a basic principle of equality and human rights, and it underlines all that we should be doing in this area. I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make only a few comments.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said, the percentage of the population with a disability is substantial, and the figures for Scotland are even higher than those for the United Kingdom. It is estimated that about 20% of the population of Scotland have a disability. At some stage, almost all of us in the Chamber will have a disability, which shows the scale of the issue. People with mobility issues make around one third fewer trips than those without such difficulties. Disabled people are disproportionately dependent on public transport, and 60% have no car in the household, compared with 27% in the general population. In March 2009, only 53% of licensed taxis in Britain were wheelchair accessible, and in 2009-10, 39% of buses in Great Britain did not meet the accessibility requirements in disability discrimination legislation.

I am pleased to say that in my constituency the situation is considerably better. Every taxi, but not private hire cars, in Edinburgh must be wheelchair accessible. Two bus companies serve Edinburgh, and 100% of the buses operated by Lothian Buses, which is Britain’s largest publicly owned bus company, are accessible, as are 85% to 90% of the buses operated by First Group, to be fair. That illustrates the fact that we can make a difference and that changes can be made. It is a matter of political will, as well as legislation and regulations.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing the debate. Before coming to the House, I spent 30 years working in the area of special needs and disabilities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is right to say that planning sits at the centre of those issues. If we put the needs of disabled people at the centre of our planning, whether for a leisure centre, a system, a school, a college or a train, we will get it right for those disabled people, but also for everybody else—that comes from 30 years’ experience.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. I intended to make that point later, but I shall deal with it now. It is essential that regulations are tightened and that funding is provided. The wonderful phrase “joined-up government” needs to apply in this area because there are many examples of simple things that could be done to improve access for disabled people. There are also examples of where the consequences of a minor local policy or local works were not thought through and had a detrimental effect on access for disabled people. I believe it would be good to retain the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, because whatever support is provided in-house by the Department for Transport, it will not have the same voice as an independent body that speaks for its users. I shall not go into that in detail, but we shall see what the Government have to say on the matter.

A lack of joined-up thinking can make a difference. For example, I have seen trains that have good accessibility, such as spaces for disabled people and a ramp that is operated either manually or automatically, so that when the train arrives at a station, people can leave it easily. However, there may be temporary works at the station—perhaps a barrier or building work has been set up, or a load of bricks has appeared at the end of the ramp—and people cannot get off. That point is not only about accessibility for people in wheelchairs; accessibility can be difficult for all sorts of people because, to put it bluntly, not enough thinking has been done on how to join up different aspects of a service.

I will refer again to Edinburgh, where 100% of Lothian Buses are now accessible to disabled people. A few years ago, a number of buses were introduced with an increased number of spaces for wheelchairs. However, there were a number of complaints, particularly from pensioner groups, because the buses would drive off quickly and people would lose their balance and fall over. The issue was solved simply by installing more rails and grips for people to hold on to once on the bus—a common-sense approach that was not thought of at the time, but which, due to consultation with local people, was resolved quickly. That is an example of the need for simple, joined-up government, as well as regulations and spending, and it is why the voice of disabled people is particularly important. There is no better way to understand where services or adaptations are needed than talking to those who use them.

I have two final points to make. First, the campaign for talking buses is an eminently sensible proposal that seeks the mandatory installation of audio and visual announcements on all new buses. The cost would be small compared with the overall cost of new buses, and that provision could be attained by amending the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. As I understand it, the Department for Transport currently does not intend to legislate on that, but I hope that the Government will change their position. Such a measure would make great common sense and be useful to all passengers, not just those with issues of accessibility.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this important debate. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) aware that in many countries campaigns such as that for talking buses, run by Guide Dogs for the Blind, are commonplace? When I worked in Japan more than 20 years ago, talking buses were the norm and were not seen as unusual. I do not know when that began, but it is imperative that such a system is introduced in this country as soon as possible. If that is not carried out voluntarily by bus companies in receipt of public funding, strong pressure should be put on them.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; I have been on buses with that facility in other parts of Europe. If regulations are not changed, the speed with which that facility spreads through the bus network will be so slow that it will take 10, 20 or 30 years for a reasonable number of buses to be equipped, if it happens at all.

[Dr Huppert]

Just before the previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman touched on the point that I wish to raise. A lot of the interventions that we have mentioned—not all of them, but those such as talking buses and having more grab rails—would benefit everybody. For too long, and in so many ways, we have accepted a design that is no good for either disabled or non-disabled people. The principles of inclusive design should help everybody, and we should encourage that as well as those things that specifically help some groups of disabled people.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Indeed. I do not want to turn this into a debate about the advantages of publicly owned bus companies, although I am sure some hon. Members would like me to do so. However, Lothian Buses is an example of a company that, because of its nature, has the advantage of being close to local needs. The newer double-decker buses are longer and provide more space for buggies, pushchairs and wheelchair access. They are gradually introducing audio and visual announcements. It can be done; it is about making a choice and taking a decision on what is needed. I suspect that legislation on public transport might allow local authorities to specify regulations on improving local access more clearly—perhaps that point is for another day.

My final point is to emphasise the need for a joined-up approach. We will not get every bus and train in the country fully accessible overnight—it takes time to make such things happen. People on train journeys frequently use more than one operator. They may get on a train that is accessible, but change en route to a service that is entirely inaccessible. They may not have realised that and assumed, or even inquired and been assured, that the next train would be accessible. However, if it is not, they will be stuck on a station, perhaps without assistance, and will have difficulty in completing their journey. A bit more thinking and a more joined-up approach would improve such situations, although I accept that that cannot be done overnight in every part of the country.

That takes us back to the issue of equality. Every passenger, whatever their position, should have the right to start and complete their journey without unreasonable obstruction or a lack of facilities that prevents them from doing so. In spite of the work carried out by the previous Government, which I hope will be continued by this Government, the issue needs to be pushed up the agenda more often. Thinking and regulation need to change, or else, despite all the improvements, it will be many decades before we can say that we have a fully accessible transport service in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a privilege to be called to speak in the debate following so many excellent speeches that covered so much ground. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate and setting out the grounds for it so well. So much has been covered that those listening can benefit from a shorter speech by me. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is good to have support for that from colleagues.

Of course, many of us take access to public transport for granted. When a train is delayed or we wait a bit for a bus, we all grumble about the inconvenience and how much more arduous the journey is. However, for many people, a delayed train is insignificant compared with the difficulties that they face every time they try to travel. If their bus in London is diverted, they may not simply be able to use the underground instead. If they are lucky enough to be in an underground station with full access for people with physical disabilities, they can travel to only 59 other stations out of the 270. Public transport should be just that—a transport service accessible by all members of the public, no matter what their need.

Disabled people in this country have the right not to be discriminated against or harassed in relation to the use of transport services. A right of access to transport for disabled people was first set out in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, before a broader right to access was enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. However, as many disabled people know only too well and tell me at constituency surgeries and on the streets, that right simply has not become a tangible reality. We desperately need to ensure that what we have put on the statute book is embedded in reality in all local services.

I am sure that we will hear from the Minister about the work that the Government have done, but there is much more to do. Just over 50% of bus stops in London are fully accessible. That represents a huge increase, but is still a very disappointing number, given what is needed. Almost every group that represents people with disabilities has highlighted the problems with the lack of proper transport provision. We have heard several times about Trailblazers. I have met representatives of several disability groups in Cambridge. They raise those problems regularly.

However, we must not concentrate just on people with physical disabilities. There is an idea that someone who is disabled can only be someone in a wheelchair. The issues affecting people in wheelchairs are, of course, very important and have been discussed, but disabilities are not always obvious. I want to highlight some of the particular issues faced by people on the autism spectrum, including those with Asperger’s syndrome. We have a number of such people in Cambridge, which is why I raise the issue. Roughly one child in 100 under the age of 18 has an autism spectrum disorder. The National Autistic Society recently produced a very good video, which I urge hon. Members to watch. It highlights what autistic people face when trying to use public transport. That is particularly hard for them because it is not obvious that they have any issues at all.

We need to consider the issue more broadly than just by thinking about how people get from A to B. We must consider how the problem with access to transport affects people’s overall well-being—their entire lives. If people are discouraged from travelling, what does that do to other areas of their lives? I am referring to their ability to meet people, form friendships, find work and pursue interests—to have all the life experiences that the rest of us take for granted. This is not just about transport; it is about everything else that happens.

Clearly, it is important to pick up a lot of the details. Many very small things could be fixed. That is why I highlighted the work on guide dog access done by Caroline Pidgeon in the London assembly. These are not hard things to do, but they are very important.

There is much still to do that requires a bit more. We need to ensure, for example, that all the Crossrail stations have proper toilet facilities. It is important to remember that something as simple as a toilet facility can represent a huge block for people who are disabled, whether because they are in a wheelchair or because they have one of the range of conditions, such as Crohn’s disease, that have a huge effect—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

This may be an obvious point, but toilets at stations should be open. The same goes for toilets on trains as well.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed. We need not only to build such facilities, but to ensure that they are open, accessible and functional. That is a very important point. There are too many instances in which that is not the case. We have a particular issue in Cambridge, although it does not involve transport. A developer wants to move the disabled toilet up a few floors in a shopping area. Of course, that would make it very hard to get to.

I will not say too much about the concerns over the reductions in relation to discretionary fares. That issue has been highlighted, and I share the concerns expressed. However, as well as the detailed changes and the infrastructure changes, which are extremely important—

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I ask the Secretary of State to face the House, as he is addressing us?

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

4. What assessment he has made of the potential road safety implications of increasing the maximum length of heavy goods vehicles.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

In March I published a feasibility study and impact assessment on longer semi-trailers, undertaken by consultants including the Transport Research Laboratory. The research, which is available in the Library, includes consideration of the potential road safety implications.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Many streets in my constituency are already unsuitable for long heavy goods vehicles, and the thought of even longer vehicles trying to get down narrow city streets will horrify many people. As the Minister knows, blanket lorry bans are not possible in many urban areas, for all sorts of reasons. May I urge him to think again, and to reject the proposal to allow even longer lorries on to totally unsuitable streets in urban and rural areas?

[Mike Penning]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but he should note that because the turning wheels of longer semi-trailers are at the back, their turning circles are much tighter than those of existing lorries. I know that because I used to drive heavy goods vehicles myself. However, I will look into the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and we will announce our proposals when the House reconvenes next month. Then at least the industry will know exactly where we are going.

Coastguard Modernisation

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and I can give him that reassurance. I can assure him further that the result we have come to and announced today is based on the input of professionals, who understand the needs of the system and the safety issues at stake. As he rightly says, not only the communications resilience and the IT resilience, but, above all, the improvement in morale that will be delivered by lancing the boil of the long-running industrial relations problem that has been festering in this service for many, many years will hugely improve the way in which the service is delivered and the safety it affords to our communities.

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

Given what the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) about the loss of jobs under the new plans at the Aberdeen centre, it is hard to see that there will be any opportunity for workers from the Forth coastguard station to be redeployed to Aberdeen. Therefore, there is a real risk that their local knowledge will be lost. Does the Secretary of State really expect us to believe that two stations on the entire east coast mainland of Scotland and England, at Aberdeen and Humber, will be able to provide the same kind of local knowledge that we have at the moment?

[Mr Hammond]

I am sorry to be repetitious, Mr Deputy Speaker, but those stations will be working fully networked with the marine operations centre at Southampton, which itself will have a much bigger complement of staff, and much better equipment and communications technology, 24/7. It will deliver the level of resilience and safety that we require.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I understand why he made the statement that he did, but there is a degree of turnover going on within coastguard stations now, and we expect that, even in areas where the natural twin will not be recruiting additional staff, there will be opportunities for the redeployment of many, if not all, of the staff over the next three or four years.

Greenock Coastguard Station

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark]

The constituents of mine who work at Greenock and other members of staff—I have spoken to them on several occasions over the years—were not involved in any way with the proposals, and that is one of the concerns that has been expressed up and down the country. The proposals do not seem to be based on the experiences of those who have been actively involved in providing the service.

If the proposed closure of the Clyde and Forth coastguard stations goes ahead, it will leave the central belt of Scotland without a coastguard station. Indeed, if the proposals go ahead as originally announced in December last year, there will be no coastguard stations south of Aberdeen or north of Bridlington in Yorkshire. My constituents are concerned that it is far from clear what criteria were used to develop these proposals, so it is not clear why Clyde has been proposed as one of the stations that will close. That is also far from clear to my constituents who rely on the service provided by Clyde coastguard station. I hope that in the reply to this debate we will get more information on that point, so that we can try to rebut some of the arguments.

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the characteristics of this debate in so far as it affects Greenock—and the constituents of mine who sometimes work out of the Clyde station and other coastguard stations—is that strong and reasoned arguments have been made against closure, but similar arguments have not been made by those who propose closure? That is why it is important that the whole process should be rethought.

[Katy Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend the work that he has undertaken in relation to the Forth coastguard station. In this debate I will be asking a number of questions specifically about why Clyde has been proposed for closure, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have questions about many of the other coastguard stations. As I look around the Chamber, I see the familiar faces of hon. Members who have been campaigning on behalf of their constituents and the coastguard stations on which they rely. I hope that answers will be forthcoming from the Minister. This debate concerns the Greenock site, and he might be unable to reply today to some of my points. If not, I would hope to get written responses later.

Clyde coastguard station is the busiest station in Scotland and, depending on how the figures are read, it is also one of the busiest in the United Kingdom. My figures have been provided by those who work at Clyde coastguard station. They have used their knowledge to provide those figures, although one of the problems is that it has not been easy to get much of the information. According to the figures I have been given, Clyde coastguard station seems to be the top coastguard station in Britain for urgency calls; second behind Falmouth for distress calls; third for search and rescue hours; and fifth for incident numbers in the United Kingdom. Whichever way we look at it, it seems to be one of the busier stations in the United Kingdom.

The station has the largest coastline to look after, because of the number of islands and the length of the sea lochs in the area for which it has responsibility. The station has 41 coastguard rescue teams under its control, and has more ferry routes—28, including four in my constituency—than any other district coastguard station. In many ways, the seas for which it is responsible are getting busier, despite a significant reduction in the number of fishing vessels owing to the seas in the part of the world in which I live having been fished out. There are more fish farm support vessels, and there will be an increasing number of vessels for offshore renewable projects as well as a considerable number of cruise vessels, Navy vessels, submarines, including nuclear submarines, and a significant increase in the number of small leisure craft.

We have heard a lot about local knowledge in the debate about the future of the coastguard service. I believe that Clyde, as one of the largest stations, must have developed a significant amount of local knowledge about the huge terrain for which it provides a service. I cannot see any sense in closing such a large station and losing staff with so much local knowledge, and having other stations take on the work. The economic reality is that Greenock staff are unlikely to be able to transfer from low-cost areas such as Inverclyde or north Ayrshire to high-cost areas such as Aberdeen and the south of England, which have comparatively expensive house prices. When stations such as Greenock close—if that is allowed to happen—such knowledge is lost. It will not move with them.

As I said, many aspects of this matter do not seem to have been given proper consideration. In particular, as far as we can tell, the costs involved in the different coastguard stations do not seem to have been given detailed consideration. The relevant figures, however, many of which are quoted in the response of the operational staff to which I referred the Minister, suggest that Clyde is a cheaper station, because it is situated in a low-cost area with cheaper property prices. The figures also show that there is a large number of applicants whenever posts are advertised there, because it is an area with high unemployment and few quality available jobs. Furthermore, when people get those jobs, they tend to stay, so the retention rate is far higher than in other stations. As I say, detailed work has been done on that—work to which I refer the Minister. However, I would also ask him to say whether that issue was taken into account before December, when the proposals were made.

[Katy Clark]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The terms of the civil service relocation package do not necessarily make relocation an attractive option, particularly for those living in areas where accommodation is comparatively cheap and for whom the available options are probably not attractive.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Given the age profile, will not many of those working in such stations have done so for many years and often have family commitments and other connections? They cannot simply uproot and move 200, 300, 400 or 500 miles away. They will not go, and that expertise will be lost and they will be unemployed.

[Katy Clark]

My hon. Friend is obviously correct that, often, not just one individual working in a household will be affected. Relationships will be complicated, and frankly, many people will simply not be in a position to move. Indeed, I suspect that that will probably more often be the case at coastguard stations with experienced long-term staff. We also need to be aware that coastguards are already on very low incomes.

The Minister will be aware that Inverclyde and North Ayrshire are areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Have the economic impacts of the proposals been considered, in particular on Clyde and the wider community? The decision to close Clyde, but keep open the other large coastguard station in Scotland at Aberdeen, seems to be based on current leasing arrangements rather than on operational reasons—or, indeed, on the ongoing running costs of each station. The lease for the Clyde station comes to an end in 2012, with the Aberdeen lease coming to an end in 2020. It has been put to me repeatedly that this seems to have been a major consideration in the proposal to close Clyde. Will the Minister confirm whether that was a factor in coming forward with the proposals, and if it was, will he say how large a factor it was? Has any work been done on the comparative costs of the various options of keeping one coastguard station open as opposed to another?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I assure her that this is my last intervention. On the question of having one or two coastguard stations, just to make it clear, I am sure that she does not mean to suggest that we want the Aberdeen station to close instead Greenock. The whole point is that we do not want the entire coastline of Scotland and parts of the north of England to be served by just one station, which is clearly not a practical solution.

[Katy Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am trying to get the Minister to provide more detail on the reasoning behind the proposals. I am strongly of the view that we need a geographical spread of coastguard stations and that we need more than one in Scotland. I have not necessarily looked at the detail of every coastguard station, but I suspect that some hon. Members in the Chamber have.

Coastguard Service

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Hancock. I will try to adhere to your request to keep contributions brief to enable other hon. Members to speak, because a considerable number of hon. Members are interested in this debate.

Of course, the announcement about the coastguard was made not in an oral statement to Parliament but by way of a written statement, and this is hon. Members’ first opportunity to debate the issue. One of the things that I will be asking the Minister for today is that we do not just have this Adjournment debate and that hon. Members have a fuller opportunity to debate this issue, because there are serious concerns about the implications of these proposals for the coastguard service, if they go ahead.

I speak as someone who represents a coastal constituency. Indeed, a considerable number of my constituents work in the coastguard service. My experience—I believe that others have also experienced this—is that the coastguard service has been treated differently from other emergency services for many years, not least regarding pay. Many hon. Members will be aware that coastguard officers often earn only in the region of £13,500 per year, despite the fact that they have not only responsible positions but positions that require a great deal of expertise developed over many years.

The proposals that we are discussing today will probably lead to more than 200 coastguard officers losing their jobs. In many areas of the country, particularly in Clyde, it is unlikely that any officers losing their jobs will be relocated within the coastguard service. The coastguard service at Greenock is in an area of high unemployment and deprivation. The reality is that the relocation schemes that are available to civil servants will not make relocation for individuals—for example, to Aberdeen, which is an area of high cost, or to the south of England—a reasonable prospect. Indeed, I have constituents who are in that position. They know that if they lose their job at Clyde when the coastguard station there closes—if that closure is allowed to go ahead—other opportunities will not be available.

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

I have been in another Committee, which is why I was not here earlier. This issue is important to my constituents and to the constituents of many hon. Members who are here in Westminster Hall today. Of course, my concern is particularly about the Forth coastguard station, which is on the other side of Scotland to my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Forth station is also proposed for closure. There is also a sub-centre that covers my constituency’s shoreline.

In the firth of Forth, we have three major oil and liquid gas terminals. We also have a new bridge and a number of anchorages, and a new wind farm is being built. Does my hon. Friend agree that the firth of Forth is another area where safety means that closure should not go ahead and that having one coastguard station for the whole of Scotland is not acceptable?

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that you are pushing your luck there with that one. That intervention was more like a speech.

High Speed 2

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Weir. As people know, I represent the wonderful and beautiful constituency of the Calder Valley in west Yorkshire. Many would say, of course, that it rivals, or even exceeds, the beauty of Buckinghamshire. We live in an area that is rich in a history of industry, and more recently banking and financial services, as well as still being a major employer in manufacturing and distribution, with over 26% of our employees working in manufacturing. Imagine what economic benefits High Speed 2 would bring to those employees and manufacturers. Many of the 6,000 employees at the headquarters of Lloyds TSB and Halifax live in the Calder Valley, making our economy one of the most at-risk areas in Britain if we see a further slide in the banking and financial services industry.

I recently went to Paris on Eurostar from London. As we know, that line is Britain’s first high-speed rail link. It is incredibly useful to the economy of the south-east of England but not to Yorkshire’s, given that people can get a train and arrive at two different foreign capitals to do business more quickly than they can get a train in London and arrive in my constituency to do business. Pundits have spoken about the north-south divide in this country for many years. May I suggest that High Speed 1 to Paris has created not only a greater north-south divide, but also pushed the divide even further south? High Speed 2 would shorten that divide for Yorkshire.

The Calder Valley has a huge diversity of business.

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

I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate; I was at another meeting. High Speed 2 will indeed provide benefits to Yorkshire. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those benefits will also extend in due course further north—for example, to Edinburgh where my constituency is located, and to other places in the north of England and Scotland?

[Craig Whittaker]

Without question, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, let us get the first leg of the line into Yorkshire first.

As I said, the Calder Valley has a huge diversity of businesses—ranging from sole traders all the way up to some fantastic, world-leading businesses at the cutting edge—that contribute a gross value added average of £3.3 billion to our country. Our employees have the highest productivity rates in west Yorkshire and are among the highest in Britain, at £43,700 GVA per employee. Why should we not have access to our capital and other major cities at speeds equivalent to, or even better than, those available to the French or the Belgians?

We in Yorkshire do not advocate reducing access to our cities by foreign business with High Speed 1; we merely ask for a level playing field so that we can compete and play our part in our country’s economic growth. High Speed 2 will give Yorkshire just that—a level playing field, so that we can grow and continue to be the beating heart of England well into the next century. It is a place that we have earned, and deserve to have.

I thank the Government for consulting on the Y-shaped model for HS 2. I give the Minister the guarantee that we Yorkshire MPs will do all we can to ensure that it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

When we go into the details of what is proposed, we certainly need to ensure that connectivity with the English regions—the hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the city of Nottingham—are included.

As the economy grows, people will travel for employment and leisure, and there will be more demand to move freight, something that is not sufficiently considered in relation to rail. The Labour Government rightly believed that improved transport capacity would be needed between our major cities from the 2020s, starting with the route from London to the west midlands, two of Britain’s largest conurbations. Projections show that by then the west coast main line will be at capacity. By 2033, the average long-distance west coast main line train is projected to be 80% full, and severe overcrowding will be routine for much of the time. There will also be a significant increase in traffic and congestion on the motorways between and around London, Birmingham and Manchester, far beyond the problems experienced at these locations today.

The Labour Government’s view was that high-speed rail would be one way to provide more capacity between the UK’s main conurbations in the long term. The extra boost provided by a high-speed line would substantially increase existing rail capacity. That would happen not only as a result of the new track but because the track and stations would make possible a far greater length of train, and because high-speed trains would be segregated from other passenger and freight services.

It is worth bearing it in mind that upgrading existing rail lines would yield much less capacity than a high-speed line and at greater cost in both money and disruption, but without most of the journey time savings. That is something that we saw with the recent £9 billion upgrade of the west coast main line; although the benefits were considerable, they were essentially incremental, coming after years of chronic disruption to passengers and businesses.

Journey time savings from high-speed rail will be significant. The journey time from London to the west midlands would be reduced to between 30 and 50 minutes, depending on the stations used. Manchester could be brought within approximately an hour of London, down from almost 2 hours and 10 minutes. Through-services from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London would be down to just three and a half hours.

The connectivity gains of high-speed rail will come not only from faster trains but from the new route alignments that comprise the proposed Y-shaped network of lines from London to Birmingham, and eventually north to Manchester and Leeds.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Labour party’s ultimate objective is that the high-speed line should go directly to Scotland, and that we should not rely on existing services for part of the line? Obviously, things cannot be done at the same time everywhere in the UK, but will he confirm that that is Labour’s objective?

[Andrew Gwynne]

When Labour was in Government it was always envisaged that the high-speed lines would eventually connect with Scotland. In the long term, that will be crucial to the economies of Scotland and the English regions.

The new network would overcome some of the limitations of the old network, which has three separate and poorly interconnected main lines, each with own its London terminus. An important factor is that the high-speed network would enable key local, national and international networks to be better integrated. In particular, including an interchange station with the new Crossrail line just west of Paddington on the approach of the high-speed line to central London would greatly enhance the benefits of both Crossrail and the high-speed line. A Crossrail interchange station could deliver a fast and frequent service to London’s west end, the City and docklands. The total journey time from central Birmingham to Canary Wharf could be just 70 minutes.

A boost to the west midlands economy is anticipated to the tune of £5.3 billion a year, and to that of the north-west of £10.6 billion a year at today’s rates.

High Speed Rail

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

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

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Betts, and express my pleasure at having secured an Adjournment debate on such an important matter? Colleagues who were here before the election will know that this is not the first time I have spoken about high speed rail in Westminster Hall—indeed, it is not the first time I have secured a debate on the subject. High speed rail is a matter of particular importance to my constituency and my city, as it is to many other parts of the UK, which is why I am a long-standing campaigner for it.

As the years have gone by, the case for high speed rail in the UK has become stronger. In the past five years, the number of passengers travelling on the rail lines has risen by about 40% and freight has risen by 60%. Given the urgent need to tackle climate change by encouraging travellers to shift from air and road transport to rail, the case for investment in high speed rail becomes even stronger. The case for high speed rail relates not only to the new lines that it would create, but to the capacity that it would free up on existing lines.

I was greatly encouraged by the previous Government’s announcement in March of a new line from London to Birmingham as the first phase of a network that would lead to Manchester and Leeds, and thereafter to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Members will recall that that was based on a report by High Speed 2 Ltd, which the Government established a year earlier. It was envisaged that construction would start in 2017, following the completion of Crossrail, and that the network would be opened in phases from 2026. The estimated cost of taking the line as far as Manchester and Leeds was £30 billion.

We seem to have reached a considerable degree of political consensus on the development of high speed rail in Great Britain. That will obviously be necessary because of the long time scale over which any such network will be developed. It will take many decades to build a complete network, which will obviously involve many Governments and, no doubt, many political parties. I welcome the fact that, along with the commitment from my party, there now appears to be a general political consensus on the need to develop a high speed rail network in the UK.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and commend him for his support for high speed rail. Will he acknowledge that, even in the present circumstances, he and his constituents can travel from Edinburgh to London in about four hours, whereas the shortest journey time from Aberdeen to London, only a further 110 miles, is seven and a half hours? Does he therefore agree that a high speed rail link must also ensure that there are fast links to connect to any high speed network that is developed?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to intrude on matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but one of the important aspects of the debate on high speed rail is the need for discussions and co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, to ensure that the network will benefit not only the cities that it serves directly, but places further along the line, even if those places are not part of the network from the start. I will return to that point later. In due course the network should extend to not only the UK’s largest cities, but most major cities. I am sure that Aberdeen would qualify as such.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Edinburgh is terribly important, but so are the English regions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real risk, rumours of which the previous trains Minister did nothing to dispel, that money will be leached from regional and provincial rail networks to fund high speed rail? High speed rail should be welcomed, of course, but we must also remember the needs of many of our constituents who depend on lesser rail networks.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I certainly did not hear those rumours, but his colleague the Minister will no doubt reassure him that she will be able to combine her commitment to high speed rail with the interests of his constituents.

I welcomed the fact that the Conservatives declared in their manifesto that

“a new government will begin work immediately to create a high speed rail line connecting London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This is the first step towards achieving our vision of creating a national high speed rail network to join up major cities across England, Scotland and Wales. Stage two will deliver two new lines bringing the North East, Scotland and Wales into the high speed rail network.”

That was an unqualified commitment to start work immediately, not just as soon as possible. I welcome the Minister to the debate and congratulate her on her appointment. I know of her commitment to high speed rail. Indeed, so unqualified was her manifesto’s promise that I am almost surprised to see her here today, as she might have been out on the building sites with a hard hat and a bulldozer, starting work on the line immediately.

The Liberal Democrats were, somewhat out of character, a little more cautious about their spending commitments on this issue. Nevertheless, they vowed to set up

“a UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in public transport like high speed rail.”

In the coalition agreement, the two parties stated:

“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.”

However, the agreement then stated:

“Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.”

The prospect of work beginning on high speed rail is not so immediate now, it would appear. By the time of the Queen’s Speech, we were promised a hybrid Bill in due course.

To be blunt, one of my purposes in securing this debate was to test the strength of the coalition Government’s commitment to high speed rail. I have no doubts about the Minister’s commitment, but we need to know whether the coalition agreement means what it says. Did the coalition parties mean what they said in their pre-election manifestos, or was it just pre-election bluster? Will they really push it with the determination and leadership needed, or will they find excuses to delay it until some long-distant date? If the Minister gives the type of commitment that she gave before the election, she will certainly have support across the House for the development of proposals to introduce such a scheme, although the details may of course lead to debate.

I therefore have several questions for the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer today. There are quite a few, but there are none that she should be surprised to be asked, so I hope that she will have answers today or at least some time soon. When do the new Government envisage bringing forward the necessary legislation for High Speed 2? I am not suggesting that the Minister should give an exact date, but a hybrid Bill could take years to go through Parliament so we need some idea of how it will fit into the Government’s programme. Does she agree with the previous Government’s assessment, as set out in their document on High Speed 2, produced earlier this year, that

“formal public consultation on the Government’s proposals for high speed rail in the light of HS2 Ltd’s recommended route for such a line should begin in the autumn”?

Does the Minister agree that HS2 Ltd should now begin similar detailed planning work on the routes from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, to be completed by summer 2011 with a view to consulting the public early in 2012? What steps do the Government intend to take to establish a company or other mechanism to deliver the project? What is their target date, in broad terms, for work to start on a new line?

Are the Government still committed to a high speed network that will serve the whole UK, including Edinburgh and Glasgow? I certainly hope that they are. If they are committed to that, do they have any views on the route that such a line should take, and when do they envisage that the line will reach Edinburgh and Glasgow? It will be unacceptable if there is not a commitment from the start that the line will reach Scotland, because high speed rail will bring real economic benefits to the cities and regions along the route, and those cities that are either not directly linked or that have indirect links with the network would certainly lose out.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He suggested the need for a commitment that the high speed network would run to Edinburgh, but I do not recall ever hearing that commitment from the previous Labour Administration before the general election.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The previous Government made it clear from the outset that high speed train services would reach Edinburgh and Glasgow in due course. As the hon. Gentleman should know, I have been pushing for high speed rail for some time. I pushed the previous Government, and I intend to push this Government as hard as I pushed the previous one. If he wants high speed rail to go to places north of Manchester, I hope that he will put the same kind of pressure on his Government as I used to put on mine. I believe that we all want high speed rail to serve the nations and regions of the UK, so let us try to keep up the consensus and the pressure.

As I said, there are real economic benefits for all the communities and cities along the route of a high speed line. Research shows that cutting the journey time between Birmingham and London from 84 to 49 minutes would increase Birmingham’s annual economic output by £1.4 billion, or about 6%. The economic benefits of high speed rail would be more than £10 billion a year for the north-west and about £19 billion for Scotland. In total, 64,000 additional jobs would be created as a consequence.

There is an overwhelming case for extending the line to Scotland, to increase the number of business and tourist passengers travelling not just to and from London, but from the north of England to Scotland. Prosperity would spread much more than if the line were restricted to the south and south-east of England, and the UK as a whole would benefit as a result.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important subject. He will know that my predecessor John Barrett also worked tirelessly on this matter, and I intend to continue his support for it in this Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest argument for extending the high speed rail line is an environmental one? For example, if we manage to drive London to Edinburgh journey times down to two hours 40 minutes, which is eminently possible, there would be a similar switch from air to rail, as happened when the Madrid to Barcelona line opened. That resulted in a 50% reduction in the number of flights between the two cities. If the same happened with Edinburgh and London, there would be 700,000 fewer air journeys between them.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Indeed, there has been increased use of the Manchester to London service as a result of the upgrade to the west coast main line, and we have seen the same with the London to Paris and Brussels services as well.

The point that the hon. Gentleman made about the benefits from reducing journey times particularly applies in respect of cities that are further away from London. The greatest journey time reductions will allow the greatest benefits in environmental and economic terms—and, indeed, in terms of convenience to passengers. That is why I hope that the Government will give a definite commitment to extend high speed rail to the north of England and to Scotland.

As the hon. Gentleman said, environmental benefits will be particularly important. Transport currently accounts for more than 20% of UK carbon emissions, so high speed rail has a role to play in that respect as well. Reducing journey times from London to Edinburgh to just over two hours could result in 80% of the current travel market between Scotland and London being captured by high speed rail. Even at three hours, with a partial high speed rail network, 67% of the travel between Scotland and London could be captured by high speed rail, so there are certainly environmental and transport benefits as well as economic ones.

In that respect, I have two other questions that I hope the Minister will address today or at another time. First, what is the Government’s view on whether the line should run to Heathrow or a connector station at Heathrow, or simply offer a connecting service, as the previous Government advocated? I am aware that there were criticisms of that decision, and I believe that she shared them. Certainly she made such criticisms before she was a Minister, so I would be interested to hear her current view on whether the line should serve Heathrow directly.

I would also like to hear the Minister’s views on whether there should be a link from a new high speed line north of London to the existing line from London to the south-east, France, Belgium and beyond. If there were no link—I hope there will be one—passengers from Scotland and the north would be less likely to use the high speed rail line for journeys to the continent, and travellers from the continent would be less likely to use it to travel north. Clearly, if there were no direct link, there would be less use of those services as well.

I hope that today the Minister can give some indication of how the Government will take the plans forward, and to answer the questions in their entirety, or at least to a great extent. I would like to hear a reiteration of the commitments that were given before the general election. I hope that today we will not hear from the Government any excuses that, because of the financial situation they claim to have inherited—we had all those excuses yesterday in the debate on the Queen’s Speech—they cannot make any further commitment to high speed rail at this stage.

I hope that we will not get that line later this morning. It would be unacceptable for several reasons. First, it should hardly surprise the Government parties that a high speed line would require major expense. If they did not realise that, they should not have made such sweeping promises in their manifestos. Secondly, the spending on high speed rail would, of course, be some time in the future. There will be many years of preparation involving planning, legal and parliamentary approval and so on. We are talking about commitments that will last for 10, 20 or 30 years, and I do not believe that anyone—not even those in the Government parties who make the most pessimistic forecasts—would suggest that the current economic circumstances will last for 10, 20 or 30 years.

Thirdly, the commitments, although large in their totality, are not actually as substantial as many other Government commitments. The cost of a line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is estimated at £30 billion spread over 10 years. Compared with many other Government commitments, that is not as expensive as might be thought at first. And, of course, there are the wider economic benefits that I have already set out and the fact that the costs of high speed rail do not all have to come from public subsidy. Some of the public subsidy would be recouped from commercial income from passenger and goods traffic if the traffic projections and estimates are reflected in reality.

On the extension to Scotland, there are issues around the role in linking up services and the financial commitment from the Scottish Government as part of the devolution arrangements. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about what discussions the coalition and her Department are having with the Scottish Government on how high speed rail could be funded in Scotland, and on how it would link up with existing rail services in Scotland.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. The economic, transport and environmental benefits of a working high speed system are well known, but the gap between transport investment in the south-east and London and that in the rest of the country has been growing. It is not just that there is a gap but that it has been growing. Does he think that there is a case for starting to invest in the system not in London but much farther north, and then building south, rather than building north from the south?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend makes a good case and raises valid points. He is right to point out that there has been a concentration of transport investment in the south-east of England. The Scottish Government have a role to play in developing services beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, but, bluntly, it would be wrong for Scotland to pay for the bit from the border northward because, after all, it is part of the same UK-wide service. The same would apply to Manchester and the regions of England as well.

In this debate, I have avoided getting too involved in the exact details of routes, apart from the important exception of Heathrow, and exactly when and where they will start, because the case for high speed rail as a whole is in danger of being undermined by discussion of some of the detail. However, I accept my hon. Friend’s fundamental point: there is no reason why work should start from London and move northward, or why it cannot start from some other city at the same time. Clearly, phasing would allow benefits to be brought to other places en route, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that in due course.

The method of securing funding for a new line also has a bearing on another important issue in this debate, which is the environmental case to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) referred. By itself, high speed rail does not guarantee substantial carbon reductions. Certain arguments and research make that clear. Carbon reductions depend partly on the energy source providing the electricity, how the route is to be constructed and, to a great extent, on the degree to which there is a modal shift from air and road to rail as a result of high speed rail services being developed.

A modal shift can be encouraged by shifting expenditure from new roads to high speed rail, which I support, and by using transport taxation to encourage that shift and raise the funds for public investment in high speed rail. The Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition suggested in its election manifesto that it would raise an extra £9 billion a year from airline and passenger taxation, and if that is taken forward in the agreement between the coalition parties it could provide substantial funds for high speed rail. I am interested in hearing the Minister, or any Liberal Democrat colleagues, respond to that point.

I am sure that the Minister is not surprised that I have asked a lot of questions. I hope that she will respond as far as she can. I pay tribute to her commitment to high speed rail before the election. Like all Ministers, she will no doubt have battles to fight in her Department and beyond to keep high speed rail firmly at the top of the Government’s agenda, and I am sure that she expects me and other colleagues to pursue these matters vigorously if she does not. I hope that she gives us good news today—reaffirms the Government’s commitment to high speed rail and tells right hon. and hon. Members how she will bring it about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on an informative speech, particularly about the benefits of high-speed rail. I shall look up some of his statistics in Hansard for my own use. My constituency is in the west midlands and includes Birmingham International airport and the national exhibition centre. I shall take account of the comments made this morning, but I shall confine my remarks to the first phase of High Speed 2, for which I am a strong advocate.

Passenger numbers have risen by 40%, and freight has increased by 60% over the last five years. Clearly, there is a big appetite in this country for high-speed rail and the benefits that it can bring, which were so ably outlined by the hon. Gentleman. We need a dedicated high-speed rail line that is independent of the creaking Victorian network, although that network has served us well in the past and continues to do so. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that any improvements or new rail services must not be made at the expense of the existing network. We must ensure that the service improves for those who currently use our creaking commuter network, which should not be neglected in favour of high-speed rail.

We have the prospect of being able to travel from Euston to Curzon Street in Birmingham in 49 minutes. According to my figures, the train speed is 225 mph, although the hon. Member for Banbury mentioned 250 mph; either way, it is fast. We hope there will be a Crossrail interchange at Old Oak Common and we support the idea that Crossrail must go ahead; it is hugely important. Funding for Crossrail and High Speed 2 can be imaginatively secured, with a large proportion of investment coming from private industry or from some form of national infrastructure bank, as recommended by the Liberal Democrats before the general election. I am sure that it can be done and that the benefits can be proved.

We expect this phase of HS2 to start in 2017, and to have passengers on the trains in 2026. That is a long time, and I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who intervened earlier to ask where we should start. If we can get the funding, perhaps we should start at both ends of the line so that it does not take such a long time to complete the network. I am sure the Government will look at that.

It is not all good news. There are many planning considerations and much of the investment in the first phase of HS2 will go on existing railway lines such as the Chiltern line, which will track the A413. I have a particular concern for parts of the Warwickshire countryside in the west midlands. People must be consulted properly, which, for me, means that there is no foregone conclusion—otherwise, it is not a consultation. There must be proper compensation for anyone who suffers as a result of these plans. When a second runway at Birmingham International airport was proposed, a terrible blight was created which in some cases still hangs over residents in the local area. It is important to avoid that blight, as it puts people’s lives on hold and creates more misery than is necessary. On the bright side, according to research by the Department for Transport, which I read this morning, every reduction of one minute to a commuter journey adds £1,000 to the value of a house in the relevant area. Somebody will benefit, although I am not sure who that will be in the west midlands.

The justification for HS2 must be that it is part of a wider strategy. Like the previous Government, this Government are committed to a strong carbon reduction programme. We must show that we will shift people away from the roads and the air and on to rail. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned the Liberal Democrat plans, and part of the coalition agreement was that we will move from passenger charges on planes to a charge per plane. That will help in the reduction of carbon.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind comments about my opening speech. I am aware of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy of moving away from individual taxation. However, I think that the Liberal Democrat manifesto also suggested a potential increase in duty, which I welcome. Is that part of the coalition policy?

[Lorely Burt]

I am afraid that it is above my pay grade to comment further on that. The coalition Government will be working on this issue, and the Minister may wish to refer to it in her remarks.

Increasing people’s ability to travel is a bit like Boyle’s law—demand expands in relation to the existing capacity. We have seen that with the motorway network. Every time new roads are built or a motorway is enlarged, traffic increases more than would be expected under normal predictions. We must be careful about that. During the three weeks the Minister has spent in her job, I do not know whether she has given any thought to how we can make it easier for people to travel less. That must obviously be an aspiration.

I will conclude by considering some of the economic benefits that HS2 would bring to the west midlands. In terms of employment, we have probably been the hardest hit of any region. We have a strong manufacturing base, but that has also been hit hard by the recession. On behalf of people in the west midlands, I am looking forward hugely to the airport link. The extension of the single runway at Birmingham International airport will mean huge inward investment, and along with the high-speed rail link to London and the north, that will make the west midlands a central economic hub, which I welcome.

The national exhibition centre will benefit hugely from the fact that High Speed 2 will stop there before moving on to Curzon Street in Birmingham. It is important to get on with this scheme. I am sure that we can use our imagination and ability so as not to damage the existing rail network, which we must work on and improve. High Speed 2 is a wonderful thing, but it is not everything. We must look at the whole picture and ensure that the experience of the rail traveller—whether on High Speed 2 or on local railways—is a good one.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing a debate on this important topic. For many of the reasons that he so articulately set out in opening the debate, the issue is significant for the future of our transport system, our economy and our environment,

I can assure hon. Members that high speed rail plays a core role in the new Government’s vision for the future of travel in the United Kingdom. I am therefore grateful for the strong support that has been displayed across the parties in the debate, and particularly by the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). That support has been reflected in many speeches this morning, and I welcome the contributions from not only the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I shall address a number of the issues that they raised. As well as supporting high speed rail, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reflected on some of the issues for local communities that might be affected once a route is chosen. I will come to that later.

The Conservatives championed high speed rail in opposition. We transformed debate on the issue in October 2008, when we pledged to start the long process of building a national network. At the time, the Labour Government had dismissed high speed rail as an option, and their 30-year strategy for the railways contained no place for it. Nevertheless, I very much welcome the change of heart that occurred after our announcement and with the appointment of Lord Adonis. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East in welcoming and paying tribute to the work that Lord Adonis did on the issue.

The change of heart from the previous Government signalled the emergence of a broader cross-party consensus on the principle that high speed rail is essential for Britain’s transport system. The new Government’s support for high speed rail was clearly and explicitly included in the coalition agreement. Our programme for government includes the creation of a high speed rail network. Our ambition is the creation of a genuinely national high speed network, although we recognise that that will have to be achieved in phases over a number of years. However, in answer to the questions about that national network, let me say that a genuinely national network of course embraces destinations in the east midlands, Scotland and Wales—the areas that have been specifically highlighted this morning.

Let me take this opportunity to emphasise that the Government’s ambitions for high speed rail do not stop at Birmingham. Although the previous Administration had a change of heart on high speed rail, their focus was still just on detailed plans for a route to Birmingham. It is manifestly clear that we will not reap the full benefits of high speed rail unless we go much further than the west midlands, important though a link to the west midlands obviously is. We want to make progress as rapidly as possible towards the creation of a national network that connects to the rest of Europe via the channel tunnel.

In opposition, both coalition partners emphasised the importance of taking high speed rail to Scotland. It is clear in the devolution settlement that the Scottish Government are responsible for rail infrastructure north of the border. Delivering cross-border high speed rail services and a cross-border high speed rail line would therefore obviously require close co-operation and careful joint working between Holyrood and Westminster on a range of issues, including, of course, funding. That is why, in my role in opposition, I visited Scotland for constructive talks with John Swinney on how that co-operation might go forward. There are extensive and close contacts between the Department for Transport and its counterparts in Scotland. The Secretary of State also looks forward to working with his Scottish counterpart in developing a high speed rail strategy that incorporates Scotland.

Issues relating to the timetable were at the heart of the questions from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The Secretary of State is considering the timetable set out by HS2 Ltd. He is also considering questions relating to the integration of Heathrow into the high speed rail network, which I will come to in due course. He will report to Parliament in due course on the timetable and on how things will be taken forward. However, the intention is to go forward with the consultation as promptly as possible, after that statement to Parliament.

The Government intend to present a hybrid Bill during this Parliament. We also intend to start enabling work by 2015. That is a somewhat more aggressive timetable than that set by the previous Government, but we are determined—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith questioned me on this—to take the process forward promptly. Further work is already under way on lines beyond Birmingham. We will also continue to assess the appropriate delivery vehicles.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I thank the Minister for her answers so far, but may I be clear about one point? She said that she envisaged work starting in 2015, but what kind of work does she mean? Such work would be welcome, but 2015 is quite soon, so perhaps she will elucidate.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, the intention is for enabling work to start in 2015. Given that there will be a detailed and expansive consultation process before decisions are made on a route, it would not be appropriate or realistic for me to say exactly what type of work we would intend to start by 2015 and in what locations.