Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

1: Clause 1, page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 4

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 2 for the convenience of the Committee. Before I start on the substance of the amendment, I record my thanks to the Minister and his officials for a very useful meeting yesterday. I look forward to continuing discussions and this debate today.

I remind the Committee that I am a harbour commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. At Second Reading, we had a good debate. I said that I supported the Bill in principle; I think it is a very good Bill. I want to focus on one issue, that of wreck recovery: who does it and who pays for it. As the Bill says, as the wreck occurs, it is generally marked by a harbour authority or a GLA. However, under the Bill, dealing with the wreck is now the responsibility of the Government, who can instruct—and I mean instruct—the harbour authority, conservation authority or GLA. The idea is that the costs incurred in doing it can be recovered from the ship’s owners or insurance. That also seems fine and complies with the wreck conventions that the Bill is designed to incorporate into legislation.

We are told by the Minister that all ships will be insured because the insurance documents will be inspected at UK ports. The first question one has to ask is how robust the arrangements for this inspection are. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who sadly cannot be with us today, asked a Written Question to which the Answer from the Minister stated that in 2010 there were 12 instances where an inspection of the insurance documents revealed a deficiency in them.

Rather more serious is a recent statement by Vice-Admiral Massey, the chief executive of the Marine and Coastguard Agency, to an all-party parliamentary group, as reported in Lloyd’s List of 28 March. He said that the agency is,

“missing some ‘high priority’ ship inspections”,

particularly at night and at weekends. Therefore, one could argue that there is a certain lack of robustness about the inspections, which could mean that some ships which are not insured will not be caught by these inspections. There is also the question of the ships that go round our coasts but do not enter our ports, which will not have to show their certificates to anyone.

On Second Reading, the Minister said that all ships will be insured and therefore the costs can be recovered, but what happens if the harbour authority or GLAs cannot recover them? As the Bill stands, they cannot refuse an instruction from the Secretary of State. The trouble is that the instruction is not accompanied by a commitment to fund a problematic wreck removal. On Second Reading, noble Lords said that this would not happen very often, it was very unlikely to happen and the cost would not be very high. However, I do not know what would happen if the cost was high. If the cost was high, it could cause severe financial problems, or management problems, for small harbour authorities or GLAs. Of course, they will do their best in this regard but it could put them in financial difficulty. The British Ports Association supports these amendments and strongly opposes a requirement which would mean that the harbour authorities were financially liable for cleaning and removing uninsured, or even occasionally unowned, wrecks. Ports have a problem with small boats the world over, but the association is saying that ports authorities would possibly be less willing to accept boats which are in difficulty into their harbours if they thought that in so doing they would be liable for a big financial penalty. One should take that into account.

We have heard that Trinity House supports the Bill in its entirety, but I argue that it would do so as its job is to mark wrecks. That is part of its work, and it does it very well. However, if it were called on to manage and undertake a major salvage operation, the problem is that it would probably have to pass on the costs of doing so to ships in the form of light dues, because that is the way Trinity House is financed. Trinity House could even argue that—I hope that it would not—it needed to buy bigger and larger ships to undertake this new responsibility, but I trust that it would not do that. The Chamber of Shipping in particular is rightly concerned that the measure puts an extra cost on insured ships that comply with the regulations, and that some of that cost is to cover ships which do not comply, and have not complied, with the regulations. That body has asked whether the Crown will indemnify the General Lighthouse Fund against costs that cannot be recovered, given that the costs arise as a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to sign the convention. We could discuss that for a long time.

We should note that the Transport Select Committee in another place investigated this matter in 2008 and stated that,

“if the General Lighthouse Authorities were to be directed, under new powers in the Bill, to undertake activities other than those which they would have undertaken in the past, there is a possibility that the liability of the General Lighthouse Fund for unrecoverable costs could increase. This legislation should not be used by the Government to transfer further the financial risk resulting from uninsured ships to other shippers through the General Lighthouse Fund”.

Therefore, a lot of people do not think that this is a terribly good idea.

Finally, the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning MP, said that the Bill enshrines the principle that the polluter pays. He is wrong, because while it certainly makes the polluter pay, in making the GLF pay, it achieves the opposite effect, because the owner of the uninsured wreck will not have contributed to the GLF, but is being saved.

These amendments would remove the requirements for the harbour authorities, conservation authorities and GLAs to comply with a Secretary of State’s instruction to deal with a wreck. If the amendments were accepted, these organisations could still be asked to do so, and in many cases they would accept. However, without the amendments, they could not refuse. Without some financial assurance, those organisations, or the legally operated ships paying light dues, could on a few occasions be put at severe financial risk. It would not happen often and it may not happen for 10 or 20 years—but it still could happen. It is not the polluter paying but the good ones paying for the bad ones.

There is a strong argument for the Government to accept these amendments on the basis that it is a more equitable arrangement for the very few occasions when somehow the costs of dealing with a wreck cannot be recovered from the insurers or the owners. If the Minister and the noble Baroness who has put her name to the Bill do not accept the amendments, it would be important for the Minister to provide some assurance that the Secretary of State will not direct GLAs, harbour authorities or conservation authorities to remove a wreck, unless that can be carried out using their normal vessels and personnel as part of their normal business. That would give comfort to the harbour authorities in particular that they will not be exposed to a small risk with a very high cost. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, I have looked at the amendments and issues relating to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be technically correct, but it occurs to me that if we get away from the fact that people will break the law and you make law only for people who will comply with it, what does the noble Lord think will be the political cost of a Government who went to an authority—whether the harbour authority or the general lighthouse authority—and said, “Do something you can’t do or we’ll bankrupt you for functions that are important”? You would be asking a Minister to pay an almost suicidal political price. The House and another place would rip that person apart. How real is that danger? That is the only thing that comes to mind. The noble Lord may be technically correct, but I wonder how real that danger is in the world in which we actually live. No one will leave in place a dangerous provision that restricts commercial activity and endangers people. I leave that sitting there, because it should be mentioned in these discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

There is of course the problem of ships not calling at UK ports and our therefore being unable to undertake any port state control—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein—but the Bill and the convention would help reduce this problem because it would be more impractical to operate a ship without insurance. I accept that we will not completely eliminate ships running without proper insurance, but, as I say, the Bill and the convention will help reduce this problem.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I shall not try to respond to all comments, but one or two things come to mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, both suggested that the biggest problem that I was concerned about was the GLAs. That is not the case any more. If it was thought that the GLAs were going to spend too much money on recovering a wreck and would have a serious financial problem as a result, there are enough Members of your Lordships' House who have some relationship with Trinity House who would sort it out by asking questions here. That may well be the case; it is the way the political world works. For a small harbour authority, it might be slightly different. If it were an enormous wreck, I am sure that the Government would see to it that there was some financial settlement. However, there is something in the middle that could just happen, although it is not very likely. I was grateful for the Minister’s response, because it went a long way towards satisfying many of my concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned Trinity House marking wrecks. That is part of its job, and I said so in my opening remarks. I would not want to see that changed; it is terribly good at what it does.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, whose Bill this is, for her response. If the wording of the amendment is defective in some way, then it needs looking at, but perhaps that will not be necessary. I need to reflect on what she and the Minister said. I was particularly pleased that he mentioned the idea of MOUs with harbour and conservancy authorities, because they are just as important as MOUs with the GLAs. However, he was quite right: the thought of having 30, 40 or 50 different MOUs with every harbour authority around the country cannot be very attractive to him or his officials. I shall certainly try to encourage the representative bodies of the harbours, of which there are two, to try to come together and come up with something based on the principles which he so clearly outlined.

I again thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Olympic Games 2012: London Air Quality

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to respond to the report of the Olympic Delivery Authority that air quality in London will exceed European Union limits during the 2012 Olympic Games.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government are committed to working towards the European Union’s air quality standards and have recently made an extra £5 million available to help the mayor tackle some of London's worst pollution hotspots. During the Olympic Games our ambition is that all spectators should travel to London venues by public transport, cycling or on foot. These and other measures will help minimise air quality risks in London during the Games.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he say who is responsible for keeping the air at the right quality? Is it TfL, the GLA or the Government? Secondly, if there is very little wind during the Olympic Games and PM10 values exceed the limit, is he aware that the Government could be fined £180 million by the International Olympic Committee? That is what will happen if the pollution is as bad as it was in Beijing. Does he have a contingency plan?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is simple. Everyone is responsible: the Government, the mayor, TfL, LOCOG, the ODA and, most importantly, individuals who make their own transport decisions. As regards the noble Lord’s second question, the host city contract states that the International Olympic Committee can withhold payment from LOCOG if an event in the Olympic and Paralympic Games cannot take place for any reason or if there is non-compliance with the contract. Air quality in the UK is improving and it is very unlikely that air quality issues will result in payments being withheld.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for introducing the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lea, who is no longer in his place, asked me whether it referred to maritime wrecks or Members of the House of Lords in a restructured Chamber. I hope I can put his mind at rest on that one.

I declare an interest as a harbour commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall, and as president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association. I very much support the principles of the Bill. As the noble Baroness said in introducing it, we have got some really beautiful coastline in this country: more than 10,000 miles of it. The Bill will make a great difference to how wrecks are dealt with. We are also setting an excellent example to other states by implementing the international convention. I am pleased that the Government are urging other nations to ratify it; I believe it comes into force when there are 10 signatories. Perhaps the Minister, when he speaks, can tell us how many member states have ratified it and how discussions with them are going so that we can get some kind of a progress report.

My concern, as one or two previous speakers have said, lies with the burden that the Bill could impose on harbour and conservation authorities, the general lighthouse authorities and the General Lighthouse Fund; my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd particularly mentioned that. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will be aware of my interest in the GLAs and will be very pleased to hear that I am not going to talk about their finances today. The Chamber of Shipping’s view—again, mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd—is that it is really unfair to have any liability placed on ships entering British ports because of the activities of a ship which may not be insured and may not even have called into a UK port. The shipping interests have got a point here.

My first problem concerns uninsured wrecks. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about that. Yes, the Bill says that the Government will be checking on the insurance of all ships coming into UK ports and will assist in reclaiming the costs of any rescue/salvage from the insurers. My problem is that there is a small possibility that the insurance may not be sufficient or may not be in place at all. That could particularly occur if a ship was in the widened territorial waters we are talking about but was not calling into a UK port where the insurance might get checked. There is not a high likelihood of that, but there is still a consequential fear that the GLAs, harbour authorities or others might be saddled with a high cost. As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, the problem is that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to “instruct” these authorities. It is an instruction; they cannot say “no”, as I understand it. They could turn around and say, “We haven’t got the capability”, or something like that, but they will be given an instruction. I am sure that the present Secretary of State and his Ministers would never do that, but you never know what is going to happen in the future. We ought to consider how we deal with this. We could perhaps consider it in Committee. If a ship sinks which is not going into a UK port, and is therefore not contributing even by paying its light dues, then this whole procedure does not really comply with the principle that the polluter pays. It means that the responsible ship owners are paying for the actions of the irresponsible ones. How would the GLAs recover the costs from these overseas owners or the insurers if they refuse to pay? The Government have said that they will do this, so possibly the answer would be for the Government to indemnify the GLAs or the harbour authorities against such a loss. I am sure that the Minister will be able to comment on that when he responds.

My second point concerns whether the GLAs and harbour authorities necessarily have the capability to carry out some of this work. The GLAs certainly have the capability of marking wrecks; that is one their objectives. They can probably remove small wrecks but that is really a salvage operation and I do not regard the GLAs as salvage contractors. They could probably undertake salvage operations but why should they have to pay for them as well? Why should not the Government organise the salvage themselves?

Several noble Lords have given examples of wrecks. Sadly, there are many around the coast, but an interesting situation arose in 2008 when the Government asked Trinity House to act as a salvage company to remove the wreck of a First World War German U-boat which was on the bed of the English Channel. The Government agreed with the German Government that they would not ask the latter to undertake this operation. Trinity House did it—I believe, successfully—and it cost £1.5 million, I am told. Ships coming into UK ports had to fund that. A sum of £1.5 million is not a high proportion of the GLAs’ turnover, but the cost could have been a lot higher if a different type of wreck had been involved. The Government should organise these things themselves—that would be much the best way to tackle this—and the GLAs or the harbour authorities should be asked to offer support to the extent that they are capable of doing so.

A further issue arises in this regard; namely, what is the definition of a wreck? The definition in the convention is that it is,

“any object that is lost at sea from a ship”.

I suspect that the drafters of that definition meant to refer to containers, which regularly fall off ships. People run into them occasionally and it does not do them a lot of good. Noble Lords will remember the MSC “Napoli”, which foundered on a beach in Devon a few years ago. A lot of containers were washed ashore, including some with new BMW motor bikes inside, which soon “walked”. However, in 1992—nearly 20 years ago—something like 29,000 yellow rubber duck bath toys were lost overboard in the Pacific Ocean. These ended up around the Pacific. I do not think that they were a hazard to shipping or to anyone else but they illustrate the fact that this definition of “wreck” might need to be tightened up. However, I am sure that none of the GLAs or harbour authorities would want to get involved in that.

The Government’s response to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee's report on the draft Marine Navigation Bill 2008 stated that,

“the Government does not envisage that the new power in relation to the General Lighthouse Authorities would lead to their being directed to do things for which they have no … experience”.

That is a good statement but it would be very nice if the Minister could confirm that or go a little further and say that they would not be asked to do things for which they do not have the funds or the capability. Incidentally, I am very grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for arranging a meeting recently at which we discussed some of these matters. I understand that a memorandum of understanding may be being drafted by the GLAs and the Government before the convention comes into force to set out some of these issues in more detail. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the Government have got to with this. Can a draft be placed in the Library? I have concentrated my remarks on the GLAs but the harbour authorities deserve equal treatment as regards MoUs as some of them have very small budgets. They probably have less capability in this regard but may still be instructed by the Government to undertake these operations. That could result in their going bust, which I am sure is not what the Government intend. However, it could happen under the Bill.

To conclude, I think we are all striving for the same result. It is generally a good Bill and we want to ensure that our seas are safe and clean. We want responsible ship owners to behave and to be properly insured. However, we have to get the detail right. We can talk about whether the Bill needs amendment in Committee. In addition to support from the Chamber of Shipping, I have received support from the British Ports Association, which represents most of the ports around the country, except for one or two big ones, and the British Tug Owners Association, which might benefit from doing a spot of salvage. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and to more detailed discussion at the next stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I thought that the GLAs were very competent to do that, and they have long experience of doing so. My concern is that they may end up having to fund the salvage.

[Lord Greenway]

I was just coming to the fact that they are well used to marking wrecks, although, when it comes to the salvage or removal of wrecks, such incidents are very few and far between. Over the past 10 or 12 years the GLAs have been involved in dealing with perhaps a couple of small fishing boats. Therefore, there is no way that the general lighthouse authorities would be involved in something like the MSC “Napoli”. The removal of larger ships is totally beyond their powers, and negotiations between them and SOSREP would very quickly sort out the best way of dealing with a wreck and deciding who should do the work.

I conclude by summing up where the Bill takes us. As I said, it introduces measures that Trinity House very much welcomes. It empowers the GLAs to locate, mark and remove wrecks which are a danger to navigation beyond the territorial sea, clarifying an area of legislation where there has been uncertainty. It makes registered owners responsible for reporting wrecks or for loss of cargo and for the costs of locating, marking and removing wrecks. It requires registered owners of all vessels over 300 gross tonnes to maintain insurance to cover their liability under the convention. It provides for any claim for costs arising under the convention to be brought directly against the insurer or other person providing financial security for the registered owner’s liability, therefore reducing the risk of non-recovery and, in so doing, also reducing the exposure of the General Lighthouse Fund to the cost of dealing with wrecks.

I very much welcome this small but nevertheless important measure. I wish it a speedy passage and look forward to what I hope will be ratification of the convention in the not-too-distant future.

Petrol: Ethanol Content

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

Will the noble Earl tell the House how many petrol-driven tank engines there are in the country? I thought they mostly ran on steam like Thomas does.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about the wrong type of tank. I am talking about a tank at the REME museum in Bordon.

Railways: Cardiff Valley Lines

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, given the success of the service on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line, why are there no passenger trains from Ebbw Vale to Newport, for which there must be a big demand? I believe that freight has been running on the line for many years. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. As I understand it, although there is a freight line to Newport, the signalling is not up to the required standards for passenger trains. Under the new signalling project, modern signalling has been provided for but not fitted. Specifying train services is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, so if they want to specify that there will be passenger train services from Ebbw Vale to Newport, they can do so.

Transport: Penzance and Isles of Scilly Ferry Service

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the survival of the passenger and freight ferry service between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government are committed to the continuation of both passenger and freight ferry services between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly. Transport Ministers are considering a funding proposal from Cornwall Council and hope to make a decision shortly.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is he aware that the funding offers from the European Union and the tenders for the new ferry run out at the end of this month? Is he also aware that the Scillies have a very small population that relies on tourism? The ferry route goes across probably some of the roughest waters around our coast, and it is very challenging to find the right ship. Is he also aware that, unless a decision is made by the end of this month, the Scillies are likely to be severely disadvantaged this summer because the MCA says that the existing ship, if it is allowed to continue, will have to cut its maximum number of passengers from 600 to 300?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we understand that a decision is sought by the end of March. While I can make no guarantees, we appreciate the timing constraints and are doing all that we can to avoid a further delay. The noble Lord talked about the population of the Isles of Scilly. There are about 2,000 people, and the investment will represent £28,500 per resident. The noble Lord’s points about the sea-keeping quality of the ships are well made.

Airports: London

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government have set up the South East Airports Task Force to look at how we can make airports in the south-east better, but not bigger.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, since the Government claim to be the greenest Government ever and have announced the construction of a high-speed railway line, will they also take forward their airline policy by restricting demand so that the CO₂ emissions are reduced with the use of less environmentally polluting means?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are indeed restricting demand: we are not authorising a third runway at Heathrow Airport or anywhere else in the south-east.

Railways: Light Rail Vehicles

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Rail Value for Money Study by Sir Roy McNulty is considering the use of light rail vehicles to provide low-cost passenger train operations on lower-traffic routes.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Rail Value for Money Study is considering a range of options, a number of which might encourage more use of light rail vehicles.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that fairly short Answer. I am sure he will be aware that a light rail vehicle called the Parry People Mover has been operating in Stourbridge at probably 99 per cent reliability all the way through the winter, which is much better than most other trains. Will he encourage this company and others to continue to develop these light railways, which use low-weight, low-emission vehicles that are much more reliable? They can be used on many branch lines and other places, and costs could be reduced. They are an alternative to the welcome announcement made two days ago about the intercity express programme, where I understand that the procurement costs for that particular train were £30 million for the department.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the Parry People Mover vehicle. We will encourage such developments. My officials in the department work closely with Mr Parry and they are working hard to resolve some of the technical difficulties.

Roads: Charging

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the whole object of this policy is to create a level playing field for UK operators, so we intend to charge a vignette to all operators to operate in the UK, but at the same time to create off-setting measures for UK hauliers, possibly by reducing the rate of vehicle excise duty, or by other measures.

[Lord Berkeley]

Is the noble Earl aware that the cost of the number plate recognition scheme used in London is about 30 per cent of the revenue? Why is he not going for a distance-based system, which has been introduced in much of the rest of Europe, where the costs of collection and fraud are said to be very much less?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we have learnt from the experience of the London congestion charging scheme, but the technology is not completely appropriate for what we are planning. When VOSA patrols the strategic route network, it will use automatic number plate reading technology to scan all commercial vehicles to ensure that they have a valid vignette.

Railways: Heritage Sector

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner on the dedication that he shows to the heritage sector, which is absolutely vital. I am pleased to hear that he is going to be involved in all the various committees and is actively negotiating some continuity for the heritage sector in order to preserve our industrial heritage, rather as the National Trust and English Heritage do for our old buildings and landscape. They may have to end up owning half the forests in this country if one believes the press comments at the weekend. However, I return to the subject of the railways.

The heritage railways are still part of the national railway structure. They have the potential to—and sometimes do—fulfil a very useful role in moving people around, whether for shopping or getting to school. They do so effectively and reliably, and I think we will miss something if that does not continue. When I worked in Folkestone years ago, I noticed that the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway—which, as a narrow-gauge railway, is quite long—used to run a school service, taking kids to school every morning and bringing them back in the evening, and many other railways do that. In that respect, it is interesting to compare the heritage railways with Network Rail’s branch lines. The All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group had a meeting last night with Sir Roy McNulty, who is carrying out a cost-reduction study for the Department for Transport. I told him that I hoped he was not going to start cutting Network Rail’s branch lines due to the cost. Network Rail started off a year or two ago by saying that the freight-only lines cost £100 million a year. However, it could not provide any evidence for that and we ended up with a figure of £10 million, so something was slightly wrong with the estimation.

The Network Rail branch lines and heritage lines have one thing in common. There’s a very cheap way of running light trains on them which could provide the service that I was just talking about. That is something like the Parry people mover. It is like a tram but it runs on the main line. It has been operating between Stourbridge Junction and Stourbridge Town extremely reliably—with a reliability rate of, I think, 99 per cent—since it has been going. During the recent cold weather, it operated much more reliably than the mainline trains. However, I foresee opposition to its use coming from the main railway people, the passenger operators and Network Rail. I often detect a similar reluctance on the part of some of the heritage lines to accept something like this to provide a service when they do not want to run steam trains or anything else; in other words, rather than run a daily service, they would prefer to keep the line doing nothing other than running a steam train on a Saturday.

I know that costs are involved but I hope that, as we move forward in the various debates on our railway heritage, we will try to see whether some of the issues facing not only the heritage lines but the Network Rail branch lines can be tackled, along with the problem of getting a connection between the two without spending an enormous amount of money on consultants’ fees. We should see whether we can use this wonderful piece of infrastructure that is all around the country for the benefit of those who live locally. I see it as part of the localism agenda.