High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not be making any of the same mistakes as the Minister.
Finally, I take the opportunity to comment on amendment 23 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He has rightly introduced this amendment to advance his constituency and the interests of the people living there, but I am concerned that we would be straying into territory that is covered by the Davies commission. The Labour Front-Bench team share the frustration of those who want to see from the commission an earlier resolution of the issue of airport capacity. It was we who called for those cross-party talks, to which the Government somewhat belatedly agreed. Nevertheless, we are bound into the process and there can be no justification for delaying preparation work on this important project until after the election, when that commission is due to report.
We want to see the new high-speed line built without further delay. The whole country can benefit from the improved capacity and connectivity that it will bring. I am happy to see it fully integrated into the wider network and to support amendment 17.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I confirm that I will support amendment 17. As she rightly said, it resulted from an idea put forward by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). If we are to have an integrated transport system, it is crucial that we do not link just high speed rail to the conventional lines, but take into account all the other forms of transportation to help people get from A to B.
It is particular pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), in his place and leading on the issue. It is an important issue and I know that he will do well on it, ably supported by officials at both the Department for Transport and High Speed 2.
I support amendment 17 and oppose amendment 18 and the amendments that flow from it. In many ways I have a feeling of déjà vu, because we had copious debates in Committee on the matter, and I never quite understood why so many people got certain parts of their apparel in such knots over the issue. It is clear from clause 1(2) that the Bill applies to
“railway lines connecting at least—
London,
Birmingham,
the East Midlands”
and so on. The whole point of the Bill and the purpose of getting it on to the statute book is to provide financing not of an actual project, but of the preparations for the project ad infinitum, because High Speed 2 need not necessarily stop at Leeds or Manchester. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made that plain in October last year, when he announced that he was going to set up an inquiry into the feasibility of a third phase to Scotland.
The Bill will allow the expenditure of money for the preparation of not only phases 1 and 2, but potentially phase 3, if there is one, a spur to south Wales, if a business case were made that it was needed, to the south-west or—a possibility closer, I suspect, to the heart of the distinguished Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—all the way into Liverpool. The Bill grants the Government permission to spend the money on those preparations.
The thought that there will not be full and proper consideration of the continuation of the project to Scotland at some point is bizarre. It is an obvious part of a viable rail network along the spine of the country for it to continue in time to Glasgow, Edinburgh and potentially—depending on the wishes of Government and the business case at the time—beyond that. That is what the Bill does.
Mrs Gillan
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend observed members of the Committee getting parts of their apparel in a twist. As I was not a member of the Committee, it obviously was not mine. He has outlined what so many critics beyond this place say of the Bill—that it is a blank cheque. Can he confirm that it is an open-ended financial commitment to spend any sum of money on any part of any preparation for any railway network anywhere in the country—the blank cheque that everybody dreads?
Mr Burns
My right hon. Friend is right—she was not on the Committee. It seemed as though she was, because she was in the Public Gallery the whole time, assiduously following our deliberations. I think I am right in saying, from memory, that we discussed a number of amendments that she tabled for that Committee which were moved by members of the Committee.
My right hon. Friend advances an argument, but repeating it does not mean it becomes more accurate. That argument is that the project has a blank cheque. It does not have a blank cheque. It is not a machine for printing money. There are very tight financial procedures in place to ensure that it does not exceed budget.
Before anyone asks how that can be considered a viable proposition, one should look at Crossrail, the largest engineering project in Europe at present, a multi-billion pound project. Owing to tight financial controls, it is on time and on budget, and I have every confidence that, with the mechanisms that have been put in place, that will be the case with HS2. I see figures quoted about what the project will cost which are from Alice in Wonderland. The cost is £42.6 billion, but that sum includes £14.4 billion of contingency funding, of which the vast majority, I am confident, will not be spent.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that there is a myth in this country that we cannot do big projects? Look at the success of Crossrail and the High Speed 1 line and compare that with the west coast main line upgrade, the kind of incremental project that some Members are keen on, which was four years late and 240% over budget.
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I was particularly interested to hear his views in the debate because he is a Kent MP. When I first came into the House 26 and a half years ago, in one of the first Adjournment debates I ever sat in and listened to—I confess that I have not listened to many since, except those that I have taken part in—two of my hon. Friends made a vigorous case that, if High Speed 1 went ahead, it would turn the garden of England into the garbage can of England, destroy house prices, ruin the economy of Kent and end the world as we knew it. High Speed 1 went ahead and Kent’s economy has been regenerated and improved. House prices have not gone through the floor; in fact, house prices along the line of route have kept pace with those in other areas. In some cases, they have increased beyond them because of the houses’ proximity to good commuter links. Capacity has increased, particularly for those commuters who are prepared to use High Speed 1 from Canterbury, for example, to London.
The supreme irony is that one town in Kent, Maidstone, successfully lobbied not to have a station—it was put at Ebbsfleet instead—and people are now begging for a station at Maidstone because they are missing out on the regeneration and improvements to the economy that are taking place in Ashford and Ebbsfleet. The other irony—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) should listen carefully to this, because I know she is a lady with an open mind and strong views—is that Kent county council, along with hon. Members of this House, led the opposition to High Speed 1 in the late ’80s but is now a strong supporter of the high-speed railway because of the benefits it has brought to the community and the county. The leaders and officials of Kent county council have offered to go and talk to the leaders of Buckinghamshire county council, Warwickshire county council and Staffordshire county council to explain that in their experience the railway did not destroy their communities or environment but actually greatly enhanced them. Unfortunately, there is certainly one county council that does not seem to have the wish or the will to hear the facts or the benefits that high-speed rail could bring.
Mr Burns
I will not give way, for the simple reason that many of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members want to take part in the debate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) speaks from a sedentary position. I think it is fair to say that we have had many interventions from him today, so perhaps there might be a chance for someone else to have a turn.
The country needs this project because of all the important arguments: the greater connectivity; the fact that it is an engine for growth; the regeneration along the line of route; and, most importantly, the fact that it will deal with the capacity issue. I think that when High Speed 2 was announced in late 2008 and into 2009, little thought was given to its name. Those who took the decisions immediately called it High Speed 2, as they already had High Speed 1. Unfortunately, it is a misnomer that has, in some ways, led us up a cul-de-sac.
Of course, faster journey times are important, but they are not the most important thing. The most important thing is capacity. As I have said before, to echo what Tony Blair said in a different context, it is about capacity, capacity, capacity. The west coast main line will be full by 2024. We need capacity on the conventional railway for those who want to travel between London, Birmingham and Manchester but do not want to go along the whole route, and we need capacity to get even more freight off our congested roads and on to the railways.
Dan Byles
My right hon. Friend and I had many discussions on this issue during his time as a Transport Minister. Yet again, we have come back to the idea that it is about not speed but capacity. Would he therefore support redesigning the line to run at a slower speed so that it could go around places such as Water Orton primary school, ancient monuments and people’s houses?
Mr Burns
I heard my hon. Friend say that in an intervention on another of my colleagues. Let me tell him gently and in a spirit of friendship that, if one takes the line that he is suggesting, it will no longer be a high-speed train. In effect, it will be a parallel conventional rail line like the west coast main line. All the reports on having a conventional new rail line in parallel rather than a high-speed one show that it would cost about 90% of the cost of HS2 but without the benefits that high-speed railways bring.
Mr Burns
No, I will not.
Unfortunately, a project of this scale and size cannot meet the problems and objections of every part of the route while still keeping to the reason for and need behind the railway. It is rotten when one cannot deal with every problem, but we need to balance what is in the national interest against what can be done to minimise the impact. I believe that the Secretary of State for Transport, his Ministers, the Department for Transport and High Speed 2 Ltd have gone a considerable way—as far as they can—towards meeting and overcoming those problems without ruining the concept of high-speed rail and without it being disastrous for the taxpayer.
For those reasons, I am as confident as one can be that High Speed 2 will become High Speed 3 and go to Scotland, and that in years to come it will go to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. That can happen in an orderly way only if this Bill is passed to enable money to be spent on the preparations—not on building the railway, because the Bill does not deal with that. For those reasons, I will support the hon. Member for Nottingham South and my right hon. and hon. Friends on amendment 17; we gave a commitment to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras that we would do so. I will certainly oppose amendment 18 and those that flow from it, however, because they are superfluous and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, contradictory.
Stephen Barclay
Indeed. That brings me to the distorting effect at the heart of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and the paradox that the scheme will divert more funding to London.
Stephen Barclay
I will, but before doing so, may I thank my right hon. Friend, who, throughout his time as Minister, was most courteous and responsive? I take his intervention with pleasure.
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope my intervention does not spoil that record. Is he taking into account the fact that some of the changes, particularly to phase 1, will actually save money? For example, the decision to tunnel around Hanger lane in west London will be cheaper than the original overground proposal, leaving us with money for swings and roundabouts.
Stephen Barclay
Of course, there will be some give and take. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) highlighted the issues involved, but let us consider, for example, the Heathrow spur, on which we have had interventions. If Howard Davies decides to go with a hub airport at Heathrow—and one would think it logical for HS2 to connect to it—the cost of that is not in this budget, and neither is the cost of the connection in Camden, so the cost of tunnelling and the additional work that is likely to flow are not in these figures either. I wish, then, to draw the House’s attention to the pressure that is likely to follow from what Donald Rumsfeld would probably refer to as the “known unknowns”, which we know are going to be huge.
Stephen Barclay
Of course there is a debate around Old Oak Common, but I must point out the lack of clarity. Clearing a similar site for the Olympics cost £1 billion. Where is the figure for clearing and regenerating the site around Old Oak Common? Transport for London is putting in requests, stating that it is possible to leverage HS2 with better connectivity using Old Oak Common, and I think it is right to do so, but where is that proposal reflected in the figures?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a clear statement on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday. He did not say that the project would be delivered for £42 billion; he said that it would be delivered for less. That was the promise he made. Now we are talking about a cap of £50 billion, so an extra £7 billion has appeared in the space of a few days. In today’s debate, Members are adding their own wish-lists, which will add further to the costs.
Mr Simon Burns
The cost of HS2 is £42.6 billion, within which there is a contingency fund of £14.4 billion. The figure of £50 billion that my hon. Friend has referred to reflects the addition on top of that of £7.1 billion for rolling stock, of which £1.7 billion is the contingency fund. It is not for the building of the railway.
Stephen Barclay
The size and quantum of the contingency points to a lack of detail and of financial discipline in the cost estimates. That is why so much of it is vague.
I started my remarks believing that my time was unlimited, but having been made aware by one of my colleagues that my time is more finite than I originally expected, I shall dramatically shorten my speech and finish with reference to two issues.
First, on direct costs, reading the business case put forward this week, it is difficult to get a sense of the impact of energy prices on construction. We justified the high cost of our nuclear deal last week on the basis of rising energy prices, yet we seem to be quoting the same HS1 energy costs for steel construction for this project. Land prices seem vague. Network Rail still has a 23% efficiency gap. Is it to be a subcontractor? Are we going to fix the governance of Network Rail, which is still out of the scope of shareholders, of the National Audit Office and of freedom of information requests?
Secondly, there seem to be a number of contradictions with this project. If economic growth is as good as the passenger forecasts suggest, will it not put pressure on supplier costs for construction, particularly on a project that will deliver at its peak 40% of construction market work? We need far more transparency on costs.
Mrs Gillan
I do not think that that is true at all. I think that what I am doing is giving Members—such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns)—who claim that the project will come in at bang on £42.6 billion, or indeed less, an opportunity to enshrine that in statute.
Mrs Gillan
I would like to make some progress.
What worries me particularly, even in the case of this project, is that it will run out of money. Infrastructure projects have a very unfortunate history, both in this country and abroad, and megaprojects—
Mrs Gillan
I have already said that I will not.
Mega-projects of this sort are subject to great risk, and almost never fulfil their promise. The passenger numbers never equal those that were predicted, and the costs always exceed those predicted. What will happen if this Government, or any Government of any complexion, start to run out of money and see the bills going up? The contingency reserve may not be enough, and what will suffer is what will come at the end of this project.
We make much of protecting our environment—Members in all parts of the House make much of our green credentials—but we should consider what the reinstatement of our countryside will cost. We should consider the ancient woodlands that have been destroyed, and the work that will be necessary for some time to maintain biodiversity, mitigate noise, and offset the loss of some of our amenities. I do not agree that compensation will suffer. The Government seem perfectly capable of paying compensation with or without this Bill. The sum of compensation paid to date is £52 million, so I think that that is irrelevant to whether this Bill goes through or not. I worry greatly about that, but the genesis of this project is the fact that in March 2010 the cost for the whole route was £30 billion; by February 2011 it had risen to £33 billion; by January 2012 it had risen to £33.4 billion; and we are now at £42.6 billion without the rolling stock being included.
Mrs Gillan
I am pleased I let my right hon. Friend make that intervention, because I, too, am worried.
Mrs Gillan
How could I resist my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford?
Mr Burns
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I seek clarification from her because I am very concerned? This Bill is authorising the spending of money on the preparation work for building HS2. In one of her amendments, she is trying to limit that spending on the preparatory work to £50 billion, which seems far more, to the Nth degree, than the Government would ever want to spend on preparatory work. Surely there is something slightly wrong with this amendment.
Mrs Gillan
I do not think there is anything wrong with this amendment at all. It was a probing amendment, and just as the Government managed to slip their name under the official Opposition’s leading name on one amendment, I hoped that the Opposition might slip their name under mine as it contains the cap they wanted. Also, if we had had some adjustments to this Bill, it would have encompassed the spend. If we are going to have a money Bill, it should not just cover the open-ended preparatory work—now my right hon. Friend is wanting to have his cake and eat it—but should cover the money that is going to be spent on the project. After all, he has been arguing for—[Interruption.] Well, we know the hybrid Bill is coming. It will be a gargantuan monster of a Bill that will take up more time in this House than any other Bill has ever done.
Amendment 15 seeks to restrict the preparatory expenditure. I am sure my Front-Bench colleagues will say that these amendments are contradictory, but they are probing amendments. I did not serve on the Bill Committee so this is the opportunity for me to get these matters discussed. I think we need to restrict the expenditure to those items that are on the face of the Bill. Currently, the word “includes” in clause 1(3) means that the Bill is the blank cheque to which I referred earlier. I think that, in the Bill’s current form, there is no restriction. I am sure the Government will not accept any restriction, but they would have been in a much better place if they had done so.
I shall move on now, as I know many other Members want to speak. There are colleagues who are not in the House today but whom I have consulted in Buckinghamshire. The Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), knows his residents at Denham are wholly opposed to this proposal, and I know that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is continuing to work tirelessly within Government to put to the most senior Ministers the arguments and interests of his constituency. He has asked me to point out today that there are serious mitigation issues both in Wendover and Aylesbury that are still not resolved, yet the Department’s current plans make no adequate provision either for the measures to reduce noise or for fair compensation. I am also concerned for Mr Speaker, whose constituents in Buckingham continue to express overwhelming opposition.
This money Bill writes a blank cheque for the Government, or it purports to write a blank cheque and give the Government a fig leaf to cover their embarrassment about the hundreds of millions they have already spent and the £1 billion they will spend by the time we reach the next election. I was, however, hoping that we could regularise some of the terms and conditions of the people working on this project, which is the aim of amendments 21 and 22.
Amendment 21 deals with payments made through service companies. I do not know how many people in this House pay close attention to this matter, but there has certainly been a lot of fuss about service companies, particularly in connection with the BBC and others. When I asked a fairly innocuous parliamentary question, I was surprised to find out that in the past 12 months HS2 Ltd has engaged 48 people paid through personal service companies. Apparently, eight of those people have either left the company or transferred to the payroll, and a further 12 will have left or transferred by 31 December. That means that there will still be many people who are paid through personal service companies. Apparently, the Department was carrying out an assurance process at the time to ensure that all those people were compliant with their tax and national insurance obligations, and the good news is that the response was that they were—none was not compliant. But on a Government project of this sort, being paid for from the public purse, people should be paid as civil servants and they should not be in receipt of bonuses.
Much has been made about bonuses in and around this House in connection with many other professions. MPs do not get a bonus, and neither would I be asking for one as an MP, but I was shocked to find that between 2011 and 2013 people in the Department for Transport, including people working on HS2 Ltd, have been paid bonuses of more than £3 million between them. I admit that many of those bonuses will be small, but we should still put our money where our mouth is and the practice should cease. I also understand that HS2 Ltd, which was operating bonus schemes, is no longer doing so for its employees. I am pleased about that, because I do not think we can say one thing in one area of government and practise a different set of procedures in another.
Stephen Hammond
If I were to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has pointed out, I would be making a commitment of £50 billion on the preparatory expenditure. I do not intend that we spend anything like £50 billion on that. As my right hon. Friend said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), this Bill is about the preparatory expenditure.
Mr Simon Burns
There seems to be utter confusion about this. The cost of the project is £42.6 billion, with £7.1 billion for the rolling stock, but the Bill is about the preparatory work. It is preposterous to grant, in legislation, the Government of the day £50 billion to spend on preparatory work.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely correct in his understanding; of course he would be, as he has so skilfully managed the Bill so far.
Stephen Hammond
I might be prepared to consider that. However, my hon. Friend needs to be absolutely clear that this is about the preparatory works on phases 1 and 2 as opposed to preparatory works for the whole scheme were it to go further and create a network. His amendment does not cover that, and that is why it is unnecessary.
Mr Simon Burns
As I understand it, this Bill relates not only to phases 1 and 2 of current high-speed rail projects, but to phases 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of such projects at any time in the next 40 to 60 years. How could the Government of today restrict the amount of money available without knowing the value of money in 40 years’ time?
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. This Bill is about the preparatory expenditure. It is also about not only phases 1 and 2, but the whole network as it may be conceived in the future. It would, therefore, be completely erroneous to restrict ourselves to a limit on preparatory costs, because we do not know the future extent of any network. That is also why I agreed with my right hon. Friend a moment ago that amendment 20 is unnecessary.
I know that the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham was to put a limit on expenditure and I understand why she wanted to do that, but the amendment does not explicitly address preparatory expenditure, which is what this Bill is about. I note that she said it was a probing amendment.
HS2
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
The Department for Transport is today beginning a period of public consultation on long-term property compensation measures for phase 1 of HS2.
HS2 is set to become a vital part of Britain’s infrastructure. This new high-speed line will open up opportunities for the UK that we have not seen in generations. Its scope to transform this country is enormous, bringing our cities closer together and re-shaping the economic geography of this country.
Although HS2 will benefit the whole country, the Government understand the impact that these proposals have on property owners affected by the route. We have had a discretionary scheme in place for phase 1 since 2010 to allow us to buy properties from people experiencing exceptional hardship and unable to sell because of our proposals; however, the Government have always been clear that they intend to go further than this in order to assist affected property owners. The proposals laid out today are designed to do just that.
We have consulted before on long-term property compensation for phase 1. However, some of the decision-making about the Government’s preferred schemes was challenged in a judicial review and in the light of the High Court’s judgment in March 2013, the Government immediately undertook to re-consult.
Today we have launched the new consultation, seeking the public’s views on a package of measures designed to assist individuals in a range of circumstances, whether their property is directly on the line of route or further away. Though similar to the package consulted on previously, we have taken a fresh look at the options available and introduced a number of new ideas.
Within the safeguarded area, we have proposed a streamlined system of purchasing owner-occupied properties to give greater certainty to the owner-occupiers closest to the line that we will buy their homes.
The proposals also include a long-term hardship scheme for owner-occupiers who have strong personal reasons to move but cannot do so, other than at a significant loss, because of HS2. This scheme would have no defined geographical boundary.
In rural areas, we have outlined two potential options which would provide further assistance. One option is for the Government to issue property bonds, a transferable guarantee that the Government would act as the buyer of last resort for those living close to the phase 1 route. We are also seeking the public’s views on a voluntary purchase scheme for owner-occupied properties within 120 metres of the phase 1 route.
We are committed to fairly compensating those who are affected and we want to hear people’s views on the generous and comprehensive measures we have set out. By supplementing the measures that are already available through the compensation code, these proposals go significantly above and beyond what is required under statute. Owner-occupiers within the safeguarded areas who sell their homes to the Government would receive the payments laid down in the compensation code. Those further away would receive 100% of the un-blighted value of their properties—that is, its value if there were no proposals for HS2.
Also subject to consultation are two approaches to renting property back to its previous owner after purchase by the Government as a result of HS2.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks, closing on 4 December 2013. Following a period of careful consideration, the final schemes should come into operation by summer 2014.
I can also announce today that the Government will not consult further on proposals pertaining to properties above tunnels or the replacement of lost social housing relative to phase 1. In the coming weeks, we will publish details of the Government’s approach to these issues.
Whatever the outcome of the consultation, the Government are determined to build a fair and effective package of support for property owners.
Copies of the consultation document, “Property Compensation Consultation 2013” and other supporting documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
6. What his policy is on the privatisation of InterCity East Coast rail services; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government’s programme for rail franchising in March. This included the intention to return the InterCity East Coast franchise to the private sector by February 2015, and this remains our policy.
Mr McKenzie
Why does the Minister continue to claim that the only way to get investment in the east coast main line is through privatisation, when he is well aware of the planned upgrade and the new generation of inter-city trains, both paid for by the taxpayer?
Mr Burns
Because, as I would hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the purpose of Directly Operated Railways is not to run a railway ad infinitum; it is a short-term measure when a problem arises with a franchise. He is absolutely right that as part of the record-breaking investment in our rail infrastructure we are investing in the east coast main line—as we are doing in the west coast main line and other lines— because that is the way forward. With the innovation and impetus of the private sector and a private sector franchisee, the maximum benefits can be ensured from state and Government investment.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Why have the Government reordered the franchising timetable, and what is the justification? The east coast main line timetable has been accelerated way out of order. What is the cost to the taxpayer?
Mr Burns
The reason for the change in the timetable is the unfortunate episode with the west coast main line—[Interruption.] I said “unfortunate”. Following the Brown inquiry, we redrew the franchising programmes and took his advice that the west coast main line and east coast main line franchises should not be done at the same time. That is why we are pressing ahead with putting the east coast main line franchise back into the private sector in February 2015.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Minister knows that his decision to reorder the franchising timetable just to enable him dogmatically to flog off a service that is working well has required him to renegotiate extensions to other inter-city contracts. Can he confirm, therefore, as a result of his negotiating skills, how much money he is requiring Virgin Trains to pay to the Government next year?
Mr Burns
I do not think the hon. Lady fully appreciates the role of DOR, which is not to run a franchise ad infinitum but to do so as an emergency measure. We have made it plain, following the Brown inquiry and recommendations, that it is best for the private sector to run the railways, as was always intended under the legislation, and that is why we are pressing ahead.
Maria Eagle
I am disappointed that the Minister does not know what he has negotiated, but I can tell him that Virgin Trains is paying £94 million, which, according to the independent rail regulator, is a staggering £64 million less than it paid last year. As his own Department’s figures reveal that he could have ended above-inflation fare rises next year for a similar sum, is it not a disgrace that passengers face fare rises of up to 9%, adding to the cost of living crisis, as a direct result of his decision to pursue this costly and unnecessary privatisation?
Mr Burns
The hon. Lady forgets to mention that to take into account the economic situation and economic mess that we inherited from her Government, we have provided help to fare payers by reducing the average formula from RPI plus 3% to RPI plus 1%. She selectively chooses the figure of a 9% increase—an extreme increase—but that will arise in a very small number of instances, because the formula calculates an average increase. She also forgets to mention those fares that have gone down rather than up.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
7. What his future plans are for transport infrastructure in north-west England; and if he will make a statement.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of High Speed 2 on economic growth in a) Chesterfield, b) Derbyshire and c) the east midlands.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
Yesterday, HS2 Ltd published a report by KPMG evaluating the potential impact of HS2 on productivity and business location. The report estimates that HS2 could generate productivity benefits to the Derby-Nottingham city region, which includes Chesterfield, of between £1.1 billion and £2.2 billion per year—equivalent to between a 2.2% and 4.3% increase in total local economic output within five years of opening.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Many of us who recognise that there will be significant economic benefits to the Chesterfield and Derbyshire area, and who support the principle, remain concerned that the current planned route could have very negative impacts on projects such as the Chesterfield canal and the junction 29A enterprise zone. What reassurances can the Minister give to people who do not want the economic benefits of HS2 to undermine other existing economic projects in the region?
Mr Burns
We do not wish or expect there to be any undermining of other projects, but I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I hope he is reassured that the matter is out to consultation, so he and others will have a full opportunity to make their case before any final decision is taken.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
15. Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that one of the biggest but so far largely unrecognised benefits of constructing High Speed 2 is the enormous increase in capacity that it creates on existing lines, for the benefit of all regions?
Mr Burns
Yes, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that, because what is important and what is on offer is that the High Speed 2 project will continue, but not at the expense of full and continued investment in the conventional rail network. As he is probably aware, in the next control period Network Rail and the Government are spending £37.5 billion to ensure that we improve, enhance and add to the existing network, as well as having high-speed rail.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that this so-called HS2—if it ever appears—is going to criss-cross the M1 about four times? What is he going to do about that? And as for Derbyshire and economic benefit, is he aware that there is not a single stop in Derbyshire?
Mr Burns
On the narrow geographical issue, I accept that Toton is not in Derbyshire, but it is halfway between Nottingham and Derby, so considerable benefits will be brought to both those communities and the surrounding area. We appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making about the M1, but, as he will appreciate, that matter is also out to consultation, so he will have an opportunity to input into it. However, I hope he welcomes the fact that, as a result of the station at Toton, there will be significant economic benefits to the whole region, which no doubt will please him.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this vital project will free up capacity on the existing network to ensure that towns such as Shrewsbury and Blackpool will be able to have connections to the capital?
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He is anxious to have a direct service on the conventional rail network from Shrewsbury to London and I have considerable sympathy and support for that. That is one of the reasons that high-speed rail is so important: it is capacity, capacity, capacity, to echo a former Prime Minister on another subject. That is what will be achieved, which will help areas such as Shrewsbury.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
9. What plans he has to ensure that the roads spending programme supports a) the A47 and b) other routes of strategic regional and national economic importance.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
10. What progress his Department has made on procuring new rolling stock for the east coast main line.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
The Department is investing £2 billion in a contract to supply 227 vehicles from its InterCity Express programme to replace the class 125 fleet and 270 vehicles to replace the class 225 fleet on the east coast main line. It is working with Agility to conclude the financing of the deal.
Jason McCartney
On my journey to and from Yorkshire every week, I regularly see the peak-time overcrowding on the east coast main line. In fact, when I brought my daughters down to London in the last week of August, we had to sit on the floor on the journey down and back up to Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we can have investment in HS2 and also in the east coast main line and that it is not a question of either/or?
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He is absolutely right. I can categorically confirm, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), that it is not a case of either/or: it is both. We will continue to invest record amounts—billions of pounds—in the conventional rail network and proceed to build HS2, because it is in the national interest.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is not the Minister aware that my experience as Chair of a Select Committee for 10 years was that the best way to have policy is to base it on evidence? The east coast is under the shadow of the plans to build HS2. Five independent reports have said not only that it is a waste of money but that it will suck power and wealth from the northern regions to London and the south.
Mr Burns
I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman, despite his 10 years as Chair of a Select Committee, when he was presumably assiduous about detail, has not read the KPMG report that was published yesterday, which categorically shows that the exact opposite is the case and that significant benefits are coming north of London. London gets some benefit but noticeably less than the northern parts of this country. That is why local authorities in the north support the project so much.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the (a) cost and (b) reduction in service of ferries between the Isle of Wight and the English mainland; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
As my hon. Friend is aware, Network Rail is currently undertaking an electrification study, looking at all routes, including Hastings to Ashford, to identify potential candidates for electrification, which could be carried out in the next rail control period from 2019 to 2024. Any scheme would have to demonstrate a business case before being considered, but would then be given full consideration.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Three years on from the axing of Cycling England and its £60 million annual budget, this Tory-led Government promised £148 million for cycling. That has turned out to be an average of £38 million per year until 2016, with local authorities expected to find the rest. In comparison, £28 billion is planned to be spent on roads. Does the Minister really believe that this is the right proportion and that this Government really are the most pro-cycling ever?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
T4. Will the Minister confirm that northern commuters on the trans-Pennine routes are still in line to benefit from the promised 40 extra carriages, and will he continue to look into increasing capacity on those northern commuter routes?
Mr Burns
I am delighted to confirm that commuters on the trans-Pennine express are in line to benefit from increased capacity provided by the extra 40 carriages to be introduced on the Manchester to Scotland route and the reallocation of diesel trains. The new electric trains are scheduled to enter passenger service between December 2013 and May 2014. I have no doubt that this will bring benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others along the line of route.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
T7. Will the rail Minister look seriously and urgently at the situation at Finsbury Park station, which is jointly run by Transport for London, London Underground and Network Rail? There are welcome new platforms for the overground but there is no step-free access for the underground. The station is the busiest outside central London and it is dangerously overcrowded at many times. The Mayor is proposing changes from 2017. That is too late; we need them now.
Mr Burns
I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I will consult the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and Transport for London. I hope that we can deal with this as successfully as we did when the hon. Gentleman and I last had a meeting in the Department for Transport, when we resolved another issue extremely satisfactorily.
Rail 2020
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Seabeck
That work was essential. We cannot continue with a situation in which severe weather conditions completely wipe out the links to the far south-west. No Government of any complexion would ever have been forgiven for not ensuring that the signalling around Cowley bridge in particular was made more resilient.
I was about to mention some of the important pinch points highlighted by Network Rail in the region, including Cowley bridge. Others were Chipping Sodbury, Hinksey, Whiteball tunnel, Athelney, Hele and Bradninch, Flax Bourton, Patchway tunnel and the Exeter diversionary route, all of which eventually need to be progressed. I fully accept that there is a restricted funding envelope, but how that limited funding is prioritised across the country can give or take away hope from rail users and local authorities, particularly in the south-west.
The latest solution for the problem at Exeter, over and above the lifting of the cabling and signalling, and put forward by the Environment Agency, appears to have been effectively to put a barrier across the section of rail if the flooding comes back, to manage the water flow. That effectively closes the south-west off for business. Plymouth has no airport and if either the M5 or the A303, which is not yet dualled, close at the same time, as has happened more than once, financial losses in the region will be significant, running into millions of pounds.
The weather troubles of last winter showed precisely the need for improvements to infrastructure in the south-west. During that period, First Great Western’s public performance measure for trains arriving on time fell to 80%. We should acknowledge—I am sure that Government Members who use the service would do so—the work that the staff of First Great Western undertook at that time, which was well over and above their usual call of duty. That includes everybody from drivers to station managers to the man who was tweeting the problems on the line—as well as the engineers, of course, who were out in all weathers trying to mitigate and cope with the effects of landslides and flooding.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
And the emergency services.
Alison Seabeck
And, of course, the emergency services. I thank the Minister; he is absolutely right.
The rail network is our lifeline. Ministers and officials, as well as those involved through other organisations such as the Environment Agency, who clearly have a responsibility for tackling adverse weather conditions, must understand that the transport network and the environmental infrastructure network have to work together and we have to come up with solutions that work for both. We cannot have parts of the country simply being cut off.
The growth in demand for travel to the south-west for its cities and leisure activities continues to grow, and that is a really good thing. Of course, many of these travellers and visitors are expected to arrive by rail. Indeed, 24,000 people arrived at Castle Cary to go to the Glastonbury festival last weekend, including a member of my staff, who has probably just about recovered. Many businesses are keen to establish themselves in the south-west because of the quality of life there, but they voice concerns about the transport linkages.
Yet now we have had a backtracking on promises made to MPs, commuters, local authorities and rail user groups regarding the great western franchise. The visit made by the Secretary of State, with a fanfare of trumpets, was welcome. However, on almost the same day, others were being told—officials were talking to officials in local government—that the service upgrades that we had all fought for and believed we were getting were being taken away: no early-morning train to Plymouth, no extra three-hour journeys from London, no wi-fi. Improvements could happen only if a third party—a local authority or business—was willing to contribute. It was always very unlikely that First Great Western would be willing or able to take on the additional financial risk over the shortened period of the revised franchise. There was perhaps a hope that the local enterprise partnerships could step in to assist with the recommended Heseltine regional funding, but the Chancellor knocked that on the head when he reduced so drastically the amount going to the regions.
If the Government are serious about getting growth back into the economy, they must look at the transport infrastructure in all the regions and not be totally fixated with High Speed 2. How can local authorities invest when they have just learned that their budgets are going to be cut further by the Government, with another 10% having to be found? Many are asking how they can be expected to fund and support long-distance services.
The franchising and re-franchising process has, at times, been disastrous. The Transport Committee has rightly raised serious concerns and made recommendations, one of which advised the Government to look at wider policy objectives such as the promotion of sustainable end-to-end journeys, the quality of the passenger experience, and, crucially for Plymouth and the south-west, social and economic development. It is far from clear that any of these factors have been considered with any seriousness specifically in relation to the great western franchise. Where is the joined-up government in all this? The delay and uncertainty around the great western franchise is deeply damaging to the region. Other areas are now suffering because of the failure of the franchise process. Staff on the affected lines are concerned that the pressure on the companies is leading to cost-cutting and an increase in casualisation of posts, and from the companies’ perspective there is a risk to share prices and, ultimately, viability.
There are justifiable reasons—environmental, economic and social—for public subsidy of the rail network, but it is not clear that the Government are getting value for money. There should be greater transparency on where the subsidy is going. It would also be good if we could have some explanation of why the home countries of the overseas-based companies running lines in the UK—they are usually in Europe and include France, Germany, Holland—have fares that are, on average, a third lower than they are here. Are we subsidising some of those routes in Europe?
My party rightly wants to give the travelling public some hope by using funds more wisely, scrapping the costly privatisation of InterCity East Coast and reforming the ticketing process. Introducing a legal right to the cheapest ticket will help, because people are struggling to use public transport as the cost of living rises and their wages fall.
Our rail links nationally are a vital part of our infrastructure and are essential to the growth and prosperity of our regions because of their ability to move people and freight. In many parts of the country, however, they are hampered by the failure of the franchise process, the failure of the infrastructure and resilience planning and the failure of this Government.
Ben Gummer
I am giving a bit of history because it does inform our discussion of the franchise process, which is the core of the report. I am not going to start trading statistics, but over the period of Railtrack, rail safety improved and we were going up the European safety league table. The reason so much money had to be invested—very successfully with private help—was the years of underinvestment by a series of Governments, Conservative among them. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on that point, not least because the facts on the safety of the rail network under privatisation speak for themselves.
How do we get this franchise system to work so that rail companies can compete with their natural competitors, the motorways and the airlines? I plead with the Government to do as much as they can. I know that the advice they have had recently has been to shorten slightly the long franchises that have been planned, but the longer the franchise rail companies can get, the better their ability to invest in rolling stock, customer service and improving the capacity and punctuality of their services.
Those of my constituents who have had the misfortune of having to commute on the Ipswich to London line for a long time will say that the best improvements they have seen were under the first franchise—as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree—which was quite long and had the loosest possible terms. It allowed the then Anglia franchisee to put maximum efforts into improving performance. The last Government did many good things in rail, but one of the bad things was to have far too tight a control over the franchises, stipulating to the dot and comma how the services should be delivered. Unsurprisingly, the bidders for those franchises went in at the lowest possible price, bidding on the specification provided by the Government, and the improvement in service flattened and, in some cases, reversed. We need as loose a franchise framework as possible, and as long as possible so that the private sector can invest as fully as possible in the services without being second-guessed by the doubtless otherwise brilliant officials at the Department for Transport.
We need to see other improvements, and I am glad that the Committee recommended them in its report. We need transparency in subsidy. The system is still not good enough at identifying where subsidy goes. I have tried to understand how much subsidy goes in to the great eastern main line. Network Rail and the Office for Rail Regulation are not good at disaggregating subsidy in sufficient granular detail. I have questioned them about control period 5, but it is almost impossible to get a decent idea of the quantity of subsidy or public investment we are likely to get in our line, which makes it very difficult for us, as public representatives, to fight for our constituents.
Transparency is also important for the way in which the franchise system develops. When privatisation was introduced, there was only one profit-making line in the UK and there are now many that turn a surplus. Effectively—and I know that the Minister disagrees with me slightly on the detail of this—fare income is transferred from one part of the country to another. Roughly £30 of the £74 standard fare ticket from Ipswich to London is paid in premium which is moved, effectively, to those parts of the country that need a subsidy. That is unfair on my constituents, especially those who are paid the same bad wages that some people in subsidised areas are paid. They rightly demand a social subsidy so that they can get their rail service for less than they would otherwise.
If a lot of our fare income is being moved to other parts of the country, it makes it difficult for us to get the investment we need. We should have more transparency about how the premiums are moved so that we can achieve some sort of parity for investment.
I turn now to a discussion of the east of England, and I know that the Minister has a constituency interest there and, therefore, a profound knowledge of the area. Only two regions of England outside London are net contributors to the UK Exchequer: the south-east and the east. Since the 19th century, the eastern region has suffered some of the worst levels of investment. Historically, there has been a poor level of investment in the main line from London to Norwich, with hand-me-down carriages and levels of service that other parts of the country have long forgotten about. The region has contributed to the UK economy in the past five or 10 years, but investment is needed for that contribution to continue. The region is not demanding new motorways or A roads, but investment is required for people to able to get from London, Ipswich and Norwich to the midlands. That would lead to growth that would make a significant contribution to the UK economy.
We are profoundly grateful for the investment that has occurred in the past few years. It was promised for many years, but not delivered. We will soon have a direct line between Felixstowe and Nuneaton, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). Thereafter, I hope we will have a direct line from Nuneaton to Coventry. I hope—the Minister will speak on this later—that there will be a new bypass loop north of the Minister’s constituency of Chelmsford, which would release capacity and improve performance between London and Norwich. All of these plans, in addition to Ely North junction, have been long promised and long talked about. They are at last being delivered, and for that we are very grateful. However, we need new trains on the new track; not now, not immediately or in the next few years, but within the new franchise that will be set in 2016. We need the new trains that have been provided to the rest of the country and have been denied to us. Whenever the rest of the country is finished with a new train, it is passed on to East Anglia. That is no longer good enough.
Ben Gummer
Well, it has been true since the 19th century. I hope that at some point we will get the new trains that will release the economic potential in Ipswich and Norwich that has so long been denied to my constituents and their forefathers.
We are making good progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is now able to say that the railways are in a good place, something that would have been unutterable 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We need investment to continue, we need to release the power of the private sector and we need to be able to continue the miracle of rail privatisation.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate the Transport Select Committee on the “Rail 2020” report, which combines an informative overview of the rail industry with some acute analysis of the challenges it faces. It certainly provoked a thoughtful debate this afternoon, albeit not necessarily one that involved a high degree of consensus. I suspect that the challenges to franchising in particular have deepened since the report was published last year. If the Committee were to repeat its inquiry today, perhaps its conclusions would be even stronger.
When the McNulty report was published in 2011, it was widely acknowledged that the rail industry was in need of reform. Privatisation had left us with a fragmented and opaque system—a system that incurred massive costs and offered little accountability for the money being spent. Contrary to what the architects of privatisation had promised, subsidy had increased in real terms since the mid-1990s—
Lilian Greenwood
And passengers faced some of the highest fares in Europe, as well as often bewildering pricing structures. The Minister says, “Under your Government” from a sedentary position, but that is precisely why we commissioned McNulty to look at how to achieve efficiencies.
The Committee’s recommendations on financial transparency, fares and ticketing reform and devolution were welcome, but implementation has been delayed by a Department that seems to have been overtaken by problems of its own creation. In the past year, we have witnessed the collapse of the franchising system, which has cost the taxpayer at least £55 million. Those are the direct costs; that figure does not cover the fall in orders that is hurting the supply chain or the uncertainty that still hangs over the industry, nor does it reflect the damage that has been inflicted on the Government’s own efficiency plans—both points well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).
The Government intend to find £3.5 billion of industry cost reductions by 2019. An annexe to the “Rail 2020” report states that while
“Some of the savings are already in Network Rail’s plans, most of the rest have to be secured by passenger train operators and their suppliers…via the next generation of franchises.”
Does the Minister accept that analysis? If he does, what does he believe the cost to the taxpayer will be in deferred efficiencies, owing to the much extended delays to the franchising programme?
Against that background, Ministers have taken the politically motivated decision to make the privatisation of East Coast their top priority. At the same time as they are agreeing lucrative extensions for private operators, at great cost to the taxpayer—for example, it was recently reported in the trade press that the c2c contract extension came in £17 million over budget—for ideological reasons the Government are disrupting the one stable part of the network. Since the last private operator walked away, East Coast has returned £640 million to the taxpayer and invested £40 million in the service; it makes the second highest contribution of any operator to the Treasury; and it has significantly improved passenger services.
East Coast provides an interesting test of the Government’s commitment to openness. Despite Ministers’ stated intention to improve transparency, they are trying to have it both ways when it comes to East Coast. The Government cannot both laud the Office of Rail Regulation’s breakdown of the industry’s finances, as they did in the formal response to the “Rail 2020” report, and dismiss the figures that show East Coast to be most efficient operator. It is simply not credible.
The Government have even invented a new measure to bolster the comparison between Virgin Trains’ and East Coast’s premium payments while conveniently ignoring subsidy going the other way. As the net payment figures show, East Coast comfortably paid more to the Treasury over the past three years, but Ministers have tried to give the opposite impression. It is not policy led by evidence—it is just the opposite—from a Government determined to push through privatisation, which will not benefit the railways or passengers.
We have seen no progress on fares and ticketing either. The Government’s review was originally due to be published in May, but we are now told that it will be published at some point in the summer. The Minister will surely appreciate the irony when he next lectures East Coast on punctuality. I hope that the review will now bring forward serious proposals for reform, because at present passengers often find it difficult to secure the cheapest tickets, especially from automatic ticketing machines. The definition of peak and off-peak is not always obvious, and as a consequence some passengers find themselves with huge bills through no fault of their own.
Passengers also rightly feel aggrieved when they have to use a replacement bus service but are not entitled to compensation, regardless of the inconvenience to their journey. Those are the sorts of issues that the fares and ticketing review should be looking at. The Transport Committee was right to call for so-called super-peak tickets to be ruled out. They would penalise those commuters who have no choice but to travel at peak times. I urge the Minister to go further than he had done previously and rule out granting train operating companies the right to redefine peak time periods. I also ask him to give the House a categorical assurance that operators will not be given additional powers to price commuters out of peak time periods.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
I begin by adding my congratulations to the Transport Committee on its important report, which comes up with a number of important and interesting recommendations. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Committee Chair, will know, the Government have responded in full to the recommendations, and on a number of issues we have considerable sympathy and agreement with them.
Like the Select Committee’s, the Government’s vision is for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth—one that is environmentally sustainable and promotes quality of life in our communities. Rail offers commuters a safe and reliable route to work. It facilitates business and leisure travel, connects communities with their public services and workplaces and transports millions of tonnes of freight around the country, relieving congestion on our roads and bringing huge environmental benefits.
It is easy for some to criticise our railways, but as the Transport Committee itself noted:
“In many ways the railway has been a success in recent years.”
We have made tremendous progress. As hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), have said, since privatisation passenger journeys have almost doubled—from 735 million in 1994-95, to more than 1.5 billion in 2012-13. That point was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside in her introductory comments. There are some 4,000 more services a day on our railways than in the mid-1990s. Rail freight, which the hon. Lady also mentioned, has grown by over 60%, with traffic reaching over 21.5 billion net tonne km in 2012-13.
With an ageing network built in Victorian times, coupled with underinvestment over a number of decades by successive Governments, operating today’s railway is a task of colossal proportions, but we are getting better at it. GB Railfreight has been ranked as the EU’s most improved rail network. Passenger satisfaction is up by about 10 percentage points in the past decade. Punctuality is up by about 12 percentage points, with just under 91% of trains arriving on time last year compared with just over 79% in 2002-03. That rather meets the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer)—that the performance and the quality of service today is better than it was under British Rail, to which the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is wedded, as we have now heard on at least two occasions in the past week. As other hon. Members have said, we are among the safest railways in the world.
Just running today’s railways is not an option. We have the fastest growth rate of any of the major European railways so the Government have committed over £16 billion to running and expanding the network between 2014 and 2019. We are providing capacity for an extra 140,000 commuter journeys into our major cities during the morning peak. Schemes such as Crossrail, Thameslink and the northern hub cross-Manchester link will have a transforming effect. They will increase capacity and connectivity and reduce journey times. [Interruption.] It is interesting that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is chuntering—I think that is the right word—from the Back Benches. He seems to be able to get away with it in a way that others cannot.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister will resume his seat. Let me be clear and explicit. There is a saying about pots and kettles. It is a point so obvious that I think it is within the comprehension of the Minister of State, who should now continue uninterrupted with his speech.
Mr Burns
Improved rail links to major ports and airports will support inward investment, trade and connectivity.
Electrification will provide faster, more reliable services on the midland and great western main lines and elsewhere. We have confirmed funding for the completion of electrification of over 324 route miles and added a new requirement for a further 537 route miles. That means that we are funding electrification of 11% of all route miles in England and Wales. Our programme contrasts with the approach of the previous Administration, under whom fewer than 10 miles of track was electrified during their 13 years in power. By 2020, about three quarters of passenger miles travelled in England and Wales will be on electric trains, compared with just 58% today.
We have provided a £300 million fund to improve passenger journey times. There is £200 million for stations across England, including £100 million to support accessibility. A further £200 million will build a better network for freight.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am delighted about the massive investment going into railways; I am sure we all support that. Does the Minister agree, however, that it is important to preserve the existing old corridors that could be used for rail travel in future? Will he undertake to make sure that the Woodhead tunnel in particular remains a possibility for rail travel in future?
Mr Burns
I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is important that we consider opening new railway lines or reopening lines that have been removed but whose beds remain in place where there is demand and need for them and if the business case backs it up. Tunnels are an important and topical issue that has come across my desk and we are looking at it very carefully.
Iain Stewart
May I underline the importance of keeping old route lines open or free for potential reopening? Work on the western section of the east-west rail project has been very easy because the line is still there, but there are difficulties on the Bedford to Cambridge and East Anglia section because part of that track has been built on.
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. We have to learn from some of the mistakes of the past and what happened to the railways post-Beeching. I accept what my hon. Friend says.
We are well on the way to delivering a new high-speed railway for Britain, bringing extra capacity, faster journeys and better services and changing our economic geography. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Durham is not as enthusiastic about this exciting way of improving connectivity, journey times and increasing capacity. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering, but I am surprised—
Mr Speaker
Order. Actually, the hon. Gentleman was not chuntering. There are many Members who do chunter in the House, in some cases extremely noisily, and an exemplar of that approach is the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that it would be in his own best interests, of which he is not always the most appropriate guardian, that further references to chuntering by him might seem singularly inappropriate. Continue.
Mr Burns
Well, let’s move on.
I was just saying that I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member for North Durham does not share the enthusiasm of his colleague the Leader of the Opposition for the new high-speed railway. I hope that he will be reassured, however, that rail is thriving. It makes a vital contribution to the UK’s economic competitiveness and the Government’s investment ensures that that will continue.
The Government recognise, however, that we need to work to make rail even better. As recent surveys have shown, although passenger satisfaction is high on average across Great Britain, it can vary significantly across franchises, and although nine out of every 10 trains are running on time, with historically high levels of performance, punctuality is not yet as good as it should be, particularly on long-distance services, but also on London, south-east and regional services. Finally, the railway still costs more than it should.
We fully understand the importance of achieving the McNulty savings, which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and others. Our railways must become more efficient and financially sustainable. It is crucial that we ease the pressure of fares on hard-working families and reduce the burden on taxpayers, which is another issue of concern, not only to members of the Transport Committee, but to other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate.
That was the challenge in the Government’s rail Command Paper: how to reduce the costs of running the railway while keeping the passengers at the heart of everything we do. We are making progress. Network Rail will have delivered 40% efficiencies over 2004-2014 and the regulator recently announced a new 20% target for 2019. Further efficiencies will be made through the programme of franchising competitions and the initiatives of the Rail Delivery Group. The key message is that aligning incentives between train operators and Network Rail is one of the most important reforms to drive down costs and bring passenger benefits.
Lilian Greenwood
Will the Minister set out how that has been set back by the delays to franchising, which he seems to be glossing over? Questions have been asked about whether his Department is up to the task.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister of State is a slow learner, but he must try to grasp the point that it ill behoves a right hon. Gentleman who regularly shouts, hollers, chunters and accuses other people of all sorts of things from a sedentary position to make something of the fact that somebody else mutters from a sedentary position. I gently advise the Minister to raise his game and operate at the level of events. Minister of State, continue with the speech and the reading thereof.
Mr Burns
As I was saying in answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Secretary of State made it clear last September that what happened with regard to the west coast main line was unacceptable and apologised for it. Even more importantly, he set up the Brown inquiry and the Laidlaw inquiry. I will not rehearse what they did, but the Brown inquiry came up with recommendations to ensure that we learn from that mistake and that it never happens again. We have a new franchise timetable, in keeping with the recommendations of that report, to ensure that we minimise the opportunities for that mistake to happen again.
Mr Burns
I must make progress, because it is almost time for me to finish.
The Rail Delivery Group is showing how collaborative working across the rail industry can secure improvements in asset programme and supply chain management. We are working through our franchise programme to facilitate regional partnership working arrangements and alliances between train operators and Network Rail, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members.
Mr Burns
No, because I am running out of time.
Those arrangements could involve joint working to improve performance and planning for engineering works or to reducing delays and disruption for passengers. Integrated control centres can deliver smoother and more efficient network operations.
The Rail Delivery Group brings together Network Rail, freight operators and passenger train operators. It provides leadership for the industry, and offers a coherent and focused response to the investment and operational challenges laid down by the Government. Network Rail is enhancing its accountability with a new transparency scheme to publish more information and data that are of interest to the public.
Mr Burns
There is not plenty of time. I am not speaking until 7 o’clock because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside would like to make a brief winding-up speech.
Network Rail has appointed a public interest director to articulate taxpayers’ views at the highest levels in the company.
Responding to the Government’s rail Command Paper, the Transport Committee published its report on “Rail 2020” in January this year. As I said earlier, we have welcomed that report and the Select Committee’s support for our strategy, which is focused on making the existing structures and responsibilities in rail work better. We are not throwing everything up in the air and starting again, given the cost and disruption that that would be likely to entail.
We are confident that our strategy can bring rail to the cutting edge of efficiency by 2019. To do so, the industry must take advantage of new technologies by looking to introduce smart ticketing and making ticket machines easier to use. The hon. Member for Nottingham South asked when that will happen. I reaffirm that it will be during the summer. Passengers will continue to be able to get help and advice from a member of staff about buying a ticket when they can currently do so. Train operators must also look at driver-only operations for trains. This is already standard practice on 30% of existing franchise services, including many commuter services in London and Glasgow.
Crucial to the debate about rail is the Department’s role in letting and managing franchises for passenger rail services. This was discussed at length by several hon. Members during the debate. The Government’s firm belief is that franchising gives us the best possible basis for doing what we want to do with rail. The most liberalised railways in Europe have seen the highest growth in the last 15 years, with the UK and Sweden first and second respectively.
The Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to have private sector innovation and experience in our railways. As hon. Members will be aware, in March we announced a new rail franchising programme, covering every rail franchise for the next eight years. It builds on much of the authoritative work undertaken by Richard Brown, as I have said. Supporting our franchising relaunch, we have now published a new guide about how franchising competitions are run. This is information that we want to be generally available and accessible to all. It will give certainty to the market and to suppliers throughout the industry and support major investment in our rail network.
To grow a railway that will support passengers and our economy, we need that railway to be financially sustainable. Our rail strategy aims to achieve that, while putting passengers at its heart.
High Speed 2 (Ancient Woodlands)
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Fabricant
I have discussed this with the Secretary of State, and he says he is open to the idea, although a number of practical difficulties need to be overcome. Providing that they are, however, I hope, as I said just now, that the Government will adopt the property bond, because it will give comfort to my right hon. Friend’s constituents and mine.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
May I give my hon. Friend the reassurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I gave during the Second Reading of the paving Bill? As a result of the 10th judicial review—we won the other nine—we will reconsult on the compensation schemes. Let me say categorically that consideration of, and consultation on, a property bond will be one of the options.
Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind hon. Members that the debate is about High Speed 2 and ancient woodlands, not the project as a whole?
Michael Fabricant
As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully and well. I hope that the Minister has listened to what he said. He is right to say that the west midlands has suffered, and I think that it has suffered in a way that has not been replicated in other parts of the United Kingdom.
In May, I tabled a question asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his own assessment of the impact of the proposed HS2 route on ancient woodland. The response that I received in the Official Report on 6 June at column 1224W seemed, sadly, to indicate a belief in Government that such destruction is a price worth paying. It also noted that certain mitigation measures were being proposed, including the construction of a tunnel to avoid one ancient wood and movement of a line to minimise land take within another. That is simply not good enough. When we consider the vast sums of public money being committed we realise that the damage is inordinately large. As a minimum, mitigation should be proportionate and applied comprehensively for any ancient woodland lost or damaged as a result of the project. That should be based on the Lawton principles on habitat networks and landscape scale impact already enshrined in the Government’s widely welcomed natural environment White Paper of 2011. If, as it is claimed, HS2 is meant to be a world-class transport project, it should demonstrate world-class practice when it comes to the avoidance of damage and the showcasing of the very best practice in mitigation.
Further insult has been added to injury by the publication of a poorly written, half-finished environmental statement, which neglected to include crucial ecological surveys and assessments that are required for communities to respond effectively. The environmental statement sadly misunderstands the complexity and national significance of the habitats being damaged. For example, the summary states that
“at present there are no route-wide significant effects on habitats”.
Extraordinary. That is clearly not the case, given the national significance of ancient woodland, which is recognised in the national planning policy framework. I tabled another question in May—it appears at column 1224W in the Official Report of 6 June—about what discussions were taking place with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on minimising the impact of construction on ancient woodland. The evidence of the environmental statement is that there has been far too little such discussion, and the result is a statement that pays mere lip service to environmental protection.
It does not need to be this way. Done properly, HS2 would provide the Government with a golden opportunity to showcase the very best of British construction. However, if it is to be the world-class and truly green transport solution that it purports to be, far greater respect for the natural environment needs to be demonstrated, or the opportunity will sadly be lost.
In the light of the impacts that I have highlighted, I call on my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the Government, with whom I have had the honour of serving, to look again at the proposed route for HS2. In opposition, as I have said, my party championed a route that followed existing transport corridors, a tried and tested method used across Europe, which minimises environmental damage. I know that phase 2 of the route is an attempt to do that, but of course in southern Staffordshire it is not possible, because of the need to link to the existing and most environmentally damaging route: phase 1. That policy position is now, ironically, receiving favour from the current Opposition party, whose route the coalition Government have now adopted. It is incredible.
I call on my right hon. Friend, rather than cutting a destructive swathe through previously unblemished countryside, to think again and deliver a route that better respects the environment we all treasure. I hope that in his answer he will address the following six questions of which, Mrs Osborne, I have given him prior notice—so he has no excuse not to answer. He is waving his speech, so I hope he will answer these questions in detail: first, will he look further at how the loss of ancient woodland can be minimised? Secondly, what assessment has been made of how many hectares of ancient woodland will be lost? Thirdly, how much of the £33 billion—of course, that sum has now gone up—will be spent on seeking to avoid loss of woodland and on the creation of new woodland as part of the mitigation process? Of course, I pointed out earlier that ancient woodland cannot be replaced overnight. Ancient woodland is woodland formed in 1600 and before.
Michael Fabricant
No, it is not; ancient woodland is described as existing from 1600.
Michael Fabricant
I will not give way to my right hon. Friend, simply because I think others want to take part in the debate. He can answer that point, if he wishes, in his speech.
My fourth question is whether my right hon. Friend will undertake to involve DEFRA and environmental organisations more fully. Fifthly, what say and involvement will communities have in any mitigation planting? Finally, will he ensure that the full environmental impact assessment, when it is published alongside the Bill, will be a major improvement on the somewhat inadequate work that was released earlier in the spring? I thank you for your indulgence, Mrs Osborne, and look forward to hearing from others in the debate.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, and I welcome you to the Chair. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on initiating the debate and speaking so well in opening it. I am glad to welcome the Transport Minister; however, perhaps he will understand my disappointment, because although I am sure he will show that he has great expertise and has been briefed perfectly, it would have been nice to have an Environment Minister present to engage with a subject that is specifically environmental. Much more cross-departmental co-operation is needed on the project, because it is not only the Department for Transport that should be putting its head on the block over HS2.
I want to take up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made. I just happen to have looked, on my hand-held device, at the definition of “ancient woodland”. It is a term used in the United Kingdom to refer specifically to woodland that has existed continuously since 1600 or before, in England and Wales, or 1750 in Scotland. Before those dates, planting of new woodland was uncommon, so a wood present in 1600 is likely to have developed naturally.
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make a point that I would have made to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), which is that 1600 is an arbitrary date; it does not mean that every woodland created in 1601 or 1602 is not necessarily an ancient woodland. That is the simple point that I was making.
Mrs Gillan
I know my right hon. Friend the Minister is getting on, but none of us were around in 1600 to see when those woods were planted. I would be interested to know when he last walked in ancient woodland.
Mr Burns
I was talking in particular about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. I went through the whole route from the M25, so I saw not only ancient woodlands but other areas of outstanding natural beauty. I also saw some water features, particularly near the proposed elevated sections near the M25.
Mrs Gillan
I would be delighted if the Minister had walked in Farthings wood or Mantle’s wood, if he had looked at the River Chess or the River Misbourne, our famous chalk streams, or even if he were uniquely familiar with all the details of the area of outstanding natural beauty. I am glad that he paid a private visit, and I invite him to make a public visit and come to meet some of our excellent conservation people who spend a lot of time maintaining one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom.
I was first elected to the House 21 years ago, and 20 years ago I found myself involved in the most amazing campaign to save Penn wood at Penn street. I believe that Penn wood was the first wood saved by the Woodland Trust. We collected donations from across the country to save the wood, which is still there to this day. I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust, which, among other conservation organisations, has briefed me for today’s debate. Saving Penn wood 20 years ago brought me much more closely in touch with our natural habitat in the Chilterns.
The Woodland Trust has analysed the number of woods threatened by the HS2 project—33 ancient woods are under threat and 34 ancient woods are at risk within 200 metres of the proposed line. Given the threat posed by, say, climate change to the natural environment, not least to ancient woodland, the Woodland Trust also supports the move to develop a low-carbon economy. However, a transport solution that inflicts such serious damage on our natural heritage, as the current route does, can never really be described as green. The Government’s preferred routes for the phases of the scheme will cause loss or damage to at least 67 irreplaceable ancient woods. As the Woodland Trust has said to me, that is too high an environmental price to pay, and the route should be reconsidered in light of those facts alone.
Why is ancient woodland important, and why does it matter? We have already established that ancient woodland is land that has been continuously wooded since 1600. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield rightly says that ancient woodland forms only 2% of our country. We are considering the largest infrastructure project since time immemorial, and it will damage that precious, small percentage that comprises our ancient woodland that still exists. Ancient woodlands have unique, undisturbed soils, and they form the UK’s richest wildlife habitats. They support at least 256 species of conservation concern. According to Natural England, nearly 50% of the ancient woodland that survived beyond the 1930s has already been lost. We should not threaten that small, precious piece of our environment in 2013.
There appears to be a huge conflict in Government policy. There is, for example, a Government policy to protect ancient woodland, and my hon. Friend referred to the recent forestry policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The January 2013 policy statement reads:
“England’s 340,000 hectares of ancient woodlands are exceptionally rich in wildlife, including many rare species and habitats. They are an integral part of England’s cultural heritage”.
It states categorically:
“Protection of our trees, woods and forests, especially our ancient woodland, is our top priority.”
That last quote is relevant to the Department for Transport and High Speed Two Ltd. How can that be when the Government propose to destroy comparably large swathes of ancient woodland?
Michael Fabricant
On the Minister’s visit—by the way, he did not write to me to say that he was visiting—
Michael Fabricant
Far be it from me to criticise my right hon. Friend. On his private visits, has he been to one of the newer woodlands to see for himself the difference between newly planted woodland and a wood of the type my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) describes that has existed for 300 or 400 years?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for securing the debate. As everybody who has taken part in the debate or been in the Chamber will acknowledge, the issues that have been raised are extremely important. I assure my hon. Friend that, during the course of my comments, he will be getting answers to the six questions that he asked.
One has to accept, as the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) did during her speech, that a balance has to be struck between the economic needs of the country and the potential impact on a countryside that has been enjoyed by generations of people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) described, in very moving terms, the importance to many communities throughout the country of not only ancient woodlands, but other environmental features of their local communities.
Although I believe HS2 to be in the national interest, we know that it is sadly not possible to build a railway without any effect on the environment. When designing the route, we must carefully weigh important considerations such as wildlife habitats against other concerns, such as protecting as many people’s homes as possible. We must ensure that any environmental effects are reduced as far as possible and also look for opportunities to benefit the environment along the way.
I assure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are determined to make the scheme environmentally responsible, and I believe that we have gone to great lengths to listen to those who are concerned about the environmental effects of the project. In February 2011, we consulted on the appraisal of sustainability. As hon. Members said, we are now consulting on a more detailed draft environmental statement. That is an unprecedented level of consultation to ensure that we do the right thing by the environment.
A great deal has also been done on designing the route of HS2 to reduce its environmental impact. HS2 Ltd has worked closely with Natural England and the Environment Agency on choosing options and preparing designs that have no impact on sites of international importance for nature. In addition, bilateral meetings have been held with county wildlife trusts to discuss possible impacts on wildlife sites and mitigation measures that could be employed to reduce impacts whenever practicable.
As I said, in September last year, I made a private visit—driving from the M25 up to Warwickshire—to see exactly what the impact of the line of route would be on not only the environment, including woodlands and water, but some of the communities, villages and houses near the route. It was extremely important that I could visualise that for myself, rather than seeing this only as a concept on a piece of paper, from photographs, or from what people have told me.
What struck me was that all too often, when the Government or some other organisation produces a recommendation, that is their view of what should happen. More often than not, when people come up with improvements, fine tuning, or even criticism to it, those who have drawn up the proposal feel threatened, dig their heels in, and take an attitude that what they want is right and what anyone else wants to change, modify or reject is wrong. Hard and fast positions are taken, so no one is prepared to budge. Going along that line of route, I was impressed by proposals that had come in to fine tune or change the line of route slightly, or associated proposals, and the way in which HS2 Ltd has been prepared to work with groups and local communities to make improvements. We have not had the unfortunate situation that happens all too often whereby because the proposal was the Government’s and HS2 Ltd’s, it was 100% right, and anything that challenged it was a criticism of them, and they were not prepared to think again.
It is fair to say that a number of changes—and, to my mind, improvements—have been made to alleviate problems for not only the environment, but individuals, their communities and their properties. However, I also accept that one will never be 100% able to meet the wishes and requests of people who want changes, because it is just not possible to do so, given the project’s sheer scale. One has to reach a judgment on what is in the national interest and what must go forward, because it is in the national interest, while at the same time trying to minimise any damage that might occur to the environment and to people’s homes and businesses. I will deal with part of that later in my speech.
As I said, HS2 Ltd has worked closely with Natural England and the Environment Agency on choosing options and preparing designs that would have no impact on sites of international importance for nature, which is important. There have been bilateral meetings with county wildlife trusts to discuss the possible impacts on wildlife sites. The Government have already committed to planting 4 million new trees as part of the HS2 project, and hon. Members referred to that important point in their comments. I certainly take the point that that has to be done sensitively and properly, but it represents an important improvement to the environment, especially where the line of route will be.
Mrs Gillan
I am not being ungrateful for what the Minister is saying, but I would like to point out that the ratio of replanting—the 2:1 that I referred to, although the experts say that 30:1 is needed—should be considered. It sounds like an awful lot of trees, but when we start to look at the density per hectare, it is not a large number of trees.
On community involvement and bilateral meetings, the Minister must admit that, particularly in my area, they have not always been the most successful or effective exchanges of information as far as larger groups are concerned, even in relation to their number and frequency.
Mr Burns
I take on board my right hon. Friend’s point about the number of trees, but I am not 100% convinced that 4 million new trees along the line of route is not the right number. Of course, that is only part of the remedial action that the Government and HS2 Ltd will take to protect the environment, which I shall address in greater detail later.
My right hon. Friend also raises an important point about community forums and the interactive dialogue between communities and HS2 Ltd. I will be frank with her: we get a variety of reports of those meetings. Some reports have been extremely positive, saying that people have found the meetings extremely helpful. As she will know from her correspondence with me on behalf of her constituents, they have been concerned about some of the meetings that have taken place in her constituency, and I accept that point. I have noted the criticisms that she has drawn to my attention. We have certainly spoken to HS2 Ltd and we or it will address the concerns of several of her constituents, because we believe that it is important that there is a proper dialogue between communities and HS2 Ltd, and that people work together. Even if people do not necessarily agree with the project, that is the important thing. Because I and the rest of the Government believe that the project is in the national interest and should go ahead, we must work with local communities, and local and national organisations, to ensure that we get the best project that causes the least damage to the environment.
In addition to the new trees that will be planted, we are examining opportunities to enhance existing habitats or create new woodland areas and wildlife habitats, but we must be mindful that it is not possible—unfortunately, and as much as I would love to have it in my gift—to avoid completely all sensitive areas. We have already made every effort to avoid sites that are of importance for their international ecological value and areas of national designation, such as the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. In this instance, of the 13 miles of route through the area, less than 2 miles will be at or above the surface. Compared with the phase 1 route that was originally subject to consultation in 2011, there will be a more than 50% increase overall in tunnel or green tunnel, and the initial preferred scheme for phase 2 has no impact on national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
When it comes to minimising impact on ancient woodlands, the Department and HS2 Ltd take their obligation to conserve them extremely seriously. Through careful design of the route and strict controls during construction, we are seeking to reduce, as far as practicable, any impacts. For example, the provision of a tunnel at Long Itchington avoids the ancient wood there, and a retained cutting minimises land take at South Cubbington wood.
Ancient woodlands, as everyone who has taken part in or has listened to the debate accepts, are a very important part of our natural heritage. However, as I have said, it is, sadly, not possible to build a railway without any effects on important environmental sites. Other factors, such as the location of people’s homes, have to be taken into account as well. The Government have to strike a balance between a range of important considerations. That debate has taken place to good effect in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, where the original route has been moved away from those places where the majority of people live. Designs have also been developed to avoid important employment areas and to ensure that local conditions for growth are not missed.
Mr Burns
I hope from the way my hon. Friend is nodding in the affirmative that he is appreciative and accepts that that was the right thing to do.
To provide an effective outcome for the natural environment, I strongly believe that we have listened and engaged, and we will continue to engage with those non-governmental organisations with an interest in the natural environment. The Woodland Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and other groups already form part of the debate through my regular environmental round-table meetings. They are already proving effective, and as a result we are implementing plans for a design panel to inform the aesthetics of the detailed design.
I assure my hon. Friend that we will be providing suitable compensation for any ancient woodland that is lost, following the best practice recommended by our ecologists, which is developed in conjunction with Natural England. We will also be examining opportunities to enhance existing woodland and to create new woodland areas and wildlife habitats. With more than 22,000 ancient woodlands in England and Wales, it is impossible to avoid them all. That being the case, we believe that it is appropriate to provide some form of compensation when avoidance is not possible.
Current best practice, which builds on methods employed for other major infrastructure projects, such as High Speed 1 and the M2 widening scheme, includes the relocation of the ancient woodland soil with its seeds to allow it to regenerate over time, together with the planting of native trees of local provenance. Ten years’ monitoring undertaken by environmental specialists has shown that new areas of habitat were successfully created along the HS1 route, including for protected species such as the dormouse.
It should be noted also that HS2 has committed to seeking no net loss of habitats. When ancient woodlands are affected, it will result in a larger area of woodland being created than the area lost.
Mrs Gillan
I appreciate what the Minister is saying and I know that he is on a very sticky wicket in dealing with this. In the draft environmental statement, HS2 claims that the translocation of woods will result in habitat of a similar value, but the Construction Industry Research and Information Association specifically states that translocation of ancient woodland is only
“an appropriate activity to salvage and create a new habitat of some value, albeit a lower one than lost”.
That directly contradicts the claim in the draft environmental statement. Will the Minister now admit that it does not matter what is said here as the position is in line with what Natural England says? We cannot replace ancient woodland at all, and whatever we do will always result in a habitat of lesser value.
Mr Burns
May I say to my right hon. Friend, in shorthand script, that the answer to both points is no? First, I am not on a sticky wicket. I am outlining to hon. Members what the Government are doing to try to minimise the damage. It is certainly not a sticky wicket; it is actually a range of proposals and initiatives of which I believe that the Government can be proud because of the efforts that we are putting into ensuring that we do everything to avoid causing damage when that is possible and, when it is not, taking the maximum opportunity to minimise the damage that will be caused by building the railway.
Secondly, I do not accept the point about conflict with what HS2 is proposing. Yes, by definition, we cannot uproot an ancient woodland and transplant it lock, stock and barrel to another site, so in that respect my right hon. Friend is correct, but what we can do is take the measures I have described to transplant an area when woodland is being lost because of building work, which will go a considerable way towards helping to protect and improve the environment. That will not, of course, be the same as if one did nothing at all and left the existing ancient woodland, but it is a very good second-best option, and it is certainly better than doing nothing at all and letting that woodland be lost for ever.
Lilian Greenwood
I want to return to the Minister’s statement about no net loss. I query whether that is consistent with the Government’s national policy as set out in the natural environment White Paper and the national planning policy framework. Should they not actually adhere to the current policy of net gain?
Mr Burns
Yes, certainly. What I said was absolutely right: there will be no net loss. We will work according to that principle. In some respects, we will have to wait and see whether there is an increase, particularly with the second phase of the route. All my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done is to publish the proposed preferred route—the consultation is still to take place. Just as with the hybrid Bill on phase 1, and the hybrid Bill on phase 2 in due course, decisions may be taken in the light of the process that might have an impact. As of now, the policy, the intention and the determination is that there will be no net loss.
Many of our remaining ancient woodlands are small, and there is generally a patchwork of fragmented sites in an intensive agricultural landscape. One of our objectives, which is very much in line with the recommendations that emerged from the Lawton report, is to take this opportunity to link fragments of ancient woodland, when practicable, through the planting of new woodland links. Natural England and the nature conservation NGOs have welcomed that approach, and I hope that it will be welcomed by hon. Members in the Chamber and beyond. Even though it can take many years before the replanted woodland returns to anything like the character of the original, such planting is important to ensure that future generations can enjoy these important sites, but we would be open to any other ideas, if people think that a different form of compensation would be more appropriate. I invite any of my hon. Friends or the official Opposition to contribute if they have any ideas that they believe will help to improve or enhance the process.
We should not lose sight of the fact that many of the best environmental specialists in the country are working on a detailed environmental impact assessment, which will identify the true effects and allow us to bring forward our plans to mitigate them as much as we can. It is currently in draft form for consultation, so I urge all hon. Members to ensure that their constituents who have an interest contribute to the process.
Mrs Gillan
The Minister knows that I have tabled questions about the environmental consultation and asked him to extend the consultation period beyond the eight weeks allowed, but he has repeatedly refused to do so. May I ask him one more time? He appreciates the complexity of these matters and the imperfect nature of the document. Given their resources, many people are struggling to respond to a project of this nature—the environmental organisations are stretched to the limit. Will he please once more see whether he can extend the consultation period by four weeks? That would be the right thing to do, because many of our conservation organisations are stretched to the limit by this project and they need to put proper responses into ensuring that our environment is protected. He is causing damage by not extending the consultation period.
Mr Burns
I do not want to cause disharmony between myself and my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid that what I said in correspondence to her is the answer: I am not prepared to look again, because there has been a reasonable period, for reasons I will come to when I answer the last question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. In the spirit of co-operation, however, I will respond to her important point about the Brett tunnel option. She asked whether we will reconsider whether the tunnel could be extended beyond where it is proposed to end. HS2 Ltd has looked at the matter again and found that an extension will not offer more benefits than the current option, not least because to extend the tunnel beyond the wood, we would need a ventilation tunnel in the middle of the wood, given the safety requirements for tunnels of certain lengths, and I believe that that would be far more environmentally damaging than the current proposals.
I now come to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield at the end of his speech. He asked whether my Department will look further at how the loss of ancient woodland can be minimised. The answer is emphatically yes. HS2 Ltd is constantly looking at the route and refining the mitigation that can be applied, and that will continue up until the hybrid Bill process. He asked what assessment has been made of how many hectares of ancient woodland will be lost. HS2 Ltd’s proposals, as they stand, identify fewer than 36 hectares of ancient woodland lost for phase 1, including the land needed for the construction phases of the route. That will be confirmed in the environmental statement that comes before Parliament later this year. It is too early in the design of phase 2 to give accurate figures on the potential loss, but 17 ancient woodland sites are directly affected by it. For some of those sites, the impact is at or near the margins of the wood, and there is scope for reducing the impact as the design progresses. I hope he is reassured on that.
My hon. Friend also asked how much of the total cost of HS2 will be spent on avoiding the loss of woodland and creating new woodland as part of the mitigation process. I hope that he will be pleased to learn that the rough estimate—he will understand why there is only a rough estimate at this stage—is between £10 million and £20 million. We have not finalised the ancient woodland compensation measures however, which will be reported in the formal environmental statement.
My hon. Friend asked whether we will undertake to involve DEFRA and environmental organisations more fully. I assure him that DEFRA, Natural England and the Environment Agency are fully engaged in phase 1 and will continue to be fully engaged. He also asked what involvement communities will have in any mitigation planning. HS2 Ltd engages with local authorities through the planning forum and local people are engaged through the community forums and the current round of consultations. Their views will continue to be considered throughout the development of the designs for HS2. I reiterate that it is important that people respond to the consultations and engage fully in the whole process so that we can work together to do as much as we can to get this right.
Finally—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham might also be interested in this—my hon. Friend asked whether we will ensure that the full environmental impact assessment, when it is published alongside the Bill, will be a major improvement on the “somewhat inadequate work” that was released earlier in the spring—those are my hon. Friend’s words, not mine. I hope that I can reassure him. The draft environmental statement has been provided at the earliest stage to enable people to participate in the development of the scheme. There is no requirement for the Government to provide such a draft, so we are setting a high standard by taking this approach and publishing the document. To my knowledge, no project on this scale has attempted to provide such information at this early stage—before there is even consent.
Mr Burns
No, because I have only half a minute left.
In conclusion, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and others who have been kind enough to attend the debate that the Government will keep listening to those who are concerned about the impact of the scheme on the environment. We will endeavour to make the scheme as environmentally responsible as possible. It is in all our interests to get the scheme right. We are determined to work with organisations and agencies and in government to do the least damage possible through this massive national project in the national interest.
Air Transport (Northern Ireland)
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Robertson
I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. I am sure that the Minister travels to Northern Ireland regularly, but it sounds like an invitation for him to do so in a different way.
When the Minister gets there, he will see that the rail links in Northern Ireland are not what we might want either, particularly between City of Derry airport and Belfast. I will come to that issue in a minute. It is a long and sometimes difficult journey. Northern Ireland Members sometimes have to leave Parliament early in the day—not in the morning, of course, but not too late in the afternoon—if they want to get back that evening, which may explain why they are sometimes unable to take part in debates such as this.
The background is that we have three airports in Northern Ireland: Belfast International, sometimes known as Aldergrove; Belfast City, nowadays named George Best Belfast City airport after the great footballer; and, of course, City of Derry airport. Belfast International airport has about 4 million passengers a year, Belfast City airport 2.4 million and City of Derry 400,000. When we compare that with Dublin, which has 90 million passengers a year, we see a big difference between the two, but Belfast International airport is busy and fulfils a completely different role from Belfast City airport. Both are important. City of Derry airport could probably be used more, especially this year, when Londonderry is the city of culture.
In terms of connectivity, it is extremely important that we retain capacity in the south-east of England, because many people fly from Belfast to London and then on to other cities in the world. There is some concern about the speed with which we are moving in that direction. The Committee expressed frustration about how long it is taking for the Government to decide whether we are to have, for example, a further runway at Heathrow, Boris island or something else. It is of some concern to the Committee that the Government seem to have ruled out a third runway at Heathrow before commissioning the Davies report.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
If it is helpful to my hon. Friend, the Government’s policy, in the manifestos of both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, is that there will be no third runway at Heathrow during the lifetime of this Parliament. For the way forward beyond 2015, we have set up the Davies review, an independent commission, to consider what we should do to move forward on capacity in the south-east of England.
Mr Robertson
That is extremely helpful, given that we have less than two years to go in this Parliament before the third runway is a possibility. I cannot speak for the Committee on that—we did not express a view whether there should be a third runway at Heathrow—but we did say that we are concerned about how long it is taking. The Government’s response to our report said, reasonably, that they do not want to rush matters; they want to consider the issue in depth and detail, and to get it right. I fully understand that, but we feel that we are losing out to Dublin, Paris and Schiphol due to the delay.
It is important to Northern Ireland that we secure the routes from Belfast to London airports. A while ago, British Airways—or the International Airlines Group, to be more correct—took over BMI, and there was some concern about whether the route would be discontinued. We interviewed Willie Walsh of International Airlines Group, who was helpful to the Committee and stressed the importance of that route to British Airways. We are concerned that the long-haul routes appear to be more profitable for some airline companies. He said that BA was not in a position, necessarily, to buy an awful lot more planes that could fly long-haul, so the route from Belfast was valuable to it. That is a slightly negative way of getting to the position that we wanted to get to, and we must stress the particular importance to the people in Northern Ireland, and to its economy, of the routes from Belfast to London.
Recently, we had a bit of a scare when Flybe announced that it was ending flights from Belfast City airport to Gatwick, although it ended a number of flights to Gatwick, not just from Belfast. The good news is that EasyJet has taken over and assures us that that route is important for it. All these things are worrying and are a problem for people in Northern Ireland, because air transportation is so important to them.
Linked to the issues I have mentioned are the slots, particularly at Heathrow, which is under such enormous pressure. We want to move the situation on as quickly as we can. We discussed the possibility of ring-fencing certain slots, particularly at Heathrow, but as the Government correctly responded, it is difficult to do that under EU law and tends to distort competition and the free market. As an avowed free-marketeer, I have some difficulty with that. The slots are probably best secured by creating extra capacity in the south-east, and we are in a vicious circle in that respect.
I now return to tax: air passenger duty. A while ago it became obvious to the Committee that Continental Airlines, now operating under United Airlines—the only company flying from Belfast directly to Newark in the United States—was seriously considering ending its only flight, because of the high level of long-haul air passenger duty. We have since had discussions with that airline in the United States. It was a close-run thing. It was seriously considering ending that flight, because it did not feel that it could pass on the air passenger duty to the customers, owing to the proximity of Dublin. Four people travelling from Belfast to Newark would pay £260 in tax, whereas from Dublin I think the charge is €3 each, and there was talk of abolishing that. Because of the possibility of a short journey elsewhere, Belfast was in danger of losing out.
We did a quick report and put an awful lot of pressure on the Government to do something about this. To be fair to the Treasury, the Department for Transport and the Northern Ireland Office—I do not know exactly who took the decision; I suspect it was the Treasury—
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and the Select Committee that he chairs for giving us the opportunity to debate this report today. This has been an interesting, if sparsely attended, debate.
We continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on this important issue, because, as hon. Members will appreciate, air transport policy remains largely a reserved issue. However, as the recommendations from the Committee and the Government response show, a number of issues are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. As I said, that is reflected by the British Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations. Things such as surface access to airports and matters pertaining to land-use planning are within the gift of the Northern Ireland Executive. Aircraft noise was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). Those are all matters for the Northern Ireland Executive, so I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I refrain from discussing them in detail, simply because it is not my door they should be knocking at, but that of the Northern Ireland Executive.
Mr Laurence Robertson
Could I ask for clarification on something? We were told by the City of Derry airport that UK guidelines are that
“railway access to airport terminals can only be justified when passenger numbers reach 10 million per annum.”
Does the Minister know—perhaps he can write to me if he needs to find out—whether that is a devolved or a reserved matter?
Mr Burns
That is fine; the hon. Lady is fine. I just thought for one ghastly moment that I had walked into a huge hole, so I am relieved that it was not me—not guilty, guv.
I welcome the fact that there is broad agreement—indeed, unanimity—on the importance of maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global aviation hub. The Government believe it to be vital to the Northern Ireland and wider UK economy. It is important to remember that the UK continues to have excellent aviation connectivity, both on a point-to-point basis and through the London hub. The five airports serving London offer at least weekly direct services to more than 360 destinations worldwide, which is more than Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam Schiphol. We have the third largest aviation network in the world after the United States and China.
Northern Ireland is increasingly well connected both to the rest of the UK and to the wider world. In 2012, Northern Ireland airports operated services to 23 domestic UK destinations on 36 routes, to 17 EU-27 destinations on 19 routes, to three other European destinations and, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members, to one north American destination.
Kate Hoey
I will try to restrict my interventions, but I thought that as the Minister had mentioned the increase, it might be worth pointing out, as I have been a user of it and you are our Chairman, Mr Amess, that the new easyJet route from Southend to Belfast is very popular.
Mr Burns
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. She is absolutely right to do so. I am grateful not only because I am a Member from God’s own county, where Southend airport is, but because only in the last few weeks I have had the pleasure of visiting Southend airport and being able to find out for myself the increasing and expanding services that Southend airport is providing both to Northern Ireland and to other destinations in Europe. I think that it has the accolade of being called London’s fifth airport. No doubt, Mr Amess, you will correct me if I am wrong.
The Government believe that Northern Ireland is well placed to continue to grow the direct network as well as to enjoy vital connections through the UK and continental hubs. The Government recognise that, like elsewhere, the airports in Northern Ireland make a vital contribution to its economy. However, unlike in other parts of the UK, aviation plays a unique role in connecting Northern Ireland with the rest of the country. As such, aviation connectivity with the rest of the UK is extremely important to our national cohesion and will remain so.
We all know that the provision of commercial air services is subject to market forces. Ultimately, airlines operate in a competitive, commercial environment and it is for them to determine the routes that they operate and from which airports. It has been suggested that some form of intervention is necessary to protect air services between Northern Ireland and London from commercial market pressures. The hon. Member for Belfast East mentioned that. But air links to Northern Ireland remain commercially viable. Northern Ireland is well connected by air to London, with more than 18,000 flights a year between the two Belfast airports and the five main London airports. Those flights handled just over 1.9 million passengers in 2012. Over a third were between Belfast and Heathrow. That said, the Government fully support the efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive to develop the route network of Northern Ireland further.
Northern Ireland is also unique within the United Kingdom in that it shares a land border with another EU member state, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Belfast East and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Although that brings many benefits, the Government are highly conscious of the greater competition that it creates when securing air services, especially long-haul services. As such, in the recent Northern Ireland economic pact, we confirmed that the Government and Executive will work together to consider with the US authorities and other interested stakeholders the feasibility of establishing US pre-clearance facilities at Belfast International airport. It is complex work, with practical and legal issues that need to be addressed, but given that such facilities are currently available at Dublin and Shannon airports, we hope that progress can be made quickly. I think that all hon. Members present today, and those beyond the Chamber, fully appreciate the importance of establishing such a service, if the discussions and negotiations between our countries can come to successful fruition.
I think that every hon. Member has mentioned air passenger duty in the debate. As hon. Members have been gracious enough to mention in their comments, the Government have already taken action to ensure that the Northern Ireland aviation sector remains competitive. In November 2011, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced APD for passengers travelling on direct long-haul routes departing from airports in Northern Ireland. That move secured the continuation of the only current direct long-haul service operating from Northern Ireland. The Government have now gone further, as some hon. Members mentioned, and, reflecting the wishes of the Northern Ireland Executive, have devolved to Northern Ireland the power to set APD rates for long-haul flights departing Northern Ireland. The zero-APD rate for direct long-haul flights departing Northern Ireland, which took effect from 1 January 2013, puts Northern Ireland in a highly competitive position.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Poplar and Limehouse, and to the hon. Member for Belfast East in particular, when they spoke about the ways in which they would like to move forward. As the hon. Member for Belfast East correctly anticipated, I will be consistent and my comments will reflect what I said to her in my correspondence: APD is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and it would be sensible for her to convey her views to the Treasury, so that it is aware of what she believes should happen. I will not detain hon. Members by going into detail on all the reasons for APD and why it is where it is at the moment, because that is well known. They can rest assured that we are aware of the views on and the reasons for APD and that the Treasury regularly monitors the situation carefully.
Mr Burns
The hon. Lady is extremely charming and in many ways intellectually seductive. She too has been a Minister. There may be only four close honourable friends of mine sitting in the Chamber, but unfortunately the walls have ears. I have always found that it is extremely wise when one is a member of a governing Administration to be bound by collective responsibility, which I happen to believe in as well; one fully understands the merits of the cases that the Government put forward as their policy and one fully supports them. I hope that explains to the hon. Lady that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to do was due to the unsatisfactory, if not catastrophic, economic situation we inherited in May 2010. We have had to take some tough and difficult decisions. He is right, because it is right that we address the problems of the debt and the deficit.
I shall move on to the probably more neutral subject of aviation policy frameworks. Overall, the Government want aviation to continue across the country. To that end, we continue to deliver: we have delivered the Civil Aviation Act 2012, to bring the regulatory framework up to date, and we are implementing the recommendations of the south-east task force. We have also acted to ensure that the Northern Ireland aviation sector remains competitive. We plan to create an economic climate that enables people to travel and to use aviation to conduct business and visit friends and family as easily and cost-effectively as possible. Many people in Northern Ireland are concerned, as those in the rest of the country are, about capacity, particularly capacity in London and south-east England. Although it is across the Irish sea from Northern Ireland, capacity there does, as hon. Members have said, have a knock-on effect on those who wish to fly long-haul from Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland to the rest of the world. They will frequently travel to London to meet their connections and then travel on or, as hon. Members have said, in some cases they go to Dublin.
The Government believe that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long-term international competitiveness. To make decisions, we need our evidence on the way forward to be as up to date as possible. Dealing with airport capacity, increasing the size of existing airports or creating new airports is highly controversial and arouses strong emotions. It is essential that we get it right, which is why I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse on his party’s attitude to how we are moving forward, but I exclude from that welcome the comments he made about Boris island; I must be totally independent, so I do not want to comment on any option and compromise that independence.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The only difficulty we have with the Davies commission is the timetable the Government have given it to arrive at its conclusions, which is after the 2015 general election. Like Mayor Boris Johnson, the CBI and the aviation industry, we would much rather the deadline were brought forward to before the general election, so that parties have an opportunity to examine the recommendations and include them or otherwise in their manifestos, and people can have the opportunity to decide.
Mr Burns
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but perhaps I should let sleeping dogs lie; he kindly did not mention that topic in his comments. The time scale that has been given, with interim recommendations for the short term announced at the end of the year and a full-blown report with recommendations in the summer of 2015, is the right one. On a very complex, difficult and controversial subject, the commission must have the right amount of time to assess fully all the evidence and come to a proper decision, rather than rush it for an artificial, more short-term deadline. I fear that if it had had a shorter time scale, all those who did not like whatever recommendation the commission made, would accuse it of a botched job because it was a rushed job, because it did not have enough time.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Forgive me, Mr Amess, but I must comment that the Davies commission was appointed more than 12 months ago. It has a three-year job, but there is no way that it takes three years to arrive at conclusions on an issue such as aviation capacity in the south-east. There is so much evidence available. Three years is far too long. The timetable is a political stitch-up to get past the general election, because the issue is a deal breaker for the coalition. That is the reality in politics. I am not knocking it; it is just where we happen to be. The timetable could have been shorter and that would not have truncated the opportunity for a full, thorough and comprehensive examination of the issues by the commission.
Mr Burns
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I fundamentally disagree with him. The issues are extremely complex and difficult, and they have stumped successive previous Governments—we have been going around the houses for 30 or 40 years without a final conclusion. A timetable of just short of three years, to consider the recommendations for the short term and, hopefully, to find a proper and lasting solution for the long term, is the right time scale. With that, there can be no accusations that it is a botched job, or that it has been rushed because of an artificial deadline, and we will be able to get the right and relevant recommendation, which will secure our moving forward to keep our hub status and everything that flows from that. We will, hopefully, then be able to get cross-party consensus.
I think that all the political parties have behaved responsibly—sometimes uncharacteristically so, where British politics is concerned—in reaching consensus on high-speed rail, and when the Davies commission has reported, ideally we will be able to reach consensus on its recommendations. We will have to wait and see, but I think that the time scale is respectable and responsible, and provides the time for the work to be done without rushing it.
Mr Laurence Robertson
I hear what the Minister says, but the problem is that when the report comes out it will not be the end of the story. Everything then has to be negotiated, and then something has to be agreed, and built. So let us say that in 2015 a third runway at Heathrow is recommended. When does the Minister estimate it would be operational?
Mr Burns
I am not going to fall into the trap of signing up to, “Let’s say it’s the third runway at Heathrow airport”. The Davies commission is totally independent and I, as a Minister in the Department for Transport, will not in any shape or form be tempted into that, even as an example, because it could be misconstrued—as I said earlier, walls have ears—and I certainly do not want to compromise the commission’s independence.
Nevertheless, I get my hon. Friend’s point about how long any major infrastructure improvement project in this country, however much support it has in the political arena, takes to go from the idea, and the acceptance of the idea, to laying down the first bricks and opening the first door for the service, or whatever it is. That is another issue and, speaking from a purely personal point of view, I think it has to be considered, but I do think that the right way forward is for an expert organisation that is divorced from party politics to consider the issue and come up with a solution. I hope that one can then get swift consensus among the political parties—or the major ones—so that we can move forward.
From the past 24 hours, my hon. Friend will appreciate that notwithstanding the fact that most issues in the House of Commons have some opposition, having broad consensus that one is doing the right thing makes some of the parliamentary processes easier, and avoids one political party being against another in a kind of guerrilla warfare, trying to slow down and thwart what might be in the national interest. That is why the decision made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to set up the Davies commission was the right one, and I look forward to the commission’s recommendations in the summer of 2015, so that we can seek to build political consensus and move forward. That is crucial, not only for Britain’s interests but for Northern Ireland’s as well.
This has been an important and interesting debate, and I welcome the fact that we have been able to discuss the valuable contributions made. As I said at the beginning, a number of the issues are devolved to Northern Ireland, and the Committee might well want to pursue them further with the Northern Ireland Executive.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
4. What progress he is making on funding the refurbishment of railway stations.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
In the past two years, more than £238 million has been spent on schemes benefiting more than 100 stations nationally, including major investment at Birmingham New Street, London King’s Cross and Reading stations. Work includes improved access, better parking, retail outlets and ticket offices.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Lowestoft station is Britain’s most easterly station, and while welcome work is currently taking place to improve bus interchange facilities the station itself remains shabby in appearance. Will the Minister confirm that as part of the negotiations for the extension of Greater Anglia’s franchise, the Government will do all they can to ensure that the station and its surrounds are smartened up and brought back into full use?
Mr Burns
Although there will be no changes in the requirements for the direct award up until 2016, my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that Abellio will be required to undertake normal repair and maintenance activities and to invest in areas where there is a positive business case. I fully understand what my hon. Friend says about the condition of Lowestoft station and the overall impression it gives, and I will certainly draw both his comments and mine to the attention of Abellio.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Given that on a recent visit to Wolverhampton the Transport Secretary described our train station as “awful”, and given that the Department for Transport contributes to the regional growth fund, will the Minister commit himself to supporting the bid to the regional growth fund by Wolverhampton city council and a consortium to rebuild the station and regenerate the surrounding area?
Mr Burns
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary did visit the station, and he had a very jolly visit. I can also reassure her that a considerable amount of investment is being made in the area, but the specific bid proposals she mentions will be fully considered and decisions will flow from that in due course.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
When the Minister discusses the refurbishment of stations, will he look closely at accessibility for passengers with poor mobility, especially wheelchair users? Will he also take that a step further and speak with some of the train operating companies about the dismal access for some wheelchair users when trying to get on trains?
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is crucial that access for those with restricted mobility is improved. That is why, as he will be aware, there is the Access for All scheme, with investment of more than £300 million for the whole programme, and with an additional £100 million to be made available for the next control period. We are as anxious as he is to ensure that there are improvements for such people.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Q5. What steps he is taking to support motorists; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
T9. I am pleased that in recent years the volume of freight being carried on our railways has increased, and it is important that that welcome trend continues. What plans do the Government have to encourage as much freight as possible to transfer from road to rail?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. He will be as pleased as I am that since privatisation, freight transport has increased by 60%. We are helping the rail industry to develop a strategic freight network, which will make rail freight increasingly competitive, so that we can get even more freight off our congested roads and on to our railways.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T8. Will the Minister look into the scandal of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency checks on the practices of private parking companies? Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is supposed to protect motorists from rogue car parking companies, such as the operator of Eastgate car park in Accrington, but the answer to a freedom of information request on 18 June revealed that, in breach of the 2012 Act, the DVLA is not checking either notices or correspondence between car parking companies and motorists.
High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s witty intervention, but I do not think it has anything to do with the debate. It was an enjoyable interlude.
We have not had any real perception, understanding or analysis in the debate of what high-speed rail has meant for our partner countries in Europe. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport and we went to France and to Germany. Nobody in those countries is suggesting that they should close down their high-speed routes. Indeed, everyone we met, from local residents to other stakeholders, Government people and business people, was determined to expand the network.
I am not suggesting for a minute that because such things are supported in France and Germany we should follow that path, but I am saying that we should investigate, as we have, the reasons behind their approach. We need some very good reasons why Britain is so peculiar and different that high-speed rail will not benefit us. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, Italy has 960 miles of high-speed rail. We have only a small amount—only 60 miles, I believe—
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am sorry—67. Everyone else—including China and others around the world—is looking to expand their high-speed rail network. It is only in this country where we are looking not to build any further expansion of the network. That should strike right hon. and hon. Members as very bizarre.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
This has been an extremely good and well-informed debate. A significant number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have spoken in support of High Speed 2 and this paving Bill, and a number, including a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have expressed their concerns and lack of support.
I want to begin in a slightly unusual way by congratulating the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on taking the view in the national interest that they will support the Bill tonight, as they supported it when they were in government. For that consistency, I congratulate and thank them.
We heard a number of excellent speeches. I thought the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) was particularly relevant and interesting, because his constituency has the experience of High Speed 1. I also enjoyed the robust contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who is clearly a keen and enthusiastic supporter of the project.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and others who oppose the Bill and who have the preferred or proposed route going through their constituency that I understand what they are going through. I have considerable sympathy for them as constituency MPs and I admire they way in which they are rightly fighting for the interests of their constituents, but ultimately I believe that the national interest must come first, although we must do all we can to alleviate any problems that have been highlighted.
Mr Burns
I am sorry, but no. I have very little time and a lot to say to reply to the debate.
In the comments made both by those who support the Bill and by those who oppose it, there was a common theme: we have to sort out the issue of compensation. I agree. We accepted the High Court’s decision in the only one of the 10 judicial reviews that we did not win that we should reconsult. That consultation on a comprehensive compensation scheme will begin shortly, and I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and others that the options to be considered will include a property bond.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) asked that we say once again what the costs are. I will give those figures to the House now. For phase 1, it is £21.4 billion in 2011 prices, and for phase 2, it is £21.2 billion, making a total of £42.6 billion, which includes a contingency of £14.4 billion. The cost of rolling stock is £7.5 billion, of which £1.7 billion is the contingency fund.
The debate has laid bare the fact that everybody wants the benefits that high-speed rail is set to deliver—new jobs, growth and prosperity for our country—but there are understandably some questions and concerns about how we realise those benefits. Those concerns are not unlike those that surrounded the construction of many of the now indispensable parts of our nation’s transport infrastructure, such as the M25, the Jubilee line extension to Canary Wharf and High Speed 1 itself. High Speed 2 is not a scheme being built for the future based on the travel behaviours of the past. We stand firm in our belief that High Speed 2 is the right choice for Britain in the 21st century, just as the railways were the right choice for Britain in the 19th century. Amazingly, back then, those opposed to the railway claimed that it would terrify country folk, turn cows’ milk sour, stop hens laying and lead to an invasion of town folk into the country; and that travelling at speeds of more than 25 mph would cause the engines to combust and the passengers to disintegrate.
The doubts of today are the only true hindrance to realising our vision and the benefits it will deliver, and I am sure that future generations will look back at these doubts in the same way as we look at the doubts of those opposed to railways in the 19th century—and, ironically and using a shorter time scale, the doubts that the people of Kent had in the 1980s and ’90s, which they now totally reject. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that Maidstone successfully avoided having a station, which went to Ebbsfleet instead, and Maidstone is now begging to have a station because the town is losing out on the regeneration that a station delivers.
High Speed 2 is a vision that we have to realise. Over the past decade, about half of economic growth has been concentrated in London and the surrounding regions. While High Speed 2 will shrink the distance between our great cities, the vision for High Speed 2 is to extend the benefits that it will deliver far beyond the actual network. We estimate that over 70% of jobs created by High Speed 2 will be outside London. High Speed 2 will redress the imbalance felt acutely by millions of people in different parts of the country. Britain cannot afford to burden the economies of great cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham with an overcrowded railway that will be almost 200 years old by the time that High Speed 2 opens and which has no spare capacity.
It is time that Britain—the country that invented the railway—raised its aspirations and ambitions by building that world-class, high-speed rail network. I am confident that the House will recognise the core objective of High Speed 2 to create an engine for growth that will unlock massive potential and opportunities for UK cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and others along the route. It will link eight of Britain’s 10 largest cities, serving one in five of the UK population. People will be able to travel from Edinburgh to London and back in the time that it takes to drive one way. The network will be fully integrated with the nation’s airports, with stations serving Manchester and Birmingham directly, an option for a spur to Heathrow, and short connections to East Midlands airport from Toton station, which is halfway between Derby and Nottingham. That will radically redraw the economic geography of the nation, bringing our cities closer together and rebalancing growth and opportunities. In doing so, High Speed 2 will rewrite the economic fortunes of this country.
It is imperative that we do not delay the project, and the expenditure powers that we are seeking in the Bill will allow us to move forward with this ambitious investment in infrastructure. I have to say to right hon. and hon. Members that dithering is not an option if we want to maximise the economic potential of the country. By building High Speed 2, we will demonstrate that Britain still has the ambition and vision to build world-class infrastructure to support a world-beating economy. For those who do not believe that there will be acute regeneration around the stations and depots, I suggest that they go to Japan to see what has happened in places such as Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, where there has been massive regeneration, with shops, leisure activities, hotels and businesses, not simply in the immediate vicinity of the stations but beyond in the wider community.
We have to move forward to show that we still have ambition. At its heart, that is what HS2 is all about: jobs and growth—jobs and growth for this generation; jobs and growth for future generations. That is the legacy that the House is being asked to support today—a legacy that will support this nation’s zeal for hard work and its determination to succeed. We must have the courage and conviction to make bold decisions. We must be bold now, and it is for that reason that I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support Second Reading and to reject the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation Guidance)
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
When the Civil Aviation Authority is exercising its air navigation functions it is required under the Transport Act 2000 to take account of environmental guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. The current guidance was issued in January 2002 by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Since its publication, there have been some significant developments such as the creation of both the future airspace strategy and single European sky and the aviation policy framework which need to be reflected in the guidance.
On 17 January 2012 it was announced therefore that there would be a consultation on a revised version of the air navigation guidance following the publication of the aviation policy framework. I am pleased to announce the launch today of this consultation on our proposed new version of the guidance which has been developed with the technical assistance of the Civil Aviation Authority.
The proposed new guidance has two key objectives. The first is to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with additional clarity on the Government’s environmental objectives relating to air navigation in the UK, including the need to improve the efficiency of our UK airspace network. The second is a reaffirmation of the need to consult local communities near airports when airspace changes are being considered in the vicinity of these airports.
The consultation will run from Tuesday 25 June to Tuesday 17 September. Anyone with an interest is invited to take part, although the guidance is aimed at both the Civil Aviation Authority and those organisations likely to make airspace change proposals in the future.
A copy of the consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on my Department’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications.
An electronic copy has been lodged with the Library of the House.
The responses received to this consultation will be used to help refine the guidance which is expected to be presented to the Civil Aviation Authority by the end of the year.
Transport
Simon Burns Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated level of (a) public subsidy, (b) premium payments and (c) revenue support will be during the contract extension to September 2014 agreed between his Department and c2c Rail Ltd for rail passenger services on the Essex Thameside line.
[Official Report, 3 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 975W.]
Letter of correction from Simon Burns:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 3 June 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£2.4 million. A profit share mechanism in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£1.7 million. A profit share mechanism in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
Jeremy Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value is of the contract extension to September 2014 agreed between his Department and c2c Rail Ltd for rail passenger services on the Essex Thameside line.
[Official Report, 5 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 1198W.]
Letter of correction from Simon Burns:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 5 June 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£2.4 million. A profit share mechanism is in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£1.7 million. A profit share mechanism is in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.