London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am delighted that we have reached Third Reading and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his efforts in promoting the Bill. He and many other Members present have sought to make changes to, and contribute to extensive scrutiny of, the Bill during its passage through Parliament. The debate has been healthy and constructive, and the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result. The Government have made it clear throughout that we support the principle of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for his work in steering it through the House and Third Reading, and I hope it will receive Royal Assent. With that, I reiterate the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) on moving the Second Reading of this private Bill. We welcome the opportunity presented by the debate, and we have listened to a number of the interventions. This Bill will certainly enable the successful film-making industry in Hertfordshire to prosper. I suspect my hon. Friend will enjoy many happy hours in Committee scrutinising this Bill.

Let me make it clear from the start that the Government do not oppose the Bill. We accept that it largely replicates previous legislation, including the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008 and the Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2010, but we had some initial reservations about the limited procedural protection offered to property owners and the travelling public. These are similar issues to those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who can be reassured that the Government have had discussions with Hertfordshire county council. We are grateful that the council reassured the Government that when it puts in place film orders and film notices, it will—to the extent that there are no mandatory requirements in law—follow the procedures similar to those set out in the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) musing on why Buckinghamshire county council should have asked him to sponsor a private Member’s Bill on a similar subject. I can assume only that, after his long hours of parliamentary scrutiny, it considers him to be the House’s expert.

[Mr Chope]

The council did not ask me to sponsor the Bill; it asked for my advice.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to have that correction put on the record, but equally, I am sure that his advice was sought for exactly the same reason, given my hon. Friend’s extensive hours of scrutiny over various private Members’ Bills. I heard his comments and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) about the potential for looking at national legislation, and given that I am known as a most generous Minister, I am happy to offer the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) for a meeting if they wish to pursue the point. None the less, the Government wish this Bill well on its Second Reading, and we have no objection to its moving forward through the House of Commons.

East Coast Main Line

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, I agree. That is exactly the point. Instead of profits generated by the franchise benefiting British commuters through investment in service improvement and dividends to the Treasury, the Government prefer profits to be channelled to other European countries, in some cases to subsidise fares in those countries. If we are to achieve the modal shift from cars to rail that we need to ease pressure on our trunk roads and to reduce carbon emissions, we must have the investment and the ambitious targets and standards in place to ensure that services are reliable and can carry on improving. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government intend to put that improvement into reverse over the next few years.

It was brought to my attention yesterday that in the past couple of weeks, the Office of Rail Regulation has published a document setting out the desired outputs for the whole rail network for the next five-year control period. That document makes it clear that the standards expected of whichever company wins the east coast franchise will be significantly lower than the national average, and possibly even lower than those of most European routes. For example, the national standard for cancelled or seriously late trains—which I have had some experience of on the east coast over the past month: the fault for that lay not with the company but with all the storms and so on—is no more than 2.2% of journeys. The east coast’s standard will be 4.2%.The national standard for just mildly late trains, which can be anything between 10 minutes and two hours, will be 8.1% in the first year. For the east coast, it will be 17%, which is more than double the national standard, and equates to more than one in six journeys. That rate will be required to come down to 12% by 2018-19, but it will still be much higher than the national rate of 7.5%.

Over the control period, we could see an additional 15,500 trains officially late and more than 2,500 trains cancelled without the operator being deemed to be breaching its required standards. Why should the east coast be given a lower standard? It is way below what the public would expect, and way below the standards set by Labour for the current control period. The apparent loosening of the required standards does not appear in any of the preceding documents on which the public have been consulted, but has now appeared at a point when they can no longer have their say. Will the Minister explain why the standards are set so low and have been revealed in a document on which the public will not be consulted? Will he give us an assurance today that that is in no way linked to the tendering process, or the Government’s desire to get the most money for the franchise to hold up as a sign of success? If we move the goalposts and make things easier for whichever train operator comes in, it makes the deal more attractive to them, and that is what seems to be going on here.

If the Government are to go through with the privatisation, it is important that the Exchequer get as much cash as possible now and over the course of the contract. However, we cannot sacrifice performance standards to achieve that goal, because people will just give up on trains that are allowed to be late on one in six, one in seven or even one in eight journeys.

If the proposal is not linked to the tendering process, perhaps it is related to the fact that investment in tackling congestion over the coming control period will be less than half the £500 million that the Labour Government allocated. That investment has resulted in improvements in north London, flyovers at Doncaster and Hitchin, and the upgrading of a parallel route for slow freight between Doncaster and Peterborough. Will the Minister assure us that service standards are not being lowered to match the investment the Government are prepared to make? Our constituents rightly expect not just a punctual service but a decent service, particularly when they might be on the train for three or four hours or more when travelling to or from the north-east or Scotland—it can take up to six hours to get all the way up to Inverness.

Will the Minister rule out the introduction of a lower-tier or third-class service, which is allegedly in the prospectus that was sent to potential bidders? Indeed, will he rule out any degradation of standard-class service in a three-class system by a future operator?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

There is no suggestion of a third-class service in the prospectus. One version of the document was leaked, but even that did not refer to a third class, but to the possibility of a service between standard and first class. Some might like to call it premium economy. No one has ever called it third class. Can we just lay that myth to rest?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am sure the Minister is aware that the National Society of French Railways introduced a “no frills” service in France this year, below standard class. If Keolis and Eurostar win the contract, will he guarantee that we will not see the same here? I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to make that guarantee now; perhaps he will make it in his closing remarks. By way of assurance, perhaps he could place a copy of the document in question in the Library. I know he said that such a claim was never in the document, but if there is such a document, could he place it in the Library so the public can see that we are not being sold down the river—or in this case down the railway line? The Government are always keen to bolster their transparency credentials, and this would be an excellent way of conducting themselves in an open and honest way.

[Stephen Hammond]

This Government are so open and transparent that all those documents are available for the hon. Lady to see now. I am surprised she did not choose to read them before the debate today.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will go away and look more closely at the matter. I may have missed the part to which the Minister refers. Perhaps he could write to me about it, so we can be assured that there will not be a third-class rail service.

I will conclude because many Members wish to speak in the debate. I leave the Minister with the words of one of his departmental predecessors, the noble Lord Adonis. He was regularly cited by Ministers as being against public ownership when he was Secretary of State, and that was correct. However, given the success of Directly Operated Railways, he recently had this to say:

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

Lord Adonis is a wise man. He had an opinion. He looked at the evidence that contradicted his opinion and, like many a wise man before him, accepted that his opinion had been wrong and changed his mind. There is still time for the Minister and his colleagues to demonstrate similar wisdom and halt this process before more money is spent by the Department and the companies that might bid. They should accept that this experiment in public ownership, forced upon a reluctant Secretary of State at the time by the failure of a private provider, has been a success and can continue to be a success.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a great delight to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, which provides yet another opportunity to present the benefits of rail franchising and to talk about the east coast main line franchise.

I have listened to a number of Members speak this morning, and I hope to address some of what they have said and asked for on behalf of their constituents. Regrettably, I cannot deal with all the points, because we are engaged in a commercially confidential and sensitive procurement exercise to appoint the right service delivery partner for this vital and historic railway. On 25 October, we began the competition for the inter-city east coast main line franchise by publishing a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, and publishing the inter-city east coast prospectus and the pre-qualifications documents, so that prospective bidders can apply to take part in this important competition. The prospectus set out some of the new policies to be included in the new franchise, such as capitalisation requirements and the GDP support mechanism to mitigate the kinds of failures we have seen in the past. The Government have learned the lessons from the west coast main line and put in place new procedures and policies. I am confident that the competition will run smoothly.

We are now in the pre-qualification stage of the competition, so it is only right that I am careful in my comments this morning not to prejudice the competition. As is normal, the Department has set up clear processes, which I must follow, for the transmission of information to the market throughout this competition.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The Minister mentioned the prospectus that is in the public domain. Will he explain the difference between that and the leaked prospectus to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred and from which I obtained information about the proposal for third-class rail travel? Where did that leaked prospectus come from, and does it even exist? It was printed in The Daily Telegraph, which I am sure he thinks is a jolly good paper that would not print something that did not exist.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady is drawing me into commenting on The Daily Telegraph, and I would rather not do that at the moment, for obvious reasons. The Government rightly do not comment on leaked documents. If the hon. Lady wants to rely on it, it is for her to do so, but the Government rely on the prospectus that we have issued.

I shall pick up some of the questions asked this morning. There has been a whiff of mischief in this debate. Much has been said about political dogma and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) gave himself away when he said that he supports renationalisation of the railways. That is what this debate is about. It is not about securing the best deal for passengers, the railways or the east coast main line. It is about renationalisation.

The whiff of mischief continued from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman who was keen to point out what she believes is the benefit of nationalisation, but failed to point out that the previous Labour Government saw the benefits of the franchising system and privatisation, and continued with that process throughout their 13 years in office. Moreover, I gently remind the hon. Lady that when she starts a catalogue of failures, she might remember who had not done enough work on the franchising process in 2007 when National Express took it over.

[Mrs Gillan]

On the spirit of mischief, does my hon. Friend find the attitude of Labour Members rather odd? I understand that Labour is considering supporting HS2 if the Secretary of State raises the extra private sector funds by selling a 30-year concession on HS2 for £10 billion. Does that not sit rather oddly with the arguments that have been deployed today?

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point and alludes, as I did, to the whiff of mischief that we are hearing from Labour Members today.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about the prospectus and where she might find it. It is available in the Library—and I have a copy here—but I will ensure that a copy is sent to her. She commented on performance, and I refer her to page 67, which states that the franchise agreement will include three levels of benchmarking for the performance metrics that any franchisee will have to meet.

The hon. Lady referred to third class. I intervened to say that we will not specify that and have not specified it, but I gently guide her to Eurostar, which has a standard premier class to make better use of off-peak first-class coaches. If someone wanted to make better use of first-class coaches during off-peak times, I am sure that she and her constituents would regard that as a benefit.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister is generous in giving way. If a franchise runs a first-class, a standard premium class and a standard class, does not standard class, de facto, become third class?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would argue that with British Airways, and I am not sure why he should do so with the franchise. His point is nonsense.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I know that I cannot tempt the Minister to discuss the existence of the leaked document, but page 66 of the publicly available document states:

“We would be open to variations in the ratio of first to standard class accommodation…We would be unlikely to consider any variation which delivers a worsening of passenger experience”,

which I believe third class would. Will he confirm that no third class will be allowed under the franchise?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady is dancing on a pinhead. I have made it clear that in the document we will not and have not specified a third class. I would have thought that she and her colleagues supported utilising first-class coaches, so that more passengers can have a better experience.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who told us that it was impossible to argue that the decline in ridership on the railways between the early 1900s and the 1990s was due to public ownership, or that the benefits of privatisation, which has seen ridership double, could be established. He then proceeded to use exactly those arguments for the east coast main line, which was slightly surprising.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) who referred to securing new rolling stock under the public sector. The inter-city express programme has been running for some time. The trains will be procured by Government and will also be used by Great Western, and that is currently being operated by First Great Western. To suggest that the IEP process was not running beforehand was wrong.

It is equally odd that some hon. Members sought to suggest that the Government have been panicked into the inter-city east coast main line refranchising. What they forget is that the franchise consultation had already been held prior to the west coast franchise being stopped. It had already been announced back in 2011 that the intention was to publish the invitation to tender in January 2013. To contend that this is a rushed privatisation—we may discuss the word “privatisation” in a moment—is simply nonsense.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the Minister accept that the original plan was for the east coast main line to be the last of the three lines to be refranchised, so the only reason that it now seems to be in line with the original date is that the whole thing was put on hold due to the complete debacle of the west coast main line?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady cannot argue that we are rushing it through when she has just said that we are keeping to the original timetable. The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) announced a timetable and we had already started the consultation prior to the west coast refranchising process being stopped, so it is nonsense to argue that this is rushed.

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that time is running out. Will he confirm what public consultation there has been with passengers and passenger groups, and what the outcome was?

[Stephen Hammond]

We followed the absolutely standard procedures. We had a public consultation between June and September 2012, and there will be further consultation when the ITT has been finalised. The Government are putting in place the refranchising process that will deliver the best partner to deliver the best benefit for all customers on the east coast main line. That is the way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made on reviewing the structure of rail passenger fares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The “Rail Fares and Ticketing: Next Steps” report was published on 9 October following a wide-ranging review and public consultation. It contains a number of measures to give passengers a better, more modern, and more flexible deal on fares and to improve the current ticketing system.

[Mr Buckland]

Swindon commuters who have no choice but to travel at peak times face increasing fares and want value for money. What plans does my hon. Friend have to increase flexibility and reduce costs for rail fare payers and season ticket holders?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. The train operating companies set the prices for season tickets and for fares. I recognise that Swindon is a popular commuting town that benefits from the frequent services on high-speed trains to London, Wales and the west country. Nevertheless, he is right and he will have noticed the announcement from the Government restricting “flex”, which means that none of his commuters will face a fare increase of more than 3% above inflation from January 2014.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

15. In the autumn, East Coast achieved the highest passenger satisfaction rates since records began, so why are the Government wasting taxpayers’ time and money privatising that successful service rather than getting to grips with the cost of living crisis and this Government’s inflation-busting rail fare price rises?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will obviously have read the Brown report, which suggests that franchising is the best way to secure better deals and more investment for passengers. That is why we are continuing to franchise and are putting the east coast main line out to franchise.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I remind my hon. Friend that commuters who are reliant on coming into London to work do not have any flexibility in their work times. What ideas does he have to get a better deal for commuters, who are a captive market and who have regulated fares?

[Stephen Hammond]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the excellent work that he did in contributing to the rail fares review. He will know that we have restricted fares to the retail prices index plus 1%, which “flex” has also reduced, so no one will pay more than 3% above RPI. He will also remember that the document suggests considering ways to provide season ticket holders with more flexible arrangements.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Government’s fare review took 18 months and has delivered fare rises of up to 6%. That 6% is twice the rate of inflation and is cold comfort for commuters struggling as their incomes fall in real terms. Is that really the best the Minister can do for commuters struggling with the Government’s cost of living crisis?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will know that the formula for regulated fares is RPI plus 1%. Unlike her Government, we have reduced flexibility to 2%. We have made that permanent, something that the Government of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is shouting from the opposite Bench, did not do. She may just wish to remember this, which was in the franchise arrangement from 1 January 2011:

“the amendment to the Franchise Agreement set out in this notice of amendment shall be reversed.”

They did not scrap it; they put it in place for one year only.

[Mary Creagh]

The Department for Transport announced in September that it would cap standard return fares at £500. Given that no one will benefit from that £500 fare cap, is that not just another example of the Minister’s smoke and mirrors on fares?

[Stephen Hammond]

A number of things were announced in that review. The fare cap was a voluntary initiative put in place by the rail industry. We have not assessed, and nor has anyone else, how many passengers will benefit from that. We have also announced a reduction in the fares “basket flex”, a trial of single-leg pricing for off-peak returns, a trial of flexible ticketing, including discounted fares in quieter periods, and a new code of practice on ticketing information.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

14. Can my hon. Friend assure me that everything is being done to reduce the cost of running the railways and the inefficiencies that the previous Government left behind so that we can move towards an era of no above-inflation rises?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that the package of measures that we have worked up will continue to bear down on the cost of running the railways. We recognise the cost of living and the implications of fare increases. That is why the Government are doing something to help commuters and anyone travelling on the railways. It is noticeable that Passenger Focus recommended the recent package that the Government put forward.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to increase the volume of freight carried by rail.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government support the transfer of freight from road to rail. We are investing £400 million in rail freight infrastructure for the investment period out to 2014. The rail freight grant is helping to remove more than 800,000 lorry journeys. Ultimately, rail freight needs more capacity on our network, which is why we are taking forward High Speed 2.

[John Stevenson]

In Carlisle we have DRS—Direct Rail Services—a very successful rail freight company that is looking to expand. Can the Minister assure me that everything will be done to ensure that companies such as DRS are given every opportunity to expand not just their volume but their capacity?

[Stephen Hammond]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting the work of DRS. It is indeed a very successful rail freight company. The Government are committed to the growth of the rail freight industry, and we recognise the contribution that companies such as DRS make. We are continuing to look for every opportunity to support the expansion of the freight industry and encourage transfer to rail where it is practical, economic and environmentally sustainable.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister engage with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? A number of key companies in my constituency are losing competitiveness because they cannot move their goods fast enough across the UK into mainland Europe, in particular because there are huge blockages at the top end of the M6. A little bit of joined-up thinking could radically improve Britain’s competitiveness. Will he do something about it?

[Stephen Hammond]

This Government are known for their joined-up thinking, so if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about the particular problem in his constituency, I will look at it and speak to my colleagues in BIS.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the wise decision to invest £45 million in redoubling the Kemble to Swindon railway line is a huge improvement, not just for passengers but for freight? Does this not reinforce the point that this Government invest not only in HS2, which is right, but in the existing network?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. We have consistently made the point that we are not only investing in High Speed 2 but that we are investing £37 billion in improvements across the network. He is right to pick out that example, which illustrates exactly what the Government have been saying—that capacity is being added across the network.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that 80% of freight in Britain goes by road, both cross-channel and within Britain, and that serious modal shift from road to rail cannot take place until the railways are capable of taking lorry trailers on trains. Will he look seriously at schemes for investing in rail freight capacity capable of taking lorries on trains?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is aware, of course, that there has been a huge increase of some 60% in rail freight over the past 10 years. The capacity that is being added will add the prospect and the potential for extra rail freight and extra transference from road to rail. If there are serious schemes, we will look at them, but they would have to justify the economic business case and provide better value than the capacity that we are adding, which will allow that transfer from road to rail.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Today the new London Gateway port receives its first ship. As my hon. Friend knows, its ambition is to transport many of the materials that come into the new port by rail freight. Will he ensure that Network Rail looks carefully at the provision of level crossings across Thurrock so that our road network is not disrupted by the increased volume of freight trains using the network?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is a well-known and doughty campaigner for her constituency, which is why I have had the pleasure of visiting it several times in the past couple of years. I will of course look seriously at that and speak to Network Rail. It is essential that that new port is a success.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the quality of bus services outside London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve existing railway stations and build new stations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government have allocated some £550 million to the new Stations Improvement and Access for All programmes for the period to 2014, which have led to improvements at over 500 stations. For the next control period, from 2014 to 2019, a further £200 million has been allocated to improve stations and station access in England and Wales. The Government have also allocated £20 million through the new stations fund. Four successful proposals are now being built and a fifth is under consideration.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will he update us on the progress being made on the new and much-needed Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall stations, which are crucial to alleviating chronic congestion in my constituency? May I also lend my support to the suggestion my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) made about the electrification of the Harrogate to Knaresborough line, which would help commuters in the Horsforth area?

[Stephen Hammond]

Apperley Bridge is part of the Leeds growth package promoted by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive, and it has received programme entry funding from the major local transport schemes budget. The Department is expecting to receive the PTE’s submission of a business case for final approval in spring 2014. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the electrification of the Leeds-Horsforth-Harrogate line, although Apperley Bridge is not on that line but on the already electrified Leeds-Bradford Forster Square line.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

13. In the past fortnight, East Riding of Yorkshire council has commenced a £50,000 improvement of the subways at Goole station. We want Network Rail to contribute to this improvement to make it a lot better. If I provide the Minister with details, will he help me to lobby Network Rail to get that additional funding?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend will be aware that funding for almost all these schemes comes through the new local growth fund, which is being used to finance transport improvements up and down the country, but of course, if he cares to provide me with the details, I am happy to meet him to discuss them.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of East Coast Main Line Ltd’s financial performance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

According to a report by the transport consultants, Atkins, enhancements to capacity, line speed and service quality on the great eastern main line could bring an extra £3.7 billion into the economy. Will the Minister confirm that the recommendations of the East Anglia rail prospectus, which is backed by MPs from across the region, will be progressed at the earliest possible opportunity?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate those who put a considerable amount of work and effort into unifying the stakeholders in East Anglia and producing that excellent document. It contains a huge number of recommendations. I will continue to engage with MPs and others to ensure that we complete the process, that their voices are heard and that we understand the benefits of the recommendations.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The A67, which runs through my constituency between Darlington and Barnard Castle, is a major bus route. It recently suffered from a major landslip at Carlbury banks, which is severely disrupting bus services. Will a Minister meet my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and me to see whether any funding can be made available from the pinch-point fund?

Woodhead Tunnels

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Woodhead tunnels are located on the former Manchester to Sheffield railway line, known as the Woodhead route, which was closed to passenger traffic in 1970 and to freight in 1981. The original single bore Victorian tunnels were replaced in 1953 by a new tunnel when the line was electrified. In the 1960s, National Grid bought the Victorian tunnels and installed high voltage cables to transmit electricity. When the line finally closed in 1981, National Grid purchased the modern tunnel with a view of installing new cables in the modern tunnel and abandoning the Victorian tunnels when cables needed renewing some 30 years later.

In 2007, National Grid began work on this project. This is now close to completion and a contract will shortly be let for the permanent sealing of the Victorian tunnels.

In 2007-08 Ministers received many representations urging them to protect the Woodhead tunnels so that the Woodhead route could be reopened to rail traffic in the future. There was no case then for taking any steps to halt National Grid’s plan but Ministers did agree to consider, at the appropriate time, whether or not to instigate an inspection and maintenance regime on the Victorian tunnels This would leave open the option to move cables back into the Victorian tunnels and reuse the modern tunnel for rail traffic in the future. With completion of the work imminent, that decision needs to be made now before the tunnels are sealed.

Since 2008, much has happened which has helped inform my decision. The Government have committed funding to the northern hub programme. This includes schemes to increase capacity and line speeds on the Hope valley route. A study recently carried out by Network Rail indicates that demand for travel between Manchester and Sheffield could more than double in 30 years. With the planned investment, the Hope valley line and its trains could accommodate this growth. If freight grows, schemes have also been identified which could enable more freight trains to run.

The Victorian tunnels are not in a good condition and would require ongoing funding to keep them in a condition necessary for possible reuse. These costs would fall on the taxpayer or mean less money for other vital rail investment in the north.

If an additional rail route was ever required between Manchester and Sheffield, it is unlikely that even the modern tunnels would be suitable for reuse and, given advances in tunnelling technology even since 2008 as witnessed by Crossrail, the best solution is most likely to be the construction of a new tunnel.

I am therefore announcing that the Government will not be purchasing the tunnels from National Grid in order to instigate an inspection and maintenance regime and I shall be informing National Grid accordingly.

Before reaching my decision, the Rail Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), wrote to over 40 MPs representing constituencies both east and west of the Pennines, and received three replies. He also wrote to other statutory bodies with an interest in the tunnels and Network Rail. In total just seven replies were received by early September but I have given them full consideration.

My decision does not rule the possibility of reopening the Woodhead route to rail traffic in the future, should a new line ever be required.

Also large parts of the closed route are protected from development and will continue to be available for the enjoyment of cyclists, horse riders and hikers passing through the magnificent landscape of the South Pennines.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a great pleasure and honour to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

These amendments deal with expenditure, reporting and costs. The Government have set out in a strategic plan the spending plans for High Speed 2, which are £21.4 billion for phase 1 and £21.2 billion for phase 2 —a total cost of £42.6 billion, including £14.4 of contingency. I am convinced that, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that is likely to decline as the date of construction nears. HS2 Ltd has set out a target cost for phase one of £17.16 billion.

The original purpose of the reporting duty on the Government was to give Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise the manner in which we were spending the preparatory expenditure and to get a sense of how we were making progress on the project. Amendment 25 is very much in the spirit of that objective. I am happy to provide the commitment that the Government will ensure that the reporting duty makes information on underspends and overspends explicit.

Managing costs is at the heart of how the Government intend to manage this project.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend make a commitment that, in line with amendment 20, the amount of money to be spent will be limited to £50 billion and no more?

[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.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am going to make some progress because I think that my hon. Friend is going to refer to amendment 20. If he waits for a moment I will deal with that.

We have always made it clear that HS2 will provide a significant opportunity for vocational skills across the lifetime of the project, giving a real boost to British industry. This Government are committed to raising skill levels and creating an environment for small and medium-sized enterprises to succeed. Amendment 26 would place an obligation on the Government to report on their progress in delivering those opportunities and to demonstrate what we mean when we say that HS2 is an engine for growth. I have always been convinced, as have many Members across the House, that we will be able to do that. HS2 is a generational scheme, and as such we need to make sure we have the right home-grown talent that allows us to deliver it. I am delighted that there is cross-party support for amendments 25 and 26, and I hope that the whole House will be able to support them.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend turn his mind to amendment 30, which seeks to limit the amount of expenditure on preparatory works to £5 billion—a pretty substantial sum, but obviously not as large as £50 billion? Will the Government undertake not to spend more than £5 billion on preparatory works?

[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.

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister knows exactly what my intention was with my amendments. I will not press any of them to a vote, but what is worrying about the Bill is that it is not restricted in any way, shape or form. It is totally open-ended, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has just admitted, and this House has no control or say over what moneys will be spent on the preparation, and on the HS2 project itself. That is what I object to and that is where I think the Government have failed.

[Stephen Hammond]

It is rare that I disagree with my right hon. Friend, but in this case I do. What this Bill does is explicitly place reporting obligations on the Government for the preparatory work. Moreover, it is the hybrid Bill, which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, that will provide the opportunity to scrutinise all stages and costs.

We have created the reporting duty precisely to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise the expenditure and see that we are spending it responsibly. Planned expenditure on design works for the financial year 2013-14 is about £2.5 million, and for 2014-15 it is about £9.2 million.

There are a number of other amendments in this group and I know that other Members want to get in. I sympathise with the spirit of amendment 8, but it does not clarify the exact level that most people recognise as the number of people employed by small and medium-sized enterprises. Moreover, it would restrict a small or medium-sized enterprise that had fewer employees, but that hoped to secure a high-value contract that would result in many UK jobs. The amendment goes beyond the direct nature of the contract.

[Mr Chope]

In commenting on the other amendments in this group, could the Minister address his remarks to amendment 31 and explain why the Government are not prepared to accept it?

[Stephen Hammond]

On amendment 31 and the transparency of the project, I do not believe it is necessary to produce six-monthly reports of spending estimates in addition to the annual reports to which we have already committed. Given what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has said, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) would not want us to waste money or create bureaucracy just to produce six-monthly reports. Such a requirement would be onerous on the Government.

[Mr Chope]

My amendment does not require reporting after the event, which is what the Bill says; it requires a budget to be set in advance, on an annual basis. Why cannot the Government accept that?

[Stephen Hammond]

The Government accept that we need to come to the House to explain our actions and report on our preparatory expenditure. As has been discussed extensively this afternoon, the initial target cost for phase 1 is £17.16 billion.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has tabled amendments on the monitoring of tax avoidance and the payment of bonuses to those who work on High Speed 2. We must manage the costs, but we must balance that with ensuring that the staff reward arrangements attract the right talent. We need to ensure that those who work in the public sector demonstrate the highest standards of integrity and meet their tax obligations.

Following the review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees last year by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, all Departments and agencies have a duty to seek assurances about the tax arrangements of their long-term specialists and contractors to ensure that they are paying the right amount of tax. The Government are committed to tackling all forms of tax avoidance and have taken a wide range of measures to close tax loopholes.

It is essential that we guard against the payment of bonuses that are not in line with the Government’s goal of reducing the public sector remuneration package. However, we must ensure that we have the right reward structure in place. We must not put provisions in legislation that would tie the hands of the whole supply chain. I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham that Sir David Higgins will move to High Speed 2 on the same salary that he received at Network Rail and that he has guaranteed that he will not accept any bonuses. I hope that that satisfies her.

I hope that the House will support amendments 25 and 26.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am pleased to speak in support of amendment 25, which represents a significant strengthening of the financial reporting requirements in clause 2.

Taxpayers need to know that the costs are being controlled. Under this Government, the budget for HS2 has swelled from £773 million to at least £900 million in this Parliament. The botched design for Euston pushed the cost of that station from £1.2 billion to £1.6 billion, even though some of the features of the design were downgraded. The Government announced in June that, with a sizeable increase in contingency funding, the headline budget for the project had increased by £10 billion to £50.1 billion.

Intercity East Coast Franchise Competition

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

Today I have published the intercity east coast prospectus, pre-qualification documents and submitted for publication an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) notice. These steps mark the start of the formal competition to find a new private sector partner to run passenger rail services on intercity east coast. The prospectus explains the current business as it stands today and sets out the opportunities it presents to a new operator. It also provides some indications of how we will be specifying intercity east coast when we release the invitation to tender (ITT) which is planned for February 2014. The prospectus will provide potential applicants with a large amount of information that will help them decide whether they can be the right partner for this vital and historic railway.

I am also publishing the intercity east coast consultation summary report that brings together the responses we received to the consultation conducted in 2012. This report is being published now to enable those who responded to the consultation; potential bidders for the franchise; and other interested parties to see the key concerns and issues raised in advance of the publication of the ITT.

We have seen great improvements on our railways since privatisation, with unprecedented growth in passenger numbers and the best safety record in Europe, and this Government are committed to the principle that partnership between the public and private sector works. We want to further strengthen our partnership with the private sector and continue to build on this growth so as to deliver world-class railways for passengers and best value for the taxpayer. Private sector partnership on this route will deliver, among other things, the investment in the design, build and maintenance contract for the new class 800/801 trains procured through the intercity express programme.

I am confident that through the partnership approach the Department for Transport is taking, combined with the skills, investment and innovation of the private sector, we can deliver a new railway for the intercity east coast, one that meets the Secretary of State’s three objectives for franchising across the network: that the passenger gains; the industry thrives; and the taxpayer benefits.

Coastguard (Maritime Incident Response Group)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Marsden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and his colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), have already raised that issue and I will return to it later in my speech.

How do the Government expect fire and rescue services in particular to develop proposals for an at-sea presence without direct central funding, at a time when local budgets are more stretched than ever? I know that there is, of course, a piecemeal arrangement along the south coast, but so far as I am aware that does not extend elsewhere.

In response to the Select Committee, the Minister has produced positive scenarios about the interaction of MOC staff and MRCC staff, but the Committee has rightly pressed the Government on major incident scenarios. If we look at the Government response, we see that page 7 contains a list of actions that superficially seem impressive. I came to this brief from looking at further education funding. In that sector too, there are wonderful diagrams about the process of money and the process of communication, and I am sure that if the Minister got his officials to produce a complicated diagram of the various steps that are listed on page 7 it would be even more impressive. But the crucial question is how long it would take the complex chain of command detailed on page 7 to operate and respond. That will be the determination of how effective the MOC is, and raising that issue underlines the continued concerns and disquiet that members of the Committee and other hon. Members have expressed today about emergency vessels.

I turn now to the issue of staffing, because that has already been talked about in considerable detail. The demographic profile of coastguards is highly skewed towards older employees. The Minister’s own figures, from the Government response to the Committee, show that, for example, in Falmouth 14 of the 33 coastguards are over the age of 50 and in Humber 16 of the 27 coastguards are over 50. So those valued employees will probably be leaving the service during the next five to 10 years and taking their experience with them, at the same time as there is major upheaval in coastguard operations. In addition, there is currently a growing loss of valuable expertise in the service. For example, only one of the London coastguards has more than 20 years of experience. Therefore, the emerging picture is that no replacement generation of coastguards is coming through with the extensive service that is needed both to replace those who will soon leave and to oversee the introduction of the new system.

In 2011, the Government proposals estimated a total reduction in staffing numbers from 596 to 370, with coastguard numbers falling from 491 to 248. Therefore, there will be an increasing reliance on volunteers, with the number required rising from 80 to 105. We have already heard today about some of the problems with volunteers, so could the Minister give more up-to-date figures on the assessment of job losses as a result of this reorganisation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is really confused at this point. There are no volunteers being used in the co-ordination centres, and the centres are what those figures were referring to. So he might just want to gently correct the record on that point.

[Mr Marsden]

I will correct the record as and when I have examined the details of what the Minister has said, and if it needs to be corrected.

Does the Minister accept, therefore, that frequent reports of low morale in the service are exacerbated by the Government’s inability to provide a clear picture of coastguards’ future? It seems to me that the closures at Forth and Clyde, what has been said in that area and the admirable work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on the numbers involved have produced some really rather concerning statistics. The Public and Commercial Services Union has said that not only are 15% of all operational coastguard posts vacant but of the 416 posts that are filled 24% of them are filled by officers on fixed-term appointments; I gather that those are Maritime and Coastguard Agency statistics from 2012. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chair of the Select Committee, has already given the details showing the disillusionment and resignation among volunteer coastguards.

The Government have failed to offer a clear or finite timetable to coastguards, and they have explained that that was due to the assessment of ongoing operations and the success of transition. How that assessment would be made has never been made very clear. We have heard about the problems at Yarmouth, with it being designated as a daylight-only centre, and we have also heard about the changes in the closing dates for Solent, Portland and Brixham. These problems and changes breed confusion and can also lower morale. So can the Minister say what the current timetable is for the remaining closures at Liverpool, Swansea and Thames in 2014-15, and can he also say if that timetable is likely to change given that the original timetable for those closures was produced in 2011?

As I say, the Select Committee’s report talks quite a lot about local knowledge, but of course what has been very apparent in this whole process—my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Committee, has already referred to this—is the continuing concern, which has been expressed again today by hon. Members, both about those centres that have closed and those that are expected to close.

I will just touch on two or three of those centres. The closure of the Yarmouth centre is not just an example of local jobs and a proud tradition being lost; there are also some very specific local issues along that coastline. I know that they have been considerably aired in the local media, including the transfer of oil from one tanker to another along the coast from Lowestoft and Southwold. There have been issues about co-ordination, which have been exacerbated by the removal of the Yarmouth centre. There has been a particular incident at Caister in the recent past and the Caister lifeboat centre has expressed its concerns. My colleague in the European Parliament, Richard Howitt, said that the decision on Yarmouth could lead to a disaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I welcome the report and this debate, and the opportunity to update the House on some of the many developments in the modernisation of the coastguard, in the approach to emergency towing vessels and in the way fires at sea are now handled.

Let me start, as the Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), rightly did—and as almost every other hon. Member who contributed to the debate did—by praising the coastguard on its excellent work, including an outstanding summer of hard work that has seen our shores remain so safe.

The Government welcome the interest of, and the close scrutiny and challenge from, the Transport Committee over the past three years. The Committee Chair knows that we have not agreed with all the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, yet there are a number of legitimate, important matters to discuss. In my response, I hope to tackle the four or five major points on which she challenged the Government.

I state at the outset—I have said this to the Scottish Affairs Committee and, twice, to the Transport Committee in respect of maritime matters—and reassure hon. Members that the Government will do nothing to endanger safety and they are not complacent.

The Transport Committee’s primary area of interest is the modernisation of the coastguard, which is of great interest to a number of hon. Members, not least because, as an island nation, more than 200 parliamentary constituencies have a coastline. There are more than 200 million individual visits to the coast each year and no one in the country is more than 72 miles from the sea. Even many hon. Members with inland constituencies have rightly shown an interest in this matter.

Before I address a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members today, it is important to put the proposals for change back into context and to explain why they were introduced in December 2010. At times, people have confused what the report is about; it is about the co-ordination of maritime search and rescue, not about the front line.

The proposals do not affect front-line services operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and independent lifeboats, nor do they affect the ability of search and rescue helicopters to perform their task, for which, of course, there is now greater investment. The proposals also do not affect mud and cliff rescue services provided by volunteers and the coastguard rescue service. I have reiterated this before, but there is no impact on safety or on those services.

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the Minister for clarifying, but does he not accept that there is a difference between the specific effects of the proposals? He is absolutely right to say that what is happening in the coastguard does not formally affect the RNLI or the various other services he mentions, but surely he would accept that, for good reasons or otherwise, when the area of coverage is widened, as under the proposals, there are implications for how the service is co-ordinated. The Department should be considering better ways—there are always better ways—of co-ordinating with the other services.

[Stephen Hammond]

As I have contested both before the Select Committee and in other debates, the impact will be that the co-ordination of the affected services will improve. The services will be more resilient and safety will increase. That is key, and we must ensure that we do not lose sight of it at the outset of this debate.

Historically, in the 1970s we had a coastguard co-ordination system fit for the 1970s. In 2010, however, that co-ordination system had not moved on. The system was still right for the 1970s, but it was certainly not appropriate for the 21st century. The fact that we had done so well was due to the excellent work of the superb men and women in the service.

The case for change was that it had become clear that the technical and physical infrastructure in place in 2010 had not kept pace with the maritime operating environment. The service was geared up for its role of dealing with localised, and only localised, maritime search and rescue, and to many extents it did that well. But since the last major reconfiguration of the coastguard in the late 1970s, when it was recognised that there was no longer a need to maintain a visual watch, the demands on officers operating the system, as it was pre-December 2010, had grown significantly.

Technology has clearly moved forward. As many hon. Members know, the introduction of the global distress and safety system in the 1990s changed how coastguards receive distress messages. The demise of the old coast radio stations led to coastguards taking on the role of broadcasting regular navigation warnings and maritime safety information. Coastguards were given new responsibilities for broadcasting information to the fishing community on submarine movements and military firing exercises. More recently, the world has acquired the ability to track ship movements and plot them in real time on electronic charts using the automatic identification system. All that has added to the marine picture available to coastguards.

The importance of maritime surveillance has increased the relevance of situational or maritime domain awareness, as it is known. That has added to the need for differing skills and growing responsibilities, so in 2010 we faced a significant disparity of work load among maritime rescue co-ordination centres. At the height of a busy summer season, some centres could find themselves dealing with multiple incidents and having to drop coastguard duties and broadcasts to focus, rightly, on life-or-death rescue situations.

Current technology has now allowed some pairing of resources between neighbouring centres to co-ordinate responses, but there is little capacity to provide support beyond that. Prior to 2010, if both centres in a pair found themselves busy, routine lower-priority work would be dropped so that, quite rightly, the immediate impact on safety was addressed. None the less, there was a significant gap in resilience. The case for a national, joined up approach that allows work to be better managed and distributed and exposes coastguards to the full range of work, thereby keeping their skills relevant and finely tuned, seemed clear in 2010.

Let us not be under any illusion: there was clear consensus across the House, which was highlighted during some of the consultation exercises, on the need to do something about coastguard pay, particularly at lower levels. Creating a national network, with the new national maritime operations centre at its heart, has put in place improved safety systems with fewer coastguards in fewer locations, but, importantly, it is helping to relocate the money to ensure that we have properly improved pay to reflect the increased responsibilities placed on coastguards in the new centres across the country. That is why it is right to propose the changes.

In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside rightly said that there were concerns about the initial plans, and it is fair, as she rightly acknowledged, that the Government accepted those concerns and modified the plans. Following the Transport Committee’s report, changes were made and a second set of proposals were announced in July 2011. That set of proposals retained more centres, all operating on 24 hours and all with more coastguard operators.

Throughout the consultation process, there were considerable concerns about the loss of local knowledge, and several hon. Members have raised that point today. Concerns about the perceived loss of local knowledge are understandable. Over a number of years, the number of co-ordination centres has reduced from nearly 30, so the lack of local knowledge has been highlighted at every stage of the process.

As the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and I explained to the Transport Committee, in the transitional phase, as the national network is being put in place, the MCA is ensuring that there is time for increasing coastguard familiarisation with their new areas. All coastguards in the new areas are being tested on their understanding of local rescue facilities, incident hotspots and communication systems. Equally, all coastguards will have access to, and will share, a common national system. We are also working with the Ordnance Survey on developing a database of vernacular place names, which will allow multiple names to be applied to any coastal feature or place, factoring in local as well as Gaelic and Welsh names.

[Mr Marsden]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said about the testing process, but is he in a position to elaborate slightly? How, specifically, will that work? If he is not in a position to elaborate, will he write to members of the Committee on that point?

[Stephen Hammond]

I do not need to write to members of the Select Committee about that because Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and I set out in some detail how those transitional arrangements will work. We set out the number of visits that each coastguard is expected to undertake and the time period for them to do so.

If the hon. Gentleman has the chance, I hope he will look at the evidence session, which I hope will reassure him. [Interruption.] If he is not happy with that, I will happily respond further, but I think he will find that our evidence sets out the arrangements.

[Mrs Ellman]

Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that he is satisfied that there is an official programme to ensure that coastguards increase their familiarity with new areas? The issue arising in the evidence taken by the Select Committee is that coastguards are working on that in their spare time, rather than as an official part of business.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am aware that the Select Committee took some such evidence, but, equally, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency gave his assurance that time was being made available for coastguards to do that, so it need not be done in anyone’s spare time. He also said that local knowledge would be in place up to two months before any coastguard station closing.

We also discussed local knowledge in some depth when I was before the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I remember that one Committee member said—my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) may also remember, if it was not his good self—that there were three places, all within a mile of each other, known by the same name, so that even the Member with his local knowledge could not be certain whether he directed people to the right place the first time.

Local knowledge is important—retaining it and having knowledge transfer—as is the new vernacular system. We must recognise, however, that at every stage local knowledge is only one part of what should be in place. With the new modern systems, it is incredibly important that we rely not only on local knowledge, but on modern mapping systems and vernacular place-name capture, which will undoubtedly be an improvement.

In November 2011, in response to the second debate, another set of decisions was announced, together with the timetable for the closures and for the transition to the national network. Since then, the MCA has managed the closures of Forth, Clyde and Great Yarmouth, the centres earmarked for closure ahead of establishing the new national Maritime Operations Centre—due to the building leasing arrangements for Clyde and Great Yarmouth, and to reflect the robustness of the existing technical infrastructure between Forth and the centre at Aberdeen.

Before each centre closed, the neighbouring centres increased familiarity with the new patch. Some officers transferred from the closing centres, and experts with local intelligence briefed officers in the receiving centres—a system known as pairing—so that local information was retained. A few weeks ahead of each closure, coastguards at the receiving centres took on full responsibility, while the closing centres went into shadow running mode. That gave everyone confidence that the systems would be and were working and that the receiving officers could manage the larger areas competently. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of the coastguard officers involved in managing that process over the past 12 months, which has been a credit to those involved. The experience reaffirmed our belief that other closures can and will be managed safely and within the time set out, although we are not complacent.

To pick up some of the points made in the debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside heard my comments about local knowledge and, in particular, developments with Ordnance Survey. She also asked what MOC staff would be doing when not managing major incidents. They will of course be providing routine operational cover for areas of the UK coastline, so that there is even stronger and better resilience in coverage. That will include vessel traffic monitoring, safety information and maintaining an updated national risk picture.

There was some concern that coastguards had expressed the view that, overall, they would have to work longer hours. The new contract that has been agreed with the Public and Commercial Services Union increases the number of days, but reduces the number of nights. Therefore, staff will have more whole weekends off than under the current arrangements, while leave for existing staff remains as it has always been. I hope that the hon. Lady can accept my reassurance and see that we have taken on coastguards concerns.

We and the MCA in particular have made great progress in establishing the new national arrangements for infrastructure and technology. The new national MOC near Fareham is being equipped with the latest operational kit; it will be ready for training to start in January and for full operational running by next September. Acceptance checking of the refreshed emergency response systems is progressing well, and that will shortly allow the MCA to move into an extended period of operational testing.

A number of Members who have contributed today made the point, rightly, about the slower progress in settling the new package of terms and conditions for roles. That reflects the complications of agreeing a new package for coastguards, given the increased responsibilities, the commitment under the civil service reform plan to modernise the employment offer in the public sector and the consequent need for agreement. Without agreed terms and conditions, it would not be possible to start recruitment for the new roles and responsibilities.

The good news is that the MCA has agreed a new set of terms and conditions with the Treasury and a firm offer is on the table, which has the support of the PCS’s elected representatives in the MCA. I hope that the offer will be accepted. To be clear, the new jobs will have significantly increased responsibilities, which we have recognised with a significantly enhanced pay and grading structure. For example, the lowest entry level for coastguard officers is now one civil service grade higher, which means being paid 19% more than today. As I have said, there will be some revision of working patterns in the package, but the shift systems will match demand much better, according to the seasons and the time of day. Coastguards in all operational centres will therefore have a reduced number of night duties, with more full weekends off during a year. The offer also includes a commitment to at least 60 hours of continuous professional development each year.

Recruitment for the new roles will start in November, and that process has also been agreed with the PCS. I hope and expect that many existing coastguard officers will now opt to stay within the service and to apply for the new roles as they become available. Others may wish to leave, and we will support them if they wish to consider taking voluntary redundancy. In the interim, the coastguard service has been committed not to leave vacancies unfilled until the roles were agreed—there has been a continuing operation to recruit new officers. The MCA has now successfully recruited 59 new coastguards, providing some resilience. There was particular concern about the low number of shifts in places such as Belfast, but we have seen success in recruiting there, as well as in Falmouth, Solent and elsewhere. I am pleased that the recruitment process has continued and is continuing; a point was made about the recruitment of some new officers on fixed-term appointments, but, to be clear, such recruitment was explicitly agreed with the unions first, to avoid any perception of unfair competition for future jobs.

[Mr Marsden]

Notwithstanding the progress that the Minister has described in particular areas, which I will reflect on, does he accept that there is a systemic issue about the age profile and the number of people likely to retire in the next five to 10 years? The problem is not unique to the MCA, but will need further thought and addressing by it.

[Stephen Hammond]

The MCA has addressed that explicitly in the document. The ability to recruit new officers, particularly at the lower end, suffered because of the lack of a career path and opportunities. I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me say that we have agreed a new grading system with enhanced responsibilities and a clear career path, and that is reflected in a rise in civil service grading. I hope that that will make this a much more attractive and rewarding career to many people. I also hope that now that the new roles have been settled and there is an ongoing vacancy recruitment process, we will shortly be able to report a considerable reduction in the number of shifts below assessed risk level.

I turn to the implementation timetable, which we set out in November 2011. We now accept that some of it is no longer achievable because of the need to ensure a safe transition to the national system. We have made small but necessary and sensible adjustments to the planned closure dates. They have been communicated to staff and to search and rescue partners, and I have written to all hon. Members. The stations at Solent and Portland will close in September 2014 after the busy summer season, when the new NMO centre will be staffed and operational. The centre at Brixham will close in November 2014, followed by Liverpool in January 2015 and Swansea in March 2015. The final centre to close will be the Thames centre at Walton-on-the-Naze in June 2015. The full technical infrastructure for the new national, fully resilient system will be in place by the end of 2015.

Understandably, that final confirmation will disappoint several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Like her, I praise the coastguards at Brixham, but the new system will ensure safety round her shores. She raised a particular issue regarding Hope Cove and I understand that the MCA is working with the coastguards there to resolve that. I will ensure that my officials speak to the team at Hope Cove, and I will respond in writing to my hon. Friend to address her concern.

[Mr Reid]

I was pleased that the Minister announced the 59 extra staff. Does he have the figures to show how staffing at Belfast and Stornoway compares with what their establishment should be? If he does not have those figures, will he write to me?

[Stephen Hammond]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me a minute, I may be able to supply those figures. I can tell him what the current vacancy level is, but I will ensure that my officials give him the figures he asks for.

I turn to a couple of other points that the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised. He spoke about the volunteer arrangements and I intervened to make the point that they refer to volunteers on the front line and not to the co-ordination centres. I do not believe those arrangements need to change because they are excellent. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the other voluntary coastguard systems provide a magnificent service, and to suggest that we are trying to alter that in any way would cause much disquiet. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that they provide an excellent service.

The hon. Gentleman asked about handing over following the closure of MRCCs and I made a statement on that a moment ago. I reiterate that that has been done in a staged way with shadowing and a gradual handover. I hope he will be reassured that it was not a case of one station closing one day, and a new one opening the following morning. Far from it, there have been traditional pairing operations and the handovers have been based on those pairing operations. Indeed, there was significant time in-between to ensure that all the arrangements were in place.

I turn briefly to emergency towing vessels in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, referred. The Government have undertaken the necessary analysis and assessment. We all accept that shipping is not risk-free, but the world has moved on considerably since the Government funded tugs. There have been improvements in technology, navigation and safety systems, with the advent of new ship routeing and reporting.

We continue to take the view that it is for the shipping industry to manage and to mitigate the risks that its activities present to the maritime environment and to make full use of the established arrangements for the provision of commercial towage and salvage. Those commercial arrangements are working well in some areas where the Government used to provide funded tugs, particularly in the south-west approaches and the Dover strait. Indeed, those commercial arrangements have now been the norm for almost two years, and have worked well.

The Government accept that there was an issue with the availability of commercial tugs in the waters off Scotland, which proved to be more problematic, so we gave a commitment to fund a single emergency tug based in Orkney. However, due to the excellent working across Government and with the oil and gas industry, we have been able to put in place arrangements that permit a vessel that is normally engaged in commercial operations to be released from its contracted duty to perform emergency towage in the waters off northern Scotland. That has been available at no extra cost. The Secretary of State led those discussions and the discussions on the future of emergency towing vehicles in Scotland. The Scottish Government were also involved. A solution has been found for the next two years with a vessel commercially funded by the offshore industry. That is welcome and provides the necessary resilience for the coast there.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about the complement in Belfast. Shetland is six down but we are in the process of recruiting three officers, so it is only three below complement. Stornoway had been two officers down, but the recruitment process has resulted in two officers about to join, so it will be at full complement.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the Minister write to me to reassure my constituents about the availability of commercial ETVs? We do not have an offshore oil industry that could provide such support.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will write to my hon. Friend to point out what arrangements are in place and why they have worked so well for the past two years. I am sure that if she wishes to raise other issues, she will, and I will be happy to respond.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this afternoon. It has enabled me to set out our position and, hopefully, to allay some fears of hon. Members about the progress of recruitment, the resilience of the transition process and the confirmation of the final dates of closure of a number of the MRCCs. I am also pleased that progress to get the national centre at Fareham ready on time is going well, and I think that a more cost-effective, safer arrangement for UK coastal co-ordination has been secured.

Ansford Railway Bridge

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing tonight’s Adjournment debate. The closure of the A371 is clearly a subject of great importance to him—and to his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt)—and he spoke eloquently about it. I noted in his opening remarks that he thought Network Rail had been rather slow in its response, so I hope to be a bit faster this evening. I noted, too, that he was not sure whether I could say much from the Dispatch Box tonight to indicate that actions were on the way. I have, however, picked up some things from his speech on which I hope to able to give him some reassurance.

My hon. Friend referred to his main concerns on behalf of his constituents and to those of the leader of South Somerset district council seen in an exchange of correspondence earlier this year with the then rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome knows, that Minister and my officials have already raised concerns with Network Rail, particularly about the possibilities of single-lane operation or putting a temporary bridge in place. I hope to address a couple of those points tonight, and I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend’s last remark—that he has failed to receive a reply from the chief executive of Network Rail since 5 September. By any standard, that is not acceptable behaviour, and I shall certainly ensure that my officials speak to Network Rail tomorrow morning to get that response for him.

I listened to my hon. Friend set out the issues. As he rightly says, I am not a Somerset man, so my understanding of them is clearly not as great as his. None the less, we all accept that the road is an important one for the local community. The location between Castle Cary station and the B3153 has an impact, as it falls under the responsibility of Somerset county council as the highways authority. Following routine inspections by Network Rail, there was widespread agreement that major repair and strengthening to the bridge was necessary; otherwise, the modern traffic loads that use the route would be unable to do so, and there would be no certainty of the continuing safety on the railway.

It is disappointing, however, that the repair and strengthening work for the overbridge, as my hon. Friend said, started on 8 July and is expected to run until the end of November. That is partly to do with the extra works that Network Rail is putting in place. I am not sure that the full benefit of those extra works has necessarily been explained, perhaps because they will benefit the company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. It is normal practice for Network Rail to prepare bridges of local authority roads to the statutory requirement to be able to carry 24 tonnes. That is covered by a national programme of assessment known as Bridgeguard 3. To implement that, there is a national cost sharing agreement with local authorities. There is no obligation on Network Rail to bring the strength of its bridges carrying roads up to the standard to carry modern freight. It is generally accepted that the load-bearing capacity to accommodate modern highway standards is 40 tonnes. Certainly, one reason for the delay and elongated works, which I accept has caused the suffering experienced by my hon. Friend’s constituents, is the increase in the strength of the bridge to 40 tonnes, which will allow greater facilitation of the local economy. That is taking longer than expected.

My hon. Friend also asked why it was not possible to consider doing the construction work in two halves. Had that been possible, it would have been done, but had that happened, the scaffolding required to access the outside of the bridge girders would have had to be mounted on the bridge deck, which would have made it impossible for the railway service underneath to continue. That is why the work could not be undertaken in two halves.

[Tessa Munt]

Surely if the flipping Army can build something in 24 hours, something could be created. If motorway bridges can be prefabricated, formed off site and rolled into place, and it takes 12 hours, why cannot something have been done in this case?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am coming to the construction of a temporary bailey bridge. I know my hon. Friend listened carefully to my remarks about strengthening the bridge to the level of 40 tonnes, and that is one reason for the delay. None the less, I am not trying to excuse the fact that the work will take 19 weeks. I understand the impact on local constituents, and my hon. Friends can be assured that this will be one of the issues that I will raise when I next meet Network Rail in my new role, as I expect to do in the near future.

Some issues were raised about why certain things may or may not have been possible. Consideration was given to whether a temporary bailey bridge could be installed while the main bridge was closed. I understand that the cost of the installation of the bailey bridge might have been greater than the cost of the refurbishment project itself. I must confess that what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said about the offer to build it at no cost was news to me.

[Mr Heath]

I hope that I did not mislead the Minister. I understand that the Army was prepared to build the bridge at no cost, but I accept that the building of the piering would have imposed a considerable cost on Network Rail. What I simply do not understand is why, given the disruption that is being caused, Network Rail is not working round the clock to complete the work as quickly as possible.

[Stephen Hammond]

I shall deal with that point in a moment. However, I am glad that there is agreement between us that the possibility of a bailey bridge was considered, although it was ruled out on the basis that it was not cost-effective.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I skip the history of Network Rail, and simply tell him that it is a private company and there is no ministerial responsibility for its operation. Ministers are, however, able to speak to representatives of the company, and, as I have said, I will speak to them about his letter.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the work being done through local consultation, and the fact that Network Rail listened to consultation at a time when some of the proposals were even less acceptable than they are now. He also acknowledged that a considerable amount of work was being done, and done much more quickly than before, in respect of the new road traffic orders.

I know that this will be of little comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I can tell him that following the pressure exerted on Network Rail by him and others, and by the Department, the repairs—which began on 8 July—have been speeded up, and the timetable has been reduced from 24 weeks to 19. I know that there have been problems relating to communication with residents during the consultation, but as he also acknowledged, some changes have been made as a result of the consultation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate. He has described very clearly the concern and disruption that the works have caused to his constituents. Everyone accepts that if the works were not carried out, the structure would deteriorate. As for the operational details, I will write to him about them if he will allow me to do so, because I am not sure of the position. There may well be temporary problems because of the position of the rail track.

I think it important to note that, notwithstanding the frustration that has been caused, at the end of those 19 weeks this large maintenance project will have enabled the bridge to meet modern highway standards to an extent that was not possible before. I hope that my successors and those of the hon. Gentleman will not have to discuss the bridge for another 50 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Kidsgrove Railway Station

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on securing the debate on disabled access at Kidsgrove station. I am delighted to be covering this role tonight in the House and, like my predecessor, I am committed to ensuring accessibility. In recent years, expectations about accessibility have rightly changed, both among disabled passengers and the railway industry, and that is even more the case after the success of our transport networks in providing accessible journeys during last year’s Olympics and Paralympics.

Unfortunately, as the hon. Lady recognised when she gave the history of Kidsgrove station, many of our railway stations date from Victorian times, including Kidsgrove, which first opened in 1848. These 19th century stations were not built with the needs of 21st century passengers in mind, and that has left us with a huge task in ensuring that the expectations of disabled passengers are met by opening up the rail network to them.

Clearly, accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience, not only for people with reduced mobility, but also for those carrying heavy luggage or pushing unwieldy pushchairs. I am grateful that the hon. Lady acknowledged that we remain committed to making further improvements in this area and have continued to support, and indeed expand, the Access for All programme, launched in 2006 by the previous Government. The programme was worth £370 million in 2004-05 prices, and will deliver accessible routes at more than 150 stations.

To demonstrate value for money to the Treasury and the Office of Rail Regulation, I am happy to confirm that the funding has been targeted at the busiest stations. By using a weighting mechanism that allowed us to look at stations’ footfall figures overlaid with census data on disability, we have tried to ensure that as many disabled people as possible can benefit from funding. Approximately a third of the stations were chosen to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country. We took into account the views of train operators and the proximity to facilities such as hospitals, schools for disabled children and military rehabilitation centres—factors that the hon. Lady raised in her speech.

One hundred and five projects are now complete and we expect the rest of the programme to be substantially complete by April next year, a full year ahead of the initial plans. If we look at the scale of the work and what it has done for the ability to open up accessibility for disabled people, there are some significant engineering projects: Clapham Junction, the busiest station in Europe, is now completely accessible for the first time in its 150 year history. We should not be complacent, however.

The hon. Lady is right to say that last year’s high-level output statement included a further £100 million to extend the Access for All programme to 2019. I hear what she says about the process being opaque. I will touch on this in more depth in a moment, but I think it is relatively well known that it is for local delivery groups—Network Rail and the train operating companies—to liaise with local authorities in making nominations. We have asked the rail industry to nominate stations for inclusion in the new £100 million programme. I recognise the efforts made by the hon. Lady, and both Network Rail and East Midlands Trains are undoubtedly aware of the desire of the local population for Kidsgrove station to be a top priority. I note her comment that East Midlands Trains has confirmed to her today that it regards Kidsgrove as its top priority. I am sure that will help in the nomination process.

The industry has a number of local delivery groups across the country that were set up to administer the national stations improvement programme in control period 4, which is just about to end. We have asked them to expand their role and nominate stations for the Access for All programme, which has been extended with an extra £100 million. Each group contains representatives from train operating companies and Network Rail. While we continue to believe that the busiest stations remain the priority, we also believe that there should be a fair distribution of investment across the country.

I listened to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) concerning Sandbach station. I recognise that there is a problem, with flat access to only one platform. If the only place one can travel to is Crewe, wonderful though it may be, that is rather a limiting experience.

We want the industry to take into account other factors, such as improving inter-urban journeys. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the availability of third party match funding, which can be used to weight business cases for individual station projects. I am happy to extend to her the meeting she requested, and she is welcome to come to the Department to discuss match funding possibilities for Kidsgrove, which will help us to speed up delivery. I would expect local authorities to take that into account in their submissions to local delivery groups, and I would also expect the views of local authorities to be taken into account by those local delivery groups when they make their nominations.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister tell us how the process will work? Who will submit the bid: local delivery groups, operating companies or local authorities?

[Stephen Hammond]

The local delivery group is a combination of Network Rail and the operators within the region, and it is for the local delivery group to make that submission and that nomination. The industry has been asked to complete the nomination process for extended Access for All by 15 November. The Department is receiving nominations as we speak, and the process will be open, as I say, until 15 November. Once we have received them, officials at the Department will analyse all the nominations before a final decision is taken on which stations will receive funding. I hope to be able to announce the successful bidding round, starting at the beginning of the next control period, by April next year.

After the hon. Lady’s comments tonight, I am certainly aware of the access issues at Kidsgrove station—and, indeed, at Sandbach—but I also know that there are many other stations across the network that have seen passenger numbers rising. The impressive increase in footfall at Kidsgrove, seen in the figures verified by the Office of Rail Regulation, will undoubtedly form part of the case made by the local delivery group when it makes its nomination.

I will certainly welcome a nomination from Kidsgrove. I want to put on record the fact that the Department will welcome nominations from as many stations as possible. As the hon. Lady will understand, although I would welcome her nomination, I cannot guarantee that any particular station will necessarily be funded or included in the programme once it has been nominated. What I can guarantee is that it will be considered carefully, along with the nominations of all the other inaccessible stations across the country.

Access for All is clearly an important part of the funding, but it is also important to remember that improved access could be achieved by using relatively small amounts of funding, combined with some innovative thinking by the industry. That would be particularly important if Kidsgrove’s application were to prove unsuccessful, when the hon. Lady might like to consider some of the alternatives I am about to mention. There is an annual small schemes fund of around £7 million a year. It is allocated between the train operating companies and is based on the number of stations they manage and how busy those stations are. Since 2006, more than £100 million of investment, including contributions from the train operators and local authorities, has seen projects delivered at almost 1,100 of the country’s 2,500 stations. A variety of projects have been supported under the small schemes, including better provision of accessible toilets, customer information services, blue badge parking spaces and features such as induction loops at ticket offices.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister acknowledge that using small scheme funding for Kidsgrove will not really work? It is at a junction and two lines come through it, and which was constructed in such a way that it has overhead cables, it greatly puts up the potential costs, probably beyond what would be admissible under the small schemes funds. It will have to come out of Access for All funding.

[Stephen Hammond]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I looked at the diagram of Kidsgrove station so I am aware of her point. None the less, I think that there might be some possibilities under the small schemes, and I would not wish to rule them out. I hope I am outlining some other possibilities to her.

The hon. Lady will also be aware that in 2011 we released £37.5 million of Access for All mid-tier funding to help projects needing a slightly greater amount of support—up to £1 million. A total of 42 such projects have so far been successful. A number of stations considered the issue the hon. Lady mentioned about students at the local college. The lifts at Alton station, for example, which benefited Treloar college for the physically disabled, came into being through this mid-tier funding.

Access for All funding has clearly been a huge success, but I do not want to give the impression that it is all that we are doing because Access for All is over and above the work being done through major investments being delivered by train operators. They are required to invest an average of £250,000 a year under their minor works programmes on improving stations. Most of that is exclusively spent on access improvements. Each operator is also required to have a disabled people’s protection policy in place as part of their licence to operate services.

It is important to understand that Access for All is key. I will look forward to and welcome the nomination, but much else is going on. We are working with the industry to ensure that we have much wider access for—