Transport and the Economy

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).

I want to comment principally on the “Transport and the Economy” report. The report recognises, of course, that for many years transport was like Cinderella, as it rarely came to the fore and was not regarded as one of the key parts of Government policy. That was true for many years, but there has been a sea change and there is recognition both in the report and in the actions of the previous Government and this Government that the performance of an economy can be directly related to transport.

Transport can undoubtedly boost growth and increase competitiveness, and one of the best policy interventions a Government can make is to ensure that the infrastructure allows industry to thrive. Some of the infrastructure not only benefits industry but improves the quality of life of a number of our citizens, although clearly it can be provided in a number of ways that differ not only physically but financially. Efficient infrastructure will allow efficient and cost-effective movement around national, regional, sub-regional and local networks—I think that that is implicitly recognised in the report. The fact that transport can boost the economy—the report questions its efficacy in some areas, which I wish to discuss later—is also self-evident.

Any report that links transport and the economy is welcome, but having read both the report and the Government’s response and having listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I would like to address one or two areas of slight concern and some surprise. For instance, as the hon. Lady conceded, we are discussing this report some time after its publication and so a number of its explicit recommendations have, to the Government’s credit, been covered in a number of ways. Indeed, it seemed to me that the Government were already covering a number of the report’s recommendations at the time.

Let me pick out recommendation 5 as an example. It states:

“The Government must explain the nature of the economic solutions that it is seeking to deliver through transport spending and how the schemes that it is supporting will achieve these aims.”

By the time the report had been published, however, the Government had already set out those things through their transport business case. They have also set out quite clearly in their business plan some of their objectives for transport spending, as well as a vision for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, and they have attempted to provide a greener, cleaner and fairer solution for our communities.

Moreover, during the previous Government's period in office, many of us on both sides of the House recognised that the formula that the Department for Transport was using to analyse a number of its schemes beyond the basic benefit-cost ratio, NATA—the new approach to appraisal—had a number of deficiencies. We should recognise that the Government have set out a more embracing framework for analysing infrastructure spending. Clearly, there are the four areas to consider: the economic case; whether there is commercial viability; whether a scheme is financially affordable; and, perhaps most importantly, whether a scheme is achievable. That sort of framework, beyond what was previously in place, should provide a greater degree of rigour, for there is now more than one test. There are not only the tests in NATA or the benefit-cost ratio but a number of tests which, added together, will give a transparent and more rigorous approach to the analysis of economic transport investment. I hope that such an approach will stay in place for some time, because one of the problems with transport investment has been that for an awfully long period in this country’s history there was complete inconsistency in approaches to what a scheme could deliver. I support what the Minister has put in place, and I hope he will ensure that it is enshrined and embedded for a long period.

I was somewhat surprised at the report’s conclusions about regional strategies and the removal of regional strategic development and development agencies. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I almost intervened, but as I hoped I would have the chance of catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I saved my remarks. I listened to the hon. Lady’s comments about what regional development agencies were doing for transport spending. However, I think the previous Transport Committee concluded in one of its reports—I forget which one—as did commentators up and down the country, that the variability among what RDAs delivered regarding transport was vast. It is fair to say that what the regional development agency did in the north-west in some of the delivery and spending on transport projects was well appreciated and supported. However, in other parts of the country, particularly the south-west, the RDA was felt to be failing almost everybody it attempted to help.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the arguments and strategies developed by The Northern Way, which brought together three RDAs in the north of England, made a huge contribution to the development of the High Speed 2 project and the northern hub?

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed I do, and I thank the hon. Lady for making that point because it helps me to make my next point. One thing that this Government have recognised is that, although there was some mix of RDAs, the reality is that a differing of approach in different areas will be the solution.

I also think it is quite clear that the report has prejudged the efficacy of local enterprise partnerships. It seems to me that all the initial evidence, anecdotal though it is because they have been in place for so short a time, shows that they are taking their responsibilities towards transport seriously.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The report reflected the evidence that was given to the Committee. In taking this further, the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State recognised the potential gap that would be caused by the removal of the previous regional structures. Indeed, efforts are being made to replace them through other means, but the comprehensive picture and the total results of the changes are as yet unclear.

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed, but the previous solution was a template solution, a one-size-fits-all solution, a “this is the way we must do it” solution, which did not necessarily reflect the economic realities. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, in the north of England it was not one regional development agency, but a collaboration of three. As I observed earlier, in certain parts of the country structures well below the regional level developed and delivered more efficient transport solutions.

I hope that in reading the report the Minister will not be deflected from the idea that solutions of differing sizes will fit different parts of the country, and that LEPs have been in place for a relatively short time. Just as regional development agencies were able to collaborate and co-operate, there is little doubt that LEPs will be able to do the same. It is also true that in certain parts of the country integrated transport authorities and passenger transport authorities will provide the lead in regional structures. The clear message must be that there are differing appropriate sizes and structures.

[David Mowat]

I agree that the jury is out on LEPs and that the RDAs were not a panacea in this area, but the real point is that neither the RDAs nor the LEPs can compete with the velocity of spending which is so skewed away from the regions and towards London and the south-east. For example, when the Chancellor announces £30 billion of spend, of which 80% was in London, that dwarfs the amount available to the RDAs or the LEPs. The real issue is how we fix that problem, rather than tinkering with the LEPs, which I hope, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, will work in time.

[Stephen Hammond]

I certainly agree with the latter point. It is beyond the scope of my comments this afternoon to go into the differing amounts of regional money. I accept that there clearly is some imbalance in subsidy between varying regions of the country. It is important to analyse what that can deliver and its efficacy. It is interesting to speculate what Crossrail might bring to London in future, as opposed to what the northern hub might bring to the north. I suspect that the benefits of the northern hub might be greater than those of Crossrail. We will wait and see. I am sure the Minister and the DFT will continue to reflect on that.

As a practitioner of the dark art of economics, I know that different economists will always have differing views on everything. Reading the report, I was struck by the comments of the former chief economist at the DFT. Although those may have been made only in response to the question that he was asked, it seemed to me to miss out quite a lot when he said that if one looks at the history of the British economy, it is clear

“how little the underlying rate of economic growth has varied.”

He went on to add that transport had done very little to affect the overall growth rate of the British economy. That seemed to miss out the fact that we have had wildly varying periods across history.

The witness's analysis went back almost 200 years. Over that time, we have had wildly differing levels of infrastructure investment, and there have been periods when the growth rate of the UK economy has been well in excess of the 2% that he mentioned. His analysis also failed to consider the impact of under-investment, which is a well known phenomenon, how that would have dragged down the underlying potential growth rate of the economy even in a period when investment had resumed, and the potential growth rate had there been consistent investment. Although the analysis that Mr Riley presented to the Committee may or may not be valid, it seems to me that it falls foul of the law of averages. I think that the analysis should look at the potential for economic growth with a consistent approach to investment.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Having listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument and seen some of the evidence that was given to the Committee, it seems to me that, although it could be argued that investment in transport might not be such a direct factor in economic growth, we must also consider what would happen if we did not make that investment and this country fell further behind, which I think would lead to economic shrinkage.

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend, who more than eloquently makes the absolutely correct point—the final point in my analysis of the economic situation—about the economic analysis presented by Mr Riley.

One of the other learned gentlemen who gave evidence, Professor Goodwin, spoke of the potential for investment not to be transformational, but to be strategic—I am not sure whether he was playing with semantics. He did not like the word “transformational” but said that there was an element of strategy—I think “strategic” is the word he used. He is right that there has been a continued over-egging of the ability of certain single projects to produce the sort of result that some people hope for.

However, if we look at the sheer size of certain schemes and the investment that this and previous Governments have made that complements and adds to what is already in place, and/or if we look at the smarter changes and smarter choices in transport packages, we will see that there is a real chance for transport and infrastructure investment to be transformational. I suspect that some of the moves on work travel packages, which aim to increase access to work, and some of the major electrification projects, which are combined with other minor schemes in parts of the south-west, will in five or six years’ time be considered transformational. In that regard, the evidence given to the Committee probably fails to recognise transport’s ability to be transformational and, more importantly, to enable economic growth.

Moreover, the point that neither of those two learned gentlemen discussed—this is where I disagree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside—is that if transport is part of a cluster of other investments, including increases in education, access to work, economic development zones and others, its ability to contribute to the potential for economic growth is far in excess of what that would have been had the investment been made on its own. A number of people will have made a better analysis of the cluster theory than I have, but that is broadly what it says. Yet again, if transport is combined with other Government policies, its ability to have a significant impact should not be underestimated.

I will finish with a few other remarks. I warmly welcome and support the conclusion that using transport to support and stimulate the economy and to attempt to reduce regional economic disparities is surely right. The test of the Government in that regard must be whether they are showing any understanding of those challenges. In a time when the key overriding economic priority must be to reduce the economic deficit and ensure that the public finances are put on a more stable profile, this Government are undertaking a number of measures which recognise those challenges and provide economic support in relation to it. We have seen that, significantly, through the Minister’s sponsorship of several local transport plans and investment programmes, and they are having on a small scale quite a huge impact on bus routes, local transport—in terms of local rail—and other issues.

Equally, the support for major projects throughout the regions, such as the northern hub, which has been mentioned, the electrification of the south-west main line and the investment in the east coast main line over the past 10 years, strikes me as sending a clear message that this Government recognise the need to maintain transport infrastructure spend.

As the Chairman of the Transport Committee pointed out, the Department for Transport has done relatively well from the overall comprehensive spending review debate, and that represents the Government’s understanding of the need for and importance of transport infrastructure.

I have spoken principally about rail in my last few remarks, but it is clear also that we neglect at our peril the need to maintain and upgrade our roads, and some smaller road schemes will have a bigger impact than some major, strategic ones, so the £3 billion that the Government are putting into local road schemes over four years is likely to have a positive impact on local, regional and overall economic growth.

I welcome the report, which has sponsored a debate about transport and the economy. I welcome also the Government having evidenced by their actions their understanding of the need for infrastructure in order to support economic growth and the quality of life of our citizens. I am sure that the Minister, in his winding-up remarks, will say that this is not just the start but a continuing policy of the Government.

Rail Fares

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

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

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

That is an over-simplification. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Sir Roy McNulty identified in his report a need for the different parts of the rail industry to work together much better. Network Rail is already doing that with many of the train operating companies. That was to be a key way of driving costs down—not through worsening services but by running the system better in the first place.

[Stephen Hammond]

If we are comparing privatised or denationalised and nationalised railways, perhaps the Secretary of State would like to reflect on the point of history that, in the last 15 years of British Rail, fares rose faster than in 15 years of denationalised railways.

[Justine Greening]

As ever, my hon. Friend, for whom I have huge respect and who is obviously an expert in the House on the subject, makes an incredibly powerful point. It is worth complementing that with the point that we also experienced unprecedented increases in passenger demand since privatisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I direct the House to my entry in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who is the joint chair of the rail group and was of course a distinguished rail Minister.

The motion makes four contentions. First, it is critical of the scale of fare increases overall. Secondly, it contends that the scale of rail fare increases has added disproportionally to the increase in the cost of living for us all. Thirdly, it says that the flex mechanism should be stopped, and fourthly that the profits of the rail companies are too high. I wonder whether, in my short contribution, we might look at some of the facts rather than the hyperbole.

First, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there can be no discussion of rail fares without accepting that there is always a balance between what is funded by the taxpayer and what is funded by the fare payer. Successive Governments since 1945 have chosen to subsidise both the operating and the capital costs of rail expenditure, so there has been an implicit subsidy of fares from the taxpayer. That equation has been long recognised. It was Lord Adonis who, in the later years of the Labour Government, decided that the balance had swung too far from taxpayer support and needed to swing back to the fare payer. Therefore, if we want to start talking about why rail fares are increasing and taxpayer subsidies are decreasing, let us all be absolutely clear. History shows that the change in the slant of that equation happened post 2004, and certainly accelerated from 2006, so that the £10.5 billion overall operating costs of the industry are now split, with 62% coming from the fare payer and 38% from the taxpayer. The bulk of that change happened between 2005 and 2010.

Secondly, when it comes to the system of regulated and non-regulated fares, it was the last Government who introduced the policy of RPI plus 1, which is why regulated fares are increasing this year by RPI plus 1. Are Opposition Front Benchers saying that they have changed their attitude towards regulated and non-regulated fares? Are they saying that they will not operate RPI plus 1 in future? The motion is of course stoically silent about that. Let us look at the relative contribution of different sectors to the increase in our cost of living. The motion’s claim does not bear too much examination, for it is not rail or bus fare increases that are contributing most to our increased cost of living. The World Bank global food index has gone up 19% over the last year, while Green Flag says that the costs of motoring and car insurance are up 21%. The average fare increase this year—I accept that it is an average; we will come to that point in a moment—is 5.9%, so the motion fails when it says that there is a disproportionate increase from transport.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out, no one wants to see excessive price increases. Also, I accept that we are talking about an average and that some people have seen rather larger fare increases, but that is also the point about flex, is it not? Flex is a weighted average increase—a device, introduced by the last Labour Government and suspended for one year only, to manage demand. If the Labour Opposition are going to get rid of flex, they have to say whether the shadow Secretary of State will write to every commuter whose rail fare increase was less than the average and tell them why she is doing it. Is she going to put in place another tool or mechanism to manage demand? Let us not forget that although she talked about demand in peak hours, rail markets, like many other markets, are localised markets around cities or in rural areas. That is why the last, Labour Government agreed and negotiated differing peak hours with the rail companies, to ensure that localised demand could be managed over peak and “shoulder” hours. If she is going to get rid of flex, she has to stand up and say how she will accept that challenge and demand.

Finally, there is a lot of talk about the huge profits earned by the rail companies, but their operating profit margin has been absolutely constant over the last 10 years, at approximately 3%. Let us look at some of the other companies around—say, that mouthpiece of the Labour party, the Daily Mirror, whose operating profit margin is 16%. It is absolutely clear—it is also implicit in RPI plus 3—that any extra contribution will go back into the rail industry, not the profits of the rail companies. Today’s motion is interesting, but it fails the test of fact. That is why I hope the House will reject it.

High-speed Rail

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

One of the things that we have always tried to balance is getting assurance about what our lead proposals are so as not to cause unnecessary blight and trying to share information with residents as soon as possible. I believe that we will be able to start informally consulting local groups later this year and in 2013. We will do the formal consultation—the sort that the hon. Gentleman has seen on the first phase of this route—in 2014.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on her statement. Will she assure me that she was aware that the chief executive of Manchester city council said last week that this was a most significant decision for the north of England’s economy? Will she confirm that she still expects the monetised value of the scheme overall to be in the order of £50 billion?

[Justine Greening]

I can confirm that when we look at the key people pushing for this scheme, we notice that the key economies and great cities in the north will see the benefits. The monetised total value is upwards of £40 billion, even £50 billion. Ultimately, however, we must recognise that that calculation takes place over a 60-year time frame. Anybody building the railways back in Victorian times would never have counted the benefit we get from them today, which is very real, and the potential benefit of HS2 is significant.

M5 Motorway Accident

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of information. It is not just when there are accidents that it is good to give motorists additional information so that they can make their own decisions about how to avoid a congested area. I would also like to look into how we can get better information to motorists on a daily basis, because it can help whatever the driving circumstances.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place, endorse her remarks, echo her condolences to the families, and commend her statement. It is absolutely right to take a calm and measured approach towards making road safety the key priority. Given some of the increases in braking technology, for instance, I am sure that she will have the support of the whole House if she does not rush to early conclusions on the remarks about speed at this stage.

[Justine Greening]

We have always said that any decision we took would follow a consultation, and that is right. These are important areas to get right, and they require a balanced approach. That means understanding all the downsides and upsides before any final decision is taken. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we will go through the right process before we take any decisions.

High Speed 2

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

There is no hard evidence that this project will reduce unemployment in the north. HS2’s own estimate of 30,000 new jobs—

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The estimate is 40,000.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The figure is 40,000, my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, but some 73% of those jobs will be generated in and around London, not in the north. Moreover, every one of those jobs will be associated with £300,000 in costs, which is about five times more than the cost of job creation in other infrastructure projects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way again. I am sorry, but lots of people want to speak.

I am no rail expert, but there are lots of people who are, and they have put forward a broad range of different options that the Government and the Department for Transport should consider as alternatives that would offer more jobs, and faster and greater capacity while improving our existing rail infrastructure. I want to mention a few. We could lengthen existing trains from nine carriages to 12, and we could convert more from first class to standard.

[Stephen Hammond]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way again.

We could consider solving the bottlenecks and pinch points that are so frequent along routes that slow down the system and give us less capacity. We could consider reopening old branch lines, particularly those that would enable passengers to switch between the east coast and west coast main lines and the Chiltern line. That would solve part of the problem in the firewall argument. We could consider solving the artificial peaks in demand generated by our appalling fare structure. We could even consider a new line just between London Euston and Milton Keynes so that the west coast main line could be dedicated to taking passengers to the north of England far faster and on a far more frequent service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a great honour and pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing it. She has allowed everybody who has a point of view the chance to make their case, expose the arguments of the other side and put forward their own.

In the last Parliament I was fortunate enough, along with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who is in her place, to be part of the shadow transport team who were the first authors of a major high-speed rail debate, and indeed of a high-speed rail policy.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is absolutely right that there is a principled case for opposition to the scheme. My constituents are affected, as are those of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). What is not a principled position, however, is to say that there is no economic, environmental, financial or travel case for high-speed rail. There clearly is a case, although its merits might differ according to differing points of view.

I have read both the rail package 2 study and the “A Better Railway for Britain” study, the proposals in which are often referred to as an alternative to high-speed rail. I shall briefly examine—because I want to move on to the positives, rather than the negatives—the proposals in the latter study for overcoming the capacity issues on the west coast main line. It proposes to introduce 12 car trains, grade-separated junctions and an additional track south of Nuneaton. It claims that the costs, at best, would be £2.06 billion, but it takes that figure from another, flawed document. I do not know whether those who produced the study have ever spoken to any of the rail operators, but it will be extremely difficult to integrate 12 cars into 11-car sets.

[Paul Maynard]

Does my hon. Friend agree that rail package 2 plus and RP2 both admit that they do not tackle the peak-hour demand, which is the crucial concern of many of us travelling on the west coast main line?

[Stephen Hammond]

Absolutely. However, so much in “A Better Railway for Britain” is mere assertion. The good points, though, are like that television programme from so long ago, “Not Only… But Also”. Not only do we need to do the things mentioned in RP2, but also we need high-speed rail. The case for high-speed rail is clear. It revolves primarily around capacity. Official sources say that the west coast main line will be full by 2020, although some say 2026, while unofficial sources say 2015. The question, then, is about how we add capacity. We either build a classic new line or we build one that uses some of the new techniques and signalling. The latter is called high-speed rail.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are going to make the case for “not only but also”, as he described it, the case for HS2 needs be made after the “not only”? In other words, if we are trying to make an economic argument, we have to add on the incremental improvements to be made and then justify HS2 expense on top of that.

[Stephen Hammond]

There is one fallacy with my hon. Friend’s argument. Simply speeding up the current network and alleviating some minor problems is no substitution for high-speed rail. It is clear that high-speed rail would at least double capacity, and on certain parts of the route, the capacity increase would be significantly more than that.

The Y-shaped high-speed network across the UK would bring a benefit-cost ratio of about 2:6. For the London to Birmingham section, the ratio would be 2:0. That shows that the case for going further north becomes more compelling and adds to the economic benefit. The proposals in “A Better Railway for Britain” would have a benefit-cost ratio of 1:4. Those ratios prove that high-speed rail is significantly better than some of these hotch-potch alternatives in “A Better Railway for Britain”.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that between the two iterations of the business case in March 2010 and February 2011, the Government had to slash their estimate of the benefit-cost ratio by 40%? That was the first time that the business case was prodded. If another 40% comes off it when it is prodded again, it will be proven to have been economically unviable.

[Stephen Hammond]

When the business case is re-examined, the key thing will be: what happens if it improves? The more important point is that the benefit-cost ratio for HS2 is overwhelmingly ahead of any of the other proposals. That is true.

The economic case is overwhelming. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) eloquently set out some of the issues in the north, but the point is that in the construction phase alone, high-speed rail will generate 40,000 jobs along the route. That does not include any calculation of the ripple supply-chain effect, which will certainly be felt. More than that, the combination of HS2 and the northern hub, which has already been referred to, will create a new economic conurbation in the north and allow much quicker access between the north and London. That connectivity is hugely important.

When the business community criticises politicians, it says that all too often one of the reasons why it does not invest and why there are barriers to growth is that we, the politicians, have not put in place the appropriate infrastructure. This scheme is the appropriate infrastructure for the 21st century.

The environmental impact cannot be understated. The Department for Transport currently estimates that the project is carbon-neutral, and I absolutely accept that. However, I am aware that the Campaign for Better Transport is doing some new research into the impact of taking extra freight by rail, which, when combined with the transference effect from railways, I am led to believe points to the conclusion that the carbon footprint will be significantly reduced.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Hammond]

No, I am sorry; I have only a minute and a half left.

There is a myth that local services will suffer as a result of High Speed 2. That is not true: local services are already at capacity. We need to do other things, but high-speed rail is not part of that argument. That is a diversionary tactic. There is also a myth, which has been brought up time after time today, that there is a £30 billion cost. Yes, of course the scheme will cost £30 billion, but Crossrail is currently costing us £2 billion a year. Crossrail will have a huge impact on London and create huge benefits for the commuting area of London and the south-east. If we look at the cost of Crossrail against the annual cost of High Speed 2, we see that they are actually a substitution for one another. It is quite clear that we can invest the £2 billion a year in rail infrastructure that the Government have costed for without affecting other investment.

The case is a good one and there are overwhelming reasons for it. The network is at capacity, the economy will benefit, the scheme will be at least carbon-neutral and, given that it does not start until after 2017, High Speed 2 is affordable.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

High-Speed Rail

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dan Byles]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It sounds ideal to suggest that linking the two systems will benefit the regions, but the university of Barcelona looked at high-speed rail systems on the continent, and found that the benefits often flow the other way. Economic activity might drain away from the north towards the south.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the point that my hon. Friend is making. He will know, of course, that the 1970s experience in Japan is contrary to the findings of the study. More importantly and more locally, the study from the North West Business Leadership Team only yesterday points in a completely different direction from that in the Spanish study.

[Dan Byles]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)

[Dan Byles]

North Warwickshire council and, I believe, Warwick district council, as well as Warwickshire county council and Staffordshire county council, have all come out formally against the proposal. They obviously do not believe that there will be wider economic benefits for the midlands and their council areas.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) demonstrates that we need to do more work before spending 17 billion quid of taxpayers’ money. If some reports say one thing, and others say something else, where is the fundamental, independent, root and branch economic analysis of existing high-speed rail systems in other countries around the world? I genuinely do not believe that what HS2 and the Department for Transport published represents that.

[Stephen Hammond]

Will my hon. Friend say who would satisfy his classification of independence?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I have to acknowledge to the hon. Lady that that is not an application to vary the franchise that I have yet received. Of course, when such decisions are taken it is very important for the views of local stakeholders—passengers—to be properly taken into account in terms of the outcome.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was right to talk about the benefits of Thameslink, but many in south London will not enjoy the full benefits unless Network Rail timetables through trains from the Sutton loop. Will she ensure that Network Rail continues to keep that option open?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will certainly expect Network Rail to do all it can to minimise the disruption caused for passengers by the works under way on Thameslink and forthcoming works at major London termini. I will keep my hon. Friend’s proposal in mind, and I am happy to discuss it with Network Rail. I believe that he and I are meeting to discuss this soon.

Intercity Express and Rail Electrification

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that when we get such an opportunity to reinforce our skills base and move up the value-adding curve with our work force, we have to seize it. There is already a project in Nottingham that I am hoping to visit very shortly that involves rail engineering apprenticeships, and there is another project in Crewe that I have been invited to go and see. We need to generate more of these projects in response to the investment opportunities arising. I agree completely with the sentiment that she expresses.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I welcome unequivocally my right hon. Friend’s statement and its excellent news for rail infrastructure. He will be aware that ongoing designs for existing platforms are usually more cost-effective than new designs. Will he confirm to the House, therefore, that the revised Agility proposal represents better value for the British taxpayer both in what it represents and in cost terms?

[Mr Hammond]

The value-for-money appraisal certainly shows that the revised Agility proposal represents the highest value for money of the proposals that we have considered for the replacement of the inter-city diesel express trains. It represents a strong value-for-money case and is affordable. Hitachi has responded in an exemplary way to the Government’s commitment to high-speed rail—that changes the dynamics—and to the UK’s fiscal situation in order to ensure that we can go ahead with the programme.

High Speed Rail

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and the speed with which he has brought forward these proposals. He is particularly right to reject some of the criticisms of the Opposition, because I recall that their conversion came only with Lord Adonis and that proposals for anything beyond Birmingham were tacked on only in March this year. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Transport for London? Beyond Old Oak Common, what dispersal measures will be needed in London?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

By the time the HS2 railway is built, the improvements and upgrades to the Northern line—for which we confirmed our investment funding in the recent spending review statement—will be completed. Dispersal will take place, it is estimated, with about one third at Old Oak Common, with passengers dispersing principally on to Crossrail, and about two thirds at Euston, with the upgraded Northern line. I have also asked HS2 to consider remodelling the station at Euston, so that Euston Square station can be incorporated into the main Euston station, giving access to additional underground lines.