Railways: High-speed Rail

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place. He made reference to the fact that the Government welcome the political consensus that revolved around this project. That consensus is secure as far as this party is concerned, which is why the Minister can anticipate a gentle inquisition from me at the Dispatch Box this evening, with perhaps one proviso.

The noble Earl will know how much we have invested in this project in terms of the origins being the significant work done by the last Labour Government, particularly by a Secretary of State who served in this House, my noble friend Lord Adonis. Recently, he went before the Transport Select Committee of the other place and reasserted the most cardinal of points with regard to the progress of this project. He said that he had always intended and had hoped that the committee would see the value of the legislation covering the whole of the route—not just London to Birmingham but to Manchester and Leeds as well in one Bill.

The Minister needs to address that very important question. I hope that this evening, from the Dispatch Box, at the very least he will indicate that the Government will continue to think about this. After all, he has just mentioned the fact that the Victorians had the courage to build a railway system in this country. The courage of the Victorians was to engage the other place and this House in constant legislation to ensure that the railways could be built. If it had not been for that commitment to railway legislation, we would never have had the network that we eventually came to enjoy.

I say to this Government that, in the 21st century, they have to address the issue of legislation as well, which means that they have to think about the fact that the Bill—I recognise the hybrid nature of the Bill—should cover the whole of the routes. That would give the real earnest of intention as regards the north of England and it is how we would engage the whole of our economy with confidence for the future in terms of this investment. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will be positive in his thoughts on these matters. If he is not able to be too assertive at the Dispatch Box today—I recognise that the Statement has been drafted and delivered elsewhere—I hope that he will join the lobby for the necessity of this legislation.

I know that that will mean some delay in the introduction of the Bill beyond the date indicated by the noble Earl. It would certainly require carry-over provision for the Bill to be successful. But that is exactly what we did with Crossrail and have recently done with the most important investment project in terms of rail in southern England in recent years. I am merely asking the Government to take this very important point on board.

I also ask the Government to look at costs with regard to this line. We appreciate their solicitous concern about the environment and the countryside, especially when that concern is addressed to them almost daily by those Members of Parliament who represent those particular areas and happen to be of the Government’s persuasion, particularly if one of them happens to be a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. We should welcome support for the environment from wherever it comes, particularly when it is effective.

However, this choice of route does not have the advantage of the route advocated by my party, which would have greatly reduced the impact on the Chilterns and, therefore, cost considerably less. I know that the noble Earl emphasises the costs of the alternative route, but this route requires extensive tunnelling at very significant cost. It requires a spur to Heathrow. Quite frankly, we do not have a chance of getting any European money unless this high-speed link has a relationship to Heathrow. It must have an international European dimension of benefit to it for us to qualify for European money. But the Government did not follow our argument and have chosen this one, which has much less security as regards the position of the link with Heathrow.

I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Government have begun discussions with the Scottish Government for the development of the network to Scotland, which is of enormous importance to the United Kingdom economy and is not unimportant to the future of the United Kingdom in a more general sense. I hope that they are giving due weight to the necessity of discussions on the long-term future with regard to that.

I hope also that the Government have taken into consideration the long-term costs of their proposals for this line. Do they think that any other significant transport development is going to take place in this country, whether that be for road or rail? Do they think that anyone is going to fail to build on the lobbying that has emphasised the essential environmental costs involved and the expenditure necessary to protect the environment? Do they think that other parts of the country are not going to be similarly concerned about the beauties of their own areas, too? I hope that the Government recognise the long-term costs of the strategy that they are pursuing.

I have two fairly brief questions, which the noble Earl might care to develop later. First, reference has been made to the work done on the number of flights that may be saved by the high-speed train. I would be grateful if he could give some indication of the department’s calculations on this. Secondly, while we recognise that this line is all about passenger transport, one crucial rationale for it is the extent to which it will free up capacity for the exploitation of our existing railway network. Almost as a throwaway comment, a passing reference was made to freight—that is what it was, a passing reference consisting of one sentence. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a little more on how he thinks that aspect is to be considered.

Finally, of course we support the development of this project. We strongly support the building of HS2. However, a great deal of work needs to be done before the concept of today becomes the reality of tomorrow.

Transport for London Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her introduction to the Bill. In a lucid contribution she made clear that which for some of us may have been a little opaque and she resolved many of the anxieties that we might have had.

It will be recognised in the House that Transport for London is a greatly envied transport authority. Many other transport authorities in the country would wish to have the existing powers of Transport for London, let alone the minor additions produced by the Bill. Of course, you cannot discuss bus services in our cities and in our countryside without recognising the advantages that Transport for London has had, and continues to have, in providing such services. It goes without saying that I would be even warmer in my thoughts about Transport for London if it were under a different political direction from the one that it enjoys at present. Nevertheless, the point still holds that it is an authority which we hold in high regard.

In passing, I indicate my regret at the role that TfL might have been able to play, if the financial arrangements had been arrived at differently, in guaranteeing that rolling stock for Crossrail would be provided by a company in Britain. However, it apparently lost that battle in the Department for Transport, so the decision is much more likely to follow the regretted Thameslink decision—namely, the company that may well win the contract will be an external company with the carriages and rolling stock being made elsewhere.

However, that is not really germane to the Bill. What is germane to the Bill, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have spoken thus far, is the critical issue of the disposal of assets. I was at a meeting only the other day with the Enfield authority, which I have always held in high regard—I certainly did when I was a Member of Parliament for the area. The Enfield authority has ambitious schemes to improve transport links in the area. Crucially, rail links are determined by the very thing that my noble friend Lord Berkeley identified—namely, that land held by the railway has been sustained and there is therefore capacity for putting down additional tracks to improve a service when that would not have been the case if the land had been sold. Therefore, we have a real interest in the land held by this public authority, and I hope that reassurances can be given on how such decisions are to be made.

One dimension that has not been mentioned thus far in the debate is that any sale of urban land has an impact on neighbours. It has an impact on the people who may already be using the land as tenants of TfL but it also has an impact on those immediately adjoining the land. I accept that it is difficult to put this within the framework of legislation but I hope it is recognised that TfL has obligations as a public authority to engage in proper consultation locally when the disposal of significant pieces of land occurs.

However, in broad terms we very much welcome this measure and I congratulate the noble Baroness once again on having introduced it so ably.

Airports: Heathrow

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is quite right. The operational freedoms trial is in two phases: the current phase, and another phase largely over the Olympics period. One of the benefits of the operational freedoms trial is to reduce unscheduled night flights. I will have to write to my noble friend on the detail of her rather more searching questions.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the House must be dismayed at the Minister’s negative response to this very important issue. After all, aviation is one of the important parts of the economy that is capable of growth, yet we are getting nothing but negative responses from the Government. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that we on the opposition Front Bench have offered to meet Ministers to see how we can plan a future for aviation that is considerably more productive than the Government’s present position, which is largely one of stalling and negativism?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is difficult to avoid being negative when the answer is, “No third runway at Heathrow”. However, we look forward to any contribution Her Majesty’s Opposition make to the future aviation policy framework. The Government want aviation to grow, but to do so it must play its part in delivering our environmental goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities. We are developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation that supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impacts.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2011

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer]

My Lords, I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Surely it must be an insult to those of us who spent 90 minutes yesterday in the Moses Room in that the noble Earl agreed to come back to several of us on many major points at issue on this extremely complex subject. Now, less than 24 hours later, we are being asked on the Floor of the House to agree to the order.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister had a difficult time with this order yesterday, not least because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, the Merits Committee took a rather dim view of its inadequacies. Her Majesty’s Opposition think that this order should go through because of the real urgency of the position for the industry. But what I sought to point out yesterday, and what other noble Lords pointed out more forcefully than I did, were the inadequacies of the instrument. I am certainly of the view that we should let it go through today but I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that the criticisms yesterday were serious ones and that we expected the Government to have taken a more definitive position on the issue so as to reassure the industry in circumstances where underinvestment in this very important sector is occurring because of a complete lack of confidence in government policy. The Minister should therefore not be surprised that he is being pressed further today, as indeed he was yesterday.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I do not often find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, but on this occasion he is about 110 per cent right.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2011

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester]

I recognise the importance of this order for transport and meeting our climate change obligations. Its sustainability provisions are entirely to be welcomed. However, the lengthening of the timescale from 2011 to 2014 is a further example of the Government dissipating the momentum of the last Labour Government. This is impacting further on the confidence of the investor market, as has been identified across the renewable industry in its relationship with this Government.

I have one specific query. I understand that elements of the sustainability criteria are currently being consulted on. The consultation is set to end on 15 December, the date the order becomes operable. I understand that the UK Petroleum Industry Association has lobbied on the penalty of 30p a litre for non-compliance, stating that there is not sufficient time for its supply chains to meet the standards. The association asks that any fines should not apply before 1 April 2012, to allow supply chain purchases and contracts to catch up with the certification process for the biofuel products. The UKPIA states that it does not know whether biofuel products already contracted will meet the certification process and standards. This seems an understandable request. Can the Minister clarify his department’s position?

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. The Minister has quite enough on his plate in terms of issues to tackle without me adding a great deal to his burden. I have some sympathy for him; he is well aware of the fact that the Merits Committee of the House expressed some criticism of the amendment order. Clearly there is also, among those in the affected industries who are directly interested in the issues, a belief that a considerable amount of backsliding by the Government is going on. This is a pretty modest measure against the background of the Chancellor's denial of environmental issues last week, and the clear indication that the Government are going to soft-pedal on planning issues, reduce subsidies to the solar panel industry and offer subsidies to some of the most polluting industries. The measure must be seen in that context. Therefore, I will give an element of reassurance to the Minister; we on this side support the measure, inadequate though it is. We hope that it will be the basis on which in due course something more constructive can be developed.

The Minister must know about the concerns of the industry. The issues raised by the order around verification and reporting are complex, and there is a danger that if people get it wrong and biofuels prove not to conform to the requirements, the industry will get into further trouble. However, we should look at how little notice the industry has from the period of consultation to the implementation of the order, which is only a week and a half from being part of the requirements.

The industry also indicated that there are areas to which it seems no consideration at all has been given. For example, the development of hydrogen fuel with regard to motor transport is not considered in relation to the order. From what we can see, the Minister's general perspective is that the Government will keep the issues under review. That is a long way off definitive policy, which is what the order is meant to represent. The industry deserves better from the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated with regard to the production of biodiesel, it is important that people know the parameters within which they will work. How can we expect them to invest, particularly in these very difficult times, against a very uncertain perspective?

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said and I hope that the Minister will give some response. When 97 per cent of the world's scientists who are interested in this area regard climate change as moving apace and as a threat to the world, the concept of deindustrialisation may be emotive but we certainly have to change. Without change, we will face a catastrophic future.

[Lord Teverson]

Does the noble Lord agree that there is a big difference between decarbonisation and deindustrialisation? Probably the greatest deindustrialisation in this country was in the 1980s. Since then, industry has probably improved and got better.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I could not put it better myself—in fact, I did not put it better myself and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for pointing that out to the Committee. The Minister must recognise that investor confidence in the industry is low. One plant has effectively has been mothballed—this represents almost one-third of the industry—and we surely need to give some stimulus if we are to hit the targets set for 2020. Of course, the Minister will appreciate just where the industry is at present: about 250,000 tonnes of bioethanol and 330,000 tonnes of biodiesel are being produced. Yet we need several millions of tonnes in order to hit the target, which is only eight years away.

I have come along, as I always do, with words of comfort for the Minister: we support this measure. However, we regard it as inadequate and we want indications from the Government that the inadequacies will be repaired.

Airports: Heathrow

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. There is a further difficulty with the public service obligation, which is that one can be imposed only if there is a difficulty with services to London as a whole, as a region. If there is a problem with services to London as a hub airport, that would not justify imposing a public service obligation, so at the moment it is difficult to have the effect that the noble Lord seeks.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the House should have taken solace from the fact that the Minister has added to his very negative response in his first Answer by indicating that the Government can act if it proves to be necessary. Will he recognise that of course the interests of Northern Ireland are very much involved in this issue, but that it is not just Northern Ireland and Belfast? Edinburgh, too, has its anxieties about this situation. Is he aware that Willie Walsh, the egregious head of IAG, in welcoming the potential opportunities from this purchase, stated that in fact the great business opportunities, of course, lay with using these slots for long-haul aircraft, not for serving parts of the United Kingdom?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I can definitely feel the heat from your Lordships. The sale of these slots to BA will increase the share of BA’s parent, IAG, of all Heathrow airport slots from 44 per cent to around 53 per cent, although IAG points out that even after the acquisition of BMI’s slots, its percentage of Heathrow slots would still be smaller than Lufthansa’s 60 per cent slot holding at Frankfurt.

Transport: London and the Regions

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for arranging this timely debate. As he indicated, we had a little dress rehearsal at Question Time on a limited dimension of this debate. I hope that the Minister has used the time between the dress rehearsal and the proper play to come up with more positive lines than I felt he gave us at Question Time. However, we did tease from him an important fact, which has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about whether the Government had powers to act in a critical situation.

The initial bland response was that these were all commercial decisions regarding these crucial slots. BMI has gone and it may well be that the new owners—we do not yet know who will be the new owners of BMI—will, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated, find the new slots infinitely more economic and financially valuable if they are used for intercontinental travel rather than anything to do with a service to the regions, including the critical case of Northern Ireland.

The Minister developed that theme a little more positively during Question Time, but I hope he will take the opportunity of this debate to be positive about the relationship with the regions, as most of the speeches have asked him to be. That is the immediate critical dimension, not just Northern Ireland, although the Belfast service is probably the most critical service that one worries about. Edinburgh is anxious too, as the noble Lord is almost certainly well aware. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, the train is an alternative as far as Edinburgh is concerned, whereas it is not for Belfast. That does not alter the fact that if the service to Edinburgh were to be greatly reduced or even suspended, there would be a great deal of consternation among Scots, just as there is at present in Northern Ireland. That is the most critical issue that the Minister needs to address in his response.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was generous enough to broaden this debate’s title to include the regions, not just the specific issues of Northern Ireland. Other noble Lords have taken the opportunity of identifying the problems of ensuring that our regions are economically viable in these troubled times. The great danger is that their situation deteriorates more rapidly than the general economy of the country. They can ill afford to do that.

As my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated, there are real problems in Cornwall and the south-west, and transport is an important dimension. There have been concerns about transport issues so far as Cornwall is concerned, and for that matter Devon as well, for a number of years. I do not doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would identify Suffolk. I have the great advantage of enjoying exactly the same train company services as she does, but being a little closer to the south-east and on the line that also serves Stansted, there is a certain difference in the quality of service. However, nothing is more irksome than seeing classy trains, the rolling stock of the future—the rolling stock of today for people travelling to Stansted even though London commuters want those trains—going past at 60 miles an hour and never stopping at the intermediate stations. So we have our own small grievances. However, I recognise what she has said.

An illustration of just how urgently the Government have to put their thinking cap on in this area was brought home to me with an absolute jolt last year when they introduced the national insurance holiday for people being engaged by companies. That national insurance holiday was extended to all the regions except the south-east. Parts of the south-east winced at that. Try telling Hackney, Haringey and Tower Hamlets that they are enjoying the prosperity of the south-east, and they will tell a very different story. The extraordinary thing was that East Anglia was classed with the south-east as being one of the more prosperous areas. That is light years from the understanding that the noble Baroness probably has about living in East Anglia. Certainly if we had had anyone speak on behalf of Norfolk, they would reinforce the comments she made. I do not think that the Government are filling us with the greatest confidence that they have a deep understanding of the regional problem in the United Kingdom.

I turn to the particular issue of aviation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, drew attention. This is the sharpest issue at present but, as we would expect, the initial response of the Government is to throw up their hands, perhaps with a little dip of the head in sadness, and say that this is a commercial world, that it is nothing to do with them and there is not much that they can do about it. That is largely their policy on aviation anyway, and that is why the third runway has gone by default. We recognise the fact that the third runway is not going to be pursued. It is a limitation on Heathrow, but that does not alter the fact emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in his remarks. Heathrow is a hub, and that is why our view on High Speed 2 is that it has got to go via Heathrow. It must link with the hub of Heathrow because, as has been emphasised in the debate, for the regional and, in fact, for the whole of the UK economy, we have to recognise that for external investment and for businessmen arriving in this country, to say nothing of the tourist industry, which is not marginal in terms of our overall position, even without the third runway and the capacity limitations on expansion resulting from that, Heathrow is our critical hub. It will not do to say that people will be able to arrive with equal facility elsewhere. It may be the case with regard to some aspects of tourism, but it is not going to be the answer for businessmen pressed for time if in fact Heathrow is not included. So we want to see the high speed link via Heathrow, and we also think that there is absolutely no reason why the Government should not look again at the route and take on board the fact that they have had a small number of representations, probably from their own supporters, about the route through the Chilterns and that there may therefore be a different route which could be identified.

However the trouble at the present time is that almost every decision which the Government take looks as if it militates against the unions. When it comes to rail, for instance, the fact is that electrification of the great western line is going as far as Cardiff, but not as far as Swansea, which has a clear implication for the Welsh economy. We know the significance of Swansea. We did not know the significance of Swansea before this year. We know it now because it is playing so very well in the premier football league division, and therefore its status is growing in that respect in Wales. However the trouble as far as the Welsh economy is concerned has always been that Cardiff is the capital city, and has been not only the centre point but almost the potential choking-off point for investment beyond it. That is why it is so important to have effective communication links beyond Cardiff to Swansea, and we regretted that decision with regards to electrification. It is also the case that when it comes to the line up to Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby—important cities which clearly require as much assistance and development as they can get—no electrification is to take place there.

We are also well aware of the reduction in new rolling stock, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, emphasised with regard to East Anglia. It is the case that the previous Government’s projected figure of 1,400 new carriages for the east coast and great western services has been reduced to 600. These cutbacks have an impact upon the regional economies. So my charge against the Government is that unless the Minister can be more positive about the position than we have seen thus far, strategies which are being produced at the present time emphasise the north-south divide. They increase the difficulty in particular of those hard-pressed regions of which undoubtedly the southwest, and particularly Cornwall, is a very clear illustration, and they create enormous dismay in those parts of the United Kingdom which depend a great deal on air links, of which Northern Ireland is inevitably the outstanding illustration. I hope the Minister therefore will be as positive as he can be in response to these very important points made in this debate.

Shipping: Towing Vessels

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point and his analysis is correct. However, although the Dover Strait is an area of higher likelihood because of the concentration of ships in the area, experience indicates that the consequences of a grounding are likely to be lower because the seabed is flat and sandy rather than rocky. Regarding his point about the motorway pile-up, the coastguard, with automatic monitoring of ship movements, will be aware immediately a ship stops moving and can warn other ships of the difficulties.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Government are not prepared to pay the relatively modest insurance policy to guarantee that we have adequate towing tug capacity in British waters? If a major disaster occurs, we will be dependent upon Rotterdam or other foreign ports to produce the necessary towing and tug equipment. Is that not a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about Rotterdam. Rotterdam and the Dutch have great experience in salvage operations. There are lots of tugs operating out of there. If we withdrew the funding, which we have, from the Falmouth tug, someone will probably station a tug in Falmouth in order to pick up the market. Currently, however, we are distorting the market by paying out large sums of taxpayers’ money to no good effect.

Saudi Arabia: Driving Licences

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me quite a detailed question, and I am afraid that I shall have to write to her.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, as the Arab spring is showing some buds even in Saudi Arabia, with regard to the participation of women on the Consultative Council, could the Government at least indicate to the Saudi Government that, from our experience, women are safer drivers than men?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that when we talk to the Saudi Arabian Government, we make that point.

Biodiesel

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. RTFCs were traded at a nil value but that was because of an error in the drafting of the original RTFO by the previous Government. That problem has been rectified and will not recur.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister is reading his brief excellently today to the great advantage of the House. I appreciate the fact that this Question probably should be directed rather more at Her Majesty’s Treasury than the Department for Transport. But the noble Earl failed to answer the crucial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. What is the Government’s response to the clear signal that many companies which are benefiting from this position at present and are pursuing the policies, which we would all endorse with regard to this sustainable fuel, are indicating that they will drop out from this position and return to fossil fuels unless the Government take a different view?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I answer for Her Majesty's Government and not for any particular department. This policy is following the perfectly sensible trajectory set by the previous Government.