Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but the responsibility for the decision lies with the Government. The Select Committee is a scrutiny committee, and we have decided that it is important to hold an inquiry now; that is why we are launching it today. We intend to report in the first part of 2013.

We will take a wide-ranging look at Government policy on aviation, including their current draft strategy, airport capacity and the issue of hub status. Although much of the current public discussion has focused on the issues of hub capacity and the south-east, the role of airports outside the south-east and their economic impacts, both nationally and in the region in which they are situated, are also important issues.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is generous with her time. Speaking as an MP who represents a Medway seat—one that will be directly affected by any proposals for a Thames estuary airport—I ask the hon. Lady to confirm that she will be willing to take oral evidence from members of the public who will be directly affected by any of the proposals?

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee is calling for the submission of evidence and it will then decide who it sees as appropriate to invite to give oral evidence. We are asking for the most diverse possible evidence to be given, and we will consider it all very carefully.

It is important for Parliament to be involved in the aviation debate and to be able to assess the evidence on these key issues in the public interest. The Select Committee’s work should enable that to happen.

Rail Fares

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend and to discussing that issue with him.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I am sure that I shall like my right hon. Friend better in his new role than in his last.

The shadow Secretary of State was kind enough to quote accurately comments that I made to my local newspaper reflecting my constituents’ concern about rail fare increases. I said that I would continue to make representations on the matter. Rather than succumbing to the political opportunism displayed by the Opposition, who imposed RPI plus 3% uniquely on Southeastern commuters, will my right hon. Friend meet me, and fellow Kent Members, to engage in a substantive conversation about rail fares and services for our constituents?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the colleagues whom she wishes to bring to see me. As I have said, a huge number of people rely on commuting, particularly in areas such as Kent, and that is very expensive for them. I shall be more than happy to arrange a meeting in the not-too-distant future.

Aviation

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I congratulate her on her work in campaigning for economic development in her area. The fundamental point is that although jobs might be created—I do not deny that there would be a lot of jobs; perhaps 200,000, as some estimates suggest—they would come 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and would be almost entirely taken by a vast migration of people who would be forced to uproot themselves, perhaps from around Heathrow, and move to a new area. In terms of Government engineering, I cannot see the case for that in a free society.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Has he seen the report issued by the South East local enterprise partnership, which states that if we allowed our existing airports to expand, we could increase the number of jobs by about 100,000? That would generate in excess of £4 billion per annum.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I have seen that report, and I have a copy with me. Indeed, I encouraged Medway council, and through it the local enterprise partnership, to commission that excellent study. My hon. Friend and neighbour is right, and I will draw significantly on the analysis in that paper during my speech.

As well as the environmental issues, there is a knock-down argument against the Thames estuary airport: it is vastly more expensive to build a new airport than to expand existing provision. Recently, some of those issues have been revisited with Boris’s pie-in-the-sky proposals, whether for Boris island, for a Foster monstrosity over the Isle of Grain, or even to look again at the Cliffe option that was so unambiguously rejected. Some newer issues have come to the fore. For instance, there is the London Array wind farm, and billions of pounds of investment have been put into a major liquefied natural gas terminal. There is the Richard Montgomery, a sunken vessel laden with high explosives, which this Government—unlike the previous one—tell us about, and provide reports on, to clarify the risk. Furthermore, issues of air traffic control have become even more significant than they were 10 years ago, partly because of the expansion of Schiphol airport over that period.

I note from the Parsons Brinckerhoff report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) that Richard Deakin, the chief executive of the National Air Traffic Services, said that the proposed site for the new airport was

“directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports.”

Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said:

“The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here…We’re a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat with the air traffic controllers.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

Yes.

[Tracey Crouch]

There is an argument about competitiveness, and that argument is for today. Our colleagues are arguing that businesses in their constituencies require the opportunities now. Therefore we should be making the most of our existing airports, rather than waiting two decades for a new airport to be built to maximise opportunities.

[Mark Reckless]

I agree. There is huge scope for what my hon. Friend describes. It would hugely benefit not just the Medway towns and the south-east region, but the country as a whole.

I want to talk about one other area where the lobbyists have a certain position. I received a document yesterday from the Mayor of London, who tells me that he is delighted that I am having this debate. He says:

“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week).”

The reason is that we have a bilateral treaty with Brazil, with a current limit of 35 passenger services a week between the two countries. Again, that is vastly to the benefit of BA, which routes flights to Latin America, including Brazil in particular, through the joint hub that it now has in Madrid, through Iberia following the merger. We do not get pressure from BA to change that, because it hugely benefits its profits, but BA’s market capitalisation is in the low billions. The idea that our whole airline policy and the network of treaties negotiated by the previous Government should restrict those flights and prevent Brazilian or Chinese airlines from flying into our large cities is a huge mistake.

Rail Services (West Kent)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate on west Kent rail services.

I note the array of Kent MPs who have come to express their concerns today, namely my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for North Thanet (Mr Gale), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon).

I cannot think of a set of MPs more assiduous on rail matters than those gathered in the Chamber today. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling scrutinises the performance of train operators and Network Rail in his constituency with the greatest diligence, and he holds the Government to account when their decisions impact on passengers. He has expressed serious concerns today.

Before turning to the details that my right hon. Friend has raised, I emphasise the commitment of the coalition to investment in rail as a vitally important part of our transport system and the importance that we devote to improving services for passengers, addressing reliability problems such as those that my right hon. Friend has highlighted.

In the past, the axe has tended to fall first and hardest on infrastructure projects, including rail, following a spending spree. The Government have sought to break away from that, because we know the enormous importance of the rail network to our economy and, of course, to thousands of commuters throughout the country. Over the next four years, we will invest £18 billion in rail capital projects, on top of the money spent day to day on funding rail operations on the network, on infrastructure and on the subsidy for passenger train services. The Southeastern franchise is in receipt of the highest level of subsidy of any train operator in London and the south-east.

We are focused on dealing with capacity issues on services in Kent, Sussex and Surrey. We have secured the funding for Thameslink to be delivered in its entirety, albeit over a slightly longer time frame than originally intended. That major investment programme will virtually double the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times, delivering up to 1,200 new carriages and providing commuters in Kent, Sussex and Surrey with a wide range of new journey opportunities to central London and beyond.

On the timetable issues highlighted by my right hon. Friend, December 2009 saw a radical overhaul of services throughout the county of Kent, delivering approximately 200 additional services per day as well as the introduction of the UK’s first domestic high-speed services. Unfortunately, with change on that scale, the concerns of people on different parts of the line will always mean conflicting interests and trade-offs. However, it is important that such timetable changes are properly consulted on. My right hon. Friend would like me to guarantee that there will be no changes in future to current timetabling arrangements. It would not be wise for me to give that assurance, although I can give an assurance about the importance that the Government place on ensuring that train operators consult the communities affected properly when making major timetabling decisions.

I am very much aware of the constituents of my right hon. Friend who are unhappy about the impact of the December ’09 timetable on the services at their station. As we heard from my right hon. Friend, I met him and others who are in the Chamber today at a meeting to discuss the issues, and they urged me to reassess the decision taken by the previous Government to remove direct services from Maidstone East to Cannon Street. I agreed to review the business case for the service and to look again at Labour’s decision not to introduce the service.

Following initial evaluation of the business case, I asked my officials to work with Southeastern to assess a range of options that could improve services to stations in the Maidstone area. That work is ongoing, and I am not as yet in a position to share any conclusions with my right hon. Friend or the Chamber, but I hope to write to him about the conclusions by the end of February. We are still assessing the different options. However, I emphasise that, given the current state of the public finances, changes will only be possible if they do not require funding from the Government in addition to the substantial sums already subsidising the Southeastern franchise and the infrastructure supporting it.

My right hon. Friend raised the Uckfield line issues resulting from Transport for London’s decision to strengthen services on the East London line. Again, that is a controversial matter. Local authorities are involved in deciding how rail services will be configured through a system of increments and decrements, which was what operated in that case. However, I emphasise that decisions on such changes must always take into account the interests of all the communities affected.

I can give an assurance to my right hon. Friend that the Government, in the decisions they take on the configuration of rail services, very much take on board the interests of those who live in London and those who live outside. In response to his concerns about whether his constituents are getting proper consideration in such decisions in comparison with people who live inside London, it is important to treat both groups fairly.

Looking ahead, the completion of Thameslink work at London Bridge in 2018 will trigger another extensive recast of train services throughout much of the county of Kent. Network Rail is developing options for the shape of those services from 2018, but decisions will not be made for some years yet. However, my right hon. Friend’s input into those decisions will be very welcome.

A number of my hon. Friends have expressed concern about disruption to rail services in Kent as a result of the severe weather in November and December. Throughout the crisis, officials were in constant touch with the rail industry, and the Secretary of State and I were also in contact with senior management at Network Rail and at the various train operators. Some disruption is inevitable in extreme weather conditions, but we need to ensure that transport operators work as hard as possible to deliver the services that are feasible in such circumstances.

On reliability as opposed to cancellations and the perverse incentives that my right hon. Friend is concerned about, I have urged the rail industry to consider how it assesses punctuality to ensure that it works on overall reliability as well as seeking to minimise cancellations and instances of significant lateness.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

Unfortunately, I have only a few minutes left.

The Secretary of State also asked David Quarmby to audit the performance of rail operators during the severe weather conditions, and his conclusions make it clearer than ever that rail operators and Network Rail must do much better on the provision of information to passengers about the new timetables imposed as a result of severe weather conditions. We are looking to the rail industry to respond to and learn lessons from what happened, and to do much better on providing accurate information to passengers about the impact of disruption.

We are also urging Network Rail to address the fragility seemingly revealed in the infrastructure on the part of the rail network served by Southeastern. Network Rail is looking to extend its trial on heating the conductor rail at key locations. It is also working to test the use of de-icing equipment on passenger trains.

Last week, I met senior representatives of the rail industry to assess overall performance after the severe weather. I singled out Kent and emphasised to Network Rail that improving the performance of the rail infrastructure used by the Southeastern franchise is vital. The rail industry’s national task force will, as a result, be reviewing operational performance of Southeastern and Network Rail in Kent. I emphasise that the review will not be limited to the adverse weather episode and will cover general performance levels. I expect senior figures from the operator and from Network Rail to discuss the work of the national task force with me.

The compensation and penalty arrangements that my right hon. Friend asked about are set out in the franchise. We take every step to ensure that train operators, whether Southeastern or anyone else, comply with their obligations. The passenger charter and compensation arrangements have to be regularly audited by an independent body. The penalties regime is also kept under review. I have no reason to believe that the figures produced by Southeastern have been inaccurate, and the franchise requires independent auditing.

Severe Winter Weather

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to record my thanks, and the thanks of the Government, to the hundreds of workers who have been out, often in temperatures of minus 10°C or minus 11° C, clearing snow and de-icing through the night, as well as caring for passengers stranded in terminals. They have done a fantastic job, and I am afraid they will have to go on doing that fantastic job for the next few days.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to focus on information. Nobody likes to have their travel plans disrupted, but one of the interesting features of human psychology is that somehow, things are never quite as bad if people know what is going on. As he will know, we have committed to introducing an airport economic regulation Bill during this Parliament. One thing that we are committed to doing in that Bill is ensuring that airport operators’ financial incentives are clearly aligned with the needs and interests of passengers. I will ensure that supplying information is part of that matrix, so that the operators will do it because it is in their financial interests. That certainly seems to be a motivating factor.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that a delegation of Kent MPs recently met the management of Southeastern Trains to discuss the chaos and deep passenger dissatisfaction caused by the bad weather a few weeks ago. The latest conditions have yet again led to much disruption to services for Southeastern passengers. When the franchise is considered for extension in 2012 will he consider, among the other necessary factors, Southeastern’s poor service delivery during adverse weather?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course we examine the performance of train operators, and it is absolutely right that Southeastern’s performance was very poor during the bout of cold weather at the end of November. However, in the current weather conditions, the information that I have on Southeastern’s performance over the past 72 hours is far less clear-cut. The disruption has been no more than is to be expected in the extreme weather, and as I understand it, commuter services into London on Southeastern by and large operated normally this morning.

Dartford Crossing (Congestion)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful for that intervention. In principle, I accept that there should be a further crossing over the Thames. The big issue is, of course, where that crossing should be. It is a classic case of nimbyism. I do not think anyone here would hold their hand up and ask for a further crossing to be placed in their constituency. Doing so would add further congestion and difficulties to the particular areas that we represent. Finding a location for an extra crossing over the Thames area is problematic and will be the biggest challenge of all in trying to ensure that we have greater capacity for vehicles to get across the Thames.

We have recently had an announcement that the price of the tolls should be increased. I cannot accept that extra levy on the motorist, who is feeling fairly beleaguered in this particular part of the country. At the general election, I said that unlike my predecessor I would never vote to keep the tolls on the Dartford crossing and that I would only vote to scrap them. I meant that. The Transport Act 2000 was supported by Labour MPs and opposed by Conservative MPs. That piece of legislation allowed the tolls to continue and, ironically, changed them from a toll to a form of congestion charge. I say “ironically” because the tolls actually cause the congestion on the crossing. In this case, the congestion charge itself is responsible for causing the congestion.

I welcome the Department for Transport’s confirmation that the previous Government’s announcement of the privatisation of the crossing will not take place. We have overturned the previous Labour Government’s policy of selling off the Dartford crossing. If the Labour party had won the last general election, the crossing would have been sold to a private company and we would have lost control over the levying of charges on the motorist. Perhaps that is why there are not too many Labour MPs in this Chamber championing this cause. The local resident discount scheme has financially helped some local residents who are frequent users of the crossing, but the initial outlay for the DART-Tag has put off local residents who use the crossing only occasionally.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows that I share his long-term desire for the removal of tolls on the Dartford crossing. However, he will also be aware of the enormous sense of unfairness felt by many people in north Kent, who do not qualify for the resident discount scheme. Does he not agree that if the tolls are to stay in the foreseeable future, the local discount scheme should be extended to neighbouring authorities, such as Medway?

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend has championed that cause for the residents of Chatham and Aylesford for a considerable time, and I pay tribute to the work that she put into the issue. I am pleased that she shares my view that, ultimately, the solution to the problem is the removal of the tolls.

I hope that there is some scope to expand the local persons discount scheme. I am pleased to note that, although the scheme has some limitations, it is likely to apply to the proposed increases in the tolls. The introduction of the scheme coincided with an increase in the toll from £1 to £1.50, which left many more motorists needing change. The highways authority has informed me that it has had to remove some of the automated toll booths to allow for that, which of course has increased the length of the queues and led to the dreadful congestion we see today. It is no advantage to a local person who receives a discount if they have to wait in a queue for three hours to get it.

Removing the booths and replacing them with modern technology to levy a charge on motorists would remove the two worst aspects of the crossing, the congestion and the pollution, but it would not remove the costs. Local businesses have told me that the congestion is the worst problem for them. They can budget for the cost of using the crossing, but they cannot budget for the unpredictable nature of the congestion.