Vauxhall Bus Station

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the anger that is felt by my constituents, and by many other people in a much wider area, about the plans of Transport for London and Lambeth Council to demolish Vauxhall bus station. It is also an opportunity for me to express publicly our concern about the series of misleading statements about the matter that are currently on the TfL website, and, indeed, to raise widely the view of, I believe, thousands of people that TfL consultations are clever exercises which do not give the public an opportunity to answer the real question, but are designed to give the answer that is wanted by TfL.

In London, 2014 was celebrated as a year of the bus, but now, in 2016, there seems to have been a cultural change in both City Hall and TfL from championing bus passengers to scrapping bus lanes. We are seeing more and more buses being forced into general traffic lanes, slower journey times, frequencies being cut, and, now, the incredible decision to demolish Vauxhall bus station.

Just 15 years ago, Arup Associates won a public competition to build a new bus station within the gyratory. The commissioning statement from TfL said that the purpose was

“to create a coherent and efficient interchange for bus, rail and Underground users…to promote the use of public transport”

and to be

“a landmark structure to enhance the local environment and amenity.”

Less than 12 years ago, the bus station was completed at a cost of £4.5 million, and was opened by Ken Livingstone. It was immediately hailed by architects and public transport users as inspired. Jonathan Glancey, The Guardian’s architectural correspondent, said that it was “a trumpet blast”, but that what made it

“so special is the fact that it is localised… the Vauxhall bus station does show what can be done as public transport in London is taken increasingly seriously… it points to a new ambition, however crudely expressed by politicians, to make London’s public transport system among the finest in the world.”

That was 12 years ago.

By the way, the ski-slope roof is not just a gesture. It is studded with photovoltaic cells which, angled towards the sun, help to generate electricity for the station’s lighting.

At the time, those who had used the previous dreadful facilities expressed their delight. Peter Hendy, then in charge of TfL, said then that

“The Vauxhall Cross interchange has been an ambitious project for TfL. For passengers at Vauxhall Cross, changing between bus, rail and Tube had been difficult for a long time.”

The view was that following the changes the interchange would

“provide easier access to, and transfer between, bus, Tube and rail services”.

I want to mention some key facts. Vauxhall is the second busiest interchange in London, after Victoria.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I have a home just the other side of Vauxhall bus station from Westminster. Twelve years ago, when it was being built, there was a big hole in the road, and people who lived at the other end of Wandsworth road were unable to escape south London. If TfL is to knock the bus station down, I fear that again people across south-west and southern London will be cut off from the centre of London for months.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That is another important reason why the whole scheme is so ridiculous.

Vauxhall is the second busiest interchange in London, after Victoria. It is used by 2,000 buses per day. Nearly one in four of London’s buses use the station. It serves 14 bus routes, 11 of which are daytime routes. Three routes offer a 24-hour service. The three night routes are used frequently by many of the LGBT community who visit the clubs in that area. Every day, 712 Victoria line tube trains and 739 mainline trains go through Vauxhall. It really is a hub. Forty-five thousand commuters go through it each day. The largest group by far are bus users, who include the most vulnerable—the old, disabled people, parents with young children—all of whom make disproportionate use of buses because of the ease of access and frequent stops. Many change from bus to bus at Vauxhall. Others change from the tube or the train. Getting the bus interchange right is crucial to keeping traffic moving across a wide area of central and south London.

So where does the proposal to demolish the bus station come from? It did not originate from TfL. It was first made public in Lambeth Council’s draft supplementary planning document way back in 2012. That talked about looking at replacing the bus station with

“a series of relocated bus stops.”

In November 2013, in the local plan, the council stated that it wanted to work

“towards the removal of the gyratory. At the outset this will involve remodelling the bus station so that the canopy is removed and bus stops and stands are relocated to allow for the introduction of the high street”.

That intention was repeated in presentations time after time. In 2014, there were initial consultations. Now, finally, TfL is consulting on a scheme that looks at getting rid of the gyratory. However, it claims that to do that the bus station must be removed. Artists’ impressions, but no detailed designs, of the plans for the bus station show a series of bus stops around two or more high-density, multi-storey commercial developments.

Interestingly, the Secretary of State’s inspector, reporting on the Lambeth local plan submission in 2015, concluded that it should be reworded so that it stated that removal of the gyratory “may” be necessary, not “will” be necessary. Although we understand that Lambeth has accepted the inspector’s changes, that has not been published on the website. Lambeth is obviously trying to disregard that change of emphasis.

A majority of people, including local residents, agree that replacing the one-way roads—the gyratory—at Vauxhall is desirable. But that does not mean they want the bus station to go. They have never been asked whether they want it to go. A local community group, Our Vauxhall, which includes local architects and traffic engineers as well as residents, has produced an ambitious plan for the area which goes much further than the one put forward by Lambeth and TfL. Its plan has been enthusiastically backed by local residents, including at well-attended public meetings that heard repeated demands to keep the bus station.

TfL obviously wants to rubbish Our Vauxhall’s plan. TfL put all sorts of wrong things on the website about it. It has tried to pretend that it has modelled the scheme. We know it has not. It has stated that it would not work, without giving any reasons. It has just done what it assumes it can get away with—that is, say what it wants to say and people will have to go along with it.

On 19 December, TfL published a statement about the scheme claiming to have done a comprehensive review. That contained some blatantly false and misleading statements that are now subject to a formal complaint. We have raised the matter with the Transport Commissioner and Leon Daniels. I am confident that in a straight competition Our Vauxhall’s plans would outperform TfL’s on a range of measures, including overall road safety and total distance travelled. They would also be much cheaper and quicker to implement and would avoid some of the issues that my right hon. Friend raised.

So what does TfL or Lambeth get out of abolishing the bus station? The proposal seems to be linked to the huge developments at Nine Elms and plans for the Northern line extension to Battersea and Nine Elms. Lambeth used the opportunity of the Northern line extension to negotiate a deal with TfL which culminated in an agreement about Vauxhall’s redevelopment in November 2013. Lots of discussions have been going on about that.

TfL is a landowner in the area. The consultation does not include any new commercial development over and above what is needed to support the transport interchange. If any further development is proposed in the future, it would be subject to planning permission. That is what TfL says. Londoners, including local residents, are being asked to accept a pig in a poke—“Agree to the plans to demolish the bus station and then we’ll show you what our plans involve.” TfL wants to get rid of this fine facility just to free up the land for some unspecified private development.

What do bus passengers get out of Transport for London’s plan? What is being proposed is not a new bus station. That is perhaps the most shocking part of the whole exercise. There will be bus stops on pavements in four separate locations. Half the buses will stop at the side of heavily used main roads—Wandsworth Road and Kennington Lane. There is to be a huge high-rise development between some of those stops and the others near Bondway. Changing buses will be less straightforward, especially for those with mobility problems. There will be less space to wait in. Passengers will be waiting on crowded roadside pavements which will be less safe, more polluted and with less shelter, even in the planned new central area. The present canopy is very good because it extends over the roadside as well as the waiting area, so passengers do not get wet as they get on to the bus.

There is a feeling of safety in that station. Yes, we could make it greener and make other improvements, but it certainly does not need to be knocked down. The most important aspect is that Lambeth and TfL have not played fair in their consultation. At no stage has the option of retaining the bus station in its current form been put to residents or anyone else. Indeed, in January 2014 a motion to include an option to retain the status quo was explicitly rejected in an amendment moved by the leader of the council.

The community’s solution for Vauxhall shows that it is possible to retain the existing bus station structure by modifying certain entrances and exits and to get rid of the gyratory system. If the current plans for Vauxhall go ahead, the Minister must know that the second busiest bus station in London will be turned into a building site for several years, with a reduction in bus services and unacceptable disruption for all passengers. The consultation period on the plans began in December and is due to end on 17 January. We have repeatedly asked for that to be extended because it covered the Christmas holiday period and was deliberately set up to confuse people. Arranging meetings was very difficult. There is some sharp practice here, I believe.

On the maps that have been produced, interestingly, all the symbols denoting the bus stops have been placed as far apart as possible on the maps of the existing area, and as close together as possible on the proposed plan. The maps do not show accurately what will be there and how bad it will be. TfL has sent out emails to those on its Oyster card database, but that database does not include freedom pass holders, pensioners and the elderly, who we know are heavy users of the station.

At the recent public meeting people were very angry with TfL because they felt they were being—I know that I cannot use the expression “lied to”, but whatever the equivalent parliamentary term is, they felt that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to accuse people outside the House of lying. She cannot accuse someone in the House of lying. So she was in order, even if she did not know she was.

[Kate Hoey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to say that and I will do so because people felt that very strongly.

TfL said that it was trying to get the consultation on the plans “out of the way” by March—that means before the mayoral elections, as public bodies will enter a period of purdah in March. It has refused to extend the deadline and there has been no wider consultation in the area of Waterloo, Westminster or Southwark. Today the first meeting was held in Wandsworth in the Clapham library near Clapham Junction, and I understand that one person turned up in the first half hour.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the current bus station is a splendid example of what is rarely achieved in urban planning—an integrated transport system where the buses are above the trains? It is also a fine iconic building.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right. How can everybody’s attitude to it have changed so much in a short space of time, especially now it has been used?

I could quote all sorts of users who say how good it is, how much better than in the past, and how angry they are. For example, there are the users who go to St Thomas’ hospital. People from right across south London attending appointments there tend to use it, because south London does not have the network of tubes that other parts of London have. At present they can do that straightforwardly, all on one level and under cover. We should try to imagine what it must be like having to cross roads and pass through a multi-storey block to change buses, with a sick child in a buggy or while on crutches. All these things have genuinely not been looked at. I believe that TfL is letting down bus users, including by reducing the area available.

The bus station is on the border of Wandsworth, Westminster and Lambeth. A lot of children change buses there in the morning to go to school, and their situation has not been looked at. No one has been properly consulted. From our experience so far with the plans and the way the gyratory has been looked at, we genuinely do not think that TfL can be trusted to do the best, because it is not doing this for the right reasons.

I ask the Minister to intervene right away with his colleagues in City Hall, the current Mayor of London and TfL to halt what I call a sham consultation. It is something that will affect transport users across London, and indeed outside London, which is why it is not just a local London issue. This should not be railroaded through.

It is going to fall to the next Mayor to implement whatever is decided, and I think the next Mayor and the mayoral candidates should have a part to play in reviewing what TfL is planning. We want them to be involved in this even leading up to the mayoral elections.

The consultation should be started properly, and it should start with one simple question: “Do you want to retain the bus station?” That has never been asked. No one has had a chance to answer that. This has all been smoke and mirrors.

The bus station should not be demolished, even if this is gone ahead with, before there are the new owners of the island site, which has been put up for sale again, and before TfL has published its plans of what it wants to do with it. This is irresponsible; this uncertainty should not be allowed.

There is absolutely no certainty, and no reason has been given as to why the bus station has to be demolished, other than we know somewhere there is money involved and there is obviously interest in land and development and future plans. Well, the people of Vauxhall and the general area, including Wandsworth, are sick, sore and tired of developers coming in and making huge developments which end up doing very little for people who cannot afford those properties and are on a long waiting list. It would be an irresponsible waste of public money to knock down something that works.

Will the Minister get the Minister for London—who obviously is not in his place so he cannot respond tonight—to come and visit in the next two weeks, before 17 January? I want him to get the period extended, and then to visit and meet the people who have done so much work on a voluntary basis to get this campaign out there in the country.

This is being pushed through by smoke and mirrors. All the people who use the station—from outside London and all over London—will be horrified when they discover what is being suggested. I am suggesting the Minister should get involved now—should come along and talk to people and learn what an irresponsible waste of public money this would be. The bus station is entirely functional, and appreciated by its users from all over London, and especially by the residents of Vauxhall who remember the time before it was built.

I want to end by saying that I wrote to Leon Daniels, managing director of Surface Transport, in November—I have been involved with him many times over different things—and said:

“When is someone like you going to stand up for bus users?”

He wrote back:

“I am! I have called a halt to new schemes which materially disadvantage bus passengers. Poorer reliability and slower journey times are affecting bus passengers negatively as is worsened interchange when stops are moved to less convenient places. I am now sending back such proposals with a clear message that permanent material worsening is not acceptable.”

That was what Leon Daniels said on 6 November 2015, yet TfL has not stopped the consultation and sent it back. Mike Brown, the new head of TfL, should take a lesson from the now much missed Peter Hendy, who was involved when the bus station was built and said things that were proved right about how important it was.

Thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue, Mr Speaker. I hope that the Minister will take it seriously, because it is not just a little local issue. It concerns Londoners, and it will concern more than just Londoners when it gets out into the public domain. We need proper, genuine consultation. We can have changes and get rid of the gyratory, but we have to keep the bus station. The Minister must not allow us to go back to the situation before it was built.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this debate about the effect on London and its transport network of the proposed demolition of Vauxhall bus station. It follows a slightly more convivial debate that we had on the same subject last night in a different location in the building.

This debate is particularly timely, because Transport for London’s consultation on its proposals is open for another 10 days or so. If anyone has been misled during the process, I am sure the hon. Lady has clarified matters. I will ensure that a transcript of her comments and of the whole debate is sent to those she mentioned.

Transport is London’s lifeblood, and London’s transport is critical to the rest of the UK. We know that London contributes about 20% of the UK’s GDP, and that its population is set to grow to 9 million by 2020 and 10 million by 2030. We all understand the need for continued investment in transport infrastructure to allow London and the rest of the UK to continue to prosper. I do not need to tell hon. Members that transport in London is much improved from just a few years ago. We have better bus services, Boris bikes and transformational tube modernisation.

I turn now to London buses in particular. There are at least 6.5 million journeys a day on the London bus network, compared with 4 million on the tube. That amounts to 2.4 billion journeys a year on the London bus network, which is more than half of all bus journeys made in England. I am proud that some of the buses are manufactured in Scarborough in my constituency, and some Members in the Chamber will know that a number are manufactured in Ulster. I will not comment on which might be the better buses.

Vauxhall bus station is owned and maintained by Transport for London and is, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the second busiest in London after Victoria. As she will be aware, in 2013 her comrades on Lambeth Council and TfL announced plans to demolish the bus station to build a new high street as part of Vauxhall’s regeneration plans. Those plans include redesigning the transport interchange, including a new central bus station. TfL’s plans also include providing more cycle and pedestrian crossings, providing segregated lanes and parking for cyclists, and improving existing public spaces and providing new ones. As a cyclist myself, when I was down there last week I had a look at how difficult the area currently is for cyclists, despite the fact that we have a new cycle superhighway into the area.

TfL ran an initial consultation on its proposals in 2014 and is currently running a further public consultation on detailed design proposals. It received more than 2,000 responses to the initial consultation, with the majority supporting the proposals.

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Goodwill]

By all means. I thought the hon. Lady might want to intervene.

[Kate Hoey]

The Minister must understand that in that consultation no one was asked whether they wanted to see the bus station removed.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am aware that that is the hon. Lady’s view. I have not looked at the consultation in detail, but I hope that her making these points will help her constituents respond in the time available. I encourage them to take part in TfL’s consultation and express their views before it closes on 17 January. I understand that TfL has hosted several drop-in sessions to discuss the consultation with local parties in detail—there is one tomorrow night. I encourage her constituents to attend those sessions.

The proposed changes to the bus station are an integral part of TfL’s wider plans to transform the wider Vauxhall Cross area. In turn, that is part of TfL’s £4 billion road modernisation programme, which is the biggest investment in London’s roads for a generation and which, among other things, aims to make London more cycle-friendly. The road modernisation programme consists of hundreds of projects to transform junctions, bridges, tunnels and pedestrian areas. The Government’s financial support to TfL has helped to enable it to deliver that programme, the tube modernisation programme and all other investment in London’s transport infrastructure.

For many years, Vauxhall Cross has been heavily dominated by motor vehicles. The gyratory system can be difficult to navigate and the area is very unwelcoming to pedestrians. The existing pedestrian crossings do not always follow the most direct or popular routes, which can lead, as I have observed, to pedestrians crossing roads away from crossings. That leads to a large number of collisions involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists in London.

The overall aim of the proposals is to create a thriving, more pleasant and safer public space, with better facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users alike. I should like to assure the hon. Lady that improving the area for bus users is a top priority for the Mayor and for Vauxhall’s town regeneration scheme. Redesigning the transport interchange will bring benefits for not only bus users but cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles.

A new bus station will benefit bus users in a number of ways. It would be fully integrated with the new pedestrianised square and two-way road system, and would have facilities including public toilets, seating, information displays and maps, and an information kiosk. All that would mean a safer and easier interchange at the centre of Vauxhall.

TfL will ensure that bus passengers are inconvenienced as little as possible. Temporary bus stop locations will be incorporated in the construction phasing plan and consideration will be given to the ease of interchange for users, minimising alterations. The stop locations and any changes to routes will be fully communicated to all bus passengers with clear signage on site.

The hon. Lady mentioned her concern that TfL’s proposals, particularly the removal of the distinctive ski-jump canopy, will mean that bus passengers have less shelter from the weather than they do today. I understand from TfL that its proposals include a new canopy in the main bus station, with a contemporary look and feel to it, that will provide shelter from the rain.

[Kate Hoey]

I know the Minister has the TfL briefing, but if he knew as much about TfL as we do, he would not believe it. The briefing is wrong. The proposed canopy will not go over everywhere—it will be like little bus stop covers that he can find at any bus stop. The proposal is not for a bus station or interchange, but for a hotch-potch of bus stops put together.

[Mr Goodwill]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. There will also be canopies providing shelter between the different parts of the new bus station. I should like to assure her that the canopies have been designed to provide a better level of weather protection than the current canopy. As the current canopy is so high, when it is a windy day, the rain can blow under it. I have observed that when I have been in the area.

The design of the bus station may be iconic, but it is certainly not universally popular. I understand that it won a certificate of merit in the structural steel design awards in 2006 in recognition of its high standards of structural and architectural design, with the judges noting that

“the bus station elegantly gathers together all the elements of public transport within an overall umbrella surface which weaves its way overhead”.

In my view, however—a view that I think will be shared by the Prince of Wales—winning an architectural design award is not always a guarantee of long-term popularity for a structure. Although I would not go so far as to describe the current bus station as a “monstrous carbuncle”, I am prepared to say that I am not the biggest fan of the current design, but that is personal taste. Having seen artists’ impressions of the proposed bus station, I would argue that it is much more pleasing to the eye than the current one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Indeed, if one hears the word “carbuncle”, there can be only one name that comes to mind.

It might be helpful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall if I explain what TfL plans to do following the consultation. TfL has told me that it will publish a report on the results and analysis of responses in spring 2016. It plans to start construction in 2018, and it is also its firm intention that a bus station will remain in some form throughout the entire construction period.

The spending review settlement shows that we recognise that London is a city on the move. The capital’s economy is moving emphatically in the right direction, and our support is helping to transform London’s transport network. I am proud to be part of that transformation, together with all our partners, including TfL, although I understand that the hon. Lady is not its biggest fan. The investment we are making for the next five years will not just keep London mobile but equip the city for the challenges of the future, to compete and win in the 21st century global economy.

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Minister come and visit, with the Minister responsible for London, to meet the people who understand the issue much more than some of the experts at TfL?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will certainly extend the hon. Lady’s invitation to my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who covers this area in the Department. I am sure that he will consider it carefully.

TfL’s plans for Vauxhall bus station are an important part of its wider road modernisation programme and I strongly encourage all interested parties to let TfL have their views on the proposals before the consultation closes on 17 January.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport for London Funding

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Transport for London funding.

I wish to express concerns about the impact of the cuts to Transport for London’s funding that were announced in the spending review. I am especially concerned that a future Mayor, or even the sitting Mayor, might want to raise fares, which will hit my constituents particularly hard. I also want to suggest possible solutions to help plug the holes in TfL’s books.

Let me give the context to the Chancellor’s decision. Transport for London runs the public transport services and manages the major road network in the most important city in Britain. London is the gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom. TfL’s work is critical to Londoners’ ability to work and play, and to get to school and hospital; to business’s ability to get its workforce to work and its goods and services to and from customs; and to London’s many visitors’ ability to arrive, leave and travel to other parts of the UK.

London’s population is growing and is projected to rise from some 8.6 million today to about 10 million by 2030 and 11 million by 2050. London is seeing the fastest urban growth of any city in the European Union. Only a relatively small proportion of my fellow Londoners enjoy the luxury of being able to walk or cycle to work. In short, the vast majority of new and existing Londoners will be reliant on public transport.

The pace of the growth in the number of journeys on the tube is rising fast as well, from a growth of 8.7 million in 2010-11 to an expected 11.7 million this year, which is an increase of 26% in only five years. The docklands light railway has seen an even faster rate of growth in usage, up from a growth of some 6.3 million journeys five years ago to an expected 9.6 million this year—an increase of 52%. In only four years, the number of passengers served by TfL has increased by almost 0.5 billion a year; eight out of 10 of the busiest days in tube history were in the past two months alone; and, indeed, the busiest day ever on the tube was 4 December, when almost 5 million passengers travelled on TfL trains.

The need for further investment in London’s tube, rail and bus networks and in its roads is widely recognised. There are already problems safely managing passenger flows. At some locations, peak-time travel is not only uncomfortable, but close to unsafe.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the increased use of all public transport. Does he therefore share my concern that TfL, without any genuine consultation—just its normal, old, rubbishy questionnaires that ask the questions it wants the answers to, rather than the questions that should be asked—is to demolish Vauxhall bus station, the second biggest interchange in London, to get development that will include tower blocks? Does he understand the importance of the bus station to local people and its users, none of whom have been asked anything?

[Mr Thomas]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s much better knowledge of Vauxhall station. If she is concerned, I am sure that her constituents are concerned. She mentions Vauxhall; I was about to say that it expects a 40% increase in the number of passengers in the coming years. I agree that it seems odd for such a crucial interchange station to lose its bus station.

[Kate Hoey]

May I add a tiny point? The importance of Vauxhall bus station is that people are able to transfer from train to tube to bus without getting wet, because of a cover that cost £10 million and was put in only about 11 years ago. It is a travesty for TfL to be thinking of demolition.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend has made her point, and I stand with her on her concerns about Vauxhall station.

Also in south London, Waterloo’s overall passenger numbers have rocketed from 62 million 10 years ago to 100 million now. At some locations, peak-time travel is already close to unsafe, as I have said, and, for example, closure of Oxford Circus tube station due to overcrowding is now routine.

It is not just the rail and tube networks that TfL manages that are under pressure; its own estimates suggest that London’s roads are coming under greater pressure from increasing car usage, at a time when there is pressure to allocate more space to achieve safer cycling and good walking routes. If nothing else changes, by 2031 an increase in congestion of at least 60% is expected in central London; for the rest of inner London, congestion is set to rise by some 25%; and even in outer London, we expect to see a 15% increase in congestion. Traffic speeds are coming down and car journeys are taking longer. Congestion is already bad for ordinary car users, who face the nuisance of longer journeys, and it is bad for business, too.

As an aside, I hope the rumours that the Government are trying to ease air pollution controls are false, because in London the scale of air pollution, much of it diesel-related, is already extremely worrying. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. The continuing need for TfL to invest in greener, less polluting vehicles is widely accepted, but such investment is a not insignificant future cost. However, from 2010-11 to 2014-15, TfL income from the Department for Transport fell by more than a third. In the coming year, Government grants will amount to only a little more than 20% of TfL’s annual budget. The transport systems of major competitor cities in Europe receive a considerably higher percentage of their funding from central Government sources. In Paris, for example, transport gets more than 40% of its funding from a Government transport tax.

Transport for London receives two types of grant from central Government: resource grants and infrastructure grants. The Department for Transport was hit particularly hard in the spending round, so it is perhaps no surprise that TfL has been significantly affected, with a 34% cut in funding overall in 2016-17. In the spending review, the Government said that they would phase out the resource grant to TfL, claiming that that

“will save £700 million…which could be achieved through further efficiency savings…or through generating additional income from…land TfL owns”.

It would be more accurate to say that TfL will, as a result of the Chancellor’s decisions, lose about £3 billion over the business plan period of 2015-16 to 2020-21. Inevitably, the loss of grant funding will have an adverse impact on the quality of service that my constituents can expect. The resource grant is to be axed—crucially, earlier than TfL had been led to believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend is giving us a really good review of what is happening. Does he not think that TfL should go back to doing what it should be doing, rather than putting £30 million into a project to build a garden bridge that the local community does not want? It is shocking that TfL is putting £30 million into that when it could be spent on other, important issues.

[Mr Thomas]

I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism about the garden bridge. Like her, I wonder whether that money might be better spent. A whole series of projects in my constituency could use that £30 million well, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a couple of those.

Airports Capacity

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand the conditions faced by my hon. Friend’s constituents. I mentioned in my statement that noise is one of the considerations we have to get right. The advance of technology means that planes are becoming quieter, but she is absolutely right. She represents a constituency very closely affected by this decision. It has to be taken after looking at all mitigation measures expected to be put in place by any of the three promoters of the scheme.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is a very honourable gentleman, particularly as he is my constituent. I am sure that deep down he is not particularly happy today. In his statement, he talked about the best possible outcome for local residents. Does he accept that my Vauxhall constituents may not be considered as local residents to Heathrow, but that it is crucial that their views are taken into consideration? They live under early morning noise pollution that is absolutely shocking. An extra runway at Heathrow will make it much worse.

[Mr McLoughlin]

One suggestion for alleviation in the commissioner’s report is an end to night flights and the flights to which the hon. Lady refers. These things always have to be taken into account. Although I live in her constituency, I do not exercise my vote there.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

That is a decision for the Government and they have taken it. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have put that question to the Secretary of State.

I want Sir David Higgins and his team to look carefully at how High Speed 2 integrates with our national strategic road network to minimise travel disruption during construction and operations. Network Rail’s future investment plans must be aligned to maximise benefits to the north. We need an integrated transport system for the UK.

As the Bill proceeds through Parliament, Labour will continue to hold the Government to account to keep costs down. Across the country, our constituents face a cost of living crisis. In this time of austerity, it was right for my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor to call the Government to account for their mismanagement of this project. We know that construction costs in the UK are higher than for comparable projects elsewhere in Europe. They must be rigorously controlled.

Let us look at how the project has been managed. The Government inherited a detailed plan for HS2 from the previous Labour Government, but Labour’s brainchild has been sadly neglected. Four years of delays and mismanagement have caused costs to rise. First, the Government split the project into two phases for financial reasons, which has delayed the benefits of the line to the midlands and the north. Secondly, their review of strategic alternatives took 18 months, and costs have continued to rise as time scales have slipped. Thirdly, their initial consultation on property compensation was a lesson in incompetence: the process had to be rerun after a High Court judge ruled that it was

“so unfair as to be unlawful”.

Fourthly, the Government did not launch the consultation on phase 2 of the route until July 2013; yet it was being worked on when we were in power three years previously, so what was the hold-up?

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly says that the Opposition will be looking at the costs. If they keep rising, at what stage would she, on behalf of the Labour party, say, “No, this has gone too high, and is sucking out too much money from the rest of the railway network”?

[Mary Creagh]

We have been very clear that there is not a blank cheque for this project. The Select Committee will obviously look at the parts of the Bill, as it goes through it and hears the petitioning process, but a very clear budget is set out for the project from now until 2020. There will be annual reports on the budget under our amendments to the paving Bill. We look forward to receiving the first report from the Government.

The Transport Secretary has admitted that the legislation will not be passed before the 2015 election, as was apparent to all Members, so his Government have missed their target on that. It is right that there is proper scrutiny and ample opportunity for the Select Committee to examine every complaint and comment thoroughly, but there must be no more Government delays.

I want the Secretary of State or the Minister who replies to the debate to tell us when we can expect the Secretary of State’s response on the phase 2 route to ensure that the north, the north-east, the north-west and Scotland reap the full benefits from HS2 quickly. What impact does the Secretary of State anticipate the construction of the line will have on the Great Western franchising process, which is due in 2016?

On workers memorial day, we remember all workers who have been killed at work, particularly in constructing our transport infrastructure across the decades. In particular, we remember the worker who was recently killed on the Crossrail project, and send our condolences to his family and friends. Our ambition, which I am sure is shared in all parts of the House, is that this railway is free from fatalities and serious injuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

First, I, too, welcome the way in which the Secretary of State has handled the issue by not accusing anybody who is not in favour of the Bill or who has signed the reasoned amendment of being a nimby. When an issue is contentious, it is crucial that there is respect on all sides. I wish we had a second day for this debate, because five-minute limits mean no real debate and this issue should be debated.

My constituency is not directly affected in the way that that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) is affected, but when the Eurostar terminal was built at Waterloo we put up with years of terrible disruption, only to find that once it was built and was being used there was a switch and it went off to St Pancras. We had all the terrible problems, but ended up with no direct link to Paris.

When I talk to my constituents about HS2, they overwhelmingly ask whether it is the right way to spend £50 billion. Many of my constituents, who will never have a decent home to live in, who will never get out of overcrowding and who live in very difficult circumstances, are asking whether the money would not be better spent on providing decent homes for everyone in this country. These people live just a mile away from the House of Commons, yet they cannot have money spent on improving the railways within Lambeth. There is no longer a direct train at peak time from Clapham High Street to Victoria, because the platforms at Wandsworth Road need to be extended. Just small amounts of money would make such a difference to commuters around London.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady should come to my constituency. If she missed a train at Gainsborough Central, her next train would be one week away. That is the level of investment in rural lines in Lincolnshire.

[Kate Hoey]

That is exactly what people are asking all over the country: why is £50 billion going on this particular method of improving capacity and speed? I am very lucky, as I can walk to my constituency in five minutes and drive in four, so I do not travel on trains much, but when I do so, I do not find them crowded. Many carriages are empty and I discover that they are first class—there is nobody in them. All sorts of things could be done to increase capacity.

We should also be clear that once we start this project there is no guarantee that the costs will not spiral. I am worried that once we start the project and the costs start to go up, more and more money will be taken away, and not just from other parts of the transport network. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is unlikely to have extra money spent on railways in his area if we go ahead with this project, as everything will be geared towards the super-project. Everyone will say that that is what we must spend the money on. We are being very short-sighted. This sounds like a sexy project, it sounds like we are being modern and trying to compete with the rest of Europe, but there is not a lot wrong with our railways that could not be dealt with if we had spent money over many years, if we had invested properly and if we now invested across the country rather than in one particular vanity project.

The compensation must be much stronger and greater. It is all very well saying that people can be compensated, but if someone has built up and worked hard on a business or home in the country only to see it blighted or destroyed, compensation might help but it does not take away the pain. It will not do so for the many people who will suffer if the project goes ahead.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said some time ago, the scheme risks draining much-needed investment away from other railway infrastructure projects for the next 30 years. I want to know why, if the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, my party has suddenly changed its mind on the project.

The case for HS2 is flimsy. No amount of spin or the Front Benches being nice to each other will change the basic truth that this is potentially a huge white elephant that will not heal the north-south divide. If we wanted to heal that divide, we would be starting in the north, not the south. Money will be sucked away from all the other desperately needed upgrading schemes all over the country once the project starts. The money that goes in will have no long-term benefit for vast numbers of people in the United Kingdom. I hope that if there is a Labour Government after the next election, our Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the issue and not be tied into saying that whatever happens we will go ahead with the project. The project could be doomed and we want to ensure that this Parliament has a say in whether the money is spent or not.

Air Transport (Northern Ireland)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Amess. I thank the Liaison Committee for nominating this important debate, and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), for attending. I know that he had a busy night last night, not necessarily helped by some who are in the Chamber today. I welcome him.

This debate comes on the back of the first report of 2012-13 by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which we published last November. I am grateful to all Committee members for the work that they carried out on this detailed inquiry, and to our officials, who are a bit thin on the ground today, although I am sure—at least, I hope—that quality will make up for the lack of quantity.

I am grateful to the many witnesses whom we interviewed during the course of our inquiry into the air transport strategy for Northern Ireland. We talked to representatives of the airports, the CBI, the airline companies, travel companies, the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, unions, the UK Border Agency, Ministers, the Federation of Small Businesses and others.

Since the Committee was re-formed after the last general election, we have concentrated on trying our best to move towards a rebalancing of the Northern Ireland economy. We know that Northern Ireland has become somewhat over-dependent on the public sector, and we are well aware of the reasons why. There is a large deficit in the amount of Government spending in Northern Ireland relative to the amount of tax raised there. The same is true in Scotland and Wales, of course, but it is more pronounced in Northern Ireland. Wages are also lower in Northern Ireland, and there is great concern about people who perhaps do not feel that they have had the full benefits of the peace process. We as a Committee have considered security issues from time to time, of course, and we will do so again, but we are doing our best to encourage and work with the Government and make proposals about how we might rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland. It is obviously worth doing for its own sake, so that people in the Province can enjoy greater prosperity, but we also see it as a way to cement the relative peace achieved over the past 15 years or so.

Our first inquiry after the last general election was on the level of corporation tax. We recommended that the issue be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly so that it could set a rate that would be more competitive with the current tax rate in the Republic of Ireland. Corporation tax in the UK is 23%, but only 12.5% in the Republic. Although the Committee was certainly not unanimous on that proposal, we felt that it would help the economy in Northern Ireland move towards where we want it to be. We are debating aviation policy, not corporation tax, but I will talk about tax a little later.

I must stress the importance of air travel to Northern Ireland. It is an island off an island—a beautiful place, but nevertheless slightly remote. The only way that people there can travel reasonably quickly and efficiently either to the mainland or to the continent is by air. The sea crossing is lovely, but it is quite slow. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister is thinking of extending High Speed 2 to Northern Ireland, but I am sure that it would be welcome if he did. However, as at the moment there are no plans to do so, we must stress how important air travel is to people in Northern Ireland for social, family and business reasons.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Some Committee members suggested that it might be helpful for Ministers, particularly Ministers for Transport, to make the journey to Belfast from London or Southampton via the only real way other than flying, and to tell us all how long it takes, how much it costs and how it could possibly help improve business connectivity for that to be the only way by which a person can travel. It might be helpful for the Minister to make that trip so that he can experience it for himself. I had to make it once. It takes a very long time.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. I am sure that the Minister travels to Northern Ireland regularly, but it sounds like an invitation for him to do so in a different way.

When the Minister gets there, he will see that the rail links in Northern Ireland are not what we might want either, particularly between City of Derry airport and Belfast. I will come to that issue in a minute. It is a long and sometimes difficult journey. Northern Ireland Members sometimes have to leave Parliament early in the day—not in the morning, of course, but not too late in the afternoon—if they want to get back that evening, which may explain why they are sometimes unable to take part in debates such as this.

The background is that we have three airports in Northern Ireland: Belfast International, sometimes known as Aldergrove; Belfast City, nowadays named George Best Belfast City airport after the great footballer; and, of course, City of Derry airport. Belfast International airport has about 4 million passengers a year, Belfast City airport 2.4 million and City of Derry 400,000. When we compare that with Dublin, which has 90 million passengers a year, we see a big difference between the two, but Belfast International airport is busy and fulfils a completely different role from Belfast City airport. Both are important. City of Derry airport could probably be used more, especially this year, when Londonderry is the city of culture.

In terms of connectivity, it is extremely important that we retain capacity in the south-east of England, because many people fly from Belfast to London and then on to other cities in the world. There is some concern about the speed with which we are moving in that direction. The Committee expressed frustration about how long it is taking for the Government to decide whether we are to have, for example, a further runway at Heathrow, Boris island or something else. It is of some concern to the Committee that the Government seem to have ruled out a third runway at Heathrow before commissioning the Davies report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Amess, and I am pleased to be able to say a few words. My colleague from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), wants to make a contribution, too. I thank our Chairman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for putting the case so well and mentioning why our Committee felt that this is an important issue: the links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, which are crucial, and particularly air passenger duty.

We need to thank the Government for listening to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and to the lobbying—all legitimate lobbying, I will add—that went on for a long time and getting the air passenger duty changed on the international flight from Belfast to Newark. That was crucial, because there was no doubt that people were travelling by car down to Dublin, even though it made the journey slightly longer, as it worked out cheaper due to the reduction there. The Irish Government make an issue of making it much cheaper to fly internationally, particularly to America. That is important. I hope that we have made that link with United Airlines permanent and that we see it increase. We now need a direct flight from Belfast to Canada, where there is a huge diaspora of people from Northern Ireland. That would be welcome.

In addition to what was always an important issue, we raised the other pressing, day-to-day issue in our recommendation 7 on tax policy. Air passenger duty throughout the United Kingdom is far too high. It is the highest in Europe. Some people argue that it is good, from a green point of view, and others argue that it is needed because the Government need the money. A cost-benefit analysis has not been properly done to show how much the United Kingdom would benefit economically if we reduced and, in some parts of the UK, abolished air passenger duty altogether.

Northern Ireland is a special case, just as the highlands and islands have become a special case, but whenever we ask why the highlands and islands get a reduction on their flights but Northern Ireland cannot, we come up against something about which I have made my views known clearly over time: the European Union and regulations, which make doing something about that difficult. Well, given how the EU works at the moment, that certainly will not be easy to do, but if we had a Government who committed to arguing for it, it might happen.

I feel strongly that travelling by plane from Northern Ireland to London, Manchester, Scotland or anywhere else on the mainland of Great Britain is not a luxury. People do not wake up and think, “Great, I am going to be flying from Belfast to London tomorrow. Isn’t that wonderful? I don’t mind paying APD, because it is such a nice way to travel.” The reality is that flying is the only way people can realistically travel, particularly to southern England. Flying is now very expensive for students who want to come back home between studying, and the cost to business people is very big. A growing phenomenon in the current economic situation is that more and more people—mainly young men but women, too—are flying over on a Monday morning, working in the building industry near Stansted and flying back on the Thursday night or Friday, and APD is a big addition to the cost.

We should be arguing that Northern Ireland is a special case because it is different. We are part of the United Kingdom, but we have water around us, and we therefore need to be treated differently. There is an idea that we cannot do something about APD for Northern Ireland. The Government’s response states:

“APD makes an essential contribution towards helping the Government meet its deficit reduction plans.”

I do not want to go further than to say that, in the long run, we would end up with more money if APD were reduced, but, obviously, if we were to treat Northern Ireland differently, APD would have to be devolved. In that case, the Northern Ireland Executive would have to make up the money to fund the reduction, but the people of Northern Ireland could debate whether they feel that that is a priority. I think that there would be support for it.

The Government’s response further states that

“in order to protect the public finances and also to comply with EU State Aid rules. It would not be possible under EU law to have different rates of APD on intra-UK flights from GB to NI than on flights from UK to other EU destinations.”

I am sorry, but I am a British citizen. I am part of the United Kingdom, and I want my Government and my country to be able to decide where planes are going to fly, how much that will cost and what the tax should be, and I do not want to be restricted. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on the Front Bench does not necessarily agree, but I do not want the EU to decide policies that should be for us to decide. That is why I support the need for a referendum, the need for a debate in the country and the need for us to decide our future relationship with the EU. I will not digress further, Mr Amess, although I am sure that you might want me to do so.

It is just not good enough for us to say that we cannot allow Northern Ireland to be treated differently and specially because of the peculiar nature of its situation, not only because it has a land border with another country, but because of the water that lies between us. It is not good enough just to say, “We cannot do this because the EU will not let us.” I believe we should reconsider, and I support the “A Fair Tax on Flying” campaign, which in some very good reports has shown how we are losing out across the United Kingdom because of the APD tax. I hope that the Government are listening.

I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Transport, in answer to a question not too long ago, said that he does not have a view on APD. He was asked,

“what assessment has the Department made of the impact of air passenger duty on aviation?”

And he answered:

“I am not sure we have taken a view on it.”

I hope that the Minister will clarify the Secretary of State’s answer, because that could be good news. The Secretary of State is my constituent when he is in London, so I know that he is quite a good egg. I hope that his answer means that we have not finally made up our mind, and I hope that my party will consider the matter very clearly, so that we can have a strong view before the next election.

There are now no direct flights to Heathrow from Belfast International, which is an important airport. They have stopped because of the merger of British Airways and BMI, and Aer Lingus then going to Belfast City airport. There is a bit of one airport playing off the other by lowering the amount of money that it charges for a short time, and after a year or two, the other airport seems to offer something more and the airlines go back. We need to ensure that both airports, while they are there, serve the needs of everyone in Northern Ireland.

I want to speak up for easyJet, which has brought an amazing amount of opportunity for people in Northern Ireland. I fly easyJet all the time, more or less. I think easyJet is a great airline. For short flights from Belfast, easyJet is absolutely brilliant and usually on time. I am not being paid by easyJet; I really do think that. I get cross when people dismiss easyJet as one of those cheap airlines, because it has brought huge opportunities for people to travel not just from Belfast to the rest of the United Kingdom but all over Europe. The more that that happens, the more that we will see people going from Belfast to Amsterdam and then to America. That will not happen unless we grasp the nettle of APD.

This debate has been a good opportunity, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

I hope that I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend. That is a devolved matter, but what I will do, in the spirit of co-operation and friendliness, is write to him with the precise details to explain why it is and what the best way forward is for him and his Committee.

[Kate Hoey]

Can the Minister just provide clarification? It is only a devolved matter if it has been devolved. We devolved the international route, but we have not devolved the GB-Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland-GB route.

[Mr Burns]

I am a bit confused because I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury was talking about rail links between airports in Northern Ireland.

[Kate Hoey]

That is devolved.

[Mr Burns]

Yes, it is.

[Kate Hoey]

Sorry.

[Mr Burns]

That is all right.

[Kate Hoey]

Obviously, I was not listening.

[Mr Burns]

That is fine; the hon. Lady is fine. I just thought for one ghastly moment that I had walked into a huge hole, so I am relieved that it was not me—not guilty, guv.

I welcome the fact that there is broad agreement—indeed, unanimity—on the importance of maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global aviation hub. The Government believe it to be vital to the Northern Ireland and wider UK economy. It is important to remember that the UK continues to have excellent aviation connectivity, both on a point-to-point basis and through the London hub. The five airports serving London offer at least weekly direct services to more than 360 destinations worldwide, which is more than Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam Schiphol. We have the third largest aviation network in the world after the United States and China.

Northern Ireland is increasingly well connected both to the rest of the UK and to the wider world. In 2012, Northern Ireland airports operated services to 23 domestic UK destinations on 36 routes, to 17 EU-27 destinations on 19 routes, to three other European destinations and, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members, to one north American destination.

[Kate Hoey]

I will try to restrict my interventions, but I thought that as the Minister had mentioned the increase, it might be worth pointing out, as I have been a user of it and you are our Chairman, Mr Amess, that the new easyJet route from Southend to Belfast is very popular.

[Mr Burns]

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. She is absolutely right to do so. I am grateful not only because I am a Member from God’s own county, where Southend airport is, but because only in the last few weeks I have had the pleasure of visiting Southend airport and being able to find out for myself the increasing and expanding services that Southend airport is providing both to Northern Ireland and to other destinations in Europe. I think that it has the accolade of being called London’s fifth airport. No doubt, Mr Amess, you will correct me if I am wrong.

The Government believe that Northern Ireland is well placed to continue to grow the direct network as well as to enjoy vital connections through the UK and continental hubs. The Government recognise that, like elsewhere, the airports in Northern Ireland make a vital contribution to its economy. However, unlike in other parts of the UK, aviation plays a unique role in connecting Northern Ireland with the rest of the country. As such, aviation connectivity with the rest of the UK is extremely important to our national cohesion and will remain so.

We all know that the provision of commercial air services is subject to market forces. Ultimately, airlines operate in a competitive, commercial environment and it is for them to determine the routes that they operate and from which airports. It has been suggested that some form of intervention is necessary to protect air services between Northern Ireland and London from commercial market pressures. The hon. Member for Belfast East mentioned that. But air links to Northern Ireland remain commercially viable. Northern Ireland is well connected by air to London, with more than 18,000 flights a year between the two Belfast airports and the five main London airports. Those flights handled just over 1.9 million passengers in 2012. Over a third were between Belfast and Heathrow. That said, the Government fully support the efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive to develop the route network of Northern Ireland further.

Northern Ireland is also unique within the United Kingdom in that it shares a land border with another EU member state, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Belfast East and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Although that brings many benefits, the Government are highly conscious of the greater competition that it creates when securing air services, especially long-haul services. As such, in the recent Northern Ireland economic pact, we confirmed that the Government and Executive will work together to consider with the US authorities and other interested stakeholders the feasibility of establishing US pre-clearance facilities at Belfast International airport. It is complex work, with practical and legal issues that need to be addressed, but given that such facilities are currently available at Dublin and Shannon airports, we hope that progress can be made quickly. I think that all hon. Members present today, and those beyond the Chamber, fully appreciate the importance of establishing such a service, if the discussions and negotiations between our countries can come to successful fruition.

I think that every hon. Member has mentioned air passenger duty in the debate. As hon. Members have been gracious enough to mention in their comments, the Government have already taken action to ensure that the Northern Ireland aviation sector remains competitive. In November 2011, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced APD for passengers travelling on direct long-haul routes departing from airports in Northern Ireland. That move secured the continuation of the only current direct long-haul service operating from Northern Ireland. The Government have now gone further, as some hon. Members mentioned, and, reflecting the wishes of the Northern Ireland Executive, have devolved to Northern Ireland the power to set APD rates for long-haul flights departing Northern Ireland. The zero-APD rate for direct long-haul flights departing Northern Ireland, which took effect from 1 January 2013, puts Northern Ireland in a highly competitive position.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Poplar and Limehouse, and to the hon. Member for Belfast East in particular, when they spoke about the ways in which they would like to move forward. As the hon. Member for Belfast East correctly anticipated, I will be consistent and my comments will reflect what I said to her in my correspondence: APD is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and it would be sensible for her to convey her views to the Treasury, so that it is aware of what she believes should happen. I will not detain hon. Members by going into detail on all the reasons for APD and why it is where it is at the moment, because that is well known. They can rest assured that we are aware of the views on and the reasons for APD and that the Treasury regularly monitors the situation carefully.

[Kate Hoey]

I know that the Minister has to stick to Government policies overall, but he is the Minister for Transport, so does he have a view that he could quietly tell us here? There are very few people here. What does he personally think?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady is extremely charming and in many ways intellectually seductive. She too has been a Minister. There may be only four close honourable friends of mine sitting in the Chamber, but unfortunately the walls have ears. I have always found that it is extremely wise when one is a member of a governing Administration to be bound by collective responsibility, which I happen to believe in as well; one fully understands the merits of the cases that the Government put forward as their policy and one fully supports them. I hope that explains to the hon. Lady that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to do was due to the unsatisfactory, if not catastrophic, economic situation we inherited in May 2010. We have had to take some tough and difficult decisions. He is right, because it is right that we address the problems of the debt and the deficit.

I shall move on to the probably more neutral subject of aviation policy frameworks. Overall, the Government want aviation to continue across the country. To that end, we continue to deliver: we have delivered the Civil Aviation Act 2012, to bring the regulatory framework up to date, and we are implementing the recommendations of the south-east task force. We have also acted to ensure that the Northern Ireland aviation sector remains competitive. We plan to create an economic climate that enables people to travel and to use aviation to conduct business and visit friends and family as easily and cost-effectively as possible. Many people in Northern Ireland are concerned, as those in the rest of the country are, about capacity, particularly capacity in London and south-east England. Although it is across the Irish sea from Northern Ireland, capacity there does, as hon. Members have said, have a knock-on effect on those who wish to fly long-haul from Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland to the rest of the world. They will frequently travel to London to meet their connections and then travel on or, as hon. Members have said, in some cases they go to Dublin.

The Government believe that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long-term international competitiveness. To make decisions, we need our evidence on the way forward to be as up to date as possible. Dealing with airport capacity, increasing the size of existing airports or creating new airports is highly controversial and arouses strong emotions. It is essential that we get it right, which is why I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse on his party’s attitude to how we are moving forward, but I exclude from that welcome the comments he made about Boris island; I must be totally independent, so I do not want to comment on any option and compromise that independence.

Rail Reform

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

They will not. We have an ambitious programme, as I have said to the House, and high-speed rail sits alongside that. It is complementary, and it is critical that we do not just improve the existing system but look ahead to the capacity that we will need on a new network.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Is not one of the reasons why train fares in Europe are much lower than here that many countries still have public ownership of their railways? Does the Secretary of State accept that the statement is just a green light for the mostly foreign-owned train operators in this country to have a feeding frenzy on raising fares so that they can keep the fares down in their own countries?

[Justine Greening]

I do not accept that at all. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but this is not the time to rearrange the industry in the way that she suggests. We need to look at the pieces and then make sure that they work more effectively together. Sir Roy talked in his report about the different levels of working that the industry could do, and we are keen to see the industry work more closely together. I am sure that when the hon. Lady reads the report she will see some of the potential routes that that could take. I do not agree with her; I think the key to success now is getting the industry to collaborate more and for us to support it in doing that.

Cycling

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

That is an excellent idea. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s joining us for the parliamentary bike ride. We will see if we can attract such coverage and interest.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about cycle safety in relation to road users. Will he say a little about cyclists in relation to pedestrians and pavements?

Rail Services (South London Line)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this debate on the future of the south London line, which serves my constituency, and specifically the services that run through Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations, which are absolutely essential in allowing many of my constituents to travel directly into central London. Although the Minister is, of course, aware of the situation and has had many briefings on it, I will set out the background, because it is by nature quite complex and his Department, ultimately, will make the final decision.

The south London line currently runs twice an hour in a loop between London Bridge and Victoria stations, stopping at South Bermondsey, Queens Road Peckham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road. It serves the wide south London community by providing access to two key interchange stations, London Bridge and Victoria, which are the centres of much employment. In February 2009, Transport for London announced the funding and go-ahead for phase 2 of the East London line extension, which will supersede much of our service to the east, running to Canada Water, Shoreditch High Street and up to Dalston.

However, it is the proposals to the west that concern my constituents and me and that have worried so many of the local amenity groups, councillors and societies, such as the Clapham Society. The link to London Bridge was to be preserved by the proposed new line from Victoria to Bellingham, but Network Rail decided to axe that, on the understanding that the direct route to Victoria would be retained. We were also promised longer platforms at those stations and told that the money was available for that, so I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me about that or find out where the money that had been earmarked has gone.

Transport for London proposes that, rather than continuing to take residents into Victoria, where so many of them work, including many civil servants, those services will instead be diverted to Clapham Junction from May 2012. For those who hear the words “Clapham Junction” and immediately think, “Well, that’s Clapham, so what’s the difference?”, I want to say that it may have the name “Clapham” but it is not Clapham. None of my constituents would consider Clapham Junction to be in Clapham. It is not convenient for them; it is not a route that they currently use to get into central London.

Clapham Junction lies further out, so passengers would have to travel further away from central London to change on to trains at Clapham Junction, which is already, as I am sure some Members know, an incredibly overcrowded station. The journey would be longer, and would mean inconvenient platform changes and even more crowded trains. It would, literally, be a backward step. As the Minister knows, Clapham Junction has been cited as the worst interchange station in London, with crowded corridors and congestion. Clapham Junction is therefore not in any way a solution, and I understand that the funding to improve the station will probably not now be available.

What is being offered, therefore, is an increased orbital service for an area that depends on its radial service to where people want to go, and for which there is increased demand. That is demonstrated by the alternative route that people who are near enough will use: the Northern line. If the proposals go through, they will force many more people who currently use the train at Clapham High Street on to the Northern line at Clapham North and Clapham Common stations, which are dangerously overcrowded in the morning and are commonly recognised as needing reconstruction. The severe Northern line congestion suggests that there is a desperate need for alternative radial routes. If anyone ever wants to see what real crowding on a tube is, I suggest that they go to one of those Northern line stations at morning rush hour, when people sometimes have to wait for the second or third train before boarding. Cutting the alternatives into Victoria will, far from relieving congestion, have the opposite effect. People who live near Wandsworth Road are not even near a Northern line station, so they do not even have access to such an option.

What adds to the irony of the situation that has been proposed is that two trains an hour will still go to Victoria, but only at off-peak times, when commuter demand will not exist and take-up will be lowest. The outcome is that far more useful services are to be removed, and scarce money spent putting on a four-trains-per-hour service to Clapham Junction in the morning when there is no demand. I appreciate that the Minister might not yet know his London intimately, although I am sure that if he stays in his position longer he will, but this proposal is like arguing that because Richmond has orbital services it should lose all trains to Waterloo or Victoria, or that because Croydon has the East London line extension it should not have trains to London Bridge. That is really what Transport for London is proposing for Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road.

Beyond that issue, which affects my constituents so much—although the decision has not finally been made—I have deep concerns about the process that has been followed and about how we have reached this point. The Department for Transport instructed Transport for London to work with London TravelWatch to consider the options for the future of the service, including the development of modelling to consider the future use of each option to serve my area, and many concerns have been raised about the modelling that was done to predict demand. Rather than considering consumer views data, the decisions relied on abstract projections over a 60-year period. I am not an expert, but I and many experts other than those who ordered that kind of modelling, are not convinced that it accurately reflects the desire for orbital travel, the unwillingness to interchange at Clapham Junction or the costs of the relative options.

London TravelWatch rubber-stamped the TfL proposal to end the London Bridge service, and since then there has been an ongoing discussion about the Victoria end of the service. What has emerged from the discussions is the so-called option 7, which did not exist in the previous shortlist but was brought in right at the end, although there were a number of other options. It seems to have been agreed as the way forward. This option ends peak-time access into central London and diverts people instead to Clapham Junction, forcing them on to the very overcrowded Northern line. It diverts long-distance Kent coastal services that come through to Victoria, allowing them to stop at various places—but not in my constituency—and increasing the journey time for those commuters, without doing anything to help anyone living in the Clapham area.

London TravelWatch seems to have considered that an achievement, even though its chair, Sharon Grant, originally referred to the impact on my constituents as a “major disbenefit” with “a substantial disadvantage,” and went on to talk about how terrible and overcrowded the Northern line was. Suddenly, Sharon Grant and TravelWatch seem to have decided, for whatever reason, that the Northern line is no longer overcrowded, or a problem, and that this proposal is the best option.

Option 7 brings the worst of both worlds, inconveniencing longer-distance passengers and leaving the worst-affected stations without their vital links to Victoria, forcing passengers on to the most congested part of the London underground. It is an option that, from a common-sense point of view, does not bring value for money. Even if it is cheaper at the moment, the longer-term cost makes it a clear example of false economy. London TravelWatch’s remit seems strange to me. Is it not to be an advocate for the people of London? Does it actually also work for people in the wider south-east, such as Kent? It has abandoned the interests of my constituents in London. When Network Rail approved the axing of the south London line to London Bridge, TravelWatch agreed, on the condition that the Victoria link was kept.

Now TravelWatch has endorsed the axing of the Victoria link for Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road, in a double betrayal of south London. Particularly contemptible is that TravelWatch, and everybody until early June, was reassuring all the campaigners in our area of what it called a “positive outcome.” London TravelWatch is meant to be the voice of users, but it has, I believe, used its position to compromise the compromises and undermine stakeholder concerns, acting well outside its job as an advocate for users in London. It is almost like a defence barrister going into court and beginning to collaborate with the prosecution.

London TravelWatch’s excuses about unaffordability and balancing the interests of Londoners do not wash. Successfully endorsing the removal of central London links is not acceptable for a watchdog whose remit is to represent commuters. There is no balance, particularly as it has reneged on categorical assurances and views about keeping Victoria links for Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road. TravelWatch does not, in my view, interact with stakeholders, and is far too close to the rail industry to be an effective advocate, still less one that gets £1.6 million in funding from the London assembly.

I know that the London assembly is rightly considering TravelWatch’s funding position. Perhaps I should not say this so bluntly, but I am fairly blunt: I slightly worry that perhaps TravelWatch’s involvement with and support for TfL was something to do with its wanting to get TfL to be very much supportive of the continuation of the large amount of funding. In effect, my commuters pay to subsidise a watchdog to remove their services and make their journeys longer, more costly and more crowded. It is an irony that what we pay per year to keep TravelWatch going could give Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road the four trains per hour service to Victoria.

This all seems to be very much a botched compromise; none of the proposed changes will benefit any of my constituents in the slightest. I believe that they would agree with me and that they would rather keep things as they are than lose an important commuter service for the sake of four trains an hour going to Clapham Junction, which is not a station that they want to, or will, go to. We would rather hold out for future funding to lengthen the platforms, thereby allowing the introduction of the Victoria to Bellingham service, which would properly serve my constituents with four trains an hour to central London.

I am sure that the Minister will be interested to know that TfL spent £18 million on bonuses last year, up from £10 million in 2008. That suggests that it has sufficient money to keep the orbital links. As I said earlier, we should challenge why, as part of a compromise or of making it feel that it is doing something, it will put on four East London line trains to Clapham Junction when two would be enough and would release the capital and capacity for the Victoria services to carry on during the rush hour.

I do not expect the Minister to give me a detailed response on the nitty-gritty of what I have just said. He will probably give me some of the lines that have been put out by TfL, but the final decision on the matter rests with him. I am pleased that I have been granted a meeting to which I will be able to bring some of the local people who are experts on the subject. They may not work for TfL or TravelWatch and they may not earn millions a year, but they actually know what they are talking about. Frankly, they are the kind of people who I hope the Minister and the new coalition Government will start to listen to, rather than the so-called experts who are paid huge amounts of money, but, as I am sure the Minister knows, sometimes forget who they work for and who pays their salaries.

I thank Mr Speaker for giving me an opportunity to raise this matter. I am concerned that we will lose a service and that that will not be in the interests of London as a whole. It will not give value for money, and it certainly will not do anything to solve the congestion problems in south London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments.

I stress that we, as a Government, are committed to devolution. We are talking about an earlier example of devolution to TfL and the Mayor, so whatever the Department for Transport thinks we live within the existing legal framework. Therefore, the Department may have fewer powers in this regard than in respect of other rail matters elsewhere in the country.

TfL made a judgment that the East London line service to Clapham Junction provided better overall benefits than the south London line to Bellingham. Clearly, Members present do not share that judgment. It is entirely appropriate that TFL, which is London’s transport planning body, should make this judgment and assess the trade-offs between the different service proposals. Ministers in the previous Administration accepted the guidance provided by the Mayor on that being the best use of the limited available resources. If the Mayor and TfL make such decisions—the coalition agreement states that the Government believe that decisions should be taken at a more local level—it is important that they stand behind the consequences of such decisions when they are made, including the impacts on passengers at stations such as Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street.

The decision not to implement the proposed London Victoria to Bellingham service was requested by TfL and the Mayor to help fund the East London line service. Implementing both the Bellingham service and the East London line would have been ideal, but both services were not affordable and TfL and the Mayor judged that the East London line extension provided more benefits than the diverted south London line. A judgment call was made by TfL in light of the financial constraints it faced. As is the case with such funding agreements, a number of conditions were attached to the funding given by the Department. TfL was fully aware of those conditions before it signed the funding offer.

Importantly, the Department was conscious of the need to keep stakeholders informed of any changes and included a requirement for TfL to inform key stakeholders about the route of the proposed changes. The Department also included a clause stopping East London line services operating into London Victoria. If TfL decided to operate into Victoria we would need to renegotiate, and perhaps reduce, the £24 million funding offer. This may seem an odd condition, but it was put in place because other train operators would have had a claim on the Department for loss of revenue if TfL operated services into London Victoria.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned her concerns about London TravelWatch. She is aware that following the proposed changes, and significant negative public reaction, TfL and London TravelWatch undertook a further exercise to investigate what mitigation measures could be implemented to resolve some of the problems that stakeholders identified. That study recently reported and the Mayor of London wrote to the Secretary of State regarding its conclusions.

The study suggested stopping some peak-time mainline services at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill and implementing a new off-peak Victoria to Bromley South stopping service, which would call at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street. However, in all its study work, TfL has not addressed the hon. Lady’s key concern regarding peak period train services from Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street to London Victoria. The study was, of course, led by TfL with London TravelWatch and they will need to answer the question about why such services cannot be accommodated, but I understand that a key constraint is the length of platforms at stations, and the costs of extending them, which limits the services that they believe can call at those stations at peak times.

Of course, we in the Department will study the conclusions of the study carefully, but I should make it clear that the Department is unlikely to be willing to fund the mitigation measures that the Mayor is proposing, given that the issues arose because the Mayor sought the withdrawal of the proposed Bellingham service.

[Kate Hoey]

I really appreciate what the Minister has said so far. Will he clarify something? I appreciate that how we got here is to do with TfL and the Mayor, and TravelWatch, and that it is probably more for Londoners to take up, rather than for the Minister to do so. Could he or the Department say, “No, we want you to look at this matter again”, particularly the peak services between the two stations that I have mentioned and Victoria? Or is the Minister told about these things by TfL and the Mayor, with the idea being, in theory, that he is meant to say yes or no—although actually the answer is always yes?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I want my response to be exactly right because I do not want to mislead hon. Members, so I will reflect and give the hon. Lady an answer in a moment.

I understand that implementation of the proposed service is likely to cost about £1 million a year, which the Mayor is seeking from the Department. Given our current funding constraints and the likely reductions in available resources in future, an exceptional case would need to be made for any such funding to be implemented.

I note the hon. Lady’s concerns about London TravelWatch, which is not the responsibility of the Department for Transport, as she is aware. London TravelWatch is an independent watchdog sponsored and funded by the London assembly, which is part of the Greater London authority. Any comments regarding London TravelWatch, concerns about its involvement in the study, or how it functions should therefore be directed to the GLA and the Mayor as well as to its chair, Sharon Grant, whom the hon. Lady mentioned. The hon. Lady might also want to contact Passenger Focus, because although London TravelWatch is the predominant body in London—Passenger Focus tends to let it have its say and take the lead there—Passenger Focus has responsibility for rail issues nationally so it may be interested in some of her comments.

In response to the hon. Lady’s earlier point, TfL made its proposals to the DFT, as I mentioned. We can ask it to look at the matter again, but doing so risks the DFT being forced to fund such a proposal. As I understand it, we have to be careful not to enter into a discussion with TfL that in any way makes us liable for the decisions of the Mayor, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give the hon. Lady further clarification about that important point when they meet.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank the Minister for that helpful comment. It seems silly to put the matter through departmental bureaucracy if the Department can never say, “No, we don’t like this.” Could the Department say, “Look, actually, in the end it’s probably better for this not to be changed at all,” and not put in the money? Who is benefiting from the extra money that is going in?

[Norman Baker]

A number of factors must be taken into account, including, first, the devolved powers for the Mayor and TfL, which most Londoners would probably support—we are trying to devolve powers away from central Government; secondly, the legal restraints and legislation made in respect of the Mayor and TfL; and thirdly, the consequences for other rail operators. There is a complicated matrix to consider and I do not want to give a misleading answer today, so I will draw the hon. Lady’s concerns and comments directly to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that she gets a proper, full answer when they meet.

The East London line will bring significant benefits to the part of south London that we are talking about, providing four trains an hour regularly between Clapham Junction and Dalston seven days a week and providing connections to key interchanges to other parts of the London transport network, such as at Canada Water, for example.

On the Northern line, and crowding issues at Clapham North station, the hon. Lady will know that London Underground is planning an upgrade of the Northern line to be implemented in 2012, which will increase frequency on the southern end of the route from the current 28 trains per hour to 32. The additional capacity will help to relieve crowding issues on that section of the network. There are concerns about the spending review and funding arrangements, but we hope that the Mayor will be able to deliver the upgrade on the Northern line, as previously announced.

Members have mentioned Clapham Junction station and its use as an interchange station for London Overground services. It must be remembered that in Network Rail’s plans to 2014, suburban trains through Clapham Junction to both Waterloo and Victoria will be lengthened to 10-car services. Works are also already under way to improve the interchange facilities at Clapham Junction by providing new lifts, and plans are in place to improve access to the station, for example, by providing a new entrance.

Although the changes to train services in south London are largely driven by the need to accommodate train service changes at London Bridge, the proposed Victoria to Bellingham service would have mitigated a number of the impacts of those changes. The changes to train services at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street and the severing of the link to London Victoria were made at the request of the Mayor of London, under the arrangements that cover rail services in London.

We will, of course, reflect on the comments made by hon. Members during this debate and consider the issues that have been raised.