Rail Update

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am not a doctor, but I know that there is no record whatever of any ban on National Express continuing to bid for franchises after 2009. I am sure that the legal advice then was the legal advice I have now. Whatever one may say in public, the reality is that no legal constraint was placed on National Express from further bidding for franchises.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I think it is the Secretary of State who has the short memory, so I will remind him that this is the third time in 11 years that a private sector franchise on the east coast line has failed. Can he explain to the House why his Department prevented East Coast, a public company that ran the railway superbly for both passengers and the taxpayer, from bidding for this contract? Will he today commit to changing the rules so that public sector companies can bid for these franchises?

[Chris Grayling]

The key point to remember is that this is a franchise that has increased the number of services, increased the number of staff it employs, improved its passenger satisfaction rating and is providing a larger payment to the taxpayer, notwithstanding the troubles I have set out today. That, to me, suggests that it is getting something right. I want to be absolutely clear—[Interruption] Notwithstanding the sedentary comments, it is really important for me to pay tribute to the hard work of the staff who work on the east coast main line, who have done a good job in improving the quality of service for passengers. It is not their fault that their company got the financing of this wrong.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

The right hon. Gentleman enjoyed, I am sure, the deliberations in Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Minister telling us about mobile telephone reception in Lincolnshire and having to stand on a chair in order to take a call. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, and the Government have listened very carefully to what was said in Committee and to the representations made by interested bodies. We have decided at this stage to withdraw the proposals as drafted, but this issue will have to be revisited.

I turn finally in this wide-ranging group of new clauses and amendments to the part of the Bill that introduces zero-carbon homes—a part of which I am particularly proud—and the Opposition’s amendments. Amendments 67 and 71 seek to give preference in all cases to on-site carbon abatement measures. That would cause uncertainty and cost to house builders, because the house builder and the building control body would have to agree a “reasonable” on-site energy performance level on a case-by-case basis before any development could commence. The house building industry needs to know the technical requirements and the costs it will face in order to plan for the future. That is why we set specific performance standards in the building regulations —standards we have already tightened twice during this Parliament, and which, as a result of the Bill, will be further tightened in 2016 to make sure that our constituents have the pleasure of living in not only a new home but one insulated to the highest possible performance standards.

With those brief remarks—not quite as brief as you would have liked, Madam Deputy Speaker—I commend the new clauses and amendments in the Government’s name and ask the House to resist those in others’ names.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

As the Minister acknowledged, there are a lot of amendments on different topics in this group, and I will do my best to respond to the Government amendments and speak to the Opposition ones in as coherent and related a way as I can. However, I point out that we have just over half an hour left, and lots of Members want to speak. That again demonstrates that the Government have rushed the Bill and not left enough time for the House to scrutinise it properly.

Government new clause 14 is a technical amendment and provided that the Greater London authority is on board with it, we see no reason not to welcome it.

We welcome new clause 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). His proposals are in line with our localist policy to return decision making about permitted development and change of use class to local authorities and the local communities they represent. We are very much against permitted development being able to ride roughshod over the needs and wishes of local communities, so we welcome the amendment and concur that having to make a pub an asset of community value, or make an article 4 direction, is bureaucratic and burdensome on local communities and not at all necessary. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause provides communities with a straightforward way of saying what is happening to their local pub and whether or not they wish a change to be made.

On Government amendments 45 and 84, the Minister will know that in Committee we called for greater clarity on how the species control agreements would work in practice. For example, when would one be considered complete, and requirements no longer be needed? We therefore support amendment 45 and the Government’s clarifying this point. They have also clarified that landowners who cannot dispose of land due to legal restrictions will still be subject to these agreements and orders. However, important questions remain about the cost and implementation of species control orders that the Government need to answer in statutory guidance.

On Government amendment 46, we are pleased that they have excluded from the species control orders the European beaver, a native species that has established populations in the UK. However, the classification of the beaver under part IB of schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—“Animals no longer normally present”—is bizarre and lists them alongside the wild boar. It seems strange that, despite European beavers being recognised as a native species to the UK and a natural component of British river systems, they will need a licence from Natural England to continue to exist in the wild. The Minister knows that we proposed in Committee an amendment—supported by a number of non-governmental organisations, including Friends of the Earth—stating that the Government’s definition of invasive non-native species should correspond to the EU habitats directive adopted in 1992. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why they have not gone down that route.

I was very disappointed with the Minister’s response to new clause 3, which seeks to shake up the way we progress national infrastructure matters. It would establish an independent national infrastructure commission in order to offer strategic planning to meet our national infrastructure requirements, and provide a greater degree of devolved power to ensure that large-scale projects also relate, where possible, to local priorities. I was surprised that in Committee, Government Members—and indeed the Minister himself—were so dismissive of the recent CBI survey showing that, despite some advances in national infrastructure policy, the UK is still some way off delivering the transformational upgrades the country needs. There is a widely acknowledged view that we are lagging behind other countries on national infrastructure delivery.

New clause 3 seeks to bring an evidence-based assessment of our infrastructure needs before the House for approval. The process would be supported by sector infrastructure plans, and there would be a time scale for implementation. That would get us out of the parliamentary cycle, and away from the stop-start approach to national infrastructure. All we have heard from the Minister is more complicity and a lack of engagement about the need for a timely upgrade to our national infrastructure.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Many of the sectors listed in new clause 3 are devolved. Has the hon. Lady given any thought to how the new body will work in a devolved context, and will she give the House categorical reassurances that it is not about taking powers away from Ministers in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We hope that an independent national infrastructure commission could take information from all the devolved structures, which is why I mentioned the importance of devolution with regard to new clause 3.

Amendment 53 seeks to get further clarification from the Minister on land transfers to the Homes and Communities Agency. In Committee, it was far from clear what was meant by surplus land, and the Minister has given us no clarification about how surplus land would be categorised, or about whether it covers open and common space.

We also heard nothing from the Minister about whether the Government intend to promote best practice in improving the transparency of land transactions by reporting all aspects of the transaction of land to the Land Registry. The lack of publicly available information about land transactions, ownership and options on land markets makes it difficult to understand the extent to which land is controlled by those who intend, or do not intend, to develop it. We need to increase transparency, particularly on options, if we are to ensure that enough land is made available for development. The Minister had absolutely nothing to say about that matter today.

The Minister did not say anything about ensuring that better guidance is given on how we assess viability. Opposition Members are arguing that a clearer way of assessing viability might mean that more land was brought forward for development. One would have thought that that was an objective of an infrastructure Bill, but apparently it is not.

Amendment 52 seeks totally to remove the Government’s proposals regarding the transfer of local land charges to the Land Registry. In England and Wales, two searches are currently undertaken as part of the standard conveyancing process for the purchase of land or property. In short, clauses 30 to 32 will transfer responsibility for one of the searches, the local land charges search, from local authorities to the Land Registry. It is important to note that responsibility for collecting the information necessary for the searches will still be held by local authorities, which will have to pass the information to the Land Registry. Furthermore, local authorities will continue to be responsible for the second of the two searches—the CON29 search.

The Opposition believe that the separation and fragmentation of the service is misguided and poorly evidenced, and that it has next to no hope of achieving the Government’s stated policy objectives. Peeling off part of the service simply does not make sense and is likely to make the service worse, not better. It is telling that even the Government, in their own consultation, have struggled to find anyone in favour of the change. Indeed, they acknowledge that no one supports the proposals.

In the past few days, we have had correspondence from the District Councils Network, the Law Society, the Council of Property Search Organisations, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, the Association of Independent Personal Search Agents, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Public and Commercial Services Union and many others who are all totally against the changes. Even the organisations and companies that the Government suggest will benefit from the changes oppose them. Just last Friday, those organisations signed a letter to the Secretary of State calling for the proposed changes to be dropped. We agree with them, and we will divide the House on that issue at the appropriate time if the Minister does not make another prompt U-turn.

On amendment 67, we had a wide-ranging discussion in Committee on the carbon abatement provision in clause 33, but I have again been very disappointed by the Minister’s speech today. He will know that we made lots of strong arguments in Committee about why it is not sensible to exempt small sites from the allowable solutions requirements on the basis of the number of housing units. It is not exactly clear what the Government will do because the consultation has only just finished and, as far as I am aware, neither its results nor the Government response have been placed in the public domain. This is clearly not a sensible way to make policy, but if the Minister intends to continue to allow the exemption for small sites purely on the basis of the number of units, we would ask him to think again.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the recent consultation was very cramped and gave nobody the opportunity to say that they did not wish there to be any limitation on the size of site or, indeed, of contractor?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point, which we did not rehearse very well in Committee. If we had had adequate time today, we might have considered the consultation’s shortcomings and the fact that people had to choose from a very limited number of options.

I should point out that we have great concerns about the general carbon abatement provisions. It is really important for the Minister to clarify what the allowable solutions measures will contain. That was not clear in Committee, so we sought clarification, but we still have not received any. Will clause 33 make it a definite requirement for all homes to be built to the equivalent of code level 4?

[Stephen Williams]

In case I cannot respond on that point later, I can say that it is definitely our intention that on-site requirements should come up to code level 4, and that those for allowable solutions should come up to code level 5. On sites and exemptions, we are obviously looking at the consultation. The number of units will be one factor, but we might look at company size and square meterage—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have had a great many interventions in this debate. I appreciate that the shadow Minister has had only a moderately long time in which to speak and that she has a lot to say. However, I must now appeal to all Members: we have 21 minutes left and a great many matters to discuss, so they must all speak quickly. If everybody proceeds with no repetition, hesitation or deviation, everyone will get to speak.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

It would be helpful if the Minister put some of those reassurances in writing.

Finally, as we know, the Government tried to rush through a poorly drafted reform of the electronic communications code, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny, as part of an uncosted deal with mobile phone operators that could lose the taxpayer £1 billion. It is good that the Government have listened to Labour, and that they have made a U-turn and are going back to the drawing board, but their incompetent failure to reform the code now puts the whole deal in doubt.

Reforming the code that governs the agreements between mobile phone operators and landowners is important for the expansion of mobile telephone access, and the Government need to get it right. We welcome the move to withdraw from the Bill the clause and schedules on the electronic communications code, and we are glad that the Government listened to us and to various organisations. We hope that they will now take the time to renew and update the code properly.

I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I will be brief, to allow other Members to speak. We clearly need more time to debate major Bills such as this on Report. It does us no credit that we have insufficient time.

I rise to speak to new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 12 is supported by more than 20 of my right hon. and hon. Friends and would abolish the Planning Inspectorate, and new clause 20 would create a new community right of appeal against adverse planning decisions.

I believe that the Localism Act 2011 was one of this Government’s most important pieces of legislation. It gives communities power, and the provisions on community assets are one example of that. I welcome the Government’s proposals to strengthen those provisions so that pubs may be protected, which is a sensible way forward. I also welcome the development of neighbourhood plans, which, as the Minister said, are now proceeding well, with community support, including in my constituency. They give the local community the power to decide where developments should go.

However, that plan-led system can sometimes be a developer-led system, which is not what we want. Localism can be undermined, especially by decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. In a good report issued before Christmas, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government said that it had received a great deal of evidence that the national planning policy framework

“is not preventing unsustainable development in some places”

and that

“inappropriate housing is being imposed upon some communities as a result of speculative planning applications.”

Such speculative applications, put in against the wishes of communities drawing up neighbourhood plans, are particularly damaging. Developers know that they have an opportunity to get permission for sites that they would not get permission for were the neighbourhood plan to go through. Too often, the Planning Inspectorate either upholds on appeal a local authority’s decisions to decline those applications or terrifies the local authority into submission, so that it gives permission because it knows that otherwise it would lose an appeal and would have to spend a great deal of money on doing so.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

We have had a really good debate, with interesting contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I want to start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) for making a powerful point about how unworkable the Bill will be if this Government’s approach to devolution is accepted. I also thank him for his comments on the need for a balanced approach to deemed consent and the need to update new towns legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) made an excellent case for the need for long-term planning for sustainable development. I also thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He is no longer in his place, but I totally agree with him on the need to overhaul our system of compulsory purchase orders. Labour has made it very clear that we would do that, and he was right to point out that it is a mission set by this Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) gave a very good list of all the things it would have been helpful to discuss this evening in terms of adding to our infrastructure but that are omitted by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made an excellent point about the need for more measures to deliver more housing and said that those homes should also be accessible.

As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made an excellent case supporting better climate change measures in the Bill. He also highlighted why we must not weaken the carbon abatement measures that should be in existence.

The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made an important point about the need to have infrastructure in place if we are going to deliver the homes needed in communities that people want to live in. I also agree with him about the importance of neighbourhood planning in this process. That point was also raised effectively by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) was arguing that graffiti is an invasive species and should be removed and not be part of the Bill. Unfortunately, he is not in his place to clarify that point.

Lastly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for addressing the need for longer-term strategic planning and funding for transport, as well as the need to put transport planning in a wider context. Clearly, that is missing from the Bill.

I am sure we all agree that the subject of the Bill is really important. We all know that if we are to facilitate developing our economy, then upgrading old and delivering new infrastructure is vital. Our problem with the Bill is that it promises a lot but in reality delivers very little. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, this is a ragbag of measures. The Bill claims that it will bolster investment in infrastructure and improve Britain’s economic performance. It claims that it will improve the planning process, allowing us to get on and get Britain building for the future, and that it will provide a stimulus for job creation across transport, energy, housing developments and national infrastructure.

Although we acknowledge that a few measures here and there may be helpful—such as transferring land to the HCA, and simplifying procedures for nationally significant infrastructure projects—overall we think that the Bill represents a huge lost opportunity to set out a smart framework for the delivery of infrastructure that would provide high-quality places and the necessary support systems for the nation’s future needs.

This weak legislation has been produced against a legacy of poor Government performance and investment in infrastructure and in its delivery. They may have made a flurry of recent announcements on infrastructure, but they are unlikely to make up the ground lost in previous years when infrastructure investment slumped. For example, a Cabinet Office update in May 2013 showed that the value of construction work fell by more than a third—36%—or £11.1 billion between 2012 and May 2013. We have had a fanfare of announcements about the £40 billion for the UK guarantees scheme, but few projects have actually been supported, which recently led the CBI to comment that it was

“exasperated with progress to date.”

It appears that the lack of progress on loan guarantees is reflected elsewhere, with too little support for house building, transport and green energy subsidies. Let us remind ourselves of the Bill’s inadequacy with regard to the delivery of much needed infrastructure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) pointed out so eloquently, there is complete bewilderment about why a top-down reorganisation of the Highways Agency has been proposed. I would have thought that Ministers had learned their lesson about unwanted and unnecessary reorganisations, but perhaps not. If they have, they need to explain why a reorganisation is necessary, when the market clearly wants funding certainty. As my hon. Friend said, the highways measures in the Bill will affect only 2% of roads.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the things missing from the Bill is an emphasis on park and ride. To take people out of vehicles and on to public transport, we are making public transport more accessible and more cost-effective. In Northern Ireland, where it is a devolved matter, we have already taken steps to bring in park and ride—including in my constituency just last week—and there are other examples of what can be done. Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the absence of park and ride from the Bill?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I am tempted to add park and ride to the long list of items omitted from the Bill that hon. Members have mentioned.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is taking a glass half-empty rather than a glass half-full approach. The Government are making a number of long-term commitments for improving the infrastructure of this country. Will she at least say that she will abide by those commitments should she ever get into power?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to hear what I will say about the range of provisions in the Bill.

More alarmingly, the Bill could make things worse by diverting expenditure from the road network used by 67% of traffic. These are the very roads that need urgent attention in terms of the £12 billion funding black hole for potholes, not to mention measures to reduce congestion. Most tellingly, all this means that 91% of the public are dissatisfied with the state of the roads, which the Government surely need to address.

I am going to come on to the planning measures—or rather, the lack of them—in a minute, but it is obvious to everyone except this Government that meeting our infrastructure needs requires joined-up planning between strategic and local networks. That is the sort of devolution of powers that Labour is proposing—giving powers to local authorities, either singly or in combination, so that they can plan for the needs of the area—but we see no joined-up thinking coming from this Government. All the Bill does is to propose minor changes to the national infrastructure planning regime to allow two inspectors to sit on the panel of an examining authority and to allow the Secretary of State to make changes to development consent orders once they are made.

A recent report by the London School of Economics—one of the many recent reports on this topic—argues for a new approach to infrastructure in this country. Labour has grasped that, which is why we set up the Armitt review to look at how we should approach the planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects. Armitt accepts much of the Planning Act 2008, but argues for an independent national infrastructure commission and cross-party agreement to prevent the start-stop regime that is often experienced by major infrastructure projects. To tackle that, we shall table amendments in Committee to try to persuade the Government of the sense of adopting the Armitt proposals.

[Mr Hayes]

Just to be absolutely clear, the feasibility studies that we carried out on the major road schemes that I outlined were on the basis of a dialogue with all the local agencies through a series of stakeholder events in which I was involved personally and the proper analysis of local needs and how they interface with the major schemes. I would not want the hon. Lady to have the misguided impression that we were not diligent in the process by which we devised our roads strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I take the point Minister’s point, but I still think we are lacking a structure that will effectively link more strategic planning for roads with local planning and delivery. Perhaps that is something that he and I can discuss in Committee.

[Ian Lucas]

Are not the days of largesse being distributed by central Government for transport and infrastructure projects gone? The responsibility and the decision making need to be devolved to a much more local level so that people who know about these instruments, rather than people who hold a stakeholder event on a flying visit, make the decisions.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I spoke of the importance of devolving powers to local authorities.

On the deemed discharge of planning conditions, conditions are there for a reason, which is often to make a development acceptable to local residents. Deemed discharge, if not done properly, risks losing the support of local communities and slowing up developments. According to the Government’s consultation, the main problems for local authorities are

“delays caused by third parties and resource constraints”.

The Bill does nothing to address those issues. Deemed consent needs to be appropriate to the issues concerning a specific development. We will study the impact of the changes closely in Committee.

Speeding up the transfer of land to the HCA is clearly to be welcomed, but I look forward to receiving further information from Ministers in Committee about how much additional land the changes are expected to bring into the system. It would also be helpful to know how many stalled sites the measures are expected to bring forward. Does the Minister envisage that the proposals will lead to the availability of more land for garden cities?

Given the recent announcements by the Government, the Bill is surprisingly quiet on measures that will deliver new garden cities in line with garden city principles, rather than just housing schemes. New housing is, of course, to be welcomed, but new housing developments do not become garden cities just because the Government label them as such. Again, it appears that the Bill represents a huge lost opportunity for the Government to update the new towns legislation and deliver the homes that our country so desperately needs.

If I am flummoxed as to why there are no measures to support new garden cities in the Bill, I am equally at a loss in trying to understand why the changes to the Land Registry are necessary. The Government have given no real rationale for that measure. That has led many Opposition Members and others to worry that the purpose is simply to fatten up the Land Registry for privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us on that specific issue when he sums up.

We have concerns about watering down the standards for zero-carbon homes, and that was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. A bit of advice I would give to the Minister is to listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), who seems to have a pretty good grasp of what the Bill should contain.

On fracking, my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones), the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others said they were very concerned that there were not sufficient regulations on fracking to allay public concern, and that they will be tabling amendments, as will the Opposition, in Committee. Clearly, the Government need to address this issue further.

In conclusion, I share the sentiment of many in Parliament and beyond that the Bill could have done much more to enable economic growth and deliver the infrastructure our country so desperately needs to modernise and develop. In government, Labour delivered on infrastructure: £93.7 billion on the road network and £32 billion on the decent homes standard; and we invested heavily in renewable energy. By contrast with this Government, Labour will put measures in place to promote growth, ensure that it is defined by quality and inclusion, and encourage development that will enhance the built and natural environment of the nation. I would like hon. Members to support the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

East Coast Main Line

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the new trains, which will be built in the north-east shortly, will be of tremendous benefit on this particular line and will provide the investment the line has wanted for many a year.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not share his enthusiasm for today’s announcement. Some of us have been here before, with private sector companies promising the earth to win contracts and then not delivering in practice. Why did the Government not listen to local people and keep the excellent East Coast in place as a public sector comparator? What will he do to ensure the promises that have been made will be delivered?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The people who are serving on East Coast trains now will be the people serving on the new InterCity franchise that I have announced today. I will quote another Labour Member of Parliament; that seems to be a bit of a habit this morning. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said:

“will he be fair to the marvellous train crews of Virgin Trains, who give extraordinarily good service, and tell them that their future is assured? Will he simply award the franchise to Virgin, which has carried it out brilliantly?”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 53.]

In fairness, he was referring to the west coast main line, but if I go back to that statement I could quote those people time and again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Local growth deals across the country have been a great success in supporting local priorities. A second crossing in Warrington falls firmly into the category of a local priority, and the purpose of the local growth fund is to reflect those strongly.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

T10. Only a third of the infrastructure projects trumpeted by the Government will have actually started by 2015, and the A14 fiasco probably sums up the Government’s record on roads. When will the Government end the delays and re-announcements and start to deliver the infrastructure our country needs?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would put the infrastructure record of this Government alongside the infrastructure investment of the previous Government any day. It would be shown to be far more substantial than anything ever planned by the previous Government. I have had the solid support of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making sure we have available funds for infrastructure.

East Coast Main Line Franchise

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice]

As I have just mentioned, we will hear from our Front Bencher on this shortly. My own view is that this should be for an indefinite period, but the clear blue water between us and the Government on this issue is that we support a successful public service, whereas the Liberal Democrats are as one with the Conservatives in supporting the privatisation of this service. We have to question the reason why. Has this been proposed for the right financial and service reasons, or is there another, perhaps more partisan, explanation?

I wish to raise a relatively straightforward issue of fact. In an answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister of State said that investment in the east coast main line’s infrastructure is not dependent on reprivatising passenger operations. He said:

“Funding for the 2014-19 upgrade of the east coast main line will be delivered through the Office of Rail Regulation approving a £240 million increase in the value of Network Rail’s regulatory access base. Network Rail may then borrow up to this amount to fund the upgrade works.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 2W.]

However, he has since asserted otherwise on a number of occasions. For example, at the Transport Committee meeting on 24 April he said:

“What I think is important, looking to the future, is how you make the needed and important investment in the East Coast Main Line to bring it up to scratch. You will be as aware as I am that part of the electrification is very antiquated and needs to be replaced and upgraded because it is causing significant problems to the quality of service. I do not believe that keeping the East Coast Main Line in public ownership is the most effective and swiftest way of getting that investment. I believe that returning the East Coast Main Line to a franchise operation offers the best opportunity to move forward. In addition, the Government and the rail industry, through Network Rail, are continuing to invest in the East Coast Main Line, but we need to accelerate that and increase it.”

Then, at Transport questions on 25 April, the Minister stated that

“yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]

Despite a number of hon. Members raising this with the Minister in the debate a fortnight ago, he failed to address this point in his reply. Therefore I would be grateful if he could now state once and for all whether any elements of replacing and upgrading the electrification on the east coast main line are dependent on the transfer of the operation of passenger services to the private sector. Similarly, it would be helpful if he could explain how this investment will be delivered more swiftly if reprivatisation takes place. Finally, can he provide more detail of the increased investment, over and above the taxpayers’ money being put into the line, that would be delivered as a result of privatisation?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case to keep the line in the public sector and at the very least to allow a public company to bid for it. Does he agree that as the Minister has made it clear that the planned infrastructure upgrade work on the east coast main line between 2014 and 2019 will be borne by Network Rail, that answers the question?

[Graeme Morrice]

Indeed. I am trying to expose the inconsistency in what the Minister has been saying. Unless he can explain his position when he speaks later, it remains unclear why all this private investment has been deemed necessary at all.

The past, current and planned public investment into the east coast main line has been and continues to be highly effective. However, if further investment is required, it could easily be provided by public means, given that the service returns far more to the Exchequer than it receives in subsidy. Furthermore, given the thoroughly negative history of private involvement in the east coast main line, it is highly probable that taxpayers will once again be left to pick up the tab, as we have seen in so many other botched franchise deals, not least on the west coast main line, if the east coast service is privatised.

In summary, the British taxpayer has funded the east coast main line service successfully since November 2009, after 12 years of declining profits and eventual failure under both GNER and National Express. The east coast service became hugely profitable almost immediately after renationalisation and has returned its soaring profits to the Exchequer every year, with an estimated total returned in excess of £800 million by the end of this financial year.

It is unfathomable that the response of the Government to this success, so quickly established after years of failed management by the private sector, is to decide that this is a good time to give National Express a second chance. It is appalling that the Minister and his Department are so eager to overlook this clear demonstration of the high quality of our public rail service management. Rather than continue with this charade, I suggest that the Minister should focus his efforts on sorting out the debacle of the west coast main line and other similar fiascos.

It is ill-advised for the Government to create an issue out of nothing and waste resources in trying to solve a problem that is not there, when they already struggle to deal with real problems and real issues, often of their own making. I can only conclude that it is merely political dogma that is driving the agenda, which I hope will ultimately be derailed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this important debate.

The passions that questions of democratic control arouse in all parts of the House are understandable, and falling into dogmatic defence of the present or romanticised views of the past is a constant danger, but the main problem of franchising is not the money skimmed off the top by the train operating companies—the money paid out in dividends was 2% of sales in 2012—or even the massive fiscal drag caused by fragmentation, payments to rolling stock leasing companies and the excess interest on Network Rail debt, paid for no other reason than to keep it off the public balance sheet. The biggest problem of franchising, which echoes through the McNulty report, the Brown report and every major policy discussion of the past 20 years, is that the debate about the future of rail in this country has become a debate about what colour the trains are. The real debate must be about whether rail is a private enterprise or a public service.

The Minister himself has been caught in such narrow thinking, insisting time and again in Westminster Hall that Directly Operated Railways could not run a railway indefinitely, because it was not intended to do so when it was set up in the dim and distant days of 2009. With respect, though, what previous Transport Ministers imagined DOR’s role to be is of no consequence. The question surely must be not whether it was intended to run indefinitely, but whether it is capable of doing so. The tremendous success of East Coast demonstrates that it is. Total premium plus operating profit amounted to £647.6 million in the four years to 31 March 2013, and as hon. Friends have pointed out, the total by the end of the term will be £800 million. That is more in both cash and real terms than any previous franchisee on the line has achieved. All that money is available for reinvestment in our railway network.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Could not the Government, if they wanted to, amend the Railways Act 1993 to enable East Coast to bid for the franchise as a public company? That might not be exactly what we want, but it would at least help.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Such a leap of imagination—if people opened their mind to other possibilities that are available—would be welcome.

East Coast has achieved revenue growth of 9% over three full years, with 4.3% growth in 2012-13. Journey numbers have increased from 18.1 million in 2009-10 to 19.1 million in 2012-13. All that has resulted in a £40 million surplus. I was disappointed to hear Government Members criticising the service East Coast provides, when the record shows the contrary is true. Nine out of 10 trains are on time, according to the latest public performance measure, and the national rail passenger survey gives the service a 92% overall customer satisfaction rating—the highest score of any franchise on the line since records began in autumn 1999. Government Members’ critical comments are therefore highly regrettable.

If East Coast remains in public hands indefinitely, it will be to the benefit of passengers, communities and taxpayers. Several times in the course of this debate, the idea has been floated that such an arrangement would be more attractive than Ministers realise and that the public would find it engaging. More than that, it would mark a fundamental change in the thinking of the past 30 years—the economic voodoo that says that involving the private sector always, magically, creates benefits.

The truth is that railways cannot be run for profit. British Rail was subsidised. Network Rail is subsidised. No railway in the world is not subsidised in some shape or form. In that environment, train operating companies are simply one more player lobbying for a share of taxpayers’ money. They are required to return a profit for their shareholders, but their profits are not won in the marketplace; they are created by legislation.

The efforts of train operating companies are not turned outward, focused on striving towards greater efficiency or customer satisfaction; they are turned inward, focused on ringing out as much subsidy as possible from the taxpayer. Fares cover, on average, only 65% of the cost of the network, so all dividends are the result of Government largesse—and Governments have been more than generous. In the two years from September 2010 to September 2012, Network Rail’s debt, for which the taxpayer is ultimately responsible, has increased by £4.1 billion.

I would like to take this opportunity to praise the Department for Transport for resisting the self-defeating austerity advocated by the rest of the coalition Government and borrowing at very low interest rates to invest in upgrading our national infrastructure. I also offer my consolation for the fact that, in order to keep that off the Chancellor’s radar, the Department has had to pretend that it is not Government debt and pay an additional £150 million a year in interest as a result.

Surely now is the time for honesty. Private companies in the rail sector do not spur innovation. They extract value and are unnecessary, as East Coast shows. The investment in the railways is all Government money, underwritten with Government debt. The current system is unsustainable, because Network Rail now spends more on servicing its debt than on maintaining and upgrading the network, and that debt is increasing. The taxpayer paid for the service, pays for the service and will always pay for the service. It is only fair that they get what they pay for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important and timely debate from the Backbench Business Committee—I have to declare an interest, because I sit on it. Like many colleagues, given the recent history of the east coast main line and privatisation, not to mention the present Government’s failure on the west coast main line franchise, I am deeply concerned about the Government’s plans and the impending privatisation of the east coast main line.

The Secretary of State for Transport’s announcement to start the tendering process for the east coast main line and nine further franchises paid no regard to public interest. It will result in the return of a profitable rail service to private hands within the next two years. The plans are no doubt a recipe for disaster. We already know that South West Trains, another private franchise, is in operating difficulties.

We have clearly established that Government Members are in favour of state ownership of the railways. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), are in favour of state ownership, but not UK state ownership; they are in favour of German, French or Dutch state company ownership of UK railways. Do we honestly think for one moment that Angela Merkel would allow such a situation to prevail in the Federal Republic of German? I do not think so.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Is it not ludicrous that a publicly owned company in the UK cannot bid but publicly owned companies in other European countries can?

[Ian Mearns]

Given how Eurosceptic so many Government Members are, I think that it is utterly bizarre that they would rather see profits from UK railways going to France, Germany or Holland.

If Members have any doubts about the way this is all coming about, they need only look back a few years to the Government’s rescue of the line from the failing £1.4 billion National Express franchise. However, despite the private sector’s record of failure, the Government are determined to press ahead regardless of the interest of the travelling public. They would pursue the foolish policy of privatisation, despite history repeatedly telling us that the privatisation of railway lines and rail infrastructure is detrimental to cost and service for the customer and to the Government because of huge financial bail-outs.

The state-owned Directly Operated Railways, which runs the east coast main line, has generated and paid the Government £640 million in premiums and profits since 2009, and it is anticipated that by the end of this financial year that figure will be £800 million in total. Surely even the Chancellor or the Finance Ministers whom I faced on the Finance Bill Committee earlier this afternoon would want to see those moneys returned to the Chancellor’s coffers. Even this Government, given the current financial state of the country, should want to keep the franchise in public hands and see those profits repatriated to the Treasury.

The Government should pocket the profits for the public and use them to help cut the deficit and perhaps even invest in infrastructure. One thing that we have to accept about the east coast main line—railway engineers have told me this—is that, unfortunately, when it was first electrified I am afraid to say that it was done on the cheap; it was not a good model of electrification in the first instance. This Government, however, do not want to see that money reinvested. It is clear that, for them, private shareholder interest comes before the public interest. This is yet another example of this Government’s failed and ideologically driven economic policies.

No one denies that the east coast main line suffers its own problems of chronic under-investment, particularly with regard to what is now very tired rolling stock. We have discussed rolling stock reinvestment, but the problem is that we are being promised jam not tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow. The first new rolling stock on the east coast main line will be the diesel replacement, but that will not actually occur until 2018, with the rest of the fleet following further down the line. Let us not forget that the east coast main line inherited this burden from the privately owned rail firms, Great North Eastern Railway and National Express.

There has been very little rolling stock investment on the line for many decades. There has been some refurbishment, but that was mainly on carriages that were damaged following the tragic Hatfield and Selby rail crashes. The only way to run an effective rail service is to ensure that the infrastructure is up to scratch through continued investment, yet the overriding objective from a private sector perspective is not to invest in maintenance and customer satisfaction, but to return money to shareholders.

Privatisation in the rail sector is consistently lacking and detrimental to customers and the industry. Why privatise a service that has been successful? In short, it is not broke, so why fix it?

Let us recall the demise of Railtrack in 2002. The problems were numerous, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was the requirement for essential safety repairs following the Paddington and Hatfield disasters. Railtrack—a privately owned company under the failed model—was answerable to shareholders rather than the public. It was, to put it bluntly, badly managed, effectively bankrupt and unwilling to try to fund urgent safety improvements as well as normal running costs. Subsequently, as we know, the company was put into administration and Network Rail, a not-for-profit body, was invented to take over the rail network.

Given the inherent debt of Network Rail, is any Government Member suggesting for one moment that we re-privatise it? Of course not, because it would be completely and utterly stupid. Even if it were privatised—let us be honest—who really trusts this Government to introduce a fair and transparent, or even competent, tendering process in the current rail industry? Let us not forget the west coast franchise, for instance, which has cost the Government at least £50 million. What a complete shambles—a shambles that has resulted in Virgin, which lost to First Group in the tendering process, having to have its contract extended until 2017. The whole model does not produce competition; it produces a series of service monopolies on individual lines. That is not competition as anyone would understand it.

In among all this, the staff on the east coast main line have worked diligently and conscientiously through all the management changes over the years, but they have seen the equipment and rolling stock that they work on slowly deteriorate around them. Those staff are a credit to the service and deserve our congratulations. They and the travelling public they serve on the east coast main line deserve so much better.

The east coast main line should remain where the vast majority of the travelling public want it—in the public sector, in public ownership—and some of the surpluses that it generates should be reinvested into the service itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important debate and on all her campaigning work on this issue.

The east coast main line is vital for the connectivity of my constituency. As regular passengers, many of my constituents have an interest in the future management of the line. I too am a frequent user of the route, travelling between my constituency and Westminster, and I have generally been pleased by the speed, punctuality and comfort of the line and by the high standard of service and professionalism of its staff since it took over from National Express in 2009. I am not alone in thinking this. The most recent survey by the independent consumer group Passenger Focus found that 92% of passengers were satisfied with their experience with East Coast. To put that in perspective, that is the highest level of customer satisfaction recorded on the line since the surveys began in 1999, and 3% higher than the national average for long-distance operators. Improved satisfaction tells only some of the story. East Coast has increased its employee engagement, meaning that most employees are in favour of continued public ownership of the line. That should not be dismissed.

My hon. Friends have gone through much of the detail on the benefits of East Coast, including the £800 million being paid back to the Exchequer, and I do not feel that I have time to reiterate all those points. What is clear from the information we have, and which is readily available to the Minister and his team, is that this is a well-run, profitable line that is popular with passengers. Why, then, are the Government insisting on selling off the franchise, while at the same time extending the contracts for less successful operators? I hope the Minister will answer that specific question.

In the previous debate on this issue, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that East Coast is simply treading water—an amazing claim to make considering that the franchise has consistently made improvements year on year. The Minister stated that East Coast had provided the foundations for a private company to come in with

“certainty of ownership, longer planning horizons”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 254WH.]

to improve the service. The success of East Coast without that long planning horizon prompts the question: how much more would it be able to do if it was given a longer franchise? Perhaps he could confirm that the majority of investment in new rolling stock will come from the public sector, and not the private sector. We should not link the private sector franchise for running the line with future investment in rolling stock—they need to be kept separate. They keep getting muddled in our debates.

The Liberal Democrat-Tory Government have been quick to say that when Labour set up Directly Operated Railways in 2009, after the privately owned National Express walked away from the franchise, it was there purely as a stop-gap. That was certainly true at the time. Since then, however, Labour has seen that the franchise is working for both passengers and the Government. Has the Minister not considered that the franchise is working well and should be extended? A large part of the Minister’s argument in the previous debate seemed to rest on the fact that previous Labour Transport Secretaries said that they would do the same as him. Today, we have a statement from Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) saying that they are clearly in favour of the contract staying in public ownership. Lord Adonis said:

“In the last four years East Coast has established itself as one of the best train operating companies in the country, both operationally and commercially. This has fundamentally changed the situation, and it is right and proper that East Coast should be allowed to continue as a public sector comparator to the existing private franchises.”

It seems illogical to change something that is performing so well, particularly when it provides a useful comparator to measure the performance of private operators against. At the very least, the Government should delete section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 and allow East Coast to submit a bid for the new franchise. It seems almost perverse that, as we have heard from other colleagues today, state-owned companies from France, Germany and the Netherlands currently operate 10 of the 17 privately run UK rail franchises—thereby subsidising rail fares elsewhere in Europe—yet public companies from Britain are not even allowed to bid. Surely it is clear to everyone in the country—apart from the Minister and his team, perhaps—that the Government’s plans for rail are totally on the wrong track.

Winter Weather

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to update the House on the Government’s response to the severe winter weather.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Last year, the country experienced the most prolonged period of cold weather for 30 years. Weather conditions meant that the cost to the economy and the disruption to the public was significant and unacceptable. The Government took urgent action during the summer so that the country would be in a more resilient position this winter. We have studied the recommendations in David Quarmby’s review of last winter’s transport disruption, which was established by my predecessor and which I published in October.

We have taken action to address the points raised in the review. Salt stocks are at a much higher level than at this time last year and a national strategic salt reserve now exists for the first time to support local authorities whose individual stocks run out. Some 250,000 tonnes of salt have been ordered for that reserve, which will be managed by the Highways Agency, and more than 100,000 tonnes are already in place. In addition, the Highways Agency has 225,000 tonnes of operational stock for use on its own strategic road network and at the end of November local authorities had approximately 1 million tonnes of salt stock. The Highways Agency has ordered a further 60,000 tonnes and Scotland has separately stockpiled 30,000 tonnes.

Recommendations were also made in the Quarmby report about the measures that local highway authorities needed to take to keep our road network moving in the event of snow and ice this winter. In the past few days, there has been unusually heavy and persistent snow, in much greater quantities than were experienced earlier this year, down much of the eastern side of the country. The great majority of the strategic transport network has been kept open this week, but road and rail services in the areas worst affected by snow have been seriously disrupted. Highways authorities are working to keep roads open, but delays have been caused by broken-down vehicles and minor accidents. It is clear that abandoned and broken-down vehicles preventing access for gritters and in some cases preventing access to highway depots were major factors in yesterday’s situation.

Most airports in England are keeping services running, but Gatwick has been directly affected by the worst of the snow conditions in England and remains closed today. One hundred thousand tonnes of snow have been cleared at Gatwick during the past 24 hours, and 80 full-time equivalent personnel and 47 snow-clearing machines are in operation at the airport. Many eastern rail services and Southern rail and Eurostar services have also suffered disruption and delay. Network Rail and train operators are working together to deliver as many services as possible. Night-time ghost trains have been run wherever possible, but build-up of ice on third rails across the Southeastern and Southern networks has led to loss of power and trains being stranded, causing severe delays and cancellations.

We are not alone; our northern European neighbours, and even Switzerland, are similarly affected—Geneva airport was closed for 36 hours. The Government fully recognise the frustration of the travelling public, and we are doing everything we can to keep Britain moving. Given that much of the country is being hit by severe weather unusually early this year, I have asked David Quarmby to conduct an urgent audit of highways authorities’ and transport operators’ performance in implementing the recommendations in his report, and to consider any further steps that might need to be taken.

I want to make it clear that I am asking David Quarmby to address the question not of whether we expect disruption when we have weather of such severity, but of whether there is anything that could or should have been done that has not been done. I expect to receive his report before the House rises for Christmas, and I will make a statement on his immediate findings at that time.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response, but does not the fact that he has responded rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is in his place, show that the Government have no co-ordinated response to the problems created by the severe weather conditions? Will the Secretary of State tell the House who, if anyone, in Government is co-ordinating ministerial colleagues? As he said, the severe winter weather is creating huge problems: 1,500 schools are closed today, disrupting children’s education and preventing parents from getting to work; local authorities are reporting concerns about deliveries of grit; and ambulance services and hospitals are reporting cancellations of services. It is clear, therefore, that the problems are not confined to transport, but affect vulnerable people and the running of vital public services.

People were trapped in their cars, on trains and at isolated stations for many hours during the night, and many others are cut off in their homes, raising concerns about food deliveries and fuel supplies. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell us not just what he is doing, but what the Secretary of State for Education is doing on the schools situation, what the Secretary of State for Health is doing to keep hospitals running, and what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is doing to ensure that local authorities have what they need? Finally, can the Transport Secretary tell us whether there are any plans to convene Cobra today to help co-ordinate the Government’s response to the severe winter weather? That certainly needs to happen.

[Mr Hammond]

The list of problems that the hon. Lady read out are overwhelmingly related to the difficulties in the transport system. There is a long-established principle that the Department with lead responsibility for the problem co-ordinates across Government, and the Department for Transport has taken the lead in responding to this situation so far.

The hon. Lady said that local authorities are having difficulty obtaining supplies of grit, but my Department has not been contacted by any local authority with such difficulties. We have more than 100,000 tonnes of grit available in the Highways Agency’s strategic stockpile ready to be made available to local authorities if they request it. The hon. Lady asked whether Cobra was planning to meet. The situation is being kept under continuous review, and if it is appropriate to convene a meeting of Cobra later today, that meeting will be convened.