Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

2. How her Department will calculate the level of rail fares for services between Scotland and England in January (a) 2013 and (b) 2014.

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

The cap on regulated fares is calculated according to the formulae in franchise agreements. The current planning assumption, as set out in the 2010 spending review, is that the cap will increase by RPI plus 3% in January 2013 and in January 2014 for operators franchised by the Department for Transport. However, no final decision has been made.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

It is good to see the Minister in her place today, and I am sure that the whole House wishes her a speedy and full recovery from her accident.

As well as the RPI plus 3% increase proposed by the Government here, the Scottish Government are proposing RPI plus 3% increases in rail fares in Scotland and the potential removal of sleeper services and of cross-border services north of Edinburgh, so my constituents and many people in Scotland face a double whammy. How can we expect people to continue to move on to the railways when we are putting such obstacles in their way?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman raises very important issues, and the concerns that he expresses are one reason the Chancellor secured the funding to ensure that the 2012 increase would be just RPI plus 1%. We recognise, however, that it is vital that we get the cost of running the railways down, because that is the long-term, sustainable way to respond to passengers’ concerns about the level of fares.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady back to her place.

Last month The Daily Telegraph was briefed that future fare rises are “not set in stone” and are “under constant review.” Will the Minister of State therefore tell the House whether she still intends to allow train companies to hike fares by as much as 8% above inflation in 2013 and in 2014, and has she taken any decisions about fare rises in the years after that?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said in my opening answer on this question, the current assumption is based on RPI plus 3%, but we will keep those matters under review, as we did in relation to 2012, to see whether further funding can be secured to opt for a different approach. In reality, however, it is crucial that we get the costs of running the railways down—costs that spiralled during the Labour Government. They failed to respond to the problem and were severely criticised by their own Labour-dominated Select Committee at the time for not doing anything serious about rail fares. We are going to get the cost of the railways down so that we get better value for money for passengers.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister seems to be saying one thing to the train companies and another to passengers. I have with me the invitation to tender for the west coast main line, which promises bidders that they can increase fares by up to 8% above inflation next year, by up to 8% above inflation the year after that and, then, by up to 6% above inflation every year for the rest of the entire 15-year franchise. So it seems that the decision has been taken. When is the Minister of State going to stand up to those vested interests and stand up for passengers?

[Mrs Villiers]

The shadow Secretary of State has resorted to the same old stuff about the fares basket flexibility that the leader of her party got completely wrong at Prime Minister’s questions. It was a fares basket flexibility that Labour suspended for one year and we introduced, and the Labour Administration in Cardiff are still using that flexibility. It is entirely disingenuous for the shadow Secretary of State to get up and talk about—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not use the word “disingenuous” in the Chamber, and I am sure that the Minister of State is happy to withdraw it. We are extremely grateful for her answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effect on services to Scotland of the bid by International Airlines Group to acquire BMI.

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

The Department has made no such assessment. The proposed sale is a commercial matter between BMI’s owner and the prospective purchaser. Any competition issues arising from the proposed sale will be subject to the appropriate EU and UK competition authorities.

[Anas Sarwar]

BMI’s withdrawal of its flights from Heathrow to Glasgow last year left British Airways as the sole operator. Since then, average fares have increased by 34% and the number of flights on the route has decreased by 50%, affecting 1.8 million passengers and more than 300,000 small and medium-sized enterprises. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Scottish businesses and the wider public are given access to a much more open, fair and competitive market?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is difficult for me, as a Minister, to comment on the specific deal, as that is a matter for the competition authorities. It is worth bearing in mind that Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow have 60,000 such flights a year, so there is excellent connectivity as things stand. It is important that in our discussions with the European Commission on its airports package we ensure that it is aware of the importance of regional connectivity. We will look into that in our aviation framework document. Our plans for High Speed 2 will deliver a three and a half hour journey time between Scottish destinations and London, which will provide an attractive alternative to aviation.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

BMI’s headquarters is at Castle Donington in my constituency. Many of my constituents are very concerned about their employment prospects at the company. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the proposed takeover by International Airlines Group?

[Mrs Villiers]

My understanding is that the directorate-general for competition at the European Commission has been informed, and that the Office of Fair Trading is in contact with the parties and the Commission on the proposed sale.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

That was a very feeble answer from the Minister of State. Does she realise what British Airways is doing at the moment? To give an example, a 9.15 pm flight that I was supposed to take left at 10.36, after two other flights to City airport had been cancelled. It arrived after the Heathrow Express had left and I got home at 1.15 in the morning. That is what BA is doing now. This is not a question of competition. I want the Minister to tell the EU that it is not acceptable to the people of Scotland for BA to take over the BMI franchise. It will do what it is doing now and destroy the service from Edinburgh to this city.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is not the role of Ministers to make decisions on these deals. There are legal rules that put in place the role of independent competition authorities in deciding these questions. Of course the Government take seriously the importance of regional connectivity. That is one reason for our pressing ahead with HS2 and our Y-shaped network to Leeds and Manchester, which will deliver a three and a half hour journey time to Scotland, providing an excellent addition to current connectivity.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

7. What plans she has to ensure the rail network serving ports can carry modern freight containers.

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

Our policy is to continue to develop the strategic freight network to drive UK economic growth and support the expansion of our maritime trade.

[Ian Swales]

I welcome the public investment to upgrade the rail connection from Teesport to the east coast main line by the end of this year. However, there is still no suitable east-west rail crossing for modern containers anywhere between the midlands and Scotland. Will the Minister also address that problem?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Government have a major programme of improving the capacity of our rail network to take freight, particularly the 9 feet 6 inches high cube containers that are such an important a part of international trade. That is why the railway control period up to 2014 will see about £350 million spent on upgrading the network. A crucial part of that is improving links to ports, for example between Southampton and the west coast line and on the Felixstowe-Nuneaton line. That will provide major benefits on carbon emissions, road safety and relieving congestion on our roads.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

What actions is the Minister taking to improve access to ports outside the south-east?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady will have heard of the proposals being taken forward to improve gauge clearance to Teesport, and we are working on a number of other schemes and projects to improve rail freight connectivity with our major ports. Despite the deficit and the pressing need to reduce spending, our work on the strategic freight network has continued, and we propose to continue it in future.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to quantify what extra capacity there will be for freight transport on the classic rail network following High Speed 2?

[Mrs Villiers]

HS2 has done some major studies on that. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but it is clear that one of the major benefits of HS2 will be to free up paths on the existing north-south network for freight, and indeed for other passenger services, relieving the current congestion problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

In order to upgrade the service to half-hourly on the Fen line and the Norwich-Cambridge line, there needs to be an upgrade at the Ely North junction. Network Rail has conducted an economic study that suggests that this will have a positive benefit, and the Department for Transport wants to specify it in the next franchise. May I ask what progress has been made to move forward on this investment?

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

I know that my hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for improvements to the rail lines that serve her constituency. This is something that we are looking at carefully. We have asked Network Rail to do important work on deciding how we might improve the frequency of the services in the way that she wishes to see, and whether the infrastructure needed to deliver that is within the budgets that have already been allocated to Network Rail. We will also look at what we might be able to do in the next control period, as part of our high-level output specification—HLOS—statement, which we will publish in the summer.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on the Department’s attitude the electrification of the midland main line? There is widespread concern that, because of HS2 and other pressures, the electrification will not go ahead for quite some time. It would, however, provide a huge boost to the east midlands economy and to cities such as Leicester.

[Mrs Villiers]

Leicester and the communities around it have been running a very good campaign on this issue. The Government have made it clear that we see the progressive electrification of the rail network as an important part of our transport and environmental policy. The electrification of the midland main line has been prioritised by the industry in its initial industry plan, which will form an important part of the decisions that we have to make on what will be funded in the next railway control period. We will give further details in our HLOS statement in July.

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

Given the recent disappointing Christmas drink-drive statistics, is it now time to revisit the decision not to accept the North review’s recommendation to reduce the drink-drive limit?

ATOL Reform Regulations

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

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

Today I am pleased to announce the Government’s decisions on the proposals set out in last summer’s consultation on the reform of the Air Travel Organiser’s Licensing (ATOL) scheme which can be introduced through new regulations under existing powers.

ATOL is a longstanding and important scheme, which last year protected 18 million holidaymakers from travel company failure. ATOL is particularly relevant in today’s uncertain times, allowing consumers to book with the confidence that if their holiday company fails, their money will be protected or they will be able to return home as planned if they are already away, without any extra cost.

It is essential that the scheme should apply in an effective way in the modern holiday market; so that consumers are clear about their rights and how to use them, and holiday companies know which of their products must be protected.

In addition the Air Travel Trust Fund, which provides for refunds and repatriations under the scheme, is operating at a deficit and is supported by a Government guarantee. The fund needs to return to a financially self-sustaining basis as soon as possible so that taxpayers’ money is no longer exposed to risk.

Between 23 June and 15 September 2011 the Government consulted on a set of initial reforms to the ATOL scheme with the following objectives:

Improving clarity for consumers about what holidays are protected.

Returning Air Travel Trust Fund finances to a self-sustaining basis, with the deficit repaid and Government guarantee phased out.

The longer to medium-term objectives are to:

Further improve the clarity of the scheme and develop a more consistent and coherent

regulatory framework for businesses.

Look at options for how the ATOL scheme is managed and- financed once it is financially self-sustaining, with a view to reducing its cost to the travel trade and consumers.

The ATOL reform consultation received 82 responses. I am grateful to stakeholders for taking the time to reply. In the light of the responses and further analysis, I am confirming today that new ATOL regulations will be made that will:

Bring into the ATOL scheme flight-plus holidays sold by tour operators and travel agents. These are holidays that look like packages but do not meet the legal definition, and so do not currently require protection under the scheme. Including these holidays will end a significant source of confusion for consumers, and we expect up to an additional 6 million holidays a year will be fully ATOL protected as a result.

Ensure that on paying for an ATOL protected flight-only, package holiday or flight-plus, consumers receive a certificate confirming that their trip is covered by the scheme. To give the travel trade sufficient time to prepare, this requirement will come fully into effect on 1 October 2012. Until then, consumers will receive clear confirmation that their holiday or flight is ATOL protected.

Taking account of consultation responses and further discussion with stakeholders, the new ATOL regulations will include a number of changes to the draft regulations consulted on. These include changes to the definition of a flight-plus holiday and a revised approach to the exemption for flight-only sales where tickets are provided immediately on payment. Further details on these changes are included in the summary of responses and the Government’s decisions published today on the Department’s website.

It is intended that the new regulations will be laid in Parliament in March, before coming into effect on 30 April 2012.

In addition to bringing greater clarity to consumers about ATOL protection for holidays and flights, we expect that these reforms should allow the ATOL scheme’s financial deficit to be repaid within three years. This will pave the way for possible future changes to improve how the ATOL scheme is funded and managed. The Civil Aviation Authority plans initial discussions with stakeholders on options for this later in the year, building on responses to the question posed in the consultation on this subject.

These regulations complement the clause in the Civil Aviation Bill introduced on 19 January 2012 that would allow the ATOL scheme to cover holidays sold by airlines and those organised on an agent for the consumer basis. Subject to parliamentary process, the Government’s intention is that such a step would only be taken following full consultation with stakeholders including an impact assessment.

Transport

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Jonathan Ashworth]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which consultants and advisers her Department has employed in respect of the (a) Thameslink programme, (b) Thameslink rolling stock procurement and (c) Intercity Express programme; how much she has budgeted in respect of each such contractor; and how much each contractor has invoiced to date.

[Official Report, 23 November 2011, Vol. 536, c. 411-12W.]

Letter of correction from Mrs Theresa Villiers:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on 23 November 2011. The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Villiers]

[holding answer 21 October 2011]: The information requested can be found as follows.

[Mrs Villiers]

[holding answer 21 October 2011]: The information requested can be found as follows.

Intercity West Coast Rail Franchise

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Friday 20th January 2012 Written Statements

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

In May last year, the then Secretary of State announced that the next intercity west coast franchise would start on 9 December 2012.

The Department for Transport has today published an invitation to tender to mark the commencement of the formal bidding stage of the competition to replace the current operator on the west coast main line. The new franchise will continue through to March 2026, this date being aligned to the introduction of high-speed services along the proposed HS2 route.

Increasing capacity and tackling overcrowding is our priority. Some 106 extra “Pendolino” carriages are being provided for the west coast. In addition to the 45% increase in capacity delivered in December 2008, 31 existing Pendolinos are being lengthened from 9 to 11 carriages and four new trains are being introduced, increasing the number of standard class seats on each train by almost 50%, from 320 to 470.

In all, the 106 new carriages will make 28,000 extra seats available each day, an increase of 25%. We expect that the additional and lengthened trains will be targeted on those routes and times of day with the highest demand.

It was further announced in May that a consultation would take place on a revised train service requirement (TSR). A summary of and response to this consultation has also been published today on the Department for Transport website.

The TSR has been designed to give bidders greater flexibility to respond to passenger demand and run their businesses in a more commercial way within a framework set by the franchise that protects key outcomes for passengers, taxpayers and the economy. The TSR requires the provision of the same number of weekly stops at each station as set out in the current franchise; but will allow the franchisee to vary the capacity provided on individual days of the week in order to cater for the variations in daily demand.

The ITT contains less specification than in previous competitions, with a stronger focus on outcomes, for example on passenger satisfaction, rather than detailed prescriptive inputs. We expect the additional flexibility set out in the ITT to enable bidders to provide both a better service for passengers and an improved financial return for taxpayers.

However, we will continue to specify core requirements and to manage overall compliance of key deliverables, such as performance and service quality. The franchise will contain new obligations based around passenger satisfaction with stations, trains and customer services.

The franchise length of up to 15 years including an option to extend by 20 months is intended to encourage the development of long-term relationships between the operator and stakeholders, giving greater scope to challenge and reduce excessive industry costs. We also expect the certainty provided by a long franchise to encourage investment in assets such as stations, by extending the period over which commercially attractive schemes can pay back. The new franchisee will take over full repairing responsibilities for the 17 stations they manage. We believe that cost savings can be achieved through combining roles currently split between the operator and Network Rail in relation to stations.

A new risk-sharing mechanism based on macro-economic variables has been introduced to remove some of the perverse operator behaviour experienced under the cap and collar system, while still providing an appropriate allocation of risk between the taxpayer and the operator.

Cap and collar led to stronger concentration on revenue generation schemes rather than on cost reduction because support was available in the event of underperformance on revenue. Our new risk-sharing mechanism helps create a more balanced approach to revenue and costs when bidders are considering how to develop their business.

A profit-share mechanism has been introduced to enable the taxpayer to benefit from a share in profits above an agreed threshold which the franchise has generated, while continuing to provide sufficient incentive for the franchisee to outperform.

The franchise will specify the introduction of ITSO-based smart ticketing. The introduction of smart ticketing will provide significant benefits for passengers and the use of the ITSO standard will enable the same card to be used on a range of different public transport services.

The intercity west coast ITT takes forward the franchising reforms set out in January 2011. Given the diversity of the rail network, our approach will be adapted to meet the individual requirements of different franchises. Future franchise contracts will not be identical but common themes will underlie all of them, including an emphasis on innovation, passenger satisfaction and greater commercial freedom to respond to the needs of passengers.

ATOL Reform and the Civil Aviation Bill

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Written Statements

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

The Government consulted on proposals to reform the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) scheme between 23 June and 15 September 2011. The consultation included proposals that would require new primary legislation to help bring greater clarity and coherence to holiday protection.

Following the consultation and after careful consideration of the responses, I am pleased to announce that the Civil Aviation Bill introduced today includes a clause that would widen the Secretary of State’s powers so that holidays sold by airlines or arranged on an “agent for the consumer” basis could be included in the ATOL scheme in the future. The Government’s intention is that such a step would only be taken following full consultation with stakeholders including an impact assessment.

The Government intend to make a further statement on the full range of proposals for ATOL reform, shortly.

Northern Rail Hub

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. This has been a great debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing it. This issue is clearly of great importance to the big turnout of hon. Members who are here today and to their constituents. Throughout my time with the transport brief, both in opposition and in government, I have been impressed by the determination of the MPs and the stakeholders behind the northern hub project. Indeed, one of my first regional visits as Minister was to meet a group of them in Manchester soon after the coalition was formed.

As we have heard today, there is much support for the northern hub project. We heard the gracious support of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), representing the views of her Committee. We also heard support expressed across party lines. There was even trans-Pennine solidarity, which is not something that we get on every issue. I am told that this issue even unites east, west, south and north Yorkshire. Again, not many issues do that. Last but not least, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) commented on how dramatic it was that the issue had united Liverpool and Manchester in support.

I commend the evidence-based approach that those behind the northern hub project have taken in pressing the case for the hub and for improvements in rail and other forms of transport in the north generally. Many hon. Members emphasised the importance of finding ways to bridge the prosperity gap between north and south, and I completely agree that improving our transport infrastructure is an important way to achieve that goal. The Government fully appreciate the economic benefits that improving our transport system can generate. That point was emphasised by many hon. Members: my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), to name but a few. We recognise the economic benefits that can be generated by investing in the north specifically as well.

That is why we have placed a priority on improving the rail network even when budgets are severely limited by the pressing need to deal with the deficit. Therefore, as well as going ahead with the high-speed rail network, we have embarked on what is probably the biggest programme of rail improvements since the Victorian era. Those ambitious plans include a number of major projects in the north of England. Many have been mentioned and welcomed today, not least the new stations at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew).

Our programme also includes important elements of the northern hub project. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and others, the Ordsall chord is going ahead. That new stretch of railway linking Victoria and Piccadilly—two of Manchester’s busiest stations—has been talked about since the 1960s, I am told, and will deliver benefits to the whole of the north of England by substantially reducing journey times between Liverpool and Leeds.

The electrification of the North TransPennine route between Manchester and Leeds through to York and the east coast line will also deliver important benefits. Strictly speaking, that was not part of the original northern hub scheme, but it was prioritised by the rail industry in its initial plan, which it drew up recently. The combined effect of North TransPennine electrification, the Ordsall chord and line-speed improvements that are already part of the CP4 programme will see journey times between Liverpool and Newcastle cut by as much as 45 minutes.

These programmes are already starting to provide the improved connectivity within the region, between the cities of the north of England, that many hon. Members have rightly highlighted as crucial if the economy in the north is to flourish. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) emphasised that point. The improvements will also promote the modal shift that a number of hon. Members highlighted as important.

Virtually every hon. Member who spoke emphasised the importance to the northern economy of implementing the package in full during the 2014-2019 railway control period. Those hon. Members included the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who is the chairman of the all-party group on rail in the north, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton.

As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chairman of the Select Committee, acknowledged, Network Rail is as we speak considering in detail all the remaining elements of the hub that have yet to be funded. The Government have asked it to do that to assist us in the decisions that we will make in the summer. There are about nine individual packages. Network Rail is considering, at a more detailed level, the business case for the whole project, as well as for all those nine individual elements. This is, therefore, a timely debate—a good opportunity for the House to contribute to the Government’s thinking on this matter.

[Julie Hilling]

I am slightly puzzled. The argument is that the whole of the hub gives the 4:1 benefit ratio. There is a possibility, of course, that one little place may give less benefit than another bit, but all together the benefit ratio is 4:1. Given what the Minister is saying, is there a risk that a part that has a lower cost-value ratio but still a value will be overlooked?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, we have asked Network Rail to consider in greater detail the value-for-money case for the whole project—all elements of it—because we believe that it is very important to consider very thoroughly all the elements of the northern hub. That view is confirmed by the strong support expressed by hon. Members today.

With input from train operators and the passenger transport executives, Network Rail needs to establish the impact that North TransPennine electrification will have on the original hub proposals. It may be that the eventual package put forward by Network Rail, the industry and the PTEs to achieve the goals of the northern hub is somewhat different from the original 2009 proposals. We will obviously have to consider carefully the input that we get from the industry groups and from the PTEs in the relevant areas before we make final decisions on the matter. I fully appreciate how much support there is for going ahead with the whole package and I fully appreciate the benefits that it could deliver. I can assure the House that the Government will consider the northern hub package as a whole as well as its individual elements when we make our decisions on HLOS2 and the CP5 period this summer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley wanted me to pre-empt that process and make the decision today. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him, but I can assure him that we will consider the matter with great care in the run-up to our announcement on HLOS2 and the CP5 period in the summer. Whether we can fund the whole programme in CP5 depends on what is affordable within available budgets. We will also need to assess the case for improvements elsewhere in the country to determine which projects can be given priority. Of course we want to fund as many projects that promote economic growth as possible, but we also need to ensure that the Government’s overall finances are not overstretched in these difficult times. Given the competing demands on limited taxpayer funding, it is vital that the overall cost of running the railways and the cost of such upgrades come down. If we can achieve the kind of savings that Sir Ray McNulty said were possible in his report last year, it will become much easier to deliver the improvements that passengers want.

We will be publishing a Command Paper on the reform that we need to see costs come down on the railways, thus improving value for money for both passengers and taxpayers. The more inefficiency that we can take out of the railways, the greater the scope for delivering infrastructure upgrades and additional services.

Naturally, today’s debate has focused primarily on improvements to the conventional rail network in the north. The projects that we have given the go-ahead to in the north will complement our proposals on high-speed rail. I welcome the support that has been expressed today by a number of hon. Members for the Government’s high-speed rail proposals. The Secretary of State for Transport was very clear that her decision was to go ahead with the whole Y network to Manchester and Leeds and not just the London to Birmingham leg. HS2 can potentially complement the improvement of local and regional services. For example, Centro produced an analysis that said that the benefits of HS2 to Birmingham could be significantly increased, with improvements to the local and regional transport network in the west midlands. It is quite important to consider whether the commitment to the Y network to the north of England might further strengthen the case for the northern hub package because of its potential to spread the benefits of high-speed rail more quickly and more widely around the north of England.

In the last few minutes available to me, I want to pick up on some of the more specific questions raised in the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley expressed concern about the future of services to Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite. Before the announcement on the electrification of the North TransPennine route, some suggestions were made on the future of those services and whether some stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield might end up with fewer stops. The electrification announcement means that Network Rail will need to review this matter and the capacity on the route. My hon. Friend made it clear that no decision on this has been made as yet. It will not be made for some time and it will be made only after an appropriate public consultation.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has again called for the reopening of the Woodhead route. I have to say that that was not one that was prioritised as part of the northern hub because of the capacity that is still available on the Hope Valley line.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham and the hon. Members for Southport and for Blackley and Broughton all expressed concern about crowding in the north of England and the balance of spending between north and south. I remind the House of the importance of the additional capacity that the Government are introducing through the HLOS programme.

The northern hub has achieved a significant amount of support. I commend the evidence that has been produced by the supporters of the project. It will be useful to the Government when they make their decision. We will be listening with care to the views of all those in the north of England who are promoting this project when we make our decisions on what rail upgrade we can take forward in the next railway control period.

Civil Aviation Authority Environmental Objectives

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Written Statements

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

When the CAA is exercising its air navigation functions it is required under the Transport Act 2000 to take account of environmental guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. The current guidance was issued in 2002 by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

The CAA has been able to take account of the guidance to make decisions on over 70 proposals for airspace change over the last nine years. The guidance recommends that the CAA keeps abreast of current Government policy including on planning, sustainable development and noise as well as guidance issued by the devolved Administrations.

Given the length of time since the guidance was published, and the recommendations of Sir Joseph Pilling in his July 2008 strategic review of the CAA and the Transport Select Committee in its 2009 report on the use of airspace, the Government recognise the need to update the guidance to reflect current Government policy, including on issues such as noise and climate change. This will be done next year following development of the “Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation” and will include a public consultation so that all views can be heard on this important subject.

In the interim the Department for Transport is publishing today a technical addendum to the guidance. The addendum updates references and lists relevant policy documents and legislation published since 2002 that the CAA takes into account when considering airspace change proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

2. Whether her Department has conducted an impact assessment of the proposal in the McNulty report on closure of ticket offices.

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

No impact assessment has been conducted of this proposal in the independent report undertaken by Sir Roy McNulty.

[Teresa Pearce]

Disabled people in my constituency already have trouble accessing work and leisure opportunities in London because Erith station’s London-bound platform has no disabled lift or step-free access. They are advised by the train operating company to travel in the opposite direction for 15 minutes and then change trains. The closure of the ticket office at Erith will further disadvantage this group of people. Will the Minister consider an equality impact assessment on the proposal and reject McNulty’s plans to close ticket offices, particularly at places such as Erith, where disabled people already face a difficult journey?

[Mrs Villiers]

In considering the recommendations of the independent McNulty report and before any decision was made on changes to future ticket office rules, it would of course be vital carefully to assess the needs of disabled communities and pensioners. That would be a very important part of any decisions made on future reform of ticket offices.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The McNulty report identified some 30% savings in real costs across the piece. If that is to be achieved by the closure of ticket offices or in other ways, what will the Minister do to ensure that that money will be passed on not to the rail companies but to the users? The line from Chippenham—the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)—to London is among the most expensive in the world: more, mile for mile, than the cost of Concorde. We need to cut those rates, and we can do that by saving money on the infrastructure.

[Mrs Villiers]

We have made it clear that it is vital to get the costs of running the railways down, and it is also vital that the benefits of those cost reductions be shared by both taxpayers and fare payers so that we can give both better value for money. If we can achieve savings on the scale contemplated by McNulty, we could, we hope, see the end of the era of above-inflation fare increases.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Costs impact on fares, as the Minister has just said. In London, Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I expected a more Pavlovian response, Mr Speaker. Mayor Johnson has approved rises on average of nearly 6%, yet Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Much better, Mr Speaker. Both sides of the House appreciate the Labour candidate; I am sure he would be very reassured. Ken Livingstone says he can cut fares by between 7% and 11% because of Transport for London surpluses. Has the Minister had any discussions with Mayor Johnson about the rises?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is completely naive in his approach to Ken Livingstone’s proposals on fares. Livingstone’s numbers simply do not add up, and his track record shows that he promises fare reductions and ends up delivering fare hikes.

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

Does the Minister agree that no station operator should be allowed to close ticket offices where there are any real concerns about security and safety as a result of creating an unmanned station?

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly, if we were to change the way ticket offices operate, we would need to look carefully at all safety and security consequences, as well as taking into account the concerns of the disabled community and pensioners. However, we do need to look at ticket offices as part of the process of reducing costs on the railways, in order to deliver the better value for money that passengers want. We need to do that because the way passengers are buying tickets is changing. Oyster in London demonstrates that there are some high-quality alternatives to the ticket queue. If we can roll those out more widely, which we plan to do with ITSO smart ticketing, that will make a difference to our approach to future decisions on ticket offices.

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

3. Whether she has made an assessment of the benefits of extending High Speed 2 to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Scottish Government on the renewal of rail franchises for services from and to Scotland.

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

The Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to discuss rail franchising with the Scottish Government, although I have had a number of such meetings. There are also regular contacts on rail franchising between the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland at official level.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware not only of the possibility of a referendum in Scotland, but that the ScotRail franchise comes to an end in 2014. Does she agree that when deciding on a new contract the Scottish Government should consider the fact that ScotRail has had the highest level of customer complaints and a fourfold increase in overcrowding at a time when prices are rising by 6%? Will she note that the company’s boss is a leading Scottish National party supporter and contributor?

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about ScotRail. I will take them on board and officials will be happy to raise them with Transport Scotland.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

The west coast main line franchise, which serves the west of Scotland, is up for renewal next year. What consideration have bidders for the franchise been asked to put in place to ensure that no disturbance is caused by the construction of HS2, either at Euston or in the London area during the period of that franchise?

[Mrs Villiers]

It will be a very important part of the planning process for the construction of HS2 that every effort is made to minimise the disruption on existing rail networks. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why building a new high-speed rail network is a better option than seeking to eke more capacity out of the existing west coast main line, given the decade of disruption that passengers suffered on that. There will be an impact on Euston, but a huge amount of effort is going to be put into ensuring that that is minimised.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

6. What discussions she has had on the route for High Speed 2 and its possible extension to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

15. What progress has been made on the northern hub railway project.

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

The Government have given the go-ahead for the construction of the Ordsall chord and the electrification of the north trans-Pennine route between Manchester and York via Leeds. These schemes will allow faster trains between the north-east, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Network Rail is undertaking further work on the remaining northern hub schemes. We will consider these in developing the Government’s high-level output specification for rail investment from 2014 to 2019.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could complete all parts of the scheme it would be a tremendous demonstration of our continued commitment to further investment in the existing rail structure and to further investment in the north-west?

[Mrs Villiers]

This is exactly the sort of issue that we will consider in preparing our HLOS statement. I recognise the crucial importance for the northern economy of improving rail connections in the north. That is why we have already given the go-ahead to such important parts of the northern hub—earlier than many expected—and we will of course look very carefully at the whole project. It certainly looks to have a good business case, but delivering it will depend on what is affordable.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

T2. I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that for many visitors to any town or city in the UK their first impression, and perhaps their last, will be of the train station. Will the Minister use her good offices to ask ScotRail, Network Rail and Dundee city council to look at improving Dundee’s train station?

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

As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this is a devolved matter over which I have no direct power, but I am happy to raise it with ScotRail and Network Rail if he would find it helpful.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

T5. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the announcements on HS2 and the longevity of the railway system in this country. May I press her to find out what steps are being taken to open up access on the west coast main line link so that passengers from Carnforth can get to London?

Rail Fares

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish answering the last intervention, I might get around to giving way to him. As the previous Labour Transport Secretary made clear, we would not have given back to train operating companies the power to fiddle the fares by hiking them by more than the cap on the most profitable routes and getting away with it by introducing much lower increases on the routes that do not rake in the cash. That is something we put a stop to in government once times got tough.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the Minister, who I expect will be winding up the debate, and then to my hon. Friend.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady claims that Lord Adonis, a previous Transport Minister, would have continued the suspension of the fares basket, but the reality is that he did not renegotiate that with the train operators; he negotiated for a one-year contractual suspension. If he had intended to carry on with that, he would have negotiated the period into the franchises, but he chose not to.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is wrong to say that there was no intention to continue with that. She can try to rewrite our policy as much as she wishes, but my noble Friend Lord Adonis made it perfectly clear in oral and written evidence to the Transport Committee that the ban on flex would continue into subsequent years, and that remains our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am aware of that and thank my hon. Friend for making that point. At least Labour’s candidate understands how hard it is for ordinary, hard-pressed commuters to afford the kind of fare rises that the Government are not only allowing, but promoting. It is no good Ministers hiding behind the deficit, because this is not a simple case of bringing additional money into the Treasury; it is also about bringing additional money into the profits of private train companies. The National Audit Office report on the Department for Transport’s spending settlement warned:

“There is a risk that the benefit of the resulting increase in passenger revenues will not be passed on to taxpayers fully, but will also result in increased train operating company profits.”

High fares equal increased profits in an industry that relies on subsidies of more than £4 billion of taxpayers’ money every year. It is no wonder passengers in Britain are paying three and a half times more for their rail tickets than those in France, Germany and Holland, all countries that do not have the costly and fragmented rail industry structure that is the legacy of the Tories’ botched privatisation of our railway industry. The French, German and Dutch state railways are so successful that they are now bidding for and winning franchises to run rail services in Britain. The Government are step by step nationalising our rail services—it is just that it is not our nation. The profits will be helping to keep down fares in France, Germany and Holland for their own domestic passengers. It is no wonder that fares are so high under our broken system.

Therefore, we would enforce a strict cap on fare rises, but I believe that we need to go further and make fares fairer. Because the system has lost all credibility, passengers feel ripped off and know that they are being ripped off. They feel that the system does not work in their interests and that it is designed to catch them out. That is what I have been told by passengers as I have travelled across the country over the past year. In addition to getting spiralling rail fares under control, here are five other ideas that passengers have said would make a real difference. First, why is there no single national definition of peak time? Why are train companies allowed to set different rules so that passengers have to know precisely which company they are travelling with or risk facing a fine for travelling on the right ticket at the wrong time? Why are the companies allowed to chop and change peak time, stretching it out simply to hike their profits?

[Mrs Villiers]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who also sits on the Transport Committee, is as much of an expert as any other Member, and I will agree to consider his comments.

The Prime Minister was wrong today and failed to give the facts about the policy of the last Labour Government and the policy of this Government. Even if it was for only one year, Lord Adonis managed to challenge the rail industry on the so-called basket of fares and whether the RPI plus 1% policy should apply to individual fares or to a basket of fares. He got a lot of support on both sides of the House for insisting—against the arguments of his own officials and the resistance of the industry—that that policy should apply only to individual fares. As we know, if it is applied to a basket of fares, some can go up by 6%, instead of 1%. Whether or not that was a temporary agreement for one year, surely when a new franchise is let the Minister has a responsibility to challenge the industry and set such an arrangement in stone at the very start.

When the railways were first privatised, the policy—it was then RPI minus 1%—was applied to a basket of fares, as agreed with Ministers. That was what Lord Adonis succeeded in challenging, but sadly only for one year. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that, in future new franchises, the Adonis approach will be applied to fares to protect fare payers and to ensure that train operating companies take money out of their own pockets, rather than the pockets of fare-paying passengers?

[Mrs Villiers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harris]

I only have six minutes and the Minister will have plenty of time to wind up at the end of the debate.

I hope that the Secretary of State will not take the same path as has been followed in Scotland, where the SNP Government—for the first time since the 1960s and Beeching—are threatening to close stations, including Kennishead in my constituency, even as passenger numbers are increasing there and throughout the network. That is a disgraceful approach for any so-called progressive Government to take, and I hope that the Secretary of State will make a commitment that she will not close stations or lines in the rest of the country.

It is too easy to criticise rail services and forget some of the major advances that have been made since privatisation, but at the crucial interface between train and customer, there is a growing crisis of affordability—on the personal level, rather than the national taxpayer level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to say that it was, of course, the Labour Government who managed that franchise, such that we called in Great Western and demanded the changes that it made and that it adopt special measures.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Labour Government did make some attempt to fix the problems, but they created them, because they let the franchise in the first place.

[Owen Smith]

In truth, the problems we have with the railways are in large measure precisely due to the fragmentation that resulted from the botched privatisation of our rail industry. That is the reality.

The way we have debated this issue today—in particular, the way the Secretary of State took the opportunity, uncharacteristically perhaps, to make a lot of heavy-handed party political points—does not serve our constituents and rail travellers well. This is too important an economic issue, as she will know from her time on the Treasury Bench, for us to play knockabout politics with it. The key issue that the Opposition are raising today is affordability. Very simply, given that it is so important for many of our constituents that they are able to take advantage of the improved, more efficient and cleaner train services that are now available, those services must be affordable. That is why we are concerned about the large fare increases in the recent round, although Arriva Trains Wales has commendably kept down a lot of its fares across parts of my patch to RPI plus 1. On the Great Western line, however, there has been a worrying increase of 10% in the cost of travelling between Cardiff and London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said. That will make businesses and commuters think hard about whether they can continue to travel on that vital line for commerce and commuting.

It is important that the public understand that this Government took a decision to repeal the ban on flexing fares that the Labour Government put in place. That measure was introduced as a result of the economically straitened times in which we found ourselves in 2009. Lord Adonis made that decision to try to address the issue of affordability, and it is party political point scoring to suggest that the fact it was negotiated as a legal contract for one year was indicative of a longer-term intention. There is no read-across in that respect, and the Secretary of State would do well to take Lord Adonis at his word when he put it in writing to the Select Committee that he intended to continue the practice while we remained in economic difficulty.

What has changed since 2009? People are harder up than they were. Things have not got easier for my constituents or for those of the Secretary of State; they have got harder. That is why the Government should have thought long and hard about how they could justify taking a decision that might be in the interests of the train operators but is not in the interests of the travelling public. That was fundamentally the wrong decision for them to take.

I welcome the common sense that we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood today about the need for a cross-party review of our rail services. The fares are too complicated, and the system is too complicated. The flexing at peak times across different parts of the country is also too complicated. Many people end up paying higher fares than they ought to, because the system is engineered in such a way that they cannot access the cheapest fares. We have seen this with the energy companies as well. They rig the market in their favour by making it utterly impenetrable to ordinary people, and it is the same on the railways. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must look into those issues, and at the underpinning question of the nature of the structure—the ownership principles—of the railway industry. We cannot simply say that there is no alternative, and we cannot get into a tawdry, tedious knockabout over whether this or that issue represents a spending commitment. That is just point scoring, and we need a much more fundamental discussion about the nature of our rail services. We need a Government who are going to act in the interests of the people, not just those of their people.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Time is too short to refer to every contribution to today’s debate, but I welcome all those that have been made.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) criticised a fares system that he presided over as rail Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), along with many others, pointed out that RPI plus 1 and above-inflation fare increases were introduced under the Labour Government and did not start under the coalition.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) commented on the Government’s continuation of a major investment programme and called for a simpler ticketing system. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also welcomed our commitment to a programme of rail improvements that is probably the biggest since the Victorian era. He welcomed the fact that we had been able to prioritise it despite the deficit because of the difficult decisions that we have made in other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) welcomed the progress on East West Rail and made some important points about how fares operate.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made a moving speech about the hardship that her constituents are feeling. As for buses, we are of course doing all that we can within the constraints of the fiscal straitjacket created by the deficit that we were left by Labour. Within those constraints we are of course striving to help those who are facing hardship with the cost of living.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) pointed out the impracticalities of having a single uniform peak throughout the country and that the Opposition transport team appear not to have read the speeches made by their leader or the shadow Chancellor. I particularly liked my hon. Friend’s reference to the game of policy Twister that they have unfortunately had to play today.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) commented on the concern about the effect of inflation and fare rises. That is exactly the concern that the Chancellor responded to in his autumn statement in putting the limit on the average rise in national rail, tube and bus fares at RPI plus 1. That help for people struggling with the cost of living was welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mark Menzies), for Cambridge and for Milton Keynes South. We ought to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for her role in that. We were able to do that at the same time as delivering a major investment programme only because of savings made elsewhere in government to tackle the deficit—the kind of spending reductions that Labour has consistently opposed.

[Mr Tom Harris]

“Many families are feeling the pinch because of stratospheric fare increases—racing ahead of inflation—inflicted by the Department.”—[Official Report, 24 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 691.] Those are not my words, but those of the Minister in this House. Can she point out any improvements that have been made since then?

[Mrs Villiers]

The former rail Minister has made my point for me. The Opposition must be suffering from collective amnesia if they think that this problem suddenly appeared in May 2010 when the coalition took over. In 2006, a Labour-dominated Select Committee described the Labour Government as “breathtakingly complacent” on value for money in fares. The truth is that concern about rail fares has been growing for years, as my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Milton Keynes South have said.

A major reason for the increases is that under Labour the cost of running the railways spiralled and hard-pressed passengers and taxpayers were left to foot the bill. It is fair that passengers contribute to the cost of running the railways and to the massive programme of upgrades that we are taking forward, but neither fare payers nor taxpayers should have to pay for industry inefficiency. This Government understand how vital it is to get the cost of running the railways down and to tackle the legacy of inefficiency that we inherited from Labour. That is the long-term, sustainable solution to delivering better value for money for taxpayers and fare payers.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The point that we are seeking to make is that when the Government say that fares will go up by inflation plus 1%, that is what they should go up by, not by up to 11%, which is what many people face this year as a result of the Government’s decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady need not worry as I will come on to the fares basket in a moment. Before I do, it is crucial to say that we are determined to deliver our goal of ending the era of above-inflation fare rises. The only long-term, sustainable solution to delivering better value for money for taxpayers and fare payers is to get the cost of running the railways down, not the short-term, uncosted, poorly thought-through proposals that we have heard from the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) this afternoon.

We have started reform already, with the reform of the franchising system and our commitment to further electrification to reduce costs. We are also determined to see the rail industry working together better, with a strong shared incentive to reduce costs and deliver better outcomes for passengers.

Another key plank of getting the cost of the railways down is making working practices on the railways more efficient. When Labour was in charge, pay in the rail sector rose more than twice as fast as it did in the economy more widely. Difficult decisions may lie ahead, and I do not believe Labour is capable of taking those decisions where the interests of the unions conflict with the goal of getting better value for money for passengers.

[Mr Tom Harris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No.

Labour failed to deal with the problem in government, and its heavy dependence on union funding would make it utterly incapable of dealing with it if the country were unwise enough to return a Labour Government. If the Opposition were really serious about getting better value for money for passengers, they would not be making glib announcements in the House; they would be remonstrating with their friends in the rail unions about a responsible approach to pay, from the boardroom to the platform.

I turn now to the fares basket and the flat cap on prices. Frankly, the shadow Secretary of State was in all sorts of trouble on the matter. The claim made by her and the Leader of the Opposition that the suspension of the cap was an ongoing policy, representing a dramatic change of heart by Lord Adonis, is simply not borne out by the facts of what Lord Adonis did in government.

[Mr Harris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No. The hon. Gentleman did not do anything about the flat cap in his entire time as a rail Minister, so I will not take his intervention on the matter.

Lord Adonis inserted in the franchise contracts a one-year suspension of the flat cap. That conflicts with what the shadow Secretary of State said today.

[Mr Harris]

I promise it is the last time, but will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No.

More important, the shadow Secretary of State has given us no indication of just how much it would cost to repeal the fares basket provision. Amazingly, she did not even seem to understand that it would have a cost. I can assure her that it would. She has given no credible explanation of how Labour would pay for the change, and whether it would come from higher fares, higher taxes, cuts in services, the cancelling of extra carriages or upgrades or more borrowing.

Just one day after the Leader of the Opposition finally acknowledged that dealing with Labour’s deficit means that there is no more money left to spend and said that the Opposition would take a more responsible approach, the shadow Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box making spending commitment after spending commitment on rail fares, concessionary bus travel, local government funding, school transport, VAT—the list goes on and on. She and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), made several billion pounds of commitments today.

The truth is that when it comes to the cost of living and the economy, Labour just does not get it. It must be just about the only political party in the world arguing that the way to get out of a debt crisis is by borrowing more money. Whether it is a credit card bill or the international gilts market, that simply does not work. There is no way that interest rates could have stayed at today’s low levels without the action that we have taken to deal with the deficit and avert the crisis enveloping other European countries with public finance positions almost as bad as ours.

In government, Labour brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy, leaving Britain with one of the biggest structural deficits in the developed world. Today’s debate demonstrates that, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, Labour has learned nothing in opposition. The biggest threat to the cost of living in this country is the spiralling interest rates that we would get if we gave way to the demands that Labour makes every single day in the House for more and more spending.

It is clear that if Labour had won the last election—thankfully it did not—it would have utterly failed to take the tough decisions needed to get the deficit under control. That would have had disastrous consequences for the cost of living for millions of families right across the nation. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.

Rail Services (Clitheroe, Blackburn and Manchester)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on securing this debate on, as he says, a very auspicious day for the rail network in the United Kingdom. While the focus for many today has been on the big project, which is going to be high-speed rail, it is also very important to continue to improve services on our existing rail network, including local services of the sort that we have been discussing this evening. I know how much importance the right hon. Gentleman places on that, as do the other hon. Members who are present today and want to make their arguments heard.

The Government fully appreciate the economic benefits that improving our transport system can generate. That is why we have placed a priority on improving our rail network, even though our budgets are limited due to the need to deal with the deficit. So as well as going ahead with high-speed rail, we have embarked on the biggest programme of rail improvements to our existing network since the Victorian era, and that ambitious programme includes a number of very important projects in the north-west, which I may have time to cover briefly at the end if time allows.

We recognise that capacity has been an issue for a considerable time on commuter train services into Manchester, including services from Clitheroe and Blackburn. The passenger growth figures that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) have referred to are indeed striking, and that pattern is reflected on many other parts of the rail network, which is why we have undertaken the programme of capacity expansion that we have. It was welcome news, therefore, when funding for the HLOS—high-level output specification—programme of additional carriages on the whole network was confirmed by the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review. That programme included extra carriages for the Clitheroe-Blackburn-Manchester line. Since July 2010, three of the seven peak services on that route have been lengthened, providing a 20% increase in the number of seats, and platforms have been lengthened at four stations.

I recognise, however, as do the Government, the local support for other proposals to improve rail services between east Lancashire and Manchester. We recognise the support for the half-hour all day service from Blackburn to Manchester, which many have expressed support for and which is under discussion tonight. That is why the Department for Transport has engaged at considerable length with Blackburn with Darwen council, Burnley borough council and Lancashire county council on finding a way to deliver the service improvements that those local authorities and the local communities want.

I have been asked this evening to give advice on taking forward an improvement programme. The first stage has already been achieved—obtaining the support of the relevant local authorities. It is only when a commitment is made by the local authorities to prioritise these things locally that they have any chance of getting off the ground. It has become clear over recent years that rail service improvements between east Lancashire and Manchester have become a high priority locally, and the work that the councils have commissioned from Network Rail to carry out studies as part of their GRIP—governance for rail investment—process to identify infrastructure requirements is another important precondition for a credible proposal to enhance infrastructure and services. So again we are seeing this process being taken very seriously and important steps being taken, which are essential if there is to be a successful conclusion along the lines that the right hon. Member for Blackburn would like.

The local authorities, I understand, have also been working with Northern Rail to carry out demand forecasting and to estimate operating costs. That kind of foresight and commitment from local authorities has meant that they have been able to take advantage of some of the funding opportunities that have emerged over the last couple of years in relation to east Lancashire services. The most striking example of that has already been mentioned this evening: subject to due diligence, Burnley borough council has secured the funding from the regional growth fund for the Todmorden curve to enable through trains to run between Accrington, Burnley and Manchester. That will provide a considerable boost for regeneration of the Weavers Triangle area, as well as important benefits for businesses and for commuters to access those important job opportunities in Manchester, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen addressed the House. I congratulate the borough and county councils on their success. That demonstrates that such projects can get off the ground if the right work is done.

The Clitheroe-Blackburn-Manchester line currently has an hourly service. We have heard this evening that there is concern locally that that is not frequent enough. It is supplemented by additional services at peak times between Blackburn and Manchester. I am aware that introducing at least a half-hourly service to Blackburn throughout the day is supported by Blackburn with Darwen council, Lancashire county council and Transport for Greater Manchester, as well as right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening.

As we have also heard, much of the route between Blackburn and Bolton is single track. That means that infrastructure improvements would need to be delivered if a reliable half-hourly service were to be introduced in both directions throughout the day. My hon. Friend mentioned the idea of doubling the line. Network Rail concluded that a longer passing loop at Darwen and an increase in line speed capability at Turton crossing were the appropriate improvements, and work is going on to establish how much they are likely to cost.

Since this is a service generating primarily local benefits, it is for the local authority to identify a funding source for the investment needed to make it possible, but one possible source of funding would be the next major local transport schemes budget. This is the kind of project for which it is well worth putting forward a bid to that funding stream. Consistent with our wider localism agenda, we are currently considering how we might enlarge the participation of local and sub-national bodies in the decisions that are taken on how to allocate that major local transport fund, and we continue to engage with key stakeholders on our proposals. We will give further information shortly about the whole major local scheme that we envisage working in the future. We hope that there will be a bigger say for the local and regional stakeholders in the decisions.

If the proposal to introduce half-hourly services on the line were awarded funding under this budget, I am advised that a scheme could conceivably be implemented by December 2016, which might tie in well with the north-west electrification programme and the Ordsall Chord, which we expect to have been completed by that date. Consistent with the approach taken by the previous Government, if additional off-peak services require an ongoing subsidy, that would need to be funded by the local authorities for at least the first three years of operation. It is not clear whether in the long term these services would require additional subsidy, but many such local services tend to require subsidy, certainly in the early years. If the additional services continued to demonstrate a good business case after a three-year period of local subsidy, the Government would consider funding them if funds are available. The local authorities will need to look at that to identify the funding to subsidise for three years any enhanced service that they seek to take forward.

As a further relevant matter, I should mention that we plan soon to issue a consultation document on the decentralisation of decision making in relation to our railways generally. This could provide an opportunity for local authorities and PTEs to have a greater say in policy and decisions on local rail services, such as the Clitheroe-Blackburn-Manchester service. Decisions on this obviously await the consultation and its outcome, but services such as the ones that we have been discussing might be appropriate for devolution to a local body, playing a bigger role in relation to important aspects of the rail service and how the subsidy of those services is allocated within a particular area. But even without further devolution, a process is in place that could enable local authorities to take a scheme forward to enhance the Clitheroe to Manchester service. It does mean that they may have to make choices about whether the scheme is a higher priority than other transport choices in their area, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that we will continue to provide help and advice to the local authorities as they work with the rail industry further to develop the scheme and identify the funding needed if it is to go forward.

I want to put this debate in the context of the Government’s wider improvements to rail in the north-west. In 2010, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, we confirmed the electrification of the so-called north-west triangle of routes, namely Manchester to Liverpool, Liverpool to Wigan North Western and Manchester to Preston via Bolton. This programme of electrification will result in faster journey times on these routes. The first stage, between Manchester and Earlestown, is due to be completed by December 2013, and the whole scheme should be finished by December 2016.

In March 2011, the Chancellor announced the go-ahead for a major element of the northern hub package—the construction of the Ordsall Chord. This important stretch of new line will enable trains from Manchester airport to Leeds and the north-east to serve Manchester Victoria alongside trains from Liverpool, which will be diverted from their present route to operate via the more direct Chat Moss route. This will substantially reduce journey times between Manchester and Leeds and release capacity at Piccadilly station for additional services from the south and east of the city. All those measures should help to open up job opportunities in the way that my hon. Friend referred to and enable more people to take advantage of the economic vitality of Manchester.

In his autumn statement the Chancellor announced that the route between Manchester, Leeds and York would be electrified. This announcement, coupled with the Ordsall Chord and a programme of other line speed improvements already funded, will cut journey times between Liverpool and Newcastle by up to 45 minutes. We believe that those improvements will deliver significant benefits across the north of England, particularly in the north-west, revitalising the Manchester economy to the benefit of the surrounding areas, including, of course, east Lancashire.

As well as cutting journey times and reducing costs, the improvements that we have announced and our programme of electrification will release diesel trains for use elsewhere on the network, making expansion of services on other lines easier to deliver. We will be considering further improvements to our railways in the north of England and other elements of the northern hub package in the high level output specification, which we will be publishing in the summer, on improvements that can be funded by the Government between 2014 and 2019. In the meantime, Network Rail is undertaking further development work on each element of the package to establish with greater clarity how much they would cost and to gauge the strength of the business case.

Our priority is to reduce the budget deficit, but we fully recognise the need to invest in improving our transport network, because of the regeneration and job opportunities that it can deliver. We are also pressing forward with a programme of reform on our railways so that we can reduce the cost of running them to give better value for money for taxpayers and fare payers, and also make it more realistic and viable to deliver the kind of improvements to services that hon. Members have called for tonight.

Question put and agreed to.